Sitting of 11 February 1898

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. J. W. Lowther) reported that, in accordance with Standing Order 79, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following List should originate in the House of Lords, viz.:—Aberdeen Corporation (Tramways): Aberystwith Gas: Agricultural Company of Mauritius: Bacup Corporation Water: Bakewell Gas: Belfast Corporation (Hospitals): Belfast Harbour: Bideford and Clovelly Railway: Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad (Tramway Extensions): Blackpool Improvement: Blackpool Palatine Promenade Pier: Blackpool Sea Water: Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Company: Brighton Underground Railway: Buckie (Cluny) Harbour: Buenos Ayres Northern Railway: Bury Corporation: Caledonian Railway: Carlisle Corporation Water: Central Electric Supply: Chelsea Electricity Supply: Chipstead Valley Railway: Clergy Mutual Assurance Society: Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad: Colonial Bank: Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway: Crowhurst, Sidley, and Bexhill Railway: Dover Harbour: Dundee Corporation Tramways: Dundee Suburban Railway (Extension of Time): Eastern Telegraph Company: Edinburgh and District Water: Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas: Edinburgh Merchant Company: Exeter, Teign Valley, and Chagford Railway: Felixstowe and Walton Water: Filey Water and Gas:
  350
  Folkestone Corporation Water (Transfer): Folkestone Gas: Folkestone Water: Forres Water: General Power Distributing Company: Glasgow and South-Western Railway: Great North of Scotland Railway: Great Orme Tramway and Tramroad: Guy's Hospital: Halifax Corporation: Hamilton Water: Heywood Corporation Water: Holmes's Patent: Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock: Inner Temple Buildings (King's Bench Walk): Isle of Wight Railway (Brading Harbour and Railway): Kettering Water: Kingstown and Kingsbridge Junction Railway (Abandonment): Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway: Leicester Freemen: Liskeard Corporation (Water): Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company: London and North Western Railway: London and North Western Railway (Steam Vessels): London and North Western Railway (Wales): London and South Western Railway: London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway: London, Chatham, and Dover Railway: Manchester Carriage and Tramways Company: Marianao and Havana Railway Company: Market Harborough Gas: Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (New Works): Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Various Powers): Mersey Railway: Metropolitan Electric Supply: Midland Railway: Midland Railway (West Riding Lines): Midlothian and Peebles District Board of Lunacy (Water): Milford Docks: Morley Corporation (Gas): Morley Gas: Natal Land and Colonisation Company: Newcastle and Gateshead Water: Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation: Newhaven and Seaford Water: Newhaven and Seaford Water Board: Newhaven Harbour: Newhaven Harbour and Ouse Lower Navigation: Newtown Water: North British Railway: North Eastern Railway: Norton and Halton Roads: Paisley Corporation (Loans): Patriotic Assurance Company: Portsmouth Corporation Tramways: Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company: Redhill and Reigate Gas: Reigate Gas: Rochdale Corporation Water: Saint Marylebone Churches: Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green: Saint Thomas, Southwark, and Saint Saviour, Southwark: Seaham Harbour: Sheringham and Beeston Protection: Sheringham Gas and Water: South Eastern Railway: Stirling Gas: Swansea Gas: Ten-

  351
  terden Railway: Todmorden Corporation Water: Todmorden Corporation (Water Transfer): Torrington and Okehampton Railway: Tyne Improvement: Tyne Improvement Commissioners (Constitution): Tynemouth Corporation Water: Upper Assam Tea Company: Waterford City Gas: Wath-upon-Dearne Urban District Council: Windsor and Ascot Railway: Wirral Railway: Wolverhampton and Essington Mineral Railway: Workington Railways and Docks: Yeovil Corporation: Yeovil Gas.

  NEW WRIT.
  SIR WILLIAM WALROND: I beg to move that Mr. Speaker do issue his writ for the election of a Member of Parliament for the County of Wilts (Northern or Crick-lade Division), in the room of Alfred Hopkinson, Esquire, Q.C. (Chiltern Hundreds).
  Motion made and question put.
  Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  CALENDAR OF IRISH STATE PAPERS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the reason of the delay in carrying out the calendar of the Irish State Papers; and if he is aware that nothing has been done since Mr. Sweetman brought the calendar to A.D. 1251; and if he will take steps to have the work proceeded with immediately?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): There does not appear to have been any delay in carrying out the calendar of Irish State Papers. It is not the fact that nothing has been done since Mr. Sweetman brought the calendar to the year 1251. Mr. Sweetman himself, in four subsequent volumes, brought it to 1307. Since then the Patent Rolls and Close Rolls, from which his materials were chiefly drawn, have been systematic-
  352
  cally dealt with. Eleven volumes of calendars for the period from 1307 to 1509 have already been published, and others are in progress. In these the English entries have also been included. With regard to later periods, there are two exclusively Irish volumes in the press, the one beginning with 1599, the other with 1625.

  EFFECTIVES OF FIELD ARTILLERY.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what was the number of effectives of Field Artillery on 1st January of the present year, and what the increase, or the decrease, on the number of 14,064 non-commissioned officers and men shown as effective on 1st January, 1896?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The effectives of the Field Artillery on the 1st January were 14,171, being 107 in excess of the number on the 1st January, 1896.

  STRENGTH OF INFANTRY OF LINE.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what was the strength of the Infantry of the Line on 1st January, 1898, as compared with the strength on 1st January, 1897?
  MR. BRODRICK: The strength of the Infantry of the Line on the 1st January, 1898, was 131,815 as compared with 132,636 twelve months previously.

  STRENGTH OF THE REGULAR ARMY, ARMY RESERVE, AND MILITIA.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what was the strength of the Regular Army, Army Reserve, and Militia, together, on 1st January, 1898, as compared with the numbers of the same on 1st January, 1895?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Non-Commissioned Officers and men of the regular Army, Army Reserve, and Militia, together numbered 404,026 on the 1st January in the

  353
  present year, as against 408,903 on the 1st January, 1895. The decrease of 4,877 was distributed thus:—Regular Army, 1,162; Army Reserve, 799; and Militia, 2,910.

  CHARGES AGAINST WAR OFFICE OFFICIALS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a leading article in the Times of the 3rd January last, on the subject of the official conduct of War Office officials of high standing in the public service, in which they are charged with a settled habit of furnishing misleading figures and garbled information, of attempting to hoodwink the Secretary of State for War, and of slippery double dealing; and whether, in justice to these public servants, he will cause an impartial inquiry to be made into the matter, and will publish the report of such inquiry as to the truth or otherwise of these serious charges?
  MR. BRODRICK: Lord Lansdowne has seen the article to which my hon. Friend refers. He deeply regrets that charges, apparently imputing habitual bad faith, should have been levelled against public servants in whose integrity and devotion to the public service he has implicit confidence. These charges are, in the Secretary of State's belief, without foundation; and he has no intention of instituting an inquiry into them.

  LOAN FUND BOARD (IRELAND) LEGISLATION.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to institute remedial legislation in relation to the Irish Loan Fund during the present Session?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): A Bill has been prepared, and will shortly be introduced in order to meet the present urgent necessity of providing means for recovering outstanding debts in connection with Irish Loan Fund Societies. Further legislation may ultimately be necessary; but it would be
  354
  impossible for Government to undertake to deal with the general constitution and management of these societies at present, and perhaps it would only be fair to the societies to give them a period of grace during which it will be seen whether the new rules embodying the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry have worked effectively.

  TRANSFER OF SOLDIERS WITHIN A CORPS.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to section 83 of the Army Act of 1881, 44 and 45 Vic. c. 58, in which it is enacted that soldiers of the regular forces, whether enlisted for general service or not, when once appointed to a Corps, shall serve in that Corps for the period of his Army Service, or during the period of such re-engagement as is in the Act mentioned, unless within three months after the date of his attestation he is transferred to any Corps of the regular force of the same arm or rank of the Service by order of the competent military authority; whether the arrangement sanctioned in 1893, and recently enforced, by which men enlisting in the Cavalry are made liable to be transferred without their own consent from one regiment to another, is in conformity with the above enactment; whether the opinion of officers commanding Cavalry regiments, as to the advantage and popularity of the new Regulation has been obtained: and whether their opinion is favourable to it, or the reverse?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Army Act authorises the transfer of soldiers within a Corps; and, under the Royal Warrant of the 28th February, 1893, the Cavalry is divided into four Corps. Men enlisted since that date for one of the four Cavalry Corps are, therefore, liable to be transferred to any regiment of that Corps. The opinion of officers commanding Cavalry regiments was not taken when the grouping was determined on. It is the desire of the Secretary of State and his military advisers that the liability for general service should be enforced with all possible regard for regimental feeling, and the subject is now under consideration.

  DEFINITION OF "CORPS."
  MR. ARNOLD FOSTER: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give the definition of the words "Corps" contained in the Army Act.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid I cannot give a definition of the word "Corps."

  RAISING OF SALT DUTY (NORTH-WEST FRONTIER OF INDIA).
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Salt Duty charged at Kohat, on the North-West Frontier, was raised from four to eight annas pr maund in 1883, causing discontent among the Afridis, and whether it was raised further to thirty-two annas in 1896; whether he is aware that the enhanced duty is thirty-two times the cost of the article; and whether any steps are being taken to make a satisfactory settlement of the question?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Right Hon. LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,): It is true that the Kohat Salt Duty has been raised, first in 1883, to eight annas, and recently to thirty-two annas, per Kohat maund, which is equivalent to twenty-six annas per Indian maund, for the reasons given in the correspondence presented on Tuesday last (Vol. 1., p. 147–175). The present duty is not thirty-two times, but about six and a half times, the cost price of the salt. The correspondence to which I have already referred shows that I propose to await a report on the new system, which I shall expect to receive when trade is resumed.

  CLOSING OF LOBSTER FACTORIES ON NEWFOUNDLAND COAST.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Naval commander of Her Majesty's vessels on the Newfoundland station had closed the lobster factories in St. George's Bay, and has confiscated the boilers and all the products of the industry, and that a short time ago a
  356
  party was landed from H.M.S. Pelican, who surrounded the factories, ejected the inmates, and seized and took away all the packages of prepared lobsters then ready for shipment; whether a repetition of this process is threatened all along the so-called French shore of Newfoundland; whether these proceedings were undertaken in pursuance of orders from Her Majesty's Government; whether any negotiations on the subject are now proceeding with the French Government: and, if so, whether he can say when they may be expected to be brought to a conclusion?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Under the modus vivendi with France, in regard to the lobster industry on the Treaty Coast, no person is allowed to engage in the lobster fishery except with the joint consent of the British and French senior Naval officers. Last year numerous persons appear to have commenced operations without the necessary consent, and these illegal factories were closed by the Naval officers in accordance with their instructions. These persons were fully aware that they were breaking the law, and the Naval officers, in carrying out their duties, acted with discrimination and forbearance. No negotiations are at present proceeding with the French Government on this question.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been directed to the recent case in which the Junior Army and Navy Co-operative Stores Company were convicted of fraudulent imitation of Irish hams; and whether steps will be taken to prosecute this firm for infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Right Hon. WALTER H. LONG,): Proceedings under the Merchandise Marks Acts have already been taken against the company to which the hon. Member refers by the Bacon-Curers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland, with whom my Department has

  357
  been in frequent communication on this and other similar matters. I venture to think that the result of the action taken by the Association in the case in question was exceedingly satisfactory.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman upon that whether the Government will take any steps to protect the Irish pig-dealers and baconcurers from frauds of a similar character in the future.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: We have taken upon ourselves the responsibility, but in this particular case it was not necessary for the Government to act, because, after communicating with my Department, the Association themselves undertook the prosecution.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (IRELAND).
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to introduce this Session a Measure to provide a Board of Agriculture and Industry for Ireland; and whether the establishment of a veterinary college in Dublin will be included.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government have no expectation of introducing, during the present Session, a Bill to provide a Board of Agriculture and Industries for Ireland. The endowment of a Veterinary College would be a proper matter for the consideration of a Board of Agriculture, when created.

  SUPPLIES TO THE FORCES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether arrangements can be made to supply the horses and troops stationed in Ireland
  358
  with home-grown forage and native meat, and whether he can state what advantage is gained by the supplies of foreign meat and produce?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): As I have already explained, price is a very important element. Changes have been made in the form of contract for forage which will facilitate the supply of hay and grain grown in Ireland. I am not aware that anything more can be done.
  MR. FIELD: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman upon that whether he is aware that the contract made for the home food of the troops stationed at Cork Harbour was rejected, and a contract for the supply of foreign meat was granted for the difference of something like a farthing in the pound.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: That rather comes within the scope of the question on the paper. But, of course, the lowest contract would be accepted; but I think the hon. Member goes beyond the point when he says it was entirely foreign meat.
  MR. FIELD: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the people of Ireland and of this country are not to have a preference over foreigners.
  No answer.

  LODGER FRANCHISE IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government intend to introduce a Measure dealing with the question of lodger franchise in Irish constituencies; and (2) whether he can state the number of lodgers on this year's register for St. Stephen's Green, Dublin, South Dublin County, and North Dublin County?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,): In answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question I

  359
  beg to say that the Government would be quite willing to introduce a one-clause Bill assimilating the law in England and Ireland in reference to the registration of Lodger Voters if they had reason to believe that it would be treated as a non-contentious Measure. I am unable at such short notice to give the information asked for in the second paragraph of the question, which is quite as obtainable by the hon. Member as by me. He can himself ascertain the particulars on an inspection of the Register.

  OMAGH POST OFFICE.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the site for the new post office at Omagh has yet been selected; and whether the cost of its construction will be included in this year's Estimates?
  MR. HANBURY: No site has yet been selected for a new post office at Omagh. The matter is still under inquiry. It would be contrary to the usual practice for the Board of Works to make provision in their Estimates for the cost of constructing the office until the site has been decided upon.

  TURKISH WAR INDEMNITY: GREEK LOAN.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether England Russia, and France, in guaranteeing the Greek Loan to meet the Turkish War Indemnity, guarantee at the same time that Thessaly shall be evacuated by Turkish troops within the period of four weeks stipulated by the Treaty of Peace?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): No proposals
  360
  have been made for anything beyond a guarantee of the Loan.

  INDIAN FINANCE.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in the Indian Budget for 1897–8, the amount to be remitted to England in the year was estimated at £13,000,000; whether the Council drafts sold up to date have only realised a little over £6,000,000; and how it is proposed to make good the deficiency?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: It is the case that in the Indian Budget for 1897–8 the amount to be received from the sale of Council drafts was estimated at £13,000,000, and that up to the present date only about £6,460,000 has been received from this source. Moreover, a sum of £669,000 was expended in the purchase of drafts payable in India; so that the total deficiency under this head is something over £7,000,000. On the other hand, Indian Sterling Bills have been issued to the extent of four millions in excess of the amount estimated in the Budget; and, as regards the balance, it remains to be seen whether it cannot be made good by the sale of Council drafts before the end of March.

  ENGINEERS' DISPUTE.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether "notices in writing," under the strike clause, has been received from contractors whose work has been delayed by the lock-out in the engineering trade; and, if so, whether he can conveniently give the names of the contractors from whom such notices have been received?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): Notices in writing of the

  361
  cessation of work at their respective establishments have been received from several of the contractors. I am not prepared to give the names.
  MR. ROBERTSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can now say if the Admiralty, in dealing with their notices, have decided whether the lockout notices are to be put on the same footing as the strike notices, under the strike clause?
  MR. MACARTNEY: These notices have been received. No action has been taken in relation to them.
  MR. ROBERTSON: Has the Admiralty, in dealing with their notices, decided as to whether the lock-out notices are to be placed on the same footing as the strike notices under the strike clause?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I think the hon. Gentleman had better put this question to the First Lord; but I may say that the Admiralty are not in the habit of considering questions until the necessity arises.
  MR. ROBERTSON: I will put the question on Monday.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Might I ask my hon. Friend whether he has heard that 75 per cent. of the men employed were idle through the strike, while through the lock-out it was 25 per cent.?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I think my hon. Friend is correct. The amount was 25 per cent.

  COALING THE FLEET.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether supplying of coal to the Fleet at Port Said and Colombo has been taken away from English firms and been given in both instances to German firms domiciled in London?
  MR. MACARTNEY: The contract of Port Said is now held by Messrs. Wills and Co., of Liverpool. This firm held it last year. The contract at Colombo is held by the Kraweh Coal Company, of Liverpool. The contract was made direct with them this year. They were formerly represented by Messrs. Tylor and Bright, and latterly by Messrs. Wills and Co. The contract for 1897 was held by Messrs. Tylor and Bright as agents of another Colombo firm.

  MAIL SERVICE IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the request of the inhabitants of Crossdoney, county Cavan, to have a mid-day mail service viâ the Midland Railway system given to them has been granted, and, if not, can he state why such a request has been refused?
  MR. HANBURY: NO information on this subject has been received from the inhabitants of Crossdoney. The letters for Crossdoney which could be included in a mid-day service are few in number, and would not justify the expense involved. The existing service is already carried on at a loss to the revenue.

  LOCAL TAXATION.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Royal Commission upon Local Taxation has made an interim report upon the rating of clerical incomes derived from tithe; and whether the Government is able to afford any temporary relief to mitigate the hardship recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the vote of the House upon the 23rd March, 1897?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SIR M. HICKS-BEACH,): No report has been made. I see no means of affording any temporary relief, as suggested by the hon. Member. What I said at the time, to which he refers, was that there was a grievance in this matter, and that it would have to be dealt with as part of the great subject of local taxation. I held out no hope that it could be dealt with separately, unless a special report were made by the Royal Commission with regard to it.

  RELATIONS WITH JAPAN AND CHINA.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it it intended to appoint a commercial secretary, or other similar officer, in Japan or in China?
  MR. CURZON: Arrangements have been made by which Mr. G. Jamieson, Her Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai, will undertake the duties of Commercial Attaché in China.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: And to Japan?
  MR. CURZON: We have not been able to make a similar arrangement with Japan.

  INDIAN FRONTIER WARS.
  MR. C. P. B. MCLAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India how many officers and men of the British forces have been killed, and how many wounded, in the operations on the Frontier; and how many officers and men have died of their wounds and of disease since the operations commenced.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON): The following are the latest figures in
  364
  my possession:—Killed: 43 British officers of British and Native regiments; 146 British soldiers; 310 Native officers and soldiers. Wounded: 91 British officers of British and Native regiments; 419 British soldiers; 900 native officers and soldiers. But I have not received complete returns of the casualties among the Native troops, nor of deaths from disease. A telegram on the subject has been sent to the Government of India.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION.
  MR. MCLAREN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education when the House will be placed in possession of the Government proposals as to secondary education; and whether he will defer making any further orders under pending inquiries, on the application of public bodies to be constituted authorities for the purposes of secondary education, until those proposals have been laid before Parliament?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (Sir J. E. GORST,): I am not at present able to state when the Government proposals as to secondary education will be laid before Parliament. As I stated yesterday, no public bodies have made application to the Department to be constituted authorities for secondary education, for the Department has no power to do anything of the kind, and the local authorities for Technical Education have already been constituted by Parliament. No orders of the kind suggested in the question have been, or will be, made. But the Committee of Council have no intention of deferring the operation of Clause VII. of the Directory, which they regard as essential to the better administration on the Science and Art Grants.

  LOCAL RATING IN IRELAND.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have been made that the valuation of Ireland for rating purposes is too high as compared with England; and whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps with a view to a general re-valuation of houses and lands in Ireland.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should be glad if the hon. Member would defer this question until Monday next.

  MILITARY SERVICE AND PAY.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the forthcoming discussions upon the Army, he will have officially prepared and issued to the House of Commons a pamphlet or memorandum showing clearly what are the present conditions of military service, of recruiting, pay, re-engagement, pension, civil or War Office employment and pension; of what the Reserve consists; and what is the organisation of the Militia, the Yeomanry, the Volunteers, and how it is proposed to utilise their services.
  MR. BRODRICK: I will lay upon the Table two pamphlets which are issued to men enlisting in the Army and Militia respectively, showing the conditions of service in those forces. These contain most of the information my hon. Friend asks for. For anything beyond this of a general character I would refer to the "Army Book of the British Empire"—a published work.

  IRISH STATUTES CONSOLIDATION.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he proposes to introduce this year any Bill consolidating Irish Acts; and whether the Irish Government have come to any conclusion as regards the
  366
  suggestion that the work of consolidating Irish statutes should be systematically undertaken by them.
  MR. ATKINSON: I beg to refer the hon. Member to my replies to similar questions put by him last Session, on the 21st January and 13th May respectively. I have nothing to add to the full answers then given, and, having regard to the legislation affecting Ireland already promised, it would be obviously impossible for me to give an undertaking that the matter referred to would be dealt with this year.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that on that occasion it was said it would have consideration? I beg to ask, what the result of the consideration has been.
  MR. ATKINSON: The result of that consideration is that nothing can be done this year.

  CRIMINAL PROCESS IN INDIA.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will place in the Library of the House, for the information of hon. Members, copies of the Penal Code Bill and the Criminal Procedure Code Bill, recently introduced into the Legislative Council of the Viceroy of India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: These two Bills, as introduced in the Governor-General's Legislative Council, will be found in the Proceedings of the Council for the 21st December and in the Gazette of India for the 21st December, which were placed in the Library of the House on the 17th January, according to the usual practice.

  IRISH TEACHERS PENSIONS: PROCEDURE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it is doubtful whether a debate could be raised

  367
  after midnight on the new Rules affecting Irish teachers' pensions under the Act of 1879, the Government will afford an early opportunity for discussing the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Personally, I should be glad if this matter could be debated soon, though there is no question of urgency involved, as the new Rules are already law. Perhaps some arrangement might be come to with respect to the Irish Education Estimates, which would enable this to be done. I will communicate with my right hon. Friend and with the Irish Secretary on the matter.
  MR. CARSON: Might I ask my hon. Friend if there is any other way to test the legality of these Rules except by discussing them here?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should ask the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the reason and spirit of the Act of 1879, that these Rules should not be enforced pending a discussion in Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is not in my power to do that, the Rules having by the Act the force of law.

  DOGS' MUZZLING ORDER: IRELAND.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Dogs' Muzzling Order is general in Ireland and only partial in England. And what is the percentage of rabies in the two kingdoms?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to say anything as regards England. The Muzzling Order has been made general in Ireland owing to the fact that the cases of rabies in Ireland have been distributed sporadically all over the country, to the complete failure of the method of dealing with the disease by regulations applied to comparatively small areas which had been tried in previous years, and to the urgent representations made by a number of Local Authorities that a uniform code of Muzzling Regulations should be applied to the
  368
  whole country. The total number of cases of rabies in Ireland during the past year was 498; of these 335 cases were reported in the half-year ended 30th June, and during the second half-year, when the Muzzling Order was in force throughout the country, the number was 163.
  MR. HEALY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a large number of protests have been lodged by a large number of Boards against this Act?
  No answer.

  DISTRESS IN THE WEST INDIES.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the general interest taken in the question, he will be able to make an early statement with regard to the policy to be pursued by Her Majesty's Government in relief of the distress in the West Indies?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I cannot explain exactly how it will be at the present time, but we will take care that there shall be full discussion.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has any information?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (RT. HON. J. CHAMBERLAIN): No, I have no information.

  RATIONS OF TROOPS AT CORK HARBOUR.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he is aware that the troops stationed at Cork Harbour are at present exclusively rationed on foreign meat.
  MR. BRODRICK: Under the Rules now in force 40 per cent. of the meat supplied to the troops must be fresh—i.e., home killed, but it is impossible

  369
  to ascertain whether it is of British, or of foreign origin. The officer commanding has no power to reduce this proportion, and no steps are necessary for the purpose of enforcing compliance with the Rules. But we know that at certain stations only home-fed meat is supplied, and the troops at those stations form 36 per cent. of the force now in Ireland. The contract for the supply of the troops at Cork Harbour is governed by the Rules which I have described—a part of the fresh meat supplied is probably of home origin. As occasionally happens with meat contracts, some of the meat did not pass the inspectors, and was immediately replaced by the contractor by meat complying with the condition of the contract.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the condition of the original contract was for the exclusive supply of foreign meat, and during the first month of the contract foreign meat was supplied on no less than 51 occasions?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware that foreign meat was supplied on so many occasions, nor do I believe it was.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether it was to enable the whole of the meat supplied to be foreign?
  MR. BRODRICK: The contract that was entered into was for a reasonable proportion of fresh and refrigerated meat, and I have previously stated whether or not the whole of the fresh meat was of home or foreign origin.
  MR. LOWTHER: In what proportions was it—how much was foreign and how much was home?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have explained. It is very clear. The contractor was permitted to supply not more than 60 per cent. of refrigerated meat, which was not always of foreign origin, and the additional 40 per cent. must be fresh meat.
  MR. LOWTHER: In other words, 60 per cent. foreign and the remainder home.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It does not always follow. The contractor was not allowed to supply more than 60 per cent. of foreign meat, but in a great number of contracts the foreign meat actually supplied does not come up to that.
  MR. LOWTHER: Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether the remaining 40 per cent. of fresh meat must necessarily be English?
  MR. FLAVIN: I should like to ask whether the foreigners who supplied the 60 per cent. of the meat provided 60 per cent. of the taxes of the country?

  YOUGHAL AND CAPPOQUIN NAVIGATION.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the importance to the South of Ireland of facilitating tourist and other traffic on the Blackwater, and of the fact that the grant under the Railway Act is not legally available for the purpose, steps will be taken to provide the small sum required for the removal of the mud banks which at present impede navigation between Youghal and Cappoquin, from some other source?
  MR. HANBURY: The Board of Works report that there is no existing fund from which the capital expenditure mentioned in the first paragraph can be provided. The removal of the mud banks would not remove the impediments to navigation. In order to secure a non-tidal service available in summer for even a steamer drawing only two feet a portion of the river between Kilahala and Cappoquin must be deepened by means of a cut, costing some £5,000, and involving an expenditure of £500 a year for maintenance. The river would also require to be deepened at various places below Kilahala at a cost of £1,000, and an annual expenditure of £20 to £100. It is difficult to secure real improvement

  371
  except by canalisation in cases like this, where the river-bed is above tidal low water and consists of unstable sand and gravel shoals.
  MR. M. HEALY: Upon that, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is of opinion that some expenditure would not be warranted on it?
  No answer.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.

    ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
    Order read for Adjourned Debate—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth—
    "Most Gracious Majesty,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament" (Colonel Lockwood).
    Question again proposed:—Debate resumed:—
    MR. J. REDMOND: I rise, Sir, to propose an Amendment to the Address which raises the great question of Home Rule for Ireland. It is in these terms—
    "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that this House, while it regards with satisfaction the proposed introduction of a Bill for the reconstruction and reform of the existing system of local government in Ireland, deems it right to declare that such a measure will in no degree meet the demand of Ireland for a system of national self-government; that that demand can be satisfied only by a concession of an independent Parliament and Executive responsible thereto for all affairs distinctly Irish; and that the satisfaction of that demand is the most urgent of all subjects of domestic policy."
    Under ordinary circumstances, I freely admit that I should not consider
    372
    the present a good opportunity for raising this question. For this Parliament, of course, I know, consists of an overwhelming majority pledged against Home Rule, and by my action I lay myself open to the criticism that, by challenging a vote under existing circumstances upon this question, I am inviting an overwhelming defeat in the Division Lobby. More than that. For myself, I may say I have little or no faith at all in the efficacy of an annual debate on a great question of this kind, on an Amendment to the Address. I look to entirely different means to force this question on the attention of this country and of this Parliament, and I recognise that this question is exceedingly likely to remain in abeyance until it became, as it did some years ago, in the days of the leadership of the late Mr. Parnell, a danger, or at least a grave inconvenience, to English Parties to ignore it. There are, however, certain special reasons why it is imperative for the Irish Nationalist Representatives to raise this question at this moment in the House. The whole policy of the Unionist Party with regard to Ireland is based upon the belief, first of all, that this Parliament is competent and willing to govern Ireland justly; and secondly, on the belief that the demand for Home Rule is in reality not a genuine demand; or, at least, if it is one, it is one that may be met by the removal of admitted grievances in the government of the country. In this morning's papers I read a speech delivered yesterday by the Duke of Devonshire, putting this point very clearly indeed. In that speech the Duke of Devonshire said—
    "Our opposition has always from the commencement, I will not say been based upon, but closely connected and combined with, the conviction that the Imperial Parliament was capable of meeting all the real needs of the Irish people, and amongst those needs we have always placed in the front a more effective and more popular and more complete system of local self-government than Ireland has up to the present enjoyed, and I am sure that everyone of us—every Liberal Unionist, indeed—has

    373
    from the commencement of these discussions been more or less pledged to a policy of local self-government. Although for a long series of years these pledges have remained unredeemed, yet I am sure we shall rejoice that in the present year there appears to be a fair prospect that every one of these pledges will be fully and amply redeemed in a manner which we hope will be not only just, but which will satisfy the people of Ireland."
    Therefore this belief on which the Unionist policy was founded—namely, that the demand for Home Rule for Ireland is a demand which may be got rid of by the concession of just demands upon minor subjects—is during this Session of Parliament about to be put to the test. The Duke of Devonshire, who himself is qualified to speak on behalf of the Government, apparently proposes that local government to Ireland shall be extended not only because it is just in itself, but because it is hoped and believed by the Unionist Party that the extension of public rights and liberties in regard to local affairs will satisfy the national demand for Home Rule. Now, that being so, it seems to me absolutely necessary that Irish Nationalists who support this Resolution should define their position in this matter in this House with clearness and precision. I do not intend to avail myself of this opportunity to deliver a long argument on the general question of Home Rule. I simply intend as far as I can to explain the position of myself and my friends on this question, and the position, I believe, ought to be adopted by Irish Nationalists generally. We say that the demand for Irish legislative independence does not rest alone upon grievances, that it does not rest alone upon the failure of England to govern our country successfully. No doubt a system of government which has resulted, as your government of Ireland admittedly has, in the depopulation and industrial paralysis, in famine and insurrection, in coercion and financial oppression, stands self-condemned before the world. But still we Nationalists do nor base our demand even upon grievances, and I assert here to-day that if your Government of Ireland had
    374
    been as wise as it has been foolish, if it had been as sympathetic as it has been heartless, and if it had been as successful as it has admittedly been disastrous, still the demand for national freedom would be just as strong as it is to-day. That demand has its foundation not merely in grievances, but in those ineradicable differences of race and history which must keep Ireland for all time a separate race. It has its foundation in that spirit of nationality which I, at any rate, believe to be absolutely indestructible. Sir, this year, Irishmen at home and Irishmen in every quarter of the globe, where they have found a refuge from English misgovernment, will be celebrating the centenary of the insurrection of 1798, and their hearts will be filled with a feeling of honour and veneration for the memory of a man who a hundred years ago died fighting against your rule in India. This is a reason why I have raised this question. Indeed, it would be, in my opinion, a national disgrace to Ireland if, at the commencement of this year, no voice were raised in this English Parliament to tell Englishmen to their faces the plain truth in this matter—the plain truth that Irishmen to-day hate English rule, and that they will never desist until they have succeeded in rescuing their country from its grasp. May I ask for a moment what the centenary of 1798 means? It means, Mr. Speaker, that the detestation of foreign interference in the country, in purely Irish affairs, is just as strong in the hearts of the masses of the Irish people to-day as it was in the hearts of their forefathers when, a hundred years ago, they gave their lives in the gallant effort to end it. It means further than that, that the spirit of revolution against that foreign interference in the government of purely Irish affairs is alive in Ireland to-day just as it was a hundred years ago. It means that, with the great bulk of the Irish people at this moment, the question even of an armed insurrection against the system of Government, which you insist on maintaining, is a mere question of

    375
    expediency, and the chance of success. It does seem to me that amid all the nonsense that has been talked in recent times about a "reunion of hearts" that some voice should be heard telling Englishmen to their face the candid truth in this matter. Don't let me be misunderstood. You have Ireland at your shores in the position of an enemy to-day, and rightly so. But there was a time when you could have changed that, and there may be times in the future when you can change that. In 1795 Lord Fitzwilliam entered Parliament with a policy of conciliation. There was an opportunity then of converting Ireland into a friendly nation. Remember the words of Grattan. Grattan said that
    "Lord Fitzwilliam was offering to the Empire the goodwill of millions of hearts."
    This policy of conciliation was wrecked, and the opportunity was lost. Again, in 1886—a long interval and a disastrous one for Ireland and for England, so far as she is concerned in Ireland—another such opportunity arose, when Mr. Gladstone proposed his Home Rule Bill in that year. Mr. Gladstone's Bill in 1886 was not a full concession of the rights of Ireland. No one treated it as such. He himself did not pretend that it was a full concession. Irish Nationalist Members, when they accepted it, openly avowed in this House that they accepted it as a compromise. But let me say they accepted that compromise in perfectly good faith. They accepted it with a firm intention and desire to work it for all it was worth, and in the hope and belief that, though it did not confer upon us the full measure of what we believed were our rights, still in it might be found a settlement of this national question. Yet again this country rejected this opportunity of converting Ireland from a hostile into a friendly nation. The same experience was repeated in 1893. The Bill of 1893 was not put forward by anybody as a full concession of the national demand of Ireland. It was accepted by us as a compromise. As a compromise we were willing to accept it in perfectly good faith, in the hope and belief that in it might be found a settlement of this question. But again this country intervened, and by the votes of England rejected this opportunity of putting an end
    376
    to the national question; and under these circumstances our position to-day is that we put forward a claim to a full measure of national rights. We put forward a claim to the restoration to Ireland of that Parliament which was robbed from her by force and fraud—by the Act of Union, which the greatest authorities of the day declared was not binding upon either the hearts or the consciences of any generations that would follow. For my part, I never believed for a moment that this Imperial Parliament was in a condition, if it were willing, of governing Ireland well. But, at the same time, I am quite anxious and willing that an experiment should be tried, and I say to the Government and the Unionist Party that if the Local Government Bill be conceived in the spirit as liberal as their pledges, if it confers upon our people the same rights and privileges as were conferred upon the people of England and Scotland and Wales, then, for my part, I will be amongst its heartiest supporters, and will be delighted at its enactment. But when this is a measure spoken of by a man in the position of the Duke of Devonshire as satisfaction of the claims of Ireland, as an alternative to Home Rule, we are bound to protest that nothing short of an independent Parliament, with an Executive responsible to it, can be accepted as a satisfaction of the national aspirations of the people. So far from the extension of local government weakening the demand for Home Rule, we warn this House and this Government that it will intensify it and make it irresistible. England will learn speedily the utter folly of those who believe that Irishmen are unfit to govern themselves. The more power that is given to the people of Ireland, the more responsibility that is thrown upon their shoulders, the more they are educated, and the more prosperous they become, the more conclusively will it be proved that the demand for Home Rule is a genuine demand, and that the people are capable of governing themselves with good sense, toleration, and success. It was my sole object in moving this Motion to warn the Unionist Party that local Government can never be a substitute for Home Ride. I had another object, and it was this, to endeavour, if I could, in the friendliest possible spirit, to

    377
    elicit from the Liberal Party some expression of their present views on this matter. I may be quite wrong in my view, but my view is that from the moment of Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the Leadership of the Liberal Party a vital change has come over their attitude towards Home Rule. Let me for a moment go back. The alliance entered into by the Irish Nationalists and the Liberal Party was entered into in the year 1886 upon very clear and distinct pledges and conditions. It will be in the recollection of the House that in the year 1885 Mr. Parnell and the Nationalists supported the Conservatives, and they only transferred their support from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party upon the distinct pledge that Home Rule should be adopted by the Liberal Party, should be put as the first item in the programme, and that in the memorable words used by Mr. Gladstone himself it should "block the way." That condition was violated by Mr. Gladstone himself, when, on the acquisition of Lord Rosebery to power, Home Rule suffered from what was described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose in this House as "the temporary suspension of the prosecution of Home Rule"; and when, in place of the prosecution of Home Rule, there was taken up the Newcastle Programme, that temporary suspension of the prosecution of Home Rule ended in disaster for everybody concerned, and the substitution of Local Veto, Disestablishment, and other matters for Home Rule on the part of the Liberal Party—apart from Irish Nationalism—was a huge blunder. But where do we stand now? It is said that the Liberal Party at this moment has no programme. I have a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs in which he deprecated the drawing up of a Liberal programme, and seemed to indicate that the proper time to prepare a programme was after they got back into power. If that be the position, if the Liberal Party has no programme, what has become of Home Rule; and is it seriously expected that Irish Nationalists should help to put the Liberal Party back into power, and put their trust in the devotion to Home Rule of the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, who, as far as I know, since the resignation of Lord
    378
    Rosebery, has never said one single syllable on the subject? But, Mr. Speaker, it is not true. I submit that the Liberal Party has no programme. The National Liberal Federation, which is, after all, the official organisation of the Liberal Party, has spoken upon this subject, and has spoken, as far as I have been able to observe, without protest or repudiation on the part of any responsible Leader of the Liberal Party, and has declared that the first work of the Liberal Party, when it got back into power, must be the ending or the mending of the House of Lords, and the carrying out of a system of electoral reform. I have here the report of the Daily News, which will not be questioned as an unfair source. The Daily News, after describing the meeting at Derby, some time in the month of December, as representing 70 per cent. of the constituencies, and stating that the resolutions embodied the practically unanimous views of the Liberal Party, goes on to enumerate the long list of Measures prepared by this meeting. Here then, says the Daily News, are the reforms which the delegates at Derby agreed as imperatively preliminary to any real era of Radical reform. First, one man one vote; second, every man a vote; then, manhood adult sugrage, with three months' residential qualification—a most admirable reform I would be anxious to see—public paid registration officials; temporary parochial relief not a disqualification for suffrage; Parliamentary franchise to be extended to women; all elections on one day; extension of polling hours; second ballot; returning officers to be paid out of public funds; the principle of payment of Members to be recognised; and, last, the veto of the House of Lords to be dealt with. And in the whole programme from beginning to end not a whisper about Home Rule. The Daily News, in commenting on this programme, said—
    "A good afternoon's work, it must be confessed, to establish universal suffrage, male and female, and to free the House of Commons from the veto of the House of Lords. Let us hope that, the actual realisation of some portion of this programme will not take more than as many years as the discussion of them took hours."
    But, Sir, I have noticed that another great Radical or Liberal

    379
    journal, the Daily Chronicle, has been dealing with this question of Home Rule, and they have formulated an invitation to the Liberal Unionist Party to come back to the true fold of Liberalism on the condition that Home Rule shall be allowed to disappear. I have an extract that appeared in the Daily Chronicle on the 5th February—quite recently. It was written à propos of some dispute with reference to the selection of a candidate in Birmingham. The Daily Chronicle said—
    "We come back, then, to the rock on which Birmingham split, and we ask ourselves how the situation with respect to Ireland stands to-day. Is it still a war between Home Rulers and Liberal Unionists, or is there some common ground on which Liberals and Liberal Unionists might agree? We throw out the question because we think the time has come for a frank and friendly discussion"—
    so do I—
    "and we shall be glad to open our columns to any of our readers who can help in the solution of the problem. For ourselves, we are inclined to think that some modus vivendi might be found which would heal the breach and at the same time put a strong Party into the field pledged to work for Irish reform."
    It is perfectly evident from all these things that Liberal popular opinion in England is in the direction, first of the diminution of the magnitude of the Home Rule question, from 1886 and 1893, down to some scheme of devolution and federalism, and, in the second place, in the direction of the postponement of this modified form of Home Rule until the question of the House of Lords and electoral reform have in the first place been dealt with. I need not dwell for more than a moment on the question of the House of Lords. Any sane man must acknowledge that, the placing of the question of the House of Lords before Home Rule means the abandonment of the serious consideration of the Irish national question for all time. But let me take a similar instance: If the question of electoral reform has to precede Home Rule, it means necessarily the postponement of the consideration of Home Rule over at least two dissolutions of Parliament, with this danger added, that in the process of electoral reform Ireland may have perhaps the number of her Members cut down to 80. I ask, is this the programme
    380
    of the Liberal Party? It may be said that this organisation, while representing 70 per cent. of the constituencies, does not represent that body of men who, after all, are not the Liberal Party who, after all, are the salt of the Liberal Party, and constitute the Liberal Party of the future—that body of earnest, sincere Radicals, who dub themselves the Liberal Forwards. I have been reading some of the proceedings of those gentlemen within the last few days, and I found at a recent meeting held in London, in the Queen's Hall, that precisely the same programme was put forward, that there was no reference to Home Rule at all in any one of their resolutions, and that the only reference to Home Rule was in the speech of the latest recruit to the Liberal Party, the recently-elected Member for Plymouth, who gave expression to the pious opinion that after the question of the House of Lords had been settled, after electoral reform had been carried, and after this great achievement had been used to carry out an extensive programme of social legislation in the interests of the artisans and labourers of England, it would be well to bring about what he called the devolution of the local work of Parliament.
    *MR. MENDL: Inasmuch as I am the authority to which the hon. Member has referred, I may be permitted to say that I spoke of having to wait for the various social reforms to which he has referred until after the question of what I described generally as the machinery had been dealt with, and in the term machinery I included the very question of Home Rule, which the hon. Member says I placed after the other questions.
    MR. J. REDMOND: I hope the hon. Member will acquit me of any intention to misrepresent him. I quote from the report of one of the agencies, and not from a verbatim report. But even the explanation he has given does not relieve me. Only yesterday I read in the Westminster Gazette an interview with Mr. G. W. Russell, whom we all know so well, and respect so highly for his ability, who is regarded as the leader of the Liberal For-

    381
    wards. In that interview I read this statement. He said—
    "Most of the Liberal Party wish for some diminished form of the aspirations with which we started out in 1886,"
    and he went on to say that—
    "until the Measure giving Local Government to Ireland has had a fair trial, it will be altogether premature to talk about Home Rule."
    Now, Sir, I think I have said enough to show that we Irish Nationalists have some reason to feel uneasy in our minds as to the attitude and opinions of the Liberal Party at this moment, and I think we have a right to ask for an expression of opinion from them. I frankly admit that I am not, perhaps the best person to ask for this expression. I admit it, and, as for the last seven years I have not been a supporter of that Party, I am not, perhaps, the one most likely to obtain a friendly response, but I may be allowed to say that nothing would give me greater pleasure than if the hon. Member for East Mayo could have seen his way to have moved a motion such as this, and he will not quarrel with me, I am sure, when I say that I intimated to him that if he would move a similar motion, I would be delighted to withdraw my motion. Sir, the reason that I say that we have a right to ask for this expression of opinion, for this clearing of the air, is this: To preserve this Liberal alliance Ireland has been called upon to pay, and she has made great sacrifices. I do not want to get into conflict with any other of the Irish Members. I can speak for myself, without offence to anyone, when I say that it is my belief that the unity of the statesman of the century was sacrificed in order to maintain the Liberal alliance—aye, and the greatest Irish statesman of the century was sacrificed to maintain that alliance—and all in return that Ireland has received is practically nothing. I do not want to go back to the past. I do not want, and I do not intend, to make any attack upon anyone, but it would be dishonest if I did not say that the main responsibility for the present position of the Nationalist cause of Ireland rests with the hon. Member for East Mayo and his friends. I do not desire to make any attack. What I wish to see, Mr. Speaker, is that the past may
    382
    be regarded as a warning for the future. What I desire is that we should let the past take care of itself, and that we should pay attention to the facts of the present political situation. I trust, therefore, that to-night we may be able to have some expression from the English Liberal Party which will clear the air, and will let us see exactly where we stand. There is no denying the fact that the continuance of the present condition of the alliance between the Nationalist Party and the Liberal Party is the main, if not the only cause of the confusion and disunion in the National forces of Ireland; and if we can obtain from the Liberal Party any declaration, either in the one direction or the other, which will make the position clear, it must be of enormous value to us and our cause. If the Liberal Leaders remain silent, their silence, I am afraid, will be liable to misconstruction. It certainly will be ominous, and I hope they will not take that course. It is, Sir, for that reason, and, remembering as I do the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman on some similar occasions in the past years. [Cheers.] (I am intensely relieved to hear that cheer) that I, first of all, tell the Tory Party that local government can never satisfy the Nationalist aspirations; and, secondly, to ascertain upon what condition the Irish alliance with the Liberal Party is maintained, that I venture to move this Amendment. You were good enough, Mr. Speaker, to inform us that inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had spoken of introducing a Measure dealing with local government in Ireland, that portion of my Amendment dealing with local government, was out of order, and I was therefore obliged to recast my Amendment, which I will now read in the following terms—
    "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the satisfaction of the demand of the Irish people for national self-government is the most urgent of all subjects of domestic policy, and that that demand can only be met by the concession of an independent Parliament and an executive responsible for all affairs distinctive Irish."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
    Question put—
    "That those words be there added."
    Debate thereon.
    MR. J. O'KELLY: I rise to second the Amendment, for the reason that it will give an opportunity of bringing about that return to the national platform which gave unity and strength to the Irish people. We know that, so far as this Parliament is concerned, the cause of Home Rule is hopeless, and we have had already experience of the Liberal Party, when they controlled this House, and when they refused to use their power to carry out their promises. I, therefore, consider that it is vain for us to look to either of the English Parties for the carrying out of our programme, until such time as Ireland shall once more gather her forces together, and by the strength of her own arm make both Parties in the House understand that liberty must be given to us. We do not find, from the speeches made in this House of Commons that this will ever be accomplished—certainly not as long as the Irish Members are divided amongst themselves into two factions. But in a former period, which seemed more hopeless than the present, a great man rose up to govern the affairs of the Irish nation, and brought us within sight of the promised land. It may be that some other man shall rise up, and once more gather the people together; and this Amendment to the Address furnishes the Irish people and the Irish Members with a basis on which they can come together once more. It demands an independent Parliament for the Irish people to conduct their own affairs, which are purely Irish—because, in view of their experience of the past, there can now be no compromise. We did, at one time, as the hon. Member for Waterford has pointed out, seek for compromise in the hope of bringing peace to the two countries. But what was our reward? Our attempt to restore peace was treated as a weakness. Different attempts at compromise were used to destroy the Parliament wished for by Mr. Parnell. I beg to appeal to the Irish Members tonight not to be influenced by what the Ministerial Bench, or the Front Opposition Bench, may say. The Ministerial Bench, we know, is hostile to us, for they have promised us local government; but still, if that proposed Measure is as large as they seem to foreshadow in their
    384
    statement, it seems a very fair one; but no matter how large it may be, no concession of local government can ever satisfy the Irish people's demand for a national Parliament. We are a nation. God made us a nation. The sea rolls around us, and will roll around us for ever; and as long as the sea rolls thus we will be a nation. You have got to remember this: that the force we have behind us is the force of the sentiment of a people; and if we cannot obtain what is our right by argument we will obtain it by force—get back by force that which you have taken by force, if necessary, and if a fitting opportunity presents. It is with these views that I second the resolution, and I appeal to all the Irish Members to come together upon this resolution to fight as one man, and try if we cannot once again re-constitute ourselves a real national Irish Party.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member for Waterford has put a question to us in the friendliest spirit, and I can assure him that it is in that spirit that I propose to answer him. When I am catechised on this subject I have to consider first of all what the Amendment to the Resolution is, and secondly, what is the object of the speech of the hon. Member. Now, as far as I understand, the object of the speech, it is to demonstrate to mankind that Home Rule has no friends anywhere in the world. Of course, he assumed that the Unionist Party was no friend to Home Rule, and then he went on to show that the Liberal Party in England was either adverse to, or neglectful of, Home Rule. But, not satisfied with that, he went to Ireland, and there he insinuated, or rather suggested, that the majority of the Irish representatives were not altogether to be trusted on the subject of Home Rule. It is like the old story one remembers to have heard in Scotland of the Calvanist who thought that there was only one other person who held the true faith besides himself, and he was not quite sure of him. That is the view which the hon. Member for Waterford presents of the situation of Home Rule. It is not an extremely sanguine or hopeful one. However, no doubt it is a genuine one, and one which entitles him to the position

    385
    of "Athanasius contra mundum." Well, then, that being so, the hon. Member makes a speech in which he speaks of the great horror and contempt he has for a phrase with which, I confess, I have some sympathy—"the union of hearts." The hon. Member has no desire, apparently, that the English people should have any confidence in that phrase either, and the seconder has employed language with reference to a nation which looks practically to force, and this is commentary upon the resolution which we are invited to adopt. That is the impression that has been made, I confess, upon my mind by the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford. Now he has moved a Resolution which, I think, although he has altered it in terms, practically expresses the same thing as the original Resolution. His original Resolution commenced by a statement that a Local Government Bill for Ireland would not satisfy the Irish demand for self-government. That is a proposition with which I entirely agree. I stated it, I think, in those words a night or two ago. I have always stated it in every speech that I have made upon the subject. I stated it very clearly, I think, in Scotland a few weeks ago. I stated it in the election of 1895, and I do not think there is any considerable speech made by me, here or anywhere else, in which I have not expressed that opinion, and therefore I assume that the hon. Member for Waterford does not consider my utterances worthy of so much attention as I consider his. So much for the first part of the Resolution. Then I come to the second part of the Resolution, and there is something about "urgency," and, I think, I heard the word "priority." Now, if the hon. and learned Member for Waterford would permit me to observe, as having had some Parliamentary experience, that, in my opinion, priority depends upon majority, I would ask whether the course that the hon. and learned Member has taken for the past seven years, and is taking now, is likely to conduce to the existence of a majority in this House in favour of Home Rule? But that is for him to consider. At all events, it is not my judgment that the course he is taking is likely to do so. That is a matter which, as they say, is "on the knees of the Gods," and we have not yet arrived at that point, and no one
    386
    can readily believe, or honestly say—to borrow the phrase of the hon. and learned Member—that I have ever looked with any confidence to his assistance in the matter. So much for urgency and priority. And then I come to his fundamental condition, and that is that the demand can be satisfied only by the concession of an independent Parliament for all affairs distinctively Irish. What the hon. and learned Member asks me to do is to condemn and repudiate all the principles of Home Rule on which the British Party on these Benches at least with the consent of the Leaders of the Irish Party on two successive occasions—1886 and 1893—have founded a Measure or Home Rule, and that principle was, the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. Now, Sir, that has always been, and has always been stated to be, so, by our great Leader, for whose conduct and sacrifices the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, I am bound to say, has shown very little consideration. He taunts the Liberal Party and their Leaders for their conduct on this subject. Is he prepared to deny that the Liberal Party has made sacrifices for the sake of Home Rule? Let me point out how capital and fundamental has been the question of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. It was specifically reserved in the preamble of the Bill of 1893. Mr. Gladstone always maintained that it was inherent in the nature of the Constitution; but when suspicion and doubts were raised upon that subject he expressed his readiness to make it distinct, and when my right hon. and learned Friend Sir Henry James—now Lord James of Hereford—brought forward a clause specifically stating and reserving the authority of the Imperial Parliament in these words—
    "The supreme power and authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things within the Queen's dominions,"
    that was accepted, and accepted with the consent of the Irish Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, in speaking on that occasion, used words—graphic words—in which he says—

    387
    "The Bill is saturated with supremacy. Supremacy stares us in the face from every page of the Bill. There is a legislative power reserved to the Imperial Parliament; there is the Veto, and there are other provisions which provide in the most effective way for the exercise of supremacy when occasion arises."
    Therefore I say that the fundamental principle in the Home Rule Bill, Which we, who took part in that Measure, and were responsible for it, always asserted, and the members of the Liberal Party who supported it—all those who, at any time, have recommended its adoption to their people—was the principle of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. For that means I say, in answer to the friendly question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that when he asks us to stand in a white sheet, and repent of all we have said and of all we have done upon the subject of Home Rule, and when he asks us to support a Resolution which declares for an independent Parliament, I think he asks too much. What is meant by an independent Parliament? The seconder of the Resolution had, no doubt, in his mind as to what is meant by an independent Parliament of a nation which is prepared to employ force to achieve its purpose. I can only say to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, that though I have no doubt that he is profoundly convinced of the necessity for this independent Parliament, and though he thinks that to make a declaration contrary to all we had previously said upon this subject is the best method of forwarding Home Rule, I must ask leave to differ from him. On the subject of Home Rule I firmly believe that the general principle—I do not say in all the details, but the capital particulars which were laid down in the Measure of 1893—and, above all, the maintenance of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, were entirely correct. We desire to see Home Rule for Ireland under these conditions as a Measure and a policy which we believe will be for the advantage, not only of Ireland, but also of Great Britain. But, Sir, the principles which were declared by Mr. Gladstone are the principles to which we adhere. Those are the principles which are put in issue, and are contradicted by this Resolution, and I can only inform the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that against that Resolution I, for one, will vote.
    MR. J. DILLON: The hon. Member for Waterford, in the course of his speech, disclaimed any intention of attacking any other Irish Member, and I trust that in the few observations which it will be my privilege to address to the House, he will extend to me the same charity which he wished others to extend to himself. The hon. Member opened his speech by saying he admitted that, under ordinary circumstances, it would not be good tactics, nor calculated to forward the cause of Home Rule, to move an Amendment of this character in view of the present composition of the House, and I should add, in my opinion, in view of the relation in which the House stands towards an approaching General Election. He then proceeded to do what he said he felt called upon to do, that is, to justify and give reasons for the action he has taken. He pointed to certain sins of omission on the part of the Liberal Leaders, and he spoke of the nonsense that had been talked about the union of hearts. But it seemed to me that I have heard coming from olden days, the voice of him who was once our Leader, and who did not use that tone of contempt in speaking of that phrase. One of my objections to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford, is that I do not think the moving of it at the present time is calculated to advance the cause of Home Rule; and I do not think, if it were calculated to advance the cause of Home Rule, that the Amendment itself, and the speech of the hon. Member who moved it, would have been received so rapturously by gentlemen on the other side of the House. But that is only a question of tactics, and I do not think it is one with which I am bound to deal at any length, because no proposition for any Measure of local government, however satisfactory it may be, so far as it goes, and no Measure, the result of the combined wisdom of the Recess Committee, however satisfactory it may be, will, in the slightest degree, abate or take the place of the national demands of Ireland. And if it would satisfy him, and in any way conduce towards effecting that object, which I have always considered to be the really important object—the re-union of the Nationalist ranks—if it would satisfy

    389
    the hon. Member, even although I might consider it bad tactics, and unnecessary, and even mischievous, to move such an Amendment as he has moved, if it would satisfy him and advance the cause of the re-union of the Nationalist ranks, I should have been most happy to second it. There are two chief questions raised by the Amendment. The first, on which he dwelt briefly, was as to the use of the words "Independent Parliament." He gave his reasons for what he admitted was a departure from the platform adopted by the Irish people and their representatives in this House on the occasion of the Home Rule Bills of 1886 and 1893. He pointed out that these were compromises that had broken down, and that he felt it to be the duty of Irish representatives to put before this House, and state in the face of the English Members of Parliament, the full measure of the national demand. I was astounded when I heard him describe what he considers to be the full national demand of Ireland, and I wish to deal with the word "independent," and the meaning which we must attach to it. What does the hon. Member mean by "Independent Irish Parliament"? That is a matter of the very first importance. Does he mean by "Independent Irish Parliament," and by this Amendment, to which he asks the body of the Liberal Party to assent, an Irish Parliament independent of the Imperial Parliament in every respect? If that is what he means, then he is asking the Liberal Party to depart from all that was currently known to the public in England and the Members of this House, as the policy of the Liberal Party. This is a matter of vital and far-reaching importance, because no one can doubt that this word "independent"—and I may say that I am determined to vote for the Amendment—is the crux of the question. I am clear that my course is to support the Amendment. Now, Sir, I turn to the question of the definition of the word "independent," and I put it to the hon. Member to explain what definition he places upon the word. Let me direct his attention, and the attention of the House, to the words of Mr. Parnell, who, in his speech on Home Rule, on June 17th, 1886, said—
    "Now, Sir, the Member for East Edinburgh spoke about the sovereignty of Parliament. I entirely agree upon this point. I entirely ac-
    390
    cept the definition given by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bryce) the other day. We have always known, since the introduction of this Bill, the difference between a co-ordinate and a subordinate Parliament, and we have recognised that the Legislature which the Prime Minister proposes to constitute is a subordinate Parliament—that it is not the same as Grattan's Parliament, which was co-equal with the Imperial Parliament, arising out of the same Constitution given to the Irish people by the Crown, just in the same way, though not by the same means, as Parliamentary institutions were given to Great Britain by the Sovereign."
    That is what Mr. Parnell said of the Home Rule Bill, and then he went on to say—
    "I understand the supremacy of Parliament to be this—that they can interfere in the event of the powers which are conferred by this Bill being abused, under certain circumstances. But the Nationalists, in accepting this Bill, go, as I think, under an honourable understanding not to abuse those powers; and we pledge ourselves in that respect, as far as we can pledge ourselves, not to abuse those powers, and to devote our energies and our influence which we may have with the Irish people to prevent those powers from being abused."
    Then he proceeded—
    "I believe that this is by far the best mode in which we can hope to settle this question. You will have the real power of force in your hands, and you ought to have it; and if abuses are committed, and injustice be perpetrated, you will always be able to use that force to put a stop to them. You will have the power and the supremacy of Parliament untouched and unimpaired, just as though this Bill had never been brought forward."
    Then Mr. Parnell went on to declare that he fully recognised the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, and, therefore, there can be no doubt of the position of Mr. Parnell on this question. He accepted on that occasion, as he did throughout the long campaign which ensued upon the defeat of the Home Rule Bill, a statutory legislature in Ireland. I remember, in the course of these Debates, it was pointed out that for Parliament to strip itself of its supremacy was the basis of the Home Rule movement as conducted under Mr. Parnell's Leadership and the basis of the whole of the Home Rule movement as it won the support of the Liberal Party. The hon. Member speaks of a compact, and he went as far back as the days of Lord Fitzwilliam and the Bills of 1886 and 1893, and he said that at those

    391
    great junctures it was within the grasp or the people to make a compromise, but that they only threw away the opportunity, and that now it becomes the duty of all Irish Nationalists, compromise being rejected, to put forward the full measure of the Nationalist demand. That brings me to the second point. What is the full measure of that demand? The hon. Member, as I understood him, defined it to be the repeal of the Act of Union, and, in a previous speech in Ireland, he led the Nationalists to take the same view, and having recognised that the policy of Home Rule, as carried on by Mr. Parnell, had failed, he how falls back upon the Repeal of the Union and the Parliament of 1782.
    MR. REDMOND: No.
    MR. DILLON: You spoke of the repeal of the Union, and the re-opening of the Irish Parliament, as the full Nationalist demand. Now, I say, in the first instance, that, in my opinion and in the opinion of the vast majority of the advanced Nationalists of Ireland, that is not the full Nationalist demand.
    MR. REDMOND: Separation.
    MR. DILLON: Yes. That is the full Nationalist demand; that is the right on which we stand, the national right of Ireland, which we always were prepared to compromise, and the very fact of our coming into this House shows our willingness to compromise it. As the hon. Member for Waterford says, there is spreading in Ireland to-day a spirit which many of you will find manifested before long—a spirit of despair in constitutional methods and constitutional weapons for winning back the freedom of Ireland. The young men in hundreds are turning to the old ways of 1865 and 1867 and previous years of revolt. I was called upon the other day in Dublin by two or three young fellows, and they claimed as the national right of Ireland, the Parliament of 1782. They said the national right of Ireland was the right of separation. I said—
    "How can you expect us, who believe in the efficacy of Parliamentary agitation, and who were standing on Parnell's platform, and were willing still to accept the Gladstone Bill and
    392
    the Gladstone policy as a full compensation and compromise for our national demand, and to stand loyally by that settlement."
    and so we are. And I pointed out to these young men that those who, in the words of the Member for Waterford, are determined to put forward the full national right of Ireland as their demand, have no business to cross the floor of this House, and have no honourable means of crossing that barrier, because, they are face to face with an oath, which no man can take who is engaged in pressing forward the full national demand of Ireland.
    MR. REDMOND: Many good Irishmen have taken it.
    MR. DILLON: That is what I have to say with regard to the question of an independent Parliament. I turn now for a moment, before I pass from the-question of an independent Parliament, to the view put forward by the hon. Member for South Waterford, when questioned on this matter in a debate on Home Rule in 1893. He was challenged by the present Colonial Secretary, as to the alleged advocacy of an independent Parliament. The hon. Member for Waterford spoke as follows—
    "I have always, in my speeches in the House, and in Ireland, explained, as far as I understand it, that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was absolutely inalienable by Parliament, and was not questioned by us."
    If that be the meaning which he puts upon his allusion to an independent Parliament, I see no difficulty in voting for the Amendment. But the hon. Member spoke of the Parliament of 1782, and alluded to the repeal of the Act of Union as an alternative policy in Ireland a short time ago. I would refer the hon. Member to the fact that, so long ago as 1873, at a prolonged Debate, taken part in by all the Leaders of the National Party, the policy of Home Rule, as then advocated by Mr. Parnell, was substituted as the Parliamentary and constitutional demand of Ireland, for the policy of Repeal. In the debate, Mr. Isaac Butt, who was then the leader of the National Party, pointed out the fact that the Parliament of 1782 was far less free than the one which he proposed to

    393
    put forward as the demand under the Home Rule scheme. I turn for a moment to another point raised by the hon. Member, which, I understand, he invited me to assist him in pressing upon the Liberal leaders: I mean the necessity for giving pledges now in the House of Commons, and before the English Members, that Home Rule would, when ever they got into power, be the first Measure with which they would begin. I have a fairly long Parliamentary experience, and, neither in my experience nor in my reading, have I ever heard of such a pledge being asked from Leaders, who are leading a Party in the House in a minority of 140. A more foolish and a more fatuous demand was never made of a Party in that position. But I have taken steps within the last few months to secure that Irish support is given to Liberal candidates only on condition of Home Rule holding its proper position in their programme. I know that some of the Conservative gentlemen opposite were exceedingly anxious to get the Irish vote. I remember an hon. and gallant Member, who recently won a great northern constituency by 11 votes, commencing his campaign by alluding to the gallant men of '67, who knew how to fight for the liberties of Ireland. At the time, I may mention, that the question of the disposition of 400 or 500 Irish votes was pending decision by our Executive. Therefore, I think——
    *LORD CHAS. BERESFORD: The hon. Member's remarks are rather pointed, and, as they are evidently directed at me, I should like to explain that I never made use of any sort of expression of the character he has attributed to me. As the hon. Member has said, I did see an Irish leader in York, but I told him I thought there was no hope of the Irish voting for me. I was determinedly opposed to Home Rule in all its forms, and, therefore, could not expect the Irish votes.
    MR. DILLON: I accept the explanation of the hon. Member. I am sorry to have misrepresented him, and withdraw unreservedly anything I have said. My only defence is that he was reported in the papers to have made that remark.
    394
    To return to the point, although I am not prepared, and have not the slightest intention of doing what appears to me to be a purely mischievous and exceedingly stupid thing to do, I am prepared, if it will at all ease the anxiety of the hon. Member for Waterford, to state the position of the Irish Party in this regard. That position is this: that neither at the polls, where we can control the Irish votes—and I think we can influence about 30 constituencies—perhaps more—nor when it comes to the question of a General Election, can any body of men desiring to get into power, or to form a Ministry, expect the support of the Irish Party except on condition that Home Rule for Ireland—and Home Rule at least as extensive and as satisfactory to the Irish people as Mr. Gladstone's Bill proposed—occupies a foremost position in their programme. When I am told that our business is to go to the Liberal Party, and say—
    "Will you tell us what you will do when you get into power three, four, five, six, or seven years hence?"
    I say that a more preposterous proposal was never brought before any responsible politician. But I say—and I speak not only as the temporary spokesman of a group of Nationalist Members, but I am convinced I am giving expression to the deliberate and fixed purpose of the great mass of the Nationalist people of Ireland and the Nationalist voters in this country—when I say that no Government can come into office through our support, or can count upon our support, either at the polls or in this House, unless they adhere to the position in regard to Home Rule which was taken up and maintained by Mr. Gladstone. I do not think I can define our position more clearly than that. That is my position in the matter; it is the position of most of my colleagues around me. I think that the Member for Water-ford and myself do not really differ so much as may be supposed; but whether he remains as spokesman of his Party, or whether I remain as the spokesman of the Party who have selected me, or whether we were both to retire to-morrow, it would not alter the force of that statement. This is not the policy of this group, or of that group, or of any individual Member; it is, in my judgment, the deliberate fixed purpose of the

    395
    Nationalist electors of Ireland, who send us to this House, and of those voters in Great Britain who vote as we advise them, and it is the policy which would remain unchanged if I and the hon. Member for Waterford resigned our seats to-morrow—which might be a very good proceeding for the benefit of Ireland—and went on a short trip to the South of Europe or Egypt, to see whether, in our absence, the rift of the last six years might not be healed. Of one thing I am certain, that in its fundamental principle, as I have stated it, we should, if absent for six years, come back to find the policy of these Benches unchanged.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Right Hon. A. J. BALFOUR,): I almost feel that there is some impropriety in my venturing to intervene in the little domestic discussion to which we have listened with such interest; or, to change the metaphor, I rather feel I have been a spectator at a most interesting little bit of comedy, and have then, in a rash moment, spoiled the general harmony by myself coming forward and making some observations on the stage. But I suppose I cannot leave this matter, however little it may directly concern the gentlemen on this side, altogether without some observations—and some observations there are which may be made with profit. I do not, let me say by way of preface, quite understand the relation of the speeches which have been made to-night with the votes that are going to be given. I understand that the Gentleman who moved the Amendment and the hon. Member for East Mayo do not agree in their views, but are going to vote in the same lobby. I understand also that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. Member for East Mayo, who do agree in their views, are going to vote in different lobbies. These are mysteries of Parliamentary statescraft, which it is not easy to fathom, and I do not attempt to give a solution of the singular problem thus presented for our consideration. I said that this Debate did not concern gentlemen on this side of the House; perhaps I went rather too far in that statement, because there was one
    396
    part of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, as it was originally framed, and there was one part of the speech in which he proposed his modified Amendment to-night, which was directed towards the policy we are pursuing. The hon. Member stated substantially that the Irish people would not regard a Measure of local government for Ireland, however broad its basis, as any substitute for Home Rule. Sir, in one sense. I entirely agree with that statement. We do not propose this as a step towards Home Rule. We do not bring it forward as a compromise between our views and the views of hon. Members on which we might agree. We mean to bring it forward on its own merits, as an integral part of our policy, as a policy which we should pursue with equal zeal and equal desire to bring to a successful consummation if the Home Rule Party were wiped out of existence tomorrow. Our desire is to extend to Ireland those local liberties and that local control which England and Scotland and Wales already possess, and we desire that for reasons altogether outside the Home Rule controversy, and the embittered Debates which have taken place on this subject; and if the hon. Gentleman asks us, we go further, and say that we have not given up hope that in time we may reconcile every section of the Irish people, and that all shall bear their full share——
    MR. DILLON: Of taxation.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In the general government of the Empire. We who are bringing forward this Local Government Bill may not live to see that day, for I am aware that long centuries of misunderstanding, and more than misunderstanding, leave scars not easily to be obliterated; but I live in the undying faith and hope that the time will come when the inhabitants of these two islands will be as closely joined as the inhabitants of any other nation in the world.
    MR. SWIFT MCNEILL: Never! never!
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The hon. Member neither desires nor hopes it. I both desire and hope it. And which is the more patriotic? Which is the more generous? Which is the best fitted to serve the real interests of Ireland? I entertain no

    397
    doubt; but perhaps only the verdict of history can ultimately give the reply. Sir, after all, I am well aware that the interest of this Debate does not turn upon the views of the Party who sit on this side of the House, but upon the views which have been expressed—upon the inter-relations of the views expressed—by the hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House. I confess that I do not think I have ever heard a speech in which questions were better put than they were in the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and I never heard questions more imperfectly answered than they were by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who immediately followed. How to ask, and how not to answer, are two arts, both of which have received admirable practical example in the short Debate we have heard to-night. One statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, to which I listened with interest, was that in which he said he has not departed by a hair's breadth from the policy of the Home Rule Bill of 1893. Well, so little is said about Home Rule by Gentlemen opposite, unless they are actually driven, that I really began to entertain some doubts as to whether the Bill of 1893 does still embody their views. As I consider it is convenient always to have clear-cut issues, I am glad to learn that the Bill of 1893 does still embody their views, and that when they talk—if ever they do talk—to their constituents about Home Rule, what they mean is Mr. Gladstone's Bill of 1893. I think it is only fair to the hon. members for Ireland to understand that; and I am sure it is convenient that we should understand it. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, having, as a sort of obiter dictum, made this admission, entirely avoided all the labour and trouble of answering the questions put by the Mover by going into a discussion upon the meaning and import of the word "independent," as it appears in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I so far agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo, that, on this word "independent" you may wrangle for ever and ever. I confess that, as I read the Amendment, all that is asked for by the Mover is a Parliament practically
    398
    independent for the management of Irish affairs. I may have been wrong in that particular, but, at all events, I am not going to be betrayed into what I have always considered the most futile and most barren and empty of discussions—namely, a discussion of the perfectly empty and futile sovereignty or supremacy which was reserved to the British Parliament under the Bill of 1893. I have never, for my own part, concealed the opinion that if—which Heaven forbid—the time should ever come when what is called Home Rule is to be passed for Ireland, you had better make a good job of it at once, and give them independence. All the studies of history, past and contemporary, which I have been able to give to those constitutions in which subordinate Parliaments, or double systems of representation, exist under one nominal head, convince me that they are absolutely unworkable. They lead not to the friendship, but to the enmity of nations, and they are a clumsy contrivance for perpetuating the difficulties which everybody must admit, our relations with Ireland have been very fruitful of.
    MR. T. HEALY: Then why did you waste three months on the Amendment to the Bill of 1893?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Perhaps the hon. Member will explain the relevance of that observation. At the present moment I cannot quite see it. All that I would venture to point out is, the waste of our time to-night with this discussion, in regard to the precise meaning of the word "independence," or the precise means of retaining the theoretical sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament. What the hon. Member really wanted to get out of the Leader of the Opposition was the position in which Home Rule now stands in the Liberal programme. The word "programme" is a word which so stinks in the nostrils of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that I will put it in a simpler way, and ask where does Home Rule now stand among the proposals they mean to deal with if they come into office? The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, reproached the Mover of the Amendment,

    399
    and told him that nothing could be done for Home Rule until he got a majority, and that the very worst way to get a majority was to ask these inconvenient questions. I am not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not right. I do not think it is convenient for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to have these questions asked, and I am quite sure that the less they are put, and the less the public and their constituents know about this unpleasant and disagreeable matter, the more chance there is of getting that majority with regard to the use of which he is so prudently reticent. I now come to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo—I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition listened with attention to the interesting and most important part of that speech—in which he (Mr. Dillon) described the policy he is now pursuing in the constituencies, which is really worth noting now and remembering hereafter. The hon. Member belongs, I understand, to an oppressed and downtrodden Parliamentary minority. In his own opinion he not only controls the 80 solid votes from Ireland, but he also controls 30 seats in England. Not bad, I think, when you consider that there are 3,000,000 of Home Rulers and Nationalist votes in these islands.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Fifteen millions.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot follow that. If there are 15,000,000——
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I made that interruption before he reached the end of his sentence.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: This down-trodden Parliamentary minority, however, have apparently made up their minds very clearly as to the order in which questions are to be taken by English candidates, but I notice that that order is not the order in which English candidates desire to take them themselves. I draw that inference, not merely from what I have heard of the elections which have recently taken place, but also from authentic resolutions of representative Liberal bodies, such as that to which reference has already been made
    400
    to-night. Whatever the abstract views, may be of English constituencies, and those who represent them, upon Home Rule, it is perfectly clear that, at all events, in the language of the hon. Member for Plymouth, what he calls the machinery of the local public opinion—one man one vote, the veto of the House of Lords, and so forth—is to be finally dealt with before Home Rule comes on the tapis. Here is a difference of policy on the other side, which is of a most startling description. That the hon. Member for Waterford should differ from the Leader of the Opposition is what we should expect. He has never pretended to be a follower of the right hon. Gentleman. He has never expressed any unbounded confidence in the action of the English Home Rule Party. And, therefore, I receive, absolutely without surprise, any statement of his differing from the right hon. Gentleman. But when the hon. Member for East Mayo, who I had always thought was hand-in-glove with the Liberal Party, who certainly commands no inconsiderable section of the right hon. Gentleman's followers, who has always expressed his firm belief in the union of hearts, and in constitutional Measures, comes forward publicly in the House and says he is determined, in so far as his influence goes in the English constituencies, to compel the Liberals to adopt a course of action of which they disapprove, and of which their English supporters disapprove—that is, I think, a truly amazing state of affairs.
    MR. DILLON: That is not exactly what I said. What I said was that, if I had any influence, I would put pressure on candidates to adhere to the policy of Mr. Gladstone on the Irish question.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understood the hon. Member to say that he commanded 30 seats in England.
    MR. DILLON: I said I thought I could influence them.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Well, influence them. He is determined to see that the policy of Mr. Gladstone on Home Rule is put to the front of the candidates' programme. That is a point, clear, definite, and intelligible, and perfectly honest and

    401
    straightforward. Is that the policy of the party—the English section of the party—of which the hon. Gentleman is a member?
    MR. FLAVIN: It will have to be the policy.
    MR. BALFOUR: I think it is possible. After what the hon. Member has said, I not only think it possible, but even probable. Now, under these circumstances, how wise and prudent is the reticence of the Leader of the Opposition! When it gets known throughout the length and breadth of the land that the Irish supporters of the Liberal Party are going to coerce their English allies; when it is known that their deliberate intention is to make them swallow it, with or without jam, then, I think, the wisdom and prudence of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will become manifest to all. I think this Debate, in which, so far as we on this side are concerned, we need take no further part, has proved eminently useful. It has cleared a great many questions which were getting obscured. It has dissipated many clouds which were settling over the political landscape; and, though I do not think it has taught us on this side of the House much we did not know before, I cannot help thinking that among the Gentlemen who sit opposite to me there are many who have learned the same unpleasant lesson, from which in the future they will probably find not less unpleasant consequences likely to accrue.
    *MR. CLANCY: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the speeches which have been delivered on this subject have all of them justified the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I will first of all deal—and I will do so very briefly—with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. My hon. Friend, the Member for Waterford stated that one of the reasons which had actuated him in moving this Amendment was that the Tory Party—the Unionist Party I ought to say—are now proposing to introduce a Local Government Bill in the hope that such a Measure will prove a substitute for Home Rule. The
    402
    Right hon. Gentleman began his speech, as the hon. Members who were in the House at the time will recollect, by expressing that hope in different terms.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I never said, or thought, that this Bill would be in any sense a substitute for Home Rule.
    *MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that the Irish people would eventually take their places in the Empire and their full share in the general government of the Empire. The expression of that hope, coming as it did from the Leader of the Government, fully justified my hon. Friend in introducing his Amendment. We want to make it perfectly plain that we, at all events—future generations of Irishmen may think differently—entertain the belief and the conviction, and we desire here to express it fully, that the hope expressed by the right hon. Gentleman is doomed, like many another hope expressed on that Bench in the past, to-bitter disappointment. I contend that the motion of my hon. Friend, the Member for Waterford, was justified, not only by the hope expressed by the Leader of the House as to the effect of his Local Government Bill, but also by the failure of the hon. Member for East Mayo to find the slightest fault with the action of the Liberal Party in this matter, and by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition. We looked to the hon. Member for East Mayo, as leader of the largest section of Irish Nationalist Members, for some decided expression of opinion upon the attitude of the Liberal Party on the question of Home Rule. Well, Sir, I listened very carefully to his speech, and I think I will not be contradicted by any Gentleman round me when I say that, from beginning to end, he did not find the slightest fault with the Liberal Party for their action since Lord Rosebery succeeded Mr. Gladstone as Prime Minister. I do not intend to enter into any controversy on this subject with any Irish Member. I content myself with saying that while a gentleman in the position of the hon. Member for East Mayo—after a deliberate request has been made to him to-night by the hon. Member for Waterford to notice these things—

    403
    refuses to do so, we can only conclude that there is absolute necessity for pressing this matter on every possible occasion. There was one question asked, which could hardly be answered by an interruption. I think it was: What was meant by an independent Parliament? My hon. Friend, the Member for Waterford, answered that question very explicitly in April last in Dublin, when he quoted the memorable words used by Mr. Parnell, in January, 1891, in the city of Waterford. It is well to recall those words. Mr. Parnell said that the Liberal Party and Mr. Gladstone knew what Ireland wanted. He said—
    "We want an Irish Parliament with full powers to manage Irish affairs. We must have an English veto."
    Sir, I think that is a very explicit definition of an independent Parliament, and, for my own part, I adopt it. I doubt very much if there is an Irish Nationalist Member sitting round me who does not in his heart adopt this view also. Now I come to the third speech, which seems to justify more even than the two which preceded it, the Amendment of my hon. Friend—I mean the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Sir, my hon. Friend frankly avowed that his principal object was to know where exactly the Liberal Party stood in regard to the question of Home Rule. I declare, after having listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, that if I was in ignorance before on this subject, I am in greater ignorance at the present moment. He was asked where Home Rule would stand in the programme of the Liberal Party, and the answer he made was that priority would depend upon the majority. That was not the answer of Mr. Gladstone to a similar question. Mr. Gladstone did not say "I will wait until a general election gives me a majority." On the contrary, he said that Home Rule should be the first object of Liberals for the purpose not only of doing justice to Ireland, but for the purpose of wiping a stain from the escutcheon of England. He also hinted that it was the first duty of Irishmen to make Home Rule block the way of English legislation until it was conceded. Sir, we have been
    404
    taunted to-night with departing from the principles of Mr. Parnell. I say that the Leader of the Opposition has thrown Mr. Gladstone's policy overboard. He has been challenged to say what position Home Rule occupies, and he spoke for a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes, and he never said one single word upon the subject except that which I have just mentioned. He did not say, in the second place, what the Home Rule was which we are going to get when his majority gives him the chance of bringing in a Home Rule Bill. That is a vital point. I do not know exactly what he means at present by Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman is not one of those whose past entitles him to treat us in this way. I recollect him within the last few years as one of the most strenuous, one of the most able, one of the most ingenious opponents of the policy of coercion. A few years before the right hon. Gentleman exercised the same ingenuity on the side of coercion. Therefore I say, in the case of a man like him, it was doubly necessary for him to speak to-night to show that he had not changed his opinion on the subject of the Irish demand, and what form his concession would take. I have no hesitation in saying, after the speech we have heard to-night from him, that he has abandoned the Home Rule policy. Sir, he chided my hon. Friend for saying that we had made some sacrifices in Ireland for the Liberal Party, and he also reminded my hon. Friend that the Liberal Party had made certain sacrifices for Ireland. I don't know what sacrifices the right hon. Gentleman has made. I know that the right hon. Gentleman could not have got into office in 1892 without the aid of the Irish vote. He could not have got into office in 1886 without the Irish vote, and he could not have retained office for three years without the aid of the Irish members. I do not know what sacrifices he made. I do know this, that if I had it in my power he would certainly make sacrifices for Ireland. He will certainly have to make more sacrifices for Ireland before he has the opportunity of governing this Empire. I have only to repeat that I think the speeches that have taken place have been useful, and I do hope that they will be

    405
    read and studied by the Irish people. If they are read and studied by the Irish people I do believe that the national sentiment of Ireland will assert itself, and that that national sentiment will come round to the old belief that there is nothing to be got from this Parliament—from either side of it—by the mere force of reason and argument, and that neither Party in England will ever give anything to Ireland which it can keep, and that the only way to get Home Rule, or anything else, is to fight both Parties in turn.
    MR. E. J. MORTON: Through the whole of this Debate it has been obvious that the Gentlemen opposite have been interested in gaining some Party advantage from a possible quarrel between the hon. Member for Waterford and those who sit upon these Benches. I think it ought to have been obvious that during the past five years the hon. Member for Waterford has all along done his best against the Liberal Party, and that, therefore, no further advantage can accrue to them from any additional bitterness that may be stirred up between us. But, Sir, I do want to point out one fact which I believe within the nest fortnight will become patent to all parties in the face of the Home Rule question, and the Irish question generally. The first part of the original Amendment put on the paper by the hon. Member for Waterford, which you ruled to be out of order, did refer to the alternative policy of Her Majesty's Government, which the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, has declared to be their deliberate policy, which they would have adopted and pushed forward on this occasion, even if the whole Home Rule Party was swept out of existence. I believe that it will be found in a very few weeks that the alternative policy of Her Majesty's Government, a policy of local government for Ireland, will be resented and rejected by the Unionists of Ireland far more strongly than any Home Rule policy possibly could be. The fact is, as everyone knows, the Unionists of Ireland are not afraid of the terrible things that some of the loudest voices proclaim them to be afraid of; they are
    406
    not afraid of Protestants being reduced to ashes and burned at the stake. What they are afraid of is petty persecution and deprivation of local posts and positions, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, are to be placed at the disposal of the newly-formed County Councils. Now, Sir, the difference between a policy of local government and a policy of Home Rule is this. There are 32 counties in Ireland, and in 27 of these counties it will be absolutely impossible so to jerry-mander the constituency—even if you were to try to do so—as to ensure that one single Unionist could be elected there of the County Council—that is, of course, provided the Irish Nationalists were opposed to it.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman appears to be entering upon a subject which I have ruled to be out of order.
    MR. E. J. MORTON: I was going to use it as an argument in favour of what I understood was the only alternative, but I shall be compelled to drop the point I wanted to use about the alternative policy. But, Sir, the advantage of a policy of Home Rule—that is, the policy of a national Parliament—has been the only way we can deal with local government in Ireland at all as distinct from any alternative policy; that was pointed out by Lord Salisbury himself to the people of England in his Newport speech, in which he spoke of the evils that would result from any system of local government for Ireland. In addition to that, I remember the argument being used to me personally, in one of the three private conversations I had with Mr. Parnell, that the Irish people had such a history, that the only thing that would enable them to employ any system of local government with success was that, that system should be essentially a national system; that, by having a national Parliament, you would evoke a national enthusiasm, which would keep them straight; and that no alternative or smaller system of local government could possibly meet that case. But, Mr. Speaker, there is another point I want to refer to in this Debate. The hon. Member for Waterford has brought for-

    407
    ward this Amendment, and in estimating what the exact meaning of that Amendment is, I take it that we are bound to interpret it by means of his own speech. If we take that Amendment as interpreted by his speech, I take it to mean nothing else but this: that he accuses the Liberal Party in this House of contemplating treachery, and in order to enable them to say they are not contemplating treachery, he brings forward this Amendment. I will not contemplate the basis upon which the whole of his arguments goes. I will not contemplate that the Liberal Party has abated one single jot of its intention to carry Home Rule into law, and, therefore, I shall not vote for this Amendment. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to laugh, but can they give me one single iota of evidence that we have abated our intention of passing Home Rule; can they produce a particle of evidence? I know perfectly well why hon. Members opposite should cheer the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford. They cheer it because they think that speech will tend to a rupture between the British Liberals and the Irish Home Rulers. But, Sir, a section of the Irish race, resident in England, that is best able to judge as to whether the Liberal Party is true to Home Rule, know that we are just as strong on Home Rule as ever we were, and hon. Members opposite know it, too, for they have found that it was so at the recent by-elections at Middleton, Plymouth, and South East Durham. Now, Sir, the fact is, I have endeavoured to get from hon. Members who agree with the hon. Member for Waterford, one single tittle of evidence; and I have endeavoured to get from some of my friends opposite one single tittle of evidence to show that the Liberal Party has ever said or done anything—or any prominent Member of it—to prove that they have abated their position as expressed in the last Home Rule Bill. And, Sir, until I can find some tittle of evidence of that kind I am not going to be drawn in the net of the hon. Member for Waterford, and I am not going to acknowledge that the Liberal Party is opposed to the policy to which they pledged themselves 11 years ago, and which I believe they are pledged to as strongly as ever.
    MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER put the Amendment.
    MR. SCOTT: I rise to——
    MR. SPEAKER: I have already collected the voices, and it is now too late for the hon. Member to take part in the Debate.
    The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 233.
    MR. H. LEWIS: I move as an Amendment to the Address to add at the end the following words—
    "And we humbly express our regret that no reference is made in your Majesty's Speech to questions specially affecting the interests of the people of Wales."
    I am well aware of the difficulty, at a time like the present, of attracting attention to home questions, and particularly to the affairs of the smallest of the four nationalities that compose the United Kingdom, but I would remind the House that during the last two years, while the voice of Ireland and of Scotland, countries whose political representation, like that of Wales, differs widely from that of England, has been repeatedly heard in Debates on the Address, no word has been spoken in the course of those debates by any Member from Wales on the great questions in which that country has a special and peculiar interest. Mr. Speaker, the Address which we are now debating is a reply to the third Speech from the Throne since the commencement of the present Parliament. We have seen the course taken by legislation during the past two years. The programme of the third year is now before us, and the case of Wales is not even remotely alluded to, much less do we find in the Queen's Speech any definite proposal for legislation which has for its object the righting of those wrongs against which the great majority of the Welsh people have repeatedly protested in the only constitutional way open to them. More than that, there is absolutely no hint in the Speech that anything is to be done for Wales in regard to those questions on which a reasonable measure of agreement may be expected on the part of Welsh Members of both political Parties, questions which have been raised in this Parliament, and sup-

    409
    ported by Welsh Members without distinction of Party. It appears to me that there are four reasons which can fairly be alleged by a Government for not legislating. The first is the want of a sufficient preponderance of public opinion in favour of the Measures; the second, a want of agreement between the Government and the majority of the Welsh people; the third, want of time; and the fourth, want of information. With regard to the four reasons I have mentioned, the Government of the day may refuse to initiate legislation, because the people of the country to which the legislation is to apply have not shown a sufficient preponderance of feeling in favour of it, or because the Government do not agree with it in principle, or because they have not enough time at their disposal to carry it into law, or because they have not sufficient information on which to base legislation. But I shall attempt to show that none of these reasons for inaction hold good in the case of Wales. One of the most frequent excuses alleged by a Government for not bringing in legislation is the want of a preponderance of public opinion on behalf of the Measure they are asked to adopt. To whatever extent that may be the case elsewhere, they can nowhere find clearer indications of public feeling on the great questions to which I have referred than have been given in Wales, not merely in one general election, but in a series of general elections, whose verdict has been confirmed within the last few months by the remarkable result of the election in East Denbighshire. As to the second excuse for inaction, want of agreement on the the part of the Government with the majority of the Welsh people and their representatives, I desire to point out the anomalous and unsatisfactory position in which Wales, like Ireland and Scotland, stands in this House. Until 1868, or perhaps even until 1880, Wales did not ask for separate legislation. In the words of Mr. Gladstone, she acted with "sheeplike docility." But the feeling which has been growing for many a year at last became so strong that one claim made by Wales—that for an instalment of temperance legislation by way of Sunday Closing—found comparatively little opposition, and the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill of Mr. John Roberts was
    410
    carried in 1881. A further advance was made when, in a succeeding Parliament, the Welsh Intermediate Education Act was passed. Those two Acts of Parliament—one passed under a Liberal, the other under a Conservative Government—have definitely settled, once for all, the right of Wales to separate legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, Wales has a Temperance Question that is wider than Sunday Closing. Wales has an Education Question that goes deeper than the question of Intermediate Education; and, besides these two subjects, there are great questions relating to the Church Establishment and the land, both of which have come repeatedly before Parliament, and on which Welsh opinion has declared itself over and over again with emphasis that is unmistakable, with majorities at times greater than have been obtained in any part of the United Kingdom for any contentious question. Welsh opinion has, on those subjects, attained a degree of fixity and permanency which cannot be doubted. It has become so to such an extent that I venture to submit that no Government has a right to ignore or deny on the ground of political disagreement to Wales those Measures which she desires, which do not infringe upon the Constitution or endanger the integrity of the Empire. I believe if England were to record a majority of one for any Measure she would have no difficulty—or very little difficulty—in obtaining it. England has no difficulty in obtaining any reform on which she has set her heart. But the case with what Lord Salisbury calls the "Celtic fringe," and particularly the Welsh portion of the Celtic fringe, is far different. We have asked over and over again in the only Constitutional way open to us for Welsh Disestablishment. We only ask for the application to Wales of a principle that was extended to Ireland 29 years ago, with the most beneficial results to the Church and to the people. The present Archbishop of Canterbury, when Headmaster of Rugby, stumped the country in support of Mr. Gladstone's Irish Disestablishment Bill, and he was quite right. We are not asking for anything immoral. The fact that England is against Disestablishment is enough to make the present Government refuse it to Wales. The predominant partner is

    411
    to have his own way, not only with regard to his own questions, not only with regard to matters that affect the Empire, but also with regard to questions in which England takes only a sentimental interest, and which affect the other portions of the United Kingdom. A Welsh Measure is rejected, not because it conflicts with Welsh interests, but because its passage may be an inconvenient precedent for English legislation. The consequence is that when a Conservative Government is in power Wales cannot expect to get Religious Equality, Temperance Reform, or Land Reform, because of the want of the will to pass those Measures. When a Liberal Government is in power, the way to the solution of all those questions is effectually blocked by the House of Lords, which is, after all, only a section of the Tory Party which steps in and prevents us from obtaining the legislation that we desire. Is this state of things to be permanent? Parliament has in the past, by the authority of the two great Parties in the State, decided that Wales is not to be governed on principles of cast-iron uniformity with England, and to deny absolutely to Wales the legislation for which she asks is to reverse the policy of the Parliaments of 1880, 1886, and 1892. The present Government can hardly allege that there has been no time to attend to the wants of a small country like Wales. Last Session they often apparently did not know what to do with their time; and on one occasion they actually brought forward, as the first Order on a Thursday night, a Bill relating to a single Welsh parish, containing 381 County Council electors. The Bill was of a bitterly contentious character. It was opposed in the Session of 1896, and withdrawn. On its re-introduction last year the voice of the parish in question was taken, and, out of 381 electors, 349 signed a petition against the Bill. That Bill, opposed by the representatives of Wales in the proportion of 3 in 1, and opposed by the people of the parish affected in the proportion of 12 to 1, was put down as the first Government Order on a Thursday night, and it was pushed through its various stages in the teeth of the strongest opposition. If time can be found to carry such a Measure to please an insignificant minority in one
    412
    parish, why should the Government be unable to find time to deal with questions which the majority of the Welsh people desire to have carried into law? They can always find time for a Bill if they really desire to carry it. If this Government cannot complain of want of time, still less can they complain of want of information on Welsh questions. We have had two Royal Commissions—one appointed by a Conservative, the other by a Liberal Government—which have sat to consider two of the questions in which the Welsh people take a profound interest. I refer to Temperance and Land Reform. Nowadays, if we ask the Government whether they are going to support this or that scheme of Temperance Reform, their invariable reply is that a Royal Commission is sitting, and that it would be premature to take action until the Commission has reported to Parliament. But let me draw the attention of the Government to the fact that a Royal Commission was appointed by Lord Salisbury's Government during the Parliament of 1886 to inquire into the operation of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales. The real object of appointing that Commission was to destroy the Act, but, so far from recommending any such course, the Commissioners reported in favour of the continuance of the Act, but that it should be strengthened in certain directions which would prevent evasion of the law. That report has been before Parliament for many years, but nothing has been done. There is plenty of information on the subject. If the Government will not give us legislation on the Church or the Land Question, will you not give us legislation on the Sunday Closing Question, and, if not, why not? The Commission took evidence in every part of Wales, and, since then, a Bill has been introduced every year for the purpose of carrying out their recommendations, but no facilities have been afforded by the Government for its discussion. The way in which the unanimous recommendations of a Royal Commission, appointed by a Conservative Government, have been treated, augurs ill for the chance of seeing the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Licensing carried into effect during the present Parliament. The Government are not without information on another question of the utmost importance to the

    413
    Principality, particularly in these times of agricultural depression—I refer to the Report of the Royal Commission on Land in Wales and Monmouthshire, which appeared last year. The Government have decided to oppose the Land Bill introduced by the Member for Cardiganshire, which substantially proposed to carry out the recommendations of the majority of the Commission. But the Commission, which numbered among its members representatives of the landlords and supporters of the Government like Lord Kenyon and the hon. Member for Swansea, made certain recommendations with complete unanimity. Will not the Government introduce a non-contentious measure giving the Welsh farmer the benefits which the Royal Commission unanimously recommended? Is the voice of one-twelfth of the parish of Berriew to be more potent than the voice of the Welsh agricultural community? Surely time can be found and facilities can be given for some measure of this kind? We have been told that the Government propose to introduce a Bill to facilitate procedure in regard to Scottish private legislation. With the principle of that proposal nobody can disagree. The enormous expense of bringing witnesses from Scotland to London has burdened many a good scheme requiring Parliamentary sanction with a heavy load of debt, and the existing arrangement has throttled many a promising enterprise. But there are only nine private Bills from Scotland this Session, while there are 23 private Bills from Wales. Why, therefore, should you not extend to Wales the principle? Why should you not extend to Wales the principle which you apply to Scotland? This could be done without in the slightest degree infringing the rights of Scotland, and would be very greatly to our advantage. I therefore appeal to the Government to make this small concession to Wales. We see nothing in the Speech about Government proposals for legislation for Wales, but I should like to ask the Government what course they propose to take with reference to private Members' days. In the absence of legislation initiated by the Government, that is our only resource. Is that to be denied to us, as it has been in the past? During the present Parliament Welsh Members have, by the fortune of the
    414
    ballot, been successful in securing many days for the discussion of questions of importance to Wales. Most of them—it would be almost correct to say, nearly all of them—have been taken away from us. Whatever Wales may have lost, the Government lost far more than they gained by that action. There are rumours that the rights of private Members are to be still further curtailed this Session. If that is so, and if further days are to be taken away from private Members, our only resource will be to bring forward questions relating to Wales in Government time, and we shall simply remain in the House watching for such opportunities as may arise. The dissatisfaction with the treatment of Wales by the Government is not felt by one Party alone in Wales, whatever may be the case in Parliament. The Western Mail, the leading Conservative newspaper of Wales, has voiced that dissatisfaction in a manner that cannot be mistaken. In speaking of the Western Mail, I am, of course, only referring to the ground we have in common. But what action is going to be taken by Members from Wales, who usually support the Government? They can well afford, in matters relating to the general interests of Wales, to take an independent line. I can well understand them, on a question which involves the existence of the Government, on any question which may be regarded as a vote of confidence in the Government, hesitating to go into the opposite Lobby. But I appeal to them, as Welsh Members, sitting on that side of the House, to help Welsh Members sitting on this side to the extent to which they are agreed with us. They can do that without any sacrifice of principle. Of course, if they are satisfied to let the Government do nothing for Wales, all we can do is to say here, and elsewhere, that in regard to Welsh questions no help can be expected from Welsh Conservative Members, even in regard to those questions which stand outside the sphere of Party politics. I do not know whether the Government care or not for the safety of the seats of their supporters from Wales who sit behind them, but those seats will be lost—all, or nearly all—unless the Government is prepared in some degree to meet the wishes of the great majority of the Welsh people. The

    415
    notable victory of my hon. Friend the Member for East Denbighshire shows how Wales would go if a General Election were to take place now. He succeeded one of the senior Members of this House—the late Chairman of the Welsh Party, than whom no Member of Parliament was more popular with his constituency. And yet, so strong was the Welsh feeling in that division, and so convinced were the electors that this Government had no intention of doing anything for Wales, and that it was quite prepared to force on Wales, in the teeth of the strongest opposition, Measures abhorrent to the Welsh people, that they largely increased the large majority by which Sir George Osborne Morgan was returned at the election of 1895. Are you going to disabuse the minds of Welsh electors in other constituencies on that point, or are you content that the other Welsh constituencies should follow the example of East Denbighshire? I ask you not as a partisan, but as a Welshman, what good thing, if anything, you are going to do for Wales, and when, if at all, you are going to do it? The present Government and their supporters have, in regard to Wales, the power to create and the power to destroy. With their majority they are strong enough to do justice to Wales. They have shown their power to destroy, by those destructions and mutilations of education schemes which have placed the bodies deliberately created by Parliament for a specific object, and not only them, but the Charity Commission, under whose superintendence those schemes have been framed, and the Education Department itself, in a most humiliating position. You have cut down the allowance for the University for Wales. Appeal after appeal has failed to obtain, during this period of expanding trade and great surpluses, even a paltry museum grant for Wales, the justice of which has been repeatedly acknowledged by Ministers and by ex-Ministers. Are those denials of justice and rebuffs all that Wales is to expect from this Administration? It is the usual course for a Government to carry out the least popular part of its policy first, and then, in its later years, to atone for its sins and try to prepare itself for its inevitable dissolution, by
    416
    good works. I can only charitably hope that the Government intend to make some atonement to Wales for their treatment of our country during the last two years. But time is flying. Three Speeches from the Throne have appeared, and, so far as regards Wales, there is no sign of repentance. I have appealed to your political necessities; let me appeal to your sense of justice. How would England like to be treated in this way? Suppose that England desired reforms of the kind we ask for in Wales, and had pronounced in their favour, as we have done, how long would England have to wait? And supposing she had to wait, as we have done, how would England like it? We have, I am glad to think, the sympathy of the English and Scotch Members on this side of the House. Irish Members can, and do, sympathise with us on grounds of experience. Is it altogether useless to ask, not for sympathy, but for bare justice from the Government? The country which appeals to Parliament to carry out measures upon which it has deliberately resolved, has shown, by her law-abiding character, by the vigour and energy with which her people have promoted the cause of higher education, a cause to which the working classes have contributed thousands out of their necessities, that she deserves far greater consideration than she has received. If you do not respond to her appeals, how can you expect her to remain loyal to a Constitution under which every request she makes, however reasonable, is persistently refused? I regret that the Government, discarding the precedents in legislation and administration set by each of the great Parties in the State, has shown no disposition to deal fairly with a country which is contributing, in a continually increasing degree, to the best life, thought, and work of the Empire.
    MR. J. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to second the Motion.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There appears to me to be a fundamental error running through the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He appears to me to think that no legislation can be for the benefit of Wales

    417
    which is not exclusively confined to Wales in its operation, and that if a Bill is brought forward that applies to England or to the United Kingdom as a whole Welshmen have no reason to be grateful to the Government for bringing it forward, or to the House of Commons for passing it. Sir, I have sometimes seen symptoms of something of the same fallacy among my own countrymen, especially in Scotland. There is no fallacy to which I have a stronger objection, or against which I am more ready to raise my voice. No doubt there are times and occasions when legislation by one fraction of the United Kingdom is alone to be desired, and such occasions necessarily arise more often with regard to Scotland and Ireland than they do with regard to any part of England or Wales, because the law of Scotland differs profoundly from the law of the rest of the United Kingdom, and the law of Ireland differs considerably from it in some particulars, and is not administered by precisely the same machinery and methods that are used in this country. Therefore we cannot, in all cases, though with the best wish in the world, pass an Act which is suitable to the whole of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman has told us, and I believe on two occasions, this House, rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, has passed Acts applicable to Wales, and to Wales alone; but the cases in which Wales has to be dealt with separately from the rest of the United Kingdom must, of course, necessarily be rarer than the cases in which Scotland and Ireland have to be so treated. Let the hon. Gentleman run his eye down the list of Measures contained in the Queen's Speech. He may think them good or bad, he may think them worthy or not worthy of the attention of Parliament, but he will certainly find that the great majority of them are applicable to every portion of England or the United Kingdom as a whole. Under these circumstances, I really think the claim that he has brought forward is one which cannot be sustained. Of course, we think it is our duty to deal with the needs of every part of the United Kingdom as they arise, and according to the necessities of the case. There is a Bill, for instance, in the
    418
    Queen's Speech, dealing with the government of London, and any hon. Gentleman representing an English or a Welsh or a Scotch or an Irish constituency, who comes forward to object to that Bill because it contains nothing exclusively for the benefit of his country or constituency appears to me to misunderstand the functions of Parliament and to ignore the different interests which we have to consider. The hon. Gentleman made one or two requests. He asked me whether I could guarantee, as there was nothing exclusively Welsh mentioned in the Queen's Speech, that I would take care that no time allocated to a private Member's Welsh Bill should be taken for Government business. The hon. Member, when he made that appeal, must have well known what answer he would receive. Certainly my desire is to interfere as little as possible with the time of either English, Welsh, Scotch, or Irish Members. We have no wish whatever to trespass upon the hours allocated by our Standing Orders to private Members. But there is no doubt, and all will agree, that Government business is the most important business we have to discuss, and I cannot promise that I shall not take some private Member's time; and as it is impossible for me to foresee when that necessity may arise I can make no exception in regard to any particular kind of Bill, or to any particular part of the country, or any particular class of Members. I can only promise that I will take as little of their time as I can. I make that response to the hon. Member, and wish to point out to the House that, whereas the time of Parliament is limited and a certain amount of business must necessarily be got through, the sooner we dispose, at all events, of the Queen's Speech, and proceed to the business before us, the less necessity will there be for taking up the time of private Members at a later period of the Session.
    *MR. E. J. GRIFFITHS: The right hon. Gentleman says there is a fundamental error in the views expressed in the speeches of Welsh Members, but their complaint is that in the Queen's Speech there is no reference to questions specially affecting the people

    419
    of Wales. It seems to us that, first of all, there are questions specially affecting Wales; and, secondly, that they are of sufficient importance to justify our claim upon the Government for more time to deal with them. Of course, we have the full benefit, as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded us, of the general legislation coming before this House. But, of course, our indebtedness to him is not very great in that respect, and we maintain, as Parliament has already admitted, that there are special questions affecting Wales on which, at any rate, the voices of the Representatives of the people of Wales ought to be heard. They are not merely general questions concerning the country at large, but special questions affecting Wales which ought to be taken into account. The right hon. Gentleman has invited us to accept the Queen's Speech, but he will find that there is a reference to a specially Scotch Bill in the Queen's Speech by which they have gone out of their way, as it were, to deal with a Scotch question which is a much less pressing grievance than some of which Wales has to complain. Whether they be right or wrong, just or unjust, we have a special claim to have them recognised. Upon matters concerning temperance, education, the Church, and land reform, Wales stands in a position altogether apart from the general position of England. We have, for example, a land question, and there is an hon. Member opposite who sat on the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into that question, and who himself signed the Report, showing that Wales required separate and distinct treatment in that regard from England. The Government professed, before the last election, to be most anxious to benefit the farmer. Will they now carry out the general conclusions embodied in the Report of the Royal Commission on the land question in Wales, and apply the remedies recommended by the Commissioners by passing a Bill for Wales? When we put forward these special questions there is only one answer, that as the right hon. Gentleman once said in public, the House of Commons cannot enter into these very small details.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I did not say so.
    MR. GRIFFITHS: The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that that is a fair construction to be put upon the language he used upon a public platform in reference to Welsh questions. I think we have a perfect right to protest, I ask you to treat Wales as part of the United Kingdom, and deal generously with Welsh questions. The Conservative Government has set a precedent. It has given us an Education Act, for which I am personally indebted, and for which the Welsh people are indebted. We ask that the views of the Welsh people on subjects specially affecting Wales shall not be disregarded by the Government, but that legislation shall be passed in general accord with those views.
    MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I am afraid the Queen's Speech does not give the Welsh Members as much comfort as we generally receive, because most of the Bills mentioned in it are in a special sense sectional. Two of the Measures refer simply and solely to London, one to Ireland, and the other solely to Scotland; and the right hon. Gentleman could not expect the people of Wales to extract much comfort either from the substance of the Bill, or from its position in the Queen's Speech, relating to the amendment of the law of vaccination, most of which I think will not become law, and even if it did would hardly affect the comfort of any citizen within the Principality. I know there are two classes of Measures in which the Welsh people are keenly interested, and on which there are great differences of opinion in this House. One is the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. That is a great subject, on which we fundamentally disagree, and while the Welsh people could not expect the Government to bring forward a Bill on such a subject as the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church, nor one dealing with the control of the liquor traffic, there are certain administrative points connected with the Sunday Closing Act in Wales, on which a Commission has reported, and as to which it is the duty of the Government to deal with in legislation. When it was a case of

    421
    a Liberal Government appointing a Commission to inquire into agriculture the present Government, is soon as they came into power, brought forward a Bill, saying they were face to face with the definite recommendations of that Commission. Some two millions of public money were thereupon given for the relief of local rates in agricultural districts. But when it is a case of your own Government appointing a Commission, such as that appointed in 1888 or 1889 to inquire into the Sunday Closing Act; when such a Commission as that reports to the House upon the working of the Act, and refers to points more administrative than legislative, and which are points carrying out principles already embodied in legislaton, and not initiating new principles, then it is the serious duty of a Conservative, as of a Liberal Government, to consider such recommendations, and embody them in legislation. It is not as if this Commission was a partisan Commission. It was appointed by a Conservative Government, and took evidence from the whole of Wales, and came to eight or nine definite conclusions which ought to have been embodied in a Bill if the Government were in reality as solicitous of the welfare of Wales as they are of the welfare of England, Scotland, and of Ireland. Take another matter, which is not so strong as the one I have quoted, but is still one on which we can appeal to the Government to meet us. I refer to the question relating to the tenure of land in Wales, which in many of its aspects divides us fundamentally. A Bill was introduced last Session, and will probably be re-introduced this Session, which embodied the opinions of the minority. You will probably oppose that again this year. I see there is a very dim and remote reference to some form of agricultural reform towards the end of the Queen's Speech; but no man with a grain of Parliamentary experience will venture to say that there is any chance of that Bill being brought forward. The recommendations contained in the Report of the Welsh Land Commission were unanimously made by the Lords and Gentlemen who served on that Commission, and who differed fundamentally on many questions. On five or six great questions, however, they were agreed. Not one single thought has been given
    422
    by the Government to this question, and no proposal affecting it is to be made to the House. You defeat our Bills and yet you give no time or consideration to definite recommendations, made unanimously by Royal Commissions. I appeal to the Government, and especially to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in many ways has helped Wales, that attention, and serious responsible attention, should be given to the expressed wishes of the Welsh people upon this class of Measure. I specially ask the Government to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Flint Boroughs has said to-night in regard to private Bill legislation. Scotland feels deeply on this subject; but Wales, I venture to say, feels still more deeply. In the development of enterprises in South Wales hundreds of thousands of pounds have had to be spent in the Committee Rooms of this House. In a town with a population of 12,000 they could not get permission to obtain water from a hill a mile or two away without incurring an expense of between £4,000 and £5,000 in the committee rooms of this House. The result of this enormous outlay will be that this little town will be burdened for years to come, owing to this complicated and criminal method of procedure. Whether the matter is regarded from the point of view of freeing the energies of the industrial population, or from that of enabling the towns, more especially along the sea border, to secure the first necessities of civilised life—pure water and light—I submit it is the duty of the Government to give equal consideration to this question as it affects Wales, to that which is given to it in relation to Scotland. I venture to think the Government will not be doing their duty to the various parts of the Empire unless they seriously consider the non-controversial, but still enormously important, class of Measures to which we have to-night called attention.
    *MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I intend to trouble the House but a very few moments to-night, but I wish to speak in favour of special legislation for Wales. I occupy a position in this respect which, I think, enables me to speak with some impartiality, for I am one of the comparatively

    423
    small number of Welsh Members who belong to the English section. I feel that the great mass of the English people scarcely realise how completely different and separate from English life, English manners, and English ideas the people of Wales really are. I should like to point out, first of all, the immense number of Welsh people who can speak and read Welsh only. About 400,000 are able to speak nothing but Welsh. Those natives of the Principality who are chiefly Welsh speaking support a considerable number of periodicals—weekly, monthly, and quarterly—many of them of a very high literary character. The study of Welsh is steadily growing, not as a vernacular instrument, but as a literary language. There are 80 schools established under the Education Act—for which we are indebted to the party opposite—in many of which Welsh is taken as a subject. I think another method of indicating the great difference existing between Wales and England is to compare the recommendations of the two Agricultural Commissions. The comparison is especially interesting. I have here the Report of the English Land Commission, and also the Report of the Welsh Land Commission. I will call the attention of the House to just two or three points.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now entering upon the question of the tenure of land, which does not come within the scope of the Amendment.
    MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Well, I will not proceed any further with it. I was only going to use it as an illustration. I will now conclude by urging the Government to listen to the appeal made to them and accept the Amendment.
    SIR J. LLEWELLYN: The hon. Member for Flint Boroughs brought forward this question in a very admirable way, but when he appealed to the Unionist Members sitting on this side of the House, he must have forgotten that the principle which holds the Unionist Members together is the very opposite of separate legislation. In the Amendment which he has moved to the Address to Her Most Gracious
    424
    Majesty the Queen, he asks that we should express our regret that no reference was made in the Queen's Speech to questions specially affecting the interests of the people of Wales. Our contention has always been that the interests of the people of Wales are so closely identified with the interests of the people of England that we therefore dislike separate legislation. It is only on two occasions, I think, that we have seen separate legislation passed specially for Wales. In one instance am prepared to admit that that separate legislation has been of a nature which has been extremely useful to the Principality, and, I think, the best proof of the success of that legislation is the fact that we hope to see it extended to England. The argument used at the time was that if it was desired that there should be separate legislation for Wales, by all means let Wales try the experiment. And then, if it succeeded, we could copy it, and, if it failed, of course we should not think of doing so. I think I speak for all Welsh Unionists when I say that we deprecate separate legislation, which we think should not be extended beyond the smallest possible limits. It is only when we cannot obtain universal legislation which is applicable to ourselves that we ought to ask for separate legislation. When I have been challenged as to my own views with regard to the question of land tenure, I have always said that it was only in case we could not obtain what we require by the general legislation of the country that we should feel ourselves constrained to vote for separate legislation for Wales. I long to see the Bill which we have had promised, for land reform in England, laid upon the table, so that we can judge for ourselves the terms of the Bill. Until I see the terms of the Bill, I reserve to myself the right to support joint or separate legislation. To the extent that I am disappointed, I am in consonance with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. I desire to say no more than that we hope that the Bill will be laid on the table this year, so that we may have an opportunity of seeing what the proposals of Her Majesty's Government may be, and that we may have a chance of seeing it pass into law. I know very well what the hon. Members mean by separately.

    425
    The matter they desire to see carried out is precisely the point mentioned on the Front Opposition Bench, when he said that he did not expect to see the Government bring in a Bill for the Disestablishment of the Church. That is the thing which is in the mind of the many Welsh Members supporting the Amendment to the Address, but I say to them that this is not only being well thrashed out in Wales, but it is being far more thought upon by the people as to whether they will obtain any advantage from the Disestablishment of the Church, or whether they will prefer to see her put herself into a more strong position, and more in touch with the people than in the past. I believe we shall be able to say that the Church is regaining by leaps and bounds the position she partly lost in the last century. She is doing so in the county in which I reside, where we have a population of 700,000 souls, out of the 1,700,000 which constitutes the population of Wales. We see there the Church making such advances, that if you were to poll the various constituencies you would not find the overwhelming majority in favour of Disestablishment that has been spoken of. I have said all that I think I ought to say at present, but my position is that I may have something to say upon the Bill when it comes before us, because I look for reforms to the Members who bring it forward. If we cannot get them by one method, then we may by another. But there is one point in Wales which we are very anxious to see, and that is that the interests of the small, freeholder may be safeguarded. I do not think that the taxpayers of England ought to run any risk, but it is a question which greatly affects the poorer agricultural interests—those people who purchased their freeholds in years gone by, and who are now in a worse position than the little farmers. It is a local matter, local to parts of Wales, but it is a matter which cries loudly for reform, and I hope to see it taken up. The other matter I should like to see is the question of cheapening and improving the procedure for Private Bill Legislation. In the Speech of Her Most Gracious Majesty, we have this passage—
    "That Bills are being prepared for cheapening and improving the procedure of private Scottish Bills legislation. Bills of the same
    426
    character have been laid before Parliament on many previous occasions, and Her Majesty's Gracious Message trusts that in the course of the present Session a reply may be given."
    I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the question whether Wales should not be included in this legislation, that we might have the same legislation for Wales which is promised for Scotland. I have been in a position of some authority for judging this question. I have been a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and since the County Council has taken over the administrative portions of the work I have been on the County Council, and have had an opportunity of seeing the large amount of work necessary to be done, which might be done locally, but which is exceedingly expensive by having to be brought up to London, and which, in my opinion, could very fairly devolve on the County Council or the Local Board. Of course, I do not wish to enter into any details, but I say whatever measure is proposed to be extended to Scotland, might be very fairly a matter for the consideration of the Government as to whether it might not be given to Wales also. Because if you give special privileges to one part of the country, then we should have our claim to take privileges in another part of Her Majesty's dominions. I cannot accept the challenge of the hon. Member opposite that I should vote for his Amendment on the Address, because the principle laid down is that we should not have any special legislation for one part of the kingdom not applicable to another, unless it is so different in one part of the country that it is shown that separate legislation is necessary, which I do not hold is the case in this matter. The hon. Member who introduced the subject spoke of four different subjects—temperance, education, church, and one other. I think we ought to have one law for the whole. In the question of temperance there ought to be no difference between the necessities of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. I still think there may be certain elements of mischief dropped into legislation of this character, and I think it would be better if there was one system of legislation for the whole of the country. On the question of education I have already spoken, and the manner in

    427
    which the Welsh have gone on with that matter, and I believe that every Welshman has thought of that Act, and would be glad to see England follow the example which has been set by gallant little Wales. If the Church is to be disestablished and disendowed, do it over the whole country. On that point I will just remind the hon. Member who has just spoken that that was not lost in the House of Lords but in this House. When the hon. Member for Flint Borough spoke of the difficulties of Welsh legislation, he might have spoken also of the difficulties of English legislation. I am not here to defend the action of the House of Lords, but I have always gathered that legislation good for the country had the sanction of the House of Lords, and had the sanction of this House, neither would become law without passing the House of Lords. If Disestablishment was not passed through the House of Lords, it was by the strong protest by this House that the scheme should not be passed from the other side, and it was thrown out. In conclusion, I would say this, I am not, and I wish I might be accompanied on this side by other Welsh Members. I know I am speaking their views in saying if legislation is called for separately for Wales it should only be in the most exceptional conditions. I therefore ask the Government to very carefully consider the question whether Wales may not be assimilated with Scotland in the legislation promised, because I do believe that in the extensive county of Glamorgan there are a great many things that might be dealt with and carried out locally, which would entail a great expense if brought up here.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think there is some conflict between the hon Baronet and his recollection. I believe he lays it down that no separate legislation should take place except under the most exceptional circumstances. He would support for Wales any Private Bill procedure on the point of education, and, I believe he is prepared to do so also separately with regard to certain small items. I am very glad that he has impressed on the Government that the Bill should be extended to Wales. It is not merely a question of large towns like Cardiff and others. It is still more important to the
    428
    poorer communities in Wales. In the case of small towns poor in rateable value and population, for instance, The Local Government Board Inspector came down and condemned the waterworks, and they had to build new ones. Before, however, they could do so, they had to come to the House of Commons for its sanction. They had to get counsel, surveyors, and Parliamentary agents, and, although there was no opposition to the Bill at all, they had to pay a sum between £3,000 and £4,000. That was a small municipality, with a population of 1,200 at the outside, and what is the consequence? Why, the rate in that district is higher than that of any other surrounding district in the county of Merionethshire. That is a very serious matter, because, whilst the population of the place is growing, its needs are growing; and in the case of the town I am now citing, it is absolutely prevented from contemplating or carrying into effect any other beneficial undertaking. If they want a recreation ground, library, or any public institution, they cannot get them. Why? Because if they were to apply to the Local Government Board for a loan for any such purpose, the Local Government Board Inspector would come down, he would look at what they had already spent, and he would come to the conclusion that the credit of the town has been pledged to the very hilt. And all these serious consequences are due to the fact that this sum of £3,000 or £4,000 has been unnecessarily spent, and the place is condemned for the next 20 or 30 years to be at a perfect standstill, and no possibility or prospect of any prosperity for it whatever. I again repeat that is a very serious matter. What possible objection would there be to extending this Private Bill Procedure to Wales? There are no great interests to consider—on the contrary it is a very small matter—and I think an extension of the Local Government Act of 1888 would answer the purpose we require; and I would impress upon the Government that they should give a favourable consideration to the recommendation we have made. There is one thing I can congratulate my hon. Friend, the Mover of this Amendment upon, and that is that this Debate has

    429
    elicited a few views upon the subject of separate legislation for Wales. As I understand, the Leader of the House said that there was no special case made out in respect of separate legislation for Wales, and that there were no reasons for special legislation for Wales which did not apply to all parts of the United Kingdom. Well, I think to the contrary. Why have there been sitting three Commissions dealing exclusively with Welsh subjects? There was the Commission on Land, the Commission on Sunday Closing, and the Commission on Secondary Education—and, notwithstanding these, the Leader of the House has come to the conclusion that there is no case for separate legislation for Wales. That would be an exceedingly useful admission so far as the people of Wales are concerned, because they were told, in the course of the last election, that this was the very Government from which they were to expect these great blessings—everything almost apart from the Disestablishment of the Church. But now we know that this is not the view they are taking of the matter, and, although my hon. Friend has done a considerable service by making it perfectly clear what the attitude of the Government is upon this particular question, that is about all that has been done. With regard to the land question, that has been sufficiently impressed upon the Government; but there is one point I should like to mention, and that is with regard to temperance legislation. We have got the report of the Special Commission appointed by a Conservative Government, with a unanimous recommendation that the Sunday Closing Act should be improved in some very material particulars, but although that recommendation has existed for years, nothing whatever has been done with regard to it. We have got an opinion that there is a demand for much wider Temperance Legislation in Wales, and the Second Reading was given in a Conservative Parliament to a Measure of Local Option for Wales. It is, of course, quite possible that the people of England may
    430
    not be ripe for a Measure of that kind, and I cannot help thinking that the last General Election proved that they were not; but opinion in Wales is overwhelmingly in favour of legislation on those lines; and so strong was opinion in Wales that even a Conservative House of Commons, positively by a substantial majority gave a Second Reading to a Bill dealing with the subject on the lines I have indicated, so that the case has been made out to the satisfaction of even a majority of the Unionists in this House of Commons that there is a special case with respect to Temperance Legislation for Wales. I sincerely trust that my hon. Friend will press the matter to a Division, if it is only in order to make it perfectly clear what the opinion of the Conservative Members really is.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,): The complaint of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment seems to me to be this: that the Government had not mentioned, in the Speech from the Throne, any Measures having sole reference to Wales. The hon. Member who has just spoken said that the Leader of the House had said that there was no special case made out for Wales, which did not generally apply; but what I understood my right hon. Friend to say, was this: he was speaking against what appeared to be the assumption of the mover of this Amendment—namely, that Wales had no interest in any legislation, excepting that which specially concerned herself. That I must myself confess was what I gathered to be the opinion of the hon. Member. He referred, practically, only to that argument in his speech, he did not touch upon anything else, and, therefore, my right hon. Friend, taking that view of his speech, pointed out that, after all, Wales was interested in all general legislation, and it cannot be said that the interests of Wales have been neglected by the Government, simply because no special Bill with, regard to Wales only had been brought in.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: The view that I intended to convey was this: that Wales has certain great questions in which she, as a country, is primarily and specially interested, and my complaint was that we had no hope, either of a Conservative or, under our existing constitution, apparently of a Liberal Government, of ever seeing the realisation of these Measures in regard to which Wales has declared her opinion over and over again. I am speaking only of those questions in regard to which Wales is socially and religiously undivided upon.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is not that we have omitted to include certain Bills that he would desire to see in Her Majesty's gracious Speech, it is that he certainly will not see us taking part in introducing such Measures. We are not anxious to pose as disestablishers of the Church in Wales, nor are we likely to adopt these peculiar crotchets respecting temperance legislation, of which I thought the Party opposite were beginning themselves to get somewhat tired—well, at least, there have been symptoms that they are getting tired. We are not likely to adopt, with regard to the land question, the proposals which commend themselves to hon. Members below the gangway. I thought that the hon. Member for Merionethshire, whom I am sorry not to see in his place at the present moment, took a far more reasonable view of this question. He admitted that it was impossible to satisfy himself and other Members with regard to the questions alluded to by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, but he said there are other Measures which do not divide the great political parties of the country, matters some of which have been inquired into by Royal Commissions, and on which Her Majesty's Government might perhaps legislate in a manner which would be generally acceptable to the people of Wales. I do not doubt it for a moment, and I will venture to remind the hon. Member that, because a particular matter is not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, it does not follow it may
    432
    not have had the attention of Her Majesty's Government, or even that it is impossible that it may be taken up in the present Session. Let me take one point that the hon. Member for Swansea alluded to—the question of Private Bill Legislation. Both my hon. Friends laid great stress upon that matter. They complained of the great expenditure to which certain places were put, the great time and trouble that is now necessary to obtain the consent of Parliament in matters which are only of very small importance, or of no importance at all, beyond the particular locality interested in their promotion, but matters which did very much affect the locality itself. Well, Sir, that is the reason that we are proposing this Session to Parliament to alter the law with regard to Private Bill Legislation in Scotland. Scotland has first claim in this matter. Scotland is further from London than any other part of Great Britain. Scotland has a special Code of legislation of her own, and requires to be dealt with first in this matter. But Her Majesty's Government do not at all deny that Wales may have a grievance in regard to it. But what is their grievance in this matter; is it not a national grievance: it is the same, though in a less degree, as the grievance of Northumberland or Durham. It is a matter really of distance from London; and, although I entirely admit that there is a very great grievance in the fact that so many matters of local importance only should have to be brought up to London to be dealt with by Private Bill Committee in this House, I cannot help thinking that it is much a grievance to any other part of the United Kingdom as it is to Wales. We are trying to remedy the matter with regard to Scotland this year; if we are successful in our efforts it may be a precedent which we hope will be applied to Wales and other parts later on, and that is the answer I would make to the hon. Member. Then take the Land Question. What is the position of hon. Members in this House with regard to the Land Question? What was it they desired? There was the Land Commission, for which we were not responsible, and the members of that Commission were utterly divided in opinion, and the minority held very different view to the majority—views with which we could not possibly agree.

    433
    It is suggested that we should legislate according to the proproposals in which the Commission unanimously agreed. But that end is not likely to be promoted by such a discussion as this, which merely consumes so much time subtracted from the working time of this House. I could assure the hon. Gentleman that, though I would disclaim any acceptance of the principle that Wales is a separate nationality or a separate part of the United Kingdom, I do recognise, as Parliament has already recognised, that the circumstances of people who live in Wales are in some respects peculiar and different from those of people who live in the rest of England, and that they require to be dealt with in certain matters very differently. That is a principle which I accept, but you cannot do everything at once. We will endeavour, as far as we can, to meet those necessities as far as time permits; but it is impossible for us to describe every proposal that is under our consideration, or every matter with which we may hope to deal, with the limits of Her Majesty's Speech.
    LIEUTENANT-GENERAL J. W. LAURIE: The Debate has brought before the House the whole question of Private Bill legislation. It is true this refers to Wales, but it is equally applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has kindly assured us that, although bringing it up in the first place with regard to Scotland, if it is successful in regard to Scotland, it will be equally applied to other parts of the Kingdom. What applies to Wales applies equally to other parts of the Kingdom. The system is most extravagant, most expensive, and most costly. I represent nine towns, and each of those towns has very heavy charges to bear in consequence of the cost saddled upon them in connection with obtaining water, sewage, and other necessary arrangements that must be made, and that involve applications for legislation. That must be costly to towns close to London, and more so to towns in Wales. I hope that we will have a general Measure, and not simply a local Measure. I endorse fully the idea that
    434
    has been expressed against special legislation. We are distinctly in favour of such legislation as will be applicable to the whole of the Kingdom, and not to one part alone. I hope that the Principality may still be an integral part of the United Kingdom, and that the legislation applicable to Wales will be applicable to England as well.
    The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 129.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Sir, I rise for the purpose of proposing the following Amendment, which stands in my name—

  AMNESTY.
  "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the time has come when the cases of all prisoners convicted under the Treason Felony Act, who are, and have been for many years, undergoing punishment for offences arising out of insurrectionary movements connected with Ireland, may be advantageously reconsidered."
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the first thought which will arise in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in this matter is that he has already been put into possession of all the facts in connection with our case for amnesty. That is no doubt true. Year after year the question of amnesty has been debated in this House, and Amendments similiar to the one I now propose have been discussed from these benches. It is no part of my intention to-night to go lengthily into these arguments, with which the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors in the Home Office are quite familiar. But there is one thing, and in my opinion, an important thing, which may be urged as a fresh argument in favour of amnesty, and it is this, that since last this question was raised another long year has passed by, adding one more long term to the sentence already endured by these fellow-countrymen of ours in prison. Mr. Speaker, without going at all into these arguments, which have been so fully laid before the Home Office, I should like briefly to mention one or

  435
  two points, which I think are worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, and of the House at large. In the first place, without going into the question of the guilt of these prisoners, or their innocence, upon which very strong opinions are held in Ireland, there is this important fact which cannot be denied, that of the men convicted in 1883, the great majority have already been released, and what is most significant and important, is this, that of the men who have already been released, may be numbered those who were unquestionably the ringleaders or principals in the conspiracy which was alleged against them. Mr. John Daly has been released, and we all rejoice at the fact; Mr. Egan has been released and, we think, none too soon. There are only five men still in prison, and if any one reads the report of the trial they will find that whatever may be said to have been proved against the principals in the alleged conspiracy, very little was proved against the five remaining prisoners, and certainly not even the Home Secretary can say that they were anything like principals in the crime charged against them. Surely it is reasonable in every Irish Member, and, indeed, in every man, to expect that if out of some twenty men, the principals in an alleged crime, the majority have been released, the matter might now be completed by the release of the five men, who, whatever was proved against them, were not the ringleaders in the conspiracy which, it was, took place in 1883. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to-night to go into any lengthened reference to the reports of the trial which took place in 1883. Some feeling on that subject exists in England, and, at the time of the trial, feeling ran high against all Irishmen, and it is believed that if there had not existed a panic in this country, these countrymen of ours could not possibly have received the extraordinarily severe sentences which they did receive. In Ireland a very strong feeling—you may think it right or you may think it wrong—the fact remains that a very strong feeling exists that many of these men were unfairly convicted; that the evidence against them was of the flimsiest character, and that the sentences were altogether out
  436
  of proportion to the evidence brought against them to convict them of these alleged crimes. I most strongly and emphatically hold the belief, and I am sure the Home Secretary and other Members of the House will believe me when I say that a great many of these prisoners are the victims of panic. I do not believe that at a time when public feeling was in a tranquil state these men could have been convicted, much less that, upon conviction, they would have received the extreme sentences meted out to them. This feeling of mine, in the case of these men, is largely shared in Ireland, but I do not claim an extension of amnesty to these five remaining men upon the ground of their innocence—strongly as many in Ireland believe in it. I make the claim for these reasons: these men were convicted in 1883 under the provisions of the Treason Felony Act, not under the Act that was passed, I believe in 1883, expressly for the purpose of dealing with dynamite offences, the Explosives Substances Act. If these men had been tried under that Act they could not have received a greater sentence than 20 years penal servitude; in all probability, under that Act, they would only have received a sentence of 14 years' penal servitude. But, instead of being tried under this Act, they were charged, tried, and convicted under the Treason Felony Act. This Act was passed to deal with the leaders of the insurrection of 1848 in Ireland, and these men, amnesty for whom we now plead in this House, were convicted, not under the Dynamite Offences Act, but under the Treason Felony Act, of having been rebels against the existing Government. Under that Act they were found guilty, and sentenced to penal servitude for life. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I venture to assume that every reasonable man in this country will say that, if this Act was passed specially to deal with dynamite offences, men suspected of such offences ought to be charged and tried under it. If that had been done these men would only have got 20 years' penal servitude. Why were they tried under the Treason Felony Act? I submit it was because it was quite easy to prove that these men had been engaged in revolutionary organisa-

  437
  tion, in a word, that they were Fenians. It was easy enough to prove that because, like many others of their countrymen, they were not ashamed of having been Fenians; they were quite proud that they took such a stand as they considered to be right in the interests of the freedom and liberty of their country and their countrymen. It was easy to convict them of being Fenians and hard to convict them of being dynamitards. I do not believe that there is a lawyer in this House who would give a strong-opinion that, if these men had been convicted under the Explosive Substances Act, they would all have been convicted. The evidence presented against them was by no means complete, in many cases it was absolutely shallow and without strong foundation, but, nevertheless, they were easily convicted under the Treason Felony Act. And as they were tried under that Act and convicted, not of dynamite offences, but of having been Fenians, I submit that it is reasonable that we should ask that these men should now be treated as if they had been tried under the Dynamite Act, and not as ordinary prisoners, who are convicted and sentenced to penal servitude. I say if these men were convicted under the Act expressly passed dealing with dynamite offences, supposing they were sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude, within a very few months they will have completed 15 years' penal servitude, and they would be entitled, not as an act of clemency or of amnesty, but under the ordinary custom which prevails in these matters, to have their sentences reconsidered and to be released at the end of 15 years. What I say is this, that the Government, having released the great majority of these prisoners, and the principal ones among them, might anticipate the few months that still remain, and, by releasing the remaining five prisoners, now do something which would appeal to Irish sentiment, and which would show that there was some desire upon the part of the Government to meet that sentiment, and to grant amnesty to these men who have been suffering so long the tortures of penal servitude. I know perfectly well that to speak in this House of men who have been associated, even by suspicion, with dynamite, is to do
  438
  something repugnant to the feelings of the great majority of Members of this House, but I claim here, and with just as much authority as any gentleman coming from England, Scotland, or Wales, that it cannot be charged against the Irish people that they had the slightest, sympathy whatever with anything in the shape of outrage calculated to bring injury or destruction to innocent people in this country or elsewhere. It is not possible for even the strongest opponent of amnesty to point to a single sentence uttered by any of the advocates of amnesty, which could be construed into currying sympathy with dynamite outrage. We have no sympathy whatever with dynamite outrage. What we say is that, considering all the circumstances of the case, the continued imprisonment of these men is a cause of irritation to the Irish people, and simply causes the feeling to prevail in Ireland that the idea of England in this matter is not merely to mete out punishment, but to pursue a vindictive policy of vengeance against Ireland, not only on the ground that they were dynamite conspirators, but because one and all of them were not ashamed to say that they had joined the ranks of the Fenians in Ireland, and were ready, if necessary, to lay down their lives in what they considered the best interests of the liberties of their country. There are only five men remaining in prison: 20 have been released. And these remaining prisoners cannot for a moment be said to be the principals in the conspiracy alleged against them. I don't want to go here into the old story of the Walsall case—the outrage committed at Walsall—which has been quoted so much in this House, but I ask hon. Members to remember that in that case some of the men actually admitted that they were guilty of the offence charged against them. They were all sentenced to a comparatively light term of years, and every one of those Walsall conspirators—not one of whom could plead in extenuation that they had anything to do with any political or revolutionary organisation, who were dynamiters pure and simple—has been released. Unless I am misinformed, there is not a single one of the prisoners in custody at the present time. That being

  439
  so, and, judging the circumstances of both cases, I maintain that it is quite reasonable that we should ask that Irishmen at least should have the same justice and fair play extended to them as have been extended to the men who committed the dastardly outrages in Walsall, whom everybody condemned at the time. In conclusion, I simply put my appeal for amnesty for these reasons: In the first place, these men ought to be treated as if they were tried under the Explosives Act and not under the Treason Felony Act. In the second place, I say that they should be treated with consideration because not one of them was a principal in the offences alleged against them; and, in the third place, I claim that they should be released because all the Walsall prisoners, convicted of an infinitely worse offence in my opinion, have been released up to the present time. It should not be forgotten that, condemn as we may dynamite outrages and conspiracies, not a single life was lost, and not a single person was injured, except, as one of my hon. Friends says, "the prisoners themselves." It should be borne in mind that, while as the outcome of this conspiracy not a single person was killed or injured, a great many of the unfortunate prisoners themselves have met with very unhappy fates. Sometimes English gentlemen find it hard to understand the hot-headed spirit in which Irishmen sometimes talk upon these matters. The Irish people no doubt are an emotional people and subject to the influences of sentiment. I ask Members of this House to consider, if they can, what must be the effect upon the mass of the Irish people, when they find that, while English prisoners are released for similar offences with comparatively short terms of imprisonment, Irishmen who have been convicted of alleged outrages are still kept in prison. Two of these men were released some time ago, and went to the United States. Both of them were hopelessly insane; both of them had their reason destroyed in Portland; and I say that no man in this House can say that it is either fair punishment for any crime, or that it is calculated to promote respect for the law, that criminals, no matter who they may be, especially men with whom popular opinion associates the idea of poli-
  440
  tical offences, should be kept in prison until their reason departs. The Home Secretary knows the cases of Callagher and Whitehead. Both these men went to the United States of America; they were both confined in asylums; one of them broke out, and from that day to this has not been discovered. The other is maintained in a hopeless state of insanity in New York by a small sum got together by an Irishman who has been anxious that he should receive proper care. Others of them have had their health seriously injured. As I said before, five of them still remain in prison, and I believe they are in a broken-down condition. Surely anybody can see that it is unnecessary either to ensure general condemnation of dynamite offences, or to ensure respect of any law that these men should be continued any longer in prison. The British Empire, surely, is strong enough, and powerful enough, to do an act which would, in some degree, bring satisfaction to large numbers of people in Ireland. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that nobody for a moment alleges that there is a vestige of dynamite conspiracy in existence at the present time; and in view of the fact that in Ireland peace and tranquillity reign; in view also of the fact that these men have been 15 years in prison; if amnesty cannot be granted, and if satisfaction cannot be given to the Irish people by the release of these men, I will not go further into the question of their innocence or guilt; but I am absolutely convinced that at least some of these men were convicted without proper evidence, and I am absolutely convinced that if this country had not been convulsed by a panic, owing to the rumours of outrages committed by dynamite, these men would not have been convicted at all. In any case, if they had been convicted, they would not have received such a savage sentence as that of penal servitude for life. I believe myself that these men are innocent. I do not believe that Mr. Daly, or Mr. Egan, or any of their associates in prison, are men capable of lending themselves to the perpetration of outrage by dynamite. I claim that they ought to be dealt with as revolutionary prisoners, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, even if he and his friends behind him do not share my

  441
  belief in the absolute innocence of these men, to consider what I have said, that these men, having completed 15 years, would now be entitled to their release if they had been tried under the Dynamite Act. I appeal to him to treat them as if they were tried under that Act. These men had the courage, honour, and manliness to join a revolutionary organisation in the interest of Irish liberty. As they were tried under the Treason Felony Act, I say you are not entitled to regard them as dynamiters, but you should treat them as political prisoners. I feel very strongly upon this subject. I have spoken upon it year after year in this House, and in the country, and I am neither afraid nor ashamed to repeat here in this House a single thing that I have ever said to my own constituents or to the people of Ireland. I have not one voice for Ireland—as is sometimes alleged about Irish Members—and another voice for the House of Commons. I tell you plainly that I believe these men—many of them—are innocent, and ought to be released. If you release them you will be conferring a boon upon the Irish people, and affording widespread satisfaction; and such an action would tend to promote tranquillity and make it impossible that dynamite should ever be used again. If you don't release them you will be keeping open an old sore in Ireland, which will do neither good to the Irish people nor to the government of law and order which you maintain. I have been anxious not to say anything strong or out of the way in dealing with this matter. It is a strange reflection that these men are honoured in Ireland; representative men are glad to call them their friends, and they are looked up to as men who are suffering in the interests of the people at large. Therefore I appeal to you to release them, not because you believe that there is any doubt of their guilt, but because you have released English prisoners who have been convicted of much greater offences, and because after 15 years of penal servitude they are entitled to some consideration at your hands.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I desire to join in the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Clare, and I consider it is irresistible. It is acknowledged by yourselves, that these men have been sen-
  442
  tenced to life-long terms of penal servitude because they were political offenders. All we ask now at the hands of the Home Secretary and the Government is that they should be treated as if they were men who had been tried under the Act specially passed for dealing with crimes committed by dynamitards. When you remember that these men have been for 15 years enduring the horrors of penal servitude, when you remember that not a single life was sacrificed in their attempts, I really think the time has come for their case to be considered as prisoners who ought to have been convicted under the law passed for dealing with dynamite offences. With regard to ourselves in Ireland, we have nothing to say on this question except this: we do not deem it necessary in this House to state that we have no sympathy with dynamite offences. The whole history of every movement that we have had in Ireland has been absolutely free from dynamite. I am not now going to inquire into why these prisoners should have been suspected of having used dynamite for illegal objects, but I repeat that, looking back upon the past history of Ireland, we do not feel it necessary to dissociate ourselves from the policy of dynamite, for the reason that we have never recommended or suggested that the cause of Irish liberty should be won by such means. I admit we have adopted revolutionary methods in the past. I do not know whether in the future revolutionary methods may be adopted in Ireland, but you will never find us using dynamite. We shall meet you openly on the field, as our forefathers did in 1798, and for that you cannot condemn us. One of the principal items in the programmes at all meetings in Ireland is a resolution asking for the release of these prisoners. I wish you to remember that no evil result has followed the release of the men who have been let out of prison. I do not suppose for a moment that there is the smallest regret in the minds of Englishmen at the releases which have already been accomplished, and that being so, I now join most heartily in the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend. I hope that our representations to the Home Secretary will be favourably considered, and that in this year 1898 a message of peace will be given to Ireland.
  *LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I rise to support the Amendment of the hon. Member so far that the case of these prisoners should be considered. There is no doubt in my mind that there is considerable argument in this case. There are a great many who think that these prisoners should not be treated as ordinary prisoners—that they have committed a detestable and horrible crime, and that they should be confined for the rest of their lives in gaol; that is to say, that their case should not be considered as that of ordinary prisoners who are confined for long terms of imprisonment. I like to look at the thing from two points of view. One point of view is that which I have just described to the House, and the other point of view is this: there are a very large number of the Irish nation throughout the world who consider that these prisoners were treated as they are because they were Irishmen and Fenians and not because they were dynamiters. Now, for my part, I do not yield to anyone in the world in the horror, detestation and supreme contempt I entertain for anybody who would use an explosive to further a political propaganda or to further any interest whatever, and I was very glad to hear hon. Members for Ireland who have taken up the case of these prisoners from year to year repudiate any idea that they were associated with dynamiters. But I will go further and say that I have such a horror of this crime, by which innocent people are blown to pieces and lives sacrificed—people who have nothing whatever to do with the case—that I would support any proposal that might be made into law to hang or shoot dynamiters. Let me give the House an instance with which I am acquainted. Once when I was in command of a man-of-war in Portsmouth Harbour it was intimated to me that an individual was coming on board on the pretext of selling merchandise, and that he had a clockwork machine to blow up the ship. I sent for my officers and said, "If this person does come aboard while I am away, keep him until I come back, and don't report the case to the Admiral. If I find that he intended to blow up my men with an infernal
  444
  machine, I will put him in the dinghy, moor the boat astern, wind up his clock, seat him on it, and leave him to meditate." Now, believe me, I would have done that. Probably I should have been tried for my life for it if he had been blown up, as he surely would have been; that is the law of the country, and I would have had to abide by it, but I believe I should have been doing right with regard to a man who wanted to blow my men up. Anyway, I think hon. Members will agree with me that it would have acted as a good deterrent. With regard to these prisoners who are confined in British gaols, what I would ask the Home Secretary is this: Do let them be treated exactly the same as other prisoners are, and forget that they have been dynamiters and Fenians. Do let these prisoners be treated as ordinary prisoners; let their cases be brought forward for re-consideration. I believe myself that they have been punished enough, but let them be treated as ordinary prisoners and in the same spirit. Whether it be right or wrong, a very large proportion of the Irish race think that these men are kept in prison because they are Irishmen and Fenians; and as that feeling prevails so widely, surely, as you are strong, it would be wiser to treat them as ordinary prisoners, and let them out when the time arrives at which ordinary prisoners are released. What is to be gained by keeping these men in prison? There is a great deal to be gained by making some sort of concession—if you like to call it a concession—or, at any rate, some sort of proposal which would bring England and Ireland more closely together. I myself would do a very great deal to cement any kind feeling that may exist between the two countries. I was pained to-day when I heard how Members opposite say that such kind feeling was impossible, and that England and Ireland never would be brought together. I hope these hon. Members are in a minority. I am an Irishman myself, and have strong opinions, which I stick to. I do want to see strengthened the better feeling which, I believe, is germinating between the two countries, and if the Home Secretary will only see that these men are treated as ordinary prisoners and not

  445
  subjected to exceptional treatment because they are Irishmen and Fenians, it will be better for both countries and for the State.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am sure that others besides his fellow-countrymen are glad to hear the noble Lord, who, on the first occasion he has risen since he entered the House, has raised his voice—and to him it must be an agreeable task—in advocacy of a cause favourable to his fellow-countrymen. The noble Lord says he is prepared to support the Amendment. I am obliged to oppose it, although I do not know that I differ from anything that has been said by the noble Lord. He has asked me to deal with these Irish prisoners—treason-felony prisoners—in exactly the same way as I should, in the course of my duty, deal with other long-sentence prisoners. That is exactly what I have said I would do from the very beginning, from the time these cases were brought first before the House. It is exactly what Mr. Gladstone said when he spoke upon the subject some years ago, and it is exactly what was said by my predecessor in the office I have the honour to hold. The right hon. Gentleman said it was his view and the view of Mr. Gladstone, that these cases should be treated on exactly the same footing as the cases of other long-sentence prisoners; that they should be re-considered from time to time, according to the practice of the Home Office, and that all the circumstances of each individual case should be taken into consideration. The noble Lord says Parliament ought not to consider that these prisoners are Irishmen and Fenians. I assure him I feel it deeply that Englishmen should be supposed to view the case from that point of view. Some Members opposite lightly make this accusation against me, but I really believe that in their hearts they realise that in the mind of nobody in authority in this country is there any idea of punishing these men specially because they are Irishmen or Fenians. I must repeat again what was said by my pre-
  446
  decessor, that these were atrocious crimes, which, in the words of the Mover of this Resolution, were outrages calculated to bring loss of life to innocent people. I say that they were crimes against which society is bound to defend itself. I make no complaint of the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution, I quite understand the feeling with which he is animated. He said he was convinced of the innocence of these men. That is not the view that I take or that is taken by those who have looked into the circumstances. I am convinced that impartial men who have done so have come to the conclusion that these men had a fair trial, that they were fairly convicted, that the crimes of which they were convicted were atrocious crimes against society, and that the sentences inflicted upon them were not excessive. There was no panic among the public at the time. Well, that is a matter of opinion; it is the view I take. One of the arguments the hon. Member has urged upon the attention of the House is that we have got a year nearer to the time when the sentences will naturally expire. That, no doubt, is a satisfactory reflection to those who are concerned in the matter, and who are advocating the case of these prisoners. But the hon. Member goes on to say that the men should be released because the majority of the treason felony prisoners have already been released. I cannot agree with that, and I must point out that the other men were released on the ground of ill-health. The House will not forget the Debate which took place in the last Session of Parliament with reference to the release of four of these prisoners. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution spoke of the case of Daly, and I understood him to say that Daly—if anyone was guilty—was the most guilty of all.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I did not say that. Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain that what I intended certainly to convey was, that on reading over the reports of the trial, one is forced to the conclusion that if there were a conspiracy at all, the chief charges were made against Daly.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: That is what I understood to be the meaning of the hon. Gentleman. He suggested that as, in consequence of the danger to their lives which would be involved by longer imprisonment, certain prisoners were released, and as there happened to be among them some who were the most guilty of all, therefore the rest should be released. I am not prepared to admit that argument. There are six now remaining in prison, not five, and as to them I will repeat what I have said before—viz., that if there were any ground of health on which they should be released, they would have been released in the same way as the other prisoners. I remember, only too vividly, the cases of the unfortunate men alluded to by the hon. Member, who, he says, are now in America, one having escaped from his friends. Surely the hon. Member will do me the justice to admit that the moment I got information from the surgeon responsible for the health of these men—information which justified me in acting—I did so. It was never intended by any person that imprisonment should lead to results such as unhappily followed in the cases of these two particular men. I am afraid I must again say that I am not prepared to admit the argument that because certain men who were the more guilty have been released on the ground of health, therefore others who were properly sentenced should also be released. A number of arguments have been used why an amnesty should now be declared, and why additional clemency should be shown, and one argument advanced has been that no life was lost through the acts of these prisoners. As I have said before, it was a fortunate thing that no life was lost, otherwise these prisoners would not, perhaps, be now alive. I, for one, have certainly never been one of those who supposed that the hon. Member opposite, however strong may be the views he holds as to the case of these men, for one moment desired to express any sympathy with the use of dynamite. Now the Amendment asks that there should be an amnesty, and that the
  448
  Government should declare that they will be prepared—as I understand the Amendment—to release these men when the time comes, at which, had they been sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude, they would in the ordinary course have been released. I am not prepared to make any such promise, but I am prepared to promise, as I have done from the beginning, that when the time comes for these cases to be considered in the usual way by the Home Office, I will consider each individual case upon its merits, and that these men shall be treated on the same footing as other long sentence prisoners. I cannot make any distinction between these men and other prisoners; and, in saying that, I think I am standing upon ground which even hon. Gentlemen opposite must admit to be logical and fair. As far as I am concerned, they shall be treated no better and no worse than other long sentence prisoners, whose cases at stated intervals come up for consideration, according to the practice of the Home Office. The time is not far distant, as the hon. Gentleman says—it will occur during the course of this year, I believe—when some of these prisoners, at all events, will have served 15 years' penal servitude. At that time their cases will be brought up for consideration, and all the surrounding circumstances will be borne in mind; and I again repeat what I have always said, that in dealing with these cases I shall deal with them on exactly the same footing as other prisoners, and if I find the circumstances justify me in treating individual prisoners as the hon. Gentleman desires, I shall not hesitate to do so.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I should have thought that the principles of which the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, has expressed his approval, would have led him to greater leniency in practice than he has expressed himself willing to adopt. I think he will agree with me that it is especially advisable, as a matter of public policy, that no Irishman should be justified in saying that Irish prisoners are treated worse than the prisoners of

  449
  other nationalities are for the same crimes. But I desire to recall to the recollection of this House the case of the two worst dynamitards ever imprisoned in England, the two Italians, Farnara and Polti. The case of these two men was the very worst that has ever been known in England, and they differed from the worst of the Irish cases in respect of this fact that these two men were actually refugees in England, enjoying our hospitality. They attempted to blow up a public building by dynamite. Farnara was about 50 years of age, and no excuse could possibly be found for him on account of his youth. He received 20 years' penal servitude. The other man, Polti, was sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude. The same evidence was brought against him as against Farnara, but because Polti was only 21 years of age, he received only 10 years. The same judge who sentenced the men whoso cases were now brought before the House, gave Polti only 10 years on account of his youth. The Irish prisoners varied in age, like the Italian prisoners, four being about 27, while Terence McDermott was only 20, and Henry Hammond Wilson 22 years and six months. I submit that these men ought to be treated upon the same basis as Farnara and Polti, and that, therefore, the sentence on the four men above 27 years should be reduced from a life sentence to 20 years, which would mean that they would now have about 18 months more of their sentence to serve. With regard to McDermott and Wilson, they ought to have been treated as Polti was, and to have received 10 years' penal servitude on account of their youth. I want to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a matter carefully to consider whether these two men ought not to be released at once With regard to Henry Hammond Wilson, I have received details from the parish priest and schoolmaster where he lived, showing that he was a pupil teacher in a school when 19 years of age. Owing, perhaps, to emigration
  450
  from the district, the school was not entitled to a pupil teacher, and Wilson had to be dismissed. He was a boy of the highest possible character, and was engaged at that time as a leader in temperance work. But he had to emigrate to America, as, unfortunately, very many Irishmen have to do. He was heard of by letters for a year, when the letters ceased, and his sister emigrated to try and get information. She first heard that, under the name of Wilson—that is the name in the Blue Books, his real name being, I believe, Clark—he was in gaol, having being sentenced without his parents knowing anything about it. His father—an old soldier who had fought in the Crimea—was dead, and his mother was so ashamed that she went mad, and has been insane ever since. The story which everyone told of the way in which this youth was led to commit the offence was this:—He joined, as many young men do, without realising the gravity of the step, one of the secret societies of America. The leaders of the society would not risk their own lives, but they singled out this young man, who foolishly had taken their oath, and sent him to England, with the result that he found himself, against his own judgment, mixed up in this business, and has suffered 15 years' penal servitude. Comparing the cases of McDermott and Wilson with the case of Polti, who was sentenced by the same judge, Mr. Justice Hawkins, to 10 years, on account of his youth, I maintain that the Irish prisoners should be immediately released.
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise chiefly to express, on behalf of the Members of these benches, our sincerest thanks to the hon. Member for York for the manly appeal he has made in his maiden speech on behalf of this Amendment. The contention of the Home Secretary, on this, as on previous occasions, is that these prisoners have been treated exactly as if they were English prisoners, and had not been subjected to any injustice, either on their trial, or during their imprisonment.

  451
  Well, Sir, I differ from the right hon. Gentleman. If these men had not been Fenians, they would have been tried under the Explosives Act, as the Walsall prisoners were, and would have received 10 or 15 years' penal servitude, instead of a sentence for life. Being Fenians, they were tried under the Treason Felony Act in order that the maximum sentence might be inflicted upon them. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny my contention. I insist that they were not treated at their trial as if they were English offenders, and if I cared to go into personal experiences, I could convince this House that, if they were treated in prison as some of their fellow-countrymen were treated in the past, that treatment was far more severe than what is extended to ordinary prisoners in the gaols of this country. The Home Secretary can do practically what he likes, but there are some things it is impossible for him to do. He may modify a sentence, or he may reverse it, but he cannot change the indictment upon which conviction has been obtained. These men were expressly tried under an Act passed to deal with political convictions in order that the highest sentence of the law might be inflicted upon them. We, therefore, ask that the Home Secretary should extend to these men that clemency which has been extended by most of his predecessors to political prisoners. He says their offence was not a political one. That is an inconsistent position for the Home Secretary to take up, and I hope that, instead of trying to maintain that position, he will listen to the appeal that has been addressed to him by a most distinguished Member of this House. And I venture to say that if this small act of clemency were employed just now, it would not meet with any opposition from any part of the House. What are the facts of the case? No lives were lost as a consequence of the acts with which these men were charged. They have now undergone close upon 15 years' penal servitude. The principals in whatever conspiracy existed have been discharged, and six men remain in prison. I am informed, I hope wrongly—and I trust the
  452
  right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, will correct me if my information is not accurate—that out of these six men two are now under observation as insane prisoners.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No.
  MR. DAVITT: I am very glad to hear it; but the right hon. Gentleman knows right well that when a prisoner under the system of penal servitude in this country undergoes 10 years or more of a sentence, the causes that generate insanity in prison work more rapidly. We know from facts, which the Home Secretary cannot deny, that some of these men who have been released are insane. I trust that, in view of these facts, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way, in the shortest time possible, to consider these cases in a favourable light, and end this painful duty imposed on the Irish Members, of bringing these cases before the House Session after Session. I am certain he will not be performing an act upon which he will look back with regret if he does so. I wish to say one word in connection with what the Member for East Clare said on the Walsall cases. I have given considerable attention to these cases, and I believe there was no dynamite conspiracy in them at all. I affirm that the whole plot was the work of a French refugee in this city, well known to Scotland Yard as an agent provocateur in his own country. But I am sorry that even if these men tried at Walsall were guilty of the charge brought against them, a brutal sentence should have followed. After all, the sentences passed in this country for offences of this character are lengthy and brutal, and, therefore, I desire to dissociate myself from what has been said upon the Walsall case. I hope the right hon. Member, the Home Secretary, will, on this occasion, take the advice given to him from his own side of the House, and if he does, he will not regret his action.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Mr. Speaker,—Sir, I should like to ask the right hon. Member, the Home Secretary, what is the good of proceeding upon mathematical principles in considering this question. It is futile to ask how would England have suffered, or how would so-called treason in Ireland have grown if these prisoners had been released three, four, or ten years ago? Has the Union Jack or the Lion and the Unicorn suffered by the fact that Daly and his friends were released two or three years ago? Do Englishmen suppose that they will ever gain the hearts of Irishmen unless by changing wholly the tone and temper in which they address themselves to questions like this? Consider the clamour in the British Press over the conviction and treatment of Dreyfus, who was convicted, under the laws of his country, of the most horrible crime of which an army officer can be guilty—namely, betraying' secrets of State to a foreign Government. But there is not a British paper, or British editor, or a British Pharisee, who is not satisfied of the innocence of Dreyfus, and there is no Englishman who is not shocked and horrified at the fact that this French officer should at this moment be on the He du Diable, protected by warders with drawn swords, and enclosed in what is described as an iron cage. Of course this is only as to a Frenchman; but may I give you a little lesson from the Afridis? I myself do not attempt to understand the geography of India; I find it difficult enough to understand the geography of my own country. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wolverhampton, says that you proceeded to Chitral in the teeth of your own pledges, and you went there, carrying fire and sword, and dynamite, it may be for anything I know, burning the villagers' houses, blowing up their towers, and slaughtering every man engaged in a struggle for his own freedom and that of his family. One of your men, Sergeant Walker, is caught in this horrible attempt made by foreigners and strangers in the teeth of their own pledges. He is caught by the Afridis in the task of carrying fire and sword into the lands of these unhappy villagers. Sir, I have read
  454
  the letters of Sergeant Walker, and apparently these savages, and Mahomedans—they had not the honour even to be Protestants, they even have not a Church Establishment—treat Sergeant Walker excellently and kindly, and send him back to your Army ready to fight them again. But let us go to the negroes at the Equator. One of the British troops sent against Samory is caught; he is engaged in the task of mowing down Samory"s men; and, instead of any reprisal, he is sent back to Lagos with a gold anklet as a present to the Government. Of course, it is not for me to teach lessons of civilisation to the English people, but how can you expect us to believe in your civilisation, when we find this methodical British precision in regard to the treatment of such men because they have offended against you? But how do you treat Irishmen when, instead of offending against you, they commit crimes against the laws of God—especially when they happen to be on the landlord's side? My hon. Friend, the Member for Mayo, said that the sentences that are usually given in ordinary cases are excessive. I don't think so at all. My experience is that there is extreme leniency in regard to sentences in ordinary cases, and I would say, sometimes, extremely lax prosecution so far as Ireland is concerned. Take the case of Patrick Brennan, a bailiff, who in cold blood murdered a poor old woman—battered in her brains in her little hut. Patrick Brennan is sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude; that is at the Cork Assizes two years ago. What do we read now? "Patrick Brennan has just been released from Mountjoy Prison"! Sir, we do charge inequality of sentence; we do charge inequality of treatment; we do charge favouritism, upon the British Government. Take the case of Englishmen engaged in the Walsall outrage, in regard to whom I have read in Cox's Reports that some documents found on them connected them with the bomb explosion in Barcelona by which eighty people were sent into eternity; those men only got 10 or 12 years' penal servitude. Sir, the Treason Felony Act of 1848, as it was originally passed, never contemplated, as against political prisoners, the sanguinary treatment you have meted out to these five men, whom you still keep in gaol.

  455
  I do say, and I have always thought, that the Tory Government were in a strong position for showing clemency to Ireland, and generally dealing fairly with our country in many respects, because if they seek to do fairly by Ireland, they have not anybody on this side of the House to taunt them with it, just as you can talk of a "spirited foreign policy," because you have not opposed to you a number of gentlemen ready to taunt you upon your supposed weakness. I ask again, in what way is the honour of England involved in letting these wretched men drag out the dregs of their sentence? Will the Queen sleep more quietly at Balmoral or Osborne because these men have to sleep to-night in Portland Prison, when they ought to be in their own homes? And look at the results as regards these men. Of the men whom you released, one was no sooner set at liberty than he had to be placed under restraint by his own friends; another is immediately sent to a lunatic asyluum; a third dies within three months. One of these men, Wilson, has had to be taken off stone-breaking because his heart was bad. These men are now within a few months of the expiry of their sentences. You would not release them in the Jubilee year, 1887, though you released 10,000 Hindus in Hindustan, because you said it was in accordance with the custom of Hindustan. You would not release them on the occasion of the Sixty Years' Jubilee, though you were greatly surprised that we Irish Members declined to go down to Windsor with you. Now, I ask the Government what is the advantage that British prowess, or British law, or anything appertaining to the welfare or well-being of your Empire can gain from the fact that half a dozen broken, emaciated, and, perhaps, almost insane Irishmen should perhaps for nine months longer have to herd with your malefactors and your murderers.
  MAJOR J. E. JAMESON: You have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the fact that these unfortunate and unhappy men have been sentenced in a different measure to that by which Englishmen or Italians have been sentenced; and you have heard the noble Lord who rose from the Government Benches and asked for clemency for these
  456
  men. I ask you to respond to that appeal, and to grant amnesty for these men to-night, and for this reason: We have sent you from Ireland many men who have built up with their blood this Empire, of which you say you are so proud, and, wherever Englishmen have died, there Irishmen have died side by side; and yet you refuse to treat us as on an equality with yourselves. You try these men under an Act under which these offences ought never to be tried, and you do that to force upon them sentences, which otherwise you never could have given them. Now, I appeal to members on the other side of the House—I am an old soldier, and I appeal to you from these benches. The noble Lord from the opposite benches is a distinguished sailor, and a distinguished Irishman at the same time. I appeal to you for mercy for these men, whatever you may think of the offences of which they have been guilty, and I appeal to you, believing that these men have been unjustly sentenced. Wherever Englishmen have died, there you have Irishmen too, and there you will find them in a soldier's grave, joined in that eternal union of a soldier's death. I appeal to you on behalf of those unfortunate men, and I ask hon. Members on the other side to support us. I hope we may hear others get up from the Government Benches, and urge on the Government that these men may be relieved.
  Question put—
  The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 152.
  MR. J. LAWSON-WALTON: I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hour is, of course, rather early for adjourning the Debate, but, considering that the hon. Gentleman is to move a most important Amendment to the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech, and that it would be extremely convenient that the Debate upon that Amendment should begin at the commencement of Monday's business, I make no objection to the Motion.
  Motion made, and question, "That the Debate be now adjourned"—(Mr. J. L. Walton)—put and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed on Monday.

  NEW BILLS.
    CUSTOMS OFFICES (SOUTHAMPTON).
    Bill for the acquisition of land at Southampton as a site for Customs and other Offices connected therewith, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Akers-Douglas and Mr. Hanbury.
    CUSTOMS AND OTHER OFFICES (BARRY DOCK).
    Bill for acquiring land for Customs and other Offices at Barry Dock, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Akers-Douglas and Mr. Hanbury.
    CUSTOMS OFFICES (SOUTHAMPTON) BILL.
    "For the acquisition of land at Southampton as a site for Customs and other Offices connected therewith, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
    CUSTOMS AND OTHER OFFICES (BARRY DOCK) BILL.
    "For acquiring land for Customs and other Offices at Barry Dock, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
  MOTIONS.

    KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS COMMITTEE.
    Motion made and Question put—
    "That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members" (Sir W. Walrond).
    Put and agreed to.
    Motion made and Question proposed—
    "That Mr. James Bailey be a Member of the said Committee" (Sir. W. Walrond).
    SIR W. LAWSON: I see the Attorney General is present. The right hon. Gentleman has given his opinion that the sale of intoxicating drink within the precincts of this House is contrary to the law. Now, I think the Government ought to let us know the position they take up——
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member's remarks are pertinent to the question before the House, which is, whether Mr. James Bailey be a member of the Committee.
    DR. CLARK: I move the adjournment of the Debate. If we are going to do an illegal thing, or if we are going to appoint a Committee for the purpose of doing an illegal thing, I think we ought to have some answer from the
    458
    Attorney General. One of the functions of this Committee——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The Committee has been already appointed, and this question was raised at that time. We are now on the mere question of the Members to be appointed to serve on the Committee.
    DR. CLARK: The hon. Member who intended to raise the question was not here. I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate; then perhaps we shall get some information.
    Motion made and question proposed—
    "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Dr. Clark.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I have nothing to add to what was said by the noble Lord yesterday; that the matter will be taken before the Committee at the first meeting of the Committee, and the question decided then.
    DR. CLARK: Upon that I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion by leave withdrawn.
    Main question again proposed, and agreed to.
    Motion made and question put—
    "That Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. R. Cavendish, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. T. Curran, Mr. H. Davies, General Goldsworthy, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Lafone, Mr. Llewellyn, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Macdona, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. P. J. Power, Mr. W. Redmond, and Lord Stanley be other Members of the said Committee" (Sir W. Walrond).
    Put and agreed to.
    SIR W. LAWSON: I should like to ask whether I should be in order in moving that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    MR. SPEAKER: Strictly speaking, I think notice should be given, but I have no doubt the rule would be waived.
    MR. G. LAMBERT: Should I be in order in moving that the hon. Baronet, the Member for Cockermouth be added to the Committee?
    THE SPEAKER: No addition can be made without notice. The number has been fixed at seventeen.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I now beg to move that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. I move that in order that the Committee

    459
    may have before them the deliberate this House that the way in which drink is sold in this House is illegal. It is very statement of the Attorney-General in important to the Committee to know that, and when they get that knowledge I have confidence in them, as law-abiding men, that they will take steps to put a stop to it.
    Motion made and question proposed—
    "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."—Sir W. Lawson.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The statement of the Attorney General was that it was 12 o'clock. I venture to say that no opinion more extraordinary was ever given by a Law Officer. It has always been laid down that this was a Royal Palace. It was so laid down, at any rate, by a very eminent authority; and where the learned Attorney-General has got the view that it is illegal in this House to sell drink after 12 o'clock, or at any time, is more than I can understand. I venture to say it is absolutely reducing this House to a farce for the noble Lord opposite, the genial Whip of the 'Tory Party, to bring in a Bill to license the sale of drink in this House. This House, on a former occasion, took off the heads of a few kings, I understand; they did not look for law or order in those proceedings; and, certainly, in the case of supplying adequate refreshments to its Members, we have sufficient warrant in our own necessities to dispense with the necessity for any special legislation.
    SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion by leave withdrawn.

  IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not propose, Sir, at this late hour, to move the Resolution which stands in my name,
  "That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to with-hold her consent to the Rules made by the Lord-Lieutenant (dated November, 1897), under Section 11 of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879."
  I do not see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, and there would not be time now to adequately discuss an important question of this kind; but the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House is
  460
  aware, I am sure, of the importance which we attach to the matter, and I trust we may receive some assurance from him that the Government will afford an early opportunity of discussing the subject.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not sure that the Supplementary Estimates would not afford a convenient opportunity for the discussion of this subject.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a matter affecting a very large body of men, and it is one of very great importance to them. I would ask him whether he cannot see his way to suspend the operation of the new Rules until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion. The teachers have only got till the 15th or 20th of April to send in their acceptance or rejection of the Government proposals. I think, under the circumstances, it would be only fair to extend the time for their exercising their option until Parliament has considered the matter.
  MR. E. F. VESEY-KNOX: I also would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us some opportunity of discussing this matter. It is one that concerns not only the policy of one year, but the policy of a number of years. It is a Treasury, rather than an Education, matter, and to discuss it with any fulness some special opportunity would have to be afforded.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am unwilling to give any pledge which I might not be able to satisfy. I am informed that the Rules are actually already in force.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would you extend the time for the teachers to exercise their option.?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am very sorry my right hon. Friend is not present, and I am consequently speaking under some disadvantage. All I can say is, I will do my best to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Government do not shrink in any way from a discussion of the subject. There are difficulties in bringing it on, at any rate, this side of Easter, but I will consult my right hon. Friend, and we will do what we can to satisfy the hon. and learned Member.
  House adjourned at 11.45.