Sitting of 5 September 1893

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  THE RELIGIOUS RIOTS IN INDIA.
  MR. A.C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can furnish the House with a statement setting forth the number, with dates and other particulars, of riots between Mahomedans and Hindoos in British India arising out of or connected with cow killing, festival processions, or other matters of religious difference, during the period commencing with the 1st January, 1880, to 1st June of the present year?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL,): I stated last Thursday, in reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire,

  93
  that the Secretary of State was not in possession of the full information which would enable a Report for five years to be prepared; but that the Government of India would be asked to submit, with Reports on the recent riots, a general Report on the questions of administration involved.

  THE MOEL ISPRI AND CHAMPION MINES.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the case of the Royal mines known as the Moel Ispri and Champion mines, situate near Dolgelly, the Crown has power at Common Law, or otherwise, to prevent the removal of fixed machinery (erected solely for the purpose of extracting gold) from these Royal mines; and, if so, whether, in the interests of the State and the industry, they will exercise such power; whether the Woods and Forests Office intimated to the late lessees, or their representatives, some time since, that the Crown claimed at Common Law (or otherwise under the rights of the Crown) the right to prevent the removal of such machinery; what was the date of the first application by Mr. J. R. Roberts and another, of Dolgelly, gold miners, for a lease to work the above-mentioned mines; what was the date when Mr. J. R. Roberts received intimation that the lease would be granted to him; what was the date of the sale of the machinery referred to; on what date did the former lease terminate; what was the cause of the delay in granting the lease to Mr. Roberts and another; and will explain why the Woods and Forests Office, when requested by those interested in the gold mining interest at Dolgelly either to grant a lease before the sale or to intimate that they would grant a lease to any person who purchased the machinery, did not accede to such request?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Crown has not the power to prevent the removal of machinery from the mines in question. The leases are either determined or in process of surrender and the late lessees are empowered to dispose of the machinery. When the leases were in existence the Woods and Forests Office intimated to the lessees that the Crown claimed the right to pre-
  94
  vent the removal of the machinery. The date of the first application by Mr. T. H. Roberts and Mr. Pritchard Morgan for a lease to work the above-mentioned Mines was 29th December, 1892. The application of Mr. T. H. Roberts and Mr. N. T. Williams was dated the 10th June, 1893. The offer of a lease was made to Mr. T H. Roberts and Mr. N. T. Williams on the 22nd ultimo. The machinery was advertised to be sold on the 24th ultimo. The lease of the Moel Ispri Mine was determined on the 20th December, 1892, and an agreement was entered into for the surrender of the other leases as on the 5th April last, but the formal completion of the deeds of surrender has been delayed. There were several causes for the delay in offering a lease to Messrs. Roberts and Williams. An opportunity was given to those who had provided the machinery to obtain fresh capital for continuing their operations, and when that failed considerable delay took place in obtaining replies to the references given by Messrs. Roberts and Williams. The Woods and Forests Office has acted throughout with a desire to save the machinery from being removed; but it could not have given a general undertaking to grant a lease to any persons who might purchase it without knowing their names and qualifications.

  STEPNEY UNION.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is in possession of any further information respecting the case of Samuel Ely Hobbs, a dock labourer, lately residing at Love Lane, Ratcliff, who died at the Bromley and Stepney Sick Asylum; and whether an additional doctor to the Union, comprising the parishes of Limehouse, Stepney, and Ratcliff, is to be appointed?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): The Local Government Board have received the depositions taken by the Coroner at the inquest in the case of Samuel Hobbs, and have been furnished with a reply of the Guardians. Dr. Downes, one of the Board's Inspectors, has also made inquiries as to the case. He has seen the relieving officer and Mr. Godding, who

  95
  was acting as the substitute of the medical officer, and the dispenser. He finds that the application for the attendance of the medical officer in the case was made on Thursday, 17th August, at 10 o'clock in the morning, and that the acting medical officer, although there was nothing to show that the case was an urgent one, visited the patient about I on the same day. Mrs. Hobbs, who has also been seen by Dr. Downes, admits that this was the case. She further states that she went to the dispensary in the afternoon for the medicine prescribed and obtained it. A reference to the dispenser's book shows that the medicine was made up on that afternoon. Mrs. Hobbs accounts for the discrepancies between her present statement and her statement before the Coroner by saying that she was very much confused when giving her evidence. The district medical officer of the Stepney Union is required to devote his whole time to the duties of his office. He receives a salary of £350 per annum. Dr. Downes ascertained from the acting medical officer that the number of cases which he has to attend at their own homes has averaged about 15 a day. I cannot say upon the facts at present before the Local Government Board that the duties of the medical officer are more than can be efficiently performed by one person who devotes his whole time to the attendance on the sick poor.

  POST OFFICE ACCOMMODATION IN LIMERICK.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been directed to a Memorial forwarded some months ago from the traders and representatives of the largest houses in William Street, in the City of Limerick, requesting that the Post Office in that street may also become a Telegraph Station; and whether he will favourably entertain the application?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): There are already two Telegraph Offices within a short distance of the Post Office to which the hon. Member refers, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot favourably entertain the application.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKTAED.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the ship Discovery, which arrived at Haulbowline on the 29th ultimo with a steam pinnace on board for Government use, had to proceed to Cork to unship it owing to the defective condition of the crane at that dockyard; and whether a suitable steam crane will be included in the machinery about to be erected at Haulbowline?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): The crane in the yard at Haulbowline was not powerful enough to lift the launch of the Discovery. Among other machinery proposals shortly to be considered at the Admiralty is one for a crane of greater strength at Haulbowline.

  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S ANNUAL REPORT.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the cause of the delay in the issue of his Annual Report; and whether it is intended to issue that Report before the end of September instant?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Annual Report of the Post Office was laid on the Table of the House on the 31st ultimo, and ordered to be printed. It will be issued to Members in the usual course as soon as the supply of copies has been delivered by the printer.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN NEW SOUTH WALES.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will cause to be laid before Parliament a copy of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act which has now passed through the Parliament of New South Wales, and which includes the whole of the Electoral Law of the Colony within one consolidation Statute, with new self-acting provisions with regard to the redistribution of seats every five years.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): Yes, Sir; it will be laid on the Table of the House.

  THE AMERICAN MAILS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, by promptly utilising the special mail service, American letters landed at Queenstown ex Etruria at 7.30 p.m. on Friday last were delivered in London and other large English centres sufficiently early on Saturday to allow ample time for reply by the outgoing steamer Lucania on Sunday; and whether the terms offered for the continuation of this special service have been accepted by the various Companies interested?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am aware of the facts mentioned in the first paragraph. I have also come to an understanding with the various companies concerned for the continuance of the special service up to the 31st December next.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to a letter in today's Daily News from a London merchant, stating that his American correspondence did not reach his office until after 1 o'clock on Saturday afternoon, though it was due at 10 a.m.
  MR. A. MORLEY: No, Sir; I have not seen the letter.
  MR. SWEETMAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in his late offer to continue for another four months the special postal service from Queenstown to London, he has offered the London and North Western Railway Company 3s. a mile for express trains, and has offered the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland only 2s. a mile for a similar service; and, if he has done so, whether he is willing to inform the House of his reasons for offering less to a Railway Company in one portion of the United Kingdom than to a Railway Company in another portion of that Kingdom for similar services?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The reason why a payment of 2s. a mile was offered to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company was because that was the rate originally mentioned by the Company, and corresponded with the payment quoted by the Company for special trains in the opposite direction.

  POST OFFICE ACCOMMODATION IN SOUTH CARNARVONSHIRE.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the reason that no Post Office is established at Penmorfa, in South Carnarvonshire; whether he is aware that the village itself contains 81 houses and a population of about 300, besides being the centre of a large and well-populated agricultural district, and also contains the parish church, Board school, and two chapels, and is a polling station; whether the neighbouring village of Pentrefelin has a Post Office, although it is not one-half the size of Penmorfa; and whether the inconvenience will be remedied?
  MR. A. MORLEY: This question was recently considered on the application of the hon. Member. The post to Penmorfa and the neighbourhood is little more than self-supporting, and an office could not be established at Penmorfa without actual loss to the Revenue. The number of letters left to be called for is very small, and Penmorfa is already supplied with a letter-box. A shopkeeper in the village has a licence for the sale of stamps. The village of Pentrefelin has a sub-Post Office. In the present circumstances, I cannot see my way to meet the request of the hon. Member.

  CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES ABROAD
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he can lay upon the Table the further instalment of Returns relating to the majorities necessary in Foreign Legislatures for the ratification of constitutional changes, promised on 18th May?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): Replies have now been received from every country except Venezuela. They will be laid on the Table as soon as possible.

  DEMURRAGE CLAIMS IN BRAZIL.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Brazilian Government have yet made any reply to the representations of the British Government in regard to claims for demur-

  99
  rage, &c, on behalf of the Fulwood and other British vessels against the Brazilian Government?
  SIR E. GREY: A reply has recently been received. The Central Railway Company of Brazil have expressed their willingness to count as lay days and to pay for the days spent by the Alpheus Marshall in quarantine, there being an express stipulation to that effect inserted in her charter-party. As there was no such stipulation in the charter-parties of the other vessels, the Company will not admit a corresponding obligation. This information has already been sent to the persons interested.

  THE BENGAL TENANCY BILL.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the statement that the survey of Behar is an outcome of the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885, and any questions respecting the permanent settlement must be considered to have been determined by the passing of this latter Act, whether the official draft of the Bengal Tenancy Bill, circulated in the vernacular in 1883, contained any reference whatever to any provincial survey, or any reference to any survey at the expense of the landlords and tenants (even in local areas), except in cases where the landlords and tenants demanded it, or where there were existing disputes; whether the statement of objects and reasons for the Bengal Tenancy Bill, signed by Mr. Ilbert, contained any such reference; whether the Government, when pressed on the 12th March, 1885, to republish the Bengal Tenancy Bill in vernacular as amended in Committee, declined to do so, on the express ground that almost all alterations were excisions favourable to Zemindars, and not new clauses; and whether one of these alterations empowered the Government to impose heavy fresh taxation on the Zemindars to meet the costs of the Behar Cadastral Survey, as well as an annual tax of nearly 5 per cent. on the gross rents of their lands, to meet the costs of the maintenance of the record of right?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: The original draft Bengal Tenancy Bill mentioned a record of rights, but did not contain any reference to a "Survey"; and, as has already been stated in my reply to the hon.
  100
  Member for North Ayrshire on 7th August last, the two conditions quoted refer only to cases in which the Local Government act without the previous sanction of the Governor General in Council. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is, No; and to the third paragraph, Yes. The Bill as amended in Committee merged into one chapter: (a) "Settlement of rents," and (b) "Survey and record of rights," and extended to all three heads the powers of settling the proportion of cost to be paid respectively by the Zemindars and the ryots, which, in the original Bill, had been confined to the "Settlement of rents."

  VACCINATION OF SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education by what authority the Department declines to admit as pupil teachers young persons who have prepared themselves for the profession, and are in all respects fitted for appointment, on the ground that they are not vaccinated; is there any Statute making the above a condition precedent; can the Education Department exclude from the schools any child as scholar on the ground that it is not vaccinated; and is he aware that by law no one over the age of 14 years can be compelled to be vaccinated?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): There is no statutory authority in this matter; but it is laid down in the Code, which has been approved by Parliament, that candidates for admission as pupil teachers must produce a medical certificate in a form prescribed by the Department. If this form does not show that the candidate has been successfully vaccinated, it has been the practice of the Department for many years, under successive Governments, to refuse admission. I do not think it desirable to alter these arrangements pending the Report of the Royal Commission. It is the case that no one over 14 can be compelled to be vaccinated. The Education Department have no power to exclude any child from a school on any ground whatever.

  THE WELSH EDUCATION SCHEME.
  MR. KENYON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state what provision has been made in the Welsh Education Schemes to enable boys and girls, more especially being children of poor parents, to pass from the primary to the new secondary schools, and thence to University Colleges and institutions of higher technical instruction; and how far the Address to Her Majesty, passed in the House of Lords, will affect any such provisions?
  MR. ACLAND: The usual form of the Welsh County Schemes, under the Intermediate Education Act, provides for a system of county schools throughout the county to meet the wants of its various districts. There is a County Governing Body, through which the whole system is to some extent under central control, and there are Local Governing Bodies. Under the supervision of these bodies, very considerable sums are allotted in the various counties. First, for County Scholarships for scholars from public elementary schools; 2nd, for county bursaries to cover travelling and lodging, or other incidental expenses of poor scholars; 3rd, for the county exhibitions which the boys and girls who do well in the intermediate schools may hold at Universities and University Colleges. In the case of the Cardigan County Scheme, to which, I assume, the hon. Member refers, the Address passed in the House of Lords has swept away the whole of these provisions which are contained in Clauses 48 and 81 to 87, for carrying scholars from elementary and intermediate schools, for giving bursaries to poor scholars, and for taking the most successful scholars from the intermediate schools to University Colleges, and other places of higher instruction.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he received any authoritative demand for this scheme?
  MR. ACLAND: I believe the whole of the provisions which were swept away by the House of Lords had the fullest consent of everybody concerned in the scheme.

  AFFAIRS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BAETLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a statement of Mr. F. R. Thompson, a gentleman who has been ten years in the Colonial Service and is well acquainted with South Africa, in which that gentleman states that Lo Bengula's Impis have massacred some 10,000 unoffending Mashonas within the past few years; and whether he will ask Mr. Rhodes to send an estimate of the number of Mashonas massacred by the Matabeles within the past 10 years?
  MR. S. BUXTON: My attention has been called to the statement in question; but Her Majesty's Government do not see that any advantage is to be gained by communicating with Mr. Rhodes in reference thereto. The system of raiding the Mashonas appears to have become, to a great extent, a thing of the past even before the Mashona country was occupied by the Chartered Company; and Her Majesty's late Government, acquainted as they were with all the facts, entered into a Treaty of Peace and Amity with Lo Bengula, and maintained friendly relations with that Chief. Indeed, it may be said that the existence in past years of the system of raiding the Mashonas was the principal evidence which supported the doctrine that Lo Bengula ruled Mashonaland, and was, therefore, entitled to grant the land and minerals to the promoters of the Chartered Company. The Company were granted this Charter as a commercial and administrative Body, and not with a view to institute crusades against the Matabele, as seems to be suggested in the question.
  SIR. E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: There is no such suggestion in the question. Am I to understand, from the answer given by the hon. Gentleman, that he does not deny the statement in the question that in the past few years 10,000 of these unfortunate Mashonas have been massacred?
  MR. S. BUXTON: I do not deny that the Mashonas have been raided; but I say that these raids have for years come to an end, and that subsequent to them the late Government entered into this Treaty with Lo Bengula.

  WORMWOOD SCRUBBS PRISON.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that political agents, acting on behalf of the Conservative Party, have been permitted to attend at the Wormwood Scrubbs Prison, that on July 4 two agents occupied one of the waiting rooms within the precincts of the prison, and that various officials were requested to attend the said agents and explain their political opinions, their names being marked accordingly; whether these arrangements were made with the knowledge and consent of the Governor of the prison, and, if not, by whom they were made and who was responsible; and whether he will cause full inquiry to be made into the whole matter without delay, so that the facts may be laid before the Revising Barrister, who will shortly be sitting for that district?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am informed by the Deputy Governor in charge that two agents of the Conservative Association applied in June last to be allowed to see the officers of the prison with a view to completing the register. They were informed that they could only see those officers who wished to have their names registered, and that if they attended at the ordinary waiting room, which is outside the inner gate of the prison, the officers might be informed they were there. They came on July 4, the officers were informed, and were told that anyone who wished to see them could do so. No officers were requested to attend—their attendance was purely voluntary. These arrangements were made with the knowledge and consent of the Governor. There does not appear to me to be need for further inquiry, nor is the matter one of which the Revising Barrister could take cognisance. But I think that the practice of allowing the agents of either political Party to visit the prison in this way is open to objections, and it will not be permitted in future. If the agents wish to see the officers they must visit them in their houses or quarters.

  THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH'S LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the customary or regulation period of leave allowed annually to Admirals holding the appointment of Admiral of the Port at Devonport and other naval centres; and whether, during the recent tenure of this post, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh conformed to the Service Regulations in this respect; and, if not, what was his total absence on leave or otherwise each of the three years he held the appointment, and also that of his predecessor in the office?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The amount of leave granted to the Commander-in-Chief at the Home Ports is at the discretion of the Admiralty. It is governed first by the exigencies of the Service, and, secondly, by the reasonable requirements of the officers. His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh was subject to, and complied with, the Regulations with regard to leave while holding the appointment of Commander-in-Chief at Devonport.
  MR. KEARLEY: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give me specific details as to the amount of leave that the Duke has had year by year during the three years that he has held his appointment?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: If hon. Members will read the last paragraph of my hon. Friend's question they will notice that he himself recognises that if the Commander-in-Chief conforms to the Service Regulations no further question arises.
  MR. KEARLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question I ask him can he state specifically whether His Royal Highness, while holding this command, has not had, on an average, six months' leave every year?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Certainly not; and for such absence on leave as the Duke enjoyed the Admiralty are responsible, and they are prepared to bear that responsibility.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Regulations allowed of all these absences; and, if they did, what is the good of having an officer appointed at all?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by referring to "all these absences." The Duke of Edinburgh was most assiduous in the performance of his duties.
  MR. KEARLEY: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman objects to giving the total absence year by year of His Royal Highness whilst holding this command?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: If my hon. Friend desires further information on the subject he will put a question upon the Paper.
  MR. BARTLEY: I desire to ask whether it is usual to publish the absences of other commanding officers; and whether there is any reason why there should be a special inquisitorial inquiry about the Duke of Edinburgh's absences?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the Duke of Edinburgh, having now become a Foreign Prince, has ceased to belong to the British Navy?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: A similar question has been put upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Peterborough, and the hon. Member has very kindly postponed it at my request. In reference to the other question, it is unusual to publish the number of days' leave of absence of the officers in command. If the hon. Member will put a question upon the Paper I will consider whether an answer can be given to it.
  MR. KEARLEY: I will put a question upon the Paper on the subject.

  THE GRAND JUNCTION WATERWORKS.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a notice issued by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company to alter and adopt, at a considerable expense to householders, the existing service, so as to render it suitable for a constant supply; and whether the Government will now bring in a Bill to compel Water Companies to charge by measurement the water used in all houses over £100 per annum?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I am aware that the Grand Junction Water Company have issued notices of their in-
  106
  tention to give in a certain area a constant supply of water and require the owners and occupiers of premises in that area to provide the necessary fittings. This is only an extension by this Company of the system which has been very generally adopted by the London Water Companies—according to the latest Returns, 553,000 houses, or about 70 per cent. of the whole number supplied by the Water Companies, being on constant supply. A proposal that houses over £100 per annum should be relieved from the present mode of assessment to water rates is not one that I could recommend.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants of houses of over £100 a year rent are frequently absent for several months of the year, and consequently consume no water during such periods?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The charge for water supply is a statutory charge, and is based, not upon the amount of water consumed, but upon the rateable value of the houses. This mode of assessment was arrived at in the interest of the working classes, and is adopted generally throughout the country.

  INSANITARY DRAINS AT WINDSOR BARRACKS.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is true that the insanitary condition of the drains at Windsor Cavalry Barracks has been reported several times during the last two years; whether, since December last, three very strong Reports condemning the whole system of drainage have been presented by War Office officials; whether the sum so urgently demanded to put the barracks in a secure sanitary condition has been struck out of the Estimates for 1893–4; whether, during the last few weeks, an expert from the War Office has been sent down who has ordered small temporary repairs, leaving untouched the deeper drainage, the real seat of the mischief; and whether, in spite of these Reports, and the urgent representations of the medical officer in charge, it is intended to allow the regiment now quartered in these barracks to remain on a spot so condemned as dangerous for at least seven months

  107
  longer, before any radical alterations are made?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Several Reports have been received on the drainage of the Cavalry Barracks at Windsor. The first, from the General Officer commanding, complaining of the system, was received in December, 1892. Two others were received from him on July 26 and August 23, 1893. When the Estimates were considered the first Report of the General Officer commanding of December 8 only had been received. Two have been received from the War Office Sanitary Inspector, one dated August 1 and the other August 29. The system of drainage appears to be old-fashioned and bad in principle, but the health of the troops has not in any way suffered. The Sanitary Inspector, who in his inspection used the smoke test, states—
  "I found no direct escape of gas from the drains into the building, but the bad smells are sufficiently accounted for by the proximity of filthy latrines and numerous escapes of lighting gas within the building. It is probably unnecessary to explain that small escapes of gas, undetectable by a light, are often the cause of smells closely resembling those from drains. In this case, from the evidence of persons living in the building, I am convinced that many of the complaints have been due to the escape of gas which occurs in several parts of the building,"
  After recommending certain alterations and repairs, which are now being effected, he states that he cannot help thinking that hitherto the smells have been rather offensive than dangerous, and that when the above-mentioned alterations have been made the air of the officers' house will cease to be offensive, and that no special steps need to be taken till the drainage comes to be reconstructed in due course. The plan of reconstruction of the drainage system is being considered, and the question of the occupation of the barracks is under the consideration of the military and medical authorities.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: This is a matter involving life and death, and therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I appear to be pertinacious. It is in the officers' quarters that the old and miserable drains terminate in a cesspool. Do the Government propose to put an end to the danger that
  108
  arises from this system of drainage, or to allow it to continue?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The whole system of drainage at the barracks in question is under consideration. The evil smells complained of are only perceived in the officers' quarters, and what call be done to put an end to them will be done at once.

  TROOPS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what Imperial military forces are now available in South Africa for the protection of British colonists in Mashonaland?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The troops now in South Africa number about 3,300 men. Whether these may be held to be available for the purpose of the hon. Gentleman is a question upon which opinions may differ.

  THE GUARDS AND EGYPT.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a battalion of the Guards is to be ordered for service in Egypt this Autumn?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It was contemplated to relieve one of the Line battalions in Egypt by a battalion of Guards, but that proposal will not be given effect to during this season.

  THE MAXIM GUN.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many black powder ·303 cartridges can be fired from the Maxim machine gun before the barrel becomes unfit for accurate shooting?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No experiments have been carried out which would enable me to give the hon. Gentleman the information he desires.

  GUNNERS' QUARTERS AT SHOEBURYNESS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the huts at Shoeburyness, in which 100 gunners with their families are quartered, were constructed during the Crimean War, and are in such a condition as to be unfit for habitation; and whether steps will be taken to provide

  109
  proper accommodation for the gunners and their families?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Some of the huts at Shoeburyness, containing accommodation for 34 unmarried and 24 married soldiers and their families, were constructed about the time of the Crimean War. Although old, they can hardly be said to be unfit for habitation. It is desired to get rid of all such huts as soon as possible, and this is gradually being done.
  MR. HANBURY: This is the second question which has been asked in regard to the insanitary condition of military accommodation, and the Army Reports are full of such statements. What is the reason why these things are not attended to at once. I must say this neglect is most unfortunate?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There has been no neglect. The huts are not insanitary. They are old and worn out, and the sooner they are replaced by new ones the better it will be.

  THE IRISH POST OFFICE UNDER HOME RULE.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present value of, or what sums have been expended upon, the property of the Post Office in Ireland, which will under the Government of Ireland Bill be handed over without repayment to the new Irish Government?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If the hon. Member will procure a copy of the Bill he will find that there has been no such transfer, that the property remains in the hands of the Imperial Post Office, and that no question of repayment will arise.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has perverted my question. I asked for the value of such Government property as will be transferred.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not understand how it will be transferred when the Bill does not transfer it. It will be in the hands of the Imperial Government.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Ultimately?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes, ultimately. I have already stated that the way for the hon. Gentleman to obtain an answer is to obtain a copy of the Bill.
  MR. GOSCHEN: But may we not take it that the policy of the Government is to hand over the Post Office to the Irish Government, and that that will be the ultimate result of the passing of the Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am afraid that I can only reply that my right hon. Friend should also procure a copy of the Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to assert that there is no possibility, under the powers of the Bill, that the Post Office may be transferred to the Irish Government? What kind of property is there power to transfer?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, I must distribute some copies of the Bill amongst the gentlemen opposite. It has been before them 82 days. They should know what it contains.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, but it has been altered.

  DEER FOREST COMMISSION.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Mr. Gordon, land valuator, one of the Deer Forest Commissioners now engaged in Caithness, has for a number of years acted as valuator for many of the landlords in that county; and if he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): Mr. Gordon is a land surveyor and valuator who has been long established in general practice, and as such has, no doubt, been employed by the owners of land. He was placed on the Commission on account of his professional qualifications, which have proved to be of great value in carrying out the work. As it is a usual custom in the case of professional men who serve on Commissions where their professional knowledge is made use of, the Treasury has granted Mr. Gordon professional remuneration.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, in consequence of Mr. Gordon having

  111
  acted for so many years in the interests of the landlords, the Highland people have lost all confidence in him?
  MR. DALZIEL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that a communication was received from the Scotch Office in London by the Commission stating that no exceptional payment would be made to Mr. Gordon, and whether he is aware that the fact of Mr. Gordon receiving payment apart from the other Commissioners has caused very grave dissatisfaction, and, in fact, has led to suspension of the work of the Commission?
  MR. WHITELAW: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the majority of the Members of the Deer Forest Commission are notorious advocates of the programme of the Highland Land League?
  MR. WEIR: In reference to the question, may I ask whether the majority of the Members of the Commission are not Tories and landlords' representatives?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Whatever be the political opinions or the positions in life of the Members of the Commission, I believe it to be as good a Commission as could have been constituted, and it has done its work most thoroughly. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, I should be glad if he could give notice of it. I hope he will put it down, after having asked it now.

  NAVIGATION OF LOCH BROOM.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the Treasury Committee of 1891 on Railways in the North-West of Scotland, consisting of Major General Hutchinson, R.E., C.B., Rear Admiral Sir G. S. Nares, K.C.B., and Henry Tennant, Esq., reported Loch Broom, Ross-shire, to be encumbered with islets and rocks, and that this Report has been repeatedly quoted in this House as a reason for refusing the promised grant in aid of the Garve and Ullapool Railway extension scheme, while the Admiralty charts show no islets or rocks in the course of vessels sailing to and from Ullapool, and the sailing directions, as well as the Admiralty officials, state that Loch Broom is
  112
  remarkably free from rocks and islets, a Committee of careful and competent persons will be appointed to inquire into the accuracy of the Report referred to?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think the Government could find a Committee of more careful and competent persons than that which has already reported.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary to the Admiralty has distinctly stated that Loch Broom is not encumbered with islets and rocks, while the Report of the Committee, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, distinctly states that Loch Broom is encumbered with islands and rocks, and the Admiralty charts show no islets or rocks in the course of vessels sailing to and from Ullapool? May I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take some steps to set the matter right?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think Sir George Nares is a person who could form an opinion on the subject better than I or the hon. Member.
  MR. WEIR: Then am I to understand that the Secretary to the Admiralty is incompetent to give an accurate opinion, and that the Admiralty charts are inaccurate?
  MR. WHITELAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know from his own experience that there are no islands or rocks to interfere with the navigation of Loch Broom, and also that, of the three gentlemen who formed the Committee, not one of them went near Loch Broom in order to find out the state of matters for themselves?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am loth to speak of my personal experience of the navigation of Loch Broom, but I should certainly say there were a good many islands at the mouth of Loch Broom.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I may be allowed to say that my answer, to which my hon. Friend has referred, was in reference to rocks interfering with navigation.
  MR. WEIR: But the Admiralty charts show no rocks in the course of vessels.

  IRISH SUNDAY CLOSING.
  SIR T. LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in

  113
  view of his statement to a deputation last Thursday that the present position of the Irish Sunday Closing question is a scandal to Parliament, and that the Bill dealing with the question has come down from the House of Lords, the Government will give the necessary time to complete the measure in this House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): It is quite true that I borrowed the language of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and also of the Leader of the Opposition, in describing the state of this particular measure as a scandal, and that, I think, is my view. But my hon. Friend knows as well as I do the great difficulties which we are under in the way of finding time, and he must have heard yesterday the declaration that the Government cannot undertake to find facilities for passing or furthering any private legislation. I was reminded the other day of the circumstances that in 1878, when the Bill concerned became law, it was passed almost as late as the period at which we have now arrived, because Sir Stafford North-cote, the Leader of the House, gave facilities for it. I find these facilities were effective because there was a practical concordat or agreement between the parties concerned in the Bill, and I simply throw out this hint to gentlemen sitting in the quarter of the House and elsewhere, whether some sort of agreement could not be come to now upon one or two of the outstanding details of the measure.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I ask whether the small minority who were opposed to that Bill did not resist it to the close, and that there was no compromise?
  MR. J. MORLEY: If that is so I was misinformed, but I was told on authority almost as good as the hon. Member's own. If there is no chance of any such arrangement now I am afraid the difficulty will be very serious.
  SIR T. LEA: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if there is no chance of passing the Bill this Session, will he consent to place it on the same level as another measure—the Evicted Tenants Bill—referred to yesterday, and put it down as a Government measure for next Session.
  MR. BARTLEY: I desire to know, Sir, if the Chief Secretary, when he talks of the scandal to Parliament, means that it is a scandal to the present Government for not finding time for the Bill.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not think that is a question I ought to answer. The language which I quoted was used by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Prime Minister from time to time during the period of years during which this Act has been constantly renewed instead of being made a statutory enactment. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derry, I cannot undertake to put it on the same footing as the other measure mentioned without consideration, but, as I assured him the other day, the Government are most anxious to pass this Bill, and the course they may take next Session in respect to it will have consideration if nothing is done this Session by gentlemen themselves.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: With respect to the necessity for the promoters of the Bill to come to terms, I would like to ask whether the promoters, first of all, did not consent to the exemption of the five exempted cities from the Bill in order to pass it, and whether they did not still consent to three cities being exempted from the measure in order to facilitate its passage?
  SIR T. LEA: The Bill has been qualified, and is now a practical compromise.
  MR. J. MORLEY: These are argumentative questions, and we cannot discuss a matter of this kind in questions and answers across the floor of the House.
  MR. SEXTON: In reference to a suggestion, of which I am not aware, that there has been a practical compromise, I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many of the Irish Members are strongly of opinion that this is a matter which should be reserved for the Irish Parliament?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am aware that is so, but I may say that in my own view it would not be undesirable to get the measure passed even now if we could find time.

  SIAM.
  SIR R. TEMPLEasked whether Her Majesty's Government would object to any Commercial Treaties being concluded by Siam with any Foreign Power, which infringed the most-favoured-nation privileges possessed by England under existing Treaties?
  SIR E. GREYsaid that, according to the information at their disposal, there was no intention of infringing the provisions of our Treaty with Siam. That being so, he had nothing to add to the statement which he made to the House on the previous day, and that which was made by the Secretary of State in another place.

  HOME RULE BILL.
  MR. HOZIERasked when the House would be called upon to consider the Lords' Amendments to the Home Rule Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)said, he supposed the hon. Member had some authority for stating that the House of Lords were about to amend the Home Rule Bill?
  MR. HOZIER: Do the Government wish the Bill to pass without amendment in its present unworkable condition?
  [No answer was given.]

  EVICTED TENANTS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the sacrifice of the Evicted Tenants' Bill for another year, the Government were willing to consider the re-enactment of the 13th section of the Land Purchase Act, under which tenants were reinstated under perfectly fair terms?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he could not answer that question offhand. If the hon. Member could give him an assurance that hon. Gentlemen opposite would approve of the re-enactment of the clause, the matter might be considered.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he supposed that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not object, because they had approved of the provision.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.

    CLASS I.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £142,176, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for Drainage Works on the Rivers Shannon and Suck."
    MR. BARTLEY*MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.) moved to reduce the sum by £500, arguing that, as the Government had forced the Home Rule Bill through the House, and thereby separated the financial arrangements between the two countries, it was unfair to call upon the taxpayers of Great Britain to pay for the acquisition of new sites and for the erection of new buildings in Ireland necessary to the government of that country. The matters referring to the Coastguard and Inland Revenue might be left, but his objection certainly applied to the erection of new Constabulary barracks and other buildings. The cost of this new work should be left to the Irish people under the new Parliament, and if the Government had had the strength of their convictions they would have taken that course. It was very unfair that his constituents should be taxed in this regard; and although he acknowledged that they must pay for the present what was necessary to maintain the buildings, it was not reasonable that they should be called upon to supply new sites and buildings for the purpose of carrying on this work.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Purchase of Sites and Buildings, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,), who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the services referred to would remain under Imperial control. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with having made his protest, and he was obliged to him for not having occupied much time.
    COLONEL NOLANurged that it was the custom of every Government to ask for more money for England than was expended there. In the last Appropriation Account, £16,000 was saved in respect of this Vote, and £8,000 was expended.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the whole Vote could not now be discussed.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had had strong support in his arguments from the Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), who had urged that certain things in which the Irish Members were interested ought to be left for the consideration of the Home Rule Parliament. That was not his own position. He would like to know why it was necessary to provide new Constabulary barracks at Rathfarnham, County Dublin, in respect of which he saw an item of £250, as the present one was a very substantial building?
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he must protest against the statement of the hon. and gallant Member as to the practice of the British Government in regard to Irish Estimates. The hon. Member's statements were not borne out by the figures which the Government had laid on the Table. While he admitted that the expenditure on Irish objects must now be more carefully watched than hitherto in view of the contingency of the success of the Government in their Home Rule policy, he would be most unwilling to see Ireland treated in the meantime in any churlish spirit and without due consideration being given to her just claims. He would, therefore, advise his hon. Friend to be content with the protest he had made, and not to take a Division upon his Amendment.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT, in reply to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, said that the ground was not required for a new Constabulary barracks, but merely to make the present one more secure and complete. As to the Estimates for Ireland for this year, he had kept them down as much as possible, so as not to have any surplus in respect of particular items of expenditure; but so much depended upon the state of the labour market and other circumstances that it was impossible to make an estimate of the exact sum required.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, with regard to the item for £700 for a site for the Inland Revenue, he presumed it was for the purchase of some existing premises, and that some of the money would be spent upon alterations?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that was so, and that there would be a considerable saving when the alterations were made.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could not act in an impartial spirit between the English and the Irish taxpayer. He naturally worked for his own side. The Irish people considered that both Parties, Conservative and Liberal, tried to rob them in different ways.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not now discussing the item before the Committee.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESremarked that, after having severed as far as it could by the Home Rule Bill its connection with Ireland, the House was asked to go on pouring capital into Ireland. It was proposed to spend money in acquiring Inland Revenue premises at Rathmines. In six years, if the Home Rule Bill passed, the House would have nothing to do with Inland Revenue in Ireland, and it was perfectly ridiculous to ask the House to make capital expenditure on the purchase of premises for which, after a few years, it would have no use whatever. If the House was to give up certain duties in Ireland it ought not to be called upon to pay anything in the form of capital expenditure for the establishments required to levy the duties. If the Government needed fresh premises they could hire a house.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I entirely agree with the doctrine laid down by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), that it becomes our duty as British Representatives to look with the greatest possible care at all new expenditure in Ireland, and all the more because we now have it on the authority of the Government that the principle on which repartition of expenditure between Ireland and Great Britain is to be carried out is that Ireland should pay what it pays now. On that basis everything we spend in Ireland is capitalised for the benefit of Ireland and credited to Ireland. If we are now the gainers we shall not only now have to pay for our present generosity,

    119
    but shall have to pay permanently. We have, therefore, a double interest in seeing that economy is enforced in regard to new expenditure. I agree with those who have spoken that we need not take account of such expenditure as the increase for the Coastguard, but, as regards the other expenditure, Members opposite who have called attention to it have been perfectly within their rights. I meant to ask my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary what will become of these valuable buildings which are being kept up at our expense in Ireland after we have done with them? I really was never able, after the most careful study of the Home Rule Bill, to find out what was the intention in regard to this matter. Take the Vote with which we are dealing. Who will get the £950 after the Inland Revenue has been placed in the hands of the Irish people? I really think that is a question which has a very important bearing on this Vote. Of course, if the Chief Secretary can assure us that our property in all these buildings will remain intact after the Bill has passed, and that we shall be able to make the best bargain we can with the Irish Government, or to sell in the open market, there will be some reason why we should pass over the present demand. I should like to know, however, what will be the position of these buildings after we have | paid for them if the Home Rule Bill becomes law?
    MR. J. MORLEY: As to the principle which my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down—namely, that the Committee ought to scrutinize Irish Votes with extra care in view of the possible changes in Ireland, I do not complain of that principle. But, of course, my right hon. Friends will concede that Ireland must be kept going, and these three items are thought to be desirable in the interests of Ireland as the Administration now subsists. In answer to my right hon. Friend's question, I would remind him at the end of six years, and not till then, there is to be a complete review of the financial arrangements and relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and that will be the time at which the value of these buildings will have to be considered. The precise terms on which they will be handed over to the Irish Government
    120
    will be a most important matter for consideration.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Will that apply to Post Office buildings?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I must point out that we have now reached a very serious question, because it is evident that there has been a very important causus omissus in the Home Rule Bill. The Post Office expenditure, I suppose, is to be reviewed at the end of six years as well as all the others, but I would take the case of the barracks. That, at all events, is a very clear case. At the end of six years the intention of the Government is that we should no longer have any interest in the Constabulary, which would, as soon as possible, be disestablished. What, then, is to become of these enormous barracks and buildings which have been erected at the expense of the United Kingdom? Are they to go to the Irish Government without any return to us? My right hon. Friend says that the matter ought to be considered and settled at the end of six years; but have not the Government made up their minds on the point already? This is another provisional point in the Bill. I very much regret that we had not an opportunity of discussing it when we had the Bill before us; but that is not owing to any fault of ours. I think, under the circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will reconsider the ad-vice he gave to the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley). I think we ought to vote against every item of expenditure proposed by the Government on buildings in Ireland, inasmuch as the Government have not the least idea what is to become of these buildings.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not know whether it is in Order, Mr. Mellor, for Gentlemen to rediscuss the Home Rule Bill. [Opposition cries of "No!"] If so, I conceive that the whole financial arrangement will be open to rediscussion. I have no objection whatever; and if the 82 days already devoted to the Bill swell out to 100 or 150 days I cannot help it. Only I should like to understand, Sir, whether it is in Order, because, if so, we must provide ourselves with the requisite Papers and materials.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On the point of Order, I submit that we

    121
    are not trying to discuss the financial relations.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It is perfectly plain that it is not in Order to discuss the Financial Clauses of the Home Rule Bill in this Committee. Of course, the question may be raised whether this is a permanent or a temporary improvement, but it would be out of Order to go into the Home Rule Bill.
    MR. GOSCHEN: On the point of Order, Mr. Mellor, should we be entitled to argue that certain expenditure would be desirable if it were in the nature of capital expenditure, and that such expenditure would be unfair to this country? We are now on Estimates involving, to a certain extent, capital expenditure in Ireland. We hope we may be allowed to discuss that from the new point of view, as it is possible that capital expenditure will now have to be treated in a totally different manner from the capital expenditure hitherto incurred. I quite agree that we cannot discuss the financial relations between the two countries—that, is to say, as to whether Ireland or England pays too much; but I trust that we may be allowed to take into consideration the different state of things that may arise under the Home Rule Bill.
    MR. J. MORLEY: On the principle laid down by my right hon. Friend opposite, there is no reason why we should not on all Votes discuss all imaginary or possible contingencies. I must remind my right hon. Friend that the Bill has not yet passed into law. If the Home Rule Bill had become the Home Rule Act, I could understand the position; but I do not think that on a merely hypothetical contingency it is possible to bring up every item of expenditure. I cannot see how you are going to draw a distinction between capital expenditure and other expenditure, and I am bound to say I must protest against the course that is being followed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite understand the line taken up by the Chief Secretary. He admits, of course, that there is a contingency which it is justifiable to contemplate when discussing the Estimates, and that there are other contingencies so absolutely remote, so shadowy, so outside the purview of any practical statesman, that it would be a mere waste of time
    122
    for us to take them into account when we are dealing with the Estimates. The point we have to determine now is one which will be closely affected by the financial arrangement to be established by the Home Rule Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not show his usual apprehension when he said he could draw no distinction between capital and ordinary expenditure. It is evident that such a distinction is absolutely vital. The question of the amount we are to give to Ireland for purposes of the expenditure within the year is naturally outside any Home Rule proposal, and the discussion would be irrelevant if annual items only were involved. But when we come to capital expenditure of large amount, when we are taking out of the Imperial Treasury relatively large sums, and spending them in Ireland, it becomes important to know whether, if Home Rule passes, these sums are to be handed over to the new Irish Government, and also whether there is any probability of the Home Rule Bill passing? Are the Government going to take up the position that, in spite of the vote of last Friday night, the chances of Home Rule are so remote that no sane politician would take them into account? If they declare that this is their view, I should be inclined to agree with them, and I should vote with them in the coming Division. If, however, on the other hand, they take the view that Home Rule is a matter which cannot be long deferred, I say it is absolutely incumbent on us to see that we do not, by rashly voting money now, hand over large capital sums, which will ultimately have to be dealt with, not by the Imperial Parliament, but by the Home Rule Parliament.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that whilst he was absent his right hon. Colleague advised the Mover of the Amendment to be content with making a protest, and not to take a Division.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, that since that advice was given the circumstances had changed by the information which had been given to the Committee, and he must reserve to himself the right to divide if he thought proper to do so.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, a very simple question had been put, and the whole Treasury Bench had been puzzled

    123
    by it; and because they could not answer it on the spot they desired to raise a point of Order. The Committee was asked to vote £950 for capital expenditure on the Revenue Office at Kilkenny. In the event of the Home Rule Bill coming into operation, he wished to know whose property the freehold would be when the arrangement was made?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into the Home Rule Bill on these items. Of course, I cannot say that it is out of Order for an hon. Member to say—"I do not vote for this, because many years hence, or a few years hence, the building may cease to be the property of the country," but that is not the question we are now on. I wish to point out to the Committee that it is absolutely necessary to keep to the proper context of these items.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the point of Order, Sir, I would remind you of a case which arose last year, or the year before. A very vigorous attack was made by the then Opposition on certain proposed capital expenditure upon buildings required for the British Resident at Cairo, the whole basis of the attack being that the British occupation in Cairo was to be of a temporary character, and that, therefore, capital expenditure should not be indulged in.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I must suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his memory is not quite accurate. I took part in the Debate to which he refers, and the question was not respecting the temporary occupation of Egypt, but with regard to the erection of a permanent Embassy at Berlin. It was pointed out that we should be put to enormous cost if we erected a permanent building at Berlin, and that it would be cheaper to hire houses for Ambassadors than to erect them. The discussion had nothing to do with the temporary occupation of Egypt.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Frequently, and not on one occasion only, the expenditure in Egypt has been discussed from a hypothetical point of view. The Estimates have constantly been argued with reference to the future policy of the Government.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I was not present during the discussion which has been
    124
    referred to between that case and the present. In the present case, we must regard Ireland as it is. It is impossible to go into the question of the possible passage of a Bill which may never pass the House of Lords. That would be introducing into this discussion an element which would raise an enormous question, and one of extreme difficulty, and altogether foreign to the nature of our proceedings.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the Committee had no right to vote this £950 unless Members knew what was to become of it. They had no right to sit round the House, like Mr. Jabez Balfour's Directors, and take for granted everything that was said. He asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland to whom the buildings would belong if the money was voted?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he thought the Act furnished a reply to the hon. Member's question. By Section 35—
    THE CHAIRMAN: What Act?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I mean the Home Rule Bill.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is clearly out of Order.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLEScontended that Members were strictly within their right in discussing the fate of that portion of the Vote which related to future years—namely, the capital portion. Members were naturally anxious to know what was to become of the freehold premises after the Home Rule Bill had passed. The Government asked them to hand over an enormous sum as a bribe to gentlemen below the Gangway (the Irish Members).
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that this is out of Order.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether he was not in Order in giving his reasons for his objections?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to give his reasons; but I have already ruled that he cannot go into the details of the Home Rule Bill.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, his reasons were plain. There was part of this Vote which they never enjoyed the benefit of, and they had a right to oppose it. The Government had taken power to hand over these buildings to others, and he said they on that side were not willing that their capital should be

    125
    invested for the purpose of having the buildings handed over afterwards to gentlemen below the Gangway. [Cries of "Order!"] He did not for a moment suppose that these hon. Gentlemen would put public money into their private pockets; they all knew that they were always ready to do their duty—they were ready to get as much money as possible; but they on their side had a duty to perform, to their constituents, and if they passed this Vote without a Division it would form a precedent that they were willing, notwithstanding altered circumstances, to provide for the needs of Ireland for all time.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, they (the Irish Members) had voted for British expenditure which was necessary, and they were ready to vote against an expenditure that might be considered unreasonable. In this case the sum was small; the need was, he understood, somewhat urgent, and he thought lion. Members might allow the Vote to pass.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, they were asked by this Vote to lay down a precedent. They had to remember that they were not to deal with Ireland as in the past. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) laid down a good rule with regard to voting money for current expenditure; but when they came to vote it as capita], they should look upon it in a different light. The Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley) said he could not see the difference between money for current expenditure and capital expenditure. Surely that was the case of the bankrupt—the man who could not make out the difference between what was current expenditure and what was capital, and who, consequently, went to the wall. That should be considered here, and he would like to know from the Chief Secretary whether this rule was to apply to other cases as well as that which was before them? He did not want to discuss the matter as if they were discussing the Home Rule Bill; but he hoped this was not to be regarded as a precedent.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would get them out of the difficulty, because the case before the Committee was one which, it seemed to him, emphasised the principle of the discussion that had taken place. He understood the
    126
    Secretary to the Treasury to say that the Vote was for the alteration of premises occupied by the Inland Revenue officials at Kilkenny, and rented by them. Why should they not strike out the £500 which, as he understood, was not necessary for keeping the concern going? In view of possible contingencies, this appeared to him to be unnecessary capital expenditure, and such expenditure should be avoided as far as possible. No one would fail in agreeing with him that as the amount of expenditure increased the balance left was so much less. He had no desire to add to the difficulty of the position in these particular matters, but he was bound to say this was a matter of very great importance, and he did feel that this was hardly a time at which to enter upon the purchase of premises for the purposes of the Government. That was the question raised in this case.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the question was one of providing proper premises for the officers of Inland Revenue at this place. The present premises were in an insanitary condition, and must be given up, and other premises taken. They were getting these premises at a ground rent of £28 on condition that £700 should be spent in alterations.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is that purchase money?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTwas understood to say that was included. The buildings would require alterations to meet the necessities of the men. But so far as concerned the premises in which the men worked, it was quite impossible they could remain there; the men must leave. The Committee would see, therefore, that there were special circumstances in this case, and he did not think it was a time at which they were entitled to enter into the general question raised by the Home Rule Bill.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he would like to ask if they were going to spend this money, or a large portion of it, on a rented house?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the house was subject to a ground rent of £28.
    SIR T. LEAsaid, he was not quite sure that he and his friends could take the same view as Members opposite on this matter. They were going to give Home Rule to Ireland. [Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have already stated that hon. Members cannot go into the Home Rule Question.
    SIR T. LEAsaid, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair. He merely wished to say that his constituents were anxious to get any advantage they could from this House. They were not anxious to be deprived of its protection, and it was his duty to object to any step that tended to an alteration in the present system of control in these matters.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, what the hon. Baronet had just said might be good enough from the point of view of Irish Members. But the question the Government had been asked was a very simple one, and they ought not to remain in doubt upon it. It was a question involving only a comparatively small sum; but supposing they should have a question involving £2,000,000? It seemed to him that the precedent was a serious matter, and he was inclined to think that, as the Secretary to the Treasury had said as much as he could about the matter, the Chief Secretary should now give them a reply which, he hoped, would be more satisfactory.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 146.—(Division List, No. 290.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he wanted to ask a question with regard to the Royal Hibernian Military School, There had been an outbreak of fever at that institution and a Committee was appointed. He would like to know whether the Committee had reported; and, if so, whether any proposals made in regard to the sanitary arrangements of the school were being carried out? It did not appear to him that any money was being taken for the purpose.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the Committee had reported, the water supply of the school being said to be very defective. He could assure the hon. Member that the matter was having attention.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he would like to ask whether any decision had been come to with regard to the proposal to erect new barracks in the Phoenix Park, Dublin? A considerable sum had been voted, but there had been no expenditure
    128
    during the two years that had elapsed. If there had been any change of policy, and it had been decided not to build the barracks, the item put down in the Estimates for it should be omitted.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,)said, this was a matter to which he had paid attention. As the right hon. Gentleman knew, a site had been fixed upon in a corner of the Park for the erection of the barracks. From information he had received, however, he had come to the conclusion that a building on the spot indicated would be very unsightly, and that it would arouse feelings of strong dissatisfaction among the people of Dublin. He had, therefore, thought it would be well to look about for some other site for the purpose—a site which would be equally convenient, and which would not be open to the objection that would be taken in this case. They had found great difficulty in discovering within the Park itself any piece of ground suitable, and his own view was that it would be better to acquire land outside the Park near Chapelizod rather than interfere with the beauty of the Park. At the same time, he quite agreed that this barrack was needed for the Constabulary, and it was especially desirable it should be near the Park. If they could not find a site on the Chapelizod Road they might have to fall back upon some other place in the Park, and possibly the old site. He hoped the hon. Member would not think there was anything wrong in keeping the question open for another year. He did not say it would be kept open for another year, because he believed a decision would be arrived at in a few weeks.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had used the word "Constabulary." Did he mean the Metropolitan Police?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, the Metropolitan Police.
    COLONEL NOLANcomplained that the money voted for specific purposes was not spent on these purposes. This had been the practice for years, and he thought it was a wrong state of affairs to make such a system habitual. It was giving an enormous temptation to Irish officials to spend this money on whatever they liked. The money was transferred from one object to another in a

    129
    perfectly reckless manner, and so long as this was the case the money would be spent irregularly.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLdesired to raise a question of some importance to the citizens of Dublin—namely, the condition of the Green Street Court House, and the proposal the Government made in regard to it. There was a sum of £1,000 in this Vote as a grant in aid for the improvement of the Green Street Court House. During the last Session this question was before the House, and it was proved in the Debates upon it that it was a building that could not be improved. The highest sanitary engineers in the City of Dublin declared it to be unfit for human occupation, and yet the Government—or rather because the previous Government failed to bring about a settlement with the Corporation and the County Jury—were now going to throw good money into what was just a pit. It would do no good, the money would be absolutely wasted, and on that ground he proposed to move to disallow this Vote altogether. Green Street Court House was a Crown Court House, and it was also a City Court House. That was to say Crown cases were tried there by the Judges of Assize, and the Recorder of Dublin sat there almost permanently trying civil bills and criminal cases from the city. Many years ago a proposal was made to build a new Court House for Dublin. The estimate, in the first place, was £39,000, and the Government proposed to pay one-third, namely £13,000, as their contribution to the cost. The arrangement was that the County of Dublin Grand Jury, in view of the fact that they were interested in the Court House, should pay a second third, and the City, which by the way used the Court House more than either the Crown or the County of Dublin, should pay the remainder. That was an absolutely fair arrangement, and if the Corporation had not allowed political motives to dominate public considerations that new Court House would have been built, and there would have been an enormous expenditure for the benefit of the artizans of Dublin; these cases would not have to be tried in an insanitary building, and a legitimate and fair settlement might have been arrived at. It so happened at the time, however, that there was political trouble
    130
    in the county, and the Lord Mayor of Dublin was struck out of the Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of the day. This was ancient history, but it lay at the bottom of the whole case. He did not argue whether it was right or wrong, but because the Government took that step the Corporation withdrew from their part of the bargain and refused to contribute the £13,000 it was proposed they should contribute towards building the new Court House. There was nothing like the Green Street Court House in the Kingdom. He saw an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bodkin), who he was sure would agree with the whole of his professional brethren and the sanitary engineers of the City of Dublin that it was not a pleasant place to spend a day in. He (Mr. Russell) had had personal experience of that Court House. It was his fortune to spend nine consecutive days in it as a special juror; he had sat in the Court House on Licensing Sessions, and he could say he had never sat five hours in the place without feeling the worse for it, whilst lawyers had had serious illnesses which their physicians directly traced to the insanitary condition of the building. What was proposed to be done? Because the Government could not arrange with the Corporation and the Corporation chose to play this dog-in-the-manger policy it was proposed to patch up this old building. Lord Chief Justice O'Brien last year used these words, which he quoted from Hansard, containing the Report of the previous references to this matter—
    "If the responsibility for the Court House was conjoint the disgrace equally belonged to the Corporation and the Government. To-day it was impossible to move or breathe in the Court. The place was pervaded by a mephitic atmosphere. If he did not find before the next Commission that some practical move was taken to remedy the state of things, he would summon a meeting of the Common Law Judges and take counsel with his brethren as to whether they could not go elsewhere."
    This matter was raised by him (Mr. Russell) in a question to the Chief Secretary (and which contained the above quotation) on the 15th February, 1892. A little later on the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) asked the then Chief Secretary the right hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) a question on the subject, and he gave the following extract in his question:—

    131
    "When the jury was 9worn one of the jurors complained of a great draught in the jury box. The Lord Chief Justice said the special jurors of Dublin should not be allowed to get the influenza, and ordered that the windows should be closed.
    To order the window to be closed was one thing, getting it closed was another.
    "One of the jurors tried to close the window near the jury box, but was unable to do so.
    "The Lord Chief Justice: This is scandalous. This state of things is an outrage upon civilisation."
    On the 1st March, 1892, one of the Members for Kerry (Mr. Kilbride), on behalf of the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny), asked the Chief Secretary the following question:—
    "If it has been arranged that the Commission of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery hitherto held in the Green Street Court House, Dublin, will in future be held in the Four Courts, if the criminal and civil business of the Recorder of the City of Dublin is to be discharged as heretofore at Green Street; whether Mr. W. Kaye Perry, C.E., has reported to the Lord Chief Justice that Green Street Court House is unfit for human occupation; and whether the Irish Government refused to do anything to replace the present Court-house unless there is a local contribution of two-thirds of the total amount of the estimated cost?"
    The Chief Secretary (Mr. Jackson) replied—
    "No general arrangement of the nature indicated in the first paragraph has been come to; but it has been decided to hold the next Commission sitting at the Four Courts. This decision does not include the business of the Recorder. Mr. Kaye Perry has, I understand, reported to the effect indicated. It is not the fact that the Irish Government refused to do anything to replace the present Court House. As I have already stated, they are willing to ask the Treasury to revive the charge sanctioned in 1883, which was accepted at that time as satisfactory by all parties concerned, but from which the Corporation of Dublin subsequently withdrew."
    He thought that that was sufficient proof, at all events, of the insanitary state of this Court House, and yet in face of all these facts the Government proposed to give £1,000 to patch up this wretched building. It was simply throwing away the money. It was perfectly impossible to patch up the Court House. It was situate in the worst part of the City; it was inconvenient, so far as the locality was concerned, to the lawyers; it was inconvenient to the general public, and it was not safe for the public. The building ought to be demolished and a new Court House erected, but the Government
    132
    were proposing to simply cover this wretched wound. They would not make the place sanitary by the expenditure of this £1,000, and he did not know how much the Corporation were proposing to spend upon it.
    MR. J. MORLEY: £2,000 in addition to this £1,000.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLdid not care how much or how little was spent upon it; it would be impossible to make it a decent place for people who had to spend their time in it. This quarrel to which he had referred took place in 1883—in the pre-union of hearts days; and would it not be worth while for the Chief Secretary to see whether it was not possible to renew the old arrangement, or to make some new arrangement upon this question? Considering the use which the Government made of the Court House he regarded the proposal made by the Government in 1883 as a perfectly reasonable one. The Recorder sat in Green Street for eight months out of the 12, disposing of City cases; and the City of Dublin ought to pay a larger contribution than the Government, which simply used the Court House now and then; and if the County of Dublin had responsibilities in connection with the matter they ought to be compelled to meet them. The County did not stand in the way of carrying out the proposal of 1883, and he did not think any difficulty would arise in connection with the County of Dublin Grand Jury. The Committee ought not to sanction the spending of this £1,000 on an object which could never be achieved. The Government were now on the best terms with the Corporation of Dublin, and they ought to endeavour to come to some arrangement with them. For his part he thought the present Corporation was much more efficient than that of 1883, and as the original cause of the quarrel had been removed and the name of the Lord Mayor restored to the Commission, he did not see any difficulty in arriving at a settlement of the question. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £1,000 in respect of the Green Street Court House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Item B, New Works and Alterations, be reduced by £1,000, in respect of Green Street Court House."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, they had to look upon all sides of this question. It was not a matter altogether for the Government; in fact, it was a matter in which the Government had very little control. This matter rested more or less with the Corporation, in whose hands was the choice of a site. The Corporation after, he supposed, due consideration, had decided upon the Green Street site, and they had plans prepared which, after considerable discussion and consideration of the two sites, the Board of Works, as representing the Government, had agreed to. The other site discussed—namely, the Four Courts, would have been much more convenient to the Judge and the lawyers, and perhaps to the public men; but in this matter they had considered the wishes of the Corporation. On the 28th of August last, the Lord Chief Justice and several other representative men went through the plans and assented to the proposal, which, as he had said, were agreed to by the Board of Works, and by the Grand Jury also, so that it would be very difficult for the Government to act like a dog-in-the-manger, and say they would have nothing to do with this proposal. He supposed the Lord Chief Justice, and other gentlemen who visited the place and examined the plans, were satisfied that the place could be made suitable for its purpose, and he trusted, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his objection to the Vote.
    MR. BODKINsaid, he considered that the Green Street Court House was very bad, but at the same time he was strongly of opinion that a great deal could be done with £3,000. It would, at all events, suffice to replace the window fastening, which the Lord Chief Justice, with that moderation of language which characterised him, had described as "an outrage on civilisation." The incident would give some idea of what was meant by outrage when used by his Lordship in the future. Certainly, the argument of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Russell) was most creditable. A few moments before he argued that there should be no capital expenditure, because they were going to get Home Rule. The hon. Gentleman said there should be no capital expenditure in reference to the building of a police barrack.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he wanted to know who would be the owner in certain eventualities?
    MR. BODKINsaid, the hon. Gentleman objected to the former Vote, because it was capital expenditure. He took his objection to this because it was not capital expenditure. He (Mr. Bodkin) believed they would not be long without a new Court House after they got Home Rule. In the meantime something should be done for all those attending the Green Street Court House, and he believed the best thing that could be done was to carry out the proposal which had been referred to.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman, if he had been more continuously in the House, would not have accused my hon. Friend with being inconsistent. The fact is, my hon. Friend raised the previous point as to the capital expenditure on one ground, and he is now opposing it on another ground. His first objection to capital expenditure was that it would be thrown away, so far as the British taxpayer is concerned, because the property might pass into other hands. His objection to the present capital expenditure is, that it will be thrown away because it is entirely useless. That is not in the least inconsistent. A further argument against this particular expenditure, that it is capital expenditure which ought to be met by the Irish Government, has been supplied by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, who has stated that when the Irish Government had the power and had our money, they are going to spend a portion of it in building a new and "illigant" Court House, somewhere outside the neighbourhood of Green Street. Well, Sir, I say that under these circumstances my hon. Friends are perfectly consistent. I very much regret that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has left the House, because this is a matter on which I should have much liked to take his opinion. Some years ago, when I first entered the House, I took a great deal of interest in that portion of the Estimates which deals with the expenditure of Metropolitan Court Houses and Courts of Law. I moved a great number of Amendments to the Estimates on that subject. Cir-

    135
    cumstances prevented me continuing my investigations on the point, but my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board took them up, and I venture to say there has been no more eager advocate of economy of the public money with regard to this class of expenditure than he. His contention was that no money ought to be spent on these Court Houses other than by the Local Authorities. I think it a great hardship on my constituents, and on other constituencies, that while we do not get a single farthing from the Government ourselves, while we are made to pay heavier rates because Government officials are so highly paid, those officials come down and draw the rates for Government property, although at the same time we are called upon to pay for capital expenditure in London, Dublin, and other parts of the country. I admit that there has been in the past some reason for sharing the expenditure in the present case, inasmuch as the Government have shared the accommodation. The Assize Courts have been held there, and there is no doubt that is a ground for contributing to the expenditure, although I believe the contribution would be much better made if made in the form of rent for the house for the time for which the Court is used. That claim for expenditure entirely disappears, in view of the fact that has been stated by my hon. Friend behind me. The Judges of the land will not sit in this Court, and, under these circumstances, I cannot conceive why we should go on paying for buildings from which we derive no advantage. I intend to revive this question of Imperial expenditure on local Courts. The most important case is that of London, but we should not be able to deal with London if we did not deal also with Dublin.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he did not conceive how the Board of Works in Ireland could lend their sanction for a moment to this extraordinary proposal. He could not for a moment believe that a Board of Works official had led the Government to suppose that by an expenditure of £3,000 the Court House could be placed in a sanitary condition or in a fit state for carrying on the business that was to be conducted there in the future. He should like to know whether the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. T. Hibbert) was
    136
    prepared to give any guarantee to the House that the expenditure of this money would place the premises either in a sanitary condition or in such a condition that there would be no complaints whatever from the barristers or suitors? The Corporation of Dublin was now trying to escape from the duty which fell on most other Corporations, and nearly all Local Authorities, of providing proper places for the administration of justice.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that if there were one body more than another that he was inclined to distrust, it was the Irish Board of Works. Ireland was bestrewn with memorials of the failures of the Board of Works. He was very glad to see that the attractions of "another place" had palled upon the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), and that, having just returned to the House, he appeared to concur with him (Mr. Russell) in this opinion. The mere fact that the Board of Works had authorised or approved of this expenditure did not influence his judgment one iota. Seeing that they approved of it, it was very likely that it was wrong expenditure, and bad. The next reason why this expenditure had been incurred by the Government was the fact that the Lord Chief Justice had been down to Green Street. The Lord Chief Justice and the Board of Works, the Grand Jury and the Corporation, all approved, and, therefore, it was determined to give the money. That was the position of the right hon. Gentleman. Well, no one had greater respect for the Lord Chief Justice than he had in a matter of law, and in some other matters he would take his Lordship's opinion very much sooner than he would take the opinion of most people in Ireland; but, most assuredly, he should not take his opinion on sanitary science. The Lord Chief Justice had to sit in that Court a few days in the year, but the public had to sit there for months. It did not follow because the Lord Chief Justice thought this expenditure better than nothing, that he would not prefer a new building. As to the Grand Jury, he supposed they merely saw the plans, and thought they would be an improvement upon the present Court House. And in regard to the Corporation it was now, no doubt, a more efficient body than it was in 1883, when this squabble took place. There was

    137
    one gentleman on it who had full right and title to speak on this as a sanitary engineer, he meant Mr. Maguire; but he did not think the Corporation, as a Corporation, knew anything about sanitary science, and he should not be inclined to take its opinion upon any improvement of this kind. To his mind, what should be done is this—the Judges should sit in the Four Courts, which they could legally do. The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chief Baron had done it—they had refused to sit in the pestilential hole in Green Street, and had sat in the Four Courts, leaving the Recorder and the city business to this Court House. The Government should remove Crown business to the Four Courts and leave the Court House to the Corporation—who had refused to come to terms. The money it was proposed to spend on this Court House was pure and unadulterated waste—throwing good money after bad. Were the Board of Works going to control this expenditure?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then who is to control it?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is subject to their inspection and approval.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he had not the slightest faith in the control of the Board of Works of Dublin. He would rather trust the Corporation engineer than the engineer of the Board of Works. If the Board of Works did not control it the Corporation must. He protested against their sanctioning this expenditure of £1,000 without proper Government control.
    MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, that in this case a Vote was to be taken for the spending of a considerable sum of money in order to do that which the local ratepayers in England did wholly on their own responsibility. The President of the Local Government Board had opposed this kind of Vote on a previous occasion, and if the right hon. Gentleman was sincere—as no doubt he was—he should now use his influence to prevent an injurious system being pursued by the Government. He (Mr. Williams) objected to the Vote on another ground. It was an expenditure of a considerable sum of money on a purpose which was almost certain to fail. Patching up an old and
    138
    unstable and insanitary building of this kind seldom or never answered. He did not say that without some reason, for as a member, for a considerable number of years, of a Local Authority, he had had great experience of the expenditure of money on purposes of this kind. In Birmingham for 40 years very large sums of money had been spent on a certain building. During the past two or three years no less than £9,000 had been spent on it to correct inherent and incurable defects entirely without success. He happened to have been in the Court under discussion once in his life in an entirely honorary capacity, and he was bound to say that he never saw a more miserable place in his life. Though he had no special skill in architecture it was plain that the only possible way to cure defects in the Court was to pull it down right to the ground and erect a new building in its place. He was satisfied that this was a waste of the taxpayers' money. No good at all was likely to result from the outlay proposed, and if the hon. Gentleman went to a Division he (Mr. Williams) should certainly support him.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 142.—(Division List, No. 291.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he observed in the Estimates an item of £4,650 for the building of a wall at the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum. He knew this asylum, and knew the wall, and was convinced the sum asked for was a most exorbitant one for the rebuilding. But he had risen for the purpose of moving to reduce the Vote for National Education buildings in Ireland by £100, in order to call attention to the insanitary state of the Marlborough Street Training College, which was in a most wretched condition. This College had been in existence almost since the foundation of the National system of education. It consisted, as far as the dwelling-house accommodation was concerned, of two houses, one—that for females—was in Great George Street, and the other in Talbot Street. Since the formation of this College there had been three offshoots from it on denominational lines. The House had voted large

    139
    sums of money to it, and large sums had been received to enable the authorities to erect splendid buildings which had been in every way adequately provided. But when they came to the Training College itself it was in a most miserable condition.
    MR. J. MORLEYpointed out that the grant for the Marlborough Training College was not included in the Vote under consideration.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLthought it was included in the Literary Schools Vote. The houses in Talbot Street and Marlborough Street were in an utterly unfit sanitary condition, and unsuitable for a College of the kind for which they were used. Some of the female teachers had been seriously ill as a result of the insanitary state of the Great George Street School, and the place had been visited by the Sanitary Inspector. He thought it very unfair if they were going to provide the Denominational Colleges with everything they required and leave the College of the Board itself that the Government were directly responsible for in an insanitary condition. He had the other day received a complaint from the Lady Superintendent that she had been seriously ill, and he had himself inspected the house, and found it in bad repair. Indeed, both houses were in a wretched state, and utterly unsuited for Colleges. So long, however, as they were to be retained, he thought they ought to be put into a proper sanitary condition. He begged to move the reduction standing in his name.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The question raised by the hon. Member does not arise on this Vote. The College is provided for out of the Vote for Irish Education.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he only wished to know where to raise it. A Training College could not be called a model school. Where could the question be raised?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: On Class IV., Vote 11.
    MR. JACKSONthought the question could be raised on this Vote if not on this particular sub-head.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he would withdraw the Motion for the present, and move it again later on.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the manner in which the money provided for National school
    140
    buildings in Ireland was expended-Last year there was a Vote of £30,000 provided, of which only £24,283 was expended, leaving something over £5,000 unused. The Commissioners of National Education stated in their Annual Report that this undesirable result was in a great measure due to the system under which grants were sanctioned. The Commissioners had no power to control the expenditure of the money. He would like to ask the Government—who he did not suppose desired to perpetuate a system which undoubtedly led to complication of the Estimates—whether they intended to take any action on the portion of the Commissioners' Report referring to this matter, in order that the evils and difficulties resulting from it might be avoided in future?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, it was quite true that a great difficulty did arise from the uncertainty of expenditure of the money voted for National school buildings in Ireland. The sum voted each year for the last three years had been £40,000, and that had been expended during the first two years, but not in the third year. It depended entirely on the managers of schools whether the money was spent or not. The Board of Works had no control over the managers in the matter of expenditure, and it would be a very good thing if some better plan could be devised for exercising control over the actual expenditure of the money provided for the erection of school buildings in Ireland.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, when he was Chief Secretary he had a good deal to do with this question. He found the Commissioners being pressed for grants which. they were precluded from making owing to the limited amount of the grants, and in consequence of that his Government increased the amount to £40,000 a year for three years. To his surprise that sum was only expended for two years, and as in the third year the full sum provided was not claimed in grants, the Vote was then reduced to £30,000. Now it appeared that even that sum was not spent, though the Board of Works stated that sanctions had been given by the National Education Commissioners for nearly £60,000. He would venture to suggest that they had arrived at a point when the sanctioning of a loan

    141
    should be made conditional on a guarantee being given that actual work on the school should be begun and completed within a certain specified time. There should be some such pressure put on the managers of schools, because it was inconvenient for the Treasury not to know the amount of money which would be required each year.
    COLONEL NOLAN: There is too much pressure on the managers. They have to raise a certain portion of the required amount by public subscription in order to obtain the grant.
    MR. JACKSON: The managers should make sure of subscription to the necessary amount before getting the sanction of the National Education Board for a loan. It would, in his opinion, be a great improvement if the Commissioners made it a condition before sanctioning a grant that the managers of the school should come under an obligation with regard to the time for the commencement and completion of the work.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the funds for the erection of schools in Ireland had to be raised partly by subscription, and often managers had to wait a long time for those subscriptions. If the course suggested by two previous speakers were adopted it might nearly stop school building in Ireland.
    SIR E. HARLANDsaid he wished to draw attention to the condition of Queen's College, Belfast. The success of that College had been most marked in the highest branches of education. He was sorry the Colleges in Galway and Cork did not extend their work so far as could be desired, but that was attributable, he thought, to the terrible agricultural depression of late years. The College in Belfast, however, had made extraordinary strides, not only in the efficiency of its various classes, but in the increase in the number of students attending the classes. But although the City of Belfast had more than doubled in size since the College was founded, with the exception of a detached laboratory and anatomic room, there had been no addition made to the College until last year or the year before, after the matter was fully gone into and representations had been made to the late Government. The late Government agreed to contribute a moiety of the
    142
    cost of a suitable laboratory, but the necessary additions had only been partially completed, and he regretted to find this year that there was no sum adequate for the purpose. The late Government thought they went as far as they could in granting £4,300, but the amount really required was £9,000, and this he thought the Government might well supply for the completion and proper equipment of the new building, seeing that the inhabitants of Belfast had from time to time contributed in the shape of exhibitions and prizes no less than £26,000, and that they were now erecting outside students' rooms at a cost of some £5,000. Altogether £31,000 had been found by the outside public—although the public ought not to be called upon, having regard to the fact that the College had been established by Act of Parliament. The success of the College educationally bad been most marked. This was recognised every year by public examiners in England who had to examine the students who had matriculated there. Scarcely a year passed without special reference being made to the great ability and talent turned out by this University, and a large proportion of Civil Service appointments was carried off by Belfast Queen's College men. He, therefore, felt that this College deserved the greatest consideration at the hands of the Government, whichever side might be in office. The Vote under consideration amounted to £212,000, and Belfast was now asking for only some £5,000. This was a small sum to ask for when they remembered that Ireland's contribution to the Imperial Revenue was £8,306,576, of which Belfast contributed £3,205,167, or 38 per cent. If Belfast got its fair proportion back again it would receive £76,000. He might say that this classroom question was thrust on them through the Sanitary Inspector condemning the old quarters where the students worked. The students, therefore, were between two stools. They were put out of one set of rooms and yet were not furnished with another. When they had regard to the immense increase of students in the University and the small demand made on successive Governments for the extension of the College, he hoped that the Treasury would see that the necessary

    143
    funds were provided next year, so that the Principal and the Professors might look forward to having the necessary accommodation for pursuing their tuition with success. When he told the Committee that in the scientific class-rooms the old fashioned methods of demonstration were continued, that in connection with natural philosophy and applied mechanics there was not even a dynamo or gas engine in use, instruction being given orally in the way of descriptions rather than ocularly with the necessary scientific appliances, it would be seen how necessary it was to improve the equipment of the College.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he was ready to admit that the hon. Baronet had placed the ease very fairly before the Committee, and no doubt from his own point of view he had made out a strong case. Looking at the matter from a Treasury point of view, however, he did not think the authorities of Belfast College had raised sufficient money from voluntary sources as compared with other disticts. The students had raised £4,000 for rooms used for entertainments, though he did not complain of it. The hon. Baronet had stated that the people of Belfast had raised something like £30,000 for the College. That was a very large sum, of course, but in Manchester, in the case of the Victoria University, a far larger sum had been raised by public subscriptions, and the same could also be said of Cork in the case of the Queen's College. He therefore thought the Treasury had some right to ask the people of Belfast to assist themselves, and if that were done he had no doubt that the Treasury would be willing to do something further for the College. A claim for the expenditure of a large sum of money on the College had been laid before the Treasury under the late Government, and it was cut down by them to £4,000, or something like half. That sum had been spent on the College, and a further sum of £1,875 towards fittings and heating apparatus for the laboratories. Therefore the interests of Belfast had been well attended to by the Treasury, and under the circumstances he hoped the Committee would be satisfied with the discussion, and allow the Vote to pass.
    SIR E. HARLANDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when he
    144
    asked the people of Belfast to subscribe towards the College, had overlooked the fact that they had already spent over £30,000 on the College, and he thought that compared very favourably even with Manchester when the magnitude of the two cities was considered. The original Act, by which the Queen's College of Belfast had been founded, provided for the repairing, enlarging, and improvement of the buildings from time to time, and for the furnishing of the College from time to time; and as therefore these means were provided by Act of Parliament, he did not see why the public should be called upon to maintain the College. The new building was only half completed, and looked like a barn, and surely, in these days, when grants were given in aid of every description of education, to make us all ladies and gentlemen, it would be unfair and unjust to grudge an extra £5,000 for a College in which the most useful description of training was carried on, especially as an Act of Parliament clearly provided for this expenditure.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Baronet was not asking for aid for a College which had failed in carrying out the intentions of those who founded it. A case could fairly be made out that the Colleges of Galway and Cork had failed, and a good case could be made out against spending any more of the public money on those institutions. But the Queen's College, Belfast, was a highly successful College, and apart altogether from the question of private benevolence Parliament was bound by the Act of Parliament establishing the College to repair, enlarge and improve the buildings from time to time. His hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast had made out a clear case. The late Government had spent so much on the buildings; that expenditure had left the buildings uncompleted, and therefore his hon. Friend was justified in asking for more. In the Report of the Queen's College, Belfast, for the year, the President complained that the College was still far from being properly equipped in respect to laboratories. The citizens of Belfast had contributed £32,000 towards the College, but that was not as much, according to the Secretary to the Treasury, as had been contributed in Cork. In the case of

    145
    Cork, however, the money had been left by a wealthy brewer.
    MR. JACKSON: I think it cannot be denied that the Queen's College, Belfast, has, of all the Irish Colleges, being most successful, and has most largely fulfilled the purposes for which it was founded. Looking at the Act which has been quoted, I think it is clear that responsibility in the matter rests with the Government. The Secretary to the Treasury said the late Government had proposals before them which they cut down by one-half. I believe that is true, and I believe also, speaking from memory, that the reason the proposal of the Irish Board of Works in this matter was cut down was because we thought it desirable to limit the amount to be put in the Estimates for the year to the sum that was likely to be expended in the year. The case laid before us was so overwhelming that it was impossible for us to refuse to do something. Reports from medical officers were furnished showing that cases of fainting had occurred amongst the students, if not amongst the teachers, owing to the unsanitary state of the rooms because of their crowded condition. It appeared to me then that the most practical way of dealing with the difficulty, so as to give the most immediate relief, was to divide the building into two, so that one part might be completed at one operation, and rendered available for use immediately after completion. But I cannot say that there was any positive refusal on our part to accept responsibility for the completion of the whole scheme as submitted. I think that if there is one class of expenditure which might be made in Ireland with advantage it is expenditure in the direction of promoting technical education, and you could find no more useful field for operation of that kind than in Belfast. Of course it is for the Government to make the last bargain they can with the people of Belfast; I do not blame them for trying to get public subscriptions for the College, but I say it would be false economy to refuse to spend £3,000 or £4,000 additional, which would really complete the scheme. Under the circumstances, I hope the Government will lend a favourable ear to the case made out by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Belfast.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I rise to call the attention of the Committee to the time which has been spent over this matter.
    MR. JACKSON: I did not occupy 10 minutes.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Baronet opposite spoke for more than half-an-hour. The right hon. Gentleman himself had to admit that all the present Government are doing is carrying out the plans of the late Government, arranged probably by himself, which promise that certain portions of these buildings shall be completed and no more. Here we are wasting time on a matter with regard to which no proposal has been made. The hon. Baronet has not proposed, and cannot propose, that an additional sum should be asked for this purpose. The hon. Baronet quoted an Act of Parliament, and the hon. Member for South Tyrone got up and repeated that Act of Parliament over and over again.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Nothing of the kind.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: We have spent over an hour this time, and I must therefore protest against time, of which we have so little now, being taken up with these discussions when no additional money can be obtained at the present time.
    SIR J. GORST: I hope these Estimates will be discussed quite irrespective of Party considerations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that in the last Session of the last Parliament the whole of these Estimates were most indecently passed through this House without any discussion whatever. An abortive attempt was made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) to raise discussions, but the hon. Member was snuffed out by his Party—they were so anxious to get to the General Election. We are not in any particular hurry now, and we ought to have legitimate debate on the Estimates. I admit that this item has occupied a long time—["Hear, hear!"]—but Members of the Government must remember that there are Members who have not had for a long time the opportunity of bringing to account the Executive Government, either the present or the past. I hope

    147
    hon. Members will not be prohibited from doing their duty to their constituents, but will make such observations and ask such explanations from the Government as they are entitled to.
    Mr. J. Morley Mr. J. Morley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Original Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 57.—(Division List, No. 292.)
    Original Question put accordingly.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 55.—(Division List, No. 293.)
    2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £8,676, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, for Payments under 'The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883,' and 'The Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889.'"
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, there were one or two questions he wanted to ask. The first was in regard to the Galway and Clifden Railway. Would the Midland Railway Company of Ireland be spurred on to hasten these works. He had not been in favour of hurrying on the Midland Company, but now some three or four years had elapsed since the commencement of the railway, and it was time something should be done. With regard to the Tuam and Claremorris Railway, it appeared a sum of money for that railway would probably not be wanted until the 31st March, 1894, but he hoped there would be no delay regarding the opening or completion of it.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLremarked that it was usual for the Chief Secretary for Ireland annually to give a detailed explanation as to the progress that was made with these railways, and he thought that would be a suitable time to have the statement made.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he had an Amendment to this Vote which he intended to move on the ground that under the altered circumstances it was not fair to the people of Great Britain to be asked to go on paying these large sums for light railways in Ireland. He heartily
    148
    supported the late Government in their proposals for the construction of these light railways, because he thought it was an excellent means of opening up and developing the resources of Ireland. Under the present circumstances he felt it was not fair, when they were going to alter the whole position of Ireland, that they should continue to vote these large sums, especially considering that there were many poor districts in England which greatly needed to have their resources developed. He moved to reduce the general Vote by £15,000.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Government are only asking for £8,676.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, then he would move to reduce the Vote by £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,676, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTwas surprised that the hon. Gentleman should seek to break faith even with the Irish people. They were bound to the payment of this money by Parliament. Both items which appeared in the Vote were pledged for this purpose by Parliament. One was pledged under the Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, and then under the Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889, they were obliged to provide a sum each year in the form of an annuity. In respect to the progress made in connection with the light railways in Ireland, he thought he could advance good reasons why he should give that account rather than the Chief Secretary. He (Sir J. T. Hibbert) had at Whitsuntide an opportunity of going over a considerable number of these light railways, and, therefore, he spoke not only of what he had heard from other people, but from the actual experience of his own inspection. Speaking generally, he must say that when these light railways came into actual operation they would perfectly justify the hopes and intentions of the late Government in undertaking the construction of them. Many of them traversed congested districts—districts, he might say, which had had no opportunity of receiving communication and accommodation in times past, and which he thought would be served very well indeed by these new railways. There were something like 12 of these railways,

    149
    and he went over five or six of them. He would take the information that appeared in his Return. The Donegal and Killybegs Line, which was 13 miles in length, had been inspected by the Board of Trade, and opened for passenger traffic a short time ago. The Stranorlar and Glenties Railway, 24 miles in length, would be opened in August, 1894. The Ballina and Killala Railway, eight miles, was opened last year. The Baltimore and Skibbereen, seven and a-half miles, was complete, and had been opened for traffic, as had also the Bantry Extension, two miles. The Downpatrick and Ardglass Railway, eight miles, was completed and opened for traffic some short time ago. The Headford and Kenmare line, 19¾ miles, was opened this month, and on the 15th inst. the Killorglin and Valentia Railway, 26¾ miles, would also be opened. The Westport and Mulrany Railway, 18 miles, and the Achill Extension, eight and a quarter miles, would be opened in January, 1894. With respect to the Achill Extension, he was glad to learn that arrangements had been all but completed with the Midland Railway Company for taking over the line. The Collooney and Claremorris Railway, 47¾ miles, would not be opened before August, 1895, but 43 miles were now up to the formation level. The Galway and Clifden Railway, 49¼ miles, was expected to be open in August, 1894. He agreed that it would be a wise thing if one portion of this railway, which was in an advanced state, could be opened before the remainder of the line was completed. He would do his best to bring pressure to bear on the different companies to push on the completion of these lines. It was important in the interests of the industries of Ireland that they should be completed as rapidly as possible, and no efforts would be spared to try to bring them to an early completion.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: Are not the Railway Companies under a penalty to complete them by the date specified?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTreplied yes, or else they had to make out a very good case before any extension of time was granted them. He did not know that he could add anything more, except to promise that, so far as he could help the matter forward, he should do all he could. He did think that when com-
    150
    pleted these railways would prove of the greatest advantage to Ireland.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked, could the right hon. Gentleman make any statement about the contribution from the baronies, in regard to which he believed he contemplated some change?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, with regard to the contribution of 2 per cent. from the baronies, he was not in a position to give any definite information to the House, and he did not think it would be wise at present to do so. He might say, however, that the Treasury were conferring with the Irish Government as to the proposals the Treasury had made for a commutation of this 2 per cent. They thought that the commutation should be carried out voluntarily, and not compulsorily, and it would certainly relieve the cesspayers of the different baronies from very severe pressure. He hoped, before they met again in the Autumn, to bring forward their proposals, either by Amendment to the Bill of the hon. Member for West Kerry, or by means of a short Bill.
    MR. A. C. MORTONinquired if these Companies responsible for the construction and equipment of the railways did not lose the grant unless they completed their work by a certain time? If not, the whole thing would be an utter absurdity.
    MR. JACKSONexpressed his pleasure at hearing the right hon. Gentleman say the late Government, in their policy with regard to these light railways, would be justified by the results. He was glad to learn that the question with regard to the Achill Railway was now almost definitely settled. He supposed it would be taken over and worked by the Midland and Great Western Railway in conjunction with the Westport and Mulrany Railway. It certainly would prove a very important extension; it would be a great benefit to the people of the district, who would be brought within reach of the markets, and he thought it would prove remunerative to the Railway Company. The hon. Member for Peterborough asked whether the Railway Companies were under penalties to complete the work by the specified dates. The position of the Railway Companies was this: By the Order in Council there was a limited time in which to complete the lines, and

    151
    unless they were able to give very good reason for this, they would be unable to obtain assent to an extension of the time. That in itself would be one of the very gravest penalties, because they would have spent of their own money probably one-third of the total cost, and they could earn nothing whatever on that capital expenditure until they got the line open; therefore, the Railway Companies themselves had the strongest inducement to push on the work. He was very glad to hear the different railways had approached so near to completion, and their experience, so far, had thoroughly justified the late Government in the arrangements they had made.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Baronet the Member for West Kerry (Sir T. Esmonde) had, he understood, intended raising a question, and had risen before the retirement of the Chairman; but he was not now in his place. He (Mr. Russell) wished to say that nothing could be more satisfactory than the statement of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. T. Hibbert) on this matter. It was a clear statement, to which no one could take objection; it was, he would say in the first place, very satisfactory to those who had taken an interest in the light railways—and especially satisfactory was it to those who believed that those railways would be likely to carry out the ideas of their original promoters. They were told that of 13 railways guaranteed, eight were opened—or, at least, eight would be opened within this month—and five were in an unfinished state. Only one line occurred to him to say anything about—the Claremorris, Collooney, and Swinford branch of the Galway and Clifden Railway. The last they heard of it the contractor and the Railway Company were fighting, and matters were brought to a standstill. He would like to know how the work was progressing, and was it progressing at all?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the works had started again.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he was glad. Was there, then, a fair chance of the line being opened in the course of 1895?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that was satisfactory. With regard to the Clifden and Galway line, it was the longest line, and they could not expect that it would be opened very soon; but he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal could be done to the open part of the line. It was most important that the tourist traffic should be developed—the smallest accommodation was important. If 20 miles of the railway was ready for opening, they should be opened. He understood there was a difficulty in the way with regard to a bridge outside Galway.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Corrig?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that was the bridge he referred to. It was near Galway. Why should they not, if there was any difficulty, make a temporary, bridge outside Galway and run on the trains? He understood from a prospectus which he had seen that something had been done towards the development of tourist traffic by Mr. Crossley; and, as the question was of enormous importance to the district, he thought that might be done. If his suggestion were adopted, a great boon would be conferred upon the locality. He was glad that the policy of the late Government was being maintained by the present one. There was one other question which he thought ought to be referred to. It was a very sad subject—that of the calamity which happened on the Dingle Railway. This line was in the constituency of the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Esmonde), and he regretted he was not here to call attention to the matter. It was one of the saddest railway calamities that had happened in Ireland. He would say that it was an accident of a very singular character; and, as far as he could see, it was due to the state of the railway.
    MR. J. MORLEYwas understood to say the inexperience of the driver had something to do with it.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the inexperience of the driver might have had something to do with it; buts in his opinion, it was due in a great degree to the condition of the line.
    MR. KNOXsaid, on a point of Order, he would ask the Chairman whether on 21st July, 1881, Mr. Flynn was speaking on this very Vote, and referring to a matter of this kind—

    153
    the bad condition of a railway—when the Chairman at the time (Mr. Courtney) ruled that the question was not relevant to the Vote, being a matter only in the power of the Railway Company, and under their administration?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I was just about to interrupt the hon. Member for Tyrone. There can be no doubt about the ruling referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Knox). It is necessary for the hon. Member for South Tyrone to bring it home to the Government before he can be considered in Order.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he was going, not upon the general Light Railway Votes, but under Sub-section A, where £2,500 was voted towards the Dingle Railway—
    MR. KNOX MR. KNOX rose, but—
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would allow him to finish. The railway was badly managed, and they were called upon to vote £2,500 towards it. That being so, he thought they were entitled to raise the question on this Vote.
    MR. J. MORLEY, on a point of Order, submitted that the asking for £2,500 did not associate or connect the Government with the management of the line.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is clear, I think, that the Government are not responsible for the administration or management of this railway. The hon. Member is, therefore, out of Order in referring to the matter.
    MR. MACARTNEY: But, Sir—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have ruled the point of Order. It is very inconvenient that Members should rise in this manner after I have ruled a point.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, of course, he would accept the ruling of the Chairman. But he did think it was not a proper thing to prevent discussion; and he was sorry that the Nationalist Members should prevent the discussion of a matter of such importance. On the general policy, therefore, he thought the statement of the hon. Gentleman was exceedingly satisfactory and encouraging; and he was glad that the policy inaugurated by the late Government was being continued by their successors.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he recognised, as other Members did, the satisfactory character of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made to the Committee, as well as the courtesy with which he received observations that came from that (the Opposition) side of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman's example were followed by other right hon. Gentlemen it would expedite the passing of these Votes. He wanted to ask with regard to the Donegal Railway—Stranorlar to Glenties. This line had made very little progress since March last, when the last statement regarding it was made. The right hon. Gentleman then told them that he was not satisfied with the progress made, and that he would do what he could do in the matter. He did not blame him if his efforts had not been successful, because he was sure there were difficulties, and the responsibility must be laid on the contractors. He told them in March that 34½ miles was the length of the line, and that it had progressed to the extent of 17 miles of the foundation level. Since then, he took it, further progress had been made with the foundation level. He did not know whether the progress had been satisfactory; but he desired to know whether the matters referred to in the Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland regarding the line had been settled?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the only other question he had to put was as to the Ardglass line, and the question as to the pier there. Had that question been settled?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that was all he wished to know.
    MR. THORNTONsaid, he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had gone over the Skibbereen line.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No.
    MR. THORNTONsaid, he had gone over that railway, and the people there desired him to express their view that the work was very imperfect for the object that was in view. At Baltimore, where the line ran to, the works were unfinished. It was understood that the original design provided greater facilities for the landing of fish. When the boats came in, the fish had to be

    155
    thrown up and then removed to the railway, generally in a broken condition. This should be remedied by constructing a pier, and it could be done at a comparatively small cost, as the distance was only about 100 yards, and the expenditure would be a very useful one. At present, £56,000 had been expended without attaining the object desired. He believed an additional £7,000 would do all that was required, and if it were done the undertaking would be carried through and made successful. He would say that, looking at the work which was carried on at Baltimore, with its Fishery School, something was owing to the memory of the late Father Davis.
    Several hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
    MR. THORNTONsaid, it was just to the memory of Father Davis, and what he did in that district towards the development of industry, that the line should be placed in a more satisfactory condition. The Baltimore railway promised to improve the fisheries there, and he was sure they would all like to see it completed and made as useful as possible.
    SIR T. LEAwas understood to urge the Government not to starve these Light Railways. In the case of the Donegal and Stranorlar line, which would be of enormous advantage to the chief congested district in the country, he wished to know if it would be connected with the narrow gauge line to Strabane? He also desired to know if there was any prospect of a line being constructed to Falcarragh. It seemed to him it would be a great advantage if they could make the system more complete than it was. Great Britain might object to find the necessary funds for opening up all the congested districts; but for his own part he believed that the expenditure of British capital was due to Ireland in this direction. It was 10 years since he had brought the matter before the Chief Secretary of that day—the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for Scotland—and it had taken the intervening period to get the Government up to the mark. He was thankful to think that they had risen to the crisis they ought to have faced years ago.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERThoped that the Committee would consent to go to a Division on that question so that the next important point may be reached. He agreed with the hon. Member for South Tyrone as to the importance of opening up the district from Cong to Oughterard, and he had made a suggestion to the Railway Company that they should consider the desirability of making such extension. With regard to the Skibbereen Railway, it was a matter for consideration in the future whether the connection referred to should not be completed. No doubt the result of such connection would be very advantageous.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS I.

      CLASS II.
      3. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £23,095, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that on this Vote it was his unfortunate duty to draw attention to the first of a long series of pluralists who appeared on the Estimates. There were 12 pluralists on this Vote, and by pluralists he meant persons holding two or more places and receiving salaries from two or more sources. The Lord Chancellor was the first and worst pluralist of them all, and therefore he moved to reduce the Vote by the amount of £4,000—his salary as Speaker of the House of Lords. In addition to this £4,000 on the Estimates the Lord Chancellor received £6,000 a year as President of the Supreme Court of the Chancery Division. The duties of the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords were not to be compared in importance with those of the Speaker of the House of Commons. The noble Lord had not the authority over the House of Lords that the Speaker had over the House of Commons. He was not even addressed by Members of the other House in Debate—a circumstance which he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) mentioned to show the inferiority of the Lord Chancellor's position as compared with that of Mr. Speaker. In addition

      157
      to that the time occupied by the Lord Chancellor in the discharge of his duties as Speaker of the House of Lords was as nothing compared with the time occupied by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Neither was the strain, mentally and physically, upon the one in any way comparable with that on the other. When they considered the relatively small importance of the duties performed in the House of Lords and the importance of the issues raised in the House of Commons, and practically decided there, and when they considered the large number of gentlemen on the Benches opposite who paid no attention to the decisions of the House of Lords, it must be apparent that the position of Speaker of the House of Lords was in no way comparable with that of the Speaker of the House of Commons. The salary of the Speaker of the House of Commons was placed on the Consolidated Fund to show that he was far removed from all Party affection and Party consideration—that he was, in fact, as said by Mr. Speaker Lenthall, the eyes and ears of the House. Could that he said of the Speaker of the House of Lords? They knew how the Speaker of the House of Lords was chosen. He had never known of one being appointed except for serious and considerable Party services, or services believed to be such. He had another grievance against the Lord Chancellor—the most serious grievance of all—and it was that he was a lawyer, one of those about whom Junius said—
      "As to lawyers, their profession is supported by the indiscriminate defence of right and wrong."
      It seemed to him (Mr. Gibson Bowles) that a long course of the indiscriminate defence of right and wrong was not a good preparation for the post of Speaker of the House of Lords. Apart from the dignity of the office and from the fact that the duties of the office were far less onerous than those of Speaker of the House of Commons, it behoved the Committee to consider the kind of man they were certain to get as a lawyer, and to take that into consideration in reckoning the salary. There never had been in living memory a Lord Chancellor who had given satisfaction who had not been accused of jobbery—
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: Name one.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: All of them. Under the last Government never a day passed without an attack being made in the Radical Press on the eminent person who filled the position of Lord Chancellor—
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the duties of Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On the point of Order, am I to understand that in moving a reduction of the salary of the Lord Chancellor I am debarred from dealing with the noble Lord in his capacity as Lord Chancellor?
      THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly; there is no doubt about it.
      MR. HANBURY: Take the next item, the Sergeant-at-Arms in Attendance upon the Lord Chancellor. Cannot we discuss that except when the Sergeant-at-Arms is in attendance upon the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords?
      THE CHAIRMAN: No; there is no question on this point.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he bowed to the Chairman's ruling; but he failed to see how he could deal with the question of the Lord Chancellor being a pluralist if he was compelled to deal with him as two entities, unless he could deal with him both as Lord Chancellor and Speaker of the House of Lords.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he understood that the Lord Chancellor received £6,000 salary as President of the Supreme Court and of the Chancery Division, that being purely for judicial duties. On that he would ask whether it was possible to discuss anything else besides the noble Lord's duties as President of the Supreme Court—patronage for instance?
      THE CHAIRMAN: No; because patronage belongs to the Lord Chancellor as Lord Chancellor, and not us Speaker. The Lord Chancellor has a double capacity, and the capacity before the Committee is that as Speaker of the House of Lords.
      MR. TOMLINSON: As a point of Order, is the ecclesiastical patronage belonging to the Lord Chancellor exercised as President of the Chancery Division?
      THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly not as Speaker of the House of Lords.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether he was to understand that he could not discuss the messengers of the Lord Chancellor, because the Lord Chancellor did not exist in this Vote? He submitted that he was warranted in calling attention to the fact that the Lord Chancellor received these two salaries in his different capacities. He thought his salary of £4,000 as Speaker of the House of Lords was too large. The Lord Chancellor had been constantly denounced in the Press as "The Lord High Jobber"—
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is distinctly out of Order in these references.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will you allow me to conclude my sentence—denounced as a jobber in connection with the exercise of his patronage as Speaker of the House of Lords and not as Lord Chancellor. [Cries of "Order!"] He had a perfect right to refer to that.
      THE CHAIRMAN: But, as Speaker of the House of Lords, I do not think the Lord Chancellor exercises patronage.
      MR. HANBURY: Oh yes; in regard to the Clerks at the Table.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that history would bear out his statement that the Lord Chancellor had been accused of being a jobber. He thought that the Committee should put an end to one of the two salaries of the Lord Chancellor. He would move to reduce the Vote by £4,000.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £4,000."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he should like to make this remark in behalf of what had been said by his hon. Friend indirectly—that there appeared to be some misapprehension as to the amount of patronage that the Lord Chancellor had at his disposal as Speaker of the House of Lords. Judging from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, the Lord Chancellor, as Speaker of the House of Lords, had a considerable number of officers in that House at his disposal. He appointed the Clerks at the Table with the exception of the Clerk of Parliaments. Therefore, the hon. Member for King's Lynn was quite entitled to point out that if the Lord Chancellor wished to job he had it in his power to do so. He thought hon. Mem-
      160
      bers opposite were inclined to be a little ashamed of the accusations they made against the late Lord Chancellor. The Liberal Press had teemed with accusations against the late "Lord High Jobber," as he was called. ["Order!"]
      MR. WADDY MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg) rose to Order, and asked what on earth they had to do with the character of the late Lord Chancellor?
      THE CHAIRMAN: No; it is not in Order. We are restricted here to the salary of the Speaker of the House of Lords.
      MR. HANBURY: I have pointed out that the Speaker of the House of Lords has patronage, and it was in connection with patronage that the late Lord Chancellor was accused—
      MR. WADDY: I ask, again, if the hon. Member is in Order in referring to the late Lord Chancellor?
      THE CHAIRMAN: No; he is not in the Vote at all.
      MR. A. C. MORTONasked if the late Lord Chancellor could not be referred to for purposes of illustration?
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that these references were clearly out of Order.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, that his object in rising was to protect the present Speaker of the House of Lords from the gross insults that were hurled against the late Lord Chancellor by the Liberal Party. [Cries of "Order!"]
      Ms. H. H. FOWLER: I rise to Order. What right has the hon. Member to charge Members on this side of the House with hurling insults against the late Lord Chancellor? [Cries of "Order!"]
      THE CHAIRMAN: The President of the Local Government Board is entitled to rise to Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Preston will have regard to the orderly conduct of Debate. Whatever his motive may be in persisting in these references, I would point out that no charge whatever has been made against the present Lord Chancellor, and the only question before the Committee is that of his salary as Speaker of the House of Lords.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, the House had a right to protect everybody to whom it paid these large salaries from the violent insults often directed against them. [Cries of "Order!"] He was perfectly in Order, and was not going to be put

      161
      down by the President of the Local Government Board.
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: I rise to Order. The question is as to the salary of the present holder of the Office of Speaker of the House of Lords. I venture to say that this House has no right to discuss the conduct of any previous Lord Chancellor, whether for good or for evil. I say that all that the Committee is entitled to do is to discuss the administrative action of Lord Herschell
      SIR J.FERGUSSON: I would ask whether it can possibly be out of Order for the hon. Member to deprecate the holding of more than one Office by the Lord Chancellor on the ground that the tenure of such Office has previously been made a cause of attack?
      THE CHAIRMAN: That is not the ground taken up by the hon. Member. As I pointed out, he was out of Order in referring to the late Lord Chancellor in connection with this matter. The only question before the Committee is the position of the present Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, it was exactly Lord Herschell's position as Speaker of the House of Lords that he was endeavouring to support. ["Oh!"] He was deprecating any treatment of the noble Lord as Speaker of the House of Lords by any Party in the House similar to the treatment to which the late Speaker of the House of Lords had been subjected. ["Oh!"] He was glad to see that the Gladstonian Party were thoroughly ashamed of their attacks. [Cries of "Order!"] He was not going to submit to these interruptions.
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: I ask whether the hon. Member for Preston is to defy the Chair in the way he is deliberately doing?
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is distinctly out of Order, and I must request him to discontinue his observations.
      MR. TOMLINSON: On the point of Order—
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I cannot permit this. When I have ruled an hon. Member out of Order somebody else rises and raises the same point in a different form.
      MR. SEXTON: As to a point of Order, does not the Standing Order empower the Chair to direct an hon. Member who defies the ruling of the Chair to withdraw?
      THE CHAIRMAN: There is no question about that. But the hon. Member has submitted to my ruling, therefore there is an end of the matter.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTwas sorry the hon. Member for King's Lynn had thought it necessary to use strong expressions in connection with the Office of Lord Chancellor.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I was defending the Lord Chancellor.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am sorry he should have used strong epithets—
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I was provoked by the denial of the President of the Local Government Board.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he thought they ought to discuss these things in a reasonable frame of mind, and not throw stones at either the late or the present Lord Chancellor. The salary of the Speaker of the House of Lords had been fixed at £4,000 a year so long ago as 1832; therefore, for 60 years it had been paid, sometimes by a Conservative and sometimes by a Liberal Government, and yet he did not suppose that it had ever been called in question before. The hon. Member for King's Lynn was a new Member, and, to that extent, was justified in going into these matters. But however objectionable the system of holding a plurality of appointments might be, he did not think it would be said of the Offices of Speaker of the House of Lords and Lord Chancellor. The Speaker of the House of Lords stood in a peculiar position. He had not the powers possessed by the Speaker of the House of Commons; but, at the same time, the condition of things which now prevailed had continued for 60 years. Unless there was some real grievance—any objection upon which anyone could put his finger—it was not a wise thing to raise these questions in Committee of Supply. He, for one, should certainly oppose the proposal.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he thought it desirable to raise this question of pluralism, especially in the case of this most notorious and remarkable pluralist the Lord Chancellor. As to the

      163
      present arrangement having continued since 1832, he should think that, in the minds of hon. Members opposite, that was a good argument for making the change now. In 1832 there was a larger proportion of work in the House of Lords than at present, and a less proportion of work in the Commons. He had no desire to press his Amendment, however. He was satisfied with having raised the question, and perhaps some day when they had a real Radical Government in power, and not a sham one, these salaries of the Lord Chancellor would be brought down to proper proportions, or one of them would be done away with. He would withdraw the Amendment.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished to move to reduce the salary of the messenger to the Crown Office and the messenger to the Lord Chancellor, but after what had occurred he was doubtful whether he could do it, for he understood that the Lord Chancellor was not on the Vote. He could not conceive how the Lord Chancellor could have this messenger if he was not on the Vote.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: He has the messenger as Speaker of the House of Lords.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No; it is not as Speaker, but as Lord Chancellor, according to the Estimates. It certainly is not as President of the Supreme Court of Chancery—
      THE CHAIRMAN (interrupting): It is out of Order to do indirectly what cannot be done directly. The position of the Lord Chancellor cannot be discussed on this item.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished to move to reduce the Vote by £84 for the messenger of the Lord Chancellor, who did not exist in the Vote. If this messenger was attached to the Speaker of the House of Lords it would be a different thing.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £45."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
      SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he did not think-this was a question on which
      164
      they should spend much time. If the hon. Member wished to strike out the salary of the messenger of the Lord Chancellor they had better at once have a Division upon the question. He moved that the Question be now put.
      Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
      Question, "That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by £45," put accordingly, and negatived.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he desired to call attention to the disproportion that existed between the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords as compared with the salaries of the officers of the House of Commons for precisely similar work, or, he should say, for a great deal less work. He was one of those Tories who, while he thought that this branch of the Constitution, which some people looked on as anomalous, ought to be maintained, at the same time thought they ought, as far as possible, to relieve it of many excrescences which deprived it of its value. The House of Lords, with regard to the salaries of its officials, stood in an unfavourable position. Though the officials of the House of Lords did less work than the officials of the House of Commons, their salaries averaged at least 30 per cent. more. Take the case of the Clerk of the Parliaments. He received £2,500 a year, whilst the Clerk to the House of Commons received £2,000, or £500 less. The Clerk to the House of Commons had a residence in the House of Commons, but the Clerk of the Parliaments had another £500 in lieu of a house. That the work of the Clerk of the House of Commons was much more important than that of the other official was demonstrated by the fact that it was deemed necessary for the former .to reside here, but not for the latter. With regard to the officials of the House of Lords, he had to complain that they were all pluralists or drew salaries "personal to the holder." These were two points in the Estimates which he, for one, was prepared to fight from beginning to end. If a salary was good enough for one man it was good enough for another. There were, he believed, 32 officials on the establishment of the

      165
      House of Lords, and no less than 27 of those had asterisks or other marks against their names, showing that they were either pluralists or had salaries personal to them as present holders of the Office. The Clerk Assistant in the House of Lords received £1,200 a year, and the Clerk Assistant of the House of Commons received only £1,000 a year. Take the case of the senior clerks. In every individual instance in the House of Lords, they started at higher salaries than in the House of Commons. All the senior clerks in the House of Commons started at the initial salary of £650; but every clerk in the House of Lords started at £50 higher—namely, at from £700—which was the lowest—to £850. Nearly every one of them, also, for no special reason that he could see, had an extra £150 a year. In one case the extra allowances amounted to £350 a year, and in another case to £450 a year. There were in the House of Lords 12 junior clerks—and all these clerks did the same kind of work as that performed by the clerks in the House of Commons, only much less of it—and the number of junior clerks in the House of Commons was 23. They started at a minimum salary of £100 a year in the House of Commons, and the 23 in that House received only £200 a year more than the 11 in the House of Lords, the total figures being £6,250 and £6,450. It was monstrous that there should be that difference—a difference which ran all the way through the list from the Clerk of the Parliaments to the messengers. The messengers in the House of Lords rose to £170, while in the House of Commons they only rose to £150, the bulk of them receiving £120 per annum. Why there should be this difference he was at a loss to imagine, particularly as the work was a great deal less. Salaries ought to be paid according to the work that the recipients performed, and it ought to be possible to point to the House of Lords as an example in this respect. If the House of Lords did not set an example, how could they expect other Departments of the Civil Service to attend to the matter. The House of Commons was bad enough, but the House of Lords set a shocking example. He was aware that they could not disturb the holders of these offices, but now that they had a Radical Government in power, he
      166
      thought that there ought to be some security that when new appointments were made the holders should be paid on a lower scale than the present. They had had Committees inquiring into this matter. He found that one sat in 1889, and brought in two Reports. Would the House believe it, that the whole of the first Report was that the salaries of four housemaids should be reduced to 10s. per week? That was the beginning and the end, and the sum total of the whole of the Report, and in order to carry out that revolutionary proceeding the Committee had to support itself by the Report of the previous Committee which had similarly dealt with 12 housemaids. The language they concluded with sounded strange and mysterious—
      "The scheme of the Lord Great Chamberlain that was, as to the reduction of salaries) has been found to give a better security for the Palace of Westminster, and for the maintenance of order and regularity therein."
      Another matter on which he felt strongly was the number of official residences. There were a great deal too many of them, and they did not know where the expense began and ended. The House of Lords was a notorious offender in this respect. The House of Commons was an offender, but nothing to be compared with the House of Lords. There was in the House of Lords an official called the Black Rod. He was a distinguished Admiral who did not do his work. He had an official residence valued at £500 a year, he drew a salary of £2,000 a year, and he got full Admiral's retired pay. He received fees in addition as an officer of the Garter. Well, when the House of Commons had to be summoned to the House of Lords, Black Rod, who was the proper person to do the summoning, sent to them an official called "The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod," who got £300 a year for doing Black Rod's work. He (Mr. Hanbury) was not sure that it was not proper for the dignity of the House of Commons to have the right official to summon them. At any rate, the officials of the House of Lords ought to come under the Rules and Regulations which bound other Departments of the Government. There was a Rule that men in the Public Service should retire at the age of 65. If Black Rod was over 65, then he ought to retire. If he

      167
      was under 65, he ought to come and do his work, and not employ a deputy to do it for him. There were other official residences in the House of Lords. The Librarian had an official residence, but the Librarian in the House of Commons had not. The Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain had a house—why on earth he could not conceive. Why should such a functionary as that occupy space in this building when they all knew that space was very much wanted here? Similiarly the resident Superintendent had a house in the House of Lords. He (Mr. Hanbury) held that these residences ought to be done away with altogether, and that, if necessary, residence salary should be substituted. That would be found economical in the long run. The House of Commons voted these moneys, and the House of Commons ought to have control over the officials in the House of Lords as well as in the House of Commons. At present the regulating Act was 5 Geo. IV., chap. 82—au Act for the Better Regulating of the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments. What was the reason the House of Lords officials were not regulated by the ordinary rules that covered Civil Departments? They were under a special Act of their own. There was no limit as to age. A man might be appointed to a position at any age. There was no qualification for a clerkship in the House of Lords. They should insist upon the ordinary qualifications—that was, they should insist upon the person to be appointed having a Civil Service certificate. Then, again, there should be equality as between clerks of the House of Lords and the Civil Service clerks. That was not the case at present. Then he came to the bargain struck with the Lords as to fees. In return for the Commons voting the salaries the Lords handed over certain fees. It had been a standing rule of the Civil Service for years that these fees should be treated as appropriated in aid, and he did not understand how it was that the same rule did not apply to the House of Lords as applied to the ordinary Departments. But, as a matter of fact, the Lords did not hand over all the fees, for the pensions were to a large extent paid out of them. The manner in which the fees were dealt with, and in which they might be dealt with, was such that it was perfectly
      168
      ridiculous to say they got any quid pro quo. The expenses of the House of Lords reached £100,000 annually, and they only got £25,000 back, leaving £75,000. This was a question that ought to be dealt with. They in the House of Commons had set a better example in regard to their own clerks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed himself very favourably to the view he (Mr. Hanbury) now took, and he hoped he would have him on his side in these matters when they came up. He would urge that the two Houses of Parliament ought to set a good example in all respects connected with their officials, and both Houses should be put on the same footing as other Civil Departments. He moved to reduce the Vote by £500.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C, Salaries, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had not looked fairly at both sides of the question. He had looked only at one side; but he might have drawn attention to the other. He sympathised with the hon. Member in many of the remarks he made on the subject of economy, but he certainly could not agree with him in the opinion that the House of Lords had done nothing in that direction with regard to the salaries and charges of its officials. In 1889 a Committee went fully into the question of the salaries, pensions, and other expenses connected with the House of Lords, and that Committee, whose Report had been laid before both Houses, recommended changes and reductions in the salaries, &c, which, if carried out, would effect a saving of £6,874.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, there were two Reports. The second one only made recommendations.
      SIR .J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the second Report was adopted by the House of Lords, and the recommendations made had, so far, been acted upon that up to the present a saving of £2,304 a year had been effected. Reductions were being effected as vacancies occurred; sooner was impossible, because of vested interests. The figures were:—Serjeant-at-Arms, including Deputy (£250)—present, £1,500; future, £1,250; saving, £250. Clerk of the Parliaments—present, £3,000; future, £2,000;

      169
      saving, £1,000. Clerk Assistant, £2,100 present salary; future, £1,500; saving £600. Chief Clerk—present, £1,200; this remained as at present. Then they had two junior Clerks at £700, to be abolished; accountants to be reduced from £1,030 to £600; Black Rod, reduction from £2,000 to £1,000; Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain and Yeoman Usher, £1,200 to £500—reduction of £700; Doorkeepers, &c, £3,075 to £2,500—reduction of £575; housekeeping, £783 to £364—reduction, £419. Of these the following had been effected to date, vacancies having permitted:—Clerk Assistant, £2,100 to £1,500, reduction £600; allowance of a senior clerk, £150 saved; one junior clerk reduced, saving £350; accountants, £600, reduction' of £430; Yeoman Usher of Black Rod, £1,000, reduction of £700; housekeeping, £783 to £709, a reduction of £74. The total was, as he had said, £2,304. The points of attack might be summarised thus:—(a) absence of age-retirement rule; (b) independent treatment of pensions; (c) patronage; (d) general expensiveness. As to the first point, the Public Accounts Committee in their third Report expressed the hope
      "That the authorities charged with the regulation of the offices of both Houses will consider the question how far they can be assimilated to other Public Departments by the adoption of the principle of compulsory retirement as laid down by the 17th clause of the Order in Council of the 15th August, 1890.'
      This paragraph would be communicated officially by the Treasury to the authorities of the House, and it was to be hoped that those authorities would see their way to adopt the recommendations so temperately, but distinctly, expressed by the Committee. It was only fair to give the House of Lords an opportunity of dealing with the matter themselves before the House of Commons moved in regard to it. There was no immediate hurry, as it appeared that there was no member of the House of Lords staff not holding a Patent Office to which the rule would apply. It was, doubtless, an anomaly that the Lords' pensions should not only be fixed by the Lords, but paid out of a fund not voted by Parliament. In the former respect they were like the Commons, but the Commons' pensions were paid from the Superannuation Vote
      170
      in the usual manner. The only practical difference between the two cases was that the particulars of the Lords' pensions were not published, except that a list of names and amounts was given in the account of the Lords' Fee Fund annually laid before the House of Commons. The Clerk of Parliaments stated that all the pensions had been granted under the terms, and on the scale, of the Superannuation Act of 1859, except one, of whom the service extended over 49 years, and the case was treated as under an earlier Act. The Lords might agree, without derogation of their position, to put their pensions on the Superannuation Vote. Again, the principal officers of the Lords were appointed, like the permanent officers of Public Departments and those of the House of Commons, by nomination of the Crown or of Ministers. The Lords' officers, however, held office in several cases by Patent—again like the permanent officers of the House of Commons. It might be fairly questioned whether they should not in the future hold office, like ordinary Civil servants, during pleasure, but this change could only be introduced as changes arose, and would probably require legislation. As regarded the clerical establishment, it was true that, as in the Commons, these officers were in form nominated by the Clerk of the Parliaments, on whom this disagreeable duty was imposed by Statute or by his Patent. But successive Clerks of Parliament had minimised this responsibility by arranging for a limited competition for each vacancy, the number nominated on each occasion being at present six—sufficient to secure effective competition. Whether open competition would be an improvement on this plan was a matter for consideration. All the staff of the House of Lords, with the usual exception of those in Patent Offices, held Civil Service certificates. On the last point, that of salaries, he had already replied. He thought the questions raised should be considered in a fair and reasonable spirit, and that the House should not adopt in haste the view taken by the hon. Member.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he need not follow the hon. Member for Preston at any length, but he would gladly support the hon. Member's Amendment. He (Mr.

      171
      Morton) had on several occasions raised this question. His opinion was that the Committee should have the courage to reduce the Vote in order to impress upon the House of Lords the fact that the money voted belonged to the ratepayers of the country, and ought, consequently, to be economically expended. He objected to reducing the wages of labourers and servant maids (as was the custom of our Government) and refusing to reduce the salaries of the highly-paid officers who did the least work. If these extravagant salaries were to be paid to the officers of the other House, it would be necessary to reconsider the salaries of the officers of this House with a view to increasing them. His view was that the fees should not be dealt with as at present. A very large sum was spent in pensions. That was not fair. If these matters were to go on as at present, they would have to consider the position of the officers of the House of Commons, because they did tea times more work than those of the Lords and were not half as well treated. He hoped the reduction of the Vote would be carried.
      MR. JACKSONsaid, he could not allow the Vote to pass without one remark. It seemed to be taken as surprising that the anxiety for economy should be confined to one side of the House; but before this discussion arose at all the idea of economy had been acted upon by others than those of the other side.
      MR. A. C. MORTON: Do you mean the House?
      MR. JACKSONsaid, the hon. Member was not listening to what he was saying. He believed that the Treasury officials always did their best to secure economy with efficiency.
      MR. A. C. MORTON: No!
      MR. JACKSONsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member should not think so. He believed that these matters should be managed as they were in ordinary private firms, so that injustice should not be done to the men themselves.
      MR. A. C. MORTON: Subject to a quarter's notice.
      MR. JACKSONsaid, that would be a part of the contract, and, therefore, their part would be no injustice. But if a man was engaged otherwise, he believed his right ought to be respected. He ventured to say that if these salaries
      172
      were compared by any impartial person with the salaries paid in the House of Commons, it would be found that they were very reasonable salaries for the amount of work done, and they had had the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury that as vacancies arose every one of the economies recommended by the Committee would be brought into operation. Members of the Government who were brought into contact with those officers must bear testimony to their willingness at all times to combine efficiency with economy. While he was at the Treasury he never had the slightest-difficulty with those officers. He had! always met with, on their part, the greatest readiness to do everything possible to bring the appointments in the House of Lords into line with the appointments of the House of Commons, and effect economy in every possible way.
      MR. BARROWsaid, the hon. Member for Preston had stated that 12 clerks in the House of Lords had a gross salary of £200 or £300 more than 23 clerks in the House of Commons. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what comparison these salaries would have to-each other when the proposed economies, were effected?
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, it was refreshing to hear speeches in favour of economy from the other side of the House. He had always believed that it was possible to find a few honest Radicals who were in favour of economy, and he was glad to find proof on this occasion that he was right. Everybody had admitted that the salaries of the House of Lords were considerably greater than those of corresponding offices in the House of Commons, and nobody had disputed the fact—not even the Olympians of the Front Benches—that these salaries were greater than they ought to be. The only answer that had been given by the Government was that a Committee appointed in 1889 had recommended certain reductions, and that in course of time those reductions would be effected. But these reductions were always postponed, and he would remind the Government in the words of the poet that "reduction deferred maketh the heart sick." It was to be hoped that the reductions would not be long deferred. He sug-

      173
      gested that the Secretary to the Treasury should, with that severe air which he could so well command, inform the proper authorities that the House of Commons would not be trifled with any longer; that it would insist on the clerkships of the House of Lords being reduced to a proper level; that it wished for some immediate result, instead of being told that if they waited for a few years the reductions would come. But, above all, let the Secretary to the Treasury assume his very severest air and tell the authorities that they had no right whatever to presume to withdraw these clerks from the ordinary rules governing the ordinary Civil servants; to claim that they were something above and beyond ordinary Civil servants, that they could retire then at any time, and confer upon them any pension they pleased. If the Committee did not get some assurance that these things were not stopped there would be trouble on the Estimates next year. The Committee had also been told that a large number of these gentlemen in the House of Lords had official residences. If a decayed officer, or the reduced widow of a decayed officer, were accommodated with apartments in any of the Royal Palaces of this country, they were made to pay rates on the rooms they occupied. The gentlemen who lived in the Royal Palace of Westminster were not decayed; they were not even widows; they were persons in the enjoyment of robust health and large salaries, and they ought, therefore, to be made to pay rates.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I do not think they pay rates.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Why not?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot tell.
      MR. WHITTAKERsaid, it seemed to him that these positions and salaries were a scandal. The continuance of them was a scandal, and could not be justified. The Secretary to the Treasury could not say that it was a matter of honour to continue a scandal. If they desired to have economy in the administration of State affairs they must commence in this very building, and so set an example for the rest of the Kingdom to follow. He hoped the Government, as representing the Radical Party, would take the matter
      174
      in hand. It was most disgraceful to find officers of Parliament drawing salaries for doing nothing. The Radicals through the country would never stand the continuance of such a system, and the sooner it was brought to an end the better.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought every Radical in the House had reason to be thankful to the hon. Member who had raised this question; and though he thought the Secretary to the Treasury the most courteous and able of officers, those who were in favour of a policy of economy had reason to be dissatisfied with the answer he had given to the hon. Member for Preston. He himself was in favour of the general principle of treating public servants with as much consideration as possible. He was in favour of economy, but he was also in favour of the kind and fair treatment of all servants of the Public Departments. What he thought would strike everyone as curious was that whilst they had been discussing recently the question of the dismissal of dockyard servants, the Secretary to the Treasury did not get up and make the statement that a man once employed in the dockyards was entitled to be employed there for the rest of his days. He admitted the general principle that a considerable amount of consideration should be shown to the employés of the Government; but he was unable to see the reason for the radical difference between the treatment given to the higher officers and the treatment given to the poorer officers.
      MR. JACKSON: There is no difference according to contract.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not see the meaning of that interruption. There was no exposed contract that these high officers should be employed for life, though that might be implied, and there was no exposed contract that men employed in the dockyards should be employed for life, and that being so he could not see how the authorities were entitled to drive away, without a week's or even a day's notice, a dockyard employé who had perhaps a wife and seven or eight children dependent upon him, while these high officials were retained for life at salaries which were double what they were fairly entitled to. This question of the high salaries of the officials of the House of Lords had been

      175
      before the Commons for years. He had raised it himself nine or ten years ago. It was a question that should be raised year after year until the remedy was obtained, and he thought it was a reproach to the Radicals that on this occasion the initiative should have been left to a Conservative Member. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds had told them the Clerk of Parliaments got £2,500 a year. As he understood it, the Clerk of Parliaments in another place occupied the same position as the Chief Clerk in the House of Commons; but to compare, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, the duties of the Clerk of the Upper House, which sat on an average one hour each day a certain portion of the year, with the onerous and laborious duties of the Chief Clerk of this House, which sat each day from 3 o'clock till 12 o'clock, and sometimes till 3 o'clock in the morning, was grotesque and absurd. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the most successful business men in York, but if he had conducted his business on the principle which he applied to public servants it would not be long before he was in the Bankruptcy Court.
      MR. JACKSON: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. He is in error in saying that I said that what the House of Lords are at present paying is earned by these clerks. What I said was that if the salaries suggested by the Committee, and which are to be put into operation according as vacancies arise, were impartially considered they would be deemed fair for the work to be done.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had deviated somewhat from his original statement. It was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman had said what he repeated now, but it was also true that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the gentlemen who filled these offices did not get more than they were entitled to. But he would not enter into a discussion on that point. This question came home to the House of Commons in another way. There was a complaint made against this Assembly which was unknown in reference to any other Assembly of the kind in the world, that it was absolutely without adequate accommodation for its Members. Members had not sufficient seats on the floor
      176
      of the House. At certain periods during the Session it was as much as a man's life was worth to fight his way into the House. The explanation was that there were no less than five officers of the House of Lords accommodated with residences in the Palace, thereby occupying the space that should be devoted to the uses of Members of the House of Commons. Then, again, 12 clerks of the House of Lords, with much less work, received larger salaries than 23 clerks of the House of Commons. That was a most scandalous state of affairs; it was high time for the House to deal with it; and he certainly would support the hon. Member for Preston in the Division Lobby.
      MR. WADDYsaid, that on several occasions in recent years, he, in common with others, when he sat in Opposition, felt it incumbent on him to criticise these salaries and to vote against them. He did not think that one's attitude on this question was altered by the fact that he sat on a different side of the House, and he therefore felt bound to support the Motion. He did not agree with the theory suggested by the Secretary to the Treasury that they were to wait until the deaths of the various incumbents of these various offices before they made the alterations which were admitted to be reasonable and proper. If it so happened that by some reason or other some years ago these people came into the possession of offices to which they were not entitled, they ought to thank God that they had been left to the enjoyment of them so long, and give them up now. It was most unreasonable that the House should go on paying these men salaries which they believed to be wrong. It was not business; it was not common sense. If a gentleman retired from a high position, having, as in the case of the gentleman who filled the office of Black Rod, earned the respect and esteem of those best calculated to judge of his character, it did not follow that he should be paid a big salary for doing in Parliament, not figuratively but absolutely, nothing at all. If Members met that gentleman in the Lobby they would not know him. He was away from the place, and he got his duties discharged by somebody for £300 a year.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, Order! That salary does not come under this sub-head.
      MR. WADDYsaid, he would conclude by saying that he would vote for the Amendment before the Committee.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Jackson) was under some misapprehension as to the terms under which the Clerks of the House of Lords served. The Public Accounts Committee which sat last year had the Clerks of Parliament before them, and in their Report they said—
      "The Clerk of Parliaments was appointed by the Crown, and is removable by an Address from the House of Lords. The Clerks at the Table were appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and are only removable by Order of the House. All the other Clerks attached to the Office of the Clerk of Parliaments are appointed by that officer, and are removable at pleasure by him."
      The Clerk of Parliaments himself in his evidence said—
      "My own appointment is for life; the other two clerks are for life, but all the other clerks are removable at pleasure."
      Therefore, these clerks were under a totally different position from the clerks in the Civil Service.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 95.—(Division List, No. 294.)
      SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Committee has just had a very remarkable Division, and before we part with this Vote we might ask the Government what course they intend to take. It is all very well for a Committee of the House of Commons by a Vote to reduce this Estimate by £500. No doubt we have the power to say what money should be granted for the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords, but it is quite another thing whether the Vote will have any practical effect. The Committee ought to remember that the House of Commons is not omnipotent in this matter. The House of Lords are in receipt of their fees, which amount to a very large annual sum, just as this House is in receipt of its fees. All these fees are now paid into the Exchequer, not by statute, but simply by arrangement, and I venture to say that if sufficient pro-
      178
      vision should not, in the estimation of the House of Lords, be made for the salaries of its officers it would be legally in the power of that House to do as it likes with its own fees. [Cries of "Oh!"] I am not suggesting that course, but I am merely stating what I believe to be the law of the case, and I would point out that the matter is one of considerable delicacy as between the two Houses, and that any incautious action would lead to difficulties between them, which I do not think any thoughtful person "would wish to see raised upon such a question as this. It is one thing to hold that the House of Lords ought to be put an end to. [Loud Ministerial cheers."] Hon. Members may cheer that sentiment, but I think they will find it extremely difficult to give practical effect to it. [Opposition cheers and a voice, "We will see!"] That is not the question at issue. The question at issue is this. The House of Lords exists as part of the Constitution; it must have officers, and they must be paid. [A VOICE: Reasonably.] Yes, reasonably. Under these circumstances, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course he suggests? It may be very desirable to further consider the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, but that question could be considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses and an amicable conclusion arrived at. It seems to me, however, that this matter cannot be allowed to rest upon a mere snap vote of the House of Commons, and I hope we shall have some statement from the Government.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I really thought when the right hon. Gentleman arose and addressed the Government in so alarming and serious a tone he was going to ask whether they considered that the vote imperilled their existence. The real truth is that votes in reference to the House of Lords are not fatal to the existence of the Government. It certainly is a matter which requires a good deal of consideration as to how far effect should be given to a vote of this character. I agree that it ought to be a question of amicable discussion and arrangement between the authorities of the two Houses, but I am not in a position at this instant to make any statement on the subject. I hope, however,

      179
      that when the Vote comes up upon Re-port the Government will be able to state what is to be done.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into account the fact that two leading Conservatives, supported by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Gorst), had gone into the Lobby against the Government, and that he would inform the Members of the other House that the feeling against them was so strong that the Amendment was supported from all parts of the House.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised a question of some Constitutional importance—namely, that the votes in reference to the House of Lords are not fatal to the existence of the Government. That statement implies that the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that the Government may pick and choose between their own Estimates, and that in some instances they would be rather pleased than otherwise if the Committee of that House reject them. This is certainly an entirely new doctrine. Up to now it has always been understood that when the Government lay their Estimates before the House of Commons they do so with a considerable sense of responsibility, and it has been supposed that no Government would lay Estimates before the House which they did not believe were necessary for carrying on the business of the country. I now understand from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government has deliberately put before the House Estimates which they do not feel themselves conscientiously called upon to support. I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend has been led a little astray as to the meaning of the vote which has been given. I undoubtedly sympathise with the idea that the officials of the House of Lords ought not to be paid on a higher scale than those of the House of Commons. But I go beyond that. My opinion is that the Government occupy a very doubtful position, and I do not be-
      180
      live that they any longer enjoy the confidence of the country, and that it is desirable they should be compelled at the earliest possible opportunity to ascertain the feeling of the country on the subject. In these circumstances it is the Constitutional right of the House of Commons to refuse them Supplies, and I gave my vote quite as much upon that ground as upon the merits of the particular Vote. I may say once for all that I cannot feel inclined to place any more money than I can possibly help at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he took a different view from that held by the right hon. Gentleman, and thought that instead of the Government resigning the House of Lords ought to resign.
      Original Question, as amended, "That £22,595 be granted for the said Service," put, and agreed to.
      4. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £33,223, be granted to Her Majesty, to compete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Offices of the House of Commons."
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, there was a feeling among the officials of the House of Commons that they were not paid as they ought to be, and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether or not a Committee might be appointed to consider the subject?
      SIR W. HARCOURTwas understood to say that he had heard no complaints.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESdisclaimed any desire to make an attack upon the Clerks of the House, but he must move to reduce the Vote by £500. The Chief Clerk had a residence and £2,000 a year. He wished to take his house from him, and if he would not give it up he wanted an equivalent part of his salary, £500 a year.
      THE CHAIRMANruled the hon. Member's remarks out of Order.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESurged that it was undesirable the Clerk should have an official residence at all. It was not, he contended, an actual neces-

      181
      sity that the Clerk or the Clerk Assistants should be provided with an official residence at the House. It was a bad thing to live over the shop, to reside with their work, and it would be much more advantageous to health, and conducive to longevity, if the Clerk lived away from the House. He moved to reduce the Vote by £500.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
      MR. A. C. MORTONdid not wish to say anything on this reduction, which he did not understand, but he should take the opportunity of bringing the cases of some of the lower paid officers before the right hon. Gentleman.
      SIR J. GOLDSMIDasked the hon. Gentleman opposite not to press this Motion, which was decidedly against the feeling of the House. He was sure they did not consider the Clerks at the Table, who had a great deal of work to do, were overpaid, and any question of official residences ought to be settled on entirely different principles; moreover, what applied to one should apply to all. He, therefore, begged his hon. Friend not to press this matter.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I also join in the appeal which has just been made by my hon. Friend behind me. I am quite sure that putting a vote of this kind to the House would be extremely distasteful to all sides of the House, who have so much reason to be grateful to the Clerks at the Table for their services and the kindness they exhibit towards us, and especially in a Session where there has been a special strain put upon them—it would be a most ungrateful thing that such a question as this should be put to a vote. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will withdraw it.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, when he was speaking on the subject of the appointments in the House of Lords, one argument he adduced against the existing system was that the salaries were too large, and the other was the irregular system on which the abodes of the clerks in that House were arranged. He thought if they were going to set an example to the Civil Service it ought to
      182
      be set by the House of Commons, and however well the work might be done by the clerks in that House the system upon which they worked was essentially a bad one. Like the clerks in the House of Lords they were exempt from the ordinary Rules of the Civil Service, and the Order in Council recently framed by the Treasury was ignored by them on the ground that they were on a different footing from all the rest of the clerks in the Civil Service. He complained that the Civil Service Commissioners had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the clerks of this House, and all his remarks relative to the system of appointment of clerks in the House of Lords applied to the House of Commons with the exception of salaries, which were much less in this than in the other House. He was aware there was a Commission consisting of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Speaker, and others to regulate the salaries, &c, of the clerks, but practically the whole of the appointments were in the gift of the Principal Clerk at the Table, and he believed every clerk under him held office at his pleasure. The Public Accounts Committee, although they did not express any opinion of what ought to be done in this matter as being outside their functions, indicated that in their opinion the existing arrangements were not to the advantage of the Public Service. Undoubtedly the whole staff of clerks being appointed under a special Act of Parliament had no recognised head; they were subjected to no limit of age for entering and retiring from the service, and were not under the regulation which applied to other branches of the Civil Service. It was ridiculous in these days to have these salaries regulated by a large Commission, who acted ex officio, and had practically no responsibility in the matter. The whole responsibility rested in the House of Commons and with the Speaker of the House, and having condemned the House of Lords staff it was necessary they should look into the organisation of the House of Commons staff.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the hon. Member said that Clerks of the House of Commons were entirely appointed by the Principal Clerk at the Table, without any examination.
      MR. HANBURY: I said he had the right to so appoint them.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he had the right, but he really appointed by nomination. He selected six persons to be examined by the Civil Service Commissioners, and he took their recommendation. Therefore, although it was a matter of grace, the principal Clerk did carry out that principle, and although he was not compelled by Act of Parliament to do it, it was but fair to him to say he had acted upon that principle for years. It was not correct to say that the Clerks of the House were entirely free from all the requirements of the Superannuation Act. All the clerks were placed under the Act and were subject to its conditions. With respect to the Order in Council as to retirement at 65, he must say they were not under that Order. The House of Commons declined to place itself under the Order. He was told, however, by the Speaker of the House of Commons, only a few days ago, that the spirit of the Order was carried out. He might say that this was a matter entirely for the Commission for the management of the House of Commons, which included the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, and the First Lord of the Treasury, together with two of Her Majesty's Judges. If any change were made in the direction suggested by his hon. Friend, it would have to be carried out by legislation, and unless they saw that the spirit of the Rules regulating the other Departments were not carried out, he, for one, did not feel inclined to take any strong action, but to leave it to the Commission, who, he believed, were acting on the principle his hon. Friend desired to see carried out.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not know how the Commission was appointed, what were its duties, how often it met, or whether it had more than an ornamental existence, but he thought it was very peculiar that clerical appointments should be made at the discretion of any individual, even of a gentleman so accomplished as the Clerk of the House, under the supervision of the Speaker, and he intended at the earliest opportunity to move and to press upon the
      184
      House the duty of appointing a Committee to bring the department of the Clerk of the House into conformity with the ordinary rule of the Public Service. Economy was always desirable, but if economy was to be entered upon it ought not to commence in the House of Commons but in the House of Lords. The officers of the House of Lords had lighter duties and higher pay than those of the House of Commons, and until there was some reduction in the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords it would be ridiculous to attack the officers of the House of Commons, whose duties were onerous, delicate, and exacting. He wished to put a question which might have an important bearing upon some future action of his connected with the personal experience he recently had in the House. He wished to ask whether the Clerk or the Clerk's Assistant had any duty cast upon him, or whether he had any right, when the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair, to volunteer advice when the question of the punitive treatment of a Member was under consideration? Was the Clerk under such circumstances entitled to interfere, and suggest and press a course upon the Chairman, or was he, as in the case of the Speaker, only to give advice when he was asked for it? He thought it was extremely desirable that this question should be made clear, because, unless he received an assurance that it was not within the scope of the duty of the Clerk or Assistant Clerk to suggest punitive action, such as the expulsion of a Member by the Chairman, it would be his duty to take the earliest opportunity he could find for testing the opinion of Members upon the circumstances of his expulsion on a recent occasion when the Standing Order was put in force in a manner in which it was never intended to be applied. He had put the question solely in the hope that someone might be able to answer it, and that it might be made clear that no Member in future was likely to be placed in danger of censure or expulsion, because of the unasked and unauthorised intrusion of any Official of the House. Unless it was made clear it was not within the purview and right of the Officials of Parliament, he feared it would be necessary to take some future action?
      SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member has asked a question, and I will endeavour to answer it. I believe the Clerks at the Table are the advisers, and the only advisers to whom the Speaker, if necessary, and the Chairman of Committees can have recourse. I do not believe that any such circumstances really occurred as those the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I am sure that the Clerks faithfully perform their duties, giving such advice as is required either by the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. I hope, under those circumstances, the hon. Member will be satisfied with the assurance and declaration, and will not think it necessary to proceed further in the matter.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that in moving this reduction he wished to disclaim any desire to reduce the salaries of the Clerks of the House, to whom he, like all other Members, had been greatly indebted for their courtesy and assistance, and his reason for moving the reduction was to raise a question which had been ruled out of Order. Every one of his reductions were moved for a set purpose; he had not put down reductions at large, but for a specific and definite purpose. He should have asked leave to withdraw the Motion before had not a discussion sprung up upon a matter of importance, and he would now ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, that before parting from the question, as the Secretary to the Treasury did not appear to be aware of the constitution of this particular Commission, who would state the Members of whom it consisted, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that if any other Department were regulated by any such Commission the House of Commons would be the very first to question it and to put an end to its existence. The Commission that regulated the salaries, emoluments, and retiring allowances of the officials of the House consisted of the Speaker, the Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls, the Attorney
      186
      General, and the Solicitor General for the time being. It was a perfectly ridiculous Commission, and another year he should certainly press the Government of the day to put an end to so absurd a system, and to adopt a system by which they would have the Business of the House of Commons regulated in a manner more akin to that which regulated other Departments.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that if the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) moved for a Committee he would ask him to include in it the officers who were appointed by others than the Chief Clerk, because there were a number of officers of the House who were appointed by others, and he thought the inquiry should be general. But he wished to ask a question in regard to the chaplain of the House. The chaplain received £400 a year. He did not wish to interfere with that; but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would use his influence to get a Nonconformist chaplain appointed to act alternately. He belonged to the Church himself, but he wished to act fairly to his Nonconformist brethren. There were about half and half in the House, and he thought the Nonconformists were entitled to have a chaplain of their own way of thinking at least three days a week. [An hon. MEMBER: And a Roman Catholic] By all means, if they liked. As the salary of the chaplain was paid for out of the taxes of the country, half of which were paid by Nonconformists, they were entitled to share in the benefits. He did not wish to move a reduction; but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the event of a vacancy occurring, to use his influence with the Speaker to get a Nonconformist appointed to act alternately with the Episcopal chaplain.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: One of the difficulties of the House is the large number of questions with which we have to deal, and, to add to those questions, a theological competition with reference to the chaplain would be to increase the difficulties already sufficiently burden-some.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINwished to ask a question about one item in this

      187
      Vote coming under Sub-head E, as to the delivery of Parliamentary Papers. Formerly every Paper that was issued by Order of the House was delivered the next day to every Member of Parliament. He did not say that was an economical system; and it was found that some Members, instead of reading them, indulged in the reprehensible practice of selling them for waste paper, and on that account it was recommended that the number should be greatly reduced, and certain Papers were only sent to Members who applied. He did not object to that, but he wanted to point out that the new principle had been carried to excess. In the early part of the Session certain Papers were issued with regard to finance, and were published by the Government in explanation of the Home Rule Bill. These Papers only consisted of one or two pages, and the total value, if delivered to every Member, could not have amounted to £1 sterling. These Papers were withheld unless special application was made for them. In reply to a question from him, his right hon. Friend undertook to see that they were delivered, and afterwards those Papers were delivered. What he wished to ask was on what principle the delivery of Papers proceeded? In a recent Paper he received he found a notice of a very important Paper which was published annually, which gave very important particulars as to Revenue and Expenditure. That was a short Paper, and would not cost more than a halfpenny to print, and he could not conceive why that should not be forwarded. He understood that many Papers that were of interest were delayed, whilst many that were of no interest to the general body of Members were despatched at the earliest moment. He would be perfectly satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. T. Hibbert) would give him an assurance that he would look into the matter, and that he himself would undertake to have some responsibility in the matter. It was not desirable that the present inconvenience should be stereotyped, and if the right hon. Gentleman gave him an assurance on this point he would not press the matter further.
      MR.CRILLYsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Member for West
      188
      Birmingham. The officials of the House were very courteous and obliging, but he thought better arrangements might be made for the distribution of Papers. From his experience he would say that it would be quite easy to alter the arrangements so as to meet the convenience of Members.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he was also agreed as to the desirability of meeting the views of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in this matter. There were certain Papers that they did not get until late in the day, and he did not think that should be the case, as it caused serious inconvenience to Members. The service of Papers might certainly be better than it was at present.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he only had one complaint to make, and that was that he got a whole pile of Papers which he did not want without asking for them; but, as regards Irish Papers, which he did want, he found that he could not get them without application. Surely there was some remedy for this?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, there was justification for calling attention to this matter; but he would point out that the Rules for the distribution of Parliamentary Papers were laid down by a Committee appointed in 1889. All Votes, Proceedings, and Bills were distributed in the ordinary course, and so were Papers of special interest. He was sure if the hon. Member (Mr. T. W. Russell) intimated the class of Papers that would be of interest to him they would be forwarded. Orders had been given that all financial Papers relating to the Home Rule Bill should be distributed generally.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, all the Government Papers—all Papers presented by the Government—should be despatched as a matter of course.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: All Papers of general interest.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he would mention the Return issued the other day as to the pay of Honorary Colonels. Such Returns as that should be placed in the same category with

      189
      others. [Cries of "Oh"!] Yes; it was a matter he considered of general interest, and should be placed on a like footing or position.
      An hon. MEMBER: In what position?
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, for his part, he thought such Papers were of general interest. He had sent them to the Public Library at Peterborough, and expected them to be filed, so that he could have the use of them for years.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, there was a matter to which he would draw attention, upon which, he thought, hon. Members of all Parties would agree. Few of them would dispute that the expenditure on the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons was inadequate, and that the waiting arrangements were inefficient. He thought in this matter a mistake had been made in the past. A grant of £1,000 was inadequate to provide for the needs of 670 Members. The deficiency arose from the fact that the Kitchen Committee had to deal with a sum which was inadequate to the needs of the House. There were three great necessities. The first was better dining accommodation. The kitchen was wholly inadequate, and a better service room was required, so that the waiters could have a proper place in which to meet the demands made upon them. He did not complain of the refreshment contractor, Mr. Saunders. On the contrary, he said nothing could be more admirable than the manner in which that gentleman met the demands. He did not believe it would be possible to find a man who would attend to matters better than he did—certainly they would not get a man who would do it better at the same salary. But he had serious difficulties to contend with—waiting for the changes in the House and other matters, and he (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) said that under such conditions it was impossible for them to have a proper service. Members of the House were aware that a large number of persons waited in the vicinity of Westminster about 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon in expectation of engagement for their service as waiters. The result was,
      190
      because of the uncertainty and the risks the contractor had to encounter, that the attendance was very unsatisfactory, and Members did not know in what direction to turn. There should be, at least, a permanent staff of 20 or 30 head waiters—men who would know their duties, who would understand the ways of the House and the habits of Members who were accustomed to dine here. He repeated that the difficulties were not to be blamed upon the contractor or upon the waiters. It was the system that was at fault. Another thing was as to the necessity for increased accommodation. He hoped the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would consider this very important question. He believed that in foreign Houses of Legislature the accommodation was 10, and, in some cases, even 20 times as great as here. They did not ask for much. £2,000 or £3,000 would not be a large subsidy when they remembered that Members had to be in attendance very often for 8 or 10 hours. He trusted the Government would give attention to this question.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he thought the Kitchen Department was extremely well conducted, considering that it was a ready-money transaction. He rose, however, to deal with the question of the distribution of Papers, which had been previously referred to, and he hoped the Government would consider that matter with a view to the improvement of the existing system.
      MR. A. C. MORTON: The Kitchen Committee should furnish a balance-sheet. They were entitled to have some statement of gain and loss. A promise was given on the point two years ago, and he would like to know if it were to be fulfilled?
      MR. S. HERBERTsaid, it had been considered by successive Kitchen Committees that it would not be expedient to place before the House a full balance-sheet, which would give rise to discussions upon items. The Members of the Committee ought to be trusted. If the hon. Member (Mr. A. C. Morton) considered it necessary, perhaps there might be a statement made of the turnover.
      MR. A. C. MORTON: Showing losses by bad debts or otherwise?
      MR. S. HERBERTsaid, that it would be exceedingly difficult to show the actual losses. The Committee considered that the present method of dealing with the matter was more economic and satisfactory than the former one. He agreed as to the difficulties which had been mentioned. The communication in the Dining Room was absolutely inadequate for the demands that were made upon it when there was a full attendance of the House. The Kitchen was a mere passage, unsuited for providing those who dined at the present time—sometimes 300. They had also an inadequate dining room; and the only communication between the Dining Room and the kitchen was a lift of some three feet by two. He feared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have some difficulty in meeting their demands; but he certainly hoped that the First Commissioner (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that they would do their best to meet the difficulties that existed. His experience showed him that it was impossible to have the matter dealt with properly until structural alterations were made. They got at present £1,000. They had to make a profit of £2,000—for the average amount they paid was about £3,000—before they could pay their way. They sometimes had the greatest difficulty; and it was evident that they must have the structural alterations in order to meet the necessities of the case. As to the wages, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to grant an additional £1,000 or £1,500, he thought the Kitchen Committee could do a good deal to improve the service. They might have a larger permanent staff—better hands than they had under the present system. The Committee would see that it would be inadvisable to have a full working staff to dine 300 Members, when they might often only have 150 Members to attend to. He thought that if they could get an increased grant from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—an increase, say, of £1,000 or £1,500 a year—the Kitchen Committee would be able to do a great deal in the way of improving the service.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I am sure we are all exceedingly obliged to the hon. Member and his colleagues for taking so much trouble for the comfort and convenience of the House. So far as I am concerned, I can assure him that, in concert with him, I shall be glad to consider anything that can tend to the comfort and convenience of the House. We have been compelled this Session to dine in the House more frequently and in larger numbers than at any previous period during my Parliamentary life. The accommodation here is the result of the British Constitution. Every public building in this country is unfit for the purpose for which it was intended; and if that is true of all the Public Offices outside we can hardly expect this House, the principal Office of all, to be an exception to the rule. Certainly there are difficulties with which we have to struggle. Everybody knows the great uncertainty there always is in the attendance—much greater than befalls any club—and we ought to make every allowance for those difficulties. I hope the Committee will accept the assurance on the part of the Government that they will do what they can, in concert with the Kitchen Committee, to improve the arrangements. I would now appeal to the Committee to allow this Vote to be taken. I should hope that the Treasury Vote might be disposed of to-night, and the Motion to destroy altogether the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      MR. ANSTRUTHERsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, on behalf of the Government—and he thought he might say on behalf of the whole House—recognised the admirable work of the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee. It was to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would favourably consider the making of an increased grant to the Committee as well as the granting of increased accommodation. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's last sentence that he would be willing to confer with the Kitchen Committee in regard to increasing the accommodation.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: Increased accommodation is impossible.
      MR. ANSTRUTHER: Increased accommodation in the money-lenders' sense.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      5. £52,458, to complete the sum for Treasury and Subordinate Departments.
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he had put a notice of Amendment on the Paper to in certain contingencies prevent foreigners landing on our shores, and so infecting the country with cholera, but cholera had come now—
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall) rose to Order. He wished to know whether, if the right hon. Gentleman was allowed to continue, it would prevent the moving of the Amendment sixth down the list, referring to an item which came before the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
      MR. HENEAGEsaid, he only wished to say that he did not propose to proceed with his Motion. The reason he was going to give was that he thought it exceedingly desirable that there should be entire harmony between the Government and everyone in the measures taken to get rid of the cholera now that it had come. He was anxious not only as Member for Great Grimsby, but as a Member of the Corporation of that town, to co-operate in every way with the Local Government Board. They could thresh out any point in which they disagreed afterwards.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he took some interest in the subject of cholera.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Treasury had nothing to do with the question.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, the subject came within the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for certain difficulties in the way of Port Sanitary Authorities had been removed by the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Morton) rose to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his action in that matter.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that before he proceeded with the Motion he wished to make, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was in charge of the Business of the
      194
      House, whether he would consent to report Progress? ["No, no!"] He asked because he thought that the discussion of his Motion and of the next item would occupy some time.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope the Committee will proceed with this Vote. We have been getting on very satisfactorily, and I hope we shall continue in that course.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was quite ready to proceed. He had given notice of an Amendment to reduce the Vote for the First Lord of the Treasury, but he did not propose to move it. He wished, however, to call attention to certain phases of the policy of the Prime Minister. ["Oh!"] He did not wish to move the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, but he wished to direct attention to the fact that since the Prime Minister occupied his present position—since July or August last year—there had been throughout the country and the Empire and in our relations to Foreign Powers a general want of confidence. ["Oh, oh!"]
      THE CHAIRMAN: It is out of Order to discuss the policy of the Government on this Vote.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he did not propose to go into it at length, and he only gave that as the general basis of the particular subject to which he proposed to call the attention of the Committee. He did not intend to refer to the Irish policy of the Prime Minister. He wished to call attention to the fact that certain words used by the right hon. Gentleman some two years ago at Newcastle with regard to the evacuation of Egypt had led to very serious results. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot on this Vote bring forward matters of policy. If he wishes to attack the Prime Minister he must do so in connection with some administrative act.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT[Cries of "Order!"]: Then I appeal to the Chairman of Committees to be good enough to inform me—[Cries of

      195
      "Name!"]—I am speaking with all respect to the Chairman of Committees, and I ask him to inform the Committee on what subject I can possibly impeach the Prime Minister in connection with this Vote? In dealing with the salary of the Foreign Secretary we are distinctly allowed to impeach his policy. I ask whether I am not at liberty to refer to certain declarations of the Prime Minister which I hold—rightly or wrongly—to have produced certain results?
      SIR W. HARCOUKT: I would ask, as a point of Order, whether an attack can be made on the Prime Minister on this Vote for a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman before he took Office?
      THE CHAIRMAN: There is no doubt about the Rule. The only thing for which the Prime Minister is answerable is some administrative act done by him as First Lord of the Treasury. Any general impeachment of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman must take place in the House of Commons, and not in Committee of Supply. The case of the Foreign Secretary is different. He can be attacked in Committee for the policy of his Department.
      MR. J. W. SIDEBOTHAMasked that consideration should be given to the case of the Assistant Inspectors of Mines. He would not go at length into the matter if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would assure him that the matter was not entirely closed, but could be re-opened, and that the Government would investigate the matter and attempt to put a stop to the great injustice these men suffered under.
      SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he had great sympathy with this class of public servants. For many years he had been at the Home Office, and had had intimate personal relations with the Inspectors. These gentlemen were governed by regular rules which it was difficult to depart from; but he could assure the hon. Member that, if he or anyone else would bring the circumstances under his notice, he would give them the most favourable consideration.
      MR. J. W. SIDEBOTHAM: If I ask for an interview, will the right hon. Gentleman give it?
      SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; I shall be quite ready to speak to the hon. Member in private on the matter.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, these gentlemen were appointed under circumstances which led them to believe that they would receive a certain amount of superannuation so far as the Home Office was concerned. They were appointed at a time when there were no such Inspectors in the Public Service, so that there was no precedent to follow except in other branches of the Public Service.
      SIR T. LEAsaid, he desired to move to reduce the salary of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in order to call attention to the action of the Treasury in regard to the Irish Church tenants who were known as the glebe purchasers. Some time ago he had obtained the first place for a Motion dealing with this question. The Chief Secretary for Ireland appeared to be in favour of the object he had in view, but the Secretary to the Treasury had come down on him, and had refused to give him a Committee. Therefore, in the interests of these tenants he had felt bound to bring the question forward in a few words to-night. These tenants were subject to Treasury Rules—Rules which had been laid down in a most austere and mean manner. The case of these suffering men had been brought before them, but the Treasury never moved one fraction beyond what it was obliged to do. It was shown in the discussion in 1891 that, although an extension of time had been given to a number of the Irish Church tenants, yet there were some to whom that consideration had not been extended. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him if he could suggest any other way in which the Treasury could relieve the Irish Church purchasers, and he had made a suggestion. He proposed that some arrangement should be made by which these tenants could borrow the, one-third or one-fourth from the Land Commission in order to pay off the usurers from whom they had borrowed it. These unfortunate people had bought at 26, 27, and 28 years' purchase. They had had to find one-third or one-fourth of

      197
      the purchase money, and this they had to borrow at exorbitant rates of interest—so exorbitant that they were unable to pay off the instalments. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to appoint a Committee of Inquiry. It would be found that a great proportion of these tenants had been sold up through the high price they had had to pay for their holdings—the purchase having been, in a sense, compulsory. He considered that the proposal he had made under which the tenants would be able to borrow from the Land Commission at 2¾ per cent. would, in the long run, benefit the Treasury. These were a highly honourable and deserving class of men. They existed throughout the whole length and breadth of Ireland, and they felt the pinch of the times enormously. The only argument adduced in opposition to his proposal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that if they did this thing the money would have to come from somewhere, and the only available source was the £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 allocated under the Land Purchase Act, which fund the Government were anxious not to diminish unnecessarily. But this fund had not been got into working order to any great extent yet, and he did not see why the money he asked for should not be advanced in this way. If the Secretary to the Treasury could give this relief let him do so; if not, let him give the Committee of Inquiry. He (Sir T. Lea) begged to move the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary by the sum of £1,000.
      THE CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary to move a reduction of the Financial Secretary's salary in order to draw attention to this subject.
      SIR T. LEA: After his hard work to-night I should be glad to spare him. I will not move.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he would give the hon. Baronet the best reply he could under the circumstances. There would be very great difficulty in carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Member, because he sought to re-open the question of the number of years' purchase which had been paid by these tenants. He (Sir J. T. Hibbert) would not say that the Committee for which the hon. Mem-
      198
      ber asked would not be desirable. He would like to discuss the matter with the hon. Member, and try and come to some conclusion. Therefore, he would suggest that the hon. Member should furnish the Treasury with a statement giving all the facts of the case.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, it was not necessary to draw up a statement. It was admitted that these purchasers had purchased under especially hard conditions. It was, in fact, almost compulsory purchase. These persons had to borrow one-fourth of their purchase-money, while purchasers under the Land Purchase Act had the money advanced to them by the Government, All that was wanted was that, in order to prevent these men being ruined by usurious interest paid to the moneylenders and gombeen men, some arrangement should be made by the Land Commission to advance money to them in order to enable them to pay off this one-fourth. He admitted the difficulty of the case, for it would be said—"You are asking for British money to pay off Irish debts," But that was all the more reason why the Committee should consider whether these purchasers could not be placed in the same position as purchasers under the Acts of 1885 and 1891.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I shall be happy to discuss the matter with hon. Gentlemen.
      SIR T. LEAsaid, that all he wanted was that the Irish Church purchasers under the Act of 1870 should have the same privileges as were given to the Ashbourne Act purchasers. There were one or two other things that a Committee might well investigate.
      MR. TOMLINSONwished to know what was the meaning of an asterisk being put against the salaries of the Directors of the Suez Canal. What were to be the salaries paid in the future?
      MR. HANBURYasked whether the Committee were to understand that after this Vote the Government would move to report Progress?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes. The information the hon. Member for Preston asks for can be given on Report.
      Vote agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, the sum of £11,856,191 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

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

      CLASS I.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £139,238, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, &c, in respect of Government Property, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department."
      Resolution agreed to.

    COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].—(No. 453.)
    Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    BANKRUPTCY.
    Paper [presented 4th September] to be printed. [No. 406.]
    QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
    Copy presented,—of Report of the President for the Session 1892–3, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    CIVIL SERVICE (SPECIAL RATES OF PENSION).
    Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 28th July; Mr. T. M. Healy]; to lie upon the Table.
    COINAGE.
    Copy presented,—of Two Orders in Council, dated 26th August, 1893, and the Drafts of two Proclamations for demonetising in the Colony of Fiji, and the Colonies of the Cape of Good Hope and Natal respectively, sovereigns and half-sovereigns coined before Her Majesty's reign [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865.
    Copy presented,—of Order in Council, dated 26th August, 1893, cancelling Clause 21 of the Order in Council of 15th August, 1890, with reference to the Dockyard Port of Plymouth, and substituting a Clause in lieu thereof [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    PILOTAGE.
    Copy presented,—of Order in Council, dated 26th August, 1893, approving Bye-Laws and Rules of Pilotage made and established by the Trinity House in Kingston upon Hull for the better regulation of Pilots and Pilotage of the ports of Kingston upon Hull and Great Grimsby [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
    Copy presented,—of Eight Orders in Council, dated 26th August, 1893, relating to the forthcoming Winter Assizes (Counties 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7), and the Central Criminal Court District [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL (DATES OF STAGES, &c.)
    Return ordered, "of the dates of the Sittings at which the House of Commons was occupied with the several Stages of the Government of Ireland Bill, or any Resolution relating thereto, distinguishing such Stages, and giving the number of Sittings appropriated to each, and a Summary of the whole; and, of the number of Divisions on each of such Stages or Resolutions, distinguishing the Divisions on Motions for the Closure from other Divisions."—(Mr. Carvell Williams).
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl Granville, after the death of his father.
Lionel Sackville Sackville-West, Lord Sackville—Was introduced by virtue of a special limitation in the patent dated 2nd October 1876, and sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother Mortimer Lord Sackville, and took the Oath.

NEW PEER.
Sir Arthur Hamilton-Gordon, commonly called the Honourable Sir Arthur Hamilton-Gordon, G. C. M. G., having been created Baron Stanmore of Great Stanmore in the county of Middlesex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 265.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER): My Lords, I have frequently had to ask the indulgence of your Lordships, but I am quite sure that I have never addressed you before when I had more cause to ask for your kindness. The subject of the government of Ireland excites stormy feeling; it arouses great and bitter controversy. I shall endeavour to-night to avoid all personal attack, and, if possible, not to raise any irritating subjects. One thing I know that we are all agreed upon, and that is the vast importance of the subject, not only to Ireland, but to the Empire at large. I have, therefore, a task of unusual difficulty in endeavouring to explain to your Lordships the Bill which Her Majesty's Government have introduced to Parliament, and to state the reasons why they have thought it

  3
  necessary to introduce that measure. I claim credit for the honest motives and intentions of those who support this Bill, in the same way that I attribute the same motives to those who oppose it. I venture to call your Lordships' attention to the history of Ireland since the Union. I shall not attempt to go at length and in great detail into that history, but it is necessary to refer to it briefly, in order that we may see the ground on which we stand and the difficulties which beset Ireland and which have made it necessary, in the opinion of the Government, to take the course they have adopted. If we look at the history of Ireland during the present century we shall find much to deplore. We shall find periodical rebellion; we shall find chronic agrarian discontent, culminating time after time in outbreaks of agrarian crime; we shall find religious animosities and differences; we shall find a people steeped in poverty and in misery, from which have arisen terrible famine and distress which have baffled and given immense difficulty to the Government of the day. We find all that, and, as I have said, we cannot but deplore all these circumstances; and I do not think there will be much difference of opinion between those whom I represent and noble Lords on the other side of the House with regard to the unfortunate condition of Ireland during the century. We differ, I know, and differ with extreme force; but that difference is with regard to the remedies to be applied to Ireland, and not as to the state of Ireland itself. How have the Government of the day endeavoured to meet this state of affairs? They have met rebellion by force; and, though rebellion has often been troublesome in Ireland, it has never been extremely formidable, for the reason that the powerful forces of this country could do what they liked with a poor and weak country like Ireland. Therefore, there has been no time when rebellion has lifted its head for any period and the Government of the day have always been able to cope with it. But there is another difficulty of a more insidious kind; I refer to agrarian discontent and outbreaks of agrarian crime. These have been more difficult to deal with. Governments, one after another, whatever Party has
  4
  been in power, have dealt with this agrarian discontent, first by the control of a powerful constabulary, and even by the use and the aid of the military. They have also dealt with this agrarian discontent by means of exceptional legislation. I will say a few words with regard to this exceptional legislation, because I do not wish to pass by that subject without referring to it. I have never stated, and I do not mean to state now, that in my opinion exceptional criminal legislation ought never to be applied to a country. There are occasions, and there have been occasions in Ireland, when exceptional criminal legislation—or, as it is called shortly, coercion—has been necessary. There have been times before when remedial legislation has taken root and where time was wanted in order to develop its effects—times when, as has happened more than once, there have been violent outbreaks of crime, when murders were rife in the country, and when agrarian conspiracy and secret societies ruled a great part of the country. Then it was essential, for the safety of the State, to introduce for a time exceptional legislation. But exceptional legislation, as we know, is not a cure for a deep-rooted and deep-seated evil. There is one drawback and fault attached to exceptional legislation which I think has often been overlooked, and that is the demoralising effect which exceptional criminal legislation has on the various forces which are maintained in the country for the maintenance of law and order. The police rely more upon the exceptional measures than on the ordinary methods for detecting crime and following up criminals. The law itself is not applied so rigorously as when the peace and order of the country depend entirely on the ordinary law. I have often heard it said that exceptional legislation and coercion does not in any way affect the well-ordered people, and in that way it does not do much harm; it only brings criminals to justice, and punishes those who might otherwise escape the law. That may be true in one sense; but those who urge that plea forget that in a country like Ireland there is a large body of men who, though they entirely refrain from actual crime, yet are so opposed to the Government of the day that they will not move a finger in

  5
  order to bring the criminals to justice. Exceptional legislation to them is merely a new proof how great the inability of the British Parliament is to govern that country. To them exceptional legislation is hateful, and every time you apply exceptional legislation you increase and irritate the feeling of the Irish and many of the well-disposed people against the British Government and against law and order. Exceptional criminal legislation or coercion has been a very frequent method of legislation for the government of Ireland in the past. I believe that in 87 years there have been 87 Coercion Acts or renewal of Coercion Acts in that country. They have been, as a rule, temporary in character, but at this moment there is an exceptional Criminal Law in Ireland which is not temporary but permanent. I will now pass from this part of the question and refer to other Acts in connection with Ireland. Every statesman knows that when there is widespread discontent and crime in a country there is some cause for it, and every statesman who is worthy of the name of statesmanship will try to find out what the cause of those grievances is, and will bring forward measures to remedy them. These measures have been called remedial measures of legislation. Discontent is never of spontaneous growth; it always originates through some cause or other. Now, my Lords, what have been the measures which statesmen on both sides have applied to Ireland? I will speak of the measures which I may call, perhaps, heroic measures, though there have been other measures on many occasions which the Government of the day have applied with the view of overcoming the difficulties of government in that country. The first great measure was Catholic Emancipation in 1829; at a long interval came the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Irish Church. Dealing with agrarian discontent there was first of all the Encumbered Estates Court Act; then followed a smaller Act in 1860 with regard to the land; and, finally, there came those great measures of 1870 and 1881; next the Act of 1887—all of them dealing with the tenure of land in Ireland. These measures also contained provisions for the purchase of land by the occupiers. These measures were followed in 1885 by the measure which is known by the
  6
  name of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ashbourne, for giving facilities to tenants to buy the land which the occupy. This, again, was followed by the Act of 1891. There have been numerous other measures passed for the benefit of Ireland, such as Irrigation Acts and Reclamation of Land Acts; there have been loans to railroads; and money has been lavished upon Ireland with the hope of improving its material condition. What has been the effect of all this legislation, of all these efforts which have been nobly made by one side or the other to endeavour to win over Ireland to contentment and happiness? I fear the state of Ireland has not become proportionately satisfactory. I do not for a moment say that there has been no improvement, or that there has not been a very considerable improvement during the century. It would be vain to contend that there has not been great improvement; that great grievances have not been redressed, and that to some extent a better feeling does not prevail among the people. But I would like to follow this up a little further. Do you find in Ireland that support of law and order without which no good government exists? The symbol and sign of good government is to find, as we do in this country, the whole population anxious to support the law. I fear in Ireland, although there has been some improvement, even now, when agrarian crimes arise and political agitation exists, you will find large portions of the population determined to resist the law and to obstruct the action of the Government. That, my Lords, in itself is a grievous sign of the condition of the country. Has the country prospered? No doubt it has made some advance, for greater prosperity exists than there was 40 or 50 years ago. Yet even now there are districts of the country where the population barely subsist at times on the land they cultivate. If a bad season occurs or prices fall, then that population is on the verge of famine, and looks to the richer sister country, England, for support and existence. If we look at the feeling which is exhibited throughout the country we shall find hardly a single Representative Body out of Ulster—a Board of Guardians, Local Government Board, or Borough Authority—which does not take every opportunity to

  7
  thwart and oppose the Government of the day. Lastly, if we look to Parliament—and that, I think, is the best test of all of the feeling of a country—we find that the majority the Nationalists have had in Parliament ever since 1874, which has always been considerable, has increased until now four-fifths of the Irish Representatives are in favour of Home Rule or self-government for Ireland. That, I think, is a very serious position, especially in this country where we are so proud of our Representative Institutions and so proud of our Constitution. That alone points to an unhealthy condition of affairs in a country. Now why is it that those measures have failed? Why is it that, after passing the measures I have referred to, we still find an unhealthy state of things in Ireland? I venture to think that nearly all these great measures have been introduced too late, or without due regard to the feelings, sentiments, and customs of the Irish people. I will illustrate this very shortly from the measures of which I have spoken. Take Catholic Emancipation. We all know that at the time of the Union it was in the mind of Mr. Pitt to pass. Catholic Emancipation. In 1801 he resigned his place in the Government because he was unable to introduce a measure of Catholic Emancipation, and it was not till 29 years after the Union that Catholic Emancipation was given. We do not know what might have been the effect on the Union and on subsequent events in Ireland if this measure of redress had been passed at the time of the Union. After Catholic Emancipation we had to wait 40 years before we dealt with another great grievance of the Irish people—namely, the establishment of a religion which was not the religion of the bulk of the people. There is one exception, probably, which I believe was almost entirely successful—namely, the commutation of tithe. The two observations I have made will apply to the measures passed with reference to the land. The first great inquiry with respect to the land was made by the Devon Commission. That Commission went into this subject with the greatest care, and it drew up one of the ablest Reports ever presented to the Queen. The Report of the Devon Commission was scathing in its terms with
  8
  regard to the condition of the Irish tenants and peasantry. I was looking the other day through some of the speeches on this subject, and I came across what I think a remarkable statement on the subject by one who was well-known in both Houses of Parliament in his day as one of the most eloquent speakers and one of the most intrepid statesmen who ever sat on these Benches—I allude to the late Lord Derby, the father of the noble Lord whose recent death we so much deplored, and also of the noble Lord whom we welcome amongst us, and who lately filled a high position with honour and dignity in Her Majesty's Colonies. Lord Stanley, as he then was, in introducing a measure immediately after the Report of the Devon Commission, after referring to the fact that the tenants in Ireland erected buildings and did all the substantial repairs, used these words—
  "Could he be surprised to find on those farms everything neglected and in ruin; the land unproductive, the cultivation defective, and the estate peopled not by an industrious, thriving, and peaceful, but by an idle, a dissolute, and a disturbed people? And yet this, with some honourable exceptions, is not a highly-coloured or exaggerated picture of the condition of a large portion of the tenantry of Ireland. Then is not this a state of things in which, when it is for the interest of the landlord himself, we should interfere to give to the tenant some security and encouragement, so that, if he chose to spend his capital and labour in improvements, he should not be turned out of his wretched holding without compensation for his outlay, whether of money or of labour?"
  After speaking of the Ulster tenant-right custom, he goes on—
  "What is the case with regard to the rest of Ireland? There the tenant holds by a more dangerous tenure—by the security he derives from, the fears of the landlord."
  This is a very grave and solemn statement by an eminent statesman whom noble Lords on the other side have followed and honoured, and I do not think you could have stronger testimony as to the deplorable condition of Ireland at that time and of the necessity for some immediate legislation.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What was the date of that speech?
  EARL SPENCER: It was in 1845. What followed that speech? There was no serious attempt to cope with the Land Question in Ireland, with one exception, until 1870. I say, there-

  9
  fore, you may apply the term "too late" to our dealing with this question. At the time of the famine, when it was found that there were bankrupt landlords on settled estates, a great Act was passed in order to relieve that state of things; and I venture to say, if it was not too late, it altogether disregarded some of the most cherished customs and opinions of the Irish people, for no provision was made in that Act to protect the property of the tenants. Later on the new landlords, some of whom were accustomed only to the habits of English landlords, treated their tenants exactly on the English system; and from that sprang some of the difficulties which have culminated in our days in terrible land disturbances in Ireland. Take the next legislation with regard to the land in 1860. Then an Act was passed on the same English lines. It was known in Ireland under the name of Deasy's Act, and in England under the name of Cardwell's Act. It tried to introduce the system of pure contract into the habits of the Irish tenants, and it entirely failed. Now I come to the Gladstone Act of 1870. That was a great and sweeping measure, but it shrank from going the full length of what was wanted in Ireland at the time. It did not deal with the extension of the Ulster custom, and it did not establish Rent Courts in Ireland. I do not say that at that time the Government of Mr. Gladstone could have carried a wider measure. For some years after this measure there was great agricultural prosperity in Ireland; but the moment bad times came, as they did in 1878 and 1879, then difficulties began with regard to the Act of 1870. As you all know, a terrible agrarian insurrection, agitation, and outbreak occurred, and the Government of Mr. Gladstone in 1881 was forced to introduce a new measure. What did that measure do? It supplemented the Act of 1870, and extended the Ulster custom over Ireland and established official Rent Courts in the country. Then came the Act of the noble Marquess opposite, the Act of 1887. That Act, as you know, dealt mainly with temporary circumstances, but it did extend the previous Acts by the clause admitting leaseholders. Therefore, every one of these Acts in succession had to supplement the deficiencies that were found in every Act
  10
  that preceded. So much for the Land Acts. The question of Local Government stands even worse than the question of the land. In 1842 a Commission recommended that measures should be taken for altering the laws in relation to Local Government. Act after Act was introduced, but every one failed, and the last failure was the Act of 1892 of Mr. Balfour, who introduced a large measure of Local Government in the other House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It never passed. Do you call that an Act which failed?
  EARL SPENCER: The noble Marquess is too critical. What I intended to say was that those Acts one after another were introduced, but was rejected by Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Bills, not Acts.
  EARL SPENCER: Bills I should have called them. Now, my Lords, I should like to refer to the Irish Government. The Irish Government itself and its position illustrate very forcibly the condition of Ireland. The Irish Government is in one sense a powerful Government, for it is essentially centralised in its action; but on the other side it is a very weak Government, for it is completely isolated from the country. Why is it so centralised? There are two reasons. The first is that the administration of the law could not, years ago even, be left entirely to the class that administer it in England; because on certain disputed subjects that class did not receive the support and confidence of the masses of the people. The other reason is that in the large towns and in other places of municipal government the Irish Government could not trust the Municipalities, because they were so opposed to the Government of the day that they could not hand over to thorn the powers of police and other powers which in England are given to the Local Authorities. That, I conceive, is a very serious and grievous state of things. In England we have in every part of the country buffers to the Central Government. We hear nothing in London of many cases which in Ireland would at once be brought home to the Central Government. But the effect of that is that every breakdown in the law—every Magistrate who makes a mistake—is

  11
  thrown against the Central Government. It is a most powerful Government in one sense, as I say, because it wields the police and practically controls the appointment of every Magistrate in the country. The police it is able to move all over the country as if it were one man. It appoints the Magistrates in every borough and county. With all that, my Lords, we know that it is essentially a weak Government, because it has not the support of the masses of the people of the country. There is another reason why the great measures that have been passed for Ireland have not been fruitful in good results, and it is, perhaps, one of the principal causes of the failure of British Governments and British Parliaments successfully to cope with Irish grievances. I mean that there is in Ireland underlying the whole feeling of the great majority of the people one passionate sentiment—namely, the sentiment for Local Government. This sentiment has been shown in a variety of ways. It has been shown sometimes in rebellion, sometimes in cries for absolute separation, sometimes in cries for Repeal of the Union. We have never been able to stifle or conciliate it. We have never been able to use the feeling which is so strong in England in support of law and order in support of the same forces in Ireland. The neglect of this feeling, in my belief, is at the root of the failure of most of these measures to which I have referred, and we felt this very strongly when we had to consider what measures we should introduce for Ireland. I have endeavoured, I am afraid very inadequately, to touch on the condition of Ireland during the last 93 years. I wish a more able exponent of this policy could have stood before you, but I have felt it my duty to trace the course of events, and the study of these events brought my mind in the year 1885—I speak now, and I ought to apologise, perhaps, for doing so, in my own name, but I do not like in this particular part of the subject to introduce the responsibility for others—to the view that a new policy was absolutely required. I have been in Ireland for eight years—for three years under the most difficult circumstances. I had to administer the law entrusted to me by Parliament. I did it as honestly and fearlessly as I could. I endeavoured to
  12
  administer it also with perfect justice, and in some degree I think I may claim that I was successful in restoring law and order to the country. But after that was done I could not but feel that I had not succeeded permanently in the work which I had endeavoured to do. I found all those conditions of discontent and want of support of the Government to which I have adverted, and I seriously considered the position. The events on this side of the water in 1885 did not check the feeling operating in my mind. What did these events show? They showed that a Conservative Government were willing and able to enter upon Office when their Party was in a minority in the House of Commons by the support of the Irish vote. These events further showed that the continuity which had hitherto existed with regard to the administration of the law in Ireland had been broken, and these two considerations had a profound effect on my mind, and convinced me that some change in the policy which both Parties had heretofore pursued must be made. The old remedies had failed; was it possible to find new remedies? I faced the question in this way: It was necessary before committing myself to any new policy to see that certain guarantees and conditions were attached to any new principle that might be adopted. Those conditions were three. I conceived that no new policy ought to be adopted unless you could maintain the supremacy of Parliament, maintain the unity of the Kingdom, and effectually protect minorities in Ireland. Those three conditions were the tests which I applied to the question of new methods of governing Ireland. I need not go through all the proceedings of 1886. As your Lordships are aware, the Liberal Party over which Mr. Gladstone presided then inaugurated a new policy for Ireland. It has sometimes been said that we Liberals who followed Mr. Gladstone in this new policy adopted it with a light heart. I assure you, my Lords, that one of the most painful things I and many of my colleagues went through was the way in which we had to adopt that policy, for this reason—that we had to separate ourselves from many of the colleagues and friends with whom we had been all our political lives intimately connected. It was not a light matter. It was a

  13
  matter we felt most deeply, and, I will venture to say, still feel. But it was in our mind a paramount duty that we should adopt this new course, as it was in our opinion the only way of dealing with the Irish difficulty. I shall not go through the Bill of 1886, or what occurred after it. I shall go at once to the measure which is now before your Lordships—a measure which is founded on the same principles as that which was introduced to Parliament and lost in 1886. I venture to think that this measure does embrace those guarantees and conditions without which I did not think any change of policy in Ireland ought to be made. Possibly I might pass over the details of this measure, and no doubt many of your Lordships, perhaps all your Lordships, have followed the long Debates which have occurred in another place on this Bill; at the same time, I do not think I should be treating your Lordships' House with respect if I did not shortly touch on the provisions of the measure. The Bill before your Lordships proposes to establish a Legislature for Ireland consisting of the Queen and two Houses. The Bill guards most carefully the powers of the Irish Legislature. It protects the supremacy of Parliament. In the preamble and in the 2nd clause there are distinct provisos to maintain and uphold the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. The Irish Legislature will have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in matters relating exclusively to Ireland, or some part thereof. To this there are exceptions and restrictions, but they only define, enumerate, and explain the matter to which I have just referred. The exceptions are that the Irish Legislature cannot deal with the Crown or the succession; it cannot deal with matters connected with peace or war, with the Army, Navy, or Volunteers, with Treaties with Foreign Powers, with the coinage or legal tender. There are still more exceptions; but I have enumerated enough to show that they are of great importance as bearing on the supremacy of Parliament. The restrictions go to prevent the Irish Parliament from establishing or endowing religion, from dealing with the laws of religious liberty; they insure freedom of conscience for adults and for children
  14
  in schools: they prevent the Irish Parliament from making laws to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law in accordance with established principles and precedents. They also protect Corporate Bodies and various other interests. The Irish Legislature is to consist of two Chambers—the Legislative Chamber, with the same franchise and the number of Members as govern the position of Irish Members now in Parliament. The Second Chamber, which is called the Legislative Council, is introduced as a safeguard against hasty legislation. If we look at the Legislatures and Constitutions throughout Europe it will be found that there is only one country which has but one Chamber, and that is the Kingdom of Greece.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Bulgaria.
  EARL SPENCER: Second Chambers are constituted very nearly in every country in Europe. That is enough for my argument. The Second Chamber is to consist of 48 Members, to be elected for eight years, whereas the Legislative Chamber is to be elected for five, and the Second Chamber is not to be affected by a Dissolution. In the case of a difference of opinion between the two Chambers—what you call a deadlock—it is proposed that in case a Bill is presented again at the end of two years, or after a Dissolution, after having been rejected by the Legislative Council, then, if the Bill is again rejected, a decision shall be come to by both Chambers sitting as one. The Executive, as a matter of, course, is centred in the Queen, and the Lord Lieutenant represents Her Majesty. The Lord Lieutenant is to be appointed for six years by the Government of the day, but he is not to be a political officer going out with the Government. The Lord Lieutenant is to be relieved of religious tests. In his hands is one of the most important powers of the Bill—namely, the veto. He can exercise the veto in three ways. He is to exercise it usually upon the advice of his Irish Ministers, but he can exercise it if a Bill is ultra vires, and also upon instructions from the Queen on special Bills. The Lord Lieutenant is to have control of the military in Ireland, as at present, and during six years the

  15
  police will be under his control, as representing the Queen. In six years the police are to be disbanded, by which time, no doubt, it will be possible to find places in other forces for a great number of that body. Those who are to be disbanded will have terms of a liberal character given to them—something like an addition of 10 years to their pay. I need hardly say, after having had such great experience of the loyalty and efficiency of the Royal Irish Constabulary, I should regret extremely if they felt they had not received justice in this matter. I come now to the Civil Service, the members of which are provided with retirement pensions and allowances if they retire before five years. The Judges have all their rights preserved to them, both as to pay and as to the manner of their tenure. The new Judges are to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant on the advice of the Irish Government; but for six years such appointments are to receive the countersign of the Secretary of State in England. I do not want to dilate at length on the question of finance; but, as it is so important, I must say a few words upon it. There is one important consideration to be borne in mind, and that is the taxable capacity of Ireland. We do not propose that the burden should be made heavier than it now is. It is possible that Ireland may now pay a larger contribution, according to her taxable capacity, than England or Scotland towards Imperial charges; but we do not propose at this moment to alter that. We propose that we shall, as far as possible, receive from the Irish for Imperial purposes the same contribution which they now give. The Customs, Excise, and Income Tax are to be for six years exactly as they are now, and when collected two-thirds are to be paid over to the Irish Exchequer, and one-third is to go for Imperial purposes. I believe I am right in saying that within £20,000 this proposal represents exactly the present payments of Ireland to this country. But there is another point. During the time that the Royal Irish Constabulary are to be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant a certain portion of the charge is to fall on the Imperial Exchequer. That will amount to about £480,000, but it is Dot a permanent charge, and will
  16
  diminish as the police disappear and as their pensions lapse. Now, it may be asked, is that a good bargain for England and also for Ireland? I venture to say that it is a good bargain for England. If England desires to carry this measure and give self-government to Ireland, she will not wish to treat Ireland in a niggardly manner. And, considering the enormous expense of our government in Ireland, expense connected with the judiciary, the police, and the various other parts of the Civil Service, and that that expense on the part of England is an increasing expense, it will be a gain for England not to have to provide for this expensive government. With regard to Ireland, she will, at all events during a considerable number of years, according to the calculation made, have about £500,000 surplus. I pass on now to the question of land legislation. That is a subject in which I know your Lordships take a deep interest, and it is one upon which I hold a strong opinion. I have long held that there were strong reasons for dealing with this Irish Land Question. To carry out the policy of 1886 two Bills were introduced—a Government of Ireland Bill and a Land Bill. These two measures were linked together at the time. The Land Bill never came on for Second Reading, and was, therefore, not discussed in the other House of Parliament. It fell with the Government of Ireland Bill, the two Bills at the time being considered by us to be linked strongly and firmly together. We at that time thought it necessary to connect the legislation with regard to land with the legislation for the Local Government of Ireland. We believed that after the desperate struggle which had been going on for so many years in Ireland on the Land Question—a struggle that had hardly then ceased, or, at all events, was of very recent cessation—it would not be right to give immediately to the Irish Legislature the power of dealing with the question of land. We thought, further, that it would be intolerable to place on a new Legislature, which had an enormous variety of subjects, and pressing subjects, to deal with, the responsibility of dealing with this great question, the difficulty of which had, to a great extent, arisen from legislation of the Imperial Parliament. After the defeat of the Government of

  17
  1886 this question of the land was dealt with in Parliament. There was the measure of 1887, which extended the Ashbourne Act, and there was, further, the great measure of Mr. Balfour in 1891. These two measures, to my mind, took the place of the Land Bill, which was linked with the Local Government question in our policy of 1886. Those were Bills of great importance. Ten millions had, I think, been allotted under the Ashbourne Act towards the purchase by the tenants of their farms, and Mr. Balfour's measure proposed that £30,000,000 should be allotted for this purpose. This is how he describes his measure—
  "The best calculation that I can make is that in any case the total amount to complete land purchase would be somewhere about £95,000,000 sterling. Therefore, although the 30 odd millions which the Bill proposes to allocate to land purchase certainly is far from carrying it out completely, it will be observed that, if we deduct from the £95,000,000 those cases in which landlords and tenants do not desire to sell or purchase, with the repayments of the £30,000,000 we may really expect under this Bill to see a great impression made upon the problem we have to solve."
  That Act remains in force, and it is protected by provisions in the present Bill. These measures, alone, have made an enormous difference with regard to the position of the landlords in Ireland; and, therefore, if it were only with regard to the passing of these two measures, I should not think it would be necessary now to link a land measure with the Local Government Bill; but the landlords of Ireland have other securities. They have the security of the veto, and that for six years the military and the police are under the control of the Lord Lieutenant. Further, provision is made that for three years the Imperial Parliament may deal with this subject here, and the Irish Parliament are prevented from dealing with it. Lastly", the landlords have behind them the inherent power of the Imperial Parliament in case of grievous injustice and wrong. These are the reasons why I, who have been very strongly in favour of securing to landlords the possibility in case of difficulty of selling their estates, consider that their interests are safeguarded under the Bill and under the Acts of Parliament to which I have referred. I must refer to one other point, and it is a point on which
  18
  great interest has been felt—I mean the retention of the Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament. Your Lordships are aware that under the Bill of 1886 the Irish Members were excluded. I at that time was strongly in favour of that proposition, and for these reasons. It was the simplest plan, and it avoided many complications which were unavoidable under other solutions of the question. The Irish Members themselves had enormous interests to look after in Ireland, and did not desire to come over to England; but there were strong and forcible reasons urged against their exclusion. Exclusion suggested to the mind of many people, though it was not a necessary consequence, the idea of separation; inclusion under the Bill absolutely prevents the separation of Ireland from England. There were two other ways of dealing with the subject. There was the partial retention of the Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament, voting on certain subjects, and refraining from voting on others. That proposal had its advocates, and found a place in the Bill of the Government when it was first introduced. It had its advantages, because there was a view held among many people that it was unfair for the Irish to interfere in English affairs, when we were precluded from interfering in similar affairs in Ireland. I am aware that that feeling is shared by many people; but when you apply this solution to the question I think you will see chat it is perfectly impossible as a practical measure. How was it possible to have a Government supported at one time by one body of men and at another by another body of men? You might divide the subjects into Imperial subjects and into local Irish subjects; but there would always be questions, such as Votes of Confidence, where it would be absolutely impossible to define what was to be done with the Irish Members. Take the question of the Budget, with the Resolutions and the Estimates, and the Appropriation Bill. On some subjects the Irish would take a part; on others they would be absent. This solution of the question was proved on examination to be impracticable. We gave it up; and we adopted what has been called the omnes omnia plan, which was to leave the Irish Members in for all purposes. There are two objections

  19
  made to that; the one to which I have referred—namely, that it was unfair that the Irish Members should take part in the discussion of English subjects when we did not take part in the discussion of similar subjects in Ireland. There is a further objection—that it would encourage intrigue with the Irish Members. [Laughter and ironical cheers.] I expected that cheer; but we have this very difficulty at the present moment. It is not a new thing that politicians should intrigue, or, as it is called, coquette, with the Irish Party on critical Divisions. That is not unknown in politics, and this may be thrown in the teeth of both Parties in Parliament. The difficulty has existed, but it will exist with far less force when this Bill passes. I know that probably I shall not get the assent of noble Lords opposite or behind me to what I am now going to say; but if the Bill does what we expect, it will bring contentment to the Irish people. [Opposition laughter and ironical cheers.] I am quite aware of the feeling which that cheer indicates, but I am bound to state what I honestly believe. If that takes place, then there will be far less danger with regard to the Irish Members voting on all subjects than there is at the present moment. No doubt the objections to the Bill with which we are all familiar will be raised again in this House; and as I have been so intimately connected with the subject, and as I have so sincerely at heart the welfare and well-being of the Irish nation, I wish to state my views with regard to some of those objections. There is the question of separation. I have endeavoured to show that under this Bill separation will be impossible. Our opponents say that may be for the moment true; but if the Irish obtain the Bill they will agitate and plot to obtain separation from England. I utterly disbelieve in that theory. The Irish know very well that they could not obtain separation. They are not such fools as to forget the strong battalions which are under the command of Her Majesty's Government and of England. They are not such fools as to wish to go to the heavy cost of finding a Navy and an Army for themselves, which I need hardly say, would be indispensable to them if they obtained separation. They know that they could not obtain it; they
  20
  know that England is powerful enough, and has always been powerful enough, to put down rebellion in Ireland, and they know that England would never consent to separation. I believe that they desire to remain under the flag of England, and that Irishmen are still proud to fight the battles of England, and to share the glory which has been gained in former wars by this country. I now come to another question—namely, the alleged danger of religious ascendency and tyranny. It is feared that the Roman Catholics will oppress the Protestants in Ireland. As to this, I make the same remark that I made with regard to separation—I do not believe it for a moment. I do not believe that religious persecution and tyranny can exist in the present state of society, considering the force of public opinion in Ireland as well as in England. The Irish Roman Catholics have never shown distrust of Protestant leaders. Time after time they have followed such leaders with the utmost loyalty. I know that at times there have been stories of the persecution of Protestants in different parts of the country. There may be isolated cases of the sort, but I believe that these cases generally arise, not from religious feeling, but from other causes. The Irish people have, as your Lordships are aware, very strong feelings on various matters political and agrarian, and it may often happen that a Protestant takes a very strong view on some points of politics which is hostile to the views of, and therefore offends, his Catholic neighbours. If there is any disturbance in consequence it is clear that it cannot be assigned to religious differences. We often hear it said that the Irish Protestant is to be placed under the heel of Archbishop Walsh. In my opinion there is no ground for that statement. The Irish Bishops and priests have rarely, if ever, initiated any political movement in Ireland. They, no doubt, are carried with the current, and when a strong political current is flowing they swim with it; but as far as I know they have not themselves initiated any great topics of political controversy during the last few years. The Irish people will take a strong line of their own on all political matters. I could not give a better illustration of my meaning than the following:—When I was in Ireland His Holiness the Pope issued some

  21
  pastoral or letter, desiring the Bishops and priests of Ireland to prevent their flocks from subscribing to the Parnell testimonial. What was the result? The subscriptions came in after that pronouncement with redoubled vigour until the sum of £35,000 was subscribed to the testimonial. There have been other instances of independence on the part of the Irish people. There is the case of Bishop O'Dwyer in Limerick, who for some reason found fault with an Irish Member. Immediately that Member—Mr. Dillon—called an indignation meeting, which was held under the very nose of the Bishop. There have been cases also when the Parnellite division of the Irish Party have held indignation meetings against the Archbishop of Cashel, because he was opposed to their views. Therefore I do not believe that there is any danger of the Irish people submitting in political matters to be guided and ruled by the Roman Catholic hierarchy or the priests of Ireland. Now, I wish to say two or three words respecting Ulster. I have great respect and admiration for the people of that Province. When I was in Ireland I had difficulties, great difficulties, to contend against in Ulster as well as in other parts of the country, but in dealing with these difficulties I became acquainted with many qualities which I greatly appreciated in the Ulster people. They are full of talent, independence, energy. With the exception of an occasional breaking out on a religious anniversary, they are orderly and law-abiding. I am aware that the people of Ulster view this Bill with great dislike, and oppose it most vigorously. They have been supported by many distinguished men. It' has been said that "Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right." Indeed, that has been the keynote of speech after speech in Ulster and in England. In my opinion, the fears of Ulster are quite groundless. I do not believe that the people of that Province will be subjected to hardship or oppression at the hands of the Nationalist Party, and I look forward to the day when the men of Ulster, with all their ability and power, will assist their brethren in the government of the country. Ulster is in a minority in Ireland. Of course, Ulstermen have a perfect right to oppose any measure
  22
  which they dislike, and to demand safeguards for themselves, but have they the right, and ought they as a generous people to oppose what Parliament in its wisdom may direct as a change necessary for the welfare of the majority of their fellow-countrymen? I deny that they have a right to hold out in that way; and, knowing the generosity of the people of Ireland, I cannot but think that these appalling prognostications will come to nothing, and that, when Parliament has decided to pass a Home Rule measure, the men of Ulster will come forward willingly and take part in the government of their island. There is one more objection to this measure that I wish to notice. We are accused of handing over, or proposing to hand over, the government of Ireland to men of the worst possible character, to men who are sometimes called murderers,—[The Marquess of LONDONDERRY: Hear, hear!]—sometimes agitators, who have caused difficulties in Ireland. I was quite prepared for the cheers of the noble Marquess and other noble Lords opposite. I deny, however, that the men to whom I refer are correctly described by the terms which I have repeated. The Irish Party in Parliament are not murderers, and have been cleared over and over again in that respect. The Nationalist Party in the great struggle which they have been carrying on have done many things which I deplore, things which I had to oppose when I was in Ireland. I do not for a moment say that they have been justified in all they have done; far from it. They have been violent in their language; they have been silent when they ought to have spoken out; and I admit that they have been guilty of discreditable acts. But we are not proposing to hand over the government of Ireland to any particular set of men. What we are proposing to do is to rely on self-government, and we have confidence that the people of Ireland will select the right men to govern them in the future. I should like to mention one argument which ought, I think, to have weight with noble Lords opposite who have advocated Local Government for Ireland. The Government of the noble Marquess opposite introduced a measure for that purpose, and I would ask this—If we are committing such a heinous crime in giving the government of Ireland to the

  23
  men who are likely to be selected by the Irish constituencies, were you not committing an equally heinous crime in proposing to give Local Government in counties and boroughs to the same class of men? I have always recollected a very remarkable statement with regard to Local Government which was made by Lord Salisbury at Newport some years ago. It is full of wisdom and bears upon the question whether it is better to give County Local Government to Ireland or Local Government of the kind now proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers. What did Lord Salisbury say? "The Local Authority is more exposed to temptation, and has more facility—" I am afraid I cannot read the rest. [The Marquess of SALISBURY: It is not worth reading.] At any rate, the argument is this—that it is safer to entrust a Government on a large scale with Representative Institutions than to frame a system of Local Government which will not be equally open to the influences of public opinion. Now, my Lords, I have made my statement and given the reasons which prompted the Government to introduce this measure. I am not sanguine enough to suppose that I have been able to carry with me any one of those who oppose the Bill. It would be absurd to conceal from myself the intention of the large Assembly whom I am addressing, for it has been announced for days, and weeks, and mouths that your Lordships intend to throw out the Bill. It would be in vain for me to appeal to your Lordships at the present time; but as I have been, through my family, intimately connected with your Lordships' House for many years, and by a personal membership of over 35 years, I may be allowed to speak on the subject of what I consider to be the interests of this Assembly. I implore your Lordships to pause before you reject this measure. I implore your Lordships to cast off all trace of that prejudice that surrounds to such a great extent this great subject. I implore your Lordships not rashly to follow the advice which has been given you so often. You have a great opportunity freely now of making a great concession to Ireland. The occasion is propitious; there is nothing but peace throughout the nations of the world; there is no turbulence in Ireland; you can now give freely and without pressure
  24
  this great concession. My Lords, the Irish people have now hope instead of the despair they had before. They have hope from the decision which the constituencies gave at the last Election, hope from the measure passed recently in another place. Do not dash, my Lords, their hope to the ground. Hope encourages peace; despair engenders discontent and rebellion. My Lords, if you reject this measure, you will once more throw back the Irish people into despair. The responsibility for doing this will be a very heavy one, and I ask your Lordships to pause before you take upon you this heavy responsibility. If, on the other hand, you make this concession and pass this Bill, you will add to the lustre and honour belonging to your Lordships' House. You will once more give power to the Houses of Parliament; you will increase the influence of our country in every part of the world; you will, in my opinion, give contentment and good government to Ireland, and make her a source of strength instead of weakness to the Union. My Lords, I beg to move the Second Heading of this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Spencer.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I do not propose to follow my noble Friend in the disquisition, which occupied a large portion of his speech, on the history of Ireland during the present century. I failed to observe that that part of my noble Friend's speech bore any particular reference to the measure before the House. It was chiefly occupied with an account of the land legislation which had been too long delayed, of the Coercion Acts, and of the attempted creation 'of local self-government in Ireland. That historical disquisition might have been an appropriate introduction to a new Coercion Act, or to a new Land Act; but I think that my noble Friend forgot that part of his speech in which he proposed to connect his history with the present proposal of Her Majesty's Government. I will only say on that part of my noble Friend's speech that his review of the land legislation of Parliament as regards Ireland, and the evil effects which have resulted from the unhappy delays of that legislation, seem to me to be a somewhat singular introduction to a policy which,

  25
  as it was originally introduced, proposed to remove altogether the control of the land legislation from the new Irish Parliament, and was combined with a plan by which this Parliament, hitherto, according to my noble Friend, so unsuccessful in its efforts, was once more to resume the task of finally settling that Irish difficulty, and still more was it a singular introduction to the proposal which, as now laid before us, imposes a delay of, at least, three years on the Irish Parliament in doing anything on that particular subject which, according to my noble Friend, lies at the root of the whole difficulty. In these circumstances I can scarcely see what my noble Friend's object was in making the historical review he gave us. It would have been, in my opinion, satisfactory to many of your Lordships if my noble Friend had found a little more time to devote to the explanation, which struck me as a remarkably brief one, of the causes which have led him to the conviction that a change of policy has become necessary. My noble Friend had at one time very strong convictions on the subject. I do not want to read more quotations than I can help, but my noble Friend has expressed himself in terms of somewhat unusual strength upon the question of tampering with the Union. In 1881 my noble Friend said—
  "We have to consider the most difficult problem ever presented to any English statesman—namely, the future of Ireland. What we have to do is this. We have to tell the Irish that their just grievances will always be redressed, that we will extend to them any privilege or liberty we Englishmen possess; but we must tell them plainly, at the same time, that no Party in England, whether Conservative or Liberal, will put up with anarchy, and, what is more, that they are beating the air if they agitate for the repeal of the Union. We feel like the Americans when the integrity of their country was threatened, and, if necessary, we must shed blood to maintain the strength and salvation of this country."
  ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear from the cheers of my noble Friends behind me that they are still ready to shed their blood for the Union. But my noble Friend told us what were the circumstances which in 1885 led him to the conviction that a change of policy towards Ireland was necessary. His own Government, from 1881 to 1885, had been a fairly successful one. He had himself done much to restore law and order in
  26
  Ireland. My noble Friend was disappointed that he had not also succeeded in giving contentment to Ireland. He detected, or he thought he detected, a political intrigue between the Tory Party and the Irish Members, and he discovered that there was no continuity to be expected from the British Parliament in Irish policy. What was the proof of that? The Tory Government came in in 1885. They found a Coercion Act in force. That was a temporary Act. One would think, to hear the observations of my noble Friend, that the Conservative Party had found a permanent Coercion Act in force and had deliberately suspended its operation. Whatever may be my opinion of the policy or impolicy of the Tory Government at that time in undertaking to govern Ireland without the assistance of exceptional powers, it must be felt that they were justified in making the attempt to govern Ireland once more under the ordinary law, without the assistance of any exceptional repressive legislation. These simple facts—namely, discontent in Ireland, my noble Friend's detection of the supposed Tory intrigue, and the want of continuity which he discovered in British policy towards Ireland—were sufficient to make my noble Friend change the whole course of his policy, and be a party to the proposal of a measure which, although my noble Friend behind me does not seem to think his words bear that meaning, he had denounced in the strongest terms in 1881. Now, my Lords, I shall not detain you any further with the speech we have just listened to, though I may have to make some reference to it in my further observations. I desire, in the first place, to touch on a point which, I think, has not been referred to by my noble Friend. I want to call your Lordships' attention to the character of the decision you are called upon to give upon the present occasion. It is an important one, but it does not appear to me to be a decision which involves on your Lordships any heavy responsibility. Such cases have occurred before, and doubtless will occur again. The question has had to be solved and to be decided by this House whether your Lordships should make use of the Constitutional powers which you possess to reject measures which did not commend themselves to your own judgment, but

  27
  which you had reason to believe were approved by the majority of the House of Commons and of the country. The question has had to be decided by your Lordships, each for himself, whether you should in your collective capacity as one branch of the Legislature act upon your individual convictions and opinions in opposition to what you believe and have ascertained to be the view of the House of Commons and of the country. I think that your Lordships know well the limits of your power. You know that not being a Representative Assembly, and not backed by the strength which a representative character gives to a Legislative Body, and not sharing altogether the democratic principles which are making progress in this as in other countries, it would be unwise, impolitic, and unpatriotic to insist upon your personal convictions by enforcing your own political convictions in opposition to what is believed to be the decided view of the country. Such was the case of the Reform Bill of 1832, and, I may say, also of later Reform Bills. Such was the repeal of the Corn Laws. Such was the case of the Irish Church Act. Such cases may recur, and it is not for me to say what it may be the duty of this House to do when a similar case occurs again. It may be that a measure may be in your Lordships' judgment so wrong, so impolitic, so unjust, and so mischievous that it may be your duty to resist it to the last at any risk, even at that of the loss of your own political privileges. But, my Lords, this is no such case. This is not a case in which you are called upon to refuse to read this Bill a second time, because you are opposed to the principle of it. If I could conceive the case of a majority of your Lordships being of an opinion favourable to the principle of this measure; if, as the Prime Minister thinks might be possible, a measure founded upon a similar principle had been introduced by a Conservative Government, I do not undertake to say what the conduct of this House might have been, but I, at all events, should be prepared to say the duty of this House would be the same. I maintain that on a question of such magnitude, so closely touching the fundamental Institutions of our State, if there is any object in the existence of a Second
  28
  Chamber at all, it is, at all events, to prevent changes of that character being made without the absolute certainty that they are in accordance with the will of the majority of the people. Now, as to that certainty, we have no knowledge, and we can have none. Look for one moment at the history of the measure. It has been preceded by no popular agitation such as preceded the passing of the Reform Act or the Repeal of the Corn Laws. Those measures had been for years before the country, and had been fully debated and discussed throughout the whole country. I admit the Irish Church Act was a different case. There the proposal of the measure had not been preceded by any lengthened or any excited agitation. But the whole of the Liberal Party, or almost the whole of the Liberal Party, had been long in principle committed to the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and, as Mr. Gladstone has reminded us, the Disestablishment of the Irish Church Act was only proposed to your Lordships after it had formed the single issue submitted to the country at a General Election, and after the verdict of the country had been given in the most unmistakable terms. But in 1885 not only was no political Party committed to this policy, but I venture to say that not one elector in 10,000 was favourable to the principle of Home Rule. This is a policy which emanates from the brain and will of a single man. It is not a policy which has proceeded from a political Party; it is not a policy advocated by a political Party and then adopted by its Leaders. It is a policy which has been imposed upon his followers by the single will of one man. Now, so far as we can form any opinion at all, the presumption is against this policy being adopted deliberately by the country. It has never been accepted by the country when it has been placed as a definite issue before it. Its rejection by the House of Commons in 1886 was followed, when the country had before it the proposals within the four corners of a Bill, by a still more decisive rejection at the hands of the electors. Immediately after that time a determined attempt was made to concentrate the attention of the country on the Irish Question. Judging by their own conduct on the part of the gentlemen who sit upon the Government Bench, that effort was wholly unsuccess-

  29
  ful, for it is within our knowledge that in the electoral campaign which was carried on from 1886 to 1892 the Home Rule policy was more and more withdrawn from the notice of the constituencies, and other measures which it was found commanded a larger measure of popular sympathy and support were put forward in its place. That policy was so successful that no human being can tell on what question the majority which put the present Government in power was returned. No doubt some electors voted for Home Rule, but it is quite certain that a larger number voted for Disestablishment, or Local Option, or for Parish Councils, or for changes in the incidence of taxation in towns, or for changes in the Labour Laws. Well, these tactics were successful in their immediate object, and enabled Her Majesty's Government to propose measures of great importance on these and various other subjects. But they have had this disadvantage—that it has been absolutely impossible to form any opinion as to what the real desire and. wish of the people is upon this most vital question. We contend that it is a question large enough to justify us in refusing to pass this measure into law until that question is settled beyond the shadow of a doubt. I will ask your Lordships for a moment to contemplate the possibility of this Bill passing into law. Suppose that all or even some of the evils we anticipate come to pass; suppose the people, irritated by the recurrence of the Irish difficulty after this final effort, were at the next General Election to return a strong Unionist, anti-Irish majority to Parliament, I ask your Lordships to consider what would be the position of the new Irish Parliament and the new Irish Government in such circumstances? Entering upon their new duties confronted by a hostile Government and a hostile Parliamentary majority in Great Britain, it is easy to see the risks of danger that would result. Consider what, in that case, would be the responsibility of your Lordships' House. You would be told that you had had the power to prevent these evils; that you had had the power to impose an interval during which the true will and desire of the people might be ascertained, but that you had failed to use this opportunity. In vain you would plead that you had acted as we are told we ought to act; in vain you
  30
  would plead you had acted on the assumption that the vote of the House of Commons was conclusive. Those who now denounce you for attempting to withstand the judgment of the popular Assembly would then be the first to denounce, with more justice, this Assembly as an utterly useless and inefficient Body incapable of averting even the consequences of a mistaken estimate of the opinion of the country. I will go one step further. I maintain that this policy is of sufficient gravity to make it imperative that not the principle of self-government for Ireland alone should be definitely accepted by the country, but also the form in which it is to be conceded, and the provisions by which this principle is to be carried into effect should also undoubtedly receive the popular approval. Here I think, my Lords, we stand on still firmer ground. Not even those who contend that the last Election was conclusive as to the opinion of the country on the principle of Home Rule will contend that its form or provisions were within the cognisance or knowledge of the country. This form and these provisions are in this case the very essence of the question in the contention of the promoters of the measure themselves. If it were a question of granting independence to Ireland or of restoring the Irish Parliament of 1792, those would be simple issues upon which the judgment of the country as represented in Parliament might be deemed conclusive. But we have been told all along that Irish independence is inadmissible; that the restoration of the Parliament of 1792 is impracticable; and that the granting of Home Rule to Ireland, desirable as it may be, is one which should only be conceded on certain conditions; those conditions being, that the supremacy of Parliament shall be maintained; that sufficient authority shall be reserved to Parliament to safeguard all Imperial interests; that adequate protection is secured for the minority; that an equitable financial arrangement between the two countries shall be devised; and, lastly, that there shall be some security that the settlement is final. When this measure is proposed only conditionally; when, also, the form, structure, and provisions of the measure have been avowedly concealed from the country up to the time of the General

  31
  Election, how can it be possible to contend that the country has given its decision on the measure, the form of which is now shown to be only less essential than the principle itself. I shall be told that the House of Commons approved of this Bill, and that the General Election gave to the House of Commons the necessary mandate and authority to work out the organic details of the measure. I traverse that argument at every step. For reasons which I have stated, I deny that the House of Commons received any mandate upon Home Rule at all at the last Election; and I say, further, if there were a mandate it was a conditional mandate, and that the conditions were not within the knowledge of the country. Before this measure is passed into law we have a right to demand that the judgment of the country shall be given, not upon a cry, not upon an aspiration, not upon an impatient impulse, but upon a completed work; and that this measure, the result of the collective wisdom of the Government and Parliament, shall be submitted to the country for its approval, aye or no. Then, lastly, I say the conditions under which the House of Commons considered this measure have made it impossible for us to have any knowledge that the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons is represented in the matter. Everyone has known from the moment that this measure saw the light that it would never be passed into law, and never could be passed into law. Members have debated and voted on this question, knowing well that it was not a question of practical politics. Under these circumstances, many of them thought that it was not worth while to incur unpopularity with their Party or a portion of their constituents. Many of them knew that they had not been elected to discuss and vote upon the provision of Home Rule, but on some more popular question, such as Welsh Disestablishment or changes in the Liquor Laws. Under those circumstances, knowing that their vote would bear no immediate fruit and have no immediate effect, they were indifferent to the principles to which they might be committing themselves; and so, with some few and honourable exceptions, they have voted with their Party. But I deny that the votes of the House of Commons given under such circumstances imply any certainty on our
  32
  part that those votes represent the judgment of the House of Commons. As to the means by which this Bill has been forced through the House of Commons, I have been attacked in another place for saying that I should ask this House to reject the Bill because three-fourths of it had not been debated at all by the House of Commons. I have been told that the House of Lords has no right to dictate to the House of Commons as to the mode of their procedure. I claim no such right for this House. But what I do claim for this House is the liberty to regulate our proceedings by the knowledge we possess of the procedure which has taken place in the other House. We are accustomed here to receive measures which have been not only voted upon but debated in the other Chamber; and we are entitled to take note of the fact that three-fourths of this measure have never been discussed at all in the other House. That is a fact which we are not only entitled to note for the guidance of our own proceedings, but also to call to the notice of the country in case any controversy should hereafter arise between us and the other House. We are told that a change of Forms in the House of Commons has been rendered necessary by obstruction. If we are to be debarred from cognisance or criticism of the procedure of the other House, what do we know about obstruction? We have before us officially the Journals of the House of Commons. From those Journals we can ascertain that three-fourths of the Bill have been put without Debate, and that among these parts of the Bill are some clauses which were not in the Bill when it was introduced. Some of those clauses have never been read a second time. And some of those clauses relate to financial matters, which, by the practice of our Constitution, we are not allowed to alter if we are allowed to discuss. With this knowledge before us we are entitled to say that we should decline to pass a Bill so presented even if only of minor and secondary importance; and much more, therefore, we must decline to accept measures so presented that are of primary and paramount importance. If there has been obstruction—and I am not going into that question—on whom ought the blame to rest? On those who have been guilty of any violation of the Rules or the ordinary procedure of the House

  33
  of Commons. But in this case the consequences of our acceptance of an undiscussed measure would fall not upon those who have been guilty of the offence—if an offence has been committed—but upon British and Irish subjects whose interests are disposed of without discussion. Under those circumstances, we are entitled to say that this measure, which we cannot know to have directly received the approval of the country, has not, from the consideration which it has received from the House of Commons, given us the assurance that it had indirectly that approval through the Representatives of the people in Parliament. I think I have said almost enough to justify the Motion which I shall make, even if this House did not proceed to enter upon any discussion whatever of the provisions of the Bill. The Motion which I make is not founded solely upon the objection which we may individually entertain to the principle and character of the Bill, but it is also founded on the fact that it is a change of too large and vital a description to make it right that it should be passed into law without greater knowledge and certainty of the real judgment of the people upon it. But in view of the controversy which may, some time or other, take place between the two Houses on this question, I trust that before you vote on this Bill, my Lords, it will receive at your hands, not necessarily a minute, but, at any rate, a broad and general consideration. I can only attempt to-night to refer to one or two of the main principles of the Bill. My first assertion is that those who are responsible for the Bill have not taken the trouble to consider some of the most fundamental characteristics of our Constitution, or how they would be affected by the Bill. From their speeches in support of the Bill, it appears that they recognise no distinction between the Government of the British Empire and the Government of the United Kingdom. They see no difference between the expressions "Unity of the United Kingdom" and "Unity of the Empire." In the United Kingdom, Parliament is supreme not only in its legislative but in its Executive functions. Parliament makes and unmakes our Ministries; it revises their actions. Ministries may make peace and war, but they do so at pain of instant dis-
  34
  missal by Parliament from Office, and in affairs of internal administration the power of Parliament is equally direct. It can dismiss a Ministry if it is too extravagant, or too economical; it can dismiss a Ministry because its government is too stringent or too lax. It does actually and practically, in every way, directly govern England, Scotland, and Ireland. Parliament can decide, and Parliament only can decide, whether Ireland should be governed under a Crimes Act under Mr. Balfour, or under the ordinary law administered by Mr. Sexton or Mr. Healy. That is the nature of the Government and the supremacy of Parliament in the United Kingdom; it is the direct government of these Islands by Parliament through a Committee. As for the British Empire it is altogether different. Over the whole of the British Empire, including our self-governing Colonies, Parliament remains nominally and Constitutionally supreme. So long as a Colony desires to retain its connection with Great Britain it has to be content to have no foreign policy; it has to share our risks in that respect, while it receives the advantages of our protection. As regards the internal affairs of our self-governing Colonies, the supremacy of Parliament and the direct control of Parliament has become nothing but a name. Parliament has no doubt the Constitutional right to make laws for a Colony, to repeal or to veto Colonial Acts, to direct the Governor to impose a certain policy upon his Minister, to dismiss a Ministry or summon others, and to exercise every other act of sovereignty; but this power is only nominal; and no British Government would propose—no Parliament could support Government in proposing—to exercise any real control over the Acts of internal government on the part of a Colonial Parliament. Which of these two systems is the system at which we are aiming in this policy? When the Government speak of this measure sometimes as one preserving the unity of the United Kingdom, and sometimes the unity of the British Empire, are we to read those terms in the sense in which they are now applied to the United Kingdom, or only as they are now applied to the British Empire? On this point

  35
  we get no light from the speeches of the Government, and not much from the pages of this Bill. It is somewhat remarkable that in the first speech I can find on this subject by the Prime Minister when he was preparing for the introduction of this policy (it is one of his Scottish speeches, delivered in the Autumn of 1885), in the course of the same sentence the right hon. Gentleman appears to use these terms in the two different senses.
  "We are all," he says, "every man, woman, and child among us, convinced that it is the will of Providence that these Islands should be bound together in a United Kingdom."
  When he says that I presume he is referring to the maintenance of the Governing Authority of the United Kingdom; but the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say—
  "From one end of Great Britain to the other I trust that there will not be a single Representative returned to Parliament who for one moment would listen to any proposition tending to impair, visibly and sensibly to impair, the unity of the Empire."
  The unity of the Empire, as I have endeavoured to show, would not be impaired if Ireland were made a Colony tomorrow. In the same speech the right hon. Gentleman says—
  "I take it for granted that any demand that is made from Ireland will be a demand which sets out upon that basis, that the unity of the Empire is not to be compromised or put-in jeopardy. If it did not set out upon that basis we should know how to deal with it."
  He is again speaking of unity in the sense of the united Empire, and not in the sense of the Government of the United Kingdom. In the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the introduction of the Bill of 1886 this passage occurs—
  "A supreme statutory authority of the Imperial Parliament over Great Britain, Scotland, and Ireland as one United Kingdom was established by the Act of Union. That supreme statutory authority it is not asked, so far as I am aware, and certainly it is not intended, to impair."
  That appears to point to the maintenance of the authority of Parliament over every part of the United Kingdom, including Ireland, to the same degree and extent as it now exists. It appears to me to be a question of the most absolute importance that we should know clearly in which of these two senses we are to understand the intentions of the framers of the Bill, and unless we do we are
  36
  debating these questions at cross purposes; until we know in what sense this Bill has been framed, whether any direct control of Parliament is to be retained over the internal affairs of Ireland, or whether Ireland is to become a self-governing Colony, it is impossible that the people of this country can discuss with any profit or intelligence the provisions of this Bill. It has sometimes occurred to me that we may be open to the charge that when we reject every suggestion which is made, every plan proposed for giving Home Rule to Ireland, we are seeking to prove too much, to prove that it is impossible for us to do what has been done by other countries and by our own country. I believe that in other countries it has been perfectly possible to delegate legislative powers to subordinate Assemblies, but I maintain that this has never been done, and I believe never can be done under such a system of government as ours. Here the Executive power, not alone the legislative power, is wielded by a popular Assembly, and here the legislative and Executive powers are combined. If our Parliament were like the Congress of the United States, if our Central Government possessed the power possessed by the President of the United States or by the Emperor of Austria-Hungary, there would be no difficulty in delegating some legislative or Executive powers to an inferior legislative or Executive authority. We have done this in our own dominions. We have tried two experiments. Parliament directly governs our Indian Empire. In India we have established a Government where the Executive is so distinct from the legislative power, where it is so strongly organised, that it is a simple and easy matter for Parliament to delegate considerable legislative powers to the Legislative Council, and vast executive powers to officials in various stations. But the supreme authority of Parliament over Indian legislation is not in the slightest degree impaired, nor, though the powers of Governors of Presidencies and Commissioners of Provinces are vast and enormous, has the Central Authority the smallest difficulty in governing, and, through the Government in Parliament, controlling the whole tendency of policy in India. We have tried an experiment of exactly the opposite character in our

  37
  Colonies. There we have established Governments modelled on the form and structure of our own; and, while we retain a certain control over their external policy, we have absolutely abandoned the assumption of exercising any control whatever in their internal policy. Well, so it seems to me must it be in the case of Ireland. This is no prophecy. It seems to me to be the logical consequence of the causes which have produced in our self-governing Colonies practical independence; and those causes will, if you apply them, as you are seeking to do, to Ireland, produce the same consequences. What I desire to know is whether you will give your approval to a policy of Home Rule which would mean that you intend that the future of Ireland shall be as independent of the authority of Parliament as are the Colonies of Canada and Australia. My noble Friend referred to the fact that troops would remain in Ireland, and would remain under the control of the British Government. No doubt that points to a means by which we should still retain some control over the internal policy of the Irish Government. I admit that the presence of your troops in Ireland gives you the power, if sufficient cause arises, to destroy or take back the government which you are creating; but I deny that the presence of troops in Ireland gives you any power to govern Ireland constitutionally. Under the Bill the old system is gone. The Chief Secretary is gone. The Departments now under the Chief Secretary will be manned by officials who are the servants of the Irish Government with which you are supposed to be at issue. How will the troops enable you to govern Ireland under the old system or under the new system? You may issue your orders to the Lord Lieutenant to impose a certain policy on his Ministers, to direct them to retrace the steps which they have taken, or to do something which they are not disposed to do. You may direct your Lord Lieutenant to dismiss his Ministers, and may impose your policy upon him. The presence of the troops will not compel the Irish Parliament to vote Supplies by which the Irish Government may be carried on under this measure. How will it be possible, short of an emergency which would justify putting an end to the existence of this government,
  38
  which with so much trouble you are creating, to influence or guide its conduct on any point which falls short of that absolute necessity? I have spoken in general terms, but I would like to give one or two instances to show the practical necessity of retaining some greater control than is provided by this Bill over the conduct and policy of the Executive Government which you are going to create in Ireland. These instances will also give Her Majesty's Ministers, if they think fit to make use of it, the opportunity of showing where in the Bill the Irish Parliament is prevented from doing what I am about to suggest. I will not give any extreme cases, but only a couple of cases that it will be admitted are not unlikely to occur. The existence of religious differences in Ireland is not denied. One effect of these religious differences is that the conduct of the Education Department is watched with a very jealous eye by Irishmen. That fact is recognised in the Bill, for you insert a clause the intention of which is to provide that the Irish Parliament may not deal with what is known as the Conscience Clause. But it is not in the least necessary, if it is the desire of any Irish Parliament, to resort to legislation in order to get rid of the Conscience Clause. The efficacy of the Conscience Clause entirely depends on its administration. The Irish Education Department, like every other Department, would be under the control of the Irish Executive. Supposing instructions are given to that Department, and by it to its Inspectors, not to insist on the strict or conscientious observance of the Conscience Clause, but on the contrary to allow the Conscience Clause to lapse, what will be the remedy for such a state of things? Would not such an order as effectually convert the education of Ireland into a denominational system as any repeal of the Conscience Clause by Act of Parliament? I want to hear from some Member of Her Majesty's Government what remedy he proposes to apply under this Bill if the Irish Government should openly, deliberately, and avowedly adopt the policy of directing the non-enforcement of the Conscience Clause. I will take another instance—one of still greater importance—which is extremely likely to arise. The Land Question is one that excites the

  39
  acutest difference of opinion. Differences between the Irish Nationalist Members and the majority of Parliament up to the present time on the Irish Land Question have been notorious. The views of the Irish Members generally on the subject of rent differ considerably from those which have been entertained by the majority in both Houses of Parliament. Their views on rent vary on the part of different Members, from a total denial of the right and justice of rent at all to proposals for the indiscriminate reduction of rent. In view of that state of facts you propose to suspend the power of legislation on land for three years. That is not a very long time, and it would be interesting to know whether we are to infer from this suspension that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to legislate on the Land Question in the interval. From what fell from my noble Friend just now, I gathered that he thinks that the Irish Land Question is already sufficiently settled. But the question of legislation is not my present point. Legislation is not necessary to enable the Irish Government by an administrative act to virtually effect an agrarian revolution. We know, we ought to know, for we have been told often enough in the other House, that the payment of rent in Ireland can only be enforced by the power of the Government to carry out evictions. The duty, or perhaps, as they may consider, the hateful burden of enforcing the payment of rent by eviction will, after the passing of the Bill, devolve upon the Irish Government, every Member of which has already to some extent pledged himself against the principle. Is it an unreasonable or unlikely anticipation that, without attempting to legislate upon land at all, the Irish Government may, by an Executive Act, decline to use the Executive power at their command to enforce evictions or take any steps whatever to enforce the payment of rent? Or is it not still more probable that they may propose some discriminating conditions which have never received the sanction either of this Legislature or their own. The question I would ask Her Majesty's Government is—Where in this Bill is the provision that would enable Parliament, if proceedings such as these are adopted, to
  40
  pronounce an opinion or take effective action with regard to the supposed action of the Irish Government. I have referred to the Irish Land Question as part of my argument that I am endeavouring to prove that some greater power of control on the part of Parliament over the Executive action of the Irish Government is required. I have another word to say on this subject of a more general character. We have been reminded by my noble Friend that it was proposed in 1886 to deal concurrently with the question of land and the question of government, and the obligation of the Government to deal concurrently with these subjects was stated in the strongest terms. That intention has been departed from. My noble Friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, speaking at Newcastle in 1886, said—
  "Everybody knows that there have been many feuds in Ireland—old animosities which cannot be expected to die out at once. Foremost among these is the Land Question. The whole force of Irish agitation at one time was against the Irish landlords. That animosity was bitter and strong. I do not for a moment think it would be just and honest in the British Parliament to leave unprotected and uncared for the landlords of Ireland. We have at different times curtailed their rights by Acts of Parliament, and I think it would be a mean and treacherous thing at this moment if we did not defend what we consider their just interests. But I should like to say this in addition—that I believe it would be most unfair on the new Irish Assembly to leave this question of the land unsettled."
  We have heard to-night the explanation of the change of policy of the Government by my noble Friend. Since 1886 the Ashbourne Act has been extended and the Act of 1891 has been passed. Does my noble Friend intend to convey that in his opinion those two Acts are a final settlement of the Irish Land Question? It is perfectly well known that the amount provided in both these Acts is entirely inadequate to effect the transference of more than a fraction of the land of Ireland from the landlord to the occupiers. Nor is it entirely a matter of the amount which may be sufficient to effect such a transference. The landlord may be perfectly willing to sell, but the tenant, especially under existing circumstances, with the prospect of this Bill passing, may not be willing to buy. What protection is it to the Irish landlord that he is willing to sell or that the Government is willing to advance the

  41
  money, if he cannot prevail on his tenantry, acting on the advice of their leaders, to buy? Does my noble Friend for one single moment mean to attempt to persuade the House that the existence of the Act referred to places the Irish landlords in a position of such security that it is safe now to do what in 1886 he said it would be "a mean and treacherous thing to do"—namely, not to defend what he considers the just interests of the landlords. I freely admit the right of everyone among us to change our opinions upon any question of policy or expediency; it is a more serious thing to change our opinion and our action on a question which has been admitted to be one of duty and of honour. Whatever may be my opinion of the expediency or policy of the course which has recommended itself to Her Majesty's Government, I cannot think that my noble Friend has given any adequate consideration to the obligations of duty and of honour which he and his Colleagues undertook in 1886, when he puts forward the useful, but tentative and incomplete measure of 1891 as relieving him of the obligations to the Irish landlords which he acknowledged in 1886. On that point I cannot refrain from saying a word upon some other extraordinary denials, and I think I may say evasions, of former declarations—denials and evasions to which we have been accustomed in connection with this measure. I have adverted to one which is inexplicable to me in relation to the Land Question, but that is not the only one. The Prime Minister said at Edinburgh in 1885 that it would be unsafe to deal with the Irish problem unless the Liberal Party were in a majority independent of the assistance of the Irish Members. That declaration was made with the usual adjuncts, and the Edinburgh audience were assured that this warning was given seriously and solemnly. It was not given once but twice. Though I have had the honour of having had correspondence with the Prime Minister on the subject, there is one further extract which I did not use then, and which puts the matter in a more concise shape than we are accustomed to get from the Prime Minister—
  "I have said everywhere that I trust you will return a Liberal Party able to sway the destinies of the country in the coming Parliament, because, especially taking into view those necessities that may arise in connection with
  42
  the government of the Sister Island, nothing, I think, could be more dangerous to the public weal than that they should be handled in a Parliament where there was no party strong enough to direct its action according to its judgment and conscience, without being liable to be seduced from the right path by the temptation which might be offered to it by the vote of the Irish Members. But that, I understand, is the summit of the hopes of the Tory Party in this Election; not that they may obtain such a national verdict as will enable them, possessing the confidence of Parliament as a whole, to direct their course, but that they may obtain such an amount of strength in a minority as, with the assistance of a large Irish contingent, may be made into a majority. Gentlemen, I must say—I am entitled, I think, to say—that is not a state of things which we could accept as a Party. But I may go further and say it is not a state of things that would be safe or honourable to the country."
  I took the liberty on some occasion or other to refer to those statements. The attention of the Prime Minister was called to my remarks, and he informed his correspondent that my reference was inaccurate. I sent him passages, not the one I have read, but longer ones from former speeches, and I obtained the following explanation:—
  "You have converted a statement growing out of a particular position of Parties and affairs under my view at the time into a general principle applicable to all positions of Parties and affairs."
  Now, I think that those denials, and I may almost say evasions, constitute an unfortunate incident of our public life. They are, it seems to me, calculated to diminish the weight and authority of declarations which are made by responsible men. I ask this House whether any declaration on a certain point could be made in terms broader and wider and clearer than those I have read. Whenever in future we have to deal with similar declarations on similar important points, it will become necessary for us, before attaching the smallest consequence to them as a guide to future conduct and action, to pause and consider "what is the particular position of parties and affairs" which is in the view of the speaker at the time. There is another instance to which I may allude. The Prime Minister, speaking at Liverpool—I do not recollect the date—said he would not be a party to Irish Members voting and speaking on English and Scotch affairs when they had their own Parliament to manage their own affairs. The Prime Minister has not denied the

  43
  accuracy of the quotation; but he has given an interpretation of it. I doubt whether that interpretation is a satisfactory one. As I gather, the explanation is that he would not be a party to forcing such an arrangement on unwilling Englishmen and Scotchmen; but that, as I understand, is the very thing the Prime Minister has done. I believe that in the Division which took place on the retention of the Irish Members for all purposes, the Government only carried the change by the assistance of the Irish Members. If that is not forcing this arrangement upon unwilling Scotland and England, I do not know what interpretation to place upon the words. I have endeavoured to give you one or two instances in which it seems to me to be absolutely necessary that some greater control should be conferred on Parliament to control the acts of the Irish Executive. But it is unnecessary to refer to hypothetical cases. I think we ought to know what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the representations of the minority in Ireland. Do they believe that every class but one lives in dread of this Bill? Do they believe that these fears are insincere or unfounded? Or do they believe that they are sincere and well-founded, but yet do not care, and are willing to take the risk. I will put the landlords on one side for a moment. I do not suppose anyone will doubt that the landlords have reason to dread this Bill. As to the Protestants, I should like to ask any Member of this House—I would not appeal only to the Protestant Members, I would appeal to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself (the Marquess of Ripon)—whether he would like the alternative of being ruled by a Government under the orders of the Irish hierarchy, or the alternative of being ruled by a Government elected by a Party returned under the influence of Irish-American Fenians, dynamiters, and moonlighters? My noble Friend who spoke before me says he does not believe that the Protestants have anything to fear. Of that I apprehend that they may be better judges than my noble Friend. Then what are we to say to the apprehensions of the merchants, the men of business in Ireland? What is the attitude of the Government towards them? If the Government are
  44
  right and these men are wrong, they have more to gain from this measure than any other class in Ireland. If the Government are right, and this is a measure which is going to bring contentment and prosperity to Ireland, it is these men who have most to gain. Do the Government suppose that these men are fools? Do they think that they are altogether ignorant of the conditions, political, or otherwise, under which they can safely and successfully conduct their business? My noble Friend himself cannot profess to think that he knows more about the buying of flax or selling of linen than the Belfast manufacturer, and does he suppose that these men, avowedly shrewd men of business, who attained their present position by their common sense, their shrewdness, and their ability, are absolutely incompetent to form an estimate of the political conditions under which they now carry on, or in future are to carry on, their trade. These classes—landlords, Protestants, merchants, manufacturers, professional men, men of business—all tell you, without exception, that they have confidence in and rely upon the justice and the power of the Imperial Parliament. Can you show to them within the four corners of this Bill a means by which the Imperial Parliament will in future be able to exercise any power whatever for their protection? If you can show them that, notwithstanding the granting of local autonomy to Ireland, you do reserve power in the hands of the British Parliament to protect minorities against injustice, oppression, and wrong, then I do not say you remove altogether the distrust of your Bill, but you will go a long way towards removing the feeling of absolute dread and apprehension which now pervades the minority in Ireland. But for one reason it is to me a subject for wonder why Her Majesty's Government should have adopted this particular mode of extending self-government to Ireland, when what seems a better and an easier way lay before them. My noble Friend said something this evening about local self-government, but, unfortunately, he was stopped in the middle of his quotation, in which he said he was going to prove that the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) expressed an opinion that the extension of local self-government to Ireland would

  45
  be much worse than Home Rule. It is a very curious fact that the Government of the noble Marquess introduced a Local Government Bill, but it appears to me that a better and safer and easier way might have been found within) the lines of an extension of local self-government. All our institutions hitherto have been gradual in their growth, and never has there been wholly absent from them, even in Ireland, the germ of local self-government. In very recent times we have seen an enormous development of the principles of local self-government. In our County Councils and in our County Borough Councils we have seen great and powerful bodies created possessing now very considerable executive and administrative powers. No one can say even now how far this principle may be yet capable of extension; but to whatever extent it may grow, in the course of its growth it destroys nothing, it takes no power away from our Central Government or from our Imperial Parliament. It grows side by side with our Parliamentary institutions. It is like the case of the action of a father who, as his sons grow up and show more and more capacity for business, entrusts a larger and larger share of the management of his affairs to them; or like the case of an employer who, as his business increases and he feels less inclined to devote himself to details, delegates constantly to managers and subordinates a larger amount of power and responsibility. But the course you prefer resembles that of a father who is compelled by his son to sign during his lifetime a bond assigning a considerable proportion of his income and an appreciable amount of control, whether, with or against his will, in the management of his affairs; or like the conduct of the subordinate managers of a firm who insist upon their employer converting his business into a limited liability company, and appointing all of them co-directors with equal power and authority to himself. The reason for this course of conduct on the part of the Government is not far to seek. No proposal to extend local self-government in Ireland would have purchased votes. In an evil and unhappy day the Irish Party accepted at the hands of Mr. Parnell the principle of Irish nationality; and in a still more evil day, without consulting
  46
  his followers, the Leader of the Liberal Party committed the great bulk of his own Party to the same principle. The votes which were then bargained for are now to be had at no lower price, and this appears to me to constitute the only explanation why the Government did not make an honest attempt to solve the Irish difficulty by the extension to Ireland of the measures which had been found effectual in England and Scotland. I will say nothing upon the subject of finance, partly because I feel I am very imperfectly acquainted with it, and partly because it seems to me not especially fit to be discussed in your House. Neither have I said anything as to Ulster, though Ulster is one of the minorities I have referred to. It is said that Ulster is prepared to resist this measure by force if it passes into law; but I do not desire to say anything upon that. I should prefer that your decision should be based upon your own judgment. All threats of violence on one side or the other should be left out of consideration. All I would venture to say is that the attitude of Ulster is such as to be a subject of the utmost gravity, though the responsibility for the position there is perhaps to be borne more by the Government than by your Lordships. The attitude of Ulster is one of the utmost gravity, and a vast responsibility rests upon those who ignore it, and treat as vague and idle the protests and the solemn declarations of men who have never yet given us reason to believe that they do not mean what they say. I will not detain you any longer as to the principles and details of this Bill. The Prime Minister, in the last speech he made on this subject, summed up the other day what he took to be the Unionist views of the case. There was some element of exaggeration, some distortion, some touch of caricature in the right hon. Gentleman's recital of the pleas which the Unionist Party urged against this measure, but on the whole it was not very far wide of the mark. This is his enumeration of our pleas. "It will separate the people." We do say that in our judgment the bitterness of religious animosity in Ireland will not be lessened, but exaggerated by leaving the people to fight out their differences without the controlling power of an authority which, however much it may have erred in other respects,

  47
  has in recent times, at any rate on the religious question, endeavoured to do strict and impartial justice. Mr. Gladstone says our next plea is that the Bill will destroy the Constitution. This is an exaggeration of our plea. We do not say it will destroy our Constitution; we do say it will introduce into it innovations which are opposed to its spirit and principle. "It will break up the Empire." That is a misstatement of our contention. We say it will break up the United Kingdom, and relegate Ireland to the position of a self-governing Colony. "It will annihilate financial control." That is a question which I have not touched upon, and shall not touch upon to-night. "It will make an Irish delegation supreme in our affairs." That is a plea by which we abide in its entirety. "It will lead to the virtual slavery of the minority." That, again, is the language of exaggeration. "Lastly, the controversies within the walls of Parliament will become worse instead of better." We fully believe in and adopt that plea. The work in this Bill is only half done. This measure will deprive the minority of political power to which their position and their character fully entitles them; but this minority will not have been silenced, for you have taken care that the loyal minority—the minority to which you have been accustomed to appeal in your times of difficulty and danger—shall still be heard, if not in Ireland, at least here. You have done your best to transform those who were your friends into your bitterest foes, but you have still left them a foothold in this Parliament and arms with which they can fight the battle here in which they are disarmed at home. Under those circumstances the controversy which has too often disturbed our Parliamentary discussion between Englishmen and Irishmen will in all probability be renewed with greater bitterness and intensity after this measure has been passed into law. We have been accused of freely indulging in prophecy. I do not know which of us has claimed that gift, but no doubt statesmanship does consist in the gift of foreseeing, so far as our imperfect faculties will admit, the consequences of certain acts and certain policies. Principles may be important; details may be essential; but what the
  48
  statesman has to look at are the probable results. We have, as the Prime Minister thinks, a distorted vision of the measure. You also have your visions. We think we see not only the evils and horrors which will result from this Bill, but we have a vision of a happier Ireland under other conditions. Our vision, I admit, is not clothed in any radiant colours, but we see the prospect of a continuous growth in the material prosperity of Ireland which has marked the history of the country in recent years—a growth of material prosperity which we believe was never more rapid than at the time when it received an unfortunate check last year. We believe that contentment and order will in the end follow in the steps of material prosperity. If we have the distorted vision of the facts of your policy which the Prime Minister describes, we are entitled to think that your Utopia is still more wild and improbable than ours. They see in the future visions of order, but it is order evolved out of the deliberations in Committee Room No. 15. They see the increase of material prosperity, but it is a material prosperity unaided by capital, which is already leaving the shores of Ireland. They see a vision of justice for Ireland, but it is justice which has been learned in the Courts of the Land League. Prophecy is as necessary to commend their scheme as it is to condemn it. We believe that the picture we draw is drawn on truer lines and in more faithful colours than their picture, which is so much the work of the imagination. They must acknowledge, at all events, that their remedy is a critical and a capital one. If it does not succeed one of the patients surely dies, while the other must be left sorely afflicted almost unto death. Believing that it is "better to endure the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of," we elect—and we hope that the people will support us in electing—to abide by the Union of the United Kingdom, which we believe was decreed by Nature, and to which laws and treaties have only given a written sanction and record. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
  THE MARQUESS of ZETLANDsaid, that he had listened with the greatest possible admiration to the noble Duke who had moved the rejection of this Bill, and he could not but feel it to be somewhat presumptuous on the part of so humble a Member of their Lordships' House to reply to those arguments which had been used with so much eloquence and power. He had listened with the greatest possible interest to the speech of the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill. It was not his intention to follow the noble Lord over the very wide area he traversed, but he would confine his remarks to the Bill which had been introduced into this House, and he confessed that he had searched, and searched in vain, for any convincing arguments for such a change as would take place if this measure were passed into law. If he might venture to make an allusion to the speech of so great a statesman as the Prime Minister of England he would say that in his opinion a strong argument had been adduced in favour of Home Rule in the speech in which Mr. Gladstone introduced his Bill in 1886, but it was useless to compare the state of things then to the state of things in 1891. He was willing to admit that in 1886 the condition of Ireland was such as would disgrace any civilised nation of the world; that the government of Ireland by this country had been tried and failed, and it was absolutely necessary that something should be done; and on this ground was founded the proposal for Home Rule. But many things had been done since 1886 by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour). Crime in the country had diminished to such an extent that they had been enabled to hand over the country to their successors in a state of comparative peace and contentment, and much in the same condition as Scotland is now and has been for many years. As an illustration of the suppression of crime, it appears that when Her Majesty's Government realised the state of affairs they found they could conscientiously suspend those safeguards which they thought it desirable to retain for the purpose of protecting those living and acting in the country and give greater freedom to the criminal classes of Ireland than they had hitherto had. He had pointed out that the crime of the country diminished almost to its normal condi-
  50
  tion, and measures were taken for the development of the resources of the country and encouraging the industries of the people. They had every reason to believe that the prosperity of the country had increased, and he had been informed by those residing on their estates in the worst parts of the country that a slow but sure change for the better came over every class. He said, under those circumstances, not a vestige of argument remained that the government of Ireland by this country was impossible. He had searched for any sound and solid argument in support of what was called the protection of the loyal minority, and he had seen none. He had searched for any sound or solid argument for the protection of those servants of the Crown, who had been doing their duty, and I have found none. Then, coming to the new administration in Ireland, he would not detain them with the future formation of the Lower House of Parliament, but it was proposed that there should be two Houses of Legislature of Ireland—that the one should be a safeguard of the other. Looking at the formation of the Upper House, they found it was to be elective, and Members were to be elected by persons paying a rent of £20 and upwards. Now that had been tried before, and failed. Their Lordships were well aware what a farce trial by jury became at a certain time in Ireland. The qualification to serve on a jury was a £20 valuation, and he believed he was correct in saying that a jury under those qualifications was unfit to perform their duty, and ultimately the qualification had to be raised, and it was now £40 in the country and £10 in the town. He believed he was correct in saying that in the rural districts the persons with the £20 or £30 qualification were the very persons who suffered most from intimidation at the hands of the National League of Ireland. Many of them had been compelled to join it, and he said instead of being a safeguard, the Upper House would rather add emphasis to the deliberations of the Lower. Under those circumstances he asked what they proposed to do with those faithful servants to the Crown who had done their duty so well in the past? To begin with there was the Civil Service of Ireland, the Imperial servants of the Crown, they had claims which had been

  51
  derived from long custom, and they had in many cases given up other occupations, in order to make the Service their occupation for life, and having arrived at the time of superannuation they might justly expect to receive in the future that which they had had in the past, compensation for the services rendered to the country. What was the state of affairs under this Bill, the newly-created Government of Ireland would have entire control over those individuals. He believed he was correct in saying that after five years it would rest entirely between the Treasury and the newly-created Government in Ireland whether they will be permitted to retire at any time during the five years, and if so they would receive but small compensation should they be forced to serve five years, and should they at the end of five years be permitted to retire, they would be placed in a similar position. If they should not retire, then they would be at the mercy of the Administration, who would have the power to make whatever terms they pleased. He confessed it seemed to him that that looked like a breach of faith. The remarks which he had made with regard to the Civil servants applied to the other persons; everybody knew what this country owed to the Royal Irish Constabulary, who performed their duty in an exemplary manner. He had himself had much experience during his Viceroyalty, and he felt himself in a position to say that no force at any time or in any country more thoroughly enjoyed the respect or admiration of the law-abiding citizens of the country. He believed their sympathies were with the people, and when the country was destroyed by the potato famine the Royal Irish Constabulary contributed no less a sum than £1,300 for the relief of their fellow countrymen. Not only that, but they gave us their services free of charge, and it was owing to their aid that we were able to bring about a scheme to combat the potato famine in the land. Then their Lordships must consider that these men have in many cases arrived at a time of life when it will be impossible to embark in a fresh career, and they have insured their lives under the impression that they will not be disturbed, and he considered they were treated in a most shameful manner. He understood the noble Lord to say other
  52
  employment might be found, and he supposed he (Lord Spencer) liked to think there may be other employment found for the Civil servants. But that was not the case here. There were some who believed that something like a political milennium would take place on the passing of the Bill, but it was not likely. They must look to the probable rather than to the possible consequences of the Bill. It was possible that some of those individuals that he (Lord Zetland) had referred to would consent to serve under the future Government, but he confessed to him it was extremely improbable. He could not but characterise the proposals of the Government as being experimental, and in their character revolutionary and unjust. He was not expressing his own opinion only when he said he objected to the principles of a measure which would tend to the severance of the Legislative Union of the two countries. This was not a measure of finality. It was a natural question to ask by whom was this legislation required. He might take it it was not the landlords. It had been amply demonstrated by the public at large; it had been amply shown by the large demonstrations in the North of Ireland, where all the wealth, capital, and commercial enterprise of the country was to be found, that the proposals of Her Majesty's Government were not wanted. Those demonstrations had not been confined to the North of Ireland. Demonstrations of a similar character had been held in Dublin and in the South. Nor had these demonstrations been confined to the Protestants. And similar demonstrations have been held where the delegates have been elected by the people, and resolutions have been carried with the same unanimity. In this great City they had witnessed a scene which they would never forget: when the delegates were sent to this country to free them from this measure which would bring destruction on their country and ruin on themselves. As regarded the feeling in Ireland, he had himself travelled largely about the country and endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the wants and wishes and requirements of the people, and during his travels he had received innumerable petitions and addresses and he had never on any single occasion received a petition or an address

  53
  or heard a speech delivered containing anything which could by any possibility be taken as meaning anything derogatory to the Crown. He knew the chief troubles of Ireland were the effect of the political agitator who poisoned the ears of the people. He had seen in County Clare an instance of intimidation at the house of a farmer. He interviewed the man, and saw a hole in the window made by a bullet, which, though meant for him (the farmer), had passed through the heart of his young daughter. There were three brothers in the house, and yet not a single scrap of evidence was forthcoming as to the murder. They might talk of the doings of tyrants and dictators in bygone ages, but never in the world's history had cruelty, tyranny, or intimidation been brought to such a pitch as it had been by the organisation which was set on foot by those individuals whose past offences the Government were now prepared to condone, and in whom they now professed to feel such confidence that they are about to entrust to them the destinies of the country. The Government were now prepared to throw over and destroy all that in the past had been faithful and loyal and true in Ireland in order to hand over the government to these men who had done all they could to make the government of the country an impossibility, and who had never on any occasion done anything whatever to ameliorate the condition of the people. Such a state of things as this might well be described as passing the wit of man to understand. It is positively certain that the capital and all that makes a country prosperous and happy will take itself elsewhere; as a natural concurrence the manhood of the country, which is dependent on capital for its livelihood, will also leave. It was not his (Lord Zetland's) intention to say how Irish labour would be received in English markets, but he would ask, under the circumstances, how Her Majesty's Government proposed to continue the Government in Ireland? It seemed to him the taxes would be increased. The English taxpayer would inevitably be called upon to aid a people impoverished by the results of legislation sought to be placed on the Statute Book by an unholy alliance between law-breakers and the remnant of the once great Liberal Party. He rejoiced that the measure had come
  54
  before their Lordships for consideration, and he believed the course they would take upon it would be sanctioned by the public at large. He was entirely unable to understand what liberty would be conferred on Ireland by the proposals of the Government, unless, indeed, it be the sham liberty of the Land Leaguer, the robber, and the assassin; and he was totally at a loss to know what justice there could be in proposals to hand over to law-breakers of the past the future care of the lives, limbs, and property of that loyal minority in Ireland whose lives, limbs, and property both Parties had in the past been equally anxious to preserve.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, as a constant resident in Ireland, they in Dublin and its neighbourhood looked upon the Bill with dread impossible to describe. He spoke on behalf, not only of the Dublin tradesmen and merchants and others, but all the artizans and labourers in the district. They all looked upon the advent of the Bill as a blight which would stop all improvements and all industries in Ireland. Tradesmen had told him that the shadow of the Bill ruined trade, and that in Dublin there was nothing going on. A Cork tradesman, giving his opinion on the subject, said there was not a man in the country with £20 in his pocket who wanted the Bill. If this Bill passed, which they hoped it would not, all improvements such as the light railways would come to an end, because it was quite impossible that such projects could be carried on by the finances of Ireland without the aid of Great Britain. He failed to see how Ireland was to prosper, and the people of Ireland were beginning to find out that under Home Rule the country would not prosper. The more they realised that the only effect of the Bill would be to increase the burden of their taxation the more were they inclined to oppose it. Trinity College had spoken pretty plainly on the subject. Mr. Gladstone brought in an Education Bill for Ireland under which he proposed to obliterate the Chairs of Philosophy and History. Naturally that did not suit the intelligence of the country and the Bill was thrown out. The Dublin people and others are becoming more and more convinced that this Bill would result in national bankruptcy.
  LORD BRASSEYsaid, he should give his heartiest support to the principles on which the Bill was founded, but he would not pledge himself to support all its details. The Bill embodied the only available plan for dealing with the Irish Question. They might have governed Ireland by coercion. They had the power to do so if they had thought fit. Speaking at Portsmouth, Mr. Parnell said—
  "It is impossible for 3.000,000 of Irishmen to contend against 2,000,000 of other Irishmen and the tens of millions of the United Kingdom."
  Later in the same address Mr. Parnell gave the reasons why coercion was impossible—
  "You can," he said, "silence us in Ireland, but you will have to accompany our silence in Ireland by our silence in the House of Commons."
  In other words, they must disfranchise Ireland. English statesmen had shrunk from that alternative. The Act of 1884, unchallenged by the Conservative Party, added more than 500,000 votes to the electorate of Ireland; it was an addition of 200 per cent. The results were immediately seen; out of 102 Members returned for Ireland 86 were Home Rulers. That was a national pronouncement which no Liberal Leader could venture to disregard. They had dealt with the grievance of religious inequality. They had dealt with the Land Question in a succession of measures strongly opposed, but which had been found by experience satisfactory in their operation. There were other grievances, which as yet they had not attempted to remove. The time had now come to deal with the grievance known as the Castle system. Its operation was described by Mr. Chamberlain at Islington on June 17, 1885, perhaps with some exaggeration, in an eloquent passage—
  "I do not believe that the great majority of Englishmen have the slightest conception of the system under which this free nation attempts to rule a sister country. It is a system founded on the bayonets of 30,000 soldiers, encamped permanently as in a hostile country. It is a system as completely centralised and bureaucratic as that with which Russia governs Poland. An Irishman at this moment cannot move a step, he cannot lift a finger, in any parochial, municipal, or educational work, without being confronted, interfered with, controlled by an English official appointed by a foreign Government."
  56
  He said, with Mr. Chamberlain, the time had come to substitute for that system an Irish Parliament for purely Irish business. It was no sufficient answer to the complaints of the Irish people that they have had in Parliament a Court of Appeal at which they might at all times command a hearing. The Irish Nationalists had been represented. They had been over-represented. But the Irish Members had sat side by side with more than 500 British Members. What was the problem for which Parliament was called upon to provide a solution? It could not be more clearly stated than by Mr. Charles Stuart Parker in his Life of Sir Robert Peel—
  "The sphinx of history," he says, "is once more putting the question, yet unsolved. With organised agitation, and with an overwhelming voting power of tenant farmers (such as existed in the Irish counties before 1829 and exists again since 1884), how shall Irish popular demands be reconciled with 'securities,' no longer for a Protestant Established Church (for that, as Sir Robert Peel foresaw, is gone), but for the Legislative Union (which he thought might also go), for enforcement of the civil rights of landlords, for individual liberty of action, and generally for good government, as understood by the majority of the United Kingdom."
  Two attempts had been made by Mr. Gladstone to give Local Government to Ireland. Each of his Bills had been an embodiment of the same principle. In both they had a Legislature created for purely local affairs, more limited as to its sphere of action than Grattan's Parliament, but having the power of appointing its own Executive. It was contended that no Executive which could be appointed by an Irish Parliament would be fit to be entrusted with the responsibility of government. The objection to an Irish Executive rested upon a deep distrust of the Irish character. It could not be denied that there had been much lawlessness and disaffection in Ireland; but let them ask themselves whether that regrettable state of things had not been created by poverty and acts of misgovernment. Was it not true, as Mr. Bright once said, that "everything can be made of an Irishman in every country but his own"? That cautious and profound statesman, Sir Cornewall Lewis, made a just estimate of the political capacity of Irishmen—
  "Before I went to Ireland," he said, "I had very strong opinions as to the influence of race on the Irish character. But when I came to

  57
  look at things more closely and to see all the demoralising influences to which they have been, and are, subjected, I asked myself whether a people of Germanic race would have turned out much better; and I really could not answer in the affirmative. … Cœteris paribus, I would sooner have a German than a Celt, and a Protestant than a Catholic; but I have no doubt that a peasantry of Catholic Celts may be so governed and placed under such moral influences as to be peaceable, industrious, and contented."
  While declining to take a pessimist view of the political capacity of Irishmen, he desired that the changes contemplated should be made with prudence, and, as Mr. Parnell was contented to allow, by gradual stages. Failure need not be anticipated, but they should be prepared for every contingency. Under the Bill it was proposed that the whole administration of the Local Government should be supervised by the Lord Lieutenant, advising with the local Executive, but subject to instructions from the Imperial Cabinet. Imperial unity and control would be preserved by the Irish Peers in this House and by representation in the House of Commons. Two Irish Exchequer Judges were to be appointed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom. It would be no infringement of the principle of the Bill to retain the appointment to a large number of the higher judicial offices. Under the Bill it was proposed to maintain the fine force of Royal Irish Constabulary for a period of six years. It was certainly not desirable that it should be disbanded until the peace of Ireland was thoroughly assured under the Local Government. The Constabulary might be maintained as a gendarmerie, forming part of the Regular Army, and paid out of the Army Estimates. That was one of the many wise recommendations of the Devon Commission, on which no action had been taken. Turning to Clause 9, under the original Bill of 1886 the Irish Members were not retained in the Imperial Parliament. Their position had been reconsidered in deference to a general wish. If retained, the Irish Members must sit in Parliament for every purpose. The in-and-out plan was clearly impracticable. The anomaly of the situation would be considerably mitigated if the Parliamentary representation of Ireland were reduced to something like the proportion of its contribution to the Imperial Revenue.
  58
  If this were done, the Irish Members would be about 35 in a total of 670. Such a representation would be quite sufficient to sustain the unity of government and the Imperial supremacy of Parliament. It would probably be more beneficial to Ireland than the present excess of Members, while giving the Irish Party less power than they at present possessed to set up or to overthrow Ministries. The Land Question was the most difficult of all the questions with which the Government had to deal in Ireland. It was not touched upon in the present Bill. It was said, and said truly, by Aristotle, the father of political science, "The protection of property is the principal care of statesmen, it being the question on which all revolutions depend." Every Royal Commission had recommended a large conversion of the Irish occupiers into owners, with the assistance of the State. The principle had been accepted by statesmen on both sides. It was obvious that the policy of land purchase could only be carried through by agreement on the part of responsible statesmen on both sides. Not only in relation to land, but in regard to the whole of the complex and difficult Irish Question, was it not true that until some general agreement was obtained on the leading principles it was impossible that the work of legislation could be completed? The late Government, although strongly opposed to Mr. Gladstone's proposals in 1886, did not hesitate to proceed on similar lines when they came into Office. They began with an expenditure of £10,000,000 under the Ashbourne Acts. They made a further proposal to raise £33,000,000 for the same purpose. The principle of State-aided land purchase having once been adopted we must go on to the end. That was the opinion of the Lord Chancellor. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, addressing the Eighty Club in 1889, said—
  "I think it would be poor kindness to the Irish Legislature to leave them the task of dealing with the Land Question."
  It was only by agreement on both sides that such an arrangement could be adopted, and until such an agreement had been arrived at it would be impossible that our legislation in regard to Ireland could take a final shape. When the principles had been fixed the task of

  59
  framing a measure could be entrusted, as it was suggested by Lord Rosebery in a speech delivered at Northwich. He suggested when the general principles had been fixed a Royal Commission should be appointed consisting of some of their most distinguished lawyers and permanent Civil servants of the Crown, to whom should be entrusted the framing of the measure in all its details. However protracted the delay, if the policy now proposed should in the end prove successful, nothing could deprive Mr. Gladstone of the credit which was his due for his services to Ireland. In conclusion, let it be remembered that, in dealing with Ireland, Parliament had to deal not only with the inhabitants of an island of limited extent, but with the far larger numbers of Irish descent, who were settled in the United States and the Colonies, and whose hostility was the source of political difficulties, only to be removed by a policy of conciliation. All experience, whether in Europe or in our own Colonies, was in favour of the policy. It was idle to talk of separation, and to argue that Ireland, under limited self-government, could be used as a base for hostile operations. With all the armed force and every military position in the Imperial Government's hands, with its fleets filling Irish harbours, how could Ireland lift up a finger? Separation was not desired by Irishmen themselves. They were not so unintelligent that they should fail to see the advantages to their country of being joined to and protected by a powerful Empire of great resources. It was the hope, it was the confidence of the Government, that when their new plan had been established there would be no desire for separation, but rather that the Union of the Empire would be cemented by indissoluble bonds of common interests and reciprocal regard. He desired to give a hearty general support to the Bill now before the House.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid, the noble Lord who had just down had comforted himself for having supported the Bill by putting forward the many Amendments he proposed to move if the Bill reached the Committee stage. He congratulated the noble Lord that he would not be called upon to carry into practical effect the promise which he had given the House. They all knew what was to be
  60
  the fate of this measure, but he did not intend to trouble them again with the arguments which were well known. The title of the Bill itself—it was entitled a Bill for the Better Government of Ireland—showed what it was. It was promoted for the purpose of putting power into the hands of a political Party who lost no opportunity of showing how unfit they were of undertaking the responsibility. It put the power in the hands of two opposing factions. One of the factions had no means or will to reconcile its opponents, and no power to bind the hostile factions into one people. To the Protestants of Ireland the power would be wielded by those they felt they could not trust, to the Catholics of Ireland it dangled before them the dangerous temptations of power that could only be grasped by an unholy alliance condemned by the Church, and whose Leaders had openly defied the Decrees of the Holy See. It came in such a shape that showed that capital and enterprise were already leaving, and on leaving the House of Commons the very last words said about it were words of protest from those whom it was supposed to benefit against the Financial Clauses, and that was why it was not so much as the last word, but rather that it was a second contest that would take place in Ireland, because it had this Bill for foundation and encouragement in the action which brought the Bill about. That was one of the reasons which made them feel how futile were the hopes of those who looked for relief from this measure. He did not wish to take up too much time, but he thought there were two instances he would bring to their minds. One was the feeling that the Bill was to be amended, and so bring to an end the struggle and agitation which had gone on so long; and the other feeling that England ought to expiate her acts of evil government and repent; and, therefore, this Act was an Act of tardy reparation and justice. Surely they could not admit for a moment that this Bill was the price and badge of victory of the disunion. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading assured the House that the Irish would not be so foolish as to carry the agitation further, because they knew that separation was hopeless, and that behind the Bill were the Armies of England.

  61
  That was a very strange way of introducing this olive branch. There might be among the Home Rule Party some who understood well enough that there might be a question between separation or civil war, and those who had found in the past that agitation paid so well might get up an agitation for its own sake without really thinking of the bribes they dangled before their dupes. The point need not be discussed whether they intended to go on from demand to demand, though they had given their own assurance that that was their intention, without even paying their Lordships' House the compliment of waiting to see how they were going to dispose of this measure. At a meeting at Dublin on the 9th of August, Mr. Redmond stated that such a measure of Home Rule could not be regarded as final and satisfactory by the Irish people. Noble Lords opposite might say that represented the views of merely a fraction of the Irish people; but it showed to what sort of people the administration of the government of Ireland was to be entrusted. At another meeting, on the 2nd August, Mr. Healy criticised the attitude of the Parnellite Party, and said that the Home Rule measure must be regarded as a compromise—that people must not suppose that in this world they could get everything they wanted at once, and that they ought to know that a compromise must be accepted in this matter and be glad to accept this Bill. Mr. Healy went on to say that the Irish people could not expect, after 700 years of slavery, everything they deserved in one day or in one year. He said they must be content with laying one stone upon another, laying a good foundation, and trusting that by-and-bye somebody would put on the roof; that they must proceed quietly and certainly with their work, and in that spirit, animated by those views and supported by their countrymen, they proposed to proceed to the end. He could hardly understand the contemptuous indifference to the feelings of the Gladstonian Party in England, which must have been present to Mr. Healy's mind when he made that audacious statement. It meant that the Irish Party were using that Bill as a foundation on which to build up an edifice from which to attack us. It meant that the Federation would be on the floor of the
  62
  House of Commons, turning out Government after Government for the purpose of forcing them to listen to Irish demands for fear of offending the Irish Representatives. He need not dwell further upon the absurdity of this measure being looked upon as final. He did not deny that there had been much of evil in the past in the government of Ireland which we had to make amends for; but the remedy was not, having taken from them all power of managing their own affairs and having sapped and undermined their strength, to give them this pretended boon at a time when it was sure to be used only by one Party against another in that unhappy country. He well knew what the Roman Catholic Church had suffered in Ireland, but he held the conviction that the Church in Ireland could look with trust and confidence to the Government of this united country to meet every fair and just demand and to right anything which might be wrong. Much might also be achieved by a steady policy in the direction of developing the resources of the country. No one could deny that during the few years that the late Government were in Office they showed a practical determination in this direction. The alliance of the Irish Nationalists with the Gladstonians was much to be condemned; and all must feel that such a union was a disgraceful chapter in the public history of our country. What answer should be given to that disgraceful episode in public policy? Their Lordships were helping to shape that answer by the course they intended to take on this Bill. It was for their Lordships to give the nation time to reflect on what it was doing, time to take care that this did not become an accepted policy, and in order to see whether the people were really prepared to follow Leaders in such a disgraceful use of power. The throwing out of this Bill by a large majority would make the people of this country pause and consider that in the Constitutional safeguards with which the wisdom of our forefathers had provided us we might look for, perhaps, a slow but a wise and general unfolding for the everlasting good of the people, and that this would be better than the fads of statesmen who, seeking to gratify their personal ambition, put the nation and the Empire in the jeopardy in which it had stood of late. He trusted

  63
  that their Lordships would, by a large majority, throw out the Bill.
  LORD MUSKERRYsaid, when he had the honour of addressing their Lordships in February last he told them he had been for nearly 18 years a constant resident in Ireland. He merely reminded them of this to show their Lordships he had a practical knowledge of the subject he was speaking about. To his mind, this Home Rule Bill showed on the part of those responsible for it either a criminal disregard for the welfare of the country and its inhabitants, or an utter ignorance of Ireland and the Irish, together with a childlike trust and belief in the representations of the Irish so-called National Party. A few years ago there had been three Parties in Ireland—Conservatives, Liberals, and those who now called themselves Nationalists—the latter Party hating, or professing to hate, England and all things English, except English money—that they did not hate. At the present time there were three Parties—Loyalists, Nationalists (with their feelings towards England unchanged), and a third Party, and a very large Party—he meant those who were content with and appreciated the Rule they were living under, with its safeguards to life and property, and who dreaded the results that they knew would follow Home Rule. But these people were afraid to give their real views—afraid of the National Party as represented in every district and small village in Ireland by those who had everything to gain and nothing to lose, by those who were too idle to work, and who kept the honest and industrious man in terror for his property—aye, and for his life—should he venture to disagree with them. Now, what were the grounds for giving Ireland Home Rule? The wish of the majority? Well, nearly everyone who had any stake in the country—merchants, traders, professional men, and landowners—were utterly against it. And were the majority in favour of it? He said the National Members in Parliament did not represent the majority, as they claimed, for, as he had said before, a large number of the people of Ireland were afraid to show their real feelings. The Ballot, he assured their Lordships, was very little protection in Ireland. "Ireland, a nation!" That was the great toast of the National Party—"Ireland, a nation!"
  64
  If Ireland was a nation she had a right to the following: The right to choose her own form of Government, and to say whether it should be a Monarchy or a Republic; the right to separate from Great Britain now or at any other time; the right to her own Army and Navy and foreign policy; and the right to absolutely control her own trade and taxation. If they granted Home Rule on the ground of her being a nation they could not refuse separation hereafter if it were demanded. As to Ireland's nationality, he would quote Mr. Gladstone (as reported in The Daily News, June 26, 1886)—
  "Are you aware—probably many of you are—that of the population of Ireland by far the greater number are of British descent?"
  Now as to the commercial progress of Ireland under the present rule: In 1852 the Revenue of Ireland was £4,500,000; in 1885 it was £8,000,000, an increase of 77 per cent. In 1852 the tonnage of shipping entering Irish ports was 5,000,000; in 1885 it was 13,000,000, an increase of 160 per cent. In 1852 the Excise Duties of Ireland were £1,500,000; in 1885 they had grown to £4,500,000, an increase of 200 per cent. In 1849 the amount in the Savings Banks of Ireland was £ 1,200,000; and in 1887 it was £5,340,000, an increase of 340 per cent. In the Post Office Savings Banks (being the popular banks with poorer depositors) the amount in 1870 was only £583,165; in 1888 it had grown to £3,128,000, an increase of 450 per cent. in 18 years. Surely that showed progress, and that the present mode of government was doing good to the country. They could rule Ireland if they would—she only wanted a strong and resolute Government in order to be prosperous and happy. At Aberdeen, in 1871, Mr. Gladstone said—and let their Lordships remember that since then many Acts had been passed, such as the Land Act, Arrears Act, Franchise Act, Relief Act—all to please the Nationalists—the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I have looked in vain for the setting forth of any practical scheme of policy which the Imperial Parliament is not equal to deal with, and which is to be brought about by Home Rule.… There is nothing Ireland hag asked, and which this country and this Parliament have refused. This Parliament has done for Ireland what it would have scrupled to do for England and for Scotland.… What are the inequalities of England and Ireland? I

  65
  declare that I know none, except that there are certain taxes still remaining which are levied over Englishmen and Scotchmen, and which are not levied over Irishmen; and, likewise, that there are certain purposes for which public money is freely and largely given in Ireland, and for which it is not given in England or Scotland."
  And now, to show their Lordships the state of Ireland before the Union, under a Home Rule Parliament, he would read an extract from the speech of Lord Clare, the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Advocating the Union, the noble and learned Lord said (on the 10th February, 1800)—
  I will now appeal to every dispassionate man who hears me whether I have in anything misstated or exaggerated the calamitous situation of my country, or the coalition of vice and folly which has long undermined her happiness, and at this hour loudly threatens her existence. It is gravely inculcated, I know—'Let the British Minister leave us to ourselves, and we are very well as we are.' 'We are very well as we are.' Gracious God! of what materials must the heart of that man be composed, who knows the state of the country, and will coldly tell us 'we are very well as we are?' 'We are very well as we are.' We have not three years of redemption from bankruptcy or intolerable taxation, nor one hour's security against the renewal of exterminating civil war. 'We are very well as we are.' Look to your Statute Book—Session after Session have you been compelled to enact laws of unexampled rigour and novelty to repress the horrible excesses of the mass of your people; and the fury of murder and pillage and desolation have so outrun all legislative exertion that you have been at length driven to the hard necessity of breaking down the pale of the Municipal Law, and putting your country under the ban of military government; and in every little circle of dignity and independence we hear whispers of discontent at the temperate discretion with which it is administered. 'We are very well as we are.' Look to the old revolutionary Government of the Irish Union, and the modern revolutionary Government of the Irish Consulate, canvassing the dregs of that rebel democracy for a renewal of popular ferment and outrage to overcome the deliberations of Parliament. 'We are very well as we are.' Look to your civil and religious dissensions—look to the fury of political faction, and the torrents of human blood that stain the face of your country, and of what material is that man composed who will not listen with patience and goodwill to any proposition that can be made to him for composing the distractions, and healing the wounds, and alienating the miseries of this devoted nation? 'We are very well as we are.' Look to your finances, and, I repeat, you have not redemption for three years from public bankruptcy, or a burden of taxation which will sink every gentleman of property in the country. …. We raise a Revenue of more than £230,000 on British goods imported into Ireland; and in return the Revenue raised by England on the
  66
  importation of Irish produce is little more than £10,000. And what are the offerings of gratitude and duty on our part in return for these benefits and advantages? A declaration of war by any Foreign Power against the British nation is the signal for faction and rebellion in Ireland. The received maxim is, not to forego the opportunity of foreign war to press forward Irish claims, and ripen every difference and discontent with the British Government into a ground of permanent and rancorous national hostility; insomuch that, in time of difficulty and danger, Great Britain, so far from deriving support or security from her connection with Ireland, feels it as a millstone hung upon her neck. … Another argument against a Legislative Union is, that it will drive your nobility and gentry from their own country, and practically impoverish the Metropolis. With respect to emigration, look to the number of Irish emigrants who now crowd every village in Great Britain, and have been driven to seek an asylum there from the brutal fury of the Irish people and the cold-blooded treachery of their own domestics, palpably fomented and encouraged by Irish faction and Irish treason. And let any dispassionate man say whether the evil of emigration can ever be greater than it is at this day. If we are to live in a perpetual storm here; if it is to remain at the discretion of every adventurer, of feeble and ostentatious talents, ungoverned by a particle of judgment or discretion, to dress up fictitious grievances for popular delusion, and let loose a savage and barbarous people upon the property and respect of the Irish nation—what gentleman who has the means of living out of this country will be induced to remain in it?"
  In that passage their Lordships had a picture of Ireland before the Union. No one could say it was a pleasing one. Were they going to throw her back into the same condition? Many wise and able men had built up and consolidated this great Empire year by year, and reign after reign. Were their Lordships going to be the first to commence the process of dismemberment and destruction? Let them remember that the men at whose instance this most unpatriotic measure had been brought forward had made no secret—when out of England—of their hatred for, and their wish to injure, England. He saw noble Lords opposite who had been Her Majesty's Viceroys in Ireland. One of them, at least, must well know the sentiments expressed as to England by many of the present Nationalist Members of Parliament. The noble Lords have had a very short stay in Ireland—as, he regretted to say, had been the custom with most Viceroys since the time of Queen Elizabeth—for their Lordships would know that Sir Walter Raleigh, in his history, said—

  67
  "Our Princes have commonly left their Deputies in Ireland three years, whence, by reason of the shortness of their time, many of them have returned as wise as they went out; others have profited more; and yet, when they began but to know the first rudiments of war and government fitting the country, they have been called home, and new apprentices sent in their places, to the great prejudice both of this and that estate."
  But even that short stay ought to have shown noble Lords sufficient to prevent them supporting this Bill. Or were Party interests to be supreme before Ireland's good—before the safety and welfare of England and the Empire? This Bill was to destroy the Union of England and Ireland. Pass it, and who could say what would be the next tie they would be asked to sever? They dared not pass it! No one who had any regard for his country could entertain the thought of doing so. And as for Ireland, if, as Churchmen said, they were responsible hereafter for deeds done on this earth, already a heavy reckoning lay with those at the head of the Government for crimes committed and blood spilled during the past few years. He implored their Lordships not to let the crime of passing this Bill be added—for crime it would be, and a cowardly crime; for besides the immense injury to all Ireland, they would thereby forsake and desert those who had always been their loyal and faithful friends, and had trusted in the honour of the British Government. The most charitable way to account for this Bill ever seeing the light was to think of its author or authors suffering from aberration of the intellect! No Government had any right, either for Party purposes or to satisfy the outcry of sedition, to plunge a whole country in ruin; and he told their Lordships—and, as they need not to be reminded, he knew the country well—that as certainly as they granted Home Rule to Ireland so surely would arise the same condition of things that Lord Clare had described in his speech 93 years ago.
  EAEL COWPERsaid, the Bill had been so thoroughly discussed that it was rather difficult to find new arguments or to touch upon points which had not been touched upon before. Following the great Debate which had lately taken place in the other House, their Lordships, no doubt, felt rather bewildered, and were rather in the position of men who
  68
  could not see the wood because of the trees; but their Lordships in that House, from the fact of their removal from the ordinary strife of politics and from their elevated position—from being, as it were, set up in a balloon—could take a clearer view. It struck him that those who advocated this measure had never succeeded in establishing the fundamental point which ought to be the base of their whole argument—that there was a real demand in Ireland for Home Rule for its own sake. He knew it had been adopted there by a large Party, but that was under peculiar circumstances. He would not go back as far as the Union; he would take a point within the recollection of those who were middle-aged or oldish people. He would take the Fenian movement, with which the noble Earl on the Front Bench the Leader of the House had so successfully grappled, in 1865, and would ask whether that movement had anything in the world to do with Home Rule—whether it did not, in fact, aim at the foundation of an Irish Republic? Was it not the fact that, till Mr. Parnell took up Home Rule in combination with other things, it was never made a cry at all? It was by working on the very natural wish of the Irish farmers to pay as little rent as possible that Mr. Parnell and his friends were enabled to get such a hold of the Irish people, assisted and reinforced by the Fenian Clubs that still existed throughout the country. No wonder, then, that when Mr. Gladstone adopted Home Rule in 1886 he found a large—nay, an overwhelming—body of Irishmen in its favour. He maintained that there was no evidence to show that there was ever such a longing on the part of the Irish people for a Parliament to manage their own affairs as there was among the Hungarians or in the Spanish Provinces. On the contrary, he said the genius of the Irish people was not in favour of, and did not induce them to have any great wish for, Local Government to manage their own affairs. It was a nation fond of centralisation. This was the mark of a nation either in its infancy or its decadence. The Land League was one of the most despotic authorities that ever existed. That organisation showed the genius of the Irish people. It was not in the nature of the Irish people to wish for a Parliament to manage their

  69
  own local affairs, though it was in their nature to wish to be an independent nation. No one had seriously maintained that a Parliament in Dublin would be able to do more for the Irish people than the Parliament at Westminster, which for many years past had shown a sincere desire to remedy every practical grievance experienced in Ireland and more so every day. The argument for a Parliament in Dublin was not that it would be more than a Parliament in Westminster, but that they would be meeting the wishes of the Irish people by giving it; and as he maintained that it was not really the wish of the Irish people, that argument fell to the ground. Nobody would ever make him believe, nor was there any evidence to show, that the Conservative Government ever contemplated bringing forward anything in the nature of Home Rule, or anything which would satisfy the demands of the Irish Nationalists. He could quite understand Lord Spencer being convinced that there would be the greatest difficulty in putting down Irish disaffection; but it had been shown that much could be done by firm government without a single innocent man suffering in the slightest degree. Their Lordships knew that at the end of the six years of the late Government the policy which they had pursued was not really unpopular in Ireland. It was impossible to say that the small majority obtained by the present Government from the whole of the United Kingdom was got together by disgust at so-called coercion. That small majority could be accounted for by the promises made to the agricultural labourer and to various others. In most cases when a measure was brought forward there were strong reasons for as well as against it; and what their Lordships had to do was to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages. But he honestly believed that in this case the advantages were almost none, and that there were serious disadvantages and serious evils to be apprehended from the Bill which, in the opinion even of those who proposed it, could not be denied. In the first place, it could not be denied that to a certain degree the Executive of this country would be weakened in time of difficulty. Surely, if we were engaged in a death struggle with any Foreign Power it must weaken us. These Islands were made by Nature to belong to one another;
  70
  and, therefore, they ought not to have two different Parliaments and two different Executives. One of the reasons why Mr. Pitt promoted the Union was that the power of these countries might be consolidated, and that they might be able to present a united front to the enemy. What would be our position if night after night Resolutions were passed in an Irish Legislature declaring against the Sister Country and in favour of an opponent—France or America, or any other Power? Was it not merely possible, but extremely likely, that the Irish majority might be in favour of our enemies and against ourselves? And how could we stop it? What would be our position if there were Debates in a Parliament in Dublin against the Mother Country and in favour of our opponents? If Ireland were disaffected, how much more difficult would our position be made in face of an enemy! Now, at any rate, we had a splendid force of Constabulary in Ireland, and a population of 1,500,000 or 2,000,000 who, whatever might have been the case 100 years ago, were now thoroughly loyal. If we abandoned them and gave them over into the hands of their enemies, was it possible that they would not have bitter feelings against us? It was not in human nature that they would not. He would not enlarge on the shame of abandoning those people. Government by majority was perhaps-the best; but when there were two Parties strongly divided from one another, and one was considerably larger, it was quite in the nature of things that the smaller would be oppressed. It was-impossible to say that this Bill had been sent up to their Lordships after thorough; discussion in the other House. They knew that only about a fourth of it had been discussed, and that the rest was passed without any discussion whatever. The Closure had been compared to the guillotine; but the guillotine was a neat, beautiful, well-acting instrument, which was a great deal too good to be compared to the clumsy process, which was more like the clumsy process of beheading which used to take place in former days, by which the victim was horribly mangled before he was despatched. What was the opinion of the people of England regarding this measure? Even at the last Election there was no demonstration in its favour, and the people

  71
  had not been consulted on many of its most important provisions. They had not been consulted, for instance, in regard to the retention of the Irish Members. On the contrary, they were led to expect that the Irish Members would be retained only for Imperial purposes, but their retention for all purposes had never been before the country at all. Then there was the question of Imperial control. On every Gladstonian platform in the country it had been said that there was to be such and such control. That part of the Bill had been shown up, and no one could say that the Imperial control now proposed was of much good. He was convinced, as he thought were most of their Lordships, that if the people were to give an opinion now they would give it against the Bill. In every free country of the civilised world there was some check in order to prevent any fundamental change in the Constitution. We were not accustomed to look to foreign countries for any lesson in Parliamentary Government, because we thought that we knew very much more about it; but if a gigantic alteration like this was to be made in a single Session, by the aid of the Closure, without adequate discussion, and by the vote of a small majority, our Constitution, instead of being complicated and ingenious, would become one of the crudest and most dangerous description. If for the future the Closure was not to be the exception, but the rule—if the Second Chamber was to be abolished, or only to exist on the condition that it performed no functions, they would be in such a state of anarchy that they would be obliged to adopt some check like those of other nations in order to prevent violent changes in the Constitution. But the danger was upon them. There might be a better check than a Second Chamber. Like many of their Lordships he had always been in favour of reform in regard to the House; but when the coach was in full gallop was not the time to think whether it was fitted with the best possible brake; they must use the one they had got to the best possible advantage. For the sake of the people of this country, especially when nine-tenths of them were of opinion that the Bill would be most disastrous to England, and to the Empire, and most of all to Ireland, their Lordships ought to insist
  72
  on this Bill being referred to the country. An attempt might be made to show that the House of Lords had always thrown out popular or Liberal measures, and this Home Rule Bill will be called a Liberal measure, because it was supported by the bulk of the Liberal Party. He admitted that there was an overwhelming majority in the House against the present Government; but Mr. Gladstone had created many Peers, and seven years ago there was a Party of 100 or 120 Liberal Peers constant in their attendance and well able to hold their own in Debate. Where were they now? He remembered the time when the first disastrous Home Rule Bill was sprung upon the country, in 1886, and the great schism took place. The Liberal Party was then simply annihilated. At the first meeting of the Liberal Unionists, in 1886, everyone present remarked that it was exactly like one of Lord Granville's dinners with Lord Granville left out. So many Liberal Peers had joined the Unionist Party that if the Conservative Party were to stand aside and take no part in Friday's division the Liberal Unionist Peers alone would put the Government in a minority, and these Peers, be it remembered, had hitherto voted in favour of every Liberal measure, and were still prepared to support every real, sound Liberal measure that might be brought forward. He knew that they were about to take a most important step. It would be madness in that House to go against the real opinion of the country, and generally it would be a dangerous course for their Lordships to oppose the Representatives of the people. But this was an occasion when the danger was not so great. He appreciated fully the responsibility which they were about to undertake; but he believed that the course which they intended to pursue was one which they ought to follow, even if there were danger of their sacrificing themselves altogether, and that they should no longer remain as one of the Estates of the Realm. He believed, however, that there was no such danger ahead, and that their rejection of this Bill was necessary for the safety, honour, and integrity of the country. The vote which he would register on Friday against this Bill would be given with a clear conscience, and with almost greater satisfaction than on any former occasion.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, he would not follow the noble Lord into the very interesting inquiry he had instituted into the exact quality of the Irish nature, its morbid inclination to follow Leaders, and its morbid disinclination for anything like self-government. Nor did he intend to follow the noble Lord into the numerous and somewhat complex considerations of other kinds which he had presented to them. But his noble Friend had laid very natural stress upon the isolation of Ulster and upon Ulster's apprehensions. There was one point, however, which he had not touched upon. Seven years ago there was a very general agreement as to the Ulster question, that if Ulster persisted in her objections to Home Rule her case would have to be dealt with by separate treatment of some kind, but he would point out that an offer of separate treatment had been actually made to Ulster and had been rejected by the Representatives of that Province. He did not contend that this showed any acquiescence on the part of Ulster in the policy of Home Rule, but it was a tribute to the soundness of the ground upon which this Home Rule policy was based, that ground being the determination of the Irish people, independently of province or creed, to stand or fall together. Much had been said about the character of the Irish Members. In his opinion their character had been commented upon somewhat harshly. He was asked, "How can you think of handing over the government of Ireland to such men as these?" In reply he would point out that they did not propose to hand over the government of Ireland to the Nationalist Members, but to the people of Ireland, who knew that it would be to their interest to send Representatives to the Irish Parliament who would behave with prudence and moderation and honesty. The attitude of the Opposition and others towards the Irish Members had never been quite fair. When an Irish Member talked savagely the Opposition at once said, "There is the real man," but when he talked fairly and moderately they said, "He speaks falsely." The Opposition always looked back to days which were not these days, to days when the cause of the Nationalist Members was a desperate cause, to speeches which were delivered in Kansas
  74
  City, or Cincinnati, or, as the noble Duke had reminded them, in Committee Room No. 15. But the Opposition turned deaf ears to what Irish Members said in another place in the year 1893 when they were brought face to face with the great responsibilities which the Government were proposing to entrust to them. Irish Members spoke fairly, reasonably, and in his opinion perfectly honestly. Passing to the general consideration of the principle of the Bill, he must, like other noble Lords, apologise for the use of quotations. Whether it was that people had spoken so much, or that people had spoken so well, he was always knocking up against his own views expressed by somebody else far better than he could hope to express them for himself. He would, however, give their Lordships his word that these quotations would be-as few as possible, and that he would use them, not with the object of bringing home inconsistencies, but of illustrating his argument. Indeed, he might observe that after a diligent study of the literature of the subject from the earliest times, he was tempted to ask in regard to such terms as consistency and inconsistency, "Who, then, shall be saved?" He would begin with Mr. Chamberlain. Although he once declared that he could not allow such antiquities—picturesque antiquities he admitted—-as their Lordships' House "to control the destinies of a free Empire," everybody liked to hear what Mr. Chamberlain had to say. Mr. Chamberlain, always a great specialist on the Irish Question and the rights of property, in more recent years had become the consulting, if not the resident, physician of noble Lords opposite. He did not think he had very lately laid down specific lines of treatment for Ireland beyond that a Unionist Government was to come back to Office; but he did so in 1885, and this was what he said ought to be done for her case—
  "While we have to conciliate the national sentiment of Ireland we have to find a safe means between separation on the one hand, which would be disastrous to Ireland and dangerous to England, and on the other that excessive centralisation which throws, upon the English Parliament and upon English officials the duty and burden of supervising every petty detail of Irish local affairs, which stifles the national life, which destroys the sense of responsibility, which keeps the people in ignorance of the duties and functions of government, and which produces a perpetual

  75
  feeling of irritation while it obstructs all necessary legislation. That is the problem, and I do not believe that the resources of statesmanship are exhausted, or that it will be impossible to find a solution."
  How clearly and concisely put! might not these have been the instructions to the draftsman of this Bill? His noble Friend Lord Thring would have known exactly how to deal with them. Mr. Chamberlain was right. The problem was not insoluble, the resources of statesmanship were not exhausted, and this Bill was the solution. He agreed with the noble Duke who had moved the rejection of the Bill that every man had a right to change his opinion on any question of policy and policy, and he was free to admit that he had completely changed his mind upon this Irish Question since 1885 and 1886. He was glad, however, of this occasion to give his reasons for this change. His position then was one which he imagined was common to many Liberal Unionists. Significant as the Irish elections of 1885 and 1886 were, he was not satisfied that Ireland was telling Parliament what she wanted, or that she really knew what she wanted. He distrusted the sentimentality with which, as it seemed to him, an economic and administrative problem had been invested. He was sceptical about the long brutality of Great Britain and the slow martyrdom of Ireland. He hardened his heart, and, what was more important in such matters, his head, against the national sentiment contention. He had thought if some enchanter's wand could send up the prices of Irish stock and agricultural produce 50 per cent. and keep them there, no more would be heard of Home Rule. He used to say, let Ireland be freed from intimidation and agitation by a vigorous administration, and, given such an administration a fair trial, she would shake England by the hand and say, "You have freed us from an intolerable state of things." He asked for a further sign before he would believe that we were face to face, not with a surface discontent, but with a pervading national sentiment. The sign was given when six years of Unionist government—the very kind of government he wished to see tried—was tested by an appeal to the Irish electors last year. What was the result? Ireland grateful, Ireland rational, Ireland freed
  76
  from intimidation, freed from agitation, returned a Nationalist majority substantially the same as in 1885–6. In the light of this solid Nationalist vote in 1892, what was the teaching of those six years? Opinions naturally differed. This, for instance, was the comfortable opinion of a prominent Member of the last Administration, who might be taken to represent the average Unionist view. He asked an attentive audience what was the position in 1893 after seven years' experience, and he genially answered himself thus—
  "Under the firm and courageous administration of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) the necessity for Home Rule, as far as social order is concerned, has proved to be nothing but a bugbear, nothing but moonshine."
  He would not follow that gentleman either into the nature of moonshine or bugbears, but he would like to get at what was understood by "social order?" As his noble Friend Lord Spencer had said, the real test, the only test, of social order in communities which enjoyed the privileges of free institutions was not whether the governors, but the governed, were satisfied. Social order must take its roots in the consent and affection of the people. If he was right in his interpretation of social order, and he hardly thought his contention would be disputed, where were they landed? On a desolate shore for this prominent Unionist and his seven years' experience. His whole proposition—and the proposition involved all that was understood by Unionism—fell to the ground. The verdict passed upon the seven years' experience he pointed to by the Irish electors last August proved, not that there was no necessity for Home Rule, but that the opposite policy, the firm and courageous administration of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour), had failed to establish social order. What was the consequence? the inevitable conclusion? Why, it was this: the necessity for an alternative policy. There were only two ways of dealing with the Irish Question—the way of noble Lords opposite and the way proposed under the Bill. And here he found himself in very tolerable disagreement with his noble Friend (Lord Cowper). The Unionist policy had been administered for seven years, and at the end of it they were no nearer than at the beginning to securing

  77
  the elementary conditions of social order. Now, could this failure be in any way accounted for by extraneous causes? it was only fair to inquire. The noble Marquess had a great chance in 1885, if he could have seen his way to settle the Irish Question in concert with Mr. Gladstone, and in accordance with the wishes of the Irish Parliamentary Party. But he could not see his way to do that. He had another great chance in 1886. His resources were considerable, and even unusual. He had a resolute majority in the House of Commons, a magnificent majority in the House of Lords; the power of the purse, the power of the Press, and influential and instructed opinion largely with him, able men at his back, inside and outside his Cabinet, inside and outside his Party. This was no Cabinet of compromise, or caretakers, as in 1885. There was to be none of the natural and innocent vacillations of 1885. The faintest shadow of turning towards the Irish Parliamentary Party was to be as an accursed thing. The Government was in earnest. The noble Duke had said the Irish Question had never been before the country. [The Marquess of SALISBURY: The Bill.] The Bill involved the Irish Question. The noble Marquess himself, speaking at the Conservative Club in 1887, declared that the word "Ireland" summarised the politics of the moment. They were summarised in that word all through the six years of firm administration, and at the polls in 1892. Upon the whole, those six years were good years. There were fair harvests and fair agricultural prices. At a not inopportune moment for the noble Marquess the stars in their courses declared themselves Unionists. It seemed as if the Irish Party was breached and must share the fate of a house divided against itself. All this was good, and Mr. Balfour certainly ruled and governed Ireland with courage and determination. If his circumstances obliged him into exceptional legislation, his inclinations led him into exceptional beneficence. The cup was sweetened. He had only to point to the Light Railways, and Drainage Acts, and the work of the Congested Districts Board, which showered all sorts of good things on the Irish peasantry, from Scotch seed potatoes to bantam poultry. He did
  78
  not believe all he saw in the newspapers, but he liked to believe this, that in one of the poorest districts a pig—the only individual, he understood, in Ireland who paid his rent—was named Arthur James Balfour, after the Chief Secretary. That surely was an eloquent tribute to resolute government. In short, he believed they had seen resolute government as well done as was possible. But it would not do, because they had not the people of Ireland with them. Failing the millennium of Unionist government or the disfranchisement of Ireland, they had to reckon with the Irish people. Unionists asked for time. How much more time did they want? The see-saw of coercion and concession was no new discovery. It was the old miserable habit that had prevailed during the best part of the century. Moreover, the average duration of Ministries during the last 50 years was several months under four years, and therefore the late Government had in that respect an exceptional opportunity. But, granted that they had perpetuity of office, what had they to rely upon? Local Government, he would be told, was to make straight paths for their feet, the rough places smooth, satisfy Irish sentiment. But the Irish people did not want it. The Unionists themselves did not believe in it, and the days of miracles were over. Its author, speaking with perfect frankness, said that, as a means of substituting a good for a bad state of society, he did not class it with his Land Bill, his Railway Bill, his Congested Districts Board Bill, or his Coercion Bill, and he added—
  "I do not anticipate any of the advantages for Ireland which she has derived from any of the four Bills to which I have referred."
  So much for Local Government from the point of view of the Unionists. If ever there was a quack remedy for a sore disease that was one. How could they hope to get rid of the people of Ireland? They might have once, but they gave them the franchise in 1884. Their Lordships' House did not divide against that measure, and the noble Marquess himself seemed to have recognised it as a turning point from which there was no going back. Speaking at Newport in 1885 in regard to the renewal of exceptional legislation, the noble Marquess said—

  79
  "You have passed an Act of Parliament giving supreme power to the great mass of the Irish people To my mind, the renewal of exceptional legislation against a population whom you had treated legislatively to this marked confidence is so gross in its inconsistency that you could not possibly hope to renew any legislation which expressed on one side a distrust of what on the other side your legislation had so strongly emphasised."
  That was the noble Marquess's view of the importance and significance of the position in 1885 as it was affected by the Franchise Act of 1884. "Supreme power" and "marked confidence" were strong expressions—perhaps too strong for 1884, but not too strong when taken in relation to the Elections of 1885, 1886, and 1892. The Government had given these facts full value in the Bill, just as the noble Marquess wished to give them their full value in 1884. They disliked gross inconsistencies as much as the noble Marquess, and they held that a people who had been treated legislatively with marked confidence were entitled to have their opinions considered as to how they would and how they would not be governed. His general conclusions were that Unionist policy in Ireland had failed; that this failure could not be accounted for by lack of time, as in its essential features it had had nearly a century's trial; and that failing perpetuity of office by Unionists or the disfranchisement of Ireland (both of which were impossible), it' had no better hope of success in the future. Mr. Pitt avowed the great object of the Act of Union was the tranquillisation of Ireland and the attachment of her to this country. Ninety-three years was a long trial, and the experience formed thereon was not formed on insufficient experience. Most would admit—whatever abstract or ideal virtues might reside in the idea of a legislative Union—that that Union had failed in achieving the objects Mr. Pitt had in view. Having failed in attaching Ireland, had the Union succeeded in legislating for her? The prime plea of Unionism was that Westminster could do all or more for Ireland than she could do for herself. To hear some people talk it might be imagined that the Imperial Parliament not merely satisfied the claims and needs of Ireland but even anticipated them. If those claims had been satisfied—and he would
  80
  not dispute that Parliament had honestly-tried to do so—it had been always at England's own time and at England's own convenience; according to English ideas and even prejudices, and not according to Ireland's. Catholic Emancipation took 30 years; and from the Devon Commission in 1843 it was nearly as long before anything resulted from it. Instances might easily be multiplied, but he would come to later days—to September, 1886, and remind the House of the instructive history of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill. Mr. Parnell gave reasons for the necessity of revising judicial rents, and explained that the Bill was a temporary measure to meet the existing emergency. He advised Parliament to consider it seriously and to deal with the emergency, or he would not be responsible for the social and agrarian trouble which might follow. After being denounced by the Secretary for Ireland as a measure of gross injustice and confiscation upon the landlords, after doubts had been thrown upon the gravity of the crisis, this Bill was hounded out with the greatest contumely in the House of Commons by a majority of 95. The Government then appointed the Cowper Commission, which early in 1887 reported confirming the views taken by the Irish Members as to the distress in Ireland due to the great fall in prices, and as to the necessity for a reduction and revision of judicial rents. But although the Conservative Government dealt with the Land Question in 1887 they gave no effect to those recommendations in their Bill. The Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, and the Government declared that judicial rents were not to be revised or the question of judicial rents re-opened. In the Commons, however, the Liberal Unionists compelled the Government to give way on the subject of a revision of judicial rents fixed prior to 1886. And what happened in the-Lords when the Commons Amendment came up? The noble Marquess still held the revision of judicial rents to be consfication, but he accepted the Amendment. Because he said that, if he did not do so, he would lose the Ulster vote.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said anything of the kind in my life.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, that he would read from Hansard. The speech

  81
  was delivered on the 11th of August, 1887, and was as follows:—
  "They would have had to face this political contingency—that some time or other a Dissolution would have taken place, and an election would have been made, in which, owing to the overwhelming pressure of a secondary controversy the votes of the loyal people of Ulster might for a time have seemed to be upon the side which the Government believed to be absolutely fatal to the interests of the Empire."
  The Bill then, as amended, was passed, but what had happened in the meantime? There had been agrarian agitations. The Plan of Campaign had been organised, and the Government was obliged by the state of the country to renew the exceptional legislation which appeared such a gross inconsistency in 1885. "Delays have dangerous ends." In this case they had dismal consequences, as they forced the noble Marquess on the one hand into a measure of confiscation, and on the other into an inconsistency. Sir Robert Peel in 1829 said that something must be done for Ireland. Something always was being done. Since 1869 Parliament had not wearied in the doing of it. Ireland had been the objective, as Mr. Chamberlain said the other day, of innumerable Bills, all of which, at all events, had been kindly intended. Yet the stock of Ireland's grievances accrued, and her discontents—as Lord Clare said—kept pace with her prosperity. He should be told it was all the work of the Irish agitator and the Irish priests. It was no more the Irish agitator and the Irish priests than it was the Irish landlord or the Irish climate. They were the incidents, not the essentials, of the Irish question. The essentials of the Irish question were dealt with by the Bill their Lordships meant to throw out, on the Second Reading. Lord Carnarvon, whom he might style the Lord Fitzwilliam of this century, once said that the failures in Ireland had been so many that their wrecks lay strewn all about, but that he should not lightly believe that a combination of good government in Ireland, and of good feeling in England was a hopeless task. It was because he did not wish to see another failure added to the already long list, and because he believed that such a combination was not a hopeless task, that he should vote sincerely for the Second Reading of the Bill. In 1829 a witness before the House of Lords said that the
  82
  Irish Roman Catholics were more desirous of a settlement than a triumph. He believed that that was true of the Irish people in 1893. Which did their Lordships desire, a settlement or a triumph? Was it the triumph of throwing out this Bill? That was a foregone conclusion, for on Friday, half-an-hour before the Division was taken, not a patch of scarlet on the Benches opposite would be visible. But their triumph would be short-lived. It was not a long way through the Lobbies back into the House, and when their Lordships came back after the Division the Irish question would still demand a settlement.
  EARL CADOGAN: My noble Friend began his able if somewhat discursive speech by a statement that there is in some quarters a morbid inclination to follow Leaders. I am not inclined to dispute the knowledge which my noble Friend may possess of that interesting game with which my noble Friend and his friends opposite must be so well acquainted; but I am entitled to ask whether all the Members of the Government who have spoken to-night share this morbid feeling of following the Leader, and whether we are to take the statements made by at least one Member of the Government as representing the views of Her Majesty's Government as they have been hitherto expressed. I was not in the House when Lord Brassey addressed your Lordships, but I am given to understand that among the interesting statements he made were the following. Speaking as a Member of the Government he proposed that there should be more Exchequer Judges, a reduction in the number of the Irish Members to 35, that there should be a change of the constabulary into a gendarmerie under the Imperial Government, and, finally, until a general agreement has been arrived at no settlement can be accomplished; and he proposed that a Royal Commission should issue on the subject of Home Rule. I think we are entitled to ask whether in the chameleon-like course of this Government measure we are to discuss these fresh proposals which have been made, or whether the Government are intending for one more day to adhere to the proposals within the four corners of the Bill. My noble Friend went on to speak of our attitude towards the Irish Members. He said that we had treated them

  83
  with contumely, that we had listened carefully to the rhetorical excesses to which they had given way in Ireland, and had not paid attention to the more Constitutional language they had used in another place. But one of the chief points of our indictment of this measure is that the Government of Ireland is to be conducted, not in England, not in London, but in Ireland and in Dublin; and if we are to form an opinion of the character of those who are to form the Government of Ireland under the new state of things proposed, surely we are as much entitled to form that opinion from the language which hon. Members used in Ireland as from that which they more prudently make use of in another place. The whole case, indeed, for this Home Rule Bill should be taken and considered as argued on the two speeches with which the Debate opened. We may conclude that the noble Earl opposite, with all his great experience of Irish affairs, was in a position to state as fully as possible all the points which could be made in favour of the course which the Government recommend the House to pursue; and I think that no one will deny that a more crushing reply and a stronger indictment of any measure never were uttered than that which followed in the speech of the noble Duke. We who have followed the course of the noble Earl during past years have fully realised the debt of gratitude which we and the country owe to him for the manly, straightforward, and courageous manner in which he performed the duties of Viceroy of Ireland during eight long years. We have seen with regret and dismay the gradual deterioration of his political course during the last two or three years. We recognise what influence his opinion must have on Irish affairs, and naturally we have watched with considerable regret the action which he has seen fit to take. There was something like an Oriental refinement of cruelty in the fact that it has fallen to-night to the noble Earl to stand forward as the author in this House of a measure which reverses every line and every principle of the policy which he followed during the brighter part of his career, and which he ought to know is fraught with danger to those interests which he for so many years supported. I am one of those who hold that the cardinal and chief object of this Bill as
  84
  laid down by Mr. Gladstone—namely, to establish a Legislative Body for Ireland sitting in Dublin as distinct from Imperial affairs—is a proposal as to which we have no mandate except one of rejection. One word on the view of the country as indicated by the General Election. In the early part of the Session, a noble Lord on this side of the House alluded to the undoubted fact that at the Election of 1892, in Great Britain, a majority was returned in opposition to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. In reply to that the Leader of the House reminded us that in 1892 that majority had considerably diminished, that it was much smaller than in 1886, and he drew from that fact the argument that, inasmuch as so large a reduction of the majority had taken place between 1886 and 1892, before long that majority would be converted into a minority. Did not the noble Lord understand or see that the fact of the diminution of the majority in 1892 as opposed to 1886 tells exactly the other way? In 1886 the country had before it a Bill for the establishment of Home Rule in Ireland. During the seven years which followed it is perfectly true the abstract question of Home Rule was before the country, and it was discussed whenever men met to discuss public subjects. But when the Election took place in 1892 there was no Bill before the country, and the argument which I deduce from that is this—that the abstract question of the management of Irish affairs by Irishmen, which had been before the country, might possibly receive the assent of the country; but that the moment you attempt to convert these abstract theories into concrete proposals, the moment you attempt to formulate in a Bill the policy you have described in generalities, then you not only fail, but you fail also to receive the support of the right-thinking men of the country. The country has begun to realise the situation. Probably if you were to poll the country through you would find that the idea of Home Rule, after having seen your measure, resolved itself into something like this—in order to give to the Irish self-government in Irish affairs this Bill proposes to hand over to the Irish the practical control of British and Imperial affairs. The country cannot be surprised if, in these circumstances, while we reject the main proposals of

  85
  the Government, we also want to inquire into the steps which were taken for carrying out the policy you now ask us to adopt. In the speech of the Prime Minister on the introduction of the original measure he laid down five propositions as cardinal principles, from which, he said, there ought to be no departure. He made use of explicit language; he said, "To these propositions we have endeavoured closely to adhere." The noble Earl (Earl Spencer) enumerated only three of them. They were 1st, Imperial unity; 2nd, equality of all the Kingdoms; 3rd, equitable repartition of Imperial charges; 4th, any and every practicable and adequate provision for the protection of the minority; and, finally, the 5th one is, if not finality, at all events a real and continuous settlement. With regard to four of these points, I shall have little to say. Respecting Imperial unity, it appears to me to be a curious cardinal point to lay down preparatory to bringing in a Bill for separating the two countries. With regard to the second, equality, I hardly think it can be contended that it exists under provisions which allow one country to enjoy the privilege of legislative independence in its own country, to have a Parliament of its own, and also allows the citizens of that country the privilege of sitting in the Parliament of another. With regard to the third point, relating to Imperial charges, I shall say nothing, because it is a matter not to be discussed in this House. With regard to finality, I have only to say it has been proved by the speeches made to-night by the mere mention of the consecutive measures to be passed dealing with land and other questions, that in Gladstonian legislation no such thing as finality is apparent. As to the condition that practical provision shall be made for the protection of the minority, it is clear there is only one way in which the minority in Ireland can be protected, and that is that the supremacy of this Parliament, which, after all, is the most important safeguard, and that which embraces all others, shall be fully and thoroughly carried out and maintained. The Prime Minister was good enough to say that this demand was "not an unreasonable one." Mr. John Morley has told us that this Bill "is saturated with it," and it is
  86
  upon the reality and validity of these special provisions that the stability of the whole measure depends. It is fair to say, in regard to supremacy, that neither as to its necessity nor the manner in which it is to be enforced and carried out, do the Members of the Government and their friends appear to be agreed. I venture to ask this House to allow me to refer it to two short extracts in a speech made by the Prime Minister, in which he admits the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. One was in 1880, and he repeated almost the same words, and same sentiment, in 1882. On two occasions he gave expression to the same views. The Home Secretary, speaking in 1889 of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, said it would remain intact, and on another occasion that it remained undiminished, and that was emphasised by Sir William Harcourt. Those were the opinions of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the Imperial Parliament. On the other hand, Mr. John Dillon said they would try Gladstone, and see if his Bill would give over the government of Ireland to the Nationalists of Ireland, and restore to the people of that country the privilege they held 100 years ago to manage their own affairs. Mr. John Redmond and Mr. T. P. O'Connor said it was their ultimatum that the Irish Parliament must be supreme, and free from interference from the English Parliament. I think that, at least, shows a considerable difference of opinion with reference to the question of supremacy, and I call attention to it because it is my intention to show that the supremacy is not sufficiently provided for, and if it is not so it is because the Government were not permitted to carry out their views by their Irish allies. The question of supremacy was confined entirely to the Preamble of the Bill; that was a course that did not commend itself to both Parties of the other House, the result was that after considerable discussion an addition was inserted in Clause 2 for the mention of the supremacy of the British Parliament. Her Majesty's Government would not even agree to insert the words "a subordinate Parliament." In Clause 5 it is obvious that the central figure in the whole of the system is the Lord Lieu tenant. The noble Earl will not treat him as one of those organic details

  87
  by which the Prime Minister is apt to designate the great principles of the Bill. The position of the Lord Lieutenant is one of extreme difficulty and complexity, and if these difficulties and complexities are insurmountable, as I maintain they are, they are sufficient to wreck the whole of this Bill. Everything turns on the Lord Lieutenant and his action. The Office of Lord Lieutenant never was a sinecure, or one which afforded much pleasure to its holder. I had occasion a short time ago to call the attention of the House to the difficulties in which the present Viceroy found himself placed by being prevented from carrying out the directions he had himself laid down for his own guidance in being obliged to receive certain addresses which he had refused previously to receive. Her Majesty's Government inserted a provision in the Bill that the tenure of Office of the Lord Lieutenant shall run for six years. They will be extremely fortunate if they find any Viceroy who survives the occupation of that position six weeks. The supremacy of the Imperial Parliament can only be vindicated in one of two ways. The Lord Lieutenant must either veto the action of the Irish Parliament, or the British Government must repeal the Acts after they have been passed, or legislate over the heads of the Irish Parliament. The Lord Lieutenant is to exercise the veto in the first place on the advice of his Irish, Cabinet, in the second place on the advice of the Imperial Government, and in the third place he is required to act on his own responsibility. It will be extremely difficult for the Lord Lieutenant to decide what Acts and Bills would have to be vetoed and what would not. It must be noticed that the cases in which he is to act upon his own responsibility are those of the greatest difficulty and the greatest emergency. By Clauses 3 and 4 the Irish Legislature is placed under certain disabilities with regard to the subjects it may deal with and its power of initiating Bills. I believe it was Mr. Morley who said in the other House that we might take it for granted that the Lord Lieutenant would not break the law, and someone else said that he would not act either as a knave or a fool. In fact, there seems to be some angelic theory set up about the Lord Lieutenant, just as there is an angelic
  88
  theory with regard to the Irish Members who are to form his Cabinet. But in spite of all the powers given to the Lord Lieutenant it is proved to be possible that the Irish Government might, after all, act under this Bill entirely independently of the Lord Lieutenant or the Imperial Government. It has been suggested that the Irish Parliament might pass a Bill infringing the limitations of Clauses 3 and 4, and that they might tack that Bill on to an Appropriation Bill and send it up to the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant would then either have to submit to a stoppage of supplies or to assent to a Bill which would infringe the provisions of Clauses 3 and 4. That would not be a state of things which would secure the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. It has been said that there is a similarity of position between the Governor of a colony and a Viceroy. The Governor of a colony is directed to veto all Bills infringing certain matters; he has power left him to reserve those Bills for the assent of Her Majesty and the Imperial Government. It was proposed in the other House to enable the Lord Lieutenant to reserve similar Bills; but there is no such power under this measure, and the Lord Lieutenant must either assent or veto. I should like to quote the opinion of a gentleman long resident in New Zealand. Sir John Gorst said there was such a state of things in New Zealand 30 years ago that it cost millions of money and thousands of lives. There was one difference in the case of the Colonies and the proposed Irish Executive. Under Clause 9, Irish constituencies will be represented in Parliament, but there is no Act under which the Colonies can be represented in Parliament, and the result will be this—that the Irish Members will by their votes control the majority in the Imperial Parliament, and they may control the decision of the Government with regard to Bills referred to them from Ireland, and the Lord Lieutenant in such cases will be controlled by the very men whose decisions he has tried to control. So much for the supremacy of Parliament. As the noble Duke said, supremacy is of two kinds—Legislative and Executive. Her Majesty's Government have hardly appreciated the difficulties of administration in Ireland. There has been plenty of legislation in past years

  89
  for Ireland, but, undoubtedly, the chief difficulty is with regard to exercising the Executive functions of the Government in Ireland. This Bill confers no power to enforce the administrative orders of the Imperial Government or the decrees of the Imperial Courts. I can find no power which provides the Lord Lieutenant for enforcing any power he may receive from home. Every Civil servant, every officer, every official in Ireland will be appointed by the Irish Government, and, as far as I can see, we have no sort of control over the action they take, whether it be in accordance with Acts' of Parliament or not. There is one more point with regard to the position of the Lord Lieutenant—namely, his control over the military forces in Ireland. In the other House, when the matter was under discussion, it was found that the Prime Minister differed from the Home Secretary. The Lord Lieutenant or the Magistrates are able to call out any troops quartered at any time in Ireland, and the result will be that the Magistrates appointed by one Government would have the right and power over military belonging to another Government. This is a matter worthy of the serious attention of the House. If under the Bill the right to control the military forces remains with the Irish Government, what becomes of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament? I think I have said enough to justify my contention that the exercise of this supremacy, which is one of the chief safeguards provided by Her Majesty's Government, is, to use a mild expression, a sham and a delusion, and I submit that this fact is absolutely fatal to the proposal of the Government. It is the question upon which the whole system turns, and I have thought it right to call the attention of the House and the country to what the Prime Minister has called an "organic detail," but on which depends the success or failure of the entire measure. Upon the general question of the action of this House with reference to this Bill, I have nothing to add to what has been so ably and eloquently stated by the noble Duke. I have no doubt as to the result of the Division on the Bill, nor have I any doubt as to our duty in connection with the Bill, nor as to the mandate which the country lays on us to deal with it. In my belief this Bill was
  90
  never intended to pass this House. It is hardly any secret that the passing of this measure through the House of Commons was the price paid for Irish votes, in order to carry the Newcastle Programme, and in order to obtain a new lease—I will not say of power, but of Office for Her Majesty's Government. It was an unholy compact, made with the knowledge that it would be our duty to prevent the Government from performing their part. This is, perhaps, a strong accusation to make, but it is sustained by the facts. We have seen the measures which have been adopted to pass this Bill through the other House, measures which were calculated to make it absolutely impossible for your Lordships to receive any Bill so carried. The proposals so made were such as could not find favour in your Lordships' House, and we have seen during the last few weeks that the Government in the House of Commons have absolutely refused to accept Amendments even when they carried out intentions which they had expressed themselves, and when they were quite unable to advance any arguments against the Amendments proposed. The Bill comes to us with its policy reversed, with its provisions modified, and with its character transformed at the will of the Irish Members. The noble Duke has referred to-night to the results which may follow the rejection of this measure. I do not deny that the results may to a certain extent be said to be serious and such as we cannot contemplate with confidence; but, if this be so, the Government are responsible. You found Ireland when you came into Office in 1886 relatively prosperous, contented, and happy. You found it reviving under a system of so-called coercion, which was practically dormant in its provisions, which simply contained a power to enforce the law against those who were disposed to disobey the law. You found restored confidence, an increase of wealth, and a state of things generally that gave brighter hopes for the future. You have altered all this; you have put back the hands of the clock, and upon your heads be the responsibility. The noble Duke read to-night the expression used by the Prime Minister in enumerating the objections which he said had been brought against the Government measure. Those

  91
  expressions were to a certain extent exaggerated, but they were none the less descriptive on the whole of the objections which we have to the Bill. Mr. Gladstone said that if these objections were sound it must go hard with the Home Rule Bill. In our deliberate and conscientious opinion these are sound objections, and we believe it will go hard with the Home Rule Bill when its principles and details are explained to the constituencies, as they will be by every Member of the Unionist Party within the next few weeks. It will go hard with the Bill wherever, freed from the galling bondage of Party slavery, and influenced only by a patriotic desire to promote the best and highest interests of the Empire, Englishmen are permitted to examine into and give judgment on the monstrous provisions contained in this Bill. It will go harder still with the Bill when that day of reckoning arrives, which cannot now be long delayed, when the doom of your policy will be finally sealed by the verdict of an indignant and outraged people.
  Further Debate adjourned till Tomorrow.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment; the Report of the Amendment made in the Committee of the Whole House to be received To-morrow.
EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
SHERIFF COURTS CONSIGNATIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.
FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments; the Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 266.)

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT (PLUM-STEAD AND HACKNEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 267.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.