iir^'ii^^i^y^^y^^^^ifi^im^im^^-ii^y^!^^. DA -^ PRESIDENT WHtTE LIBRARY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY. A-nr^i- "'^'^^ Da]E DUj Cornell University Library DA 957.G78 Times Parliamentary debajes, [;e'',':,1S.,J,?|, , 3 1924 028 148 371 ... <' XI Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028148371 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES FEBRUARY 13 to FEBRUARY 17. 1893, PRICE 2s. 6d PER NUMBER, OR £3 PER SESSION POST PAID. . HOUSE OF LORDS (pp. 45 to 56). ITo. 4. Vol. VIII. HOUSE OF COMMONS (pp. 297 to 420). Uo. 4. Vol XXIL IiOOT)ON : FEINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GEORGE EDWARD WRIGHT, AT THE TIMES OFFICE, PRINTING HOUSE SQUARE. [Enteiod at Statlonera' HalLl INDEX. HOUSE OF LORDS. SPEAKERS. AOTON, LOED (The State of Kerry, p. 50) ASHB0T7BNE, LoKD (The Debtors Act, p. 50 ; The Church in Wales, p. 52) Cantekbuby, The Amhbishop ov (The Church in Wales, p. 50) DuNEAVEN, The Bael op (The Land Question in Wales, p. 53) KiMBEELEY, THE Eael OF (Secondary Education, Scotland, p. 45 ; School Accommodation at Devizes, p. 45 ; The Ediication Department, p. 46 ; Ministerial Double Appointments, p. 47 ; The Church in Wales, p. 51 ; The Land Question in Wales, p. 55 ; The Shan States Frontiers, p. 56) IiAMlNQTON, LoED (The Shan States Frontiers, p. 56) LONDONDEBRT, THE MABQCTI3 OP (The State otKerry, p. 50) LOBD Chascellob, The (Mr. Justice Mathew, p. 49 ; The Debtors Act, p. 49 ; The Church in Wales, p. 52) MlDLETON, Viscount (Mr. Justice Mathew, p. 48) MONKSWELL, LoED (The Debtors Act, p. 50) Noethbkook, The Karl of (Ministerial Double Ap- pointments, p. 48) NOBTON, LoED (The Education Department, p. 46 ; The Church in Wales, p. 53) ElPON, The Maeqpis ov (Ministerial Double Ap- pointments, p. 48) KuTLAKD, The Dqke op (The Education Depart- ment, p. 47) SAL1SB0EY, The Bishop op (School Accommodation at Devizes, p. 45) Salmbuet, The Makqitis op (The Education De- partment, p. 47 ; Ministerial Double Appoint- ments, p. 48 ; The Church in Wales, pp. 50, 51 ; The Land Question in Wales, p. 56) Sandpoed, Lord (The Education Department, p. 46) Stanley or Alderley, Lord (Ministerial Double Appointments, p. 47 ; The Land Question in Wales, p. 55) SUBJECTS. Address, The — Her Majesty's Keply to, p. 47 Ch0ECH in Wales, p. 50 Deetop.s Act — Appointment of Select Committee on, p. 49 Devizes, School Accommodation at, p. 45 Education Department, p. 46 Kerry, The State op, p. 50 Land Question in Wales, p. 53. Mathbw, Mr. Justice, p. 48 Ministbeial Double Appointments, p. 47 New Peers, pp. 53, 56 Private Business, pp. 47, 49, 53, 56 Shan States Feontiees, p. 56 HOUSE OF COMMONS. SPEAKERS. AOLAND, Me. (The Ooher-hill National Schools, Q., p. 391) Allen, Me. W. (War Office Contracts, Q., p. 363.; Earthenware Measm'es, Q., p. 366) ASQUITH, Me. (The Case of Mr. Charles Wilson, Qs., p. 326 ; Accident to a Gymnast, Q., p. 328 ; The " Legitimist Jacobite " League, Qs., p. 329 ; The Welsh Suspensory Bill, Qs., p. 329 ; Nihilist Eefugees, Q., p. 330 ; Police Superannuation, Q., p. 332 ; Police Acts Amendment Bill, p. 361 ; The Govern- ment and the Church in Wales, Q., p. 3G5 ; Inflammable Gas Explosion, Q., p. 366 ; County Magistrates, Q., p. 366 ; Building Societies (No. 2) Bill, p. 389 ; Convict Assistant Warders, Q., p. 390 ; Poisonous Trades, Q., p. 391 ; Prosecutions for Non- Vaccination, Q., p. 391 ; The Case of John Daly, Qs., p. 392 ; The Position of Prison Warders, Qs., p. 393) Atheeley-Jones, Mb. (The Case of Mr. Charles Wilson, Q., p. 326 ; The Home Eule Bill, p. 381) Attorney-General, The (Walsall Election, Qs., p. 331) Baden-Powell, Sir G. (Regulations for Bide Lights, Q., p. 330) Balpour, Mk. (The Home Rule Bill and Imperial Contributions, Q., p. 331 ; The Home Eule Bill, p. 333 ; Local Authorities (Voting and Qualification) Bill, p. 359 ; A Question of Privilege, The Times and the Irish Members, pp. 369, 370, 373 ; Business of the House, Qs., pp. 373, 394 ; Building Societies (No. 2) Bill, p. 389) Bartley, Mb. (Members and their Beats, p. 299 ; Business of the House, p. 332 ; Local Authorities (Voting afld Qualification) Bill, p. 357 ; The Sittings of the House, lie 12 o'clock Rule, Q., p. 394) Barton, Mr. (A Question of Privilege, The Times and the Irish Members, p. 372) Bennett, Mr. (Local Authorities (Voting and Quali- ficatiou) Bill, p. 356) Index. v; BlEKMYRB, Mb. (Ayr Academy, Q., p. 328) Blake, Me. (The Home Eule Bill, p. 403) Bodkin, Ms. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 410) Bowles, Me. T. G. (Ships' Side-Lights, Q., p. 326 ; Naval Courts-Martial, Q.j p. 328 ; Collisions at Sea, Q., p. 329 ; Rules of the Road at Sea, Q., p. 390) Brand, Mr. (Railway Rates, Q., p. 392) Beidgeman, Colonel (The Home Eule Bill, p. 347) BiiooKFlElD, Me. (Cavalry Mounts, Q., p. 365 ; The Arming of the Troops in Bgypt, Q., p. 390) Beunnee, Me. (Members and their Seats, Q., p. 299 ; A Question of Privilege, Thi Tirties and the Irish Members, Point of Order, p. Sfl) Beyoe, Me. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 340) Buchanan, Me. (Scottish Salinon Fishings, Q,, p. 362 ; The Census Returns for Scotland, Q., p. 391 ; The Census Returns for England and Wales, Q,, p. 393) BubNS, Me. (Chelsea Hospital and Eilmainham, Q., p. 327) Buxton, Me. (Cyprus, Q., p. 362 ; The Governorship of New South Wales, Q., p. 365) Cainb, Me, (The Case of Mr. Charles Wilson, Q., p. 326 ; National Leprosy Fund, Q., p. 366) Campbell, Me. J. A. (The Scotch Suspensory Bill, Q., p. 328) Campbell-BanneKmaN, Me. (Chelsea tiospital and Kilmainham, Qs., p. 327 ; The Transport of Troops, Q.,p. 328 ; Drill-halls of Volunteers, Q., p. 330 ; Soldiers' Old Clothing, Q., p. 363 ; Cavalry Mounts, Q., p. 365 ; Artillery Militia, Q., p. 366 ; Military DepSts in Scotland, Q., p. 367 ; The Honie Rule Bill, p. 386 ; The Arming of the Troops in Bgypt, Q., p. 390) Caemaethej), The Maequis of (Building Societies (No. 2) Bill, p. 389) Caeson, Me. (Alleged Illegal Seizures by Irish Sheriffs, Q., p. 364 ; Irish Sheriffs and Police Protection, Qs., p. 393) Chambeelain, Mb. (A Question of Privilege, The Times ahd the Irish Members, p. 373 ; The Home Eule Bill, p. 394) Chanoellob op the Bxohkqueb, The (Trade Union Provident Funds Bill, p. 361 ; Grocers' Licences, Q., p. 363 ; Ireland's Revenue under Home Rule, Q., p. 365 ; A Question of Pirivilege, The Titiief and the Irish Members, p. 370 ; Collection of Income Tax, Q., p. 390) Chaplin, Me. (The Inquiry into AgricUltncal De- pression, Q., p. 328 ; Committee on Agri- culture, Q., p. 330) Chuechill, Lobd R. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 374) Clancy, Me. (A Question of Privilege, The Times aud the Irish Members, p. 370) Claeke, Sib E. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 310) Cohen, Me. (Accident to a Gymnast, Q., p. 328) CoLLiNGS, Me. (the Home Rule Bill, p. 348) CoNTBEAKE, ME. (Kitchen Committee, p. 325 ; Ash Wednesday, p. 333 ; County Magistrates, Q., p. 366) CoUKTNEY, Me. (A Question of Privilege, The Tiviei and the Irish Members, p. 371 ; The Home Rule Bill, p. 406) Cbanboenb, Viscount (Business of the House, Q., p. 332 ; The Position of Prison Warders, Qs., p. 393) Ceembb, Me. (The Address, Destitute Alien .Immi- grants, p. 298) Ceilly, me. (Members and their Beats, p. 299) Ceombie, Me. (The Home Eule Bill, p. 347) Dane, Mb. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 315 ; Alleged' Illegal Seizures by Irish Sheriffs, Q., p. 364;' Judicial Rents in Ireland, Q., p. 367) Darwin, Majoe (The Home Eule Bill, p. 317) DiGBY, Me. (Eailway Bates, Q., p. 363) Dilkb, Sib C. (Local Authorities (Voting and Qnali< fioation) Bill, p. 359 ; Labour Minister Bill, . p. 361) Dillon, Mb. (A Question of Frivilege, The Times. aud the Irish Members, pp. 371, 373) DixoN-Haetland, SiE F. (Nihilist Eefugefes, Q., p. 330; Drill-halls of Volunteers, Q.,p. 330; Collection of Income Tax, Q., p. 390) DoBlNQTON, Sib J. (Local Authorities (Voting and Qualiflcatioh) Bill, p. 356) EshondS, Sib T. (A Question of Privilege,; The Times and the Irish Members, p. 367) Evans, Me. S. (The Government and the Church in Wales, Q., p. 365) Pbegusson, Sib J. (Kitchen Committee, p. 325 ; i The Transport of Troops, Q., p. 328) Field, Admibal (Cyprus, Q., p. 362) Field, Me. (Government Printing in Ireland, Q., p. 364) FoEWOOD, Mb. (Boilers in Warships, Q., p. 327) FpWLEE, Me. H. (The Local Taxation Budget, Q., p. 326 ; Casual Wards in Chelsea, Q., p. 332 ; Local Authorities (Voting and Qualification) Bill, pp. 359, 389 ; The Census Returns for England and Wales, Q., p. 393 ; The Report of the Vaccination Commission, Q., p. 393) Gabdnee, Me. (The Inquiry into Agricdltural De- pression, Q., p. 328 ; Swine Fever, Q., p. 329 ; The Tuberculosis Commission, Q., p. 329 ; Pleuro-Pneumonia, Q., p. 330 ; Com- mittee on Agriculture, Qj., p. 330) GiBBS, Me. V. (Artillery Militia, Q., p. 366) Gladstone, Me. (The Home Rule Bill, Notice, p. 299 ; Speech on Introduction, p. 300 ; The Home Rule Bill and Imperial Contributions, Q., p. 331 ; Tenure of Irish Laud, Qs., p. 331 ; Answers to Questions, Q., p. 331 ; Business of the House, Motion and Qs., p. 332 ; Ash Wednesday, p. 332 ; Judicial Rents in Ireland, Qs., p. 366 ; Foreign and Colonial Meat, Q , p. 367 ; Payment of Members of Parliament, Q., p. 367 ; A Question of Privilege, The Times and the Irish Members, p. 369 ; Business of the House, Qs., pp. 373, 394 ; Sittings of the House, The 12 o'clock Rule, Q., p. 394) Goest, Sie J. (Women in Indian Mines, Q., p. 363) GoscHBtir, Me. (The Government and the Church in Wales, Q., p. 365 ; Ireland's Revenue under Home Eule, Q., p. 365 ; The Home Rule Bill, p. 413) Gbey, Sie E. (Differential Duties in Brazil, Q., p. 327 ; Captain Lugard's Report, Q., p. 393 ; The Sandwich Islands, Q., p. 394) Hamilton, Lord G. (Tenure of Irish Land, Qs., p. 331) HanbOEY, Me. (Farmiiig the Crown Lands, Q., p. 363; The Governorship of New South Wales, Q., p. 365 ; The Condition of the Navy, Q.. p. 365 ; Disused Army Clothing, Q., p. 391 ; Obsolete Army Stores, Q., p. 391) . HAYDEN, Mb. (Qualification for Irish Poor Law Guardians, Q., p. 392) Healy, Me. Timothy (Incendiarism in Ireland, Q., p. 366 ; Local Authorities (Voting and Quali- fication) Bill, p. 389 ; Irish Sheriffs and Police Protection, Q., p. 394) HiEBEET, StB J. (Professors of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. Q., p. 326 ; Bounties on Spirits^ VI. Index Qa.,p. 327 ; The Property Tax, Q., p. 327 ; Farmiug the Crovfu Lands, Q., p. 363 ; Oo- vemment Printing in Ireland, Q., p. 364; Parliamentary Reporting, Q., p. 364 ; British Material in Govemmeab Contracts, Q., p, 390) Hicks-Beach, Sib M. (Trade Union Provident Funds Bill, pp. 361, 390 ; Building Societies (No. 2) Bill, p. 389 ; Local Authorities (Voting and Qualification) Bill, p. 389) Holland, Mr. (Differential Duties in Brazil, Q., p. 327) HOPWOOD, Mr. (Prosecutions for Non-Vaccination, Q., p. 391 ; The Report of the Vaccination Commission, Q., p. 393) HovELL, Mr. (Trade CTnion Provident Funds Bill, pp. 361, 390) HowOETH, SirH. (The Address, Destitute Alien Im- migrants, p. 297 ; Walsall Election, Q., p. 331) HoziER, Mb. (Suspensory Bills for Scotland and Wales, Q., p. 330 ; Military DepSts in Scot- land, Q., p. 367 ; Business of the House, Q., p. 394) HuGHiss, Colonel (Chelsea Hospital and Kilmain- ham, Q., p. 327 ; The Property Tax, Q., p. 327 ; Pensions in Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyard, Q., p. 328 ; The " Fair Wages" Clause, Q., p. 328 ; Cadet Servants at the Royal Military Academy, Q., p. 329 ; War Office Circular as to Wages, Q., p. 330 ; Answers to Questions, Q., p. 331 ; Business of the House, p. 332) HuNTEB, Me. (Railway Kates and Charges (No. 2) Bill, p. 361) Jackson, Me. (School Fees in Ireland, Q., p. 332) Johnston, Me. (The " Legitimist Jacobite " League, Qs., p. 329 ; The Crush in the Lobby on Monday, Point of Order, p. 333) Kat-Shuttlewoeth, Sib U. (Boilers in Warships, Q., p. 327 ; Naval Courts-Martial, Q., p. 328 ; The Condition of the Navy, Q., p. 365 ; Post Office (Acquisition of Sites) Bill, p. 389) KeABLEY, Me. (Labour Department Inquiry, Q., p. 330 ; Business of the House, p. 332) Kenny, Me. M. J. (Professors at the Queen's Col- leges in Ireland, Q., p. 326) Kenny, Me. W. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 382) Knatoheull-Hugeshen, Mk. (Committee on Agri- culture, Q., p. 330 ; Business of the House, p. 332) LABOtrcHERE, Mk. (The Address, Destitute Alien Im- migrants, p. 298 ; Ash Wednesday, p. 332 ; The Home Rule Bill, p. 384) Lawrence, Mb. (Convict Assistant Warders, Q., p. 390) Lawson, Me. J. G. (Local Authorities (Voting and Qualification) Bill, p. 356) liBIGHTON, Me. (The Local Taxation Budget, Q., p. 326 ; The Welsh Suspensory Bill, Qs., p. 329 ; The Government and the Church in Wales, Q., p. 364) liEVESON-GowEB, Me. (The Government and the Church in Wales, Q., p. 364) IiOGAN, Me. (Local Authorities (Voting and Qualifi- cation) Bill, p. 355) Long, Mr. (Local Authorities (Voting and Qualifica- tion) Bill, p. 358) liOTTGH, Mb. (Railway Rates, Q., p. 363 ; Discharges from Woolwich Arsenal, Q., p. 364 ; The Royal Arsenal Workmen, Q., p. 392) liOWTHEE, Me Jambs (Local Authorities (Voting and Qualiflcation) Bill, p. 359 ; Trade Union Provident Funds Bill, pp. 361, 390) Lubbock, S.lB J. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 344) LuTTEELL.CMs. (Naval Ordnance Department, Devon- port, Q. , p. 326 ; Local Authorities (Voting and Qualification) Bill, p. 357) M'Calmont, Cai'TAIN (The Transport of Troops, Q., p. 328) M'Hugh, Me. E. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 382) Macabtnky, Mb. (Pleuro-Pneumonia, Q., p. 330; laoeadiarism in Ireland, Q., p. 366) MacGeegor, De. (Scotch Salmon Fisheries, Q., p. 364) MaoNeill, Mr. (Poisonous Trades, Q., p. 391) Marjoeieanks, Mb. (Kitchen Committee, p. 325) Maetin, Me. (The Burmah Government and Pearl Fisheries, Q., p. 362) Mathbb, Mr. (Members and their Seats, p. 299) Maxwell, Sik H. (Scottish Salmon Fishihgs, Q., . p. 362) Montagu, Me. (The Address, Destitute Alien Immi- grants, p. 297) Mobley, Mb. a. (The Post Office in Scotland, Q., p. 327 ; The Nottingham Postmen, Q., p. 364) Moeley, Mb. J. (The Labourers in Ireland, Q., p. 327; The Royal Irish Constabulary, Q., p. 327 ; School Fees in Ireland, Q., p. 332 ; Alleged Illegal Seizures by Irish Sheriffs, Qs,, p. 364 ; Incendiarism in Ireland, Q., p. 3C6 ; Qualification for Irish Poor Law Guardians, Q., p. 392 ; Irish Sheriffs and Police Protection, Qs. , p. 393 ; The Home Rule Bill, p. 418) Morton, Mr. A. C. (The Address, The Appointment of Justices of the Peace, p. 298 ; Kitchen Committee, p.325 ; Parliamentary Reporting, Q., p. 364) Mundella, Mr. (Ships' Side Lights, Qs., pp. 326, 330 ; Collisions at Sea, Q., p. 329 ; Labour Department Inquiry, Q., p. 330 ; Railway Kates and Charges (No. 2) Bill, p. 361 ; Trade Union Provident Funds Bill, p. 361 ; Fraudulent Assignments, Q., p. 362 ; Rail- way Rates, Qs., pp. 363, 392 ; Earthenware Measures, Q., p. 366 ; Rules of the Road at Sea, Q., p. 390 ; Light Dues, Q., p. 391) Paul, Mr. (The Government and the Church in Wales, Q., p. 365) Pender, Sir J. (Scotch Magistrates, Q., p. 391) Pinkerton, Me. (The Royal Irish Constabulary, Q., p. 327) Rasch, Major (Police Superannuation, Q., p. 332 ; Foreign and Colonial Meat, Q., p. 367) RedMONIi, Mr. J. (Walsall Election, Q., p. 331 ; The Home Rule Bill, p. 349 ; A Question of Privilege, The Times and the IrishMembers, pp.369, 372; The Case of John Daly, Q., p. 392) Redmond, Mr. W. (Judicial Rents in Ireland, Qs., p. 366 ; The Case of John Daly, Qs., p. 392) Rentoul, Mb. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 410) ROBBBTS, Mb. H. (Ths Government auj the Church in Wales, Q., p. 365) Robebtson, Mb. R. (Naval Ordnance Department, Devonport;,Q., p. 326) Ross, Me. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 380) Rothschild, Baron F. db (The Address, Destitute Alien Immigrants, p. 297 ; Local Authorities (Voting and Qualification) Bill, p. 358) Russell, Mb. G. (The Burmah Government and Pearl Fisheries, Q., p. 362; The Rajah of Mansiensingh, Q., p. 362 ; Women in Indian Mines. Q.,p. 363 ; National Leprosy Fund, Index, vu. Q., p. 366 ; Trial by Jury in Bengal, Q., p. 366) EUSSKLL, Me. T. W. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 354 ; Alleged Illegal Seizures by Irish Sheriffs, Q., p. 364) Saundeeson, C0L0NKL(The Home Rule Bill, p. 322; A Question of Privilege, The Times and the Irish Members, p. 370) Schwann, Ms. (The Rajah of Mansiensingh, Q., p. 362 ; Trial by Jury in Bengal, Q., p. 366) Smiton, Me. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 318 ; Ire- land's Revenue under Home Rule, Q., p. 365 ; A Question of Privilege, The Timet and the Irish Members, pp. 367, 368, 373) Shaw, Mk. T. (Alleged Illegal Possession of Salmon, Q., p. 363) Shaw Lefevee, Me. (The " Fair W*ges " Clause, Q., p. 328 ; Kew Gardens, Q., p. 330) Seeehy, Me. (The Crush in the Lobby on Monday, Q., p. 333) Smith, Me. A. (Local Authorities (Voting and Qualification) Bill, p. 358) Smith, Me. Paekee (The Post Office in Scotland, Q., p. 327 ; The Transport of Troops, Q., p. 328) Snape, Me. (Bounties on Spirits, Q., p. 327) Bpkakee, The (Members and their Seats, Qs., p. 299 ; The Crush in the Lobby on Monday, Q. and Point of Order, p. 333 ; A Question of Privilege, The Times and the Irish Members, pp. 367, 368, 370, 371, 372 ; Local Authori- ties (Voting and Qualification) Bill, Point of Procedure, p. 389 ; The Home Rule Bill, Calls to Order, p. 410) Stanhope, Me. P. (The Ocher-hill National Schools, Q., p. 391) Stevenson, Me. F. (Local Authorities (Voting and Qualification) Bill, p. 358) STSACHsy, Mr. (Local Authorities (Toting and Qualification) Bill, p. 358) Sthaet-Wortley, Me. (Inflammable Gas Explosion, Q., p., 366) Talbot, Me. (The Welsh Suspensory Bill, Qs., p. 329) Tannee, De. (Kitchen Committee, p. 325) Temple, Sie R. (Kew Gardens, Q., p 330) Thomas, Mr. D. A. (Grocers' Licences, Q., p. 3C2) Thoenton, Me. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 346) Teevelyan, Sib G. (Public Works in the Highlands, Qs., pp. 326, 390 ; The Scotch Suspensory Bill, Q., p. 328 ; Ayr Academy, Q., p. 328 ; Suspensory Bills for Scotland and Wales, Q., p. 330 ; Scottish Salmon Fishings, Qs., pp. 362, 364 ; Alleged Illegal Possession of Salmon, Q., p. 363 ; The Census Returns for Scotland, Q., p. 391 ; Scotch Magistrates, Q., p. 391) TuiTE, Me. (The Labourers in Ireland, Q., p. 327) Vincent, Colonel H. (British Material in Govern- ment Contracts, Q., p. 390) Wallace, Mk. E. (Payment of Members of Parlia- ment, Q., p. 3C7 ; Captain Lugard's Report, Q., p. 393) Wallace, Mb. S. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 412) Waeino, Colonel (The Home Rule Bill, p. 385) Waeneb, Mr. (Local Authorities (Voting and Quali- fication) Bill, p. 358) Webstee, Me. (The Sandwich Islands, Q., p. 394) Weie, Me. (Public Works in the Highlands, Qs., pp. 326, 390 ; Fraudulent Assignments, Q., p. 362 ; Light Dues, Q., p. 390) Whitehead, Sie J. (Railway Rates and Charges (No. 2) Bill, p. 361) Whitmoee, Me. (Casual Wards in Chelsea, Q., p. 331 ; The Government and the Chui'ch in Wales, Q., p. 364) WOLTP, Me. (The Home Rule Bill, p. 316) Wolmee, ViscotTNT (The Home Rule Bill, p. 314 ; A Questionof Privilege, The Timts and the Irish Members, pp. 367, 368) WOODALL, Mb. (Pensions in Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyard, Q., p. 328 ; Cadet Servants at the Royal Military Academy, Q., p. 329 ; Wai Office Circular as to Wages, Q., p. 330 ; War Office Contracts, Q., p. 362 ; Dis-i charges from Woolwich Arsenal, Q., p. 364 ; Disused Army Clothing, Q., p. 391 ; Obso- lete Army Stores, Q., p. 391 ; The Royal Arsenal Workmen, Q., p. 392) V/eiqht, Me. H. (Soldiers' Old Clothing, Q., p. 363 ; The Nottingham Postmen, Q., p. 363) Yeebukgh, Mk. (Swine Fever, Q., p. 329 ; The Tuberculosis Commission, Q., p. 329) SUBJECTS. Accident to a Gymnast (Q.), p. 328 Addeess, The — Her Majesty's Reply to, p. 373 Ageicultueal Depeession, The Inquiey into (Qs.), p. 328 Answers to QtrESTiONS (Q.), p. 331 Aemy, Questions relating to the— The Trans- port of Troops, p. 328 ; Soldiers' Old Clothing, p. 363 ; Cavalry Mounts, p. 365 • Militia Depots in Scotland, ,p. 367 ; The Arming of the Troops in Egypt, p. 390 ; Dis- used Clothing, p. 391 ; Obsolete Stores, p. 391 Artillery Militia (Q.), p. 366 Ash Wednesday — Time of Sitting, p. 332 Assistant County Sueveyoes (Ieeland) Bill^ Second Reading, p. 325 ; Committee, p. 355 Bounties on Spieits (Qs.), p. 327 Beazil, Differential Duties in (Q.), p. 327 Beitish Material in Goveenment Conteacts (Q.), p. 390 Building Societies (No. 2) Bill — Second Read- ing, p. 389 Buemah Government and Peael Fisheries (Q.), p. 362 Chelsea, Casual Wards in (Q.), p. 331 Chelsea Hospital and Kilmainham (Qs.), p. 327 Census Returns foe Scotland (Q.), p. 391 ; for , England and Wales(Q.), p. 393 Collisions at Sea (Q.), p. 329 Committee on Agriculture (Qs.), p. 330 Convict Assistant W^aedees (Q.), p. 390 County Magisteates (Q.), p. 366 Ceown Lands, Farming the (Q.), p. 363 CypEua (Q.), p. 302 Daly, John, The Case ot (Qs.), p. 392 Devonport Naval Ordnance Department (Q.), p. 326 Eabthenwake Measures (Q.), p. 366 " Fair Wages " Clause (Q.), 328 Fraudulent Assignments (Q.), p. 362 Goveknment and *the Chuech in Wales (Qs.), p. 364 Grocers' Licences (Q.), p. 362 Home Rule Bill — Notice, p. 299 ; Introduction, First Night, p. 300 ; Second Night, p. 333 ; Third Night, p. 374 ; Fourth Night, First Reading, p. 894 Home Rule Bill and Imperial Contributions (Q.), p. 331 'VIU, Index, Home Rule, Ibeland's Revenue Uudeb (Q».), p. 365 HoirSE of Commons — Members and their Seats (Qs.)i p. 299 ; Business of the House, Precedence for Debate on Introduction of Homo Bule Bill, p. 332 ; The Crush in the Lobby on February 13 (Qs.). p. 333 ; Business of the House (Qs.), pp. 373, 894 ; The 12 o'clock Eule, Notice, p. 390 ; Sittings of the House, The 12 o'clock Rule, Motion for Suspension and Qs., p. 394 Income-Tax, Collection oi' (Q.), p. 390 India, Questions relating to — The Rajah' of Macsiensingh, p. 362 ; Women in Mines, p. 363 i National Leprosy Fund, p. 366 ; Trial by Jury in Bengal, p. 366 INTLAMMABLE GaS EXPLOSION (Q.), p. 366 Ieelanp, Questions eelatincj lO-^Professors of the Queen's Colleges, p. 326 ; The Labourers » in, p. 327 ; The Royal Irish Constabulary, p. 327 ; School Fees in, p. 332; Alleged Illegal Seizures by Sheriffs, p. 364 ; 6o- Ternment Printing, p. 364 ; Incendiarism in, p. 366 ; Judicial Rents in, p. 366 ; Qualifi- cation for Poor Law Guardians, p., 392 ; Sheriffs and Police Protection, p. 393 Kitchen Committee— Appointment of Select Com- J mittee, p. 325 Kew Gaedens (Q.), p. 330 Labotje Depaetment (Q.), p. 330 Labour Minister Bill— Second Reading, p. 361 " Legitimist Jacobite " League (Qs.), p. 329 Light Dues (Q.), p, 390 Local Authorities (Voting and Qualification) Bill — Second Reading , p. 355 ; Notice, p, 362 ; Committee, p. 389 Local Taxation Budget (Q.), p. 326 Lugard's, Captain, Report (Q.), p. 393 Meat, Foreign and Colonial (Q.), p. 367 JSTavt, Questions Relating to the— Boilers in Warships, p. 327 ; Courts-Martial, p. 328 ; The Condition of the,p. 365 New Bills— First Reading, pp. 333, 361, 390, 394 New Licences (Ireland) Bill— Second Reading, p. 355 ; Committee, p. 361 j New Members, pp. 300, 373 New South Wales, The Govebnoeship oe (Q.), p. 365 New Writs, pp. 300, 325, 373 Nihilist Repugees (Q.), p. 330 Notices op Motion, pp. 299, 325, 390 Oohee-hill National Schools (Q.), p. 391 Parliambntaet Reporting (Q.), p. 364 Payment op Members op Paeliament (Q.), p. 367 Pensions in Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyakd (Q.), p. 328 Pleueo-Pneumonia (Q,), p 330 Poisonous Tbades (Q.), p. 391 Police Acts Amendment Bill— Second Reading, p. 361 - Police Superannuation (Q.), p. 332 Post Oppice (Acquisition or Sites) Bill— Second Reading, p. 389 Post Qbpioe, Questions eelatino to the— The Post OfiBce in Scotland, p. 327 ; Nottingham Ppstmpn, p. 363 Prison Warders, The Position op (Q.), p. 393 Private Business, pp. 299, 325, 355, 361 Property Tax (Q,), p. 327 Prosecutions for Non-Vaccination (Q.), p. 391 Public Libraries Act (1892) A¥?npment Bill — Second Reading, p. 361 Question of Peivilege — The Times and the Irish Members, p. 367 Railway Rates, (Qs.), pp. 363, 392 Railway Rates a,nd Charges (No. 2) Bill— > Second Reading, p. 361 Reg'imential Debts (Consolidation) Bill^ Second Reading, p. 325 Royal Militaey Academy, Cadet Servants at THE (Qs.), p. 329 Rules op the Road at Sea (Q.), p. 390 Sandwich Islands (Q.), p. 394 Scotch Suspensory Bill (Qs.), pp. 328, 330 Scotland, Questions Relating to— Public Works in the Highlands, pp. 326, 390 ; Ayr Academy, p. 328 ; Salmon Fishings, pp. 362, 364 ; Alleged Illegal Possession of Salmon, p. 363 ; The Census Retnms for Scotland, p. 391 ; Magistrates, p. 391 Ships' Side-Lights (Qs.), pp. 326, 330 Swine Fevee (Q.), p. 329 Tenure op Irish Land (Qs.), p. 331 " The Times " and the Irish Members— A Ques- tion of Privilege, p. 367 Trade Union Peovident Funds Bill— Second Reading, pp. 361, 390 Tuberculosis Commission (Q.), p. 329 Vaccination Commission, The Report op jhb (Q.), p. 393 Volunteers, Deill-halls of (Q.), p. 330 Wages, War Office Ciecular as to (Q.), p. 330 Walsall Election (Qs.), p. 331 War Office Contracts (Q.),'p. 362 Welsh Suspensory Bill (Qs.), pp. 329, 330 Wilson, Me. Charles, The Case op (Qs. ana Notice), p. 326 Woolwich Arsenal, Discharges feom (Q.), p. 364 ; The Royal Arsenal Workmen (Q.), pi 392 - House- of" Lords/ February 9, 1893. 45 noble lord opposite (Lord Balfoar of Burleigh). In Bome favoured spots there was large provision for secondary education ; and in some parts, and particu- larly in the Highlands, there was little or none. If it were desirable, as it was confessed to be by the givxQg of the grant, to afford equal opportunities to the people throughout Scotland to get the benefit of secondary education, and if the grant were divided according to valuation, districts already favoured by existing provisions would receive money they would have some difficulty in spending. When it was proposed to ' make the grants in the same manner as the residue equivalent grants were made, it must not be overlooked that in the distribution of these to county councils and town councils some of them received a few pounds only. In soDie cases the amounts allocated would be so small that it would be impossible to expeud them to any advantage. If the grants were to be distributed in the fashion suggested by the noble marquis, the only bodies that could do so properly were the school boards. Some years ago certain town councils were interested in the borough schools, but now their interest in them had been transferred to the school boards. The noble marquis asked for delay, but he had probably overlooked the purpose for which the committees, on whose behalf he spoke, had been instituted. The county committees now in Scotland had been in- stituted solely for the purpose of inquiry, and not for the purpose of administering the funds. Great differ- ences of opinion were expressed as to the position of the schools which might properly be used for secondary education, and the object of the institution of the county council committees was that reports on that subject might be made, and that the waste which might have arisen under the original memorandum of the Department might be avoided. InWales they were dealing with a case where there was not an uuiform system of school boards ; but in Scotland there was such an uniform system, and it would be neces- sary that any scheme which might be produced should be formulated by a Minister and put before the country upon authority. Any delay in this matter might bo a serious thing. The primary object in giving the grant was that something might be done forthoburghschools in Scotland, which, from various circumstances, had long stood in an anomalous position, and there was no reason whatever why those schools should not receive a share of the £60,000. He would like to point out that the report of the committee over which he had presided especially guarded itself in the con- cluding paragraph against the idea that this system of distributing the grants was one which they recommended as a permanent raeihod of distribution. They desired to state their opinion that it must be a matter for further consideration whether this system of grants was the best mode of supporting secondary education in the future. Upon that point the committee reserved its opinion. What the future system was to be could not be decided until the Secretary for Scotland or the Government for the time being took up the question of secondary educa- tion. If the noble marquis would induce his county committees seriously to consider the matter some- thing might be done in the end to get that local control which was the object of the noble marquis. In the case of Wales, conferences were held between various counties with great advantage, and in the same way something might be done in Scotland to formulate a scheme for the conduct of secondary education in the future. But as he had said, the object of those county committees was by no means No, Secondary Education, Scotland, 4. -Vol. VIII. the administration of the grants, but to make in- quiry. The EAKL of KIMBERLEY -said that his noble friend had to a considerable extent anticipated what he had to say. The matter had for a considerable time been under the consideration of his noble friend who had presided over the committee. That committee had made its report, and a minute was laid before Parliament before the close of the last Session. The minute which had been laid before Parliament the first day of the present Session was in no respect different. As his noble friend had pointed out, the function of the county committees was somewhat mis- apprehended. They were appointed for the purpose of recommending what schools should receive a grant. He was told that there were two classes of opinion. There were some who thought that secondary educa- tion ought to be concentrated in large schools ; others that it should be given in schools scattered over the country. The Secretary for Scotland, however, would secure a fair distribution for the rural districts. It was in order as far as possible to secure such fair distribution that these committees had been organized. The intention of the grant was not to create secondary schools, but to aid existing schools. It was obvious that if an attempt were to be made with £60,000 to create secondary schools all over Scotland, the result would be that only a very small number of places would be benefited. It was open to noble lords to discuss the proposed distribution at any time in the statutory period during which the minute was required to lie on the table of both Houses of Parliament, Vvhen objections made would be listened to and carefully considered. The minute had been framed with a sincere desire to distribute fairly and equitably the amount of money available in the Department ; but he did not think it would be desirable to place in the hands of local bodies the entire control of the mqney to be ex- pended. SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION AT DEVIZES. The BISHOP of SALISBURY asked the Lord Pre- sident of the Council what provision was to be made for the number of children at Devizes who would apparently be without school accommodation at the end of this month. The EARL of KIMBERLEY said that the managers of the British School at Devizes having given notica of their intention to close it, the school accommoda-' tion of the town was to that extent about to be reduced. The question arose as to how the void was to be filled, but when the Department came to consider the whole matter it found it could not proceed without a census of the children of school age. It was obvious that it would be wrong for the Department to take any initiative without first knowing the facts, but:these ascertained, all the necessary steps would be taken as speedily as possible to secure proper and sufficient school accommoda- tion for the place. The BISHOP of SALISBURY said the point he wished to bring to the knowledge of the House was that the Department had not used due diligence in the matter. The managers gave notice in November last of their intention to close their, school on February 28. There had been plenty of time to obtain the necessary information long -ago, and he wished, therefore, to say that the Depart- ment had not really considered the interest of educa- tion. The House rose at ten minutes past 5 o'clock. The Earl of Elgin. G 46 House of Lords, February 10, 1893. FRIDAY, FEBRUABY 10. The LoED Chancellob took his seat on the wool- sack at a quarter-past 4 o'clock, THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. LORD NORTON, in putting three questions to the Lord President of the Council, said that a recent departmental circular of inquiries as to sites and sizes of school buildings, playgrounds, and apparatus indicated an intention of withholding grants from schools not coming up to a new standard of sufficiency on all these points. The Code of 1890 demanded i;enerally that all schools receiving grants should satisfy the department as to their healthiness, but restricted the application of any new requirement as to space to new buildings, and it relaxed the rules against building grants so as to afford Old schools special aid to conform to the increased requirements. The new circular threatened a general demand for increased requirements on pain of loss of grant even to those which had been built on plans approved at the time by the Department. The struggle was intense for private subscriptions to keep pace with unlimited public taxation in meeting the advancing requirements of school provision and apparatus. An unaided alteration of the tenns on which private contributions were g-iven to the public service would probably lose to the country a large number of voluntary schools. The second part of the question referred to numerous manifestoes of the Vice-President indicating greatly enlarged views as to what was called free education for all classes up to the higher regions of science, art, literature, and languages. If this were the policy of the Government it ought to be openly avowed. A few days ago the Vice-President received a deputation, which urged that, not only should instruction be free, but that the children of the poor should be provided with food and clothing in order that they might be able to benefit from instruction. The Vice-President cautioned the deputation that such ideas discarded all sense of parental responsibility, but still he hoped the county councils would soon have fuller powers, so that they could carry out their ideas. The right hon. gentler man foreshadowed the provision of secondai-y and technical education at the public expense for all classes. Was this the policy of the Government ? Then the Vice-President announced an intended con- centration of public education in one department. This was desirable in itself ; but the waste and evil involved in having several departments concerned in educational work were not so great a mischief as the overlapping and duplication of standards. He concluded by asking the Lord President of the Council whether the Vice-President's circular pre- paratory to more stringent requirements of school space was meant to apply retrospectively; and whether his proposal of free instruction, at public expense, in science, art, literature, and languages had Govern- ment authorit}^ ; and whether there was any intention of bringing together the various provisions for educa- tion now dispersed through four departments. The EARL of KIMBBRLBY, replying to the first question on the paper, reminded the noble lord of the origin of the movement for providing better accommodation in elemcmtary schools. The Royal Commission which reported in Jane, 1888, stated that the time had come when the State might well bo more exact in requiring for school children a proper amount of air and space, suitable premises, and a reasonable extent of playground. That report, which was signed by the noble lord opposite, was the foundation of the whole matter. The report went on to say that in the opinion of the Commission existing schools should be gradually, within a reasonable limit of time, brought np to such higher standard of accommodation. In the Code of 1890 there was a pro- vision that in the case of existing schools a special grant should be made in the event of their being required to bring their education up to a modem standard. That Code, however, was withdrawn. His noble friend evidently thought that the circular made some great change in the practice of the Depart- ment. It was, however, merely a circular of inquiry ; for surely it would be admitted that it was the abso- lute duty of the Department to fnmish themselves with correct information. There was nothing, there- fore, in the circular which ought to alarm any one who had the interests of education at heai-t. It seemed to be thought, in some quarters, there was a desire suddenly to come down on voluntary schools through- out the country and make a peremptory demand upon them to bring their accommodation, sanitary provision, and school apparatus up to the higher standard, and so by a side-wind to convert a large number of volun- tary schools into Board schools. That, in his opinion, would be a perfectly unjustifiable proceeding. The matter was one of time and opportunity and reasonable treatment of the different schools. He was confident that the managers of voluntary schools, who had done 60 much for the education of the country, would themselves admit that they must be prepared, in a reasonable time and manner, to bring up their schools to a standard more in accordance with the require- ments of the present day. With reference to the second question, relating to free instruction at the public expense in science, art, literature, and languages, he might reply that, as he had never heard .of any such proposal, he had no answer to give. The true meaning of any action taken by the Department was neither more nor less to secure that the provisions of the Act relating to free education should he duly carried into effect. With regard to the third point, a departmental com- mittee, consisting of officers of the Charity Commis- sion, the Education Department, and the Department of Science and Art, had been appointed to consider the questions of the organization of secondai-y educa- tion in England and Wales, and the relations of the departments among themselves in connexion with this subject. No scheme could be explained to his noble friend, because no scheme had been formed. It was not, in his opinion, at all an unwise step on the part of the Department to appoint a committee of this kind to consider whether anything could be done. LORD SANDFORD said that the requirement with respect to the size of classrooms and cloak- rooms pressed very hardly upon some of our present schools. A very stringent and early enforcement of some of the special rules was not possible in many of the voluntary schools. It was required that a school should provide a quarter of an acre for every 250 chil- dren. Their lordships had probably seen a school in the Seven Dials. The cost of the site of that school was enormous. According to the rules of the Depart- ment one acre ought actually be acquired for the building on that site. It was built in three storeys, and was to accommodate a thousand children. The playground was on the top of the building. There was no space around the school, the walls of which were flush with the streets on either side. It would take an enormous additional cost to acquire an aero on that site. With regard to gymnastic apparatus, it an The Education Department. The Earl of Kimberley. House of Lords, February 10 and 13, 1893. 47 in3pector visited the school and found uone that school should bo condemned. Again, the rule was, he believed, that the light should be from the left hand, but a great many schools in .London were built with the liglit facing the children. Were they, then, going to enforce an alteration in the lighting of every school? There were very nearly 6,000 schools in the country which had not 60 children in daily attend- ance. Were they going to say that those schools must be enlarged for further accommodation ? There were 340 schools with less than 20 children in attendance ; close upon 1,000 with less than 30 and 1,500 with less than 40. Ho wanted to know what they were going to do with the Jews' schools, which contained upwards of 4,000 children. Were they going to insist on 1,000ft. of corridor for hanging up their caps. (A laugh.) The DUKE of RUTLAND suggested to the noble earl that it might be advantageous that the circular should l^ couched in terms more in conformity with his own views. The MARQUIS of SALISBURY deprecated forcing upon the schools a new and more expensive standard. This was a point of great importance, and he thought the Department would do well if it would issue a circular which might be submitted to some non- offlcial critics, so that they might be certain that the plan had been duly considered. The noble earl must be aware that, at this period of distress and diificulty among the working classes, to unexpectedly compel the fulfilment of requirements which were often physically impossible, and which, at all events, would impose an intolerable burden on the Exchequer, already very much overstrained, would be a cruel thing to do ; ■ but ic would bo a much more cruel thing, if they did not really intend to enforce them, to lead people to believe that they were going to do so. The House rose at 20 minutes past 5 o'clock. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13. The Lord Chanoellok took his seat on the wool- sack at a quarter-past 4 o'clock. THE ADDRESS. The MARQUIS of BREADALBANE (Lord Steward of the Household) brought up her Majesty's reply to the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. PRIVATE BILLS. The following Bills were read a second time : — Aberdeen University Rill, Ayr Harbour Bill, Barking Town Wharf Bill, Belfast Castle (Cave Hill Footpath) Bill, Belfast Haroour Commissioners Bill, Belfast Water Bill, Bilston Commissioners (Water) Bill, Blackrock and Kingstown Drainage and Improvement Bill, Bristol Corporation Bill, Croydon Corporation Bill, Dublin Corporation Bill, Durham Coast Railway Bill, Bast Fife Central Railway Bill, Fishguard Bay Railway and Pier Bill, Folkestone Corpoiation Bill, Hunslet Railway Bill, Liveipool City Churches Bill, Manchester Corporation Bill, Manchester Corporation (Ship Canal) Bill, Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Tranmere Lands) Bill, Mersey Docks and Harbour I3oai-d (Various Powers) Bill, Mid Lothian County Buildings Bill, Perth Improvement Bill, Pontypridd Local Board (Gas) Bill, Rathmines and Rathgar Water and Improvement Bill, Runcorn Water Bill, St. George the Martyr, Southwark (Rector's Rale), Bill, St. Martin's Rectory (Birmingham) Bill, Sal- ford Corporation (Manchester Ship Canal) Bill, Sal- ford Improvement Bill, Sheffield Corporation Bill, Sheffield Corporation (Water) Bill, South Level Com- missioners Bill, Btockton-on-Tees Corporation (das) Ministerial Double Appointments. Bill, Todmorden Local Board Gas Pm-chasos Bill, Waterford Harbour Bill, Water of Leith Purification and Sewerage Bill, and Weaver Navigatiori Bill. MINISTERIAL DOUBLE APPOINTMENTS. LORD STANLEY of ALDERLBY rose to ask the Lord President whether he had applied to the Treasm-y for the salary belonging to his office, and to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, as guardian of, the interests of the Indian taxpayers, he had remou' strated against the salaiy of the Lord President being provided out of Indian taxes. He contended that the double appointment of Lord Kimberley as Secretary of State for India and Lord President of the Council, i and the ari'angement by which the last-named salaiy. was charged on the Indian taxpayers, was discredit-' able to the country and to the Prime Minister who had made it. He thought that the best solution o£ the difficulty would be that his noble friend should receive the salaries of both the offices which he held, (Laughter.) The duties of both offices were very onerous. With Mr. Acland in the Education Office and little or no restraint exercised over her Majesty's school inspectors, the Lord President would have a good deal to do, while with a falling rupee. Upper Burmah unpacified, and Lieutenant-Governors to resti-ain, a great deal of extra work would fall upon the Secretary of State for India. Though this would not relieve the Indian Treasury, yet it would remove the feeling of indignation that had been aroused in India by the economy practised by a rich country at the expense of a poor one. He quoted in support of his view the opinions of Lord Halifax and the Duke of Ai-gyll, and maintained that in the circumstances which he had described the Secretary of State for India had no choice but to insist that the First Lord of the Treasury should provide for the Lord President out of the British Exchequer. Hs would also move for papers. The EARL of KIMBERLEY said that there were no papers on the subject. He was exceedingly obliged to his noble friend for the way in which he had taken up the case. Re under.stood that the noble lord desired to augment the salary by £2,000 a year, though how that arrangement would benefit the Indian taxpayers he did not quite see. His noble friend also suggested that the salary should be divided into two parts, and he furnished an estimate of what the Mini- ster was worth as Lord President. It appeared from this that, comparing the business which fell on the Secretary of State for India with that of the Presi- dent of the Council, the proportions were as three- fifths to two-fifths. That was a rather undue estimate of the work which fell upon the Secretary of State for India, and the responsibility which he incurred, as compared with his duties as President of the Council. If he personally had to make an arrangement of the precise proportions he would be puzzled to do so. It should be borne in mind, however, that the President of the Council was also a Cabinet Minister, and a considerable part of his salary was given to him because he was and always had beon a member of the Cabinet. Perhaps his noble friend took the view that the right thing would be for the Indian Government to lease the Secrotaryof State to the BritishGovernment, who would pay so much per week to the Government of India for the amount of work he might perform. (Laughter.) But what did the Indian taxpayer lose by the present arrangement ? If it was the case that the duties which the Secretary of State for India had to perform as President of the Council v/ould prevent him from duly discharging the duties of Lord Stanley of Alderley. G— 2 48 House of Lords, February 13, 1893. Secretary of State, then he admitted that the Indian taxpayer would have a right to complain ; but if, on the other hand, he succeeded in discharging the duties of Secretary of State, in what respect could the Indian Treasury be injured ? The salary of £5,000 a year was fixed by Act of Parliament, and it was the duty of the Secretary of State for India to perform all the business of his office to the best of his ability. He had the advantage of having as a colleague in the Council Office a member of Parliament who was also in the Cabinet, and that greatly lightened his responsibility. Upon the whole, he thought that a great deal of unnccessai-y bother had been made about a very small matter. Although he was most anxious that no pains should be spared to guard the Indian Treasury against any unfair demands, he did not think that in this matter there was any call for interfer- ence on his part. The EABL of NOETHBEOOK said he was some- what disappointed by the answer of the noble earl. Perhaps the question was put rather in the form of a conundrum in reference to the two offices held by the noble earl, but the reply might be almost attributed to a Minister speaking in a third capacity as a representative of the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer in the English Government. He could not think for a moment that the noble earl as Secretary of State for India could have desired that the English Government and the English taxpayer should gain £2,000 a year by the arrangement which had been made by the noble earl occupying two offices. If the noble lord could discharge the duties of the two offices, it was quite clear the Indian Government should not pay the salary usually attached to the office of Secretary of. State. Let the matter be looked at from the point of viewof the Indian tax- payer. Prom year to year the salary of the Secretary of State for India had been increasing, because it was not paid in rupees, but was paid in sovereigns, and the same thing applied to all the home expenses of India. The sum involved in the matter raised by the question was a very small one, but still it involved the prin- ciple of dealing with the Indian taxpayer and Indian revenues in a just and equitable spirit. The aiTange- ment was an illustration of the French proverb that those who are absent always get the worst of it. Indian finance was determined by the English Govern- ment, and, notwithstanding remonstrances made by the Indian Government, it was determined with regard to English rather than Indian interests. Indian finances are in a condition of serious, not to say alarming, embarrassment. The Indian revenues bore the whole expense of the India Office at home, and he appealed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to say whether the colonies bore any part of the expense of the Colonial Office at home. Why should the British Government pay the whole cost of the Colonial Office and the Indian Exchequer bear the whole cost of the India Office ? In this time of great difficulty and danger to Indian finance, owing to the fall in the value of the rupee in gold, these charges became of immense importance, and he wished to ask whether the Government had considered the expe- diency of giving any relief to India in respect of all the charges now thrown upon the revenues of India. The MAEQUIS of KIPON said the noble earl had raised a question of very great magnitude, which could scarcely be discussed upon a question like that upon the paper. He admitted thatj the larger question required consideration at the present time, especially owing to the depreciation of the rupee, and a committee was sitting upon the subject to see what could be done by a general ai-rangement. Tbe EAEL of NOETHBEOOK asked whether the home charges were referred to the committee ? The MAEQUIS of EIPON was understood to reply in the negative. The reduction of the home charges was not a new question, and he had often wished it could be brought about. It was scarcely fair to say that the salary of the Secretary of State or the home charges had been increased because the rupee had fallen in value ; but he admitted that the loss and injury thereby sustained by India raised difficulties of a very serious kind, and constituted a just ground for giving to India every possible consideration in respect to home charges. As to. the smaller point raised by the question, the customary practice had been fol- lowed, and the Secretary of State drew the salary fixed by Parliament, and gave full attention to the duties of the office. The MARQUIS of SALISBUEY said of cowrse the amount involved in the salaries of the two offices was not one of great moment to either the English or the Indian Exchequer ; but the course which had been adopted in this instance was absolutely and entirely a nevr departm-e. He veiy much questioned the right to make use of an official paid by the Indian Treasury to do English work, and it was obvious that such an arrangement might be very inconveniently extended. Suppose we were dealing with some community less distant and less pacific than India, how would the matter be regarded ? It would be an admirable arrangement if the Home Secretary and the other four Secretaries of State should receive no salary- from Parliament, but should always draw it from the London County Council. (A laugh.) Their lordships must not measure the financial injury by the number of thousand pounds involved. People felt the in- justice keenly, and it mattered very little whether they had to pay a few thousand pounds more or less. After a few words in reply from LOBD Stanley of Aldekley, the subject dropped. ME. JUSTICE MATHEW. VISCOUNT MIDLETONrose to ask the Lord Chan* cellor (1) by whose authority a Judge of the 'superior Com'ts in England ' could be relieved of his judicial duties in order to undertake non-judicial duties in Ireland ; (2) whether during his absence he continued to draw the salary assigned to him by Parliament for the pertormance of his judicial duties in England ; (3) out of what funds the expenses of the Commission presided over by Mr. • Justice Mathow would ha defrayed. He said he did not deny that Parliament had full power to detach Judges from their judicial functions and charge them with other duties. That was done in the case of the Corrupt Practices ati Elections Act. A Commission had also been appointed by Parliament to inquire into certain charges against members of Parliament, and three Judges had been placed at tbe head of that Commission. The first instance in which without the authority of Parliament a Judge had been detached from his judicial duties to discharge duties, which were not judicial was that of Baron Dowse, who was placed upon the Bessborough Commission. In that case he did not say that any public inconvenience was caused. But it was a very different matter when fflr. Justice Day was taken from this country over to Ireland to preside, no doubt impartially, over the Belfast Commission. Mr. Justice Mathew, without the consent of Parliament, was taken away from the duties imposed upon him by Parliament at the very beginning of the Michaelmas Ministerial Double, Appointmenta. lie. Earl of Northbr ook. House- of Lords, February 13 and 14, 1893. 49 Term, at a time whea theie was an immense amount of legal business to be got through, when the arrears were most serious, and when six Judges had to leave their judicial duties to try the numerous election petitions which had sprung out of the late Parlia- mentary elections. The practice of detaching Judges from their official duties, as Mr. Justice Mathew had been detached, without the sanction of Parliament, ought to be put an end to. He would like to know by whose authority Mr. Justice Mathew had been released from his judicial duties in this country and seat over the Channel to exercise non- judicial duties. There mast be some authority to prevent Judges from taking whatever work fell in their way. There must be some one competent to exercise control over their movements. Was it the noble and learned lord on the woolsack or the Lord Chief Justice ? Was it not possible for a Ministry who had been foisted into power by a majority of the Irish representatives, and who expj^essed the utmost confidence in Irishmen, to find on the Irish Bench, or at the Irish Bar, or in the ranks of the Irish civil servants a single individual competent to deal with an Irish question to be viewed from an Irish standpoint. With regard to the second point, he wished to know whether Mr. Justice Matbew during his absence on non- judicial dnties in Ireland continued to receive the salary assigned to him_ by Parliament for the discharge of judicial duties in England. If he did, a very great hardship was inflicted upon English suitors. Every one knew that a great grievance was infiiicted on suitors by delays, and that a large part of the salaries of the Judges was derived from the suitors' fees. If, there- fore, a Judge devoted his time to other than judicial duties he did a wrong t6 the suitors. With respect to the third question, there was no doubt that the expenses of the Commission would be very heavy. He had himself been a member of more than one Koyal Commission, and they had been obliged to hold their investigations in a very modest room. But in this case a house had been taken in one of the most expensive quarters in Dublin, for how long he did not know. Upon whose authority and from what funds were the expenses of this Commission to be drawn ? Whether those expenses were to be sanctioned or not was not a question for their lordships' House ; but he might fairly ask whether Mr. Justice Mathew had continued to receive his salary from the time he had been detached from his official duties in England. The LORD CHANCELLOR.— The noble lord must be aware that learned Judges placed on these Commis- sions have, in the discharge of their duties as Com- missioners, undoubtedly, from time to time attended to the work of these Commissions, although it has to some extent interfered with the performance of the judicial functions which they would otherwise dis- charge. These Commissions have been appointed on the recommendation of the Ministers of the day. There has never been, so far as I know, any express authority for relieving a Judge from his judicial duties, but down to this moment it has never, so far as I am informed, happened that a Judge appointed to a Commission on the advice of the Minister of the day did not feci justified in discharging his duties a.3 a Commissioner, even although they should interfere with his judicial duties. There are many such cases, such as the Oommission for the Abolition of Purchase in the Army over which Vice-Chancellor James pre- sided. With respect to non- judicial duties, I am not aware of any difference in this respect between a Commission of inquiry into questions affecting Ire- land and a Commission appointed to inquire into questioils affecting England. Undoubtedly, in the case of the Commission over which Mr. Justice Day presided — that relating to the Belfast riots — it seems to me that Parliament assumed that there was power of appointing an English Judge on the Commission, and that he might lawfully attend to the duties of the Commission although he was an English Judge. As to the question " whether during his absence ha continues to draw the salary assigned to him by Par- liament for the performance of bis judicial duties in England," undoubtedly he does, as have all judicial persons who from time to time have been appointed upon Royal Commissions. It is a mistake to suppose that the salary of a Judge comes out of suitors' fees. It is borne on the Consolidated Fund whether he is an English or an Irish Judge, so that as regards the tax- payer it does not make the slightest difference in the world. Then as to the question " oat of what funds the expenses of the Commission presided over by Mr. Justice Mathew will be defrayed," the expenses will be paid out of a vote for temporary Commissions. I am quite alive to the inconvenience of taking a Judge away from his judicial duties to carry on a public inquiry (hear, hear) except such as concerns the ad- ministration of the law, and I hope that the occasioni on which this is done will be rare. (Hear, hear.) The House rose at 25 minutes after 5. TUESDAY, FEBBUAJRY 14. The LoED Chanobllob took his seat on the wool- sack at a quarter past 4 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following Bills were read a second time :— « Frimley and Famborough District Water, Tranmerer' Dock and Railway, and Ilkley Local Board. THE DEBTORS ACT. The LOED CHANCELLOR rose to call attention to the subject of committals under the Debtors Act and to move for the appointment of a Select Committee. He said the law of 1869 provided that in future there should be no imprisonment for making default in the payment of sums of money with certain exceptions, Ke need not trouble their lordships by referring to these exceptions as they did not bear on the ques- tion. They related to such matters as fraudulent trustees and so on, and, according to the theory of the Act, imprisonment for non-payment was only to take place where that non-payment might be called fraudulent — that is, being able to pay, and ordered to pay, and refusing to pay. Obviously such a person was regarded as a fraudulent person. The number of personsV'committed under the Act was very large. For the year ending March 31 last the number of persons imprisoned was no less than 8,955, and of these 5,852 were imprisoned by commitments in the County Courts. The matter was, therefore, one. of considerable moment, inasmuch as the number sent to prison was' very large. What happened was this. A debtor was ordered to pay the amount due by instalments. If an instalment was not paid inquiry was made inta the means of the defaulting debtor. If it was founoB that he had means and did not pay be was sent to* prison for a period not exceeding six weeks. It wasi difficult for County Court Judges to satisfy themselvcigi' clearly as to what the means of a debtor were. No doubt they made the best inquiry they could, but he thought it was absolutely certain that in many cases they did' not get at the facts. Not unfrequently it happened that the debtors had not the means to pay, and they were not fraudulent in regard to the non-payment of Ml. Justice Mathewt Viscoimt Midleton. 50 House of Lords, February 14, 1893. the debt. There could be no doubt that this power of imprisonment did result in the payment of debts which would not otherwise be paid. But this was by a man's relatives subscribing the money to save him from going to gaol. The consequence of this was that too often innocent persons were punished. He did not think there was auy substantial difference of opinion among the Coanty Court Judges — indeed, among the Judges of the superior Courts— as to the difficulty of finding out a man's means. There had been recom- mendations that this power in respect of imprison ment for debt should be altogether put an end to. These were matters of great controversy into which he should not enter, and he contented himself with recommending the appointment of a Select Committee to consider and advise upon the question. If they heard those who administer the law and the represen- tatives of the working classes they would be able to collect a useful amount of information likely to guide the Legislature as to determining whether it would abolish or modify the present law. Ho concluded ly moving that a Select Committee be appointed. LORD ASHBOURNE said there had been a long- continued controversy on this subject, and it would be an advantage to have it inquired into by a com- mittee, which would be able to take evidence and consider it with a view to recommending what ought to be done. LOKD MONKSWELL also supported the motion, and mentioned, as points for consideration, on which practice was divergent, regard to means of payment acquired subsequent to a committal order, and the onus of proof as to a debtor's pecuniaiy position, whilst he said it was also desirable that there should bo statutory provision as to tbe temporally suspension of the execution of a writ. The motion was then agreed to. THE STATE OF KERKY. The MARQUIS of LONDONDERRY said that when he last addressed their lordships he drew attention to certain occurrences in parts of Ireland, particularly in the counties of Kerry and Clare, which seemed to indicate an unsatisfactory position of affairs, especially with reference to the increase of serious ciime. He was accused of credulity in assuming the accuracy of statements which appeared in daily newspapers ; and therefore he proposed, when such statements appeared, to ask the Government whether they could confirm or contradict them. He therefore asked her Majesty's Government whether their attention had been drawn to a paragraph in the Dublin Daily Express of Thurs- day, February 9, which, referring to " The State of Kerry," stated that — " On Monday and Tuesday nights a number of men who were disguised with masks and sackcloth over their clothes visited the houses of several farmers in the district between Tralen and the Spa and demanded money and arms. In most instances they were successful. The gang also surrounded the car on which a clergyman was driving to visit a sick lady, but when they found who their prisoner was they ran off " ; whether such paragraph was correct ; and, if so, whether any person or persons have been made amenable for any or all of these outrages. LORD ACTON.— I will endeavom-, as briefly as I can, to satisfy the vigilant curiosity of the noble marquis. The infoiTnation he has received touching outrages in Kerry, information which, by an interest- ing coincidence, appeared at the same time in several party newspapers, is, to speak with reserve, absolutely untrue. It is true that certain persons at the place and time specified did combine, did proceed from The State of Kerry. house to house, and did carry off all tho money they could obtain. These armed moonlighters, my lords, were children. They were keeping, according to local custom, a religious anniversary. (Great laughter.) Your lordships will remember, at least are aware, that the fith of November is not kept in that part of the country ; and Gay Fawfces has dropped out of the calendar. On St. Bridget's Eve the children go about in this way, singing and dancing, and collect- ing coppers from the neighbours. Their weapon of offence, for they have a weapon of offence, is a broomstick, which is dressed up and decorated like a doll, and is technically known as a Biddy. This is not the first time in the Session that the noble marquis, with his great opportunities and advantages m the study of Irish affairs, has challenged the Government upon them ; and I almost venture to entertain a hope that it may not be the la.st. (Hear, hear.) The MARQUIS of LONDONDERRY said he could not think the British public would regard tho answer as altogether satisfactory. The so-called children began by disguising themselves, and so disguised made these attacks on dwelling-houses. He hoped the custom would not extend to other counties. If these were really children, and if this practice was in no way connected with the moonlighting that had gone on in Kerry, he should only be glad to have elicited that assurance. LORD ACTON.— I regret that I forgot to say that these children dress themselves up in masquerading costume. I also did not say, as I might Have done, that the whole story is a hoax. THE CHURCH IN WALES. The MARQUIS of SALISBURY.-It appears we must be careful in adopting what we hear and read. I have heard such strange things about what the Home Secretary has said in another place that I shall be satisfied to put thequestiou of which I have given notice to the most rev. prelate, referving any observations I may have to make. I ask the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury whether it is true that the Goveinment hav&directed the Ecclesia.'tical Commission to pro- ceed, in dealing with the four Wel.-h dioceses, as if the Suspensory Bill, which has been announced, had already passed into law. Tho ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY.- The best answer I can give to the question will be to read the minute of what passed on the occasion to which the question refers. The Estates Committee of the Ecclesiastical Commission had for some time had under their consideration the desirability of forming, under their statutory powers, a new. ecclesiastical district atColwynBay. A church— St. Paul's, Colwyu Bay — had been built and consecrated ; and the pre- liminary arrangements had been made some years ago by the former Bishop of St. Asaph (Bishop Hughes). The matter was to come before the board at its meet- ing on Thursday last, when, to quote the official minute, there was read,—" A communication from Mr. H. M. Suft on behalf of the Lord President of the Council, forwarding copies of a letter from Mr. J. Herbert Roberts, M.P., and of a petition to her Majesty from the Rev. W. Veoables Williams, the vicar of the parish of Llandrillo-yn-Ehos, in the diocese of Saint Asaph, protesting against the assign- ment of a separate district out of that parish to tho consecrated church of St. Paul, Colwyn Bay. Mr. Roberts urges that, independently of the personal con- siderations set forth by Mr. WilliamB, it would not bo justifiable, in view of the Suspensory Bill relating to Wales about to be brought into Parliament, for Lord Acton, House of Lords, February 14, 1893. 51 the Commissioners to create a new cure, and there- fore a new ecclesiastical vested interest. Mr. Leveson-Gower stated thaft he was authorized on behalf of her Majesty's Government to deprecate, in ,view of contemplated legislation, the assignment of any new districts within the Welsh dioceses." This matter was taken into consideration, and after de- liberation the following order was made : — "That th^ Lord President be informed that the objections of Mr. Veiiables Williams will be carefully weighed by the Commissioners before any decisive action is taken in the matter of fonning the proposed district, but that the Commissioners would not feel justif.od in withholding their sanction to the scheme on the general ground specified by Mr. Koberts." The latter part of the foregoin? reso- lution was not concurred in by Mr. Levescn-Gower. I will just add that this is the minute prepared for confirmation by the Board at the next meeting, that it has been shown to Mr. Leveson-Gower by the secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and that Mr. Leveson-Gower acquiesces in its correctness. The MARQUIS of SALISBURY.— After what has been said by the most rev. prelate, I feel bound to enter the most earnest protest against the conduct of her Majesty's Government in this matter. (Cheers.) They have been guilty of a most gross and unconstitu- tional transgression of the powers which they hold in regard to the Ecclesiastical Commission. (Cheers.) If it had been an uncontested matter, and it was quite certain the Bill tbey were going to propose would pass through Parliament, it would have been at all events a very venial irregularity if they had asked the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to concur in, to co-operate with, the policy indicated by that measure. But they were perfectly aware that no such charac- ter attaches to the Suspensory measure which they propose. They were aware it was a highly controversial and as bitterly disputable a measuie as it is possible to propose. (Cheers.) They had no ground for thinking that Parliament would adopt it. If they appeal to the precedent of the Irish Church, they know very well that a similar Suspensory Bill in that case was rejected by Parliament, and there is no precedent whatever for the adoption of such a Bill. I should have said that, even if I'arlia- ment had adopted it, the differences between thi.s time and that are very wide. The Irish Church, whatever the merits of its disestablishment may be, is no pre- cedent whatever for the four dioceses of the Province of Canterbury with which it is proposed to deal in Wales. There are many points of difference. One of them is that the Iriish Church belonged to a com- munion differing from the belief of the large majority of the old inhabitants of the country. The dioceses of Wales bold a faith and belong to a Church which has existed, at all events, very much longer than the com- munion of any of those who challenge its existence. (Cheers.) There was no doubt in the case of the Irish Church that those who dilfered from it were in a very largemajority. They "n erenot ashamed of their religion, those who differed from the Irish Church. Thoy did not resist the institution of a census, and we knew by the testimony of Government figures that the Roman Catholics were in a very large majority over the Church that was in communion with the Church of England. But in the case of Wales we have no know- ledge of the kind. We are told by interested persons that there is a majority of Welsh Nonconformists, but decade after decade they have conscientiously shrunk from "allowing that pretension to be submitted to the only test by which its veracity could be ascertained. (Laughter.) When people perpetually make assertions of which they perpetually refuse to allow the exami- nation and the proof, it is probable that the assertion is false. (Cheers.) But, my lords, there are other reasons which separate very much the condition of the Irish Church from that of the Welsh dioceses of the Province of Canterbury. We have lived many years since then. We know a great deal more of political science and its practice than we did in 1869, We know what the results of disestablishing a Church are. We know the gloomy series of destructive measures and proposals which in Ireland have followed the dis- establishment of the Church. We know that robbery of the Church is followed by the robbery of the land- lords, and by proposals for the mutilation of the State. (Cheers.) What we have leamt by experience with respect to Ireland will guide, I am ptrongly con- vinced, the action of this cotmtry with respect to Wales. Even if these things were not true, even if there were no such strong elements of difference be- tween the two cases, even if Parliament has not rejected, as it did reject, a Suspensory Bill in the past, still it would have been a matter of common decency that a measure of this in- tense importance — a measure constituting an abso- lutely new departure from anything that has taken place in our history before — it would have been decent on the part of the Executive not to attempt, by private action or importunity or menace, anticipating a de- cision of the Legislature. My lords, it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the new step which is taken. Mr. Gladstone has the credit of being the first Minister since the Restoration who has lifted his hand to strike down and despoil the Church of Eng- land. This is not the time to enter into the grounds of his conduct, to appreciate its character, or the fitness of the hand from which this blow is going forth. But no one can differ from me in this, that this is a turning point in our history. (Hear, hear.) It is a new departure. It is a proposal for the mutila- tion of an institution older than any dynasty, older than any estate in this country. It is a proposal fraught with the most tremendous results to all other ancient institutions in this laud, and I repeat that it was a matter of common decency that her Majesty's Government should abstain from trying to obtain an anticipatory and preliminary approval and confirmation of this revolutionary policy by a secret action, taken, without notice and without authority, upon an ecclesiastical body over whom they have no authority whatever. (Cheers.) The EAUL of KIMBERLBY.— The noble marquis has travelled, as perhaps is natural, far beyond the que.stio" which was answered by the most rev. prelate, and has ta sen occasion to repeat in terms which do not err on the side of weakness the old story of the robbery of the Church and the robbery of the landlords of Ireland, while the measure now before Parliament is described as revolutionary. I will not go into the old story. I do not admit that the Church was robbed in Ireland, and I utterly deny that the landlords were robbed. (Ironical laughter.) I challenge anybody to point out wherein the condition of the Irish landlords in respect of their rents, which I suppose is the main matter they have to care for, is in any respect worse and not in many respects better than that of landlords in England. The noble marquis has referred to a measure now before the other House and concerning which I shall not be induced to say a word. With regard to the question relating to that portion of the Church of England which exists in Wales, it would be far more appropriate to discuss that important question The Church in Wales, The Marauis of Salisbury. 'S2 House of Lords, Febrnair liT'lS^' when the measure protnised in the Queen's Speech is before yonr lordships. In due time and place we shall be prepared'to defend the policyof that measure andoiir action in regard to it. I should like, however, very shortly to describe myown action in connexion with the question on the paper. That action consisted ia simply Bending certain commuaications in ordinary course to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and in reply I re- ceived the letter which has been quoted by the most rev. prelate. On receiving, that letter I directed that a reply should be sent to Mr. Roberts in pre- cisely identical terms in my capacity as President of the Council. I apprehend it was perfectly open to Mr. Leveson-Gower, as Church Estates Commissioner, to take the course which he thought fit in regard to the particular matter. The MAKQUIS of BALISBUEY was understood to Bay that his complaint was that Mr. Leveson-Gower spoke on behalf of the Government. The EARL of KIMBBELBr.— I have not understood that there has been any general decision of her Majesty's Government that the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners should be in any way prevented from exercising their discretion with regard to a matter coming before them. The Eccle- siastical Commissioners are an independent body The Commissioners might express an opinion that one particular course would be better than another, but I am not aware of any general decision by the Govern- ment calling upon the Commissioners not to exercise the authority which they undoubtedly possess. LORD ASHBOURNE said as he understood Mr. Leveson-Gower was the official representative of her Majesty's Government on the iBoard of her Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and appeared to be speak- ing as the representative of her Majesty's Government. The position of the question, therefore, appeared to be this — the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, wielding their immense powers under statute, had an application made to them by her Majesty's Government that they should suspend some of their most important functions and should dare to take upon themselves a line of action grossly unconstitutional and without one atom of excuse or justification. (Hear, hear.) The Home Secretary, when asked a question in the other House that evening, stated that Mr. Leveson-Gower was pro- ceeding upon his own initiative. But that answer was inconsistent with the statement of Mr. Leveson- Gower. Whether there was a general consensus on the part of the Government, or Mr. Leveson-Gower believed that there was, he was within his right with his ambassadorial functions when he told the Commissioners that her Majesty's Government, in view of a Suspensory Act, not introduced or printed, desired that they should suspend some of their most important functions which they were_ bound by statute to exercise. (Hear, hear.) He found it difficult to imagine — ^perhaps it was the result of his legal ^train- ing, — any line of conduct more grossly unconstitutional or indefensible from a legal point of view. (Hear, hear. ) There was no reason whatever to suppose that a Suspensory Bill, if brought in, would go through, but it had never even come before Parliament. In 1889, when Mr. Dillwyn moved a resolution on the subject, an amendment was carried by a majority of 53 to the effect that, having regard to the great and grow- ing influence of the Church in Wales and especially ■" the nature of the work which it was doing in the Principality, the House was not prepared to adopt the resolution. In the debate on the subject Mr. Byron-Reed quoted from a speech of Mr. Glad- stone the statement that there was complete eccle- siastical, constitutional, and he might add historical Identity between the Church in Wales and the Church in England ; that he would not say what it would be right to do provided Wales was separated from Eng- land as Ireland was, but the contrary was the case, and therefore he thought it was practically impossible to separate the case of Wales from the case of Eng- land. (Hear, hear.) All that went to weaken the suggestion that there could be any belief on the part of her Majesty's Government, when Mr. Leveson- Gower made the statement in question, that Parlia- ment could be expected to adopt the Bill. In 1868, before the Suspensory Bill was introduced, a resolution was carried after a long debate ; an address had then to be presented to the Crown, an answer was received on the 28th of May, and on the day after Mr. Glad- stone, in presenting the Suspensory Bill, said that it had derived a moral force from the resolution passed a few days before. If that was so there was another link wanting in the present case. The Government seemed now to desire to repudiate Mr. Leveson-Gower, but that was a matter between Mr. Leveson-Gower and her Majesty's Government. No one who knew Mr. Leveson-Gower would believe that on a matter vitally affecting the Church he was speaking on the authority of others and not of the Government. (Hear, hear.) That was a very serious que.stion. It was an effort made to suggest to a great Board that it was the desire of her Majesty's Government that they should, without law and in anticipation of what might become law, apply some sort of undermining to a Church which was part of the Church of England. That was, in effect, to apply a dispen.sing power which was revolting to the whole spirit of our laws. (Hear, hear.) But it was not the only instance. When in Ireland it came into the mind of the Government to make the instructions to the sheriff more intelligible and to substitute for his discretion something else, that was applying a dispensing power. No effort had been made openly to throw over Mr. Leveson-Gower. The noble earl, using cautious words, only said he was not aware of any general decision of the Government as to the policy to be adopted on this question. The EARL of KIMBERLBY said that what he did state was that no general decision had been arrived at as to requesting the Ecclesiastical Commissioners not to exercise the power which they possessed. LORD ASHBOURNE said that Mr. Leveson-Gower then must have been instructed before the Cabinet had arrived at its general decision, because he conveyed to the Commissioners that he was only the mouthpiece of the Government in what he did say. (Hear, bear.) The position was not satisfactory, and he hoped that a more satisfactory explanation would be forthcoming before this controversy closed. (Hear, hear.) The LORD CHANCELLOR demurred to the sugges- tion that the Church Estates Commissioner was to be viewed as a representative of the Government in the Ecclesiastical Commission. Personally ho believed that he had the honour to be a member of the Ecclesi- astical Commission, and, as he understood the case, the Church Estates Commissioner appointed by the Government had no more status, power, or authority than any jother individual of the Commission. In considering the point raised with regard to the con- stitutional question, it was necessary to see what was the nature of the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission. This Commission was an absolutely independent body and the Government of the day had not the slightest power over it. Any representation made to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by the The Ohurch in Wales. Lord Ashbourne. House of Lords, February 14 and 16, 1893. 53 Government of the day would no doubt receive as much consideration and attention as the Commissioners chose to give it, and if the Commissioners thought It a reasonable representation and one to be acted upon they would no doubt approve it ; but, if they thought that the contrary was the case, undoubtedly the Commissioners would not act upon it. The strong language which had been used, therefore, appeared to be out of place when the relations of the Government and the Ecclesiastical Commission were borne in mind. Supposing the Government of the day thought it was desirable, in view of what might take place, that the Ecclesiastical Commission should not commit itself to a particular course, the Commissioners would be entitled either to reject or act upon the recom- mendation. Where, then, was the unconstitutional act, or the violation of the law 'I The Commissioners were' just as independent in this matter of the Government as the Government were of them. LORD NORTON said the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners were an independent body for one special pur- pose, but that in this instance they had been asked by the Government to depart from that purpose in order to facilitate the disestablishment of the Welsh Church. Thcyhad been made akind of cat's-paw in the fm'ther- ing of a measure which it was known the Government had in contemplation. The House rose at 20 minutes to 6 o'clock. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16. The LOBD Chancellok took his seat on the wool- Back at a quarter-past i o'clock. NEW PEER. LoET) Steatheden and Campbell took his seat in succession to his brother, deceased. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following Bills were read a second time : — Birmingham Canal Bill, East and West India Dock Bill, Great Eastern Railway (Cambridge New Line, &c.) Bill, Great Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill,' Imperial Continental Gas Association Bill, Manchester Ship Canal (Additional Capital, &o.) Bill, New Swindon Gas Bill, Scottish Provident Institution Bill, Ci-ystal Palace District Gas Bill, General Life and Fire Assurance Company Bill, Dublin Distillers Company Bill. THE LAND QUESTION IN WALES. THE EARL of DUNRAVBN asked the Lord Presi- dent of the Council to lay upon the table of the House, or otherwise to inform the House as to, the evidence upon which her Majesty's Government decided to recommend the ijsue of a Royal Commis- sion to examine into the land question in Wales. He thought that the issue of a Royal Commission to inqaire into the land question in any part of the United Kingdom was a matter concerning which Par- liament ought to be informed. At present Parliament was, especially as far as this House was concerned, in a condition of utter darkness aa to the objects,nature, and scope of the proposed inquiry. It was also in total ignorance on a most vital point. No knowledge whatever was forthcoming concerning the reasons which had actuated her Majesty's Government, nor of the necessity for or the justification of such an inquiry. It would not begainsaid that Royal Commissions never ought to issue without sufficient cause shown. As a general mle a Royal Commission was gpnted after an inquiiy had been demanded and a cause for inquiry shown in Parliament. Of course there were excep- tions. A Government might be perfectly justified in recommending a Royal Commission pui-ely on its own The L^ud Question in Wales.. initiative, as, for instance, the Labour Commission. But as a rulo Royal Commissions followed upon motions made and sustained in Parliament. The present case differed, however, very widely from the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the labour question. In that case no reasonable man would deny that a case for inquiry existed. In this case no reasonable man, as far as he was aware, had asserted that any case for inquiry existed, and certainly no sufficient proof had been adduced. He ventured to ask the other day one or two very simple questions to which he thought direct and simple answers might have been returned, but he received no reply. He asked what was the land question in Wales ; in what way the land question in Wales, whatever it was, differed from the land question in England, whatever that might he. He was quite at a loss to understand the meaning of this distinction between England and Wales in respect of anything that could be called a land question. The system of tenure generally and the system of management generally were identical in England and Wales. There might be differences in detail, differences of local colour, in Wales as there were in England ; but in such variations some parts of Wales resembled parts of England, andsomeparts of Eng- land resembled parts of Wales. There were no peculiari- ties in Wales, taken as a whole, which differentiated it in any way from England. There was no absolute homogeneity in Wales in respect of custom or estate management, neither was there in England. Counties and districts differed from each other slightly in England and in Wales in matters of detail, but certainly no difference whatever existed between England taken as a whole and Wales taken as a whole that could in any way justify an inquiry in Wales which was not equally justifiable in other portions of Great Britain. He commended this to the notice of noble lords who were interested in land in England and Scotland. Of this they might he sure — ^that if any solid reason, any reason other than mere political motive, existed for an inquiry of this nature in Wales it existed with equal force with reference to the greater part of Scotland and England. It was absolutely impossible to draw any distinct line, to invent any zone of demarcation, separating Wales from the rest of Great Britain in this respect. What was the object of attempting thus to create a spurious difference, to man'jfacture a' distinction which did not naturally exist ? What was the in- tention of the Government in thus drawing invidious and imaginary distinctions between the Principality and the rest of this kingdom? The Government were engaged upon one operation involving dismemberment of the United Kingdom ; was not that sufficient for them ? Had they not better wait until they had brought that to a satisfactory conclusion before sharpening their knives for another operation ? To an inquiry into land tenure generally he saw no great objection. It would be purely academic, but it would be interesting to investigate the various systems in vogue in different countries and their results and effects. What he so much objected to was this attempt to discrimi- nate where no ground for discrimination existed, and where the attempt to create differences and arouse antagonism must produce evil results. (Hear, hear.) What, then, was this land question in Wales, and in what respect was it different from the land question in England ? He was not asking for informa- tion which he could have obtained for himself. He had looked and searched in vain for any justification for the issue of this Eoyal Commission. He turned to the natural fountain-head of information — the Prime The Earl of Dnnraven. House of Lords, February IG, 1893. Minister — and be got but little satisfaction there. (Laughter.) On the 31st of last month the Prime Minister said in his place in Parliament ; — ** It is the intention of the Government, proceeding partly from recollection of debates in this House during last Session, and in no small part of what has taken place in Wales during the recess, to issue a Eoyal Com- mission for the purpose of examining into the land question in Wales." The action of the Government appeared to be founded on two things — recollection of debates in the House of Commons, and something or other that had taken place in Wales. The debate alluded to was a debate on a motion for the second reading of a Bill to create an admirably absurd land system in Wales consisting of the three F's and several other things. If her Majesty's Government had come to this determination from recollection of that debate their memory must he of a very defective character. No reasonable and responsible person could find in that debate any ground whatever for instituting an inquiry which, if it was not needed to prepare the way for the remedy of serious grievances, was calcu- lated to do an infinity of harm. Nothing tangible came out in that debate except, perhaps, that certain tenant-farmers who had entered into contracts to pay tithes had been evicted because they broke their con- tracts. Without going into the rights and wrongs of that matter, and whether people were thus justified in refusing to fulfil contracts they had entered into, it was sufficient to say that it could not occur again. The dissimilarity of language and religion between the majority of landowners and the majorityof tenants was mentioned ; but the doctrine that religious opinions carried disabilities and that ethnological variations aifected the security of property sounded strange at the present day. Every particle of evidence which could be found in that debate was fully answered beforehand in the report of the Koyal Com- mission presided over by the Duke of Richmond. It would be merely to insult the intelligence of the noble lords opposite to suppose for a moment that as responsible politicians and as her Majesty's advisers they could found an inquiry of this nature on anything that occurred in that debate. Then as to the other reason — the something that had taken place in Wales. What had taken place in Wales ? Nothing that he was aware of, except that the equilibrium of the Princi- pality might have been slightly disturbed by some rather ill-advised speeches of the Prime Minister. In one of those speeches he stated that, partly from the investigation of public and authentic returns, he had found things that caused him both surprise and pain. From reference to the income-tax returns the right hon. gentleman came to the conclusion that rents had not been reduced in Wales to the extent that they had been in England. The whole matter narrowed itself down to a rent question, then. He was not going into a critical examination of the figures. The falsity of deductions made ffom them was proved by the falsity of the figures which had been amply proved over and over again since Mr. Gladstone spoke. The untrust- worthiness of such evidence was amply proved by the fact that it appeared on examination of income-tax re- turns thatthe valuation of land in I reland was practical ly the same for the year 1889-90 as it was in the year 1879-80, whereas every humaa being knew perfectly well that rents had largely decreased. It would bo easy to point out the ereat variation of value of land in different counties in Wales and England, easy to show how a general average was affected by local Tjeculiarlties. The sweeping assertion that rent had fallen only 7 per cent, in Wales as against 24 per cent, in England was based on figures which equally proved that for the last 10 years rents had not fallen in Ireland at all ; and that reduced the argument to an absui-dity. (Hear, hear.) He imputed no improper motive to the Prime Minister in making these hasty and misleading statements. He then occupied a position of partial irresponsibility. Although in office, he had scarcely felt the salutary effect of his responsible position. The Prime Minister was excited by success, and in an unguarded moment he might quote hastily from unreliable figures and so make a popular statement in an out-of-door speech. But the deliberate decision of a Government after six months of ofiice was a very different matter from a speech delivered at a kind of picnic on the crags of Snowdon. It was impossible to oonceive that the Government could really come to the conclusion that a Royal Commission was necessary on account of the alleged differences in reductions of rent founded upon figures which they knew were perfectly un- reliable in such a case. But, if they did so, the theory that was involved was simply this — that it was part of the functions of a Prime Minister or of the Executive Government to decide between man and man as to the management of their business within the law ; to decide whether A has been as liberal as B in matters of rent reduction. Such a theory could not be confined to agricultural rents. If they were within the functions of a Government it was equally the duty of a Government to investigate the wages paid by different individuals or firms ; to investigate the prices charged by different firms, shopkeepers, or individuals. It was claiming a right of interference on the part of the Executive that went to the root of our whole social structure, and would revolutionize it. As applied to land it simply meant that it might be held and occupied, not in fee simple, not by con- tract or by custom, or by any known form of tenure, but at the goodwill and pleasure of the Minister and Government of the day. That was all that appeared on the surface to have occurred in Wales. Had any- thing else occuiTcd ? What was the matter with the Principality ? Were her Majesty's Government dis- satisfied with the political condition of gallant little Wales ? Wales returned them 31 members in the last general election, and only three members pledged to the Union. The vote cast for the Union was more than half the vote cast for separation. Say, in round numbers, that the Gladstonian vote was in the propor- tion of two to one of the Unionist vote ; but the representation was in the pronortion of nine to one. Something must be going wrong. Was the Nonconformist conscience beginning to quicken ? Was Wales becom- ing wobbly in her allegiance ? Were the Bills for maiming the Church and disabling religion not suffi- cient to hold the party together ? There had been certain ominous grumblings, certain rumours of dis- satisfaction. Eor instance, at a meeting of. the North Wales Liberation Federation onSaturday itwas decided to call upon the Welsh m.embers to withdraw their support to the Home Rule Bill if their wishes in other respects were not more promptly attended to. They support the Home Rule Bill in consideration of disestablishment ; but, if the Home Rule Bill becomes law, there is no possibility whatever of realizing the promises of disestablishment and disendowment. Wales will have performed her part of the bar- gain and must infallibly he done out of the reward. Welsh members vote for Homo Rule, for which they care nothing, because they are promised dis- establishment : but they have at length discovered that, unless the Irish members remain in full force Tlio Land Question in Vvale.'. The Earl of Dunraven. House of Lords, February IG, 1893. 55 at Westminster und vote on purely British subjects, the British Church cannot be disestablished in Wales. Had it become necessary to dangle another and more succuJent earrot in the shape of land legislation before the patient animal that had blindly followed for so long ? (Hear, hear.) In the absence of any better evidence it was impossible to avoid the conclu- sion that political motives anj the desire to make political capital were the true origin and i-eason of this Commission to inquire into the laud question in Wales. A commission of inquiry iuto a matter of this kind was no light matter. It was treated as of little consequence the other day' in this House by Lord Monkswell, who entertained an idea of the super- natural wisdom and beneficence of lloyal Commissions more creditable to his heart than to his head. He did not share this belief in Uoyal Commissions at all times and under auy Government. When not required, when not justified, when sot on foot to curry cheap popularity, they might do great harm. We had had strange experiences of late years. Noble lords opposite should really tiy and realize that since they took to bad company and evil ways their political morals had terribly deteriorated. (A laugh.) We had had a rather curious experience of a Koyal,orViceregal, Commission quite lately. We had also seen a most unconstitu- tional and dospolic attempt at interference by the Governmeiit with the freedom of action of an import- ant public body in respect of its statutory rights. It was said of Irish landlords that they had been put upon their trial and acquitted, but the verdict of nob guilty had proved equivalent to a sentence of death to a great many of tliem. A lloyal Commission reported that rents were not excessive in Ireland, and we kuow what happened after that. He demanded full information as to the reason for this inquiry in justice to owners of land in Wales. It was no part of the functions of the Eseeutive to interfere with private rights without the strongest evidence of the absolute necessity of doing so. What business had the Government to interfere with the liberty and rights of owners of land in Wales ? None whatever. They might with equal justification appoint a Com- mission to investigate the land question in any particular county in England or to inquire into the way in which any millowner, or brewer, or manufac- turer managed his private affairs. He deprecated this inquiry because he did not wish to see the good rela- tions that now existed disturbed. Were they too good to be satisfactory to the party opposite, that was ro fond of creating class animosities and hatreds ? The position of the landowners was analo^-oua to that of a man committed for trial. He had a right to kuow the nature of the evidence produced before the magisterial inquiry that must have taken place befoie the Government determined upon recommending the issue of thisCommission. Tbe uuble lord opposite, Lord Monkswell, wondered that \S'clah landowners of this House did not welcome this inquiry. They had got, however, to think not only of the larger landlonls, who could take pretty good care of themselves, Lut of the great number of small freeholders in Wales. The Government professed to advocate small free- holds, and to regret that the yeoman class tended so much to disappear, and they were adopting a course which must have the very strongest deterrent effect upon men anxious to invest in small properties in land, and which could not fail to seriously harass and embarrass the class of small freeholders. He objected, too, on the still larger ground of the injury that would be done to the whole industry of the country. He objected to the unwholesome system of worrying and harassing trade which was so dear to noble lords opposite. They might go into this inquiry with a light heart, but they would, perhaps, come out of it with a heavy one. It would not be the first time in their history that they had disgusted and wearied the country by harassing trades, by worrying industries, and by disturbing individuals in the lawtul prosecu- tion of their business. (Hear, hear.) Unless supported by the clear justification of facts the proposed inquiry constituted a mere wanton attack upon property, and would react injuriously upon every trade and upon every industry and handicraft that employs and supports the wage-earning population of the country. (Cheers.) The EARL of KlMBEUUilY said the noble earl had traversed an enomious amount of ground, and he certainly should not attempt to follow him. He was very much obliged to his noble friend for the lecture he had read the GoA'ernment. He did not altogether accept his description of the Liberal party. He said their morality was getting worse and worse. The EARLof DDNRAVEN.— Yourpolitical morality. The EAKL of KIMBERLEY.— Oh, yes ; I assume that, of course , ( Lau ghter. ) The demand of the noble earl was rather puzzling, because he seemed to hold the opinion that before a Koyal Couimissioa was issued there ought to bo a preliminary inquiry. He never heard before of any Government making any inquiry before issuing a Commission for another inquiry. That was an entirely new doctrine. 'She noble earl further said that when a case was made out in Parliament it was the practice sometimes to issue a Royal Commission. Well, the Govei-ument thought a case was made out in Parliament. The noble earl referred to the debate which took place last year upon a Bill brought in by Mr. Eljis, and said he would not insult the intelligence of the Government by supposing that anything said in that debate could have led them to the conclusion that a Commission ought to issue. For his own part, he had not yet arrived at the point of rating his own intelli- gence higher than that of the Prime Minister, but, at all events, to the no doubt unpractised intelligence of his right hon. friend the matter presented itself in a different way, for in the course of that debate tbe Prime liinister said ** a case had been made out for a thorou„'h searching, impartial, and dispassionate inquiry.'* It was a well-known fact, moreover, that of the members returned for the Principality all except three were supporters of her Majesty's Govern- ment, and they all agreed that such an inquiry was desiiable. By what better means could a Government ascertain whether there was a demand for- an inquiry in any part of the kingdom than by the opinion of the 'members ? The Welsh members, no doubt, reflected the opinion of their constituencies in this matter, and hence it seemed to him a primd-facie case for inquiry had been established. If the grounds for the demand were imaginary, surely the sooner they were proved to be imaginary the better ; if, on the other hand, it turned out there were substantial grievances, those grievauces ought to be redressed. The Prime Minister, in the debate referred to, guarded himfelt most carefully against its being supposed that he had come to the conclusion that legislation was neces- sary ; all he said was that a priimd-facie case had been made out, and that there ought to be an inquiry. That being so, it was the plain duty of the Govern- ment to grant an inquiry. LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEY denied that a primd-facie case bad been made out. The country, he said, had lost confidence in the impartiality of the Government since the ill-starred Mathew's Commis- The Land Question in Wales, The Earl of Danraven. 50 House of Lords, February 16 and 17, 1893. Eiiiiii lull) (lie c.i."0 of ihe evicted tenants in Ireland. '.ri.nl. waa not a lioyal Commission of inquiry, but a paiuiid C'uinml.ssion. Out of six Commissioners there svys not oi;e to rcijre.'^eat the landlords. 'Il.e MAKQUIS of SALISBURY.— The noble earl jfi his K[>occti led the House to understand that if tlnie was a majority of Welsh members in favour of ail ii:qairy an inquiry should be held. Yes, if we Vit'se ii^jrecd as to tlie principles upon ■which that in(iuii7 slioakl be held. If it were merely inquisitive in its r.liaracter, such as the inquiiy into the hospitals proj.'o.scd l.y a noble lord some time since, I should ba'fo nolhiug to say against it. But, taken in con- nexion with what has fallen from the Prime Mini- BtiT, this would be an inquiry whether the landlords of \Valcs have reduced tbeir rents as much as the rigbt bon. gentlt-ixan thinks desirable. I do not think that it would be a legitimate use of the powers of Parliament to interfere in this way and to insist upon something like the three F's t9 remedy any evils that may exist. Is it the opinion of the noble earl that such a measure as the three F's should be introduced into Wales ? He must bear in mind that the case of AVales and that of England are absolutely on all fours. (Hear, hear.) Anything done in Wales must be done in England. No doubt in Ireland there was a very peculiar case, owing to that strong Ulster custom which it was impossible to disregard. I remember hearing the Duke of Argyll argue in this House that, though the Ulster custom was confined to the province of Ulster, yet the spirit which it indi- cated was spread all over Ireland, and all over Ire- land you found tenures similar in their nature to that of Ulster. That was a plausible argument, and it does separate very strongly the case of Ireland from that of England and Wales. But when we hear now, for the first time, that the Welsh landlords are to be remitted to this revolutionary tribunal, with the probability of their being condemned on the ground that the remissions of their rents are not sufficient, then I think the noble earl should bear in mind what the problem is which he undertakes to solve and count the cost before he takes in hand so great an enterprise. (Hear.) I was a little alarmed the other night when I heard the noble earl maintain that the Irish landlords had suffered no wrung, because the rents were not reduced any more in Ireland than they were in England. It appears to have been his impression that if you retain for the landlord such rent as you think he is entitled to you may deprive him absolutely of the mastery and owner.ship of his land without doing him any wrong whatever. The great grievance of the Irish landlords is that most of them think they have been reduced below the level of the owners of property. When they have been deprived of the mastership and ownership of their land they are brought down to the position of mortgagees with a shifting mortgage reducible by agitation. (Hear, hear.) That is the feeling of the Irish landlords, and if the noble earl disputes that they suiler, I would ask him to fry the matter in bis own mind by this simple test. Forty years ago Parliament called upon the small capitalists of this country to buy Irish land ■which the Government offered in large quantities. They dwelt in public advertisements upon the advan- tages it would bring to the purchasers and the rents that might be expected. Suppose by an operation of second sight you could tell what the tenure of land was likely to become under Mr. Gladstone's admini- stration, do you suppose that a single one of those purchasers would be insane enough to risk his money ? (Hear, hear.) Therefore I hope that the noble earl and other noble lords when they come to advise the Cabinet will not for a moment believe that Welsh and English landlords will accept this doctrine, and submit to part with the mastery of their land. If any such measure is proposed, I can assure him that it will be no small resistance which he will meet — no small resistance in the passing of the measure, and no small resistance if that measure should passj The landlords of this country I am sure will do their utmost to prevent any such legislation, and I would impress upon the noble lord that it is not in the land- lords' interests only or mainly that I am speaking. They might suffer very much, but during the conflict attending any such threatened legislation — for it is a contest that must last for many years — they would do all in their power to defend themselves. Therefore I would advise the noble lord to consider well what may he the consequences of the conflict upon which he would enter. I am bringing these considerations before his mind, not because I wish to anticipate the results of the inquiry, but because I demur ab initio to the claim that Parliament has a right to i«terfere, if it does interfere, between the contracts of landlord and tenant, or has a right to say how much rent the tenant shall offer or a- landlord receive. These are questions with which Parliament- has no right to interfere. If it threatens to interfere it will strike a fatal blow at confidence, and will disorganize not only the industry of agriculture but all the industries which depend for their existence npon the main- tenance of private rights and the stability of the law. The House rose at half-past 5 o'clock. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17. TheLoKD Chancblloe took his seat on the wool- sack at a quarter past 4 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following Bills were read a second time ; — Accrington Gas and Water Bill ; Wolverhampton Gas Bill ; Belfast Street Tramways Bill ; Brighton, Rottingdean, and Newhaven Direct Railway (Exten- sion of Time) Bill ; Cheadle Railway, Mineral, and Land Company (Extension of Time) Bill ; Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railway Bill ; Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Bill, NEW PEER. The Maequis of Dowkshibe took his seat on coming of age. THE SHAN STATES FRONTIERS. LORD LAMINGTON asked the Secretaiy of State for India whether a settlement of the frontiers between the Northern Shan States and Siam had been arrived at : and whether his attention had been directed to the statement made by M. Deloa5s6, the Under-Secretary of State for the French Colonies, in the Chamber of Deputies, that the French Govern- ment claimed the Mekong river as the western boundary to their Indo-China possessions. He main- tained that if the Government had decided not to accept the responsibility of government in this district the country was entitled to know what the reason was for refusing to extend their protection over that district. A large section of the mercantile community was interested in the question, and he was anxious to see all causes of friction and trouble removed between this country and France when they came to be our neighbours on the eastern frontier of our Indian Empire. The EARL of KIMBERLEY hoped that the noble lord would forgive him if he did not follow him into The Land Question in Wales. Ihe Slaxauis of Salisbury. , Addendum (House of Lords). a general discussion of the question. He ■would content himself with answering the question and by Baying that a general agreement had been arrived at with Siam as to the frontier between Siam and the Northern Shan States, and the demarca- tion of the frontier was at present actually being carried out by an Anglo-Siamese Commission. A noble lord asked a question of which he had not given notice with regard to a Shan State which he named. Not having had the advantage of visiting those countries, although he had carefully studied the maps, he felt the difficulty of distinguishing between States whose names were so much alike ; but he con- cluded that the noble lord referred to a State con- tiguous to Siam. That State was to be ceded to Siam, and on the other hand Siam had made im- portant concessions to us. It would be inconvenient that he should go into the reasons for the arrange- ments that had been made ; but in due time the papers "would be laid before the House, and then their lordships would see the general grounds on which a settlement had been arrived at that he believed was advantageous to us. He had read the speech of M. Delcasse in the French Chamber ; but it would not be convenient that he should discuss in that House the report of proceedings in the French Chamber. LORD LAMINGTON asked whether no notice was to be taken of such a declaration of policy. The EARL of ROSEBERY.— I think the noble lord is not quite correct in the interpretation he puts upon the statement to which he alludes. The French Minister did not go quite so far as to claim the Mekong river as the western boundary to the French Indo- China possessions, but he rather spoke of it as the western limit of their sphere of influence. It is not for me to judge what the French view of their sphere of influence may be, but no such sphere of influence has been recognized by her Majesty's Government. APPOINTMENT OF COLONIAL GOVERNORS. The EARL of ONSLOW rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was true that an assurance had been given to the Premier of New South Wales that his Cabinet would be consulted as to the appointment of her Majesty's representative in that colony. He said that anyone who had resided in the Aus- tralian colonies would know that public opinion was un- duly excited against the Imperial Government by tele- grams which were sent through, without qualificatiou, for the sake of brevity, and without investigation, owing to the competition for priority. A telegram which appeared in The rimcsof Wednesday was so pre- cise and specific as to suggest that it must have at least- some foundation in truth. It stated that in the Legis- lative Assembly of New South Wales Sir George Dibbs declared that he was in a position to say that no Governor would be appointed until his name had been submitted for the approval of the Cabinet of New South Wales. He could not help feeling that that statement must have beenmadeunder some misappre- hension, and such misapprehensions were by no means new. On the occasion of a former appointment a similar misapprehension caused some -embarrassment. He hoped the noble marquis would be able to say that no name -would be communicated to a colony before it had been submitted to her Majesty, this being the rule that had been acted upon by several Governments and: had been laid down in a despatch by the late Secre- tary of State. The MARQUIS of RIPON.— With the noble earl I feel sure there must be some misapprehension in regard to the matter, as the statement in the tele- gram which has lod to this question is not correct. No change has been made, or is contemplated, in the practice (which will be found detailed in Parliamen- tary paper C 5,828) pursued by former Governments in regard to the appointmeut of colonial Governors. At the same time, I shall always endeavour to secure that the Governor and the Goverament of the colony should be informed, as a matter of courtesy, of the selection approved by the Queen before any announce* ment is made in the Press. THE NEW ZEALAND LEGISLiTURB. The EARL of ONSLOW asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he could inform the House of the number of measures introduced by the Government of New Zealand which were rejected by the Legislative Council last Session ; (2) upon how many occasions the Government suffered defeat on the divisions taken, and upon how many occasions those decisions would have been reversed if the Govern- ment had been reinforced by the votes of the 12 legislative Councillors which the Governor had since been instructed by the Secretary of State to appoint on the advice of Ministers ; and (3) whether he would lay upon the table of the House the papers re- lating to those appointments. The MARQUIS of RIPON said the information would be granted as an unopposed return if it were moved for. The EARL of ONSLOW moved accordingly, and the motion was agreed to. The House rose at five minutes to 5 o'clock. fThe Addendum will be repeated in the next number, and therefore should not be bound with the volume. 1 i. odTl , House of Commons, February 11, 1893. 297 years we had sent 1,100,000 British and Irish emi- grants to the United States ; it was therefore worth consideration what might be the effect of any restric- tive legislation on our part. No doabt there was in this country a good deal of cruelty amounting to white slavery ; and we ought to do what we could to put it down. There might be restrictive legislation in the United States, but Mr. Arnold White's book showed that it was ouly put into force against immi- grants of exceptional poverty or physical debility. The number of Russo-Polish immigrants received by the United States in the last ten years had been 422,664. Even Mr. Arnold White, who was one of the strongest advocates of restriction, said that further inquirywas needed, because the House of Com- mons' Committee had touched only the fringe of the subject, while the Lords' Committee on Sweating ended iu a wrangle on the Jewish question which had nothing to do with the matter. Immediately he took oiRcB at the Board of Trade he got together all the information he could bearing upon the economic effe-cts of alien immigration, and -he had sent a com- petent commissioner to the United States to make special inquiries there. If the right hon. gentleman chose to move for a committee, all the available in- formation should be laid before it, for certainly it was a question on which the House ought not to legis- late without the fullest knowledge. (Cheers.) SIEH.HOWOIITH said he rose to supportthe amend- ment and to oppose the dilatory tactics of the Prime Minister. Two committees had sat for a long time, and the House had been promised that the results should be embodied in a Bill. Why was another committee to be appointed ? Because, as the leader of the House had said, he wanted a definition of a destitute alien. That definition they had already ; it was contained in the Statute-book of the United States, and had been made on the most sensible lines by the Jewish com- mittees in London and Manchester. In Manchester and Salford the Jewish committees had refused to assist the Jews coming into this country until they had been resident in it for six months, and he was told that tha very same regulation was applied in London, so all they had to do was to impose by law such a restriction as would prevent those poor Jews from coming into this, country. The right hon. gentleman wanted statistics to show the number of Englishmen who, in consequence of the immigration of these poor Jews, had applied for relief from the rates. It was impossible to obtain that information. The poor Jews who came to this country were not chargeable to the rates because the Jewish community supported them. But in that way a bonus was offered them to undersell the English workman by accepting lower wages. (Hear, hear.) That was a serious matter in another way, because unless the thing was stopped, or something was done to restrain it, a. strong and bitter feeling would be excited in the towns where this unfair competition was carried on, as ii; had been in some Continental capitals, against the Jew as a Jew, which was the last thing he would wish to see. (Hear, hear.) Therefore the Jewish committees in Manchester and London were acting rightly in making it a rule that no Jew should be assisted who was not resident six months. SIR J. GOLDSMID.— The hon. member is absolutely wrong. We have no such rule in London. SIR H. HOWORTH.— Well, then, there ought to be such a rule in London. (A laugh.) The wealthy Jews who knew the state of the labour market ought to refuse charity to those victims of tyraimy because there was no room for them in this country. A good The Address— Destitute Alien Immigraut& No. 4.— Vol. XXTT. deal had been said about the shameless cruelty which had driven those men to oar shores. It was true that they had been treated with shameless craelty, but the remedy was not to hold out inducements to them to come to this country, but to make repre- sentations in the proper quarter — Russia itself. (Cries of " Divide.") He did not want to detain the House, but he wanted to impress upon it that in all parts of the North they had great numbers of the unemployed, and that the policy which* he advocated would ba shortly pressed upon them by those who knew that in certain parts of our great towns, which were congested beyond anything known before, wages were lowered and kept down in consequence of the unfair com- petition of Jews who were receiving gratuities from their richer, neighbours. That state of things cried aloud for legislation. BARON F. DB ROTHSCHILD s»id that as ha trespassed on the House so seldom he trusted that on this' occasion it would grant him its indulgence. The right hon. gentleman the member for the Bright- side Division and the Prime Minister had made speeches so forcible, so comprehensive and conclusive, that it seemed to him that even if he were possessed of more eloquence he could hardly add anything to what they had said. But since the Prime Minister and the right hon. gentleman had spoken other speeches had been made which might obscure the intelligence of some hon. members who had lately come into the House. The right hon. gentleman in his amendment had put forth certain statements which were based upon no figures. However much statistics might be quoted, he was con- fident that there was no warrant for the assertion that the immigration into this country continued unabated. He hoped the proposed inquiry would be of a most comprehensive character, and would include every trade with which it was said the immigrants com- peted. Reference had been made to injury caused to certain trades, and particularly the tailors and boot- makers, by pauper aliens, but the clothes and boots made by these people did not compete with native industry, being of very cheap quality not made by English artisans, and manufactured chiefly for exporta- tion. The half of the town of Chesham, in his con- stituency, lived by the manufacture of boots and shoes, and there was not a single pauper alien in it, nor had there ever been. The immigration from Russia was diminishing, owing to the efforts of bis co- religionists to deter the persecuted people from coming to this country. These wretched co-religionists of his enlisted his deepest sympathy from the cruel and abominable persecution they had suffered — ^perse- cution which had never been equalled in Europe sinca the dark days of the Middle Ages. (Cheers.) He appealed to members of this House not to shut their ears and hearts to the victims of such persecution. This country had been for centuries the asylum for refugees from other lands for the poor, the needy, and the destitute, and surely at the end of this enlightened century its doors would not be closed to members of his unfortunate race, exiles mainly from Russia, who, moreover, only came to this country str a halting-place whence they might wend their way across the ocean and find a permanent home in America. (Cheers.) Mr. MONTAGU believed that Whitechapel, which included Spitalfields, was the only district seriously affected by the foreign immigration, and yet no expression of opinion on this amendment had reached him from any section of his oonstituents. He had a very extensive knowledge of these Russian and Sir H. Howorth. 15 298 House of Commons, February 11, 1893. Tolish Jews. Ho saw many thou;sanci8 of them leave the Russian frontier iu 1S82, when they escaped from tyranny, in many cases robbed even of their clothes by the professed pi-utectors of property, the Eussian soldiers. He went on behalf of the Man.sion-house Jews' Committee to found an emigration society w'hich sent many thousands of these creatures direct to America. In 1884 he visited the Russo-Jewish settlers in America, and they had recently received information that they were iu a iirosperous and ilourishing condition. In 1886 he visited various classes of Jews in numerous Polish and Russian towns, and on that occasion he was expelled from Moscow solely on account of his religious faith. He had not applied to the Foreign Office to claim redress for the insult offered to him and indirectly to the House, because the Jews of Moscow entreated him not to do so as the officials were at that time not actively unfavourable to them. Since 1886 he had been in constant communication with the foreigners in the East-end of London, and he could testify that, as a rule, they were fairly independent and extremely industrious and sober. (Cries of " Divide.") The alien immigrants, although often poor, could not be called paupers, for they did not come upon the rates. It was said that they were a cause of the pauperism of the native workers, but durin^f the last ten years and until quite recently pauperism had been steadily decreasing, and accord- ing to Mr. Charles Booth, the depth of poverty in "Wnitechapel, where the foreigners weremostnumerous, was not so gi'eat, as in Southwark and other places across the river, vphere theywerefew. These foreigners had, moreover, dislodged manyof the criminal classes. He would welcome any wise measure fur their migra- tion or emigration, or for diverting the stream from this countiy should it be found necessary. Immi- grants were not required to stay here six months before they received assistance to go abroad ; they passed through this country because it was the cheapest and best route to America. The total number of immi- grants in Whitechapel was 70,000. He hoped there would be a prompt Government inquiry, but he thought that at the present time there was no need for tbo resolution, which might cause reprisals. (Cries of ** Divide.") He left the matter with confidence iu the hands of the Government. Mr. LABOUCHERB, who rose amid loud cries of •' Divide," said he regarded the amendment as a desire merely to obtain the opinion of the House upon a non-political question. The matter had been preju- diced by the introduction of the Jews, but he con- sidered the question was a trade and not a religious one. Whether these aliens came with a copy of the Koran, the Talmud, or the Thirty -nine Articles in their pockets, he thought their room was better than their company. ("Hear, hear," and laughter.) This question seriously concerned his constituents, as would be seen by the following letter, which he had received from the secretary of the Shoemaker's Trade Union : — '* These aliens have been landing in largo numbers during the last eight years, and they all flock into the tailoring and shoemaking and kindred trades, where the work is done at the homes. They work 17 to 20 hours, sleep in gangs like pigs, and work at any price. In fact, it has cost us thousands and thousands of pounds to try and maintain wages against their repeated offers to do it for less. What is the result ? Last winter thousands of Englishmen were walking about starving, whilst these men had the work. Now that the East-end is full of them, they are spreading into the provinces. I will illustrate what they have done for us at Manchester. Five years ago, we put in a statement to the whole of the employers, so that all pfaid alike for the same classes of work. On that statement there are items of 4s. 6d. for certain work. The aliens have taken it at 4s., 3s. 9d., 3s. 6d., 3s. 0ntil this winter we Spent several hundred pounds in resisting their taking it at 2s. 9d. I could multiply this instance by hundreds of others. They simply stultify what we do, and unless our men take the work at as cheap rates, these people have the work to themselves. Our Manchester secretary has lived in his bouse 20 years. When he went not an alien was in the street, now he is the only one who is not an alien. And it is the same story at Leeds and elsewhere." The President of the Board of Trade had stated that there had already been an inquiry, but what be Vsnted was action instead of further inquiry. If the right hon. member for Thanet went to a division he should follow his own views and those of the entire body of hi? constituents and vote with him. (Cheers.) Mr. CRBMBR, who also rose amid lond cries of "Divide," asked the hon. member for Northampton for the name of the writer of the letter and the date when it was written. Mr. LABOUCHERB.— Mr. Inskjp is the name of tho writer, and the letter was written three days ago. Mr. CRBMEE said his object in asking the question was that his constituency contained a larger number of shoemakers than that of the hon. member. During the recent contest no question had been addressed to him on the subject of pauper immigration at any of the meetings he held, although his con- stituents were largely affected by the question. If the men who were said to bo so vitally affected by pauper immigration had not raised their voices against it, he concluded that, after all, they were inclined to assent to the course which her Majesty's Govern- ment had that day approved. (** Hear, hear," and cries of " Divide.") He sat on the committee of the House which inquired into the effect produced upon the industrial classes in London, Northampton, and Leeds by this pauper immigration, and he was bound to say that the evidence given was ot the loosest possible kind. No reliable statistics were laid before the committee which enabled them to come to any satisfactory conclusion. The committee, however, made a series of recommendations, one of which, he believed, had since been acted upon — that statistics on the question should bo furnished to the working classes and to the House. But the information avail- able was still incomplete ; further inquiry was abso- lutely necessary, and as that further inquiry was suggested by the course the Government were pro- pared to take, he should support them with his vote. (Oheers.) The House then divided and the numbers were — For the amendment 119 Against 234 Majority — 115 llie announcement of the numbers was received with cheers and counter-cheers. Mr. A. C. MORTON, in whose name the following amendment stood upon the paper — " And this House humbly prays your Majesty to be graciously pleased to exercise your right ot appointing justices of tho peace in counties without the intervention of lord lieutenants," said that at that late hour in the day he did not propose to move this amendment. (Hear, hear.) He must, however, say that he should not be satisfied until all classes in the country were repro" sented on the bench of magistrates. The Oovermnent The Address— Destitute Alieu Immigrants. Mr. MontaKU. House of Commons, February 11 and 13, 1S93. 299 had fall power to do what he desired should be done, and unless they exercised their power within a very short time he should call attention to the matter in Committee of Supply, probably in connexion with somebody's salary. (Laughter.) The Address was then agreed to amid cheers. THE HOME RULE BILL. Mr. GLADSTONE.— I beg to give notice that in ftase the debate on Monday on the introdjction of the Bill to amend the provision for the government of Ireland is not terminated in the evening, I shall move on Tuesday to give it precedence. (Hear, hear.) MEMBERS AND THEIR SEATS. Mr. BKUNNER asked the Speaker to permit hon. members of advanced years to take their seats in tho House on Monday before 12 o'clock. He feared that unless such permission were given they were likely to be seriously inconvenienced, as there was certaio to be great crush and pressure at the door of the House at the time at present fixed for opening it. The SPEIAKSR said that the hon. member was endeavouring to impose upon him a very invidious task. (Hear, hear.) It was one which he could not undertake. He hoped that there would be nothing in the nature of a crush at the door on Monday, and trusted that certain seats usually occupied by the same well-known members would be refpected in accorf- ance with the general custom of the House. (Cheers.) He did not see his way to do any more in the matter. The door would be locked on Monday and only opened at 12 o'clock, and precautions, which, however, he felt sure would be unnecessary, would be taken to preserve order. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BARTLBY suggested that the expedient of keeping the door closed until 12 o'cloclt should be continued throughout the continuance of the debate. Mr. CRILLY feared that if the door was not opened until 12 there would be not only pressure, but probably some scenes which they would regret. If every member of the House were allowed the usual free access to the House on Monday morning all pressure would be avoided. (Hear, hear.) The hour fixed for Qpening the door ought, at all events, to be changed to 10 o'cloc's. There would not then be such an accumulation of members at the door as there would inevitably be at 12. (Hear, hear.) He claimed that if he came to the House at 10 o'clock he should be allowed to take his seat. He objected to being subjected to unseemly pressure . (Laughter and "Hear. ' ' ) The SPEAKER hoped that tho difficulty feared by the hon. member would not arise. He was committed to the hour of 12, which hour when proposed on Frij- day appeared to meet with the general approval of members. (Hear, hear.) Some hon. members might uot have been in attendance that afternoon, and they would be under the impression that the hour of 12 had been conclusively agreed upon. In the circum- stances he did not think he could alter the hour. He hoped hon. members would co-operate with the authorities of the House to preserve order. (Hear, hear.) Mr. MATHER asked whether chairs would be placed on the floor of the House on Monday. Such an increase of accommodation was provided on a similar historic occasion in 1886, and without it a consider- able number of members would not know where to find places. The SPEAKER said that he would order chairs to be placed on the floor of the House if it was generally desired that that should be done. (Hear, hear.) The House adjourned at ten minutes past 6 o'clock. Members and their Seats. MONDAY, FMBBUABY 13. The Speakejb took the chair at 3 o'clock. The doors of the House of Commons were opened for members at midday, and within a few minutes every scat in the body of the House was secured. Members rushed in, and in the scramble for places Wr. Caleb Wright was knocked down. Dr. Tanner falling over him, but was assisted to a seat Ly a policeman. The galleries were then occupied, - tho one on the Opposition side being filled first. At prayer-time the House was full. A double row of chairs had been placed on either side of the central gangway, as had been done in 1886, and again last year, when Mr. Balfour introduced his Local Government Bill for Ireland. Most of the Ministers and es-Ministers were also in their seats. The Strangers' and Speaker's Galleries were full, and among the peers present were Lord Knulsford, Lord Rowton, Lord Iveagh, Earl Cadogan, the Earl of Aberdeen, Lord ICinnaird, Lord Balfour of Bur- leigh, and Lord Battersea. The Earl of Rosebery and Earl Spencer were in the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery, and the American Minister occupied a seat on the AmbaKsadors' benches. At 20 minutes past 3 o'clock Mr. J. Morley entered the House and was received with Ministerial cheers. The private business concluded at half-past 3, and Mr. Gladstone then entered and took his place between Mr. Asquith and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the whole of the Ministerialists and Home Rulers rising to their feet and cheering vigorously. Shortly afterwai'ds the Prince of Wales entered and took up his position over the clock, with the Duke of York by his*ide. Mr. Balfour came in a little later. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following Bills were read a second time : — Aberdeen Corporation, Ashton-under-Lyne Corpora- tion, Barnoldswiek Local Board, Bairy and Cadoxton Local Board, Bolton Corporation Tramways, Bast Stonehouse Water, Edinburgh Corporation Tram- ways, Edinburgh ImprO"rement, Fleetwood Improve- ment, Govan Buigh (Tramway3),Great Forest of Breck- nock, Harrogate Corporation, Hornsey Local Board, London Open Spaces, Paddington Recreation Ground, Plymouth Corporation Water, 8t. Helen's Corporation, Stirling Water, Towcester and Buckingham Railway (Abandonment), West Ham Corporation, West Hamp- shire Water, Wigan Corporation, and York Corpora- tion Bills. NOTICES OF MOTION. Mr. SCHWANN,— On Friday, March 3, on going in;o Committee of Supply, to call attention to the sale of hemp drugs in India, and to move a resmldtiou. Mr. BARROW,— On Friday, the 24th, on golu,? into Committee of Surpb', to call attention to the inci- dence of London taxation, and to move a resolution. SIR A. ROLLIT, — On going into Committee of Supply on March 3, to call attention to the subject of railway rates, and to move a resolution. VISCOUNT WOLMER,— On going into Committee on the Army Estimates, to call attention to the report of Lord Wantage's Committee, and to move a resolution. SIR J. WHITEHEAD,— On going into Committee of Supply, February 17, to call attention to railway and canal rates, and to move a resolution. SIR G. DILKB, — On going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, to move a resolution with regard to Egypt. LORD G. HAMILTON.— On going into Committee t The Speaker. 15-2 300 House of Commons, February 13, 1893. /of Supply, March 10, to call attention to the de- fence of naval ports, and to move a resolution. Mr. HANBURY, — On going into Committee on the Civil Service Kstimaies, to call attention to the Boyal Commission on Civil Establishments, and to move a resolution. SIR J. FftEGUSSON,— On the motion to bring in a Suspensory Bill with regard to the Church in Scot- land, to move that it is inexpedient and unjust to interfere with the statutory rights of the people of Scotland in the election of ministers, until Parlia- ment shall have decided to alter the state of the Church in Scotland. (Opposition cheers.) SIR J. GOEST,— On first going into Committee of Supply on the Naval Estimates, to ca^ attention to the position of artisans and labourers in her Majesty's dockyards, and to move a resolution. (Opjwsitiqn cheers- and Ministerial laughter.) NEW WRIT. On the motion of SiB T. EsMONDE, a new writ was ordered to issue for the election of a member for Mid Tipperary, in the room of Mr. John W. M'Carthy, deceased. NEW MEMBERS. Sib a. Hattek, amid loud Ministerial cheers, took the oath and his seat for Walsall. Mr. Rawsok Shaw took the oath and his seat for Halifax. THE HOME RULE BILL. The Speaker (3 40) called upon the First Lord of the Treasury to make the motion in his name staudini; first on the paper — " Bill to Amend the Provision for the Government of Ireland." As Mr. jrLADSTONE pointed out that questions (of wbioli 38 were on the paper) had not been dealt wiCc, She Sfeakeb ex- plained that it had been arranged to postpone them. Mr. GLADSTONE then rose amid continued cheers from the Ministerial and Nationalist benches, the occupants of which stood up, waving their hats. He said : — Mr. Speaker, — I may without impropriety, I think, remind the House that the voices which used to plead the cause of Irish Government in Irish aSaiis have, within these walls during the last seven years, been almost entirely mute. I return, there- fore, to the period when, in 1S86, a proposition of this kind was submitted on behalf of the Government of the day, and I beg to remind the House of the position which was then taken up by the promoters of the measure. We said — We have arrived at a point in our transactions with Ireland where two roads part. We have to choose between the one and the other. One of them is the way of Irish autonomy according to the conception I have just refeixed to, and the other is the way of coercion. (Cheers and cries of " Oh.") That was our contention, and it will be in the recollection of -ihe House that that contention was most stoutly and la/ gely denied. (Opposition cheers.) It was said, I do nii.t say by all, but by very many members of this H'^use, who did not concur in the views of that 'Government — " Oh no, we are not coereionists, we do not adopt that alternative, and neither can wo accept it." (Opposition cheers.) That assertion of theirs was undoubtedly sustained, especially from those politicians whom we term dissentient Liberals, by the proposal of various plans for dealing with Irish questions. Those plans, although they fell entirely short in principle and in scope of Irish self-government in Irish affairs, yet were plans of no trivial or mean importance. They went far beyond what had heretofore been usually pro- posed in the way of local self-government for Ireland. What has been the result of the dilemma— as it was then put forward upon this side of the House, as it was then repelled upon the other ? Has our contention that the choice lay between autonomy and coercion been justified or not ? (Cheers.) What has become of each and all of those important schemes for giving to Ireland government in provinces, for giving to her even a central establishment in Dublin with limited but important powers i All these schemes have vanished into air, but the reality remains. The two roads were there, the way of autonomy and the way of coercion. The choice lay between them, and the choice was made by the late Government. The choice they made was to repel the proposal of autonomy and to embrace in consequence the path of coercion. (Hear, hear.) I need not tell the House that coercion is a practice which you cannot always follow in an abso- lutely uniform method of proceedings. If we take the early part of this century coercion was then, though frequent, far from being habitual. Down, I think, to 1829 or 1832, there were ten or 12 years that were entirely free from it,but in the much longer period that elapsed between 1832 and 1886 there were only, I believe, two years in which Ireland was entirely free from the note — the disparaging and igno- minious note — of exceptional and repressive laws, (Cheers.) Since 1886 — I am speaking now of a matter of fact and am not indulging in either praise or blame — we have made another, a bolder, a more daring, step forward in the policy of coercion in Ireland. (Cheers.) It has begn recognized as the normal con- dition of the countiy. It has taken its place for the first time in the shape of a permanent law upon the statute-book of the country. (Cheers.) My contention is this — and it is the first argument I lay before the House — that a pennanent system of repressive law in- flicted upon or attached to a country from without, and in defiance of the voice and the judgment of the vast majority of its constitutional representatives, constitutes a state of things of such a charactei that while it subsists you have not, and you cannot have, the first conditions of harmony and good government established in that country. (Cheers.) It is impossible that the inhabitants of such a country, labouring under coercion in that form, inflicted from such a quarter, and inflicted in opposi- tion to the authentic voice which the Constitution itself has given them, can be brought into that sympathy with the law and that respect for the law without which there can be no true political stability and no true social civilization. (Hear, hear.) My next objection to such a state of things is this^that it was a distinct and violent breach of the promises upon the faith of which the Union was obtained. (Hear, hear.) I must for a moment ask the House to retui-n with me to that period — and I am not now going to describe the history of that Union in the terms which, I grieve to say, I think it deserves, but only to point out the facts of the case. When the Union was presented to Ireland many of those who were friendly to it in principle yet made the admis- sion that it bore an odious aspect. I will cite a Bishop of that period, one who was appointed by a Government of that period, a man of ability— I mean Dr. Young, the Bishop of Clonfert, who as a writer wrote in favour of the Union and supported it with all his might ; yet he made this frank confession. In 1799, when the proposal had been defeated on the first presentation of it Jo the Irish Parliament, he said : — " A great question for the present has been unfortunately lost, yet how could it be otherwise f The Homo Rule Bill. Mr. Gladstone. House of Commons, February 13, 1893. 301 Au incoi-porating tmion is certainly a degrading measure to any nation in possession of its orin Parlia- ment and in appearance entirely independent." He then goes on to adduce arguments why that Union should be accepted ; and what was the great argument he advanced in its favour ? It was partly the promise of commercial equality, but, much more widely than that, it was the promise of equal laws. (Cheers.) Equality in the system of laws by which the country was to be govemod was the grand compensation which Ireland was to receive for the removal and extinction of her Parliament — that great symbol of her distinct, though not necessarily separate, national life. (Cheers.) Mr. Cook, the Under-Secretary of that day, who, next to Lord Castlereagh, deserves the honours or the censure that attach to the policy of the Union, published a pamphlet of great importance on the part of the Government, termed " Arguments for and against the Union." I will quote one passage, which is on the second page of the second edition of the pamphlet, which is dated 1798. Ho says :— " A union presupposes that when it is complete the con- tracting States shall be bound together by the same constitutional laws and government and by an identity of interests and an equality of privileges." (Cheers.) But there was also another prophecy which was justifiable for him to make at the time, and the result of which, I think, conveys to us a striking lesson. Mr. Cook cast his eye upon the Irish Parliament of that day, teeming as it was with eloquence and states- manship. He saw there Grattan, and Ponsonby, and Pai-nell, and Foster, and Plunket, and outside Chief Justice Busho and other men ; and when Ireland from her own soil had thrown up that rich crop of political ability, Mr. Cook with confidence prophesied in these few words : — " We shall have Irishmen in the originating Cabinet of Great Britain." What has been the fate of that prophecy ? (Cheers.) Two Irishmen, famous each in his way, and one of European and world-wide fame, have sat in the Cabinet of Great Britain — I mean Lord Castlereagh and the Duke of Wellington. But both Lord Castlereagh and the Duke of Wellington were the growth of Ireland in the period when it had its independent Parliament. (Cheers.) From. the state of things in that Parliament Mr. Cook inferred, and from his point of view naturally inferred, that Irish statesmen would be in the Imperial Cabinet. But what, I ask, has been the case f It has been my fate, it has been my honoured destiny, to sit in the Cabinets of the Queen in concert with no less than between 60 and 70 statesmen, but among those CO or 70, with the single exception of the Duke of Wellington, an Irishman has not been found in those Cabinets. (Cheers.) So much for the results of this Union of which so much was anticipated. (Cheers.) I now go back to the question of the promise of equal laws, which came from one higher than Mr. Cook. It came from Mr. Pitt him.self, who, in a famous passage in a famous speech, said : — " Each country will retain its proportional weight and importance under the secm'ity of equal laws." Those equal laws, rightly or wrongly, you have not given. (Hear, hear.) The pledge of the Union you have failed to fulfil. (Hear, hear.) The consideration which purchased or which helped to extort the Union from Ireland has never been paid, and the broken pledge is written — and unhappily ia indelibly written — upon the history of your countiy. (Cheers.) Now let us consider what is the state of the case with regard to the persistency and the self-assertion of Ireland. For a long time since the beginning of the century Ireland as a political entity was little more than a carcass robbed of life. (Hear, hear.) From the year 1832, when her resurrection began, she did present a small minority in favour of restoring to her something in the nature of constitutional rights and of practical government. And, Sir, I am bound to say that it much astonishes me, in contemplating this case, and in thankfully remembering how gene- rally and cordially it is recognized in this country that we are a self-governing people — that is, a people governed by our majorities — it is to me, I say, astonishing that so little weight is attached by many to the fact that, whereas before 1880 — ■ before 1885, indeed, as I should say — Irish wishes for self-government were represented by only a minority — ay ! and by only a small minority — of her elected members since 1885 — sincethe wide exten- sion of the franchise and its protection by themachinery of the secret vote — (Opposition ironical cheers.) I perceive, Sir ,a smile on the countenances of some when I refer to the protection of the secret vote. Do they approve the secret vote, or do they not ? If they do net approve of it,,I recommend them to go to their con- stituents and make known that fact to them. (Minis- terial cheers.) The secret vote, it will be seen, ia material to my argument, because, without it,perhaps in no countries — certainly not in Ireland — had the voter a shadow of independence. In the Parliaments of 1885 and 1886 there were 85 Nationalists — to use the general current phrase — 86 Nationalist members out of 101 members, for I confess I only recognize 101 Irish members as popular representatives ; and to the whole number, the 85 formed a proportion of more than 'five- sixths. They have now been reduced from 85 to 80 (Opposition cheers) under circumstances somewhat peculiar (hear, hear), and in the view of some of us — myself, among others, I mustfrankly own — totally and absolutely unintelligible, (Laughter.) Let us look at the state of things as it now stands. There are but 80 out of 101 — 'that is to say, the wishes of Ireland for Irish self-govern- ment in Irish matters are represented by only four-fifths of its representative members. (Cheers and Opposition laughter.) Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have no respect for such a majority as that. Do they recollect. Sir, that never in England has there been such. a majority — never once ? (Cheers.) No Parliament of the last 50 years has come within measurable, or immeasurable, distance of it. In one Parliament of 60 years ago, the Parliament of Decem- ber, 1832 — the first in which I had the honour of sitting (cheers) — there was by far the greatest majority that ever had been known in our constitutional history. The party of Sir Eobert Peel, to which I belonged (ironical cheers), did not count, at the outside, more than 150, and would, perhaps, have been more properly estimated at 140, but even that was short — even the majority shown by the smallness of that minority did not reach to the point at which the Irish majority now stands. And, Sir, if there be anything in that great principle of self-government, which, if it be a reality is a reality that never can work except by the machinery and by the laws of representa- tion, at any rate the voice of the Irish people, and the persistency of the Irish people in the delivery of that voice, and the peaceful and constitutional circum- stances under which it has been so delivered (" Oh !" and Ministerial cheers) constitute a great factor in this case. But, Sir, it has been said— ■ and I admit its trath in the present instance- that Ireland is not a united country. It is still a disunited Ireland in itself, and although the constitutional authoritv of the voice of Ireland The Home Rule Bill Mr. Gladstone. 302 IIousc of Commons, February 13, 1893. is, in my opinion, absolutely indisputable, I do not deny that as a social factor the division which exists in that country is a fact of great importance. In truth, were Ireland united, anything that can render her formidable would become very much more formid- able ; but were Ireland united, your opposition would vanish as a shadow, and we should hear of it no more. (Cheers.) Ireland is not united, in this sense, that in one portion of the country not merely the higher classes, however the observation might apply in Ire- land generally, not merely the majority of the higher classes, but a considerable portion of the popular feeling in one limited part of the country is opposed to the present Irish national movement ; and in a very small portion of the country — a very small portion indeed — is that adverse sentiment repre- sented by a majority of the local community. That is so. I will not attempt to measure a fact of great social importance ; I will not attempt to measure the numerical strength of that minority, but 1 do wish to notice a circumstance of great interest and of great weight. It is commonly said — I think I heard it said by the leader of the Opposition the other night, at any rate the sentiment will be recognized as emanating from the party opposite — it is commonly said that the minority in the North is arrayed in an unalterable opposition to the demand for Home liule. (Opposition cheers.) In order to show that a decision is unalterable, you ought to be able to show that it has never altered. (Hear, hear.) Unhappily, at the close of last century, at the successful instigation of those whose plot it was to divide the people of Ireland when they were united, through the medium mainly of: the Orange Lodges, and through the demon of religious animosity, the Protestants of Ireland, during the period of the independent Irish Parliament, were thcm- selvesnot only willing but zealous and enthusiastic sup- porters of Irish nationality. Inasmuch as their political life was at that period more highly developed, they led onthe RomanCatholic population in the political move- ment which distinguished the 'period. This is written broadcast upon the history of the time. I will men- tion only one small and yet significant incident. It was in the year 1792 — in the month of November — that there met in Dublin a body of Eoman Catholics, under circumstances the most likely to have cn-ated jealousy among their fellow-countrymen, if jenlou.sy could have been aroused, because they met, I believe, under the name, and, undoubtedly, in the nature of, a convention, representative of the diiferent parts of the country. It was popularly called the Parliament of Black Lan6, from the place where they met. They formulated their demand for political equality. Where did the commissioners who were charged with the prosecution of that de- mand first go to make it known ? They went to the city of Belfast. And what reception had they in Belfast from the mass of the population 'i The population poured forth as one man to meet them, took the horses from their carriage, and introduced them with a triumphal entry, drawing them through the streets of the town. That was the feeling of the Protestants in Ireland a century ago. And we, -who have seen them alter, not through their own fault, from what we think better to what we think worse, are not readily to be persuaded that they will not alter back again to the sentiments of their own ancestors, of their own blood, of their own religion, of their own people, and will yet form one, in a noble and glorious unity, with the rest of their fellow-countrymen. (Loud cheers.) One word more. I am not about to comment, in an invidious I'te Home Eule Bill sense, upon the well-known fact that England alone has a majority of representatives opposed to Home Rule. I am not about to menace England, for it is not by menaces that England is to be persuaded. (Opposition cheers.) I am not about to urge that England will find her strength exhausted and her work impracticable, if that work is to be a permanent resistance to the Irish demands ; for I confess that, in my own opinion — perhaps it is an exaggerated opinion — the strength of England, taking its resources in connexion with the substantive masculineuess of the character of its people and their wonderful persistency in giving effect to the opinions they embrace, might maintain, if England were so minded, a resistance to the voice of all her partners — might maintain it for a time almost indefinite — spending her immeasurable ener- gies in the manful, though disastrous, pursuit and sustentation of a bad cause. (Opposition laughter.) But I want to know whether England has arrived at that permanency of sentiment on behalf of that coercive and repressive policy — in denying to Ireland the full equality which we request on her behalf. 'Jo answer that question let us see what has taken place within these few years. It will be recol- lected that the brilliant chief of the Tory party at about that period said, " Ob, the reason why repression and coercion have not succeeded is because you have not been sufficiently resolute ; you have gone this way and that way, to-day thinking oue thing, and another day thinking the other." But he exhorted them to brace themselves for a resolute, a persistent, an inunovable endurance, and then, he said, the government of Ireland will be an easy task. To all appearances, the people of England gave a cordial response to that invitation, for in July, 1»86, while, out of 465 members, they retmmed 127 favour- able to our way of thinking, there were no les9 than 338 who were opposed to us, and then I think the noble marquis said that was an irrevoc- able verdict. (Laughter.) How deluded he was by the phenomena of the day ! The time that has passed since that year is not a very long one ; but now the 127 have already swollen to 197 (cheers), and the 338 are sunk to 2C8. There was a majority in England adverse to the Irish claims in 1886 of 211. That majority hasdeclined to the more modest figure of 71. (Hear, hear.) With all the British persistency, valour, and resources, which no man denies, and no man endeavours to deny — with all that two-thirds of that majority have vanished, and I want to know who will be the effective gua- rantee for the permanence of the remainim? third. (Cheers.) I have not endeavoured to couch these arguments in a tone of party. I have rather en- deavoured, so far as I could, to address myself to the minds of reflective men, to beg and conjure them to take note of the facts, to use the past in the interpretation of the future.and to form a rational judgment as to the course which they ought prosjeo- tively to pursue. (Hear, hear.) Ha<-ing said so much, I now come to the endeavour, in which I must further ask the kind and patient indulgence of the House (cheers), to give some intelligible account of the Bill which I lay before the House. I do not undertake to supply what may be termed a table of contents of the Bill. I think if I did I should probably bewilder my hearers, and com- pleteness would be much more than balanced by practical obscurity. What I seek to do is to present to the notice of the House the principal and salient points of the Bill, to leave, if I can, some living Mr. Gladstone. House of Commons, February 13, 1893. 303 impression of its character in tbo minds and memories of those who hear me. Of course >yithin limits, there may be difforences of opinion as to ■which arc the principal points. I may introduce some that in the view of some gentlemen are not principal points ; I may omit others that in tho view of other gentlemen ou(,'ht to have been mentioned. My only answer is to beg that gentlemen will consult tbo BiU themselves as soon ae they are able, and I trust that it will be very soon, indeed, in s day or two from this, if wo are permit- ted. (Hear, hoar.) I may say in one word that, while it may be remembered that in 1886 there were five propositions laid down as cardinal princi- ples, from which there ought to be no departure, to those five propositions wc have endeavoured closely to adhere. Changes there have been — far from unim- portant changes — but not, I think, in any manner trenching upon any of those declared principles of 1886, which were stated thus : — Tho object of tho Bill was stated — and that remains tho object of the Bill, with regard to which everything else is secondary and conditional — the object of tho Bill was to esta- blish a legislative body sitting in Dublin for tho conduct of both legislation and administration in Irish as distinct from Imperial affairs. (CheeruS.) Tho limiting conditions which I say were then observed— and which have, so far as we have been able to do it, been sedulously and closely observed — wero these : — We were to do nothing inconsistent with that Imperial unity, of which I will say in passing — I know it will not be admitted that we are right, but so far as our convictions and intentions are concerned they would be too feebly stated by being couched in a declaration that we did not mean to iiripair it. Wo wish to strengthen it. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) Wo wish to give it a groater intensity than it has ever yet possessed, and we beliefe that a wise extension of the privileges of local self-government has been shown by experience to be the most effective instrument forthatpurjiose. First, then, Imperial unity was to be observed. Secondly, tho equality of all the kingdoms was to bo borne in mind. Thirdly, there was to bo an equitable repartition of Imperial charges. Fourthly, any and every practicable provision for tho protection of minorities was to be adopted. And, fifthly, tho plan that was to bo pro- posed was to be such as, at least in the judgment of its promoters, presented tho necessary characteristics — I will not say of finality, because it isadi.scrcditedword ^but of a rea-l .ind continuing settlement. (Cheers.) That is the basis on which we continue to stand. And I will now state the main points in which we have endeavoured to carry that out. In the first place wo have met, or desired to meet, what wo think is no unreasonable demand for an express mention of the supremacy. There were two modes in which that might be done. It might be done by a clause; it might be done by the preamble. We have chosen the preamble as the worthier method, for if it were done by a clause it would bear too much< the character of a mere enactment, whereas it is a radical and a cardinal principle underlying each and every enactment ; and it is far better, in our view, to notice and to acknow- ledge it reverentially in the preamble than to give to it the character of some decision which might be sup- posed to be a novel decision of Parliament, and to expose it to tho chance which any attack upon such an enactment might entail. It is not necessary to use many words for such a purpose. These are tho words : — " Whereas it is expedient that, without impairing orrestrioting the supreme authority of Farlia- The Home Eule Bill. mcnt " — and then it goes on to declare the creation of a Legislature, to which I shall come. What I wish to point out, with reference to a charge frequently, and I have no doubt in good faith, made against us, that we are destroying the Act of Union, is this. I wish to challenge an inquiry upon this main and fundamental point. What is the essence of tho Act of Union ? I wish gentlemen would ask themselves that question. That essence is to be appreciated by comparing the constitution of things that we had in this country before 1800 with (he constitution of things now sub- sisting. Before 1800 wo bad two sovereignties in the country. One of those sovereignties collectively lodged in the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons of England; tho other collectively lodged in the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons of Ireland ; and there was no right, in the true public sense— the historic and legal sense — there was no more right in tho sovereignty residing in Great Britain to interfere with tho sovereignty planted in Ireland than there was in tho sovereignty planted in Ireland, had it been strong enough, to interfere with the sovereignty planted in England. (Cheers.) The Act of Onion made tho kingdoms into one and made ths sovereignties into one and the incorporation of the Parliaments was a measure subsidiary to the Union — subsidiary and instrumental. (Hear, hear.) That incorporation is the question which wo raise, and which we wish partially, ander the con- ditions of the present Bill, but not entirely to alter. The essence of the Act of Union was the establishing of the unity of the sovereignty of the country, so that tho body thereby constituted, the sovereign body, was to be a body entitled to exercise those rights of sovereignty equally and completely throughout the three kingdoms. So it was, and so the reader of this Bill — and indeed, I think, the reader of the Bill of 18^6, but with that I am not concerned now — will find that it remains. Then, Sir, the Bill constitutes an Irish Legislature. Power is granted to an Irish Legislature, which consists, fu'st, of a legislative council, and, secondly, of a legislative assembly — power to do this ; and now I quote tho words of the Bill — " power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in respect to matters exclupivoly relating to Ireland or some part thereof." (('heel's.) That power is subject to a double limita- tion, which I will describe in a moment. Firet of all it is subject to the necessary and obvious limitation that tho heads reserved to Parliament are not to be reserved just as giving them to Parliament, but are reserved to them by way ot excluding the new Irish Legislature from doing any act in relation to them. The other is that certain incapacities are imposed on this Irish Parliament, They are very short, and I will enumerate them — namely, all that relates to the Crown, Regency, and Viceroy, all that relates to peace and war, all that relates to defence, all that relates to treaties and foreign relations, and all that relates to dignities and titles. The law of treason will not belong to it, the Inw of alienage will not belong to it, and every- thing that belongs to external trade — and upon that point I shall make a remark by-and-by— the subject of coinage, and sjme other and subsidiary subjects. Then as regards tho incapacities imposed, gentlemen have been already made familiar with them in the Bill of 1886 ; I will only describe them as relating to two Bubjocts in these most large and general terms by way of a slight sketch. They are intended for tho security of religious freedom — and there they touch upon establishments and education — and for the security Mr. Gladstone. 304 House of Commons, February 13, 1893. of personal freedom, with respect to which we have endeavoured to borrow — I hope without trenching upon any just sentiment of Irish patriotism^we have endeavoured to borrow where we thought we could safely borrow from one of the modern amendments of the American Constitution. Then I come to the executive powers. We propose tosubject the executive power to a change, which, I think, is generally recognized as reasonable — ^iven one main proposition —that is, to place the office of Viceroy of Ireland so as to divest it as far as one can of the party character which it has hitherto borne (cheers), and does bear to a degree far from desirable, and to provide — though this will be the first time that there has been any statutory appointment — that the appointment shall usually run for six years, but subject, of course, to the revoking power of the Crovm. That is the first point with regard to the Viceroyalty. The second point is that, if the Bill becomes law, it is to be freed from all religions disabilities. (Cheers.) Beligioas disabilities may have been, and I think were, very improper and inadvisable even before the abolition of the Irish Church as an establishment, but since that abolition they have become really nothing less than preposterous. (Cheers.) Then comes a clause which may be considered formal, though it is, of course, of great importance, providing for the full devolution of executive power from the Sovereign upon the Viceroy. Then comes the important pro- vision for the appointment of the Executive Com- mittee of the Privy Council in Ireland. Now, if the practice of the Irish Privy Council were the same as it is in England, I am not sure that we should have required such an enactment, because in England there is no assumption bymembersofthePrivyCouncil, except when they are specially invitedto discharge them, of any real or important functions. But in Ireland the line in not so carefully drawn between the merely;honorary Privy Councillorships and the positive exercise and discharge of the duties ; and in order to make it clear how far these duties are dependent upon the individual, whereas they ought to be dependent upon the central power of the State, ^e provide that an Executive Committee of • the Privy Council shall be constituted, and that this committee shall ,be so constituted that it shall he in effect the practical council for ordinary affairs, or, if you like so to call it, the Cabinet of the Viceroy. Then comes the question of the veto. There what we provide is that on the advice of that Executive Council, the Viceroy gives or withholds his assent to Bills, subject however, nevertheless, to the instructions of the Sovereign in respect to any given Bill in particular. Then I come to the Legislative Council and that body will require rather more words from me than the sister chamber of the Assembly. The question, of course, arises, Shall there be any Legislative Council at all? We have decided, so far as we are concerned, that there ought to be a Legislative Council, and upon these two grounds— first of all, the ground of general experience, for, looking out over the world and look- ing out over the whole circumference of the British Empire, experience I do not think recommends or per- haps warrants our resorting without a great necessity or some strong and peculiar recommendation to the system of a single chamber. In Ireland, so far from finding any such necessity or recommendation, we look to a Legislative Council as, on the contrary, affording us the fairest, the most constitutional, and the most unexceptionable method of redeemingthe pledge, if it be a pledge, which we have given to meet the ex- pectation which we have repeatedly held out that we The Home Bale Bill. would, if we could, give to the minority in Ireland some means of vocal expression and of securing a fair, full, and liberal consideration for their views ; though I do not say that the views of the minority in Ireland should, as they have done for so many centuries, entirely over- rule and suppress the opinion of the nation at large. (Cheers. )Next, shall it be nominated or elected ? There we come to this conclusion : — A nominated council is a weak council. If such a council attempted to make itself in 'any manner troublesome, it being at once troublesome and weak would probably enjoy but a very short term of existence. (Hear, hear.) We, therefore, propose an elective council, believing that to be the only form in which we can give any great force or vitality to the institution. Then how do we differentiate this council, you will justly ask, from the popular Assembly ? I may say, first, that we do not differentiate it by qualifications imposed upon the councillors, analogous to the qualifications which used to exist with reference to members of this House, and which, if they existed now, would have deprived us of some amongst our colleagues whose preseuce here we value in the highest degree. (Cheers.) We do not propose to adopt that discarded method, but we do this : — In the first place, we take the number which it is proposed to fix at 48. In the second place, we take the term of the council, which it is proposed to fix at eight years, the term of the Assembly being a lower term. We then constitute a new constituency for the council — a constituency which, in the first place, must be associated with a value above £20, and I may say that with that figure we hope to secure an aggregate constituency approaching 170,000. Mr. COURTNEY.— £20 on- what ? Mr. GLADSTONE.— On valuation. In that con- stituency owners are included as well as occupiers, but subject to the provision that no owner or occupier is to vote in more than one constituency. (Cheers.) Lastly, as the only characteristic which I need name, there is no provision in the Bill to make the Legislative Council alterable by Irish Act. And it appears to us it would be very inconvenient if we were to attempt to alter the numbers of the Legisla- tive Assembly ; if we were to increase them, we do not know what increase it ought to be ; if we were to reduce them, I think we should run very serious risk of eausiog practical inconvenience, especially in Dublin, at a time when functions of local and internal government come up to he newly exercised. We therefore leave the number at 103 ; we fix a tenu of five years, and we leave the constituency as it is now. We contemplate that these 103 members must not, in order to fulfil the spirit of the Constitution, pass hence to a Chamber in Dublin by our authority, but that they; ought to be elected for Irish legislative business by tie constituencies in Ireland. And, lastly, we make these provisions as to the Assembly alterable with respect to electors and con- stituencies after a term of six years, but in altering the constituencies the powers will he limited by a declaration in the Act that there must be due regard had to the distribution of the population. It will be necessary, as we have considered, to include in the Bill a provision for the purpose of meeting what is called a deadlock. Our proposition is this— that in cases where a Bill has been adopted by the Assembly more than once, and where there has been an interval between the two adoptions either of two years or else marked by a dissolution of Parliament, then upon the second adoption the two Assemblies may be required to meet together, and the fate of the Bill will be decided by the joint Assembly. (Hear, hear.) I must Mr. Gladstone, House of Commons, February 13, 1893. 305 now run with great fupidity tbfOugh a number of enactinents in the Bill which I should not be justifled in omitting, but which I shall not refer to in detail. First of ail, kptieals, as we propose, shall lie to the Privy Council alone, and not to the Privy Council and the House of Lords. Next, the Privy Council may try the qu'estion of the invalidity of an Irish Act — try it, of course, judicially, and, I hope, in a reasoned judgment (hear, heir) — what is sometimes called a question of ultra vires, not, however, upon the initia- tive of irresponsible persons, but upon the initiative either of the Videroy or the Secretary of State. The Judicial Comniittee as how recognized is the only approach we can get to the Supreme Court of the United States, and of course I need not say that in the composition of the Judicial Committee due regard must be bad to the diiference of nationality. I do hot apprehend any difficulty upOn that point. Then we declare the Judges irremovable. That is quite right. At th6 same time I must say there is some- thing quaint in our being so jealous of the Judges as against the Irish Parliament when it is recollected that the English Government in the days of its supremacy in Ireland never lifted a finger to make the Judges irremovable. They were not irremovable, and they would not have served the purposes of the English Government if they had been irremovable. (Cheers.) When in the year 1782 the Irish Parliament was relieved from its restraints and had imbibed an independent spirit, then one of the earliest, if I remember right, of its spontaneoup movements, without being taught or tutored by the English Government, was to make its Judges irremovable. (Cheers.) We have got in the Bill a clause to provide for the security of the emolu- ments of existing Judges and existing civil officers generally. As to the principles which are laid down with regard to the constabulaiy, there are some of the detailed arrangements which will not be found inserted in tl|p Bill. It has been thought better to reserve these particulars, and to set out in the first instance the principles on which we have proceeded. Then there is a clause whicli is intended to correspond with and to supply as far as is desirable the purpose of the Colonial Validity law. The object of that clause is to provide that, if the Irish Legislature passes an Act which is in any sense • contrary to Acts of Parliament, that Act shall be good except in so far as it is so contrary. That will, I think, dispose of any controversy on that portion of this particular subject. Wo provide that two Ex- chequer Judges shall be appointed under the authority of the Crown — that is to say, under the Great Seal— for the purpose, mainly perhaps, of financial business, but for the purpose I may say generally of that business which is Imperial, because there are certain matters in connexion with the ordinary action of British law which we are not able to exclude alto- gether, although I should be very glad to exclude them ou grounds that will be presently stated. Besides the appointment of these Exchequer Judges, it is provided that for six years all Judges shall be appointed as they now are, and it will be understood that that is really a method for dividing the jurisdiction, because with regard to future appointments we do not assume to the Imperial authority any power of fixing the emolu- ments. These emoluments will be fixed in Ireland, and the eflfect will be to establish a joint control over these appointments. Of course, when I said the Great Beal 1 thought it would at once be understood that I meant the Great Seal of the United Kingdom. As to the date of the meeting, so far as we can judge, the inonth of September will fSfObttbly be the most con- venient time of the year we can name, ahd therefore there is a clause in the Bill Which provides that the Legislature shall meet on the first Tuesday in September. (Cheers and loud Opfiositibh laaghter.) There are clauses securing the sole initiative in money Bills to the Assembly, and also prbTiding that the Assembly shall not have within itself an initiative except upon the prior initiative of the Viceroy. Then thbre is a clause about financial arrangements, which I shall come to Immfediately, providing that they may be readjusted and recon- sidered after 15 years upon an address either from the House of Commons or from the Legislative Assembly. Then, Sir, I must first givci the principles which we recognize as applicable to the settlement of the important question connected With the constabulary. The principles are theSe, their giradual, though not too abiTapt, reduction, their ultimate dissolution or dis- appearanfce, our full recognition and discharge of every obligation towards them in Such a Way that, as i hope we may say, the interests of that remarkable and honourable force will not be adversely affected by the passing of such a Bill as is now before us. During the period I have named, they will be under the control of the Viceroy, as the representative of the Crown, but, of course, it is contemplated that they are to be replaced by a force owing its existence to Irish authority, and therefore we propose and con- template that, upon the gradual . establishment by Irish authority in local areas of a new police force, the constabtilary will be withdrawn piece- meal from those local areas one after another. Now, I come to two subjects ot the greatest import- ance. One of these is the grave controversy which arose in connexion with the retention of Irish mem- bers in this House. (Cheers.) Accordingly, Sir, we have gone into this subject in a spirit of prudence, a spirit of circumspection, Of even of jealousy ; but it is a subject which in a great measure has been taken out of our bands — at least to this extent, that whereas in 1S86 we proposed to allow the Irish representa- tives to drop entirely out of this House, we have yielded to what we believed to be the public wish that they should be retained. (Cheers.) Now, Sir, that preface to the subject is an easy matter, but we shall not get on so swimmingly when we proceed to deal with its details. For I must say that, whether we were right or wrong in 1886 — a question on which I will give iio opinion, becawe it is immaterial — in our Wew of the practical aiiE- culties attending the retention of the Irish meinbers, we were very far from being altogether in error. Strong language of my own is often quoted with respect to tiiese difficulties, but I am bound -to say that, looking back after seven years, and admitting that that language was, I might say, almost impromptu language on a rapid consideration of the subject — I cannot say that that language was really too strong. At any rate, it was absolutely free from prejudice. (Hear, hear.) I beg pardon, Sir, I ought to have mentioned two points with regard to the con- stabulary. We hope that a transfer will take place from the old to the new and properly Irish police force, but I cannot eo into the details of the arrange- ments, which, we think, may be reserved to a later stage in the progress of the Bill. On the important subject of the retention of the Irish members, I do not regard it, and I never have regarded it, aa touching what may be called the principles of the Bill. It is not included in one of them, but, whether it bo a principle of the Bill or not, there The Home Hule Bill. Mr. Gladstone. 80G House of Commons; February 13, 1893, is no question that it is a very weighty and, if I may say so, an organic detail which cuts rather deep in some respects into the composition of the Bill. I do not at all dissemble that there are strong arguments which may he alleged in defence of the retention of the private members (Some hon. members. — The " Irish members.") I beg pardon, Irish members, such as we are aboat to propose. There is one argument which I must put aside ; I think it is a most dangerous argument and in itself quite un- digaifiedjbut it is the argument of those who say that, unless jou retain Irish members, there is no Parlia- mentary supremacy over Ireland. I entirely decline to admit that argument. (Hear, hear.) If you do admit it you at one stroke shatter and destroy the Parliamentary supremacy of this country, I might almost say, beyond the limits of the United Kingdom over the vast colonies of the Crown. (Hear, hear.) I pass on from that. Though I do not at all admit that Parliamentary supremacy depends on the retention of the Irish members, yet I quite admit that the retention of the Irish members is a matter of great public importance, because it visibly exhibits that suprcmacyin a manner intelligible to the people. Besides that, it may make Ireland feel what, perhaps at the present moment, she cannot be expected so keenly to feel, but I hope at an early period she may come to feel it — it may make Ireland feel that she has a full voice on all Imperial matters. And thirdly, it has this advantage : — We cannot in our financial arrangements get rid of all financial connexion between the two countries, unless you are prepared to face a very inexpedient and inconvenient system of different sets of trade law. That being so, it must be thatBritish budgets will have more or less of influence upon Irish pecuniary balances, and therefore it is desirable for the purpose of mitigating any inconveni ence that might thence arise that Ireland should have some- thing to say to these British budgets. (Hear, hear.) These are arguments in favom' of the retention of the Irish members, and I really know of no argument against it, provided they are willing to remain and to take the trouble to come here for the purpose of dis- charging public business. There is no argument of an abstract, theoretical, or constitutional character against their retention. But the argument against it is that I do not think — to revert to my own expres- Bion, that has become rather familiar and threadbare — that it is " within the wit of man " to devise a plan for their retention which shall not be open to some serious practical difficulty. (Opposition cheers.) My object to-day is to open up the whole question for the judgment of the House. (Hear, hear.) I will endeavour as far as I can to open out the nature of these inconveniences. They turn entirely upon the conjunction of two points. The first of them is number, and the second is voting power. The first question that arises, of course, upon number is this — Is Ireland to be fully represeuted in this House ? Pro- bably the reeling of gentlemen will be in favour of an affirmative answer to that question. But then arises another difficulty, which, no doubt, can bo got over, but which must not be altogether overlooked. What is the full representation of Ireland ? (Hear, hear.) In 18S,4, this House treated Ireland in what I thought a wise, but andoubtedly a liberal spirit, as some compensation for the gross illiberality with which she had been treated at the time of the Union with respect to her representation, tut in a liberal spirit in assigning to her the number of 103 members. That number was even then beyond what, according to calculations fropi population, Ireland would have been strictly entitled to. Unhappily that disparity has since been aggravated by a double process. The popu- lation of Great Britain has continued in all its divi- sions to increase ; the population of Ireland, to my great regret, has continued to diminish. It has now reached this point, that whereas the numbers accorded to Ireland in the composition of Parliament are 103, the number estimated according to the ratio of Irish population to the, population of the rest of the country would only give to Ireland the number of 81 members. I am speaking, perhaps, in round numbers ; there is a fraction ; but all through I am speaking in round numbers because it is far more convenient for general comprehension than minute exactness. What I come to is this — that, supposing there is a general sentiment that Ireland ought to bo fully represeuted, yet there will be also a general determination to interpret that full representation according to the proportion at present subsisting between the fopulation of Ireland and the population of the two kingdoms. Therefore, in speaking of full representation, I imply that the full representation of Ireland wojld be by 80 Irish gentlemen', and, of course, it follows, if that be the conclusion, that there will have to be a new election for these SO Irish members, for I conceive the House would pro- bably be indisposed to recognize the commission given to 103 as valid when it had been delermintid that 80 was the proper number. The question may be raised, Can we go below 80 ? It may be — I do not conceal it from myself as possible, that in the pai-tially developed state of her political life, from want of practice in local government, and from the effects of excessive centralization, it may be that to supply a full number lor a Legislature in Dublin, and likewise to supply 80 membera for the Imperial Parliament, would not be vei-y convenient to Ireland. However, I am met by this difficulty, that if Ireland is represented not by 80 members, but by 30 or 40, the effect would be that the objeclJ* of retention would not be gained, because the voice and the vote of Ireland would not he adequately given upon those Imperial questions on which Ireland, if she chooses to assert it, has just as deep, vital, and large an interest as Great Britain. (Cheers.) Therefore we have endeavoured to arrange the schedule of the Bill in such a manner that this Imperial representation shall not practically clash in an inconvenient way with the representation of the Legislature in Dublin which is to remain in the hands of the Irish authority. I have stated one difficulty ; but there is a greater difficulty left behind. What is to be the voting power of these 80 men ? (Cheers.) Now, Sir, if I may suppose it to be so, that is an article of diet which will be found, decide it which way - you will, to be somewhat indigestible. The question is this — Ireland is to be represented here in full. That is my first postulate. Ireland is to be invested in full — that is my second postulate — with a separate power, subject, no doubt, to the Imperial authority, yet still, as we trust from experience, a practically separate and independent power, as it is in other Legislatures of the Empire. Ireland is to be endowed with separate power over Irish affairs ; and then the question before us now is. Is she or is she not to vote 80 strong upon matters purely British f I think that, in judging of that question, there is material sufficient to exercise in a masculine and beneficial way all the reflective and reasoning powers of this assembly. (Laughter.) My question is. Is Ire- land to vote 80 ftrong under the twopostulates I have stated ? And I propose the question in Parliamentary The Home Kule Bill. Mr. Gladstone. House of Commons, February 13, 1803. 307 form, ay or no. There are reasons both ways. (Laughter.) I will even go further and soy that in my opinion there are strong reasons both ways. (lienewed laughter.) I will go a little further yet and say that 1 have no absolute certainty in my own mind what view the House of Commons will take of this question. (More laughter.) Let us hojie that they will take the right view. But I hope my adequate and impartial exposition will bring out as far as I am able the elements upon which, in whole or in part, their judgment will have to rest. First 1 will take the arguments in favour of tiieir voting 80 strong upon purely British que.'^tions. One argument is that to which I made rcfcience in 1886. We cannot cut them off in a manner ptTfectly clean and clear from this House ; wc cannot fmd an absolute and accurate line of cleavage between questions that are Imperial nnd questicns that are Irish. Unless we let them vote on all British questicns, Ireland must, I believe,! ave something too little or fomctbing too much, because there arc questions which it defies our efforts to range with accuracy and precision, upon an indisputable principle, on the proper side of the line. There are some sub- jects difBcult to detail which, 1 have no doubt, will arise in determining the competency of Irish members to vote ; but the main point undoubtedly is that we did not see in 1886, and we do not see now, the possibility of excluding them from what is one of the very highest and most important among all the functions of this House — namely, determining the composition of the Executive power by their vote. A vote of confidence is commonly a simple declara- tion ; it may be otherwise, but it is in the option of movers to make it, and it is generally made, a motion simply declaratory of the will of the House. I do not think it is possible to exclude the Irish members remaining in this House from voting ui on that great subject. That is the fiist argument. The next argu- ment is this, and I own it touches me nearly and cuts deeply, if I may so say, into the mind and heart of any one who has had, a long experience of Parliament and whose life has been associaled for full three- Bcore years with the life and movement of the British House of Commons. (Cheers.) It is this — unless the Irish members vote upon all questions, you break a great Parliamentary tradition— namely, that of the absolute equality of memiiers of this House. (Cheers.) I cannot say, Sir, what a value I, for one, attach to the principle of Parliamentary equality. Be the man young or old, be he rich or poor, be he from the ranks of the highest nobility or be he a repre- sentative of the working class ; be his powers what they may, be his standing here what it may, I hold, in defiance, if it so must be, of all merely conven- tional considerations, that the essential equality of tho members of this House is a principle of the deepest consequence, and forms a part, and a fundamental part, of the environment in which we live, and which to a large extent enters into and makes us what we are. (Cheers.) Well, Sir, in what degree and manner will that equality be violated by a limitation of voting power? That is the question. There is no doubt that any one who will consider tho practical working out of a plan of this kind will, I think, agree with me that the presence of 80 members of this House with only limited powers of voting is a serious breach of established Parliamentary tradition, is a breach which, whether you resolve to face it or whether you resolve not to face it, ought to be made the subject of your most careful and dispassionate consideration. (Hear, hear.) And now, Sir, I come to the reasons against tho universal voting power. And my first reason is an extenuation of reasons stated the other way. It is difficult to define cleavage between those two questions — you cannot say everything on that side is Irish and everything on this side is Imperial. That, I think, you cannot do ; but imdoubtedly you can draw a distinction as to tho great mass of the business of the House. (Hear, hear.) If you ask for the propor- tion of it I should say 9-lOths or 19-20ths, perhaps t)9-100ths, of the business of Parliament can, without serious difiliculty, be classed as Irish and Imperial. Then comes the question of a very great anomaly. I should admit it to be a great and very formidable anomaly if our nervous systems were of a character to be violently acted upon by the word " anomaly." It would be avcry great anomaly, I think, that these 80 Irish gentlemen, coming here no doubt with most upright intentions as well as with an admirable stock of ability, of which we long have had experience — it would be an anomaly that they should continually intervene in questions purely and absolutely British (hear, bear) — questions, perhaps, aifecting not even tho whole of the United Kingdom — not even the whole of any section of the United Kingdom — questions of the most purely local character. We must own that, as far as anomaly goes, that is a very great anomaly. But it is not, in my opinion, the strongest argument against the univer- sal voting of the Irish members. I wish to approach this question in a spirit of trust. I believe myself that suspicion is the besetting vice of politicians, and that trust is often the truest wisdom. (Hear, hear.) Still, we must not with our eyes open deliberately leave an easy entrance, and a strong temptation, to intrigue. 1 have great confidence, speaking generally, in the personal character of political men, but I cannot deny that there have been or that there may be parties that might descend to intrigue for party pur- poses. (Cheers.) If some veiylargequestionof controversy entirely British, but still deep and vital, were severing the two great parties in this House and the members of these parties knew whichever could bring over the SO Irish representatives, or a large contingent of them, to support their views would carry tho day, I am afraid, Sir, of thus opening a possible dooi to wholesale and dangerous political intrigue. (Cheers.) I hope that in this rather disagreeable de- lineation I am entering upon, hon. members from Ireland will not think that I am dwelling upon thbii particular share in these infirmities ; I would rather suppose that the initiative comes from this side of tho House. (Hear, hear.) I am afraid that in some given case, actuated by a warm love of country, Ire- land might yield, or be led into temptation. I dread creating a state of things in which there may be an opening to intrigue of this character with the result that British questions might come to be decided on Irish motives. I know that this is an evil uodei which we have already suffered. (Hear, hear.) I regard that as absolutely inevitable in the present state of things. But with Irishmen I recognize in the fullest manner that, sitting at this moment in the House, the welfare of Ireland is with them the supreme, paramount, overruling interest. (Cheers.) I am not speaking of loyalty, but of party conten- tions, and I say. I cannot blame them if, when British questions come to an issue and they think they can greatly promote the interests of Ireland, they are guided by that Irish motive in determining, and perhaps determining wrongly, the British question. That dread of intrigue appears to me to be a most formidable weapon. 1 think it is not merely an anomaly as we might view it in this House ; but it is what The Home Enle Bill. Mr. Gladstone. 308 House of Commons, February 13, 1893. plain, unlettered Englishmen would think who cannot anderstand why Irish votes on some question of education, or some other matter in which Englishmen were interested and which was in no respect Irish, should be determined by those who had a separate Parliament to determine the same question for them- selves. (Cheers.) As to that other question of the mixture, and the large mixture, of individual motives between some party on this side of the water and representatives from the other side of the water, with the view to make use of Irish votes to decide some question of British interest by indirect means, and holding out indacements to the Irish members for their services, connected with the welfare of Ireland, I con- fess that I and my colleagues have not been able to face a contingency such as this. These are, I believe, very great difiiculties, and difficulties which we have felt to be, on the whole, the most hard to surmount, and the consequence is that we have inserted in the Bill certain provisions for contemplating the full retention of the whole number of Irish members ; but we have inserted limitations of their voting powers. We have inserted governing provisions — namely, that the decision of each House of Parliament shall be absolute and final upon all occasions which may arise, so that we may not run the risk of getting this great authority into collision with any judicial or other authority. I will state briefly what these limitations are. First of all, the Irish members would be excluded from voting on any Bill or motion expressly confined to Great Britain ; secondly, on any tax not levied in Ireland ; thirdly, on any vote or appropriation of money otherwise than for Imperial services, — there will be no difficulty here, because in a schedule to the Bill we enumerate all the services which by law would stand as Itnperial, — and fourth, on no moti on or resolution exclusive lyaifecting Great Britain, or person or persons therein. Then there is a covering limitation to exclude them from any tnotion or resolu- tion incidental to any of the foregoing, except the first ; and the first is any Bill or motion expressly confined to Great Britain. We do not exclude Mr. BALFOUR. — Are they to be excluded in debate ? Mr. GLADSTONE.— No. The point is, they are not excluded from voting on a motion incidental to it. It appears to us that there ought to be some way that in a iBill or motion exclusively relating to Great Britain there should be a power raising a ques- tion whether such Bill or motion ought to be extended to Ireland. There may be those who will say "You set forth with rhetorical fairness, as well as you can, the intentions and conclusions that you come to, but the whole business you have undertaken is full of thorns and brambles ; why not abandon it?" (Loud Opposition cheers.) But I will not abandon it. (Ministerial cheers.) The object of this Bill is autonomy and self-government for Ire- land in matters properly Irish. (Cheers.) The Irish do not raise these difficulties. (Hear, hear.) If they are willing to accept that autonomy and take your terms, whatever they ttiay be, as to sitting here or not sitting here, we, for our own purposes, have thought it right that there should be provisions for retaining them. Could there be anything more unstatesmanlike and ungenerous than to avail ourselves of our own wrong when they had met us freely and frankly, and accepted exclusion from this House, and when we had insisted on their remaining to make the difficulty of their remaining the reason for retaining them ? (Hear, hear.) The retention or non-retentiouj patent as it is, is secondary to the great purpose we have in view. The secondary ought not to interfere with the aim, the principle, the great purpose we have in view. We have o.lered the beet plati which, after much labour, we could make. We have, however, feeling that the shadow of uncertainty may bang over the subject, with modesty affixed " unless and until it is otherwise determined." (Laughter.) I have still one function to go through, and that is on the subject of the financial part of this measure, the keynote of which is to be found in the provisions included in our plans from the first, and wisely, but I must say I also think generously, accepted by Ireland and her representatives, that there is to be one system of legislating for all the kingdom for external trade. That has guided us in the conclusions which we have formed — the unity of commercial legislation for all the three kingdoms. This commercial legislation may be considered either as taxing legislation or regula- tive legislation, and, as taxing legislation has the most important financial consequences, I will refer to it now. Under the head of commercial legislation for this purpose we include Customs duties, secondly. Excise duties, and, thirdly, the Post Office and Tele- graph service, through which nearly the whole com- mercial business of the country is condubted. By means of adopting this key-note I promise the House that we can attain what we think most valuable results, results which are likely to avoid clashing and friction between tile agents of the Imperial and the agents of the Irish Governments. We can make under cover of this proposition a larger and more liberal transfer to Ireland of the management of her own affairs than we could make if we proceeded on any otiier principle. For example, we hope to escape in this way all collection in the interior of Ireland of any revenue whatever by Imperial authorities ; we hope to escape all exercise of taxing powers except those to which I have referred, and we hope to escape cross accounts and cross payments of revenue accounts. There are some minor heads on which I shall not touch at present, such as Mint charges and the pro- spective profits of the Suez Canal. These I exclude from consideration for the moment, and I make for the main matter. The principles to whict^we are bound to give effect is that Ireland is bound to bear her fair share of Imperial expenditure, the word '* Imperial " being defined as I define it. There are three modes in which this might be done. The firit is the method of the lump sum which was adopted in 1886, and which was called by those who were not friendly to it the method of tribute. The method of proceeding by the lump sum we thought naturally dis- appeared with the adoption of the new plan as to the retention of the Irish members. Another method is the method of quota, according to which Ireland would pay 4 per cent., 5 per cent., or 6 per cent, of the Imperial expenditure. There is one considerable merit in this plan. If you fix a quota it is elastic, and if the transactions of the Imperial Exchequer should swell even to 100 millions, the principle of quota would still secure in an accurate manner the share to be got from Irelatfd. But the method of proceeding by quota has disadvan- tages. All the revenue without exception would be collected in the Irish accomit. When explaining this subject in 1886, I pointed out that there was a very large sum of revenue received in Ireland which really belonged to Great Britain. The principal part of that sum came from the Excise Department. I am now happy to say that, with the advantage of con- sideration which the Inland Kevenue Department has had since the former plan was produced, we get rid of the difficulty altoaetber as far as the Inland Revenue The HomoEnla Bill. Mr. Gladstone, House of Commons, February 13, 1893. 309 is concerned, and we can provide that the revenue levied in Ireland shall be the revenue really belong- ing to Ireland. But this is not so -with the Customs. In the Customs there is a large debit from Ireland to this country — several hundred thousand pounds — and it is extremely difficult to ascertain the particulars, so that if we were to collect Customs revenue from the Irish accounts we should.be involved in difficulty in determining how much of that revenue really belonged to Ireland and how much of it was derived from goods which were consumed in Ireland, but which belonged for fiscal pui'poses to Great Britain. Another difRoulty is this : If we adopted the method of quota we should expose IrJL^h finance to large, inconvenient shocks from the changes introduced in English Budgets for Imperial reasons, and we should also, perha4>s, make it necessary to do what we are, I think, very unwilling to do — namely, to give to Imperial officers a meddling and intervening power in relation to Irish fiscal affairs. The third method' is to appropriate a particular fund, to lay bands upon it, and say, " This fund shall be taken by us to meet the obligations of Ireland for Imperial services." The arguments in favour of this fund plan are these : — In the first place, it sweeps away all necessity for difficult calcula- tions ; in the second place, we have got the fund practically in our hands, because the management of the Customs revenue in Ireland must be British and Imperial, and, England having received the fund from that revenue, it would never go near the IrishExchequer. We could keep it and thus avoid coming upon Ireland for payments from year to year. Then the Customs fund is very nearly the right amount. The amount is £2,420,000 a year gross and £50,000 being allowed tor collection — £2,370,000 net. The Imperial expendi- ture is £59,000,000, so that we should have an amount equal to a charge of between 4 per cent, and 5 per cent. By adopting this method, although the rates of Excise and the rates of postal telegraphs would be fixed by the Imperial authority, the whole control of these departments would be absolutely in the hands of Irish officers. I ought perhaps to point out to what extent what I call the fund plan would fall short in exactitude of the quota plan. The latter would meet every emergency of peace or war, but the fund plan would not meet a great emergency like war to the same extent. Myself, in such an emergency, I should have very little fear of trusting to the patriotism and liberality of the Irish Legislature. (Laughter and cries of " Hear, hear.") Stinginess has never been the vice of Ireland (hear, hear), and looking into the paulo post-futurum of Ireland under Home Kule I am a great deal more afraid of her suffering from a generous extravagance than from stinginess. When we contemplate a state of war we look to three sources of revenue — one in Customs, one in Excise, and a third in the income-tax. Now, with regard to Customs, the plan we propose leaves that source of revenue in our hands, so there can be no difficulty as to that. I will not now enter into details, but as to other sources of revenue, in case of great emergency, we have in view a proposal by which we should make sure of getting fair and full provision from Ireland for special Imperial necessities. The Irish balance- sheet stands thus : — On the credit side there would stand a total of £5,660,000, 'and on the other side charges amounting to £3,210,000, for Ire- land would take over the whole of her Civil Govern- ment charges, excepting the constabulary charge. We put the collection of revenue at £160,000, postal services £790,000, and we propose that Ireland should take two-thirds of the charge of the constabulary, which would be £1,000,000. That would bring the Irish charge to £5,160,000, and we propose that she should receive against that all the amount I have already named as forming hercrsdit, reaching £5, 660, 000. There would therefore be a clear surplus of exactly £500,000. (Hear, hear.) It may be asked, whence does that surplus come ? We take one-third of the constabulary charge upon ourselves ; happily it is, no doubt, a vanishing charge. That one-third would supply £500,000, which would be a clear balance that Ire- land would have to start with. Then you will say, " At whose expense will that balance be found ?" Well, undoubtedly either in the whole or in the main it would be found at the expense of the British tax- payer. (Ironical Opposition cheers.) You are no doubt shocked at that, but you have no reason to be shocked. (Ministerial cheers.) What is my vindica- tion for assigning to Ireland this clear surplus of £500,000 ? There are a variety of arguments which might be lurged. One of these is the argument which I by no means think to be without force, but it is not the governing consideration at the present time, and that is in former days, upon a full examination, I am well convinced that Ireland has been most shabbily and most unjustlytreated in respect to money advances. (Cheers.) What I want to urge is this — that by arriving at this settlement with Ireland you will escape the impending and constantly accruing incre- ment of Irish charges, and that it is well worth your while to come under this considerable but vanishing charge of £500,000 in order to escape the -increment of charge for Irish local services. (Hear, hear.) Would hon. gentlemen like to know wbat that incre- ment has been ? Irish grants upon the average of 1833 to 1837 were £762,000 a year ; Irish grants on the average of 1888 to 1892 were £4,042,000— that is to say, in 55 years there was an increase of £3,300,000, or a regular increment of £66,000 a year. Perhaps yon may say that £66,000 is rather formidable and that things are improving now. But how is it according to the latest experience ? Here yon have the latest experience — that is to say, the experience of the seven years between 1886 and 1893. In 1886 the civil charges of Ireland without the constabulary were £3,094,000 ; in 1893 the civil charges stand at £3,892,000. The civil charges of Ireland have increased in the last seven years by an aggregato of £800,000 a year,and that gives you an annual incre- ment in these modem days not of £66,000, but of £113,000. (Cheers.) I hope I may now release the So'ose from the painful details to which hon. members have listened with exemplary patience (cheers), and which I have presented to themin this im> perfect manner, but with every effort on my part to select for presentation those points which are most interesting, most vital, and most calculated to convey a fundamental conception of the spirit of the scheme. (Cheers.) Our plan may be a very imperfect one ; it may admit of some amendment to be received from the impartial consideration of the House and from the action of friendly and possibly even of unfriendly criticism. (Hear, hear.) I wish it were more worthy of its object, for its object as conceived by us is certainly a very lofty one. It is no less in my view than to redeem the fame and character of this country and its political genius from an old and inveterate dis- honour, and to increase, enhance, and magnify the strength, greatness, glory, and union of the empire. (Cheers.) Sir, I hope I have not needlessly provoked polemical sentiment of any kind. (Cheers.) I hope I shall not give offence when I espress in a few words my deep conviction that either this plan or some plan The Home Rule Bill. Mr. Gladstone. 310 House of Commons, February 13, 1893. closely resembling it and identical in principle will Bhortly becomo law. (Loud cheers.) I know there is one risk, and that risk in ray mind is this — that it" the controversy upon this question be unduly and unwar- rantably prolonged, that which is now merely a demand for the establishment of Irish self-govern- ment in Irish affairs will become a demand, perhaps under circumstances less favourable than these, for the repeal of the Union and the re- establishmont of a dual Sovereignty within these islands (cheers) — an alternative which I regard as wholly shut out at least from my personal purview, even if I had a prospect of long years of life to come. I view that as a possible danger loom- ing in the future, and I wish to steer the ship cleat of that rock. (Hear, hear.) I hope we shall consider the state of things that is before us, and weigh well the actual attitude and position of Ireland and the contrast between that attitude as it is now and as it was when Dean Swift said that as for ihe people of Ireland they amounted to a mere cipher and could not be taken into the reckoning upon the one side or the other, as it was when the Ascendency Parliament of Ireland begged and craved to be admitted into the British Parliament and was refused, or as it was at the beginning of this century, after the Union, when the whole Union movement had been forcibly put down and when the Irish voters trooped to the poll for the simple purpose of returning by open vote their laud- lords to Parliament. We have now before us a very different state of things. Ireland has on her side the memory of past victories earned with sweat and labour, but really earned and recorded on her tehalf . Ireland has the mighty sympathies which she has acquired in this larger and stronger island. She has obtained the suffrage of Scotland ; she has obtained the suffrage of Wales. She has in the ."ihort space of seven years changed a majority of over 200 against her in England into a majority of one-third of that number. (Cheers.) She was stinted in her franchise and in her means of reprepentation. She now possesses the most extended franchise with the most perfect protection, and the main object which she has not yet obtained she looks to obtain with increased means in her hand and opportunities at her command. (Cheers.) One other source of strength she has, and that is the moderation of her demand. (Loud cheers.) She has ever since 1886, if not before, in an un- equivocal and national sense abandoned the whole of the argument which perhaps she is entitled to make upon the subject of the Act of Union, and she has asked you to save for yourselves every Imperial power. She has consented to accept the common univers.il supremacy of the Empire and she has asked only for that management of her own local concerns which reason and justice, combined with the voice of her people, and with the voice, as I hope it will soon be, of the people of this kingdom, demand. (Hear, hear.) If this contioversy is to end in this manner I cannot but put it to all dispassionate men that the sooner it ends tho 1 otter (cheers) ; the sooner we stamp and seal the deed which effaces all former animosities and open an era, as we believe, of peace and good will, the sooner, I say, that is done the better. (Cheers.) These are matters which human vision — at least nuy human vision — is hardly able to penetrate ; but this I must say, on my own part, I never will and I never can be a party to the bequeath- ing to my country of the continuance of this heritage of discord, which has been handed down from genera- tion to generation with hardly a moment of interrup- tion thronsh seven centuries, and with all the evils I The Home Eule Bil' that follow in its train. (Cheers.) Sir, I wish to have no part or lot in that process. It would be a misery to me if 1 had forgotten or omitted in these my closing years any measure possible for me to take towards upholding and promoting the cause which I believe to be the cause, not of one party or another, of one nation or another, bat of all parties and all nations inhabiting these islands ; and to these nations I say, viewing them as I do, with all their vast opportunities under a living union for power and for happiness, X do entreat you — if it were with my latest breath I would entreat you — to let tho dead bury tho dead (cheers), and to cast behind you every recollec- tion of byegone evils and to cherish and love and sustain one another through all the vicissitudes of human affairs in the times that are to come. The right hon. gentleman sat down, after having spoken for two hours and a quarter, amid loud and prolonged applause, tho whole of the Ministerialists and Home Rulers again rising up and cheering with much enthusiasm. The Speaker having put the question, " That leave be given to introduce this Bill," SIR E. CLAKKB, who was received with cheers, said, — Before I ask the House to allow me to make some observations en the principles which have been laid down, and on some of the more important propo- sitions which have been put forward, I should like to pay my own personal compliment and congratulation to the right hon. gentleman for the speech which he has just made. (Cheers.) During the last seven years the world has seen with admiration the unflagging enthusia'ra with which the right hon. gentleman has devoted himself to this cause ; and I am sure that it is the sentiment and the rainrt of every man here, to whatever party be may belong, to congraculato the right hon. gentleman on having been spared to give us in this House to-night so splendid an example of physical and intellectual power as we have all enjoyed. (Cheers.) Put in listening to that speech, and hearing the right hon, gentleman explain a new system of government for Ireland, I could not help ohserving that we had not to-night any ground or reason given for the proposal of that scheme at all. (Cheers.) Many in this House were hearers, seven years ago within two months, of the speech in which the right hon. gentleman then maintained and developed his propositions with regard to Ireland. I am not going to quote much to-night. 1 think the most futile and worthless of controversies is pelting opponents with fragments of their speeches (hear, hear), and there is no one to whom I would be so cruel at the present time as to apply that policy, unless it were the right hon. gentleman the member for the Bridgeton Division. (Laughter and cheers.) But I must quote one passage from the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister in 1886, a speech which refers to a subject the omission of which from his speech to-night certainly forms a marked difference between the two cases. In 1886 the right hon. gentleman said : — " I could wish on several grounds that it had been Jiossible for me on this single occasion to open to the House the whole policy and intention of the Government with respect to Ireland." Mr. GLADSTONE.— I know not how I came to omit mentioning one very important matter. The land question is reserved to the Imperial Parliament for a period of three years. SIR B. CLARKE.— That statement is a very im- portant one. (Cheew.) Most of us had noted the very sincular fact tliat the right hon. gentleman's Mr. Gladstone. House of Commons, February 13, 1893. 311 speech from end to end contaiiicd no mention of the subject of laud. (Hear, hear.) But the intei-posilion of the right hon, gentleman does not touch the pur- pose tor which I was quoting him. He said : — " Tije two questions of land and Irish government are in our view closely and inseparably connected, for they arc the two channels throu;;h which we hope to llnd access, and efl'oclual access, to this question which is the most vital of all — the question of social order in Ireland." And the right hon. gentleman then developed that proposition, and poiutcd out the three sets of circumstances In Ireland which, as he held, marked the social condition which de- manded the immediate intervention of Parliament. He pointed first to the fact that juries could not be got to convict. The second point was the prevalence of evictions in Ireland ; and the third was that there existed in Ireland almost unchecked a system of inti- midation which disturbed the social life of that coun- try. Why have we had no reference to these circum- stances to-night ? (Cheers.) It is because they have all disappeared. It is because the foundation of that proposal is gone. (Cheers.) Wo can now fnl jurje.i easily and almost evei-ywhBre in Ireland who will do their ducy. Evictions in Ireland are compara- tively rare. We were told by the Chief Secre- tary the other night that rent was being better paid in Ireland at this time than in any period for some time past (hear, hear) ; and the system of intimidation which seven years ago formed the third of the reasons for interfering in this way with the government of Ireland has been checked and put down by the firm enforcement of the law during the intervening years. (Cheers.) But if we missed any reference to the social condition of Ireland from the speech to-night we may remember that there was a second reason," which was given seven years ago for the adoption of the Home Rale scheme. The first was that the social condition of Ireland was so grave that nothing but a constitutional ehange of this kind would be adequate to cope with it. The second was that the condition of business in this House was so difficult, and we were so over- whelmed with the work this Parliament had to do, that we must find relief by scndiug the Irish members away from this House in order that they might transact their business in Dublin. (Hear, hear.) Kow we hare a scheme proposed which is not founded on any social condition which existed and justified the proposal of seven years ago ; while, as to the other object, it has been abandoned altogether, and under this Bill we are to have, not indeed 103, but 80 Irish members — I was going to say dodging in and out of the House — but, at all events, running in and out to take paH in business as it may suit their wishes and convenience. (Cheers.) This is a very great ch^mge. What did the right hon. gentleman give us fco-night instead of the splendid preface to which the House listened in IbSG ? He gave us some references to the hard ease of Ireland since the time of the Gnion. He said that at the time of the Union Irishmen were en- couraged to believe that they would be welcome in this counti7 to the administration and the framing of its laws on equal terms with Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen. And, said the right hon. gentleman, " You have disappointed these fair expectations. You have been unjust to Ireland, because, for the whole series of years since the Union, only two great Irish- men have sat in an English Cabinet." Mr. GLADSTONE. —I said that I myself have only Bat with one Irishman out of the 70 statesmen with whom I have served in Cabinets. SIE E. CLARKE.— The right hon. gentleman says that out of 60 or 70 colleagues of his in Cabinets only one has been an Irishman. How has that happened ? The right hon. gentleman has himself formed Cabinets three or four times ; and he has been as many times again an iuflueutial person in arranging the composi- tion of Cabinets. (Cheers.) How is it that he has never invited, or caused to Le invited, a distinguished Irishman to take a post ? (Cheers.) I believe that in other Cabinets than those with which tho right hon. gentleman has been connected some dis- tinguished Irishmen have found a place ; and it is a little too bad to charge upon the whole country that exclusion of Irishmen which has beea singularly conspicuous in tho Cabinets with which he was connected. (Cheers.) But the right hon. gentle- man passed on to the subject of the present strength of the Nationalist party, and he said that it represented an enormous majority of the representatives of Ire- land. I was surj)rised to hear him, considering the rcvelationswhich have been made of late, refertosecret voting as a characteristic of Irish elections. (Cheers.) Everybody knows that the most active and successful raanufacture in Ireland in modern times has been the manufacture of illiterates, (Cheers and laughter.) And at any election they have been produced in ample numbers, so that the ballot might be defeated by the inspection of vixtes at the polling-booths. To talk so confidently of the virtues of secret voting in the electoral system of Ireland, when the House has not forgotten tho case of the Meath elections (cheers) is surely to apply a theoretical and ideal test to the conditions of life in that country, Eut the I'ighb hon. gentleman went on to say that it was true that the number of Nationalist members had been diminished from 85 to 80. He did not admit the significance of the fact, but he said that he could not in the least understand it. We believe that the great majority which still is held by tho Nationalist members is in many respects due to electoral practices which we would fain check, to influences which have long been mischievously at work, and which we hope may disappear, and so produce a gradual diminution, already beginning, of the Parlia- mentary strengthof the Nationalist party. (Hear, hear.) There was another omission from the righthou. gentle- man'sspeechwhichwassignificant. Inopeninghispianto the House seven years ago the right hon. gettleman al- most invitedfrommembersof the itousesome suggestions as to how he could deal withUlster separately. (Hear, hear.) He mentioned several plans. The first was that Ulster might be conceded a separate autonomy. Another was that certain matters of legislation — edu- cation and the like — upon which Ulstermen might feel sensitive should be taken away from the legis- lative body which the right hon. gentleman was pro- posing to create, and should be given to local bodies founded ondifi'ercnt principles and withdifferentpowers. We have heard nothing of that to-night. There has been no suggestion of protection of the Irish minority (hear, hear), nor even is there a generous invitation to the House to supply suggestions for the treatment of Ulster. What have we had instead ? We have had instead a suggestion that Ulster might change its mind, and in order to illustrate the right hon gentle- man dwelt with much emphasis and much dramatic power on a story of the year 1792. He ofifers to the House this suggestion, that because in 1792 the representa- tives of the Parliament of Black Lane were received with acclamation in the streets of Belfast, that there- fore we may hope that Ulster is going to change its mind. ("Hear, hear." and laughter.) If Ulster ia The Home £ule Bill. Sir E. Clarke. 312 House of Commons, February 13, 1893. going to take another 100 years to change its mind, surely we ought to make some provisiou in the Bill for what mayhappenin the interim. ("Hear,hear,"and laughter.) I shall not utter one word of criticism upon the financial part of the speech, which is of too difficult and complicated a character to be dealt with until the right hon. gentleman's words are in print. The first change that has been made from the old Bill of 1886 is a singular and somewhat important one. In tlie Bill of 1886 there was a clause 37 which was, as we now know from Lord Thring, very carefully drafted. It was a clause which declared, established, and re- tained the Supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. It has been stated by the draftsman that it was desirable to put that clearly in a claase of the Bill in order that the Irish members should make their compact with this House in the very measnre by which they were receiving Home Eule and powers of self-govern- ment, and should pledge themselves to acknowledge the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. Of that we hear no more. From this we gather that there is to be no clause in the Bill which repeats and establishes clause 37 of the old Bill, but that the matter is to be transferred to some words in, the preamble. To a mere lawyer this suggestion of the saeredness of a preamble is certainly a novelty. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) I think I can see the reason why this subject has been transferred to the preamble. If the Nationalist members are satisfied with the clauses in the Bill they will not take much trouble about the preamble. (Hear, hear.) If the subject were embodied in the clauses of the Bill it would have to be discussed and considered by the House, whereas, if it is put into a few words in the preamble, it may be shuffled through the House without any one taking much notice of it, or anybody conceiving himself much bound by it. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Again, in the Bill of 1886 certain reservations were made with regard to the powers of th^ Irish Parliament, and one of those reservations referred to " trade." The phrase is changed now — it is now referred to, not as " trade," but as " external trade." We may ask ourselves what is the reason for that change of phrase and to what extent the internal trade of Ire- land is to be subject to the absolute control of the Irish Parliament. (Hear, hear.) With regaixl to the Viceroyalty it certainly does seem strange that an officer of State who must be in the relatious which must exist between the Viceroy of Ireland and the Executive Government of this couatry should be appointed for a 2xed term of years, and I do not quite see the meaning of the phrase about the full devolution of the executive authority of the Crown upon the Viceroy. I think that that phrase requires a fuller explanation. (Hear, hear.) One great difficulty in constructing for Ireland any sort of system of Home Kule has been the question of the veto of the Crown on the acts of the Irish Legislature. We have had two absolutely incon- sistent declarations on this subject. From the right hon. gentleman on the Treasury bench we have had a declaration that the veto upon the acts of the Irish Par- liament must be the veto of the Crown exercised on the advice of the English Miniitiy. On the other hand, we have had in this House, and in writing, a declaration from representatives of both sec- tions of the Nationalist party in Ireland that they would never accept any position such as their being subject to a veto advised by the English Government. In order to avoid this difficulty the Government have constructed what appears to me to be a fantastic bit of machinery. An executive committee is to be appointed, but we are not told by whom it is to be appointed. (Hear, hear.) If an executive committee of the Irish Privy Council is to be appointed for the purpose of advising the Lord Lieutenant, who, upon its advice, would be appointed for the long term of six years, it is quite conceivable that the whole Executive Government of Ireland might be pat for that term into the hands of those who are absolutely pledged to one seb of political opinions, and therefore it is of the greatest importance that we should know by whom that committee will be appointed. (Hear, hear.) But by whomsoever appointed the right hon. gentleman has reserved scope for the interference of English Ministers in special cases, and that appears to me to destroy the machinery constructed to avoid this difficulty, because the right hon. gentleman said that the veto, although exercised upon the advice of the executive committee of the Privy Council, is to be subject to the instructions of the Crown in special cases. In such cases by whom will the Crown bo advised to single out these cases for its intervention ? I confess that there appears to mc to be but small diiference between allowing the Crown, without advice to the contrary, to approve Bills coming from that country and to interfere to prevent Bills coming from that country from becoming law. I now come to a very important question — namely, that of the appointment of the Legislative Council, which might be called the Senate. It is to consist of 48 members. As far as they are con- cerned the property qualification is to be dropped, but curiously enough as far as the voters are concerned the property qualification is ta be retained. For the purpose of constituting a lower House of the Irish Parliament, the 103 members now elected by the Irish constituencies are still to be returned, but if a Bill, aftei being sent up by the lower Hou.se to the Legislative Council, is rejected a second time, the two Houses are to sit together and are to vote as a whole upon the measure, which will be passed or rejected by the vote of the majority. In these circumstances I can well understand why the exact number of 48 has been fixed upon for constituting the Legis- lative Council, because if, when two Chambers sit together, the whole of the members of the Legislative Council were to vote with the 28 Loyalists, the National- ists would be always able to out-vote them. (Cheers.) The Bill will impose upon the Government the necessity of proposing for Ireland one of the most eccentric and fantastic franchises and reform Bills imaginable. The present arrangement with regard to the electoral system is to last for three years. What excuse is there for this ? There is no part of the United Kingdom more full of electoral anomalies than Ireland, and yet you are to have the 103 membera returned by the present imperfect system, and to . secure that for six years no reform in that shall take place. But it is still more remarkable that you are asked to take the trouble of creating another set of constituencies who are to elect 80 members. They cannot be the same constituencies ; are they to be the same persons ? Are the members to be qualified to sit both in the Imperial Parliament and in the Parliament at Dublin ? The suggested arrangement is so fantastic and strange that I imagine this Bill must have been drafted in detachments, and one part must have been stereotyped before that portion to which I will now proceed to call attention was framed. A more interesting and more impartial disquisition was never heard in this House than during The Home Kule BilL Sir E. Clarke. House of Commons, February 13, 1893. 313 the half-hour in which the right hon. gentlemiin discussed the retention of the Irish meBlbers. One thing is clear ; the right hon. gentleman has not changed his own opinion upon this point since 1886. It looks very much as if he had been outvoted by his colleagues, and desired to revenge himself by representing to the House the different arguments ■which have been nrged by the right hon. gentlemen who have assisted him in framing bis Bill. He put a series of conundrums to the House, as to what would happen in certain events, and he con- cluded by saying that this matter must be referred to the consideration of the House. He would like the House to stand by him, as against some of his recal- citrant colleagues. But, after all, the Prime Minister of the country, when he comes down here to propound a great measure of constitutional reform, is hardly entitled to throw upon the table of the House a pro- posal to which he has, evidently, deep-rooted and final objections. (Cheers.) Is there a Government, or is there not ? (Renewed cheers.) Do they wish the members to come to this House from Ireland, or do they not ? The right hon. gentleman the member for Newcastle said, if they were retained, that we should have all the present block of business ; English work would not be doue, and Irish feelings would not be conciliated. That I believe to be true. I believe that the Prime Minister has proved — as he has, in effect, repeated — his statement of 1886, that it passed the wit of man to devise a scheme by which the Irish members could be retained here, and, at the same time, have an Irish Parliament sitting in Dublin. The plain unlettered Englishman and Scotchman would rebel at the idea that Irishmen should come here to govern him, and so it is suggested that you are to limit the voting power of the Irish members. I should like just to test, at th6 moment when it is propounded, the possibility of carrying out that proposal. In the first place, the Irish members are not to vote upon any Bill expressly relating to Great Britain. Good. But suppose the Irish members should desire to over- turn the Government after this proposal which has been made this evening is in actual operation. A Registration Bill is introduced which does not apply to Ireland. The Irish members may come down and ask that it shall apply to Ireland, and it that is carried then the Bill is to apply to Ireland. From that moment the Irish members may vote upon the Bill, and may defeat it. (Cheers.) A Suspensory Bill is to be brought in by the Government with regard to Wales to suspend the continued existence of the Established Church in that Principality. That is not a Bill upon which the Irish representatives would be allowed to vote. Good. But what chance would that Bill have of passing if the Irish members are not permitted to vote upon it ? (Laughter.) To accept the proposal of her Majesty's Government will be to destroy all chance of passing that Bill, for I cannot think that the Government would lend themselves to the unconstitutional course of inviting members who, after September 2, would be no longer entitled to take part in the discussion to assist in passing a Bill upon a subject which does not concern them. (Cheers.) They are, we are told, entitled to take pai-t in votes upon want of confidence, and one understands the reasons why they should be allowed so to vote. (Laughter.) Suppose after this Home Rule Bill is passed and the scheme is established and at work, and Bupjiose that the Government possessed the general confidence of the House as then constituted, and suppose that the Irish members should come down and turn out the Government, who is to follow ? The Government that is to cOffie in wSUld not have a working majority on any Subject relating to England. Let mc ptit another illustration. A i-i^ht hoii. friend of mine was naturally anxious to know whether, if Irish members could not vote on any particular subject, they would not be allowed to speak, and he was promptly assured that the disability to speak was included. But what about moving the adjourn- ment of the House ? (Laughter.) The right hon. gen- tleman seems to think that votes of want of con- fidence are raised only occasionally and without any relation to the business of the House. But that is not so. A Vote of want of confidence — unless passed immediately after a general electioh, when there is no reason for it at all (laughter) — ia generally connectgd with some legislative project which the Ministry have tried to take up. This is not merely the greatest Legislative Assembly that the world has ever seen, bnt it keeps a close and intimate knowledge of current public affairs, take question time. If with regard to some important matter of foreign affairs a question is asked On this side and answered from the other, the answer may produce such an effect upon the House that within an hour a motion is made for the adjourninent of the debate, the object and the meaning of that motion, if it be carried, being that the House desires to censure the Minister on the spot for the line which he has taken. (Hear, hear.) What about the Irish members ? Are we in such a position to wait until they can be summoned from Dublin in order that they may come over here to take part in the Vote of censure ? (Laughter and " Hear, hear.") The pro- position is, I venture to say, impossible. (Loud cheers.) I believe it to be as true now as it was in 1886 that no human wisdom could devise means by which in a House like this, not only of legislative capacity, but also of executive responsibility and efficiency, you could have one set of members coming only for specific purposes and another set of members to deal with the current business of the country. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman put this matter very frankly and impartially before the House. He appeared to treat it as if it were one of those philo- sophic proposals upon which either conclusion might be arrived at without any serious results ; but it goes to the root of his whole Bill. (Cheers.) It is vital to the consideration ot this question that the country should know what is to be the form of the proposals, when her Majesty's Government have had time and the humble assistance of members of this House in endeavouring to persuade them to make up their own minds definitely. (Laughter.) We want to hear some- thing else before this transaction comes to an end. We understand from the ordinary channels of infor- mation that this Bill, diligently as its secret has been kept from the country, was revealed to the representatives, or to some of the representatives, of the Irish Nationalist party. I think it is some weeks since the hon. and learned gentle- man the member for Louth (Mr. Timothy Healy), Speaking in Ireland, said, " We know what the Bill is, and. that it is going to be better than the Bill of 1886." I want to know, if that is the case, what bargain has been made by which the Irish Nationalist members accept or are prepared to support this Bill ? I want to know whether the terms of the bargain are really before the House ? (Cheers.) You say that the proposals, or that some of them, are put forward in a tentative and hesitating way, merely as the groundwork upon which amendments and alterations mav be made in the course of the dia- The Home Rule BilL Sir R Clarke. '314 House of Commons, February 13, 1893. ciuaion of the Bill. (Hear, hear.) I should be very much surprised to hear that the Nationalist members had accepted the proposals whioh have been shadowed forth in the speech of the right hon. gentleman to- night, and t should be still more surprised to hear that they were satisfied with the arrangement made about the 80 Irish members and the position which they are to have in this House, (Hear, hear.) This, as I said, goes to the veiy root of the Bill. It is not only that the point is of so very great importance in itself, and not only that the proposals of the Govern- ment would, as I believe, disorganize the whole life of Parliament (cheers), disturb our legislative work, and cripple us for the effective exercise of that con- trol of public affairs which the House now enjoys and exercises. (Hear, hear.) But if this plan be not adopted, if the right hon. gentleman should yield, as he m\]st willingly yield, to the objections that are made, and should agree that the Irish members should not come here, there goes at one swoop the whole of the financial portion of this Bill. (Cheers.) If the Irish members are to stay in this House, then those difficulties occur which 1 have ventured to indicate. If they are not to come to this House, the whole of the financial part of this Bill must be withdrawn and reconstructed, for it has not and camiot have any reference at all to a system under which the Irish members are to be excluded. (Cheers.) I have ventured, I hope not unsuccessfully (cheers), to put before the House the observatious that occur to me upon the moment on hearing the proposals of this new Bill. One could not help feeling touched by the tone in which the right hoa. gentleman at the end of that great speech spoke of the efforts which ho himself was making to give a better state of things to Ireland, and of the anxiety ho had as to the acceptance of those proposals. I do not think that they can be accepted. (Loud Opposition cheers.) At all events they can only be accepted after a long and bitter Parliamentary con- test and after an appeal to the constituencies. (Cheers.) The lists are set, the challenger's trumpet has sounded, and the answering note, feeble though it may be, I hope not indistinct, has been promptly heard. We enter on this contest without a shadow of doubt as to its issue. (Cheers.) It is true we face to-day in this House a majority — a scanty, a casual, and a pre- carious majority. (Cheers.) I do not believe that that majority has union enough or strength enough to force through this House these novel and dangerous proposals. But outside this House, anxiously awaiting the tardy revelations of to-night, stand the millions of electors to whom before this plan can take effect the whole matter must be referred. (Cheers.) When we shall have wasted this Session and all its oppor- tunities of usefulness over this Bill, you cannot escape the necessity of that appeal. (Hear, hear.1 Xou know you have no mandate from the country for this Bill. (Loud Opposition cheers.) Seven years ago your policy was rejected, and from that day to this no single member of your party has venlured to commit himself to any single definite proposition upon any one prfint in the Bill. (Cheers.) The Prime Minister has jBcattered here and there ambiguous hints ; bis followers have prudently abstained from forecasting provisions of a Bill for which I believe most of them have hoped they would never have had to vote (hear hear), and they have contented themselves with appealing to the electors for their votes, and have asked them to give them their suppoil; as a mark of confidence and to wait hopefully till they came back with all manner of new things. (Laughter and cheers.) Sir, this showman's policy of concealment and sur- prise cannot succeed. (Loud cheers.) You cannot subject a free people to great constitutional change* which you have never ventured to explain. (Hear, hear.) That would be despotism under the foi'ms of freedom. Pass this Bill through this House if you can, and within a year you will be fighting for your Parliamentary lives before the constituents whom you have tried to trick (cheers), and whoso hopes of use- ful legislation you will have wholly disappointed. We will challenge the judgment of this House upon the matter at such times and upon such issues as may best enable us to test and prove how far our opponents are agreed and what is the measure and extent of the obedience which English Liberals of the new pattern (laughter and cheers) are prepared to yield to their Nationalist masters. (Cheers.) Wherever this contest is to be fought, we face it with an unwavering con- fidence of success, strong in the judgment pronounced by the country seven years ago, stron'^ in the happy experience of those seven years which has approved and affirmed that judgment, strong in the conviction that that decision was not a passing whim, no momentary outburst of political passion, but the wise jadgtncnt and, the immutable resolve of the great people of the United Kingdom. (Loud cheers.) VISCOUNT WOLMEK said that for seven years the Unionists had been tiying to get from their opponents a statement of what was meant by *' Home llule," and for seven years the right hon. gentleman who was now Prime Minister had withheld his confidence not only from his political opponents, but also from his own followers and the country, and finally bestowed it upon a section of the Irish Nationalists. The Prime Minister said the system of governing Ireland which was adopted by the Unionist party could not continue, and he based his contention upon the principle that a democratic country could not be governed contrary to the wishes of the majority of its people. The whole point of that contention lay in the question, Where were they to draw the line '/ In his opinion the line ought to be drawn now, and not after hon. members from Ireland had been equipped with all the parapher- nalia of government. The Prime Minister neither to- night nor seven years ago attempted to deal with what were the motives of British statesmen in passing the Act of Union. What influenced Pitt was that if an executive were set up in Dublin dependent on an Irish Parliament it would inevitably lead to there being two Governments within the United Kingdom with different policies, and no one could then tell what would happen in a time of national crisis. The Prime Minister had never attempted to treat the Ulstermon with the same consideration which he had shown to the Nationalists. The right hon. gentleman .said the Ulsiermen were to the Nationalists as one-fifth to four-fifths, but that statement was based on the num- bers of the Parliamentary representatives. Thoso numbers did not represent the true state of the parties in Ireland, as many parts of that country outside of Ulster were much over-represented in Parliament. They had heard nothing in that debate about the Ulster Convention. In every parish in Ulster the Unionists met in public assembly, and their meetings were reported from day to day. At those meetings delegates were elected, those delegates met in the great Convention at Belfast, and there, without a single dissentient voice, tbey asserted for themselves, for their co-religionists scattered throvfghout Ireland, and for the whole of their homogeneous body in the North, that they never would consent to be subjected to a Parliament in Dublin elected by the nominees of the priests. (Hear, hear.) The Prime Minister lauded The Home Eule BilL SirE. Claxke. House of Commons, February 13, 1893. 315 the Ulstermeii for tho part they had taken 100 years ago, and called thcii' present attitude the worser coarse — that was, that the worser part was attachment to England and the better part was dislike of tho union of this country. When did the right hon. gentleman find out which was tho worser part ? It was when the two great political parties wore nearly equal and the temptation was offered to one of them to buy the support of the Irish vote by the sacriQce of principles which up to then neither of them had hesitated to uphold. The question of Ulster was closely united with the question of what safeguards there were for the rights of tho minority. In the outline which the right hon. gentleman had given to the House two very important checks or safeguards had been delineated. In the first place, there was tho Viceregal veto. As he understood it, the Viceroy of Ireland was to have the power of vetoing Bills on the advice of the Irish Cabinet. That pretty effectively disposed of the " con- tinuous exercise of supremacy on the part of the Im- perial Parliament " of which they had heard so much. On certain occasions, however, the Viceroy would be liable to receive instructions from the Sovereign — that was to say, the Cabinet in London — on certain Bills on which the veto might be exercised. The second check was that appeals might bo made to the Privy Council in London as to the validity of an Act of the Irish Parliament ; but this step might not be .taken on the initiative of the aggrieved parties, but only on that either of the Viceroy or of the Secretary of State in London. The Irish Loyalists, however, might feel their religious privileges in jeopardy ; what was to prevent the Irish Parliament from voting any sums it chose for Koman Catholic endowments ? There might be a question, also, of internal commer- cial regulations ; what locus standi had the Ulster- men and Unionists of Ireland to protest against this step ? (Cheers.) They could only depend on the action of the Imperial Cabinet directing the Viceroy to veto a Bill, or in inducing the Viceroy or the Secretary of State to move the Privy Council to test the validity of the action of tho Irish Parliiment. The late Solicitor-General had shown what a perfect chaos the retention of the Irish members would bring about ; but the hon. and learned gentleman had lost fiight of the fact that this question of safeguards and checks hung solely on the rete.ition of the Irish members. Take the case of the Loyalists of Ireland wishing to protest against an act of the Irish Parlia- ment. If the present political party was in power, the sympathy of that party would not be with the Loyalists, but with the Irish Parliament. (Cheers.) If, on the other hand, the Unionist party was in power, their natural bias would be to come to the rescue of the Loyalists in every possible way. (Hear, hear.) The Nationalists, therefore, would be left masters of the situation. (Cheers.) They would also have a direct inducement to use their votes at West- minster for the purpose of preventing any party that might be in power from using the clauses of the Bill either in connexion with the Privy Council or with the Cabinet for the protection of the Unionist minority in Ireland. (Cheers.) Yet the CJlstermen were expected to be satisfi*-5 with these provisions. They were asked to submit to this disintegrating element being introduced in the House of Commons in order that the Prime Minister might be able to pass the Bill of 1886, and yet to keep a majority of his followers with him who had all pledged them- selves to vote and protest against the exclusion of the Irish members. (Cheers.) Unionists wished to retain the Irish members as a sign of tho supremacy of the Imperial Parliament and of permanent union ; but they never desired to retain these members if thoir retention involved, on the one band, tho creation of a second Parliament in the centre of the British Empire and at the price of dividing into fractions that great force ronnd which the Empire moved. (Cheers.) The hon. member proceeded to refer to tho essays of the Prime Minister on " Poll" tical Meteorology," warning tho right hon. gentle- man that, though the Unionist majority had dropped from 200 to 71, there was do indication that it was likely to disappear altogether. Besidei, the majority of 71 stood on a different basis from the majority of 200, because in that case it was not a majority of votes, but a majority of absten- tions. The majority of 71 in England rested on a poll unequalled in the political history of this country, and the likelihood was that that majority would rather tend to increase than to diminish. He protested against the dissolution of the Union against the wishes, votes, and protests of one of the high contracting parties. Who made the Union, and who were the parties to it ? The Irish Par- liament for Ireland and tho British Parliament for Great Britain. It might be said, however that the Irish Parliament was corrupt. He did not deny it ; corruption was the weapon of tho age. It was proposed to repeal the Union in spite of the wishes of Englishmen, and, for fear that they would resent it, the Prime Minister introduced a garrison into the House of 80 Irish members to nullify the vote of England and Scotland. The Prime Minister, in a letter praising a recent book, said that he did think there was, perhaps, some little part left for tho English race to play, bat that no country and no race required so much discipline as the English race. Was it for the discipline of the English race that the Irish garrison was to be brought into the English Par- liament ? (Cheers.) As an Englishman ho protested against that (cheers), and although he admitted that tho majority of Scottish members were not on his side, yet he joined in the determined protest of his colleague the member for East Edinburgh against the amendment of tho Bill by the introduction of Irish members into the British Parliament to vote on the details of English and Scottish Bills. (Hear, hear.) If on the one side the Government got out of their difficulty by allowing the Irish members to muddle and nullify the votes of English and Scottish members on English and Scotch matters, he could wish for no better cry at the general election that was going to ensue soon. If, on tho other band, they went back to the Bill of 18S6, where would be the votes of his hon. friends who had been returned as Home Kule members for English and Scottish constituencies, pledged to the hilt to vote against any Bill that kicked the Irish members out of the Imperial Parliament ? (Cheers.) They were all happy to have seen that day. (Ministerial cheers.) Day by day, week by w«!ek, and aaonth by month for seven years the Dnionists had put this (!;' imma before their political opponents, but thoy pretended they did not see it. The Home Secretary had said that it was the custom of the opponents of the Government to meet them with academic cob- webs. He ventured to think they were cobwebs that would require some sweeping away. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DANE said he had listened carefully to the Prime Minister's explanation of the mode in which he proposed to construct the two Houses . of the Legislature in Ireland, and the conclusion at which he arrived was that supb a The Home Rule BiU. Viscount Wolmer. 316 House of Commons, February 13, 1893. Legislature would be manned by members who would be mere puppets of the priests. (Hear, hear.) The new Irish House of Oommohs was to •consist of 103 members elected on the same franchise as in England. He would like to know in what position tie loyal minority would be when those 103 representa- tives consisted of 80 agents of the priests and only 23 Unioaists. (Hear, hear.) The second Chamber was to consist of 48 members elected on a franchise of over £20, The result of that would be that the second Souse would also be governed by the clerical party. What safeguard did the loyal minority possess against such a itate of things ? From beginning to end of the speech of the right hon. gentleman he hoard of no safeguard for the loyal minority in Ireland. The three principal questions affecting the loyalists were those of the Judges, the constabulary, and the land. The Judges Were to be appointed for six years to come as at pi:Bsent, but at the end of that period they would be appointed by the authority in Dublin, and if by any misfortune this Bill became law he supposed that in a short time many of the hon. and learned gentlemen who had been prominent in biiidering law and order in Ireland would be pre- siding in J3nblin in full-bottomed whigs. (Laughter.) It was said that the Irish constabulary were to be abandoned, but that the men might be re-engaged by the new authorities. From his own knowledge of them he believed that a, large proportion of them would not willingly enlist in the new force. Bat trhat safeguard Was there that the new force would protect the loyal minority ? How would the citizens of Belfast fare at their hands p Again, the Prime Minister had failed to provide any safeguard as regarded land. More than any other question the land question lay at the root of agitation. The patriots of Ireland spoke in England of Irish independence, but in Ireland of the despotism of landlords. This land question sSected not only landlords, but also tenant-farmers, by whom chiefly he was returned, and who under the proposed new rigime would find it im- possible to remain on the land. True, there was to be three years' grace, but that was a short period, and it was not likely that in that time the Imperial Parlia- ment would advance any more money for land purchase in Ireland. At the end of that time what mercy might be expected by landlords and Protestant tenants ? The hon. member for North Louth, the future Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, had declared that the property of Irish landlords deserved no more protection than did property in slaves, that landlordism was the prop of British rule, and that, as Christ said to his tempter, " Begone, Satan," BO Nationalists said, " Begone, Saxon." (Laughter.) No action on the part of a public man had ever given more pain to Loyalists in li eland than the action of Earl Spencer with reference to this Irish question. Earl Spencer once described the cruel boycotting which prevented men from exercising their avocations, asked how the loyal minority were to be protected and convictions obtained under a new system) and said that it would be impossible to hsnd over counties like Kerry and Clare to a local polire. Yet he supposed the new authorities would recruit all the ruffians in the country as constables. Some one cried " Shame," but he believed that this was the truth, rhe Prime Minister had failed to provide any guarantee for the rights of the loyal minority. The right hon. gentleman said that since 1886 the majority of Irish members had been neatral with respect to the demand for Home Eule. Then why was this legisla- tion proposed ? The real reason was that the right hon. gentleman and his Government were dependent upon the votes of these men. At Aberdeen in 1881 the Priino Minister said that, if Parliament were to be broken up, one would expect an overwhelm- ing case to be made out in the neglect of Irish interests ; but there was no grievance and nothing that Ireland had asked had Parliament refused. The right hon. gentleman on that occasion went on to ask whether any sensible or rational man could suppose that we were going by Home Eule to dis- integrate the great capital institutions of the country for the purpose of making ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of all mankind. He had heard no reason given why the Legislature here should be upset, except that the right hOn. gentleman was in the position which he himself foresaw and warned the country against — a position in which a party from Ireland was able to say " Unless you do this and unless you do that we will turn you out to-morrow." Bo far as he could see, the Bill offered no safeguards for the loyal minority. He reminded hon. members of the great Convention held last summer at Belfast, when Ulster passed a number of strong resolutions and declared with one voice that she would not have Home Rule. This House was asked to set up in Ire- land for the first time since James II. was King a Popish Parliament. (Ironical cheers.) The Parlia- ment called together by James in 1689 was the only purely Roman Catholic Parliament that ever existed in Ireland. During the few weeks of its existence it confiscated 2,400,000 acres of land in the possession of English and Scotch settlers. That was what Irish Nationalists meant by Home Rule. (Laughter and cheers.) They said that the English and Scotch minority had no business there. (GheerSi) And that Parliament also attainted and sentenced to death 2,600 Protestants. On the ruins of an ascendency abolished in 1869 they were asked to set up a worse ascendency, that Of the Church of Borne, worked out by prelates and priests who would not even follow the direction of the Church of Rome. (Loud laughter.) They might pass this Bill ; but if they did the Pro- testant people of Ireland, a million and a quarter, would never consent (hear, hear) ; they would never take part in the selection of representatives ; they would never obey its laws (laughter and " Hear, hear "), and if this great Empire wanted to enforce those laws against their own kith and kin it might expel them from the country. But he hardly thought that the present Commander of the Forces in Ireland would be the agent by whom that would be done (" Oh," and laughter), because he was the direct descendant of the hero of Newtown Butler, who led on the men of Enniskillen in the days of tho Revolution of 1688 to victory, and insured for all time to Ireland the blessings of civil and religious liberty. COLONEL WARING drew attention to the fact that 40 members were not present. A quorum having been formed, Mr. WOLFF expressed the antipathy which his con- stituents felt against any Bill of this kind. It was ridiculous to suppose that any such measure would bring happiness to Ireland when one-third of her population believed that a Home Rule Government in Ireland would be the ruin of the country, and were determined to resist its establishment to the ntmost of their power. Under the Bill, as expounded by the Prime Minister, the loyal minority would labour under the same disadvantages as they experienced now with regard to representation. The loyal minority formed not one-fifth, but one-third, of the population of Ireland, and if tbiey had their The Home Bule Bill, Mr. Dane. House of Commons, February 13, 1893. 317' just proportion of represenjiation in that House tho Irish ConserTative and Liberal Unionist members would number, not 23, but 30. The Home Rule Bill was presented to the English people as being more or less of an agrarian one and connected with land, and speakers, in addressing meetings in rural districts in England, had drawn terrible pictures of the landlords of Ireland and of their doings, but they never said anything as to the claims of the commerce and manufactures of Ulster, which he represented, (Hear, hear.) While the rest of Ireland bad gone back, Ulster, by attending to its own business and by building up industries and manu- factures which in many ways were competing with England, had advanced in prosperity. (Hear, hear.) Belfast at the time of the Union had only 3,000 inhabited houses, but now there were 56,000. The inhabitants had increased from 19,000 to 275,000. The shipping that came to the port at that time was 53,000 tons ; it was now 2,310,000 tons. The Customs duties had increased from £101,000 to more than £2,000,000, and were only exceeded by those of Liverpool and London. (Hear, hear.) The linen industry had also enormously increased. The whole of the increase in the prosperity of the town was entirely due to the working population. (Hear, hear.) In his constituency there were 12,000 electors, and of these 10,000 were working men, and although they fully sympathized with tho trade unions in Ensland, they wore as earnestly and sincerely opposed to Home Eulo and separation as were the landlords, for they felt that thoir prosperity could not continue if they were cut oS from Great Britain and put under tho. power of a hostile Assembly in Dublin. (Hear, hear.) Belfast had no natural advantages, and had to import everything — coal, iron, and even a very large portion of tho flax used. This increase by leaps and bounds showed that the connexion with Eng- land had not affected the business of the north of Ireland, and why should cot the laws which were good enough for Ulster be good enough for the rest of Ireland ? (Hear, hear.) The soil was not fertile, but the agriculture there was as good as any- where else in the country. They did not believe in the saving help of Governments, Parliaments, or Legisla- tive Councils ; all they wanted was to be let alone. (Cheers.) If the Bill of the right hon. gentleman were to pass he thought the best and ablest of the Irish representatives would remain in this country, and the men who would govern Ireland would have neither the training nor the ability to see that it was a foolish policy to destroy the prosperity of the North and so kill the goose with the golden eggs. (Laughter and cheers.) According to the Bill the Irish Govern- ment was to have no control over the Customs, but there was no such thing as finality in these matters, and circumstances might arise in which Ministers on this side of the water might have to rely on the sup- por:fe of the Irish members, who were not in the habit of giving away their support for nothing (laughter), and then that control might be obtained. (Hear, hear.) The £500,000 to be spent in Ireland would seem to be a very large sum, but it would melt away in thin air when it came to be divided between 80 Nationalists and their supporters and endowments for the Roman Catholic Churtjh. New taxes would have to be raised ; they could not be imposed on the poor and ruined peasantry ; and it was to Belfast, which possessed the money and perty is liable. DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES IN BRAZIL. Mr. HOLLAND asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether discriminating duties are still levied in Brazil against certain imports from Great Britain, and in favour of those from the United States; and, if so, whether he will endeavour to obtain more favourable treatment for British goods ? SIR E. GREY.— The duties referred to continue to bo levied, bnt the disability under which British trade with Brazil saSets in this respect has not ceased to receive the attention of her Majesty's Legation at Rio de Janeiro as well as of the Foreign Office. A» yet, however, the Brazilian Government have not been willing to conclude a commercial treaty with this country, qr to grant complete most-favoured nation treatment to British trade. THE LABOURERS IN IRELAND. Mr. TUITE asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the report of the Local Government inspector, who held the inquiry imder the Labourers (Ireland) Acts at MuUingar in September last, has not as yet been famished to the gnardians of that union. Mr. J. MORLEY.— The Local Government Board report that the inquiry referred to was held in No- vember. The inspector who conducted the inquiry employed a local reporter to take notes of the pro- ceedings, and, notwithstanding that repeated applia cations have since been made to the reporter for a transcript of his notes, he has failed to furnish it. Tho gnardians have been informed of the circum- stances, and the question of holding a fresh inquiry is now under consideration. The delay is, of course, to be regretted, but the local reporter is entirely to blame for it, THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY. In answer to Mr. Pinkebton, Mr. J. MORLBY said,— The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary reports that the number of men serving as constables who entered the force before the Act of 1866 is approximately 197. These Questions. 328 House of Commons, February 14, 1893. men will be eligible to receive full pension (two thirds of pay) on serving 29 years, and there has not been anything special :in their services to warrant exceptional treatment in regard to pension. ACCIDENT TO A GYMNAST. Mr. COHEN asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to the fatal accident which occurred to a, gymnast at Leicester on the Stb inst., due, as reported in the papers, to the defective arrangements provided for the protection of the performers in case of acci- dent ; and, whether he can see his way, either by legislation or circular letter, to oblige those who are responsible for these entertainments so to adapt their arrangements that they shall not fail, just in the event of accidents arising against which they are in- tended to provide. Mr. ASQUITH.— My attention has been called to the accident in question, which I much lament. I have, however, no power to put a stop to exhibition.s or performances which are dangerous to the performers but not necessarily dangerous to the spectators. On previous occasions where accidents have occurred the Secretary of State has caused warnings to be given through the police, requiring the persons responsible for the entertainment to take all proper precautions, and in one case the absence of a net under the per- former was pointed out as a special source of danger. In this case there was a net, the property of the father of the gymnast, and it had been placed in position before the performance. The verdict attributes the death to accident, without any reference to any faulty arrangement of the net. I am afraid I caimot under- take any legislation on the subject, but the attention of the police is always directed to these performances and they do what they can to insure precautions being taken. PENSIONS IN WOOLWICH AESBNAL AND DOCKYARD. COLONEL HUGHES asked the Secretary of State for War why pensions for workmen at Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyard have been abolished since Juno, 1890, although continued for men on the establish- ment in other dockyards. Mr. WOODALL, who replied, said, — I'he hon. mem- ber will find a fall explanation of the circumstances which led to the arrangement in the report of a Select Committee of this House which sat in 1889. The report will be found in Sessional Paper 197 of that year ; and effect Was given to the recommendations of the committee by the Act 53 and 54 Vic, cap. 18. THE SCOTCH SUSPENSORY BILL. In answer to Mr. J. A. Campbell, SIR G. TREVELYAN said,— I shall introduce the Bill regarding the Established Church of Scotland with an explanatory statement and at a time when hon. members would have an opportunity of remarking on that statement. THE TRANSPORT OF TROOPS. In answer to Mr. Pabkeb Smith, Captain M'Cal- MONT, and Sib J. Pekgusson, Mr. CAM PBBLL- BANNER MAN said, —I greatly regret the discomfort which was undoubtedly experienced by the Royal Scots Fusiliers on their recent voyage to Dover in her Majesty's ship Assistance. The weather was exceptionally bad, and the time occupied was 3^ days, during a great part of which the men had to be kept below, the most of them prostrated by sea sickness^ The commanding officer considered that the ship was overcrowded, and one can easily believe that in such circumstances as I have stated the nnm- bers were too great for comfort. By the Admiralty returns, however, the vessel is shown as having accommodation for 200 more than the number actually on board. One blanket per man was served out, and when it was proposed to apply for an additional one the men declared it unnecessary, owing to the heat below. The death which occurred on board was due to apoplexy. As regards the elEcienoy of this vessel for transport coastwise, she was expressly built for the purpose, but 1 am bound to admit that complaints have been received, in regard to which I propose to confer with the Admiralty. THE " FAIR WAGES " CLAUSE. COLONEL HUGHES asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he stated to a deputation of unem- ployed that he would insert in the contract for the removal of Millbank Prison a condition that the un- skilled labourer should be paid 6d. an hour. Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE.— I would refer the hon. and gallant member to the report in The Times of Novem- ber 29 last of my reply to the deputation from the unemployed which waited upon me on the previous day on the subject of the demolition of Millbank Prison. I said that in order to prevent " sweatinj; " there would be a clause in the contracts, in accord- ance with the resolution of the House of Commons, that the contractors were to pay the men they employed the current wages. I did not mention any definite rate of wages. NAVAL COURTS-MARTIAL. Mr. T. G. BOWLES asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he proposed to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the constitution and pro- cedure of naval Courts-martial and the practice of the Admiralty in regaol thereto, and, if not, whether he would agree to a motion for the appointment of such a committee. SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH.— No, Sir; it is not the intention of the Government to jiropose or support a motion for an inquiry such as the hon. member suggests at the present time. AYR ACADEMY. In reply to Mr. BiHKSlYEE, SIR 6. TREVELYAN said,— The Ayr Academy, under the Minute of the Scotch Education Depart- ment of January 31, and on the recommendation of the county committee, may receive a grant possibly as high as £200 for the general purposes of the school without any conditions except those of eifioiency. Next, in respect of any number of free pupils a capi- tation grant of £6 may be paid for each pupil. This proposal was recommended to the committee of last year by the Rector of Ayr Academy. For any- thing beyond this the committee were of opinion that before a school should share in the grant of £60,000 it should be required to make the education it offers more extensively available by a reduction of fees. This principle is a Very important one as a guarantee that the grant shall not be absorbed by schools which charge a large fee and are consequently available only for a limited class. THE INQUIRY INTO AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION. Mr. CHAPLIN asked the President of the Board of Agriculture when the motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into agricultural depres- sion would be placed upon the paper ; and, whether he would undertake that adequate time would be afforded for consideration of the terms of reference before it was proceeded with. Mr. GARDNER.— The motion wiU be placed upon Questions. Questions. House of Commons, February 14, 1893. 329 the paper as soon as there appears to be any prospect of making progress with it ; and opportunitywill then be given for considering the terms of the reference. SWINE I'BVBE. Mr. YBRBURGH asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the state- ment contained in the report of the assistant-in- spector to the veterinary department of the Board of Agriculture for 1891, that " swiue fever existed in 1891 in 47 counties in England, 12 in Scotland, and seven iu Wales ; .5,595 outbreaks were reported, 32,349 swine were attacked during the year, of which 15,229 wore slaughtered, 14,112 died, 3,399 re- covered, and 340 remained diseased at the end of the year ;" and of the fact that effectual dealing with swine fever was of vital importance to the agricul- tural labourer, he would reconsider his decision to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the sub- ject, and would, without delay, iu accordance with the resolution passed unanimously at the recent Agricultural Conference, include swine fever in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Ants. Mr. GARDNER.— The object of the mover of the resolution to which the hon. member refers was, as I understand it, to recommend, cot that swine fever should be included in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, for this is already the case, but that the execution of the law and the payment of com- pensation for swine slaughtered should be transferred from the local authorities to the Board of Agricul- ture, as was done with great advantage in the case of pleuro-pneumouia. Tlje conditions under which swine fever is contracted and spread are, however, veiy different, and, before I can propose legislation on the subject, I deem it essential that au investigation should be made by a Departmental Committee which can elicit the views of the various interests con- cerned. A similar committee sat prior to the intro- duction of the Pleuro-Pneumonia Act. I may add that a very considerable diminution of the disease was shown during 1892, the number of swiue attacked being only 13,957, as against 32,349 iu the previous year. The disease, in fact, reached the lowest point recorded since 1S84. THE TUBERCULOSIS COMMISSION. Mr. YERBUEGH asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the recent Agri- cultural Conference haying unanimously passed a re- solution to the effect that tuberculosis should be in- cluded in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, he had taken any steps to secure an early report fromtho Koyal Conunission upon Tuberculosis. Mr. GARDNER. — We have frequently been in com- munication with the Royal Commission with regard to this matter, and every endeavour is being m.ropcise immediately to give them executive control. i say withoat hesitation at all the man who has con- trol uf administrative machinery can plunder to the last farthing from every landlord in Ireland. (Cheers.) The member for Kerry last night, in language to which I listened with astonishment, see- ing that there are still ringing in my ears words and utterances of a very different description — he told us that the party to which he belongs desire to deprive ^no man of his liberty and no man of his property. ^Laughter.) When did the party of which he is a member become converts to that opinion? (Cheers.) The men who desired to sweep landlords otf the face of the earth, the men who devised the system of boycotting, apparently are now equally desirous of preserving the property and the liberty of the people. The hon. gentleman must be aware that the landlords are likely to attach more weight to the pre-ntterances of his friends in Ireland than to the politic statement made across the floor of the House ; and the landlords, at all events, cannot see in the prospect of this Bill anything than the certainty of illimitable plunder. (Hear, hear.) The civil servants and the constabulary I have already dealt with. They, at all events, are not likely to t^prove a measure which, under one disguise or another, proposes to hand them over with what compensation we know not yet, to masters whom they have never bargained to serve, who have never hesitated to say how they will use the power of administration when once it is confided to their hands. (Hear, hear. ) &o much for the loyal portion of Ireland. How about the disloyal portion ? Are they likely even to find in 4ihis Bill the goal of their de- sires ? They have never hesitated to tell us in the frankest manner what they desire. Even up to the last few months they have stated that they wish to see Ireland a nation among the nations of the world. (An Irish member. — " Hear, hear," and laughter.) They look back to '97 (cries of " '98 "), '48, and '68— (Mr. T. P. O'Connor.—" '67. You are wrong in all your dates," and laughter) — men who avowedly desired to lead to complete separation as their ideal. Are they likely to be content with an arrangement, whatever protestations they may make — and their protestations appear now to be feeble — an arrangement which, according to the Bill, I presume would deprive them of any power, of raising a Volun- teer force, of any power of managing trade, any power of dealing with the great branches of taxation, any power of managing their own telegraphs and postr office Mr. GfiADSTONB.— Any power of fixing the rates. Mr. BALFOUR. — That is not an unimportant porti on of management (cheers) — any power of dealing directly or indirectly with foreign Powers. Are they likely to be content with a scheme which, in addition to these limitations, hampers their domestic legisla- tion by a Legislative Council elected upon a high and arbitrary franchise ? (Cheers.) Are they likely to approve of a scheme which gives to the Crown, on the advice of her British Ministers, the right to veto Irish Acts of Parliament ? Are they likely to consent to a scheme which, if it preserves the Imperial supremacy at all, will certainly preserve it in a form in which it can be exercised when a Government is in power strong enough and courageous enough to exercise it ? (Hear, hear.) You have stimulated the appetite of those gentlemen throughout all these six years. You told them that they are a nation (hear, hear),and that they deserve the treatment of a nation, and now yon put them oS with a constitution which not only does not make them a nation, but which puts them immeasur- ably below the smallest self-governing colony in this great Empire. How can you expect that they, at all events, whatever they may say in view of future contingencies (laughter and cheers), are really content with the measure of Home Rule you put before them ? So much for Ireland. What is Britain's *hare of this balance-sheet of disaster'; (Loud cheers.) We begin by paying 17 millions to these gentlemen for the privilege of wrecking our Constitution. (Cheers.) We deprive ourselves of all freedom in the management of our own taxation in the delicate matters with which taxation is concerned. We permit our deliberations to be maimed and even rendered ridiculous by Irish members who are to vote and are not to vote, who may take part in this debate and may not take part in that debate, who may turn out a Ministry and who may not vote on a Roads Bill. (Cheers and laughter.) Above all, Britain gives up the prospect which has been held out to her that, at all events, we shall have peace from these Irish controversies, and that our own time shall be given to our own affairs. Can anything be more certain than that in the Bill you are going to lay on the table of the House the Irish qnestiou, which has occupied three-fourths of our time, will occupy the whole of it ? (Loud cheers.) We shall have all the endless questions which now perplex us in the management of Irish affairs ; we shall be asked, and asked with an insistence which a Ministry numeri- cally weak, can hardly refuse, to alter the consti- tution which you tell us is final. I con- fess that at first sight it might seem and has been to me a matter of surprise that seven years of careful meditation has only ended in produc- ing this strange abortion of a measure. (Laughter.) Sorely those who are concerned in framing it are not deficient in either ingenuity or ability or zeal for the public good ? I frankly admit it. Why, then, have they done no better than this ? I will tell the House — because they have attempted an impossible task. (Loud cheers.) A Federal Government may be good. Colonial Government may be good. The British Con- stitution as it stands may be good. But this bastard combination of the three (loud laughter and cheers) is a ludicrous impostor (cheers), and the very attempt to force it down our throats appears to me to argue an ignorance of the past patent lessons of history which I am surprised at in gentlemen of the learning of those whom I see opposite me. (Cheers.) The Prime Minister quarrelled with me the other night because I said he was engaged in a course which reverses the process by which every great empire had been built up. Does he still differ from that statement ? Spain, Italy, France, Russia, Germany, the United States of America, Great Britain itself — every nation in the world, is built up out of the ruins of smaller States (ironical laughter), which originally occupied the area on which these great empires flourish. The process of every great community has been tijwarfa further integration. The right hon. gentleman asks us to retrace our steps and make our progress towards disintegration. In so doing, I tell him, he reverses the necessaiy steps, the evolution by which .great empires are built up and maintained. I admit that there are cases in which this process has never been completed — cases like Austria, cases like Norway and Sweden, oases like the British Empire. But all these cases of arrested growth are proof conclusive of the general proposition which I have laid down. Of course, the reason of the process is different in various cases, but the result is the same in every ease. Anstria- Tlie Home Bule BilL Mr. Balfour. 340 House of 'Commons, Febraary 14, 1893. Hungary is, for its popnlatioa and its wealth, perhaps the weakest^ State upoa the Continent. It is kept together largely, as we all know, by the menace of foreign complications. Sweden and Norway — which figured largely in the old debate, and about which the Prime Minister pireserves an ominous silence now (cheers)— if any one will look at their recent history, present a eonclusive proof of the diffi- culty in which you will eventually be involved by any attempt similar to that which the right hon; gentle- man is now making. As for the British Empire, we all know that we are in process of founding beyond the seas great communities of our own race and of our own blood, and that we cannot count upon them in every stress and under every circumstance to form a part of the efiective strength of the United Kingdom, and the time may possibly come — ^though I hope it iiever will come-^uniess we can discover some method of binding them in constitutional relations to us (cheers) — the time may come when the thread of com- mon affection and common sentitnent which now binds ns together may possibly be severed. Do not let us, then, within the United Kingdom itself, endeavour to carry out the process of bringing about a state of things which we see is productive of weakness in every countiy where it has been tried. I believe, and there is nothing-^there is no faith more firmly rooted in my mind — I believe that Ireland was in process of being united to Great Britain more closely in the bonds of oonmion national affection than ever before. (Irish ironical cheers and laughter.) The land agitation which began in 1879, under the guidance of an able politician, postponed perhaps for a generation, perhaps for more, the full consummation of our wishes. Bat thongh the harm that was then done, and the harm the right hohw gentleman has done by his proposals (hear, hear), cannot be exaggerated — though I believe our children and our grandchildren will still feel the effects of the revolution in Ireland and the betrayal in £!ngland (loud cheers)— yet I think we have it in our power in the House of Com- mons and the country to say that the process shall no further go, and that much as we have suffered from vacillation in the past we, at all events, will with our free consent put an end to this project, absolutely impossible of execution in its details, and even worse in its general principles (cheers), by which the right hon. gentleman, under the cloak and guise of drawing into closer harmony the different parts of the United Kingdom, is going to frame institutions which must tend, ever and ever, as time goes on, to separate ns both in temper and in mind, and ultimately in nationality. (Cheers.) These are the reasons which appear to me to be conclusive against the proposals of the right hon. gentleman — reasons which I have felt all along must militate against any scheme be might propose, and even militate in greater strength against these particular proposals than against the original proposals of 1886. (Loud cheers.) Mr. BRYCB. — Sir, the right hon. gentleman needed not to apologize to the House for the long speech and the vigoi-ous and incisive criticism to which we have listened with admiration, and of which he is a master, so much a master, indeed, that sometimes I think he must prefer his position on the Opposition bench, where criticism can bo exercised with greater freedom. But there was one feature which marred the pleasure of listening to his dialectical skill — the tone and temper of all his reference* to Ireland and every one concerned with Ireland. (Hear.) Before he sat down he talked of creating a common national affection between Ireland And Great Britain. It Is not by such language as he has employed, it is not by representing Ireland in the most odious light, by assuming that every power given to Ireland will be misused, or by treating the national feeling of Ireland ss disloyal, that that national affection can be created. (Cheers.) I think the right hon. gentleman forgot, in the ardour of his destructive criticism, that he had actually answered in the latter part of his speech the criticisms he made in the former part, which was devoted to proving that this Bill went too far, was dangerous to every class in Ireland, and ex- posed Great Britain to constant menaces ; whereas, the latter part of his speech went to prove that the Bill was smallj and was so narrow and so miserable that it would give no satisfaction to Irish feeling, and would leave all our struggles to be renewed here. The right hon. gentleman has travelled over a large field, from history and the doctrine of constitution down to thei details of finance. He has invited me to follow him into a large question, fit for the philo- sophic hi^orian, no doubt, as to what are the causes of the strength and growth of States. I will not follow him on that point, because be will naturally expect from me an answer on the practical points of the Bill, to which he is certainly entitled. I will, therefore, only say I think he was unfortunate in the stress he laid upon the references he made to the cases of Ger- many and Austria-Hungary. Germany has become a great State by the recognition of the great principle of autonomy which this Bill is intended to carry out, and the State of Germany could not be held together for a year if the principle of the right hon. gentle- man were adopted. (" Hear, hear," and cheers.) Then as to the case of AustriarHungary. Was Austria- Hungary a stronger Power when she acted on the principles of the right hon. gentleman ? Was Austria stronger when she held Hungary prostrate under her legions ? Is she not stronger now under the loyal attachment of the Hungarians to their Constitution (cheers) ; and is there a more conclusive proof, in the history of our century, of the value of free institutions, and of the full and just recognition of national life than Austria-Hungary affords ? With re- gard to theUnitedStates,again, does the right hon. gen- tleman not knowthat the States hold together through- outtheirvast territory, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, because they have embodied in their Constitution the very system this Bill recognizes ? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman asks whether large countries can count upon the support of their several parts in moments of stress and danger. Does he think that during these 90 years since the Union we have usually beeri able to count upon the loyal feeling of Ireland in moments of stress and danger ? No, Sir, the last ebullition of Irish loyalty was made in their Parliament before the Union, and ever since that time it has been our duty to hold Ireland down by force. (Cheers, and cries of " No, no.") Ireland has been a source of weakness and not of strength. Do we not keep a force of police and soldiery in Ireland, one-fourth of which would be sufficient if Ireland were loyal f (Hear, hear.) We found our justification for the Bill on two facts. The first is the failure of the right hon. gentleman's coercion policy (cheers), a failure which is proved by the fact that he was obliged to abandon the lines upon which he started, and instead of reconciling Ire- land by his government, whether by bludgeons or by bribes (Nationalist cheers), instead of bringing Ire- land to acquiesce in the present condition of things, he was obliged to own, and must own, that the only difference between the claim of Ireland for Home Bule in 1885 and 1893 is that o wing to the dissen- Tlie Borne Bule Bill Mr. Bryce. House of Commons, February 14, 1893. 341 sions in the Irish party that party have lost five seats. But the voice of Ireland still demanils Home Eule by a majority of four-fifths of her people, and by a majo- rity which is being reinforced in Englaad. (Cheers.) That is my second point. We have received a com- mission to introduce this measure. The electors have pronounced for it by a large majority (cheers and " Oh, oh ") ; by a majority in the United Kingdom of 40 and daily increasing. (Cheers.) Do hou. members deny the legal and moral competence of this Parlia- ment to legislate for Ireland as well as Great Britain ? That is our justification, and we should be false not only to our pledges but unfaithful and disobedient Jo the voice of the country if our first act were not to lay this Bill on the table of the House. (Cheers.) I will now try to meet, as far as I can, the criticisms of the right hon. gentle- man, prefacing my answer with a few words on the general plan and scope of the Bill as we conceive it. This is a Bill which is intended to remove the fric- tion which has existed between Great Britain and Ireland in respect to the management, or mismanage- ment, of Irish affairs by the British Legislature. It is intended to give to Ireland the full control of whatever can be called local or domestic affairs. Our first object, therefore, has been so to frame the Bill that everything that genuinely concerns Ireland, and Ireland alone, shall be relegated to the Irish Parlia- ment. We have not sought. to make small exceptions and restrictions from the generosity of our grant, because we believe that the object in view will be best attained if the Irish Parliament is given free scope within its proper sphere, and is not constantly checked and interfered with by petty restrictions. There are no restrictions except on two grounds. In the first place, we except those questions which touch matters of Imperial couceru, and which are summed up in the third clause of the Bill, and those which touch some matter which is no doubt national to Ireland, but which is of so controversial and delicate a nature as to be apt to raise internal controver.sy in Irelandand to provoke measures that might savour of in- justice. With these exceptions the powers in the Bill are ample and generous. (Cheers.) We have imposed safeguards in cases of necessity, not intended to inter- fere with the ordinary working of the Irish Govern- ment — not intended to *' cabin, crib, and confine '* the Home Eule we give, but to be held in reserve, to . be used only in extreme cases of grave necessity which may arise if party feeling should carry the majority of the Legislature beyond its proper limits, and particularly if any attempts should be made to transgress, in letter or in spirit, the restrictions which the third and fourth clauses impose. (Hear, hear.) These are the general lines of the Bill ; and in these lines I find my answer to the criticisms of the right hon. gentleman." We regard it as a safe Bill from the point of view of the Irish minority. We look to the safeguards that are provided to prevent the Irish Legislature passing beyond the bounds which this Bill prescribes in seeking to tyrannize over the minority. On the other hand, we say that, viewed from the point of view of the patriotic Irishman, who desires to see the interests of his country promoted, who complains that the English Legislature has not understood Irish needs, who comments on the failure of many English attempts, however well meant, to legislate for Ireland, the Bill gives "ample room and verge enough." We say to such Irishmen — We give you power to legislate upon all your domestic affairs, to remove the reproach that we have neglected you or legislated wrongly for you — we give you the chance of doing better for your- selves, It is possible to combine, and this Bill will be found on close examination to combine, large con- trol over domestic affairs with complete safeguards against any transgression of the limitations laid down. It is asked what value is to be attached to the safeguards ; and the right hon. gentleman asked whether we proposed to classify the cases in which the British Cabinet is to interfere. The answer is. No ; we believe that no classification would be possible. Our view is that it is a power to be kept in reserve, only to bo used if the gravest case should arise, if the provisions of the Bill should be transgressed. To adopt an expression of the hon. member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), which I thought well fitted to convey the meaning of the Bill, it is not to be used capriciously or vexationsly. Mr. BALFOUR.— Who is to be the judge of whether it shall be exercised ? Mr. BRTCE. — The regular advisers of the Crown^ that is to say, the British Cabinet. That is my answer also to the remarks made about the difficulty the Crown would be placed in from having two sets of advisers. The Crown will be advised as the Crown is always, everywhere, and in all affairs, by the British Cabinet. It is the Imperial Cabinet in the constitu- tion of which the Irish will have and ought to have a voice. The Irish members will deal with the Lord Lieutenant who, upon their advice, will give or withhold the assent of the Crown to Irish Bills. If there should arise a case such as I confess we are bound to contemplate — but which as I believe will not arise, and will not arise because we have a safe- guard in reserve, and the very existence of that safe- guard is the best assurance that it will not arise — if an extreme case should arise and the provisions of this Bill should be transgressed, if any act of tyrannous character should be attempted by the Irish Parliament, it will be the duty of the British Cabinet to intervene. V7ith regard to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, it is fully expressed in the Bill, but it did not need to be expressed at all, because every lawyer and every one familiar with the work- ing of Parliament will know that we could not if we would impair the supremacy of Parliament. It is the very foundation of our whole Constitutional life. If it is any satisfaction to hon. gentlemen to know it, we do not rely merely upon the preamble for the assertion of the supremacy of the Imperial Parlia- ment. You will find in the Bill a elearly-drawn clause in which the functions of the Imperial Parlia- ment with regard to Irish legislation are set forth. CAPTAIN BBTHELL.— Will the Governor of Ire- land be allowed to withhold assent in the same way as the Governor-General of Canada ? Mr. BBYCE.— If the House wishes me to go into the colonial case I am quite willing to do so, but I had perhaps better proceed to deal with the safe- guards in order. The right hon. gentleman asks who can predict what would be the results of the^xercise of the veto. There are many things no man can predict. What statesmen have to do is to devise the best machinery they can which may be adapted to the cases likely to arise. We have devised a machinery which we believe will not be needed, but which will be perfectly eflfective if it is needed. Our view of the case is this — that in the ordinary working of the Irish Parliament it will be no more necessary to interpose the veto than it is necessary to interpose the veto in the working of the colonial Legislatures ; but if an extreme case arises it will be dealt with on its merits. We believe that. The Home I^ule Bill. Mr. Bryce. S42 House of Commons, February 14, 1893. just as there has grown up in the case of the colonies a body of tradition aad usage, which is recognized by colonial Governors and by Colonial Secretaries at home, as to cases in which the reserved powers of the Crown can he properly employed, so there will grow up in Ireland also a body of usage and tralition which will be soon recognized and will obtain no in- considerable force and which will dictate the general lines on which the reserved powers of the Crown are to be employed. No doubt the usage in the case of Ireland will be somewhat different from the usage in the ease of the distant coloaies, but the general prin- ciple will be the same. It is impossible to provide beforehand for every case that may arise ; what we have to do is to provide machinery that shall be flexible and adaptable, and to deal with a case when it arises. The same remark applies to the reference of Constitutional questions by the Crown to the Privy Council. That right is in the first place given to the Lord Lieatenant and the Secretary of State. Mr. J. REDMOND.— Which Secretary of State ? Are we to be under the Colonial Office ? Mr. BRYCE.— The Secretary of State who has to deal with Ireland usually is the Home Secretary ; but there is no idea of subjecting Ireland to the Home Secretary. I am endeavouring to explain the power of the Lord Lieutenant or the Home Secretary to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a question arising upon the constitutionality of an Act of the Irish Parliament — that is, upon the con- formity or nonconformity of the Irish Act to the pro- visions of this Bill. If it were alleged that an Irish Act transferred the provisions of this Bill, which may be called the constitutional basis of the Irish Legis- lature, it would be proper to have a speedy deter- mination of the que^on, and it would be the duty of the Lord Lieatenant or of the Home Secretary to obtain such decision. It will also be in the power of any person who alleges that any unconstitutional act has been done to dispute it by ordinary proceedings at law. Wo know the way in which these things aro done in the United States. If the Irish Legisla- ture should pass an Act which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Bill, that Act will be ipsn facto invalid ; it will be invalid in so far as it conflicts with the provisions of this Bill ; it will therefore not, be law ; and it will be in the power of any one to refuse to obey it. There is therefore ample safeguard against the transgression of the provi- sionsof thisBill. The only reason why power wasgiveu to the Lord Lieutenant or the Home Secretary to refer the question to the Judicial Committee is that a more speedy determination may be obtained than would be obtained in regular coarse of law. As to safeguards for Ulster, it has been remarked that what the Prime Minister said in 1886 has not now been repeated. But let us recall the reception given to these words of the Prime Minister They were answered by words of defiance from hon. gentlemen who claim to represent Ulster tere — a point upon which I confess I have great doubt, (Hear, hear.) I feel sometimes inclined to ask hon. members not to judge the people of Ulster by the blustering and noisy vehemence of those who profess to speak on their buhalf. (Hear, hear.) At any rate, these gentlemen would not have our i>)an at all ; they did not want any security or safepuards. They also said, " We do not want to be separated from the rest of Ireland." I give them all credit for that answer ; I think in that they are right. There is no severance of the interest of Ulster from that of the rest of Ireland. If there be any danger to Protestants, Barely the people of Ulster are better able to take care of themselves than the Protestants scattered in the rest of Ireland. Yet within the last ten years, whatever Government has been in power, we have not beard of a single instance of oppression perpetrated upon Protestants in the South of Ireland. (" Oh 1") The interests of Ulster are the interests of Ireland in another sei'se. I may refer gentlemen who are nervous on the subject of Ulster to the provisions they will find in the third and fourth clauses of the Bill not only to frotect religion and to prohibit any esta- blishment of religion or any favouring of one denomi- nation, but also to safeguard all educational in- terests and also to protect life, liberty, and pro- perty in terms which we have drawn from one of the amendments to the American Constitution. I prefer to rely upon this safeguard. We are told that the difficulty the Irish Parliament will experience in starting is the want of a larger balance-sheet. Ulster, we know, contains a large amount of (he wealth and manufacturing industries of the country. In order to increase the revenue of the country it will be generally admitted that every industry ought to be fostered and encouraged in Ireland, and I cannot believe that Irishmen, even if they were such perverse creatures as hon. members Opposite appear to believe, would seek to destroy the industries which are the sources of prosperity. (Hear, bear.) As to the opinion of ULster I do not believe that Ulster is by any means as unanimous as is sometimes represented. The tenant- farmers of Ulster, the bone and sinew of the people, are far more concerned about the question of the re- duction of rents, and far more anxious to obtain rent reductions, than they are to, resist Home Kule. (Nationalist cheers.) I now come to the subject of the Legislative Council. That will be an assembly which I believe is fairly certain to represent the property interests of tho country. We are cfinstantly told that not only all the intelligence, but all the property, of Ireland is opposed to the Nationalist party, and we are told sometimes that the anti-Home- Kule party consists of two-fltths of the population, sometimes that it consists of one-third, and sometimes that it contains two millions of the population out of four and a-half millions. If, as is represented, they form a very large proportion of the people of Ireland, and if (hey represent all the property and intelligence, sorely they will be able to command a sufficiency of representation on the Legislative Council, which is to consist of 48 persons elected by a limited con- stituency of 170,000. This body is constituted on purpose to give a due representation to property. The right hon. gentleman says that it will be swept away. Well, there are no communities in our colonics which are more democratic than the rising, enlightened com- munities of Australasia, and in Victoria and South Australia there exists an Upper House elected on the basis of a property qualification, and that Upper House is not only not unpopular, but is admitted on all sides to have rendered great service to the colony and to exercise a very valuable and moderating influence. Therefore we base ourselves upon the experience of communities fully as democratic, and in some respects more democratic, ' than wo expect Ireland to be. I do not see why it should be thought that the Irish Legislative Council should not be an extremely useful part of the consti- tutional machinery. (Hear, hear.) To me the plan appears to me far better than the two orders pro- posed in 1886, because the existence of a separ.ite House will involve separate debiites, which may do much to enlighten and instruct the people, and there will be additional consideration given to Bills, The Homo Rule BUI. Mr. Bryce. House of Commons, February 14, 1893. 343 because they will have to pass through their stages iu both Houses. The right hon. gentlemao opposite assumed that the council might be extinguished, but when the Bill is printed he will see that the Irish Legislature will have no power tu extinguish the Legislative Council. The right hon. gentleman also referred to the position of the Bojal Irish Con- stabulary, the Civil Service, and the Judges. I can give him satisfftctofj assurances oa all these heads. The constabulary deserve the praise which has been bestowed upon them. We are aware of the obliga- tions which Imperial legislation has imposed upon us in their regard, and we prupose to abide by those obligations, and it will be found that the consta- bulary have been dealt with in accordance with the chartered position which they hold, and that they will have no reason to complain. The same remarks apply to the Civil Service and the Judges. We recognize our liability to make provision for them, and we have satisfied that liability. With regard to the Judges the right hon. gentleman is quite iu error in supposing that there will be any power in the Irish Legislature to diminish the salary or the pension of a Judge appointed in the future. We expressly safe- guard the rights of future Judges to the salaries and pensions which they understand they are to have when they are appointed,' I was a little surprised by the zeal which the right hon. gentleman showed for the mftiutenance of judicial independence (Nationalist cheers), bearing in mind what has occurred in con- nexion with the magistracy. Mr. BALFOUK. — I inherited the system from the right hon, gentlemen who sit opposite. Mr. BRYGB. — I am aware that the right hon. gentleman inherited what had been in existence before he came into office, but the policy of the right hon. gentleman with respect to his removable magistrates and the way in which he used them a.i instruments (Nationalist cheers) for his policy of coercion imposed a stain upon the judicial system of the country and Oio independence of the Bench to which they had not been exposed before. Mr. BALFOUB.— The right hon. gentleman has accused me of tampering with justice in Ireland. (Nationalist cheers, and cries of " So you did.") Such an accusation ought to be justified by facts. (Cheers.) Mr. BKYCE. — ^Nothing was further from my mind than to suggest that the right hon. gentleman bad tampered with the independence of justice. I know him to be incapable of it, and I believe that no Minister of the Crown would do such a thing. My meaning was t.hat the Coercion Act as administered under the right hon. gentleman necessarily and inevitably imposed a very difficult duty on the Irish magistrates. I now come to a point in which the right hon. gentleman laid very considerable stress and on which, I admit, be is entitled to lay stress. The point has reference to the position of the Irish members in the British Parliament. It would, no donbt, be dilKcult to find a perfectly satisfactory system. The course of exclusion is obviously inadmis- sible because it was rejected in 1886 by a very large majority of the English people. To the course of retention for all purposes I have myself never been &ble to gee great objections, but it appears to excite vary strong objections — objeetions so strong that it would perhaps be diiBeult to persuade any majority to adopt it. The course of retention in lessened numbers is open to a double logical objection, and therefore we fall>^ack upon the course of retention for Imperial purposes only. I do not deny that, for those who are familiar with daily work in this House, a system under which some members will vote in some divi- sions and not iu others does present elements of diffi' culty. (Hear, hear.) I think, however, those diffi- culties appear to be very much greater at first sight than they will be seen to be when examined in detail. When the clause is produced I hope it will be found that it provides for tbe cases that would arise, and we have added to that clause a proviso that the decision on the application of a Bill to cases in which it will arise shall never be questioned other- wise than in this House. This question, in other words, will never come before the Courts of law, and no suspicion of invalidity about the cairying of a Bill or resolution will arise ; it is a matter which will remain within the jurisdiction of the House itself. The right hon. gentleman asked whether it was right that Irish members should determine what Cabinet was to be in power, and he justly observed thit « most important function of Parliament is to keep an Executive in power. That function must belong to the whole Imperial Parliament, because the Imperial Cabinet is charged with the management of the con- cerns of the whole Empire, and clearly it can only be kept in power by all the members from all parts of the United Kingdom, who ai'e all equally interested in the due conduct of Imperial affairs. The orJy inconvenience, therefore, which will arise is this ^and I frankly admit it is an inconvenience — that it will be possible that a Ministry may be in power, supported by the vote of all the members, who will not be able to pass Bills for England alone, because they do not possess an English majority. (Ironical cheers.) Will tbe House be surprised .to hear that although it has sometimes rarely happened since the Reform Act that there have been Ministries in power dependent on an Irish majority only, there has never yet been, .so far as I can gather — and I am in- debted ou this point to my right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works, who has made a careful ex- amination of it (ironical cheers) — any case of an Eng- lish Bill of fii'st-class importance, or even con- siderable importance, which has been carried except by the votes of an English majority. Therefore the ctise which we are contemplating is not only a hypo- thetical case, but is one which, according to the experience of the past, is most unlikely to occur. I will go further and say it is a case which ought not to occur. The hon. and learned member for Plymouth put the ca.se of the Welsh Suspensory Bill. So long as the Irish majority remain here, of course, they must retain their right of voting, and it would be most unjust to them, before you have given them a Legislature of their own, to debar themTrom voting upon any Bill whatever. If the hon. and learned member is ready to assume the Home Rule Bill already passed, then the question of their moral right to vote for a Suspensory Bill may become a practical question. (An hon. member. — Legal right.) The hon. and learned member put a very bad case, because what is our contention ? It is that such a Bill ought not to be decided by the votes of English members, but by the votes of Welsh members — that is to say, it is a Bill which the English majority ought to adopt when there is a large and overwhelming majority of Welsh members in its favour. But I will put the ease of an English Bill. Suppose the case of the disestablish- ment of the Church of England. I frankly own it would be impossible to carry such a Bill against an English majority, but it would be impossible now. We are dealing here with idle and fanciful dangers, and the very difficulties which tho hon. and learned The Home Rule Bill. Mr, Bryce. 344 House of Coffimons, February 14, 1893. gentleman coninres up are in existence at this moment. Scotch members have always claimed that it was most unfair to force a Scotch Bill Upon this Honse against the wish of a large majority of Scotch members, arid the House has always adopted that view. I admit that npon many small points, ameud- ments in Committee, Scotch opinion may have been dverbome, but there has never been a case of a large Bill being forced npon Scotland against the wish of a Scotch majority. When hon. members speak of inconveniences, let them remember the numerous inconveniences from which we may now suffer if majorities were to assert all their legal rights and override the moral and practical aspects of the case. (Hear, hear.) For my part, I believe that if the House chooses between the two plans, it will be found that the plah we have proposed is subject to fewer inconveniences, and is far more likely before long to be smooth, easy, and familiar in its working. The hon. and learned member took the case of a sodden vote. That is just one of the cases, now, which might occur if we did not deal with it upon common-sense methods. Snap divisions are not allowed now to upset a Ministiy, and they ought not to be allowed to have any more effect in the future than we allow them now. tjpori thS subject of finance, there is a clause in the Bill which expressly deals with the case of the collection of income-tax, and which, I think, removes the inconveniences to which the right hon. gentleman very properly called attention. The right hon. gentleman asks. What would happen if the Customs were to be abolished ? He forgets that that is an Imperial matter, and there will be no difBculty in dealiiig with such a case, because the Irish members will be here, and because in all matters of Imperial finance they will be equally interested with ourselves. We are not, as the right hon. gentleman has said, dissolving partnership with Ireland ; we are retaining them for all our most important affairs, for the whole of our Imperial Budget, Imperial ex- penditure, and Imperial enterprises, and in any pro- posal for a deep-cutting change the Irish members would have to bear their part. That there will be some difficulty, that Budgets will occasionally present problems of more complexity than they have presented hitherto, will be admitted, but we have introduced a scheme in the Bill by which, as we trust, it will be found possible for the House to deal equitably with the claims of Ireland and with the adjustment of taxation between the two countries. The principle is simple, and we have full confidence in the wisdom and equity of Parliament to give effect to the prin- ciple as the case actually arises. I feel the great value of the criticisms which the right hon. gentle- man brought forward, and it is far better that such criticisms should be given at the very outset. I must, however, say that it is easy to conjure up difficulties ■*ith all new schemes. Why, if any philosophic visitor were to come down here from some other planet and ask some one to explain the British Con- stitution to him, would he not say, " It bristles with difficulties "? (Laughter and cheers.) May I call the attention of the House to a very interesting parallel case which happened just a little more than 100 years ago ? In 1788 the United States of America were called upon to consider a Constitution which had been drafted. That Constitution had a very narrow escape of being rejected. Predictions the most various in their character and most senrehing in their quality were levelled against it, and it was confidently declared that it never would work, but would lead either to the destruction of liberty or to speedy dis- union and separation. More than 100 years have passed since theii, and to-day, under that Constitution, 70 millions of people live in happiness, having reached a pitch of prosperity hitherto unexampled in the history of the woi:ld (cheers), while to-day reverence is paid to the authors of it. If we are to assume that everybody will do the wrong thing, that everybody will start, notto try to make the scheme work, but to make it fail, difficulties may arise. We, making all allowance for human frailty, never- theless believe that this scheme will succeed; and we believe it because we believe that there are good forces as well as bad in human nature, and that on the whole the good forces are the stronger. There will be a strong interest in making it work. In spite of the warnings of the right hon. gentleman we believe that even a Tory Government will try to work this Constitution fairly, and not to reopen strife. When a Tory Government comes into power, as in the turning of the wheel it is certain to do, the right hon. gentleman himself will not be the man to make a capricious use either of the veto or of the supre- inacy of Parliament, but he will recognize the relief given to Britain by the change. (Hear, hear.) In view of that relief, of the strength which harmony will give to this country, and of all the good results which we trust this Bill will work, I venture to hope that even now it is not too late to make an appeal to the patriotism of hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite to try to make the scheme perfect. If they must challenge principles, let them challenge them where they fail, but let them forego harassing and vexatious opposition upon every detail with a view to prevent the Bill from becoming law. They know as well as we do that some scheme for Irish self- government must pass, that the demand which has been made ever since 1800 will some day be granted. (Hear, hear.) Is it not better for them even now not to protract a useless struggle which may involve other institutions (" oh," and cheers), but yield with some measure of grace to what they must see to be inevit- able. (Cheers.) Be that as it may, we have sought to do our duty to Britain and to Ireland. We lay this Bill upon the table of the House and we trust to the Liberal party and to both sections of the Irish party, because when they come to examine the Bill they will find in it a full satisfaction for all their reason- able claims, to help us to carry it thfoUgh. We have sought to present a fair, moderate, practical, and equitable scheme (hear, hear), and we trust that it has in itself the elements of success and of stability, because it appeals, not to fear, or force, or to the coercive policy of the past, but to the higher and better side of human nature, because it is calculated to bring peace and concord out of strife and bitter- ness, because it rests upon the solid and enduring foundation of those principles of self-government, freedom, and responsibility — responsibility the off- spring of the self-government — by which Britain herself has grown great and has become th6 model and pattern of ordered freedom to all the free nations of the world. (Cheers.) SIR J. LUBBOCK said that they had all listened with respect and admiration to the speech of his right hon. friend the Prime Minister in introducing this Bill. He laid its provisions before the House in a conciliatory manner, and he hoped that they would all debate it with as little heit as possible, for in doing so lay their best hope of arriving at a wise conclusion. It was a momentous measure and introduced fundamental changes into our Constitution. It was described as a The Home Kule Bill. Mr. Bryce. ' HcMSe- 6f l2!6mmonB, February 14, 1893. 345 BUI for the) Iteitei goTemmeut of Ireland. That might or might not be, but, though it Would alter fundamentally the Eugliah ConstitntibDi he thought Ho one could sty that it would conduce to the better government of England. His right hon; friend regiirded some such measure as a necessity. His right hon. friend said that the alternative . was between Home Rule and coercion — he spoke of their "em- bracing the path " of coercion, which was rather a curious metaphor — and in support of that contention he referred to the present Crimes Act. But Lord Sclbome, one of our greatest constitutional lawyers — his own Lord Chancellor in two Ministries — had told them that that Apt made no new crime. He believed ttiat statement to be absolutely correct. However that may be, while the Act abolished the true coercion in Ireland — boycotting — ^for some time past there had only been two or three persons in prison under it in the whole of Irelend, and he believed they were in prison for offences which would have beeii so in auy civilized country in the world. His right hon. friend justified his Bill on the ground that the population of Ireland was irreconcilable. But was the case so. hopeless ? The right hon. gentle- man himself told the House that Belfast, now so strongly attached to the Union, tH&s at first bitterly opposed to it. He heard that portion of his right hon. friend's speech with deep regret. He told the House how unanimously the people of Belfast then opposed the Union which they now supported, and that " we have seen them alter from what we think better to what we think worse " ; and he expressed a hope that they would change again, resume their old feelings of jealousy towards us, and " form one in a noble and glorious unity with the rest of their fellow-country- men." They did form now a noble and glorious imity with the rest of their fellow-countrymen. We were their fellow-countrymen, and we meant to remain so. (Cheers.) He admitted that as regarded rural Ireland the case was different. But it was not hopelciss. The people of Belfast were in favour of the Union because they had prospered under it, because they felt it was to their advantage to form an integral part of this great Empire. The rural population — and he deeply regretted it — had been less fortunate, thouglf not through any fault of ours. What had been the econo- mical history of rural Ireland since 1800 ? The popu- lation at that time was about 5,000,000. Fostered especially by the great development of the cultivation of tbe potato, i,t rose to over 8,000,000 by about 1845. Then came tbe potato disease, and the yield of the potato, which had been between six and seven tons to the acre, fell below 3J tons. This caused the great famine, and we contributed £8,000,000 to mitigate its effects. But the result was that something like one- half of the staple food of the rural population was swept away at one fell blow. Necessarily the popula- tion dwindled. It was now again below 8,000,000, and at the present figure would, he hoped, be main- tained in comparative comfort. But the fall in population from 8,000,000 to 5,000,000 was unavoid- ably accompanied by great suffering. He did not complain that we were blamed, though he thought un- justly ; but he hoped that, now this great source of suffering and sorrow was at an end, there were brighter prospects in Store for the rural population, and that, though it must take time, the same happy chansje of feeling which had taken place in Ulster would eitehd to other parts of Ireland also. Since ho had had a seat in that House he had always listened with respect and sympathy to the views of Irish members, and he had voted, and Should vote, for every measure sbalcnlated to remove any injustice or^o pro- iuote the comfort and welfare of our Irish fellow- countrymen. (Heir^ beskr.) The. experiment which we were asked to try was absolutely novel. There was ijothing like it in the world. Austria-Hungari^ (and ueairly the same might be said of Noriray an9 Sweden) was a dual emjiire. Each of the parts had equal privileges. It waa presided, over by an Bmp'eror with great powet, and yet he was not sure that it possessed the elements Of strength or of stability. So also in the United States and in Switzerland every State had similar rights. That was not what was proposed now. He saw that several Gladstoniana had declared iu favoui: of " Hoibe Bule all round." But that was not Home Bule .; it was Federaiism. It vt^nld present great difficulties, but it would not be open to the objections which were felt to Home Bule. Federalism treated all parts Of the empire alike ; Home Bule granted special privileges to one portion which were denied to the ^est. His right hon. friend hadnot correctly appreciated the position which the Uniqnists took up as regarded the retention of Irish members. iThey did not advocate their retention with a view of maintaining the supremacy of the Crown. The, argument was that you are on the horns of a dilemma ; if you do not keep tbe Irish taembers you cannot be said to maintain the Union, and if you do, to use the words of the Secretary for Scotland, yon make them not only masters in Dublin, but our masters in Westminster also. The Prime Minister said that he proposed In this Bill to give the Irish their proportionate weight. It seemed to him that 80 was too latge a number. The true measure was, not the number of the population, but the amount of the contribution, and according to the contribution, although the financial part of the pro- posal was not very clear, 40 would be s fairer number than 80. Ireland would in future only contribute one- twentieth of our Imperial expenditure, and yet it was proposed to giye them one-seventh of the representa- tion ! The Bill of 1886 excluded the Irish members, and in criticizing that Bill Unionists dwelt on the consequences which musthave followed from that pro- posal. They succeeded in convincing^ t(ie country that their objections were well founded, and they con- Verted the great bulk of the Libetal party, who pnght not, therefore, to complain of the course taken at that time. In the Bill now before the House the Govern- ment bad placed themselves on the second horn of the dilemma, which seemed to him to be the mOre dangerous one. Who was to decide when Irish members were and when they were not to vote ? Was that difficult and invidlous^duty to be thrown on the Speaker ? Surely on that point we should be opening the door to interminable disputes. (Hear,- hear.) Moreover, the English Government was an executive as well as a legislative body. They carried on the government of the country. But while we shonld have no influence in the selection of the Irish Govern- ment, Irish members would have a very powerful voice in the selection of our Government. (Hear^ hear.) Suppose a case — and history had shown it to be a very common one — such a case as the present^ when the Government had been put in power and was kept in power by Irish votes against the wishes of the people of Great Britain. Under this Bill who would be Prime Minister ? As regarded bur home affairs, Lord Salisbury would have a majority of 40 ; as regarded imperial affairs the right hon. gentleman would have a majority of 20. We might well ask the memorable question, *' How is her Majesty's iSbvcrn- ment to be carried on ?" The Budget would be an The Home Bule BilL Sir X Lubbock. 346 House of Commons, February 14, 1893. Imperial question, hat Irish members would vote on itj and they would thus be our masters. We welcomed them here as equals, but the right hon. gentleman wonld piit them in a position of advantage over us. The right hon. gentleman had said that no Bill of first-rate importance had ever been passed in this House against the wishes of Sngland. Well, this was a Bill of flrst-rate importance, and ho hoped it would pot be passed against the wishes of England. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman had told the House that it was a cardinal feature of bis proposalsto maintain the ^premaey of Parliament. But how was that to be insured ? Not through the police, for they would gradually pass to the local authorities. Not through the Executive Qovemment, for they would be under the Irish Parliament. Through the troops ? That would be most uneatisfaetory. But who was to call them out ? Sir J. Stephen pointed out this difficulty in a letter to Ihe Timei on May 1, 1886, when he »aid : — " How would the troops be set in motion ? No militai^ officer would act on his own responsibility. The Irish magistrates, answerable to the Irish legislative body, would not call upon the troops to act against the orders of that body, though they might be eompelled to act in obedience to it." ITnder this Bill the supremacy of the Imperial Par- liament in Ireland would be a mocliery and a sham. (Cheers.) Again, we might be placed in a position of great difficulty if the Irish Executive infringed the neutrality laws to aid in any cause with which they sympathized. What power should we have of enforcing those laws? There might, for instance, be enlistmente on behalf of one side or the' other in B^ome foreign struggle. That would place us in a great international difficulty, and yet how could we prevent it ? The right hon. gentleman had postponed to the close of his speech one very important part of the question — thatof finance — andhehad left the House Jn much doubt as to the provisions of the Bill. What- ever difficulty there might be as to the determination of the questions on which Irish members were not to Vote, there was no doubt that they were to vote on questions of peace and war. But if they involved England in a war, how could we be assured that they would bear their fair proportion of the burden ? (Hear, hear.) The Prime Minister had referred to Customs, but it could not be possible to raise more than a small portion of the funds by Customs duties. The duties on spirits could not be raised without changing the Excise, which was to be an Irish fund. The right hon, gentleman had scarcely alluded to the income-tax, and no one seemed to understand his proposals as to that great source of revenue, but ho had said, mysteriously, that, " as to other sources of revenue, we have in view a proposal by which we should make sure of getting a fair provision from Ireland for special Imperial necessities." Con- sidering the great importance of this question, and the disadvantage at which we should be placed if we had 80 Irish members voting here, while we had no voice at Dublin, it was remarkable that the right bon. gentleman should have thought it unnecessary to give even a hint of the proposals ho intended to make. (Hear, hear. ) lie doubted very much whether this was a Bill for the better goveriunent of Ireland. It certainly was not one which would conduce to the hotter government of England. He believed that it would have an unfortunate effect on Ireland ; that it would lead to bitter hostility, if not, to civil war. (Hear, hear.) Ireland needed capital for the im- provement of her harbours, for the drainage of her land, fur the development of her industries, but the very shadow of Home Rule had d«pressed Irish industries and Irish credit. Mr. Pamell had himself admitted this, for in the debate on the Bill of 1886 he said ; — " Irish landlords now can borrow money at a low rate of interest . . . for the improvement of their estates ; Irish tenants can borrow money for improving their farms ; local bodies can borrow money for sanitary purposes within their jurisdiction. All these are very important matters. But we shall have to surrender all these under the scheme of the right hon. gentleman." And what was true then would be equally true now. (Hear, hear.) For Ireland, then, he believed, this was an ill-omened Bill. As far as England was con- cerned, this Bill would place us at a terrible dis- advantage. The words of the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for Scotland were as true now as when they were spOken.- He said : — " It is proposed to give Ireland a Parliament of its own for Irish legislation, but to admit Irish repre- sentatives to the Imperial Parliament to discuss and vote on Imperial matters, . . . However anxious we may be to divide the domestic functions of Par- liament from its Imperial functions, I will venture to say that Irish members will not only bo absolute masters of their own Parliament in Dublin, but they will be om' masters at Westminster as well." This was not only an Irish but an English question, in which Englishmen had a vital interest, for it funda- mentally altered the government of England as well as that of Ireland. He was glad that this country decided against the Bill in 1886 and' in 1892, and he was sure that it would give the same response to any future appeal. ' (Hear, hear.) He should be the first to admire the spirit of conciliation in which the Bill was brought forwai-d by the Prime Minister. He desired to promote good feeling- in Ireland, and to- receive any proposals which would tend to her well- being. But he could not support a Bill which he believed to be fraught'with danger to both countries ; which opensd up new subjects of contention ; which would throw the British Government into confusion ; which abandoned those just rights of self-governraent which Parliament had no right to sacrifice ; and which gave to the Irish representatives a control over English affairs to which no wise and patriotic Eni^Iishman would consent. (Hear, hear.) Mr. THOKNTON, who addressed tlM House for the first time, expressed his emphatic belief that the con- stituencies in London at ihe general election gave but a qualified verdict in f-avour of Home Kule. The sub- ject was almost entirely ignored ; and the supporters of the Government in London fought on the cry of the siege of the metropolis. Home Rule was lost beneath the ample folds of the London programme. He, how- ever, could claim the authority of his constituents for opposing the Bill, because, like other Tnionists, he took every occasion to place the question of the Union before them. He contended that there could be no complete mandate from any constituency unless the facts were placed before both parties. His hon, colleague in the representation of Clapham and Batter- sea (Mr. John Bums) was present. He was a faithful friend of the poorer classes ; but he would agree that his position in Battersea was due to the interest he took in the needs of the masses and in social questions, and that Home Rule was not a promioent plank in his pro- gramme. (Hear, hear.) He maintained that if there had not been a policy of concealment on the part of the Government, they had at any rate allowed other sub- Ihe Home Eule BilL Sir J. Lubbock. House of Commons, February 14, 1893. 347 jects to beput before Home Kule until the last moment. ■yVhat he had gathered from this debate was that Ire- laud would gain by this measure either a practical independence or the position of a province in shackles. Did the House want Ireland to return either to practical independence or to the terrible condition of neglect of which the Prime Minister spoke in his speech ? It was his own belief that this measure would uever be tried. He believed that the time would come when the Irish representatives would come and ask England to remain united to Ireland. They would come and ask English Ministers to perpetuate the policy of Mr. Pitt, the policy of allowing the Irish people to remain on a level with ourselves — a policy which, he believed, to be oue of justice and mercy. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CEOMBIB said he had listened to the most able speech of the right hon. gentleman the leader of the Opposition with the keenest pleasure, but the right hon. gentlemau's mastery of- political argument had not blinded him to the weakness of his case. When the right hon. gentleman rt commended the German Empire to the consideration of the House as one which was in consonance with the spirit of the times, ho could not help feeling that evil communica- tions had corrupted good manners, and that the right hon. gentleman had been putting his money on Par- nellism, and, being confrooted by the nr.em,ber for Waterford, had determined to go one better. The right hon. gentleman had endeavoured to show that the Prime Minister was on the horns of a dilemma. He said the Prime Minister had argued in 1S86 that Ireland required Hume Eule because she was dis- affected, and that now he argued that Home KuJe was necessary because Ireland was tranquil. It appeared to him that if the Prime Minister was impaled upon one horn, the right hon. gentleman the le.idor of the Opposition was impaled upon the other, for in 1886 he opposed Home Rule because Ireland was dis- affected aud now he opposed it because the was tranquil. The right hon. gentleman told the House that Ulster objected to Home Rule and was entitled to separate treatment. That seemed to be initiating a new doctrine in legislation. Why did uot the right hon. gentleman follow the same principle when he introduced a Coercion Bill ? As the right hoo. gentle- man said, Ireland was divided into two parts, and his Coercion Bill was objected to by the greater part of Ireland, though it was not objected to by Ulster. He referred to the Home Rule Bill of 1836 and read a resolution submitted to the Birmingham Two Thousand, at which the right hon. member for West Birmingham and the right hon. member for Bordesley were present, urging, among other things, the reten- tion of the Irish members in the Imperial Parliament. Now that the Prime Minister was willing to retain the Irish members he called upon those right hon. gentlemen to declare whether they would now support the present measure. It seemed to him that it was a policy of negation which bound the Opposition to- gether — a denial of the Prime Minister and all his works. He had not been able to detect in aiw speech^ from that side of the House the slightest shadow of an alternative measure. Though the right hon. member for West Birmingham had put forward certain modifi- cations of the previous Homo liule Bill, none of his present colleagues had considered them. The only persons who had consented to hear the details were some of the members of the present Administration at the Round Table Conference. It was true that the leader of the Opposition had presented a measure; granting local solf-govemment to Ireland, and though the right hon. gentleman and be were both Scotumen, no surgical operation was needed to show that this measure of the right hon. gentleman's was a joke of the hugest proportions. (Laughter.) Such a Bill might be good business in the libretto of a eomio opera, but it could not be viewed »s a measure calcu- lated lo allay the feeling of ancient strife between this country and Ireland. (Hear, hear.) The Oppo- sition admitted that the case of Ireland was ofie of ez« treme political necessity, yet they offered no scheme as a remedy for the evils which were apparent to everyone, (Hear, hear.) All they could do wag to -oppose the scheme of the one statesman who had a plan to offer, and who was bold enough to undertake the duty of formulating a remedy. (Hear, hear.) The Opposition in 1886 wrecked the Home Eule Bill introduced in that year upon its details, which, he . admitted, were its weakness ; but the details of the present measure constituted its strength. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members around him had long looked forward to the opportunity of voting for such a measure as the present Bill as a practical means of healing the sore which had rankled between England and Ireland for seven centuries and of bringing to Ire- land a period of prosperity and peace. (Hear, hear.) COLONEL BRIDGEMAN said there were two points to which he wished to draw attention and on which he desired information from the Government. The first had reference to the retention or exclusion of the Irish members. The right hon. gentleman the member for Aberdeen had stated that the obje^ctions to the retention of the Irish members were fanciful, and that the Bill would provide for any difficulty that might arise in connexion with it. But he would suggest a difficulty that be thought could hardly have been foreseen. Let them suppose that a Conservative Government was in power, that the Home Rule Bill had become law, and 80 Irish members were Bitting in the House. If, in such circumstances, the right hon. member for Mid Lothian brought forward a, niotion to disestablish the Scotch Church the Irish' members would not take part in the division beoause it would be a purely British question ; hut supposinj; thereupon a motion of want of confidence bronght on, the Irish members would vote, and the result would be that the Conservative Government would have to resign. Then the right hon. gentleman the member for Mill Lothian would again bring a Bill for disesta- blishment of the Scotch Church ; Ihe Irish members could not vote, and the Government would be beaten and the right hon. gentleman would have to resign. Then the same thing might go on over and over again, and the House would be placed in a ridiculous position before the world. He should like to know how the Government would meet such a difHculty as that. The second point had reference to the financial ques- tion. They had been told that the Irish contribution to the English Exchequer was to be between 4 and 5 per cent., which, considering that the population of Ireland was 12 per cent., appeared to him to be a very small proportion. If, say, 4J per cant, was the proper rate of contribution, why should the Irish people send representatives to Parliament in the proportion of 12 per cent. ? If the Bill went into Committee he should move that the number of Irish representatives should correspond with the rate ot contribution to the English Exchequer, and as this was a case of taxation and representation going together he should watch with some interest how Radical members voted upon it. He believed that if the Government had endeavoured to follow tbo firm and generous Irish policy of the leader of the The Home Rule Bill. Mr. Crombie. 348 House of Commons, February 14, 1893. Opposition there would have been no necessity for this Bill and that Ireland would vety soon have taken her proper place in line with this country, adding to its strength rather than taking from it by the measure before the House. (Hear, hear.) Mr. COLLINGS Said the hon. inember for Kincar- dineshire had reminded the House that in 1886 Bir- mingham gave some advice to the then Liberal party, which they refused to take, and fot tendering which those who offered it were ruled out of the Liberal party. The hon. member said, however, thai the party had now accepted it. But they had accepted it seven years too late. (Hear, hear.) It was remark- able that the efforts made at that time to prevent the Prime Minister from making ducks and drakes of the Liberal party, which was put into bis hands for totally different purposes from those for which he used it, should be brought as a reproach against theln now, What could he say of those gentlemen who, like the hon. member, followed like dumb dogs the present Prime Minister, who, without a mandate from the conntiy or consultation with his supporters, wrecked the party which it had taken generations to build ■up ? The right hon. gentleman might have given his personal consent to Home Bule, but be bad no right under the circumstances to ruin the Liberal party upon its (Hear, hear.) Thoy now knew why the Bill had been concealed for seven years. The reason was that it was pretty well guessed that the British people would stand nothing of thfe kind. Since 1886, the Prime Minister said, the majority in Great Britain against Home Kul6 had decreased. The verdict was not giv^h on Home Bule. Let the Government go to the country and ask its opinion on this Bill. (Laughter.) What was put before the country was water and gas. (Mr. Eoby. — Never.) Well, here was one card ; he had seen scores of them. It>was printed at Leicester— "Home Rule for Ireland ; Home Bule for England by means of parish councils." (Laughter.) The policy of con- «. ccalmenT had been kept up to the last, but they now saw that the Bill was a Repeal Bill. (Hear, hear.) Ho was struck with the reception given to the Bill. There was great admiration of the mental and physical powers of the Prime Minister. There was a recogni- tion of the glamour of his great personality, but as to the Bill itself there was scarcely a cheer. ("Oh," and laughter.) He meant the Bill apart from the introducer. The polio3' before the country was a policy of the disintegration of the United Kingdom. The Chancellor of the Duchy said that the Govern- ment had a commission from the United Kingdom on this Bill. (Hear, hear.) The country had never seen the Bill. (Cheers.) Even hon. members had never known what the Bill was until yesterday. Why should they not go to their constituents with the Bill in their hands ? Would any one believe that Home Rule meant two separate Executives ("Yes"), that in these small islands there were to be two Par- liaments, two Prime Ministers, two Chancellors of the Exchequer, two fountains of justice, two standards of law and order P (Irish laughter.) Burely, Great BritSin was a party to the Union, and she was against its repeal. It was said the Union was brought about by bribes. (Hear, hear.) If this Bill were carried, then disunion would be brought about by lures, promises, and bribes (uproar, and cries of "Order "), which would be far more potent than the bribes of 1800. It was now conceded that 80 was the proper number of members which Ireland ought to have, and there were constituencies in England, particularly in Lancashire, which were controlled by the Irish vote. The cotmtry ought not to be tricked into this Bill by a majority got together by these means. It was the duty Of the Opposition to imsist that this Bill should be considered by the constituencies before) it became law. Why was there to be a Repeal Bill at all ? A FarliameUt which was good enough ioi England and Scotland ought, in his opinion, to be gCod enough for Ireland. Why was there ^o be a separate Parlia- ment for Ireland ? What liberty was there in England that was hot found in Ireland ? What liberty was there in the North of Ireland that was not also found in the ' South ? Until he heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy, he hardly realized how many difficulties stood in the way of the Bill. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman, in an academic and intellectual manner, had shown that the measure was a perfect maze of intricacies and complications. Only a few mouths before the right hon. gentlemau's conversion to the policy of Home Bule he had said : — " Rhetorical commonplaces about liberty and nationality have little application to the Ireland of to-day. The Irish ideal of a leader has been an orator who will worry and vex and terrify the ruling Power, not a constructive statesman Whose plans will restore prosperity to the country." The right hon. gentlctflan also said : — " At the lowest computation more than 1,000,000 Irishmen are opposed to the Nationalist programme, and this million includes nearly all the property and educa- tion of Ireland. A minority like this cannot be ignored." This was published in 1884 (laughter from the Nationalist members), not long before the great conversion, or, rather, great surrender. He failed to understand how men could change their opinions to such an extent in the course oi a few months, (Ironical Nationalist cheers.] No such Strong .language could be found anywhere against .the policy of Home Rule or repeal as was found in the speeches of the very men who were now supporting that policy. Lord Spencer, for example, once said : — " We have to tell the Irish people that their just grievances will always be redressed, that we will extend to them every privilege and liberty that we Englishmen possess ; but we must tell them plainly a1 the same time that iro party in England, whether Con- servative or Liberal, will put up with anarchy, and that in respect of the repeal of the Union ^v^ feel like the Americans when the integrity of their Empire was threatened, and that, if necessary, we must shed blood to maintain the strength and effect the salvation of the country." Those ivho had heard the Prime Minister on the sub- ject of the retention of the Irish members^" that indigestible diet " — might easily have imagined them- se-Ives to be in a debatibg forum in which the right hon. gentleman was taking both sides at once. (Laughter.) In Manchester, in 1886, the right hon. gentleman Said, " I will not be a party to giving Ireland a legislative body to manage Irish concerns and at the same time to bavin? Irish members in London acting and voting in Scotch and English con- cerns." What the right hon. gentleman then said he would not do was now going to be done. (Cheers, and Nationalist cries of " No.") Then it did not pass the wit of man to draw a distinction between local and Imperial affairs. On questions like the Egyptian question the Irish members would undoubtedly be per- mitted to vote, and might by their votes compel this country to incur great expenses, to which Ireland would contribute very, little. The Prime Minister The Home Sale BilL Mr. Collings. House of' Commons, Fetraary 14, 1893. M9 Eaid he was content to' trast to the paiiiotistn and generositjr of the Irish Parliament to make willing subsidies in cases of emergency. He was hot sure that the trust was well founded. Supposing the pre- sent Government were to lead the country into a war with France on the Egyptian quesiion, would Ireland vote a subsidy to aid us ? Would not France be more likely to make Ireland the basis of operations against England, as she had before? (Hear, bear.) One thing was clear, that under this Bill the British taxpayer was again called upon. In 1886 the proposed Irish tribute was between three and four millions ; now the Irish wereto pay two millions and the balance was to come oat of the British taxpayers' pocket. As to the allegation that the Bill would bring finality, he should like to hear the right hon. member for the Bridgeton Division tell the iSonee that at last he had discovered a half-way house between local government and separation. (Hear, hear.) If the Bill were passed Ireland would not be con- tented. They had the past history of Canada to guide them, liiere the French and English Canadians would not blendj and Lord Durham found it neces- sary to separate them and to grant them sepa- rate autonomies, and thus was laid the founda- tion of the practical independence of Canada. If this Bill passed there would be in Ireland two races under the conditions which in Canada led to civil war ; and we should have to step i^ and separate them by giving separate autonomies to each. Cf course the Bill would be accepted by all sections of the Nationalist party, who had always been straight- forward in stating what they wanted. In 1886 the Irish World wrote that of course Mr. Faruell would support the Bill ot that year, but the eSect of every arrangement short of separation would be to leave Ireland in the position of a province. That was the policy of Mr. Famell, who always refused to speak of finality, and said you could '' not put limits to the aspirations of a nation.'' Mr. Famell not only brought Home Bule to the front, but he brought to his knees the Frime Minister, from whom now be did not receive a single word of recognition. (" Oh.") The speech of the hon. member for North Kerry (Mr. Sex- ton) indicated that the Bill would not get rid of Irish difficulties in this House ; his threatening attitude did not accord well with any idea of finality ; aiid the tact was that if the Bill passed Irish affairs would occupy a week for every two days they occu- pied, with this difierence, that the House now had power, but then it would have responsibility without power. (Hear, hear.) During seven years the Minis- terialist party had evaded the question of Ulster, and now the Prime Minister seemed to reproach it with being less rebellious than it was 100 years ago. If the rebels of 100 years ago were the Loyalists of to- day that seemed to show that experience of the tfnion had convinced them of its advantages. (Hear, hear.) But the Prime Minister and the Grovemment had failed to express any sympathy with Ulster, as if Nationalists were the only Irishmen, He would ask the Government to consider whether they should not separate Ulster from the rest of the country. When the Secession occurred in the United States, the State of Virginia was found to be divided, and the Federal Government took in that part of the State which supported the North and left out the other part. That seemed a sensible course, and Ulster bad a right to demand treatment of that kind. (Laughter.) The Imperial Parliament could oast Ulster off, but it had no right to place it under another Parliament which it detested. Talk 6t legislation in a " foreign garb," would it not come in a foreign garb to Ulster from Dublin i From the recent action of the Educa- tion Board we knew what would happen. He invited the attention of the President of the Local Govern- ment Board, who was in a very interesting position (great laughter) ; he had chanted the responses while Archbishop Walsh had conducted the service. The Education Board had shown that they would tax the country for denominational education ; by doing that they would tax Ulster, and Ulsteir. would refuse to be taxed in this way.' The resolutions passed by the great Belfast Conven- tion showed the mind of Ulster on this question, and instead of union between Great Britain and Ireland, ■ instead of union between the different parts of Ire-i land, he feared, if this Bill were passed, there wonl^ only be further agitation and civil war. Mr. j". EBDMOND observed that the right hon., gentleman the member for Bordesley, who in his later days had blossomed into an ardent supporter of' coercion for Ireland, was in 1884 so strong, an opponent of coercion and so ardent a Home Buler that v<(hen the Irish Nationalist party in 1885 issued a. manifesto to their supporters in England asking them to support the Tory candidate in the elections, an exception was made in favour of the right hon. ' gentleman. (Laughter and cheers.) He desired cordially to concur in the compliment which^ last night was paid by the hon. member for North Kerry to the Prime Minister. The spectacle of this aged' statesman, who in 1886 was driven from office by a large majority at the polls, who during the seven years' since then had maintained his position on the Irish question, and who came down at the end of those seven years to repeat, with an eloquence that " time cannctt wither nor custom stale," his plea for freedom to a poor and long-suSeiring country, must arouse emotion in the mind of every man of every party. (Cheers.) The House would understand him when he said that the uppermost thought in his mind last night was not the presence of the Prime Minister, but the absence of the great Irishman, the real father of Home Bule (hear, hear)— the great Irishman who drove the Prime Minister and his party from the paths of coercion into which they had strayed and taught them that in con- cession to Irish national sentiment alone was to be found Irish content and Imperial safety. In a memorable cable message, sent by the member for East Mayo and the member for Cork to an equally memor- able meeting in the Leinster-hall, that great Irish- man was described as ** a man who had brought the Irish people through unparalleled difSculties and dangers from servitude and despair to the threshold of emancipation by a genius, courage, and success un- equalled in history." And, though it had become, the fashion in these days to belittle his services or bury them in oblivion, the words of that cablegram were still true. When Mr. Famell came to this House Home Bule was regarded as a chimera, every English party ridiculed and despised it, and all the vast and limitless resources of England were expended in the effort to crush Irish Nationalism and silence its voice ; but in a few short years Mr. Parnell succeeded in driving from ofliee first a Liberal and then a Con- servative Govermnent, and finally — and this was prob- ably his greatest achievement — he succeeded in bring- ing the foremost Englishman of the day and the great Liberal party to recognize the claims of Ireland. (Hear, hear.J| 5e did not grudge the Prime Minister his meed of praise for the courajje and constancy of the last few years ; but, for his own part, he would have no share in the ingratitude of those who showered The Home Rule BUL Mr. CoUings. 350 House of Commons, February 14, 1893. their praises to-day upon the living Englishman and shrank trom mentioning the nimo of thfe dead Irish- man but for whom, for all they know, the present Prime Minister and his party might be proposing a Coercion Act instead of a Home Rule Bill. (Cheers.) Of the Bill itself it was impossible now to express any final or decided judgment. It did not need the appeal of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy to prevent him and his friends from forming any rash judgment upon it. It would be manifestly impossible for any man to ezpitess a final or decided judgment upon a Bill of such complexity until they had it in print. The first criticism he would offer wag this. Of the five conditions which the Prime Minister laid down as iniiding him in the drafting of this measure one was that it should be, as far as possible, a final settlement. He was one of those who believed •that, even in the ordinary legislation of that House, and still more in a measure of such complexity, it was the utmost folly to talk of finality. Mr. Pamell once said that it was impossible for any man to dare to set limits to the onward march of a nation. It was said 4hat the Bill of 1886 had been accepted by the Irish party and Mr. Pamell. It was well that the exact -words of Mr. Pamell on the first reading should be re- called to the recollection of the House. Mr. Pamell said : — " There are undoubtedly great faults and blots in the measure. The right hon. gentleman has had, I suppose, to shape his measure to meet the tremendous opposition evoked against him. There are several 'points which after the measure reaches its Coinmittee stage I am determined to oppose very strongly, and to press for their serioas modification and amend- ment." He had no hesitation in saying that in the Bill of last night there were serious blots, and it would be absolutely necessary'to press fdr amendments of its provisions. He recognized the course through which a Bill of this kind would have to go. Nationalist members would press for amendments in one direction, Unionists would press for amendments in the opposite direction, and it was impossible for any man to tell in what shape the Bill wonld emerge from its Committee stage. (Hear, hear.) He should be a rash man therefore — and, indeed, the member for North Kerry did not attempt to follow such a course — who before the third reading would say whether the Bill was or was not likely to afford a final and satis- factory settlement of this great international question. Therefore, until the Bill was in print and they were in a position to study its details, and until they could see how much they might improve the Bill or its opponents damage it in Committee, it was impossible to express a decided judgment upon it. But there were certain broad lines in the Bill which were plainly intelligible. With the broad principle of the creation of an Irish Parliament with an Executive responsible to it,|having the full control of Irish affairs with the exception of one or two Irish matters which were to be retained by the Imperial Parliament for a definite time, Tie was in thorough sympathy and accord. There were some matters which required investiga- tion and discussion, and the first was the question which had been dealt with largely in the present de- bate, and which had formed a topic of discussion in every debate upon Home Kule— namely,the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. The hon. member for North Kerry had stated the previous night that no Irish Nationalist disputed that supremacy. But there were two ways of looking at this question. (Opposi- tion laughter, and " Hear,hear.") Before the Union, as the Prime Minister had explained, there were two equal, distinct, and independent sovereignties, the one consisting of the Sovereign, Lords, and Commons of England, and the other of the Sovereign, Lords, and Cominons of Ireland, and upon ttiat the argument Was based that the supremacy of the Imperial Parlia- meut unquosWonably rested upon the validity of the Act of Union. It was an historical fact that the Irish uational sentiment had at all times disputed the validity of tho Act of Union, and had founded itself upon the declarations made at tho time of tho Union debates in the Irish Parliament. The best specimen was contained in one of Plunket's great speeches in opposition to the Union, in which he in express terms denied the competence of Parliament to do that act, and warned the House not to lay bands upon the Con- stitution, and that any such dealing with it under the circumstances would be a nullity, as the House was not elected for that purpose, and he declared that no man in Ireland would' be bound to obey the Parlia- ment. (Hear, hear.) The moment that Ireland was willing to accept any such arrangetnent as was con- tained in the present Bill, or as was proposed, for example, by Mr. Butt, the acceptance of any such arrangement would imply the abandonment by her of "her argument founded on the nullity of the Union. If, therefore, this Bill were passed and accepted by Ireland that argument would be gone. The Prime Minister, in a significant phrase in bis speech, had in splemn tones warned the House of what might follow the rejection of this measure or of similar proposals. Ireland was not now asking for repeal of the Union, sho was not now insisting upon the argument of the nullity of the Union, but had expressed her willing- ness to accept this scheme which recognized the supremacy of Parliament over both Ireland and England. The right hon. gentleman had warned the House and the country that, if Ireland's moderation should be' spurted and her moderate demand rejected, no one could tell whether she might not in the future fall back upon the nullity of the Union, and insist upon its repeal, iiistead of the compromise she was now willing to accept. (Hear, hear.) For the pur- poses of argument in discussing this proposal it was necessary to state, and he frankly stated, that the Irish members wore perfectly willing to accept, if it should be offered to them, a measure which was based upon the validity of the Union and the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. That supremacy was manifestly an absolute and inalienable supremacy. Ireland had never asked for any curtailment of tho supremacy Of the Imperial Parliament, but it had always been admitted that if a compromise of the kind in question. were accepted as a settlement between the two countries, the Parliament in England would retain the dual power, if it should think fit to do so, in tho first place to take away the Parliament from Ireland, and, in the second place, to pass laws for Ireland in contravention of the wishes of the Irish Legislature. No better definition of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, as admitted by Ireland in relation to measures of this kiad, could bo found than that of tho right hop. gentleman the Chancellor of tho Duchy of Lancaster in his speech on the Home Rule Bill of 1886, when he said it was not a question of divesting ourselves of the absolute omnipotence of Parliament, for we could not do so, and that tho only one limita- tion ou that omnipbtenee was that we could not bind oor successors. The right hon. gentleman had said, " What is it that is proposed by this Bill ? Why, to limit the right of legislating still resting on tho Imperial Parliament, we have committed to the Irish Legisla-tttre the right to legislate upon subjects on which we do iiot intend to legislate ourselves." The Home Bnle SilL Mr. J. Bedmocd. House of Commons, February 14, 1893. 351 What, then, did Irish members aik for ? They asked that if this compromise between the full and extreme demand of Irish national Sentiment and English feeling were carried out, if the validity of the Union and the supremacy of the Imperial Parlia- ment were admitted, then some guarantee sbonld be given that this Parliament would not exercise its right to legislate over tho heads of Irishmen in those purely Irish concerns which were committed by the constitutional act to the Irish Partiament. (Cheers.) It was true that with reference to the colonies the Imperial Parliament did not, as a rule, or at least very seldom did, legislate in purely colonial matters over the heads of the colonies. But the cases of the colonies and of Ireland were entirely different. The hou. member for North Kerry had said that, in his view, the mere establishment of a Home Rule Parlia- ment amounted to a compact between England and Ireland ; that England would not legislate in the matters committed to the Irish Parlia- ment ; and he had gone farther, and had said that in his opinion no declaration in a clause of the Bill to that effect would have the slightest value. With that he begged to differ, and he would cite as his witness the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said in the speech from which he had quoted that such a compact or declaration had in practice the effect of binding successive Parliaments by imposing moral obligations on Parliament not to go contrary to the statute. Therefore, recognizing the manifest intention of the Government to confer on Ireland an unfettered control of purely Irish affairs, but being distrustful of fdture Imperial Governments, especially after the statement made by the leader of the Opposi- tion as to how future Governments would ase their power, he and his hon. friends asked that there should be in this Bill a declaration to the effect that in those matters specially committed to the charge of the Irish Legislature thei'e should be no vexatious or capricious interference of this Parliament, either by way of revision, amendment, or repeal, with Acts passed in the Irish LO{.'islature within the limits of the Constitution conferred. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for North Kerry had used almost those w6rds, so that on that point there was no difference between them. But the hon. member for North Kerry used another argument, from which he entirely differed; The hon. member took the view that the presence uf the Irish member? in tho British House of Commons would be an additional guarantee against the capricious and vexatious interference of the Imperial Parliament. He himself took exactly the opposite view. (Hear, hear.) Why did not Parliament inter- fere in colonial matters ? Because there were no colonial members sittioff at Westminster, and because colonial affairs were not brought under the cognizance and discussion of Parliament. {Hear, hear.) If the Irish members were witlidrawn, as proposed in cho Bill of 188fi, he believed rhat one great temptation to this Parliament to interfere in purely Irish affairs would also bo withdrawn. (Hear, hear.) Unfortunately it was proposed to keep the Irish members at Westminster. It Had beeh st.ited that probably the Irish Nationalist members would not attend ; but in this case their absence would be » greater danger than their presence. Though they stayed away, the so-called '• loyal " minority would be always with tho British House of Commons. (Oppojiitiou cheers.) The representatives elected to the House of Commons from the constituencies which were hostile to the concession of Home Kule in nny form would come to Westminster with the avowed policy of wrecking the Constitution which had been given to Ireland. They would initiate debates on every conceivable Irish question, and their presence would be a standing temptation to this Parliament to interfere m matters wtth which, if there were no Irish members at Westminster, it would be very glad not to interfere at all, (Hear, hear.) Let there be no doubt on this point in the mind of any man. No scheme for the government of Ireland would be successful which constituted directly or indirectly the Imperial Parliament as a Com-t of Appeal on the acts ' of the Irish Legislatnre. Such a position would be intolerable for the House of Commons, and would be still more intolerable for the Irish people and the Ii'iah Legislature. The position of the British Parlia- ment would be far worse than it was now, if, after conceding a local Legislature to Ireland, it were to try to act as a sort of Court of Appeal to revise, or amend, or repeal the statutes of the Irish Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He now passed to the second point of great importance in the Bill — the question of the veto. The view he had expressed on this question had been perfectly clear and perfectly fair and reasonable. It was a mistake to say that any extreme claims had been put forward. Last October h'e spoke as follows : — " What we want to have made clear and unmistakable is that in the daily life of our new Parliament the veto of the Crown will be exercised constitutionally in accordance with the advice of the Irish Ministers, and will not be made a pretext for interference by the Imperial Parliament and by the English Cabinet in the government of those purely Irish affairs which are committed to tho charge of the new Irish Legislature." He had always thought that the clause in the Bill of 1886 was plain — " Subject to any instrnctions which may from time to lime be given by her Majesty, the Lord Lieutenant shall give or withhold the Boyal assent to Bills," &c. Most Nationalists had interpreted that to mean that on purely local Bills the Lord Lieateuant's assent or dissent would depend on the advice of the Irish Cabinet. But, unfortunately, a discussion on the point was raised by Mr. Oscar Browning in England, which elicited from quite a number of gentlemen of eminence and authority various and widely different interpreta- tions of this clause. Hence it was that a discussion was initiated in Ireland, though every effort was made to stifle it. He was glad to think that the result of that discussion had been satisfactory, because they had heard from the Prime Minister that in the new Bill the clau.se would read quite differently, and that there would be an express declaration that the Lord Lieutenant was to exercise his veto on the advice of the Irish Cabinet, except where instructions to the contrary were sent by her Majesty. That placed the practice aboKt which there had been uncertainty absolutely beyond dispute. (Hear, hear.) If it were necessary to go further, some of the declara- tions made during the existing debate would go a long way to meet the apprehensions raised in Ireland. The Prime Minister had used this pregnant and signifi- cant phrase ;— " They desired to give Ireland a Parliament which would have practically a sepa- rate and independent control of Irish affairs." With reference to any intolerant tyranny which, it was suggested, might be exercised by the majority he, for one, would not object to any power stepping in to save any minority in Ireland from injustice. But the phrase used by the Prime Minister had given rise to some doubt in the minds of .some. The right hon. gentleman said that the Lord Lieutenant was to exer- cise the veto, not on t^he advice of his Cabinet, but The Home Enle Bill. Mr. J. Bedmond. ' 352 House of Commons, February 14, 1893. on the advice of the Executive Committee of the Privy Connoil. In his own mind, however, he pre- sumed that this really meant the Cabinet of the day, which depended for every hour of its existence upon the support of a majority in the popular Assembly. He had listened with regret to the threats indulged in that evening by the leader of the Opposition. He thought thatj in one sense, those threats were a hope- ful sign as indicating somewhat of a change in his view. The right hon. gentleman felt that he was no longer fighting a theory, but that it was necessary for him to grapple with a reality ; he foresaw that this was to be a more serious business than some of his supporters seemed to think ; and so he stood up in the House and threatened that if his party Should come back to power this veto would not be allowed to sleep, would not be reserved for cases of intoler- able tyranny, but would be made nse of to serve the petty interests of himself and his friends. Mr. BALFOUE.— I do not know whether the hon. gentleman thinks he is quoting my words. Mr. J. REDMOND. — I was giving the substance of them. Mr. BALFOUE.— What I said was that it would not only be within the power, but that it would be the duty of every British Administration to interfere in every act which they deemed to be inconsistent with the rights or interests of any party in Ireland. Mr. J. REDMOND, continuing, said that the Go- vernment of to-day proposed that the veto should be allowed to lie dormant, except in cases of tyranny ; but the right hon. gentleman the leader of the Opposi- tion said that this might be all veiy well for the present Government, but that when he and his friends came back to power they would keep the weapon keen and sharp by constant use. He was not, however, dismayed by that threat. If such a state of things should arise in Ireland as would justify the exercise of this extreme power, it would exhibit a, state of things which would morally justify the Imperial Parliament in taking the Irish Parlia- ment away altogether. But he was not afraid that any such emergency would arise, and the threats of the right hon. gentleman upon this point would pass them as idle winds. They had always maintained that, upon the ordinary everyday work of the Irish Iiegislature, the veto should be exercised by the advice of the Irish Ministers. The Daily News, in writing with some apparent authority upon this ques- tion, stigmatized that demand as an obvious and palpable absurdity ; but the Prime Minister and his colleagues had taken a different view and had adopted the course which the Daily News had stigmatized as an obvious and palpable absurdity. (Opposition laughter.) He regarded as a most important matter that the Lord Lieutenant would cease to be a member of the Cabinet. The Bill of 1886 contained no such provision as that. He would say, at once, that the exercise of the veto by the Lord Lieutenant would be resented and distrusted in Ireland if he were to remain not merely, as now proposed, the representa- tive of the Sovereign, but of the fleeting Governments that came and went upon the Treasury bench of the House of Conmions. He would ask for information upon one point. The Prime Minister said it was his intention that the Irish Consta- bulary should be a disappearing force, and that the new police force should be under the control of the Irish Government, but that in the interval Ireland was to pay a million a year for the mainten- ance of the police. The right hon. gentleman, how- ever, failed to tell them whether this was to continue for a definite number of years. The Chief Secretary seemed, to indicate last night that this would be the case. That being so, he had listened with the greatest disappointment for a definite statement upon the point in the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan- caster. He wished now to ask whether there-was to be a set term, and, if so, of how many years. This was one of the points on which great controversy existed during the struggle, both in and after the meetings in Committee Boom No. 16, and the subject was also insisted upon in the con- ference at Eawardenj as to the exact terms of which some conflict of testimony existed, He wanted to know whether or not the Bill proposed to leave the Eoyal Irish Constabulary for an indefinite period under Imperial contr61. They knew that what- ever the interval was Ireland would have to pay two- thirds of the contribution, and if no term of years was stated he would have the gravest objection to that portion of the Bill, Mr. J. MOKLEY.— There is a term of years stated in the Bill. Mr. J. KEDMOND.-^What is it ? Mr. J. MOELBY.— Six years. Mr. J. EEDMOND was glad to have heard that state- ment. But then he was forced to the reflection that a term of years for the control of the police and a term of years for the control of the land being in the Bill, and these being the two points upon which assurances were asked in Committee Eoom 15 from the right hon. gentleman the member for Mid Lothian, it was to be regretted that when both the contending parties united to ask him for even a private declara- tion upon these points he did not give it, although be must have known that if he had he would probably have saved Ireland from two years of internal discord and misery. So long as the term was definite he had no objection in principle to any temporary reservation of the land question. Indeed it might be a blessing for the Irish Parliament for two or three years to be relieved from the nightmare of the Irish agrarian question. But the period fixed would cover the exact period when the revision of the judicial rents under the Act of 1881 would come about, and it was there- fore of enormous importance that while that question was reserved to the Imperial Parliament they should not touch either the numbers or the powers of the Irish members in thatHouse. Mr.Pamell, whose declarations, advice, and warnings would, he believed, be repeated during this debate by men sitting in all quarters of the House, said in 1886 on this question that, " with the important and all-engrossing subject of agrarian reform, the constabulary control, and the judiciary appointment left under Imperial control, it would be the height of madness for any Irish leader to imitate Grattau's example and consent to disband the army that had cleared the way to victory." Therefore their position was that, so long as the Imperial Parlia- ment retained control of purely Irish questions, in common justice they were bound to demand that they should be allowed to remain in full force in ttiat House. As to the question of the division between Imperial and local affairs, he was one of those who believed that in the end the Prime Minister, who in his speech left it an open question to be decided by the majority of the House, would find that the task, in his own words, did baifle the wit of man, and that it would be imjiossible to make a proper division. (Opposition cheers.) But English, Scotch, and Welsh members must bear In mind that the Irish members had not asked to be kept at Westminster, The Imperial Parliament had forced this upon Ire- The Home Eule Bill. Mr. J. Eedmond. House of Commons, February 14, 1893. 353 land, and if certain aoomalies and iceonTeniences followed to British members they must remem- ber that it was their own doing, and also that it was, after all, only a temporary arrangement. He contended that, so long as any questions were reserved to the Imperial Parliament, the Irish members should be represented there in their fall nvunbers and force. He would not dwell on the question of the appointment of the Judges, although he regretted that the Government should in this respect have made a backward step from the Bill of 1886, which gave all appointments to the Irish Government. On the question of finance, the leader of the Opposition said that night that even he, with all the information and knowledge at bis disposal, found it impossible to deal accurately or fully with that question until he had seen the Bill. That being so, the House would easily understand why he did not attempt to go deeply into the subject. It seemed to him, however, that Ireland was treated in this Bill absolutely worse in this matter than in the Bill of 1886. In that Bill Ireland was called upon to contribute a sum amount- ing to between l-14th and l-15th of the total Imperial charges, whereas Ireland would be called upon under the present Bill to pay a much larger sum. Under the Bill of 1886 the first Budget the Prime Minister proposed for the Irish Parliament showed a surplus in favour of Ireland of £400,000. The first Budget in the right hon. gentleman's statement the other night showed a surplus in favour of Ireland of £500,000. But how was the balance made up ? It was made up not of any additional generosity on the part of the Government of England, but by an increase in the Excise. As he understood it, the Excise was now at a higher figure than ever it was, and if the Excise fluctuated or diminished the whole of that surplus, or the greater part of it, might be swept away at one fell swoop. That was not satis- factory. It seemed to him to be the highest duly and interest of England, if a Home Kule Bill for Ireland was to be passed, to give to Ireland a Parliament under such conditions that she could have a fair hope of working it successfully. (Hear, hear.) If that new Parliament was to do any good it must set itself to improve the industrial condition of the country. In his belief there would be very little of politics in an Irish Parliament. (Opposition laughter.) It would devote itself to business matters and industrial concerns, and the first essential was that its credit should be good. How could its credit be good if its sui-plus was to depend on a speculative increase in the Excise, which many people thought might decrease and many thought ought to decrease ? (Hear, hear.) The other question to which he wished to i:efer was the protection of minorities in Ireland. Personally he had rather a predilection in favour of the principle of two Chambers, but he did not wish to argue this matter from the poidtof view of theoretical predilec- tion at all. He took a broader view of the question. He knew that there were classes of his countrymen who were distrustful of the majority of the Irish people, who thought, foolishly, as ho believed, that the Irish Parliament would rush headlong into wild, reckless, and Violent proceedings ; and for their pro- tection, therefpre, he welcomed the provision of the two Chambers. He would not inquire too narrowly whether it was right to have a |high franchise or whether the interval in the passage of a Bill before it could pass was too long ; he looked at tbe question in the broadest possible way. He was anxious that the minority of "his fellow-qouatrymen should have their riehte and liberties protected, aad, if it eoald be shown to him that a better plan of protecting the minorities in Ireland, without violating any material and vital principle, could be devised than that of the Government, he would heartily approve even more stringent regulations in that direction. (Cheers.) He would' say to his fellow-countrymen—" You need have no fear of the action of the Irish Legislature ; you need have no fear of religious per- secution ; you may take it for granted that in that Legislature Boman Catholics, just as earnestly and as bravely as Protestants, will stand forward in defence of religious liberty." (Cheers.) In Ireland a new class of Irish politician would'enter into that Legis- lature. (Laughter.) There would be fewer excited politicians of the type so well exemplified in his own person by the hon. and gallant member for North Armagh (laughter and cheers) — men who were pre- cluded from public life in Ireland by the conditions of that life at present. Their ranks would be recruited from the commercial , classes, the professional classes, from men engaged in various walks of life, but not men of independent fortunes, who were unable to neglect their business and come to Westminster. (Cheers.) One of the most extraordi- nary circumstances in the history of Ireland was the fact that she had been able during all these years to send and to support a band of men to Westminster to represent Nationalist opinions. The great majority of Irish members were poor men — men who could not afford to come to London were it not that their fellow-countrymen were in earnest, and were deter- mined to place at their disposal the means to attend in St. Stephen's. (Cheers.) It was a circumstance for the members and the Irish people to be proud of. But the great Nationalist party in the Irish Parlia- ment would be broken up into various groups, and it was absolutely necessary that men of more moderate views and of all sections should come together ; and their fellow-countrymen, who to-day were apprehen- sive, would find before many years that their surest safeguard was not to be found in artificial provisions forged at Westminster, but in the good sense and patriotism of their countrymen. (Cheers.) He never had believed in the tall talk of Ulster. Experience had been gained of it in the past ; and he had never known any benefit wrung by Nationalist labours in the House of Commons as to which the Ulster members were not the first to cut in and take their share of, (Laughter and cheers.) The Land Act of 1881 was pillage and spoliation ; but the first men who went into the Land Courts to take advantage of the system by which the Nationalists had wrung that measure from the Imperial Parliament were the men in Ulster, who, it was now said, would not take advantage of the Home Bule Bill, but who instead would line the ditches behind the hon. and gallant member for North Armagh. (Laughter and cheers.) What he desired to say was that, in his opinion, this Bill, as he understood it, was defective in some very grave and important matters ; that in some other matters it was exceedingly disappointing ; and that in its financial aspect it was not only ungenerous, but absolutely unjust. And his view was that it would be the duty of Irish Nationalists, at any rate, to so mould the Bill that it might become a basis of settlement which, if not final in the powers it confers, will at least bold out the hope that the more acute phases of Iri.'ih misgovemment might immediately disappear, and that the future freedom and legitimate independence of Ireland would depend upon no outside forces, but upon the steadiness, the constancy, and the courage of the Irish people. (Cheers.) The Home Bule Bill. Mr. J. Bedmond. 354 House of Commons, Februafy 14. 1893, Mr. T. W. RXJSSBLL said it might be that many hoD. members looked apon the Bill as an ordinary item of the Newcastle programme, but that was certainly not the view which the Ulster Unionist members took of it. For the province of Ulster this was a matter of life and death (hear, hear), and the Ulster mem- bers would be bound to oppose every clause of it. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had stated that the Ulster farmers were more concerned about the reduction of rents than about Home Rule. Well, the right hon, gentleman was in Ulster at the time of the late general election, and^ he did his host to secure the election of the only five candidates that could be found to come forward to support his principles. Whore were those flvo candidates now ? (Cheers and laughter.) Was there one of them then in the House to support this Bill ? (Cheers.) The Ulster members looked upon the Bill as a per- petual degradation and unjust coereiou of the pro- vince. (Hear, hear.) They had been told that Ireland had not received the equality of laws which had boon promised her. Where had tbo inequality existed ? He had no hesitation in affirming that Ireland had had more legal privileges granted her than either Bngland or Scotland. The land laws in Ireland were infinitely hett«r than those in JSngland or Scotland. (Hear, bear.) The Church in Ireland was disestablished in obedience to Irish demands, though it had not been disestablished in other parts of the United Kingdom ; Ireland had had national education for 60 years, which could hardly be said of England ; and as to repressive laws, only such laws of the kind had been passed as would have been enacted by even an Irish Parliament itself in face of the same dangers. (Hear, hear.) Ulster, which was settled and planted 200 years ago by England, asked for no privileges and no rights ; she simply asked to be allowed to carry on her commerce and business in a peaceable way, and to have the protection of the law in doing so. The right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister had said that Ulster had changed and might change again, and he pointed to the fact that the Protestants of Ulster in the last century were opposed to the Union. The descendants of the rebels of the last century were the strongest Unionists now. The descendants of the Volunteers, their most determined opponents, were loyalists now (hear, hear), and the mere fact that these men were loyal to-day proved the ability and the willingness of the Imperial Faliament to concede their just demands. The Prime Minister referred to the peaceful character of the agitation conducted by the hon. gentlemen opposite. He thought that a most remarkable statement for the right hon. gentle- man to make. Did he forget the Land League Eden — ^years stained with blood (hear, bear), boycobting, robbery, and crime ? Why, then, come down and plead " the peaceful character of the agitation " ? (Cheers.) The agitation had not been peaceful, and the feeling in parts of Ireland was asmuch against the Home Bulers as against Home Rule. Crime had followed their steps. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster bad said that ho was prepared to trust them, bat he had cleared out of Ireland and all belonging to him. (Laughter.) He preferred to trust in the evidence of those who had something to lose. (Cheers.) As to the question of appeal, he understood the Prime Minister to say there was to be an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but that the appeal was to be on the initiative of the Viceroy or the Secretary of State. That differed widely from the right of appeal in the colonies. In Canada, every person aggrieved had the right of challenge. If the appeal was to be limited, an he had stated, then it would be shorn of much of its value. Mr. BRYCE said there was no obscurity about it. Every person who considered himself aggrieved by the Irish Legislature acting in excess of its powers was entitled to appeal. (Hear, hear.) Where an Act was passed before there was time for the judicial proceed- ings, and where it was thought desirable to establish its constitutionality with the view of a more speedy and direct decision, powers were given the Viceroy or Secretary of State to refer the question to the Judicial Committee. Mr. T. W. RUSSELL said he was glad to have elicited that statement. As to the minority of Ireland he preferred the control given by the Bill of 1886 to the control given by this Bill. The proposed Legislative Council miaht be a useful body, and he did not object to the principle of a Second Chamber ; but he did not see how a Chamber ot 48 members could protect a minority against a Chamber of 103 members in the sense in which tho protection of a minority had been spoken of. It was said there were clauses in the Bill dealing with seligious freedom, and so there were in tho Bill of 1886, but they were most unsatisfactory. It was pro- posed to prevent the establishment of any religion by one clause, but by another it was proposed that tho Irish Assembly might endow forms of education. But you could not endow a form of religion more effectively than by endowing education. Was it proposed in this Bill to prevent the majority from taxing the minority tor sectarian education ? Within the last two months Archbishop Walsh had done his best, behind the back of Parliament, by a resolution of the National Board of Education, to change the whole character of the education and to put it upon sectarian lines. They did not wanh sectarian education and would not have it. The American Constitution prevented Congress from astablishing any religion, and the public schools remained unsectarian in spite of all the efforts of sectarians to change their character. Would tho Government protect the Irish minority from being taxed by tho Irish Legislature to support Roman Catholic education ? That was a fair question to ask. It was mnst extraordinary that the land question, which dominated every other question in Ireland, had been treated by the Prime Minister as a mere postscript to his speech, which occupied but three lines in the newspapers. He supposed the land question was reserved for three years and then it was to be committed to the Irish Assembly. He had no land and was totally unaffected ; but the Chief Secretary had said in a speech at Cheltenham some years ago that the late Liberal Government, greatly to their honour, had passed an Act to prevent landlords from confiscating the property of their tenants, and he did not think we should be able to deal satisfactorily with the land question iintilwe badpassod similar legis- lation to prevent tenants from confiscating the property of their landlords. (Hear, hear.) But there was one hon. member opposite whose idea of a fair settlement of the land question was that every landlord should receive a single ticket from Dublin co Holyhead ; and this Bill proposed to leave this Irish land question to be settled by members who held such opinions. Lord Spencer, speaking, he believed, at Newcastle, had said that tbo whole course of Irish agitation had been against the landlords, and for the moment it would not be just or honest to leave landlords unproteotedand uncared for. Apparently Lord Spencer had got rid of his principles The Home Bale BilL Mr. T. W. Eassell. House of Gommons,' February 14 and 15, 1893. 35& of justice (hear, heat), for he was going. to. leave the laodowners uoprotected ^nd uncared for and to band them over to men who. had made no secret of their intentions and who had carried on an agitation with the express object of raining the landiordj^, England had planted the Iri^h land system in Ireland and was responsible for it, and it would be the meanest, shabbiest performance on the part of England to say to the landowners, " You have served our purpose ; you have been our garrison ; you have earned the enmity of the people in consequence ; we have, however, done with you, and we hand you over to your enemies who may do as they like with you three years henoe." (Cheers.) Speaking with reference to the police the hon. member for North Kerry said on Monday that in the new Ireland about to be created the^e would be little work for the police. He supposed the hon. member said that on the principle that where there would be no law there would be no transgression. (Laughter.) In America a very interesting side light was thrown upon this question by what had occurred in Massachusetts. In 1885 the Irish captured the city of Boston (laughter), and installed an Irish mayor in the civic chair. The American citizens appealed to the Legislature of Massachusetts, saying, " We; are not going to trust the peace and prosperity of the city of Boston to an Irish mayor " (bear, hear), and the Legislature in 1885 passed an Act taking the control of the police from the mayor and civic council of Boston and vested it in commissioners, and that state of things continued to the present day. This was the explana- tion of the extraordinary circumstance that Bpst9n, the seat of the Legislature, had not the control of her own police affairs. With respect to the ques- tion of the retention of the Irish members he would say a word or two. In May, 1886, hon. members on the side of the House where he was now sitting voted for the second reading of a Bill which excluded the Irish members from that Chamber. In July they with one consent argued;, for the retention of the Irish members. Their eonduct reminded him, of the American editor who was ordered to reverse his policy and telegraphed back — " It is a sharp curve but I will take it." (Laughter.) What was the policy ofthe Liberal party now ? They had none ; it was a case of " go as you please," the Government saying, " You can vote cither for the retention of the Irish members or not, just as you like." The Govern- ment in fact did not know what to do. He cuuldnhder- stand that the Government shouldwishto retaintbc Irish members, for the House of Commons would be an un- couscionably dull place without them. (Laughter.) There were in Ireland, as everyone knew, a large number of not very intelligent voters, illiterates and, others. With three constituencies, one for this Parliament, one for the Legislative Council, and one for the Assembly, the Irish peasant would bo absolutely be- wildered, and the result would be that the priest would be supremo over all, and director of every- body's conscience in the matter. (Hear, hear.) Supposing the Liberal party had gone to the country and told the people — " Here is our programme, but we are going to introduce the Irish Home Bule Bill first"-^a Bill of the character now disclosed — where would have been the great Liberal party to-day ? (Laughter.) They would thereby have confessed their incompetence to pass one of the measures in their ptogramme, and did they think the electora were, such idiots as to place in power a party with a pro- gramme which they were unable to carry out ? The difficulty of excluding the Irish members was as great ; and it would be found out that the right hon. member for Bridgeton was right when he said there was absolutely no half-way house between separation and Home Kule. As far as the Ulster members were ccn- eerned, they had a Uxed determination to resist the Bin. The commerce, the agriculture, the trade o{ Ulster were fiercely hostile to it. If the Government had proposed to protect the minority they could have done it as was done under the American Constitution by the article declaring that all property should be sacred and contracts inviolable. How many Home Rulers would there have been then P The Govern- ment were simply initiating a squalid war of races, and that which James and Tyrconnel failed to do they were not likely to aceomplish. (Cheers.) On the motion of Loss B. Churchill, the debate was then adjourned. ASSISTANT COUNTY SUBVEYOBB (IBBLAND) BILL. The House went into Committee on this Bill, but progress was immediately reported. NEW LICENCES (IBBLAND) BILL. This Bill was read a second time. The House adjourned at five minutes past 12 o'clock. WEDNESDAY, FEBJRUABT 15. The Spbaesk took the chair shortly after 2 o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS. Clapham Junction and Faddington Bail way, Bdgwara Road and Victoria Railway, and Glasgow Corpora- tion Bills were read a second time. LOCAL AUTHOEITIES (VOTING AND QUALIFI- CATION) BILL. Mr. LOGAN, in rising to move the second reading of the Local Authorities (Voting and Qualification); Bill, said there was nothing which caused so much irritation in rural parishes as the present method of electing I'oor Law guardians. (Hear, hear.) If the residents in our larger towns had not been able, by means of their numbers, to defeat the perniciou;;' system now existing in our rural districts, and if they, had been subjected to the annoyance and annnal disappointment experienced in those districts, there would long ago have been a radical reform of the law inconnexion with the election of Poor Law guardians upon the local boards. But it was not alone the annoy- ance and irritation which had induced the promoters of this Bill to bring it in. What they were most concerned about was the absence in rural districts under the present system of any real or effective con- trol by the people of the district over the election of those who practically dominated the last days of a large number of men who had all their lives worked hard for wages which did not allow them to put by anything for their old age — and, to the shame of England be it said, there were at the present moment numbers of such men in every parish in the country — men who had served their country faithfully and well and yet were stigmatized as paupers, deprived of. their rights as citizens, and compelled to eka out existence on a miserable pittance. (Hear, hear.), There were many districts in which the deserving poor were treated with almost brutal harshness. He cuuld refer to cases in his own constituency in proof of this. He knew of cases where these Aor people, were subjected to a petty tyranny, and be appealed to> hon. members to recall to their own minds cases with which they must be familiar. What they complained of was that no matter how harsh a guardian might be there were no powers by which they might remove that man. Such men had only to preach the keeping Tbe Home Buls BilL Mr. T. W. RusseU. 356 House of Commons, Februaipy 16, 1893. down df the rates to be sure of the support of owners and occapiers. The Squire and the parson and three or four farmers were able to defeat at least 40 cottagers, evensapposingthattheydare oppose them. He was aware that 60 years ago, when the present system was established, property was a god. He was not making any attack upon the rights of property, yet he ventured to say that he would be a bold man who would stand np and place the rights of property before the rights of humanity. (Hear, hear.) He spoke on behalf of the poor agricultural labourer, whose wages were so low as to preclude any hope for the future beydud parish relief and the detested workhduse. As far'back as 1878 a committee sitt to inquire into the method of electing Poor Law guardians. The ihquiiy was a most ezhaustive one, but the TeebmmeiidaiibtijS of the committee had not yet been carried out. The committee reported that the abuses of the voting- paper systeni were very gravis and that the ballot system would be cheaper. All these Suggestions they had embodied in the Bill. The main previsions of the Bill were — as to the franchise th*iy had followed the precedent sat by the late Government in Ibetil govern- ment so that one register might suffice for Parlia- mentary, County Council, and Local Board elections. Occupiers only should have votes and each elector would have but one vote in each union. As to quali- fication they bad adopted the Municipal Corporations Act as their basis, every elector being qualified for electioh. It was proposed that Women should be eligible for election ; and that the members should be elected for thrSe years, all to retire together. The voting would be by ballot. (Hear, hear.) They also provided in the Bill fdr the grouping of small parishes. One guardian wonld be given to 600 electors, and between SOO and 1,000 two guardians, and one guardian for every additional 500 electors. He thought that in large towns this scale wonld have to be modified. He admitted that the power was being given under the Bill into the hands of the occupier, but after all the occupiers paid the rates. He con- cluded by moving the secoiid reading of the Bill. SIR J. , DOKINGTON thought they ought to be very careful in interfering with the wisely administered Poor-Law system set up in 1832. He ventured to suggest to the hon. member who brought in this Bill that the Government were about to bring in a raeasui'e for the establishment of district and parish councils, in which the whole subject of voting for local bodies would have to be dealt with. In these circumstances he thought that it was inoppor- tune to bring forward such a measure as this, which merely dealt with the fringe of a great Subject, while it was quite within the bounds of possibility that boards of guardians might be abolished altogether before this Bill could become law. (Hear, hear.) In that case the House would be merely wasting its tim9 in discussing this measure. The hon. member who introduced this Bill had spoken of the necessity that ■existed for assimilating the vote for Ideal bddies with that given fdr Parliamentary purposes, but in his opinion that necessity did not esist, because there was a Kreat difference between local administration and Parliamentary government. In the case of local administration care must be taken that those who contributejBthe largest share to the rates should have, at all events, some control over the expenditure. He fully admitted that the local bodies ought to include representatives of all classes, ^tid he Would not exclude from such bodies the representatives of even the most humble class. (Hear, hear.) On the other hand, those who contributed the largest share of the rates ought not to be altogetter shut out from repre- sentation on such bodies." (Hear, hear.) He did not believe that the libourihg classes were unreasonable in their desires. Even in Such rhatters as the exten- sion of outdoor relief ttey were right from their own point of view, and When they met the Representatives of the wealthier olasscs upon the local bddies they might be convinced in eddl conversation that it would not be right, in the interests of all classes, to extend that principle too far. (Hear, hear.) He should suggest that pliifal Voting should be abolished in all cases, that ex-ofieio guardians should be done away with, and thai there should be an owner's representa- tion as distinguished froin an occupier's representa- tion, cOtfjiled with a division of the rites between the owners and the dfccupiers. (Hear, hear.) In that way access would be insured to both sides td repre- sentation on the local bodies which were concerned in the administration of local affairs. (Hear, hear. ) Mr. BENNETT thougbt that the hon. member who had intrdduced this Bill might well rest satisfied at having called forth the admirable speech of the hon. baronet oppdsitie. (Hear, hear.) All that the hon. member asked for in his Bill was that which Parlia- ment had already granted by the Municipal Eetorm Act of 1835, which did, iii fact, include the principle of a y^ry strong measure of local self-government. Surel^^ it coiild not now be maintaiiied that this measure was asking anything more than had been found successful, safe, and profitable in the boroughs. Mr. J. 6. LAWSON said that he believed it was a custdm, which had aliiidst grdwn into law, for a new meniber to appeal to the indulgence of the House. He wished to make a few dbservations upon the Bill, because he represented a large rural con- stituency and because he fdund that there was a very strong feeling updn the subject of this measure in the colintry districts. The name of the measure bore a decidedly neutral aSpect^it was called the " Local Authorities (Voting and Qualification) Bill " ; but its real and full natiie ought rather to be, " A Bill to deprive those who pay the bulk of the rates of all power over their expenditure." (Cheers.) Such a measure as this ought not to be brought in by private meinbel:Sj but by the Government of'the dsy» It was like taking the bread out of the mouth of the Government, and he Was waiting for some member on the Treasury bench to get np arid rebuke hon. members fob bringing forward this Bill in the face of the allusion in the Queen's Speecli to the proposals which were to be made for local government reform, including parish councils. Those who brought forward the present Bill appeared hardly satisfied with it. The Bill wonld effect a revolution in rural economy. The hon. member who moved the second reading had laid great stress on the fact that this measure would deal with rural districts ; and the last speaker had referred to the Parliament of 1832, the grand men who composed it, and the great measures which it produced. But he Would like to point dut that dne of the grand measures passed by that Parliament iu 1834 was now to be practically revoked by the present Bill. It was the Radical party whd, in 1834, had established plural voting, vote by prdxy, and so on ; and it was hon. members of the same party who now proposed to do away with those provisions. There was no hurry for passing this Bill, as an election could not take place Under its provisions until a year hence. Seme df the magistrates would, no doubt, cdusent te stand fdr election as guardians ; but was a country gentleman to live in a perpetual atmosphere of elections ? Mr. John Stuart Mill — as LocaJL Authorities (Voting &iJ2uali&catioii) Bill. Sir J. Dqrington. House of Commons^ February 15, 1893. 35? great an authority as Bnskio, who had been quoted to the House upon the subject of representative govern- ment — had said : — " In the peculiar constitution of English society, I havo no doubt of the henefieial effect of this provision for ex-offieio guardians." With regard to the plural vote, he vrould ask wai it so shocking to the love of symmetry, so great an eye- sore to the advocates of a dead level throughout society, that they could not bear to vait until the present Government were able to deal ^ith the matter ? The plural vote was created by a Kadical Parliament in 1834 and it had lived for the last SO years through many Radical majorities in this House. It was approved of by Mill and other Badicals in their writings. Under the present system bf voting papers more men and women voted than vrpuld Vote if they had to go to the polling-booth. The Select Committee in 1878 on the Election of Poor Law Guardians had come to a decision absolutely adverse to the views of those who brought in this Bill, for they reported that ic was not advisable to extend the system of election by ballot to the electioti of local authorities. The reasons they gave against its adop- tion were the inconvenience to the voter of personal attendance at the polling-booth ; the increased expense of the election, both on the rated and on the candidate, who had necessarily to provide against persoilation ; and the probability 'that the elections would be determined on political grounds. No doubt hun. members c posite' would be glad to see local questions fought on political grounds, but hon. members on his side of the House were by no means in favour of the extension of political considerations to our local affairs. (Ministerial cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers.) As to the prestnt system of voting by proxy, if it was largely exercised it showed that there must be a considerable number of owners of property who did not live in the locality where the elections took place, and, therefore, this Bill would bo a gigantic disfranchising Bill. (Cheers.) If, however, few availed themselves of the right, was it worth while to inflict a maximum of injustice in order to gain a minimum advantage in favour of symmetry ? (Hear, hear.) The Committee of JS78 had reported in favour Of tho vote by proxy. This Bill was intro- duced by a syndicate of Radical members who sat for agricultural constituencies and who were desirous of proving to the agricultural labourers that Codlin was their friend and not Short. The middle-class ratepayer regarded the matter with peculiar apathy ; to him the rise of rates was like a fall of rain, a matter to be grumbled at and borne. If there was any check at all upon the rates it came from the large ratepayers, and from them it was proposed by the Bill to take away all powei:.- The result would be that the rates would increase, and those who had brought in the Bill for the sake of shoKring that they were the friends of the agricultural labourer would find that they had lost rather than gained favom* by their measure. He objected to the Bill, because it introduced freish confusion into the areas of local government. There should, in his opinion, he one elective body in each locality for all local business, in place of the present system, under which the powers of local government were distri- buted between the school board, the vestry, the burial board, the highw,ay board, and tho board of guardians. That was a reasonable scheine, and was worth waiting for if they could get it in its completeness. A locality might be able to provide one board of com- petent men foir dea.lihg With all these mattfers, while it could not be expected to provide five or six ; and. on the other hand, competent men might consider that on these petty boards their sphere of usefulness was so limited that it was not worth their while to join in the Work at all. Then, with regard to the extehsion of local government, it was absolutely impossible toi tho Government to adopt the Poor Law unions as theit unit for district councils, because they were of sucli a variety of sizes, and because nearly one-third ol thein cut the county boundaries. Could not hon. gentlemen opposite Wait till the Government which they supported fulfilled their pledges ? What were they afraid of ? Was it the memory of broken pledges in the past, or was it the shadow of an impending dissolution ? (Cheers.) All parties would agree that this was not a inatter which should be attended to by a private member, and, being a matter which tended in the direction of increasing the burdens upon the already suffering agricultural interest, and a mattei which the Government were pledged up to the hilt td deal with, be thought it undesirable that the House should give the Bill a second le&ding. Mr. LTJTTKELL said that, as the representative of a large rural cOtistituency, he gaVe the Bill his full and outspoken support. They had been told from the opposite side that they had been " too previous," but he would remind the House of the speeches made last week, in which Liberal county members were taunted with having shown no eagerness to redeem the pledges on which they Were retiimed. They did not Speak when speaking would have meant the delay Of legisla- tion ; tbey preferred to speak when speaking would mean the allaying of grievances. There were a large number of grievances in the rural districts, aUd the Liberal members for tho^e districts had proiiiiSed to do their utmost to abolish some, at any rate, of those grievances. The present system of electing boards of guardians was extremely unsatisfactory. The plural vote was unfair to the people at large ; and it was a form of that class legislation to which Liberals were averse. The poor man Was as much interested— indeed, ho was even more interested in the good government of bis parish than the wealthy man. To him questions of sanitation and Poor Law administra- tion were more important than to the squires, who were careful to have their houses properly constriitsted and were hot likely to go to the workhouse. With regard to the members of boards of guardian^, he thought the money qualification was unfair to the poorer classes. They owed a debt of gratitude to the President Of the Local Government Board for reducing the money qualification to £5, though a large number of menibeirs woiild like to see it abolished altogether. But if it was thought right that they should have a money qualificatioii, why should they not have aproportional money qualification? His opinion was that the poor man had quite sis much stake in the country as the wealthy man, and he believed he would be just as much opposed to any undue or wanton expenditure of rates as [the wealthy man. The House should look at this matter from the higher standpoint of justice to the people. Another important provision in the Bill was that no one should be allowed to act unless he were chosen by the people. It was not right that justices of the peace should sit on boards of guardians ex officio. It was because he conceived this ineasure to have in it the essential characteristics of the rights of the people and to contain a further extension of representative government that be gave it his cordial and dutspokeh support. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BARTLBY thought all must agree that the present systeiti of electing guardians was unsatis- Local Authorities (Voting & Qualification) BilL Mr. J. Q. Lawson. 358 House of Commons, February 15, 189,3.' factory, and that something ought to be done in the direction of amending it. Every one must see that the voting-paper system was an undesirable one. There were, however, several points in the Bill which seemed to him very objectionable. He could not see why justices of the peace should not sit on boards of guardians. He had known cases in which their presence had been very beneficial. There was no doubt something to be said against the plural vote, but the aystem proposed by the Bill seemed to him to lead to the caucus system ot election, which would be very dangerous and unsatisfactory. Then he thought that some arrangement should be made by which the minority vote should be secured. He also objected very much to the election of the board for three years. He thought that one-third should go out every year so as to maintain the continuance of the board. He ■hould not oppose the measure, as he thought the time had come for modifying the' mode of election of guardians, but he should reserve to himself the right of modifying several of the provisions in Committee. (Hear, hear.) Hr. F. STEVENSON thought that so far from hindering the Government in their dealing with this question, this Bill, if passed, would strengthen their hands. There were three all important principles involved in the measjjre. The first was tbe qualifica- tion of guardians themselves. That had been met in part by the bold and beneficent action of the Presi- dent of the Local Government Board, but he trusted that what his right hon. friend had done might be extended still further. Secondly, with rcgaid to the system of voting papers. That was a very cumbrous system, and he did not think there would be any diffi- culty in substituting voting by ballot for that system. He did not agree with the limitation of this measure to boards of guardians and local boards of health, but would have preferred that the Bill should have included all local authorities. There were certain points of detail that might be amended in Committee, but he hoped every hon. gentleman on that side would give unhesitating support to the motion. Mr. A. SMITH considered that some reform was required in the matter and would not oppose the second reading. Mr. STRACHEY, speaking as a landlord, was not frightened at the Bill, and as to its general principles gave it his hearty support. It was highly desirable that they should get rid of the ex-officio element in boards of guardians, and if ex-officio guardians were elected by their own parishes he believed they would continue to sit on the boards. He heartily approved tbe general objects of the Bill. BAKON F. DE KOTHSCHILD agreed generally with the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and felt that in the last few years the education of agri- cultural labourers had so much improved that it was absolutely necessary they should have an opportunity of taking part in local administration. He had an objection to the Bill on two grounds— first, that they ought to wait to see whether the principle of this Bill were embodied in the measure which the Govern- ment had promised to introduce ; and, second, if the Government Bill did not become law this year, and this Bill did, they would get only half a nieasure instead of a whole measure. Boards of guardians would be entirely remodelled, and the majority of the representatives would be men who did not bear a proportionate share of the taxation of the country. Ho did not wi.sh to oppose the Bill, but he hoped the hon. member who moved the second reading would see his way to withdraw the Bill (cries of " No ") until such time as the Government could make their larger pi-opoanl. Mr,. WAENEK said that hon. members urged the promoters of the Bill to wait for the Government measure dealing with parish councils ; but there was no assurance given that, even when that measure came on, it would meet with the support, of the Opposition. The Radical party were bound to get the present; Bill forward as far as possible. Although all sorts of objections had been urged to the details of the Bill, no one had ventured to object to the abolition of plural voting. Mr.LONG said that there seemedtobe some misappre- hension among hon. members on the Ministerial side of the House. One hon. member bad said, that he, as a landlord, was not afraid of the consequences of the Bill. But no one on the Opposition side of the House in their criticism of the provisions of the Bill had been moved by any fear for themselves from the results ot the Bill. Hon. gentlemen who claimed to represent the agricultui'al interest in the Liberal party seemed to be unaware that the right to sit on boards of guardians ex officio had, as a matter of fact, not been regarded as a great privilege by t^hose entitled to exer- cise it. A very large number neverexercisedtlieCCrO^ifiio rights at all. The right hon. gentleman now at the head of tbe Local Government Board, and those hon. members who eat iu the last Parliament, would not accuse the late President of the Local Government Board — whose absence from the House all who knew him would regret (hear, hear) — of any want of appre- ciation of the necessity fur bringing local administra- tion into keeping with ttie principles and conditions which governed the Parliamentary franihise. It was not from any fear of change, nor from any op|.,ositionto principle, that this measure had been triticized. Hun. members did not realize the im; oriaice of the administration which was to be dtalt with by the Bill. If it were desirable that the change should be made, and if it were the case — as he admitted — that the existing condition of things was an anomaly, the Bill ought to be proposed and carried by a responsible Government and a responsible Minister. (Cheers.) There were few questions which were of greater interest and impor- tance than the administration of the Poor Law, or which, if trifled with or dealt with in a wrong direction, would more seriously and lastingly affect the lives and happiness of a great portion of the community. Appeals had been made by hon. gentle- men opposite on behalf of agricultural labouiers. Tbe agricultural labourer had as many and as stanch friends on the Opposition side of the House as on the Government side, and there was as strong a desire among them that the lot of the agricultural labourer should be improved. But was it certain that the Bill before the House would have that effect? (Cheers.) It was said that this question was of more importance to the labourerthan to the squire. If that were so, it was the more necessary not to undertake any reform the beneficial results of which were doubtful. (Hear, bear.) He should like to impress upon. hon. gentlemen opposite that before they embarked upon the diiTicult and dangerous course of Poor Law reform it would bo well for them to digest the reports of the Commission ou the subject. Those reports told them as plainly as possible of the necessity ot proceeding carefully and cautiously, and of the dangers which might follow from bad administration. Ho was not afraid to trust the people, and he had given the best proof of it by having had some share in can-ying through the greatest democratic measure on the Statute-book — the Local Local Authozities (Voting & Qualification) Bill. Mr. Long. House of Commons. February 15, 1893. 359 Government Act (hear, bear) ; bat Trbat was the position in which the; were goings to place raon called upon to elect boards of guardians in the smaller rural unions ? As far as the urban unions went, he did not think the proposal would have any effect one way or the other, but in the small rural unions, the tempta- tion would be that men would be asked to support those who would give liberal and generous outdoor relief, in order that friends or relations or sufferers in their neighbourhoods might get that relief which appeared mure humane than the workhoase test. Before the passing of the great Poor Law Act of 1834 the condition of this country was remarkable alike for its misery and pauperism, and although he did not claim that that Act alone had brought about the steady and great improvement since those days, he maintained that the better administration, the more careful inquiry, had largely contributed towards the improvement in the condition of the workers of the coimtry. He impressed upon the Government the importance of the problem with which they were called upon to deal. The measure was supported on the ground that it would improve the condition of the workers, especially in the rural districts. That might be done by securing to them by honourable means a better return for their day's or week's work, and by improving the homes of the workers, but they would nob do it by hurriedly bringing into existence local authorities constitiited on a new basis and elected practically on a new theory, who might forsake the sound principles that had guided the administration of the Poor Law for CO years. If a scheme dealing with a portion of the Poor Law was to be dealt with, it should be introduced by the Government and should embrace Poor Law administration in the country generally. There should be large unions. He believed that what was wanted was a reform of the Poor Law which should have for ii» object the merging of some of the smaller unions, creat- ing larger nnions carrying larger responsibility, and thereby minimizing the risk of pressure upon guardians by individual requests for out-door relief, A large measure could be brought in dealing with the whole question from top to bottom, and then these proposals would be supported by members in all quarters of the House, who would co-operate in endeavouring to improve the Poor Law as a whole, but who objected to proceeding in a piecemeal way. They contended that the proposed change was a serious one. It might have good results or bad results ; but they asked the House to proceed with Caution and care in dealing with the Poor Law, which was so closely connected with the best interests of the work- ing classes. Therefore he suggested that the J?ill should be withdrawn and her Majesty's Government left to deal with the matter. SIR C. DILKB said he was sorry that so few mem- bers beard the admirable speech of the hon. and learned baronet the member for the Tewkesbury Divi- sion (Sir J. Dorington), because there was a great difference between that speech and the speech of the hon. gentleman yiixo had just sat down. The latter indicated that great evils might— he did not say would — follow the adoption of the principles of the Bill ; but the hon. baronet did not take that line ; he did not suggest that any of those evils were likely to result, and he only suggested that if the rate were divided between owner and occupier the former should be represented. There was one union esta- blished by a local Act — Chichester — in which there had never been a qualiScation, and none of the evils of lavish administration had prevailed in it ; on the contrary, there had been the strongest objection to it^ It would bo easy to abolish all qualifications and all plural votes in all local elections, and that oould be done in a form that would be shorter than this Bill. A speedy change in the law was called for by many more evils than bad been stated in the debate. There wore great numbers of miners, ironworbers, and makers of boots and shoes who lived ontside of corporation boroughs. Kettering bad just reached the point in population which necessitated a change itt qualilication, and therefore some of the best members of the local board had had to give : np their seats. Merthyr had not a town council because the eoal- owuers opposed the incorporation of the town, so that workmen could not be members of the govemiitg body/ as they might be if this Bill passed. (Hear, bear.): He could name another district in Vhieh 'indnstiiali workers bad no local power because some persons had 12 votes to their one. Although, by ihe wise actionof the President of the Local Government Board, the qualification for guardians had been lowered, there were many districts in which the order did not take effect because, under special local Acts, the board of. guardians, with a high qualification, were the only, financial authority. Our experience of county conncilel' and municipal corporations showed that Conservativeat^ of distinction sought and secured the votes Of the people, and that the absence of qualification led to the election of a council of only one or two working men, whose presence alone was beneficial. We need be under no apprehension of any great change in the constitution of the local bodies, and even those who had been ex-ojicto members would be all the bettet for haying to be elected by the popular voter' (Hear, bear.) Mr, JAMES LOWTHBR said that, withont .going for the moment into the merits or demerits of the Bill, he regarded it as a measure which ought to be submitted to Parliament on the authority, Of the Government of the day, (Bear,) The Honse bad. been told that Poor Law administration was » qnes*: tion which had been engaging the attention of thd Government, and that they were prepared to deal: with it. Why, then, did her Majesty's Govemmeni allow the subject to be taken out of their bands, ami introduced upon the responsibility of an irresponsible member of the Honse. (A laugh.) He denied that there was, as some supposed, a general couoorrencei of opinion on the Opposition side of the House in favour of the abolition of what was erroneoosly ealled the plural vote, but which might be called more aptly the multiple vote. On this point the honi member for NorthrBast Suffolk, he was sorry to say, entirely depreciated the authority of the late Mr. Mill. Mr. F. STEVENSON said that no one had a, greater respect for Mr. John Stuart Mill than he had, but U quoted as an authority in favonr of the plural Tote,^ be- might also be qnoted as an authority in favour of- protection in rising colonies. (Pear, bear.) Mr. JAMBS LOWTHER.— And a very wise opinion of Mr. Mill. (Laughter.) He had himself on several occasions been a supporter of Mr. Mill. Be bad voted with him in favour Of the representation of minorities. (A laugh.) But without relying too much upon his authority he regretted as a humble supporter of Mr. Mill (a laugh) to see an hon. membev sitting immediately behind her Majesty's Ministera endeavouring to diseouDt so eminent an Authority. In the opinion of a very large number of Conserve.' tives throughout the eountty, tt very great mistake had been made in not embodying, in the Local Qovem»! ment Bill some system ^/limiUr to the malti)^ta vota; Local Autboiities (Voting & Qualification) ElU. BlraSlUse.. 860 House of Commons, February 15, 1893. which was drafted in the Bturges Bonme Act. The hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill actually pro- posed to abolish the ownership vote altogether — that was to eay, the vote of men who actually defrayed a very large portion of the cost, and who day by day were sabjeoted to heavier local burdens of every description. The old Liberal party always maintaiiied that representation and taxation should go together. That principle was supposed to be under the special guardianship of the old Whig and Liberal party. But now they made proposals for throwing more and more burdens on the class of owners whose voting power was reduced to the lowest possible limit, so that the man who paid the piper was not allowed to call the tune. Therefore he was justified in saying that this Bill was founded upon entirely unsound principles. He did not deny that there was a good deal which required amendment in the pnisent Poor Law system. He, attached very little importance to the ear-o^cio i^iuestian. His own attendance as an ex-officio bad not been very good. No attempt had been made by the magistracy of this country to unduly push them- selves with the view ofoverbearing the elected members. Voting papers were now distributed too near the day of the poll, and in other respects the maehinery ^employed was capable of improvement. Nor was bo prepared to deny that a case had been made out for the introduction of voting by ballot. In times past be was not a great advocate for the system, but he alwayit SAid that the time would come when mob law and intimidation would make the ballot a valuable safeguard. (Ironical cheers and laughter.) He con- fessed that recent electoral history had confirmed him as to the wisdom of that plan. Under the system of compound householders, the so-called ratepayer, to nse an Hibemicism, paid bo rate at all (a laugli), and he prevented inroads upon bis own pocket by periodical inroads upon the pockets of other people. (A laugh.) Beference had been made to what was called " the Tory democracy." He confessed bo did not know what it meant. (Laughter and cheers.) But he did know that there was in the country a very strong reaction against revolationary ' doctrines even if supported by members of the Conservative party. (Laughter.) Mr. H. FOWLELR said that before he referred directly to -the Bill he wished to concur in the tribute of appreciation and admiration which had been paid to the new members on both sides who had taken part in the debate, and who had given promise of adding greatlyto the debating power and legislative efBcieney of the House, (Hear, hear.) As to the views of the Government with respect to the Bill, he might say that the Bill was not one for reforming the principles of the Poor Law, but simply to effect some alterations in its administration. He should be sorry to say one word in depreciation of that wonderful monument of wise legislation ; for the advantages which had accrued to the country from the Poor Law, alike economically and socially, could not be l«zaggerated. (Hear, bear.) The Government had no desire whatever to interfere rashly with its working ; and they wonld proceed tentatively and slowly in deal- ing withthe principles of its administration, confronted as they were with one of the most diilicnlt problems of the day, the best mode of dealing with those paupers «hose pauperism arose from old age and inability to work, (Hear, hear.) They had appointed a strong and representative Commission to inquire into the question. The Government endorsed the opinion expressed by Lotd'Salisbniy in another place that the time bad arri-viBd when ibere iboald be a eaiefnl inquiry into this and other branches of Poor Law administratioa ; but they did not propose any altera- tion in the principles of the Poor Law, The present Bill dealt with what was purely a question of macbinery, and it related quite as much to other local authorities as to boards of guardians. The evils of the plural vote applied to all of them. The Bill, then, proposed to put into law two or three great principles, and a general assent had been given to those principles. The first was to ' abolish ex-officio guardians, and again.st this object of the Bill no hon, member had spoken. The next was to abolish the system of ploral or multiple voting, which was admitted to be indefensible, (Hear, hear,) Then there was the principle of the ballot, which, if good in elections of members of Parliament and members of county councils, must be good in the election of boards of guardians, (Hear, hear,) The opponents of the Bill had stated that thoy wonld reserve their criticism until its details were before them. He took the same position. The Government would, therefore, support the second reading of the Bill, reserving full and absolute right of criticism in regard to its details when in Committee, At tho same time, they had no wish to disguise from the House that they themselves intended to submit a measure dealing with local government, affecting local boards, boards of guardians, and other local authorities, and possibly some of the provisions con- tained in the present Bill might be found in it. It would strengthen the hands and pave the way of the Government if the House declared its approval of the three main principles in the fiill now before it. (Hear, hear.) The principles of the Poor Law were one thing, and their administration another. They had not found that any institutions of the country, from the Parliament downwards, bad been in any way impaired by the infusion into their administration of a popular element, popular responsibility, and popular sympathy, and they did not shrink from applying those principles to the Poor Law. He hoped that by the inquiries which the Government were prepared to institute they would be hereafter in a position to submit to the House measures which would not be a reversal, but a development, of the great principles which were laid down in 1834, and that the Poor Law of this country, remaining intact in its great and solid principles, would yet be adapted in many of its details to the changed circumstances of the times, and thus would be infused into it a broader and more liberal spirit. The policy of the Govern- ment on this matter was a policy of inquiry, and he believed that from the Commission vrhich they had appointed, representing all shades of thought and opinion, would emanate a report which would be of enormous value to those on whom responsibility would hereafter devolve in directing our Poor Law admini- stration. He hoped tho House would not be put to the trouble of dividing, for there was almost a universal consensus of opinion in favour of the Bill. (Hear, hear,) Mr, BALFOUB said he rose simply to say that, while he assented to the second reading of the Bill, be retained the fullest liberty to deal with all the questions that oame'within its purview if it reached a further stage. The right hon. gentleman had drawn a distinction which he oould scarcely follow between the principles and the administration of the Poor Law. If his Bill was likely to impair the administration of the Poor Law, it was very small consolation to hear {hat its prineipiei wonld remain unimpaired. (Hear, hear,) ' In' anentiDg"tatliaaecoDd readiiijrihe was merely agree- ^Local AntbozitlerO^oting & .,lQviaU9ca,tion);Bill. JlS;r.U.:ie.mla!. House of Commons, February 15 and 16, 1893. 361 ing to the general proposition that some Poor Law reform was not only desirable, but perhaps neces- sary. Whilst he held that no responsible Minister should ever meddle with thePoor Law except after very careful thought and inquiry, he was of opinion that no one ought to commit himself to the proposition that this Act, passed 60 years ago, was an inviolable statute which ought under no circumstances to be reviewed. The Bill was read a second time. RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES (No. 2) BILL. SIR J. WHITEHEAD, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that its object was to strengthen the bands of the Board of Trade and to enable that department to deal with disputes that might arise from time to time between the railway companies and the traders and agriculturists of the country. In the Railway and Canal TrafKc Act of 1888 there was a clause providing that " the Board, if they think that there is reasonable ground for a complaint, may thereupon call upon the railway com- pany for an explanation and endeavour to settle amicably the difference between the complainants and the company." By his Bill it was proposed to enact that " when any complaint shall have been made to the Board of Trade that a railway or canal company is charging the complainant an unreasonable toll, rate, or charge, the Board shall inquire into such com- plaint and determine what is a reasonable toll, rate, or charge, and shall give notice of their defcision to the company, and thereupon any sum charged by the company in excess of the toll, rate, or charge found to be reasonable shall be taken to be an illegal charge." The importance of the subject of railway rates had been made clear that Jay by the large and influential deputation that had waited upon the Presi- dent of the Board of Trade. His belief was that, when once it was known by the railway companies, that the Board of Trade could settle disputes between them and traders, they would be anxious themselves to make fair and reasonable settlements. Traders and agriculturists wish to have a Government department acting as umpire between them and the railway companies. The decisions of the Board ought to be final and the procedure cheap and simple. Mr. MUNDELLA had not thought this Bill would be reached that afternoon and he had not been able to secure a copy of it. He was therefore not in a position to assent to it. But he had expressed else- where his sympathy with those traders who were suffering from the excessive charges exacted by the railway companies since the 1st of .January. He trusted that the House would be sufficiently patient to give the coinpanies time to change their policy — say until Easter. If by that time they had not made such a reasonable settlement with the traders as the latter had a right to expect, he should himself introduce a Bill effectually dealing with the whole question. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HUNTER observed that he had heard the reply of the President of the Board of Trade to the deputa- tion and be feared that the right hon. gentleman did not fully grasp the situation. What 5 it was desirable to realize was that the principle of the maximum rate far from acting as a curb upon the unreasonable- ness of the compahies, was a shield behind which they were able to shelter themselves in their differences with the traders. The object of the Bill before the House was to bring the railway companies back to the principle of the common law, which was that they cotild only make reasooable charges. He thooght Bailway Efttes and Cliarges^No. 2) BilL Bomething more ought to be done than was proposed by the President of the Board of Trade. SIR J. WHITEHEAD said that after the explana- tion of the right hon. gentleman he thought he ought to withdraw the Bill. The order for the second reading was discharged and the Bill withdrawn. LABOUR MINISTER BILL. Mr. J. B. SPENCER moved the second reading of this Bill. SIB C. DILKE was criticizing the Bill, and point- ing out what a sham remedy it provided for an alleged evil, when half-past 5 arrived, and by the rules of the House the debate stood adjourned. PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT(1892) AMENDMENT BILL. This Bill was read a second time. POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. SIR A. ROLLIT moved the second reading of this Bill. Mr. ASQUITH did not object to the Bill, because he thought it would bring about a considerable im- provement in the law. In Committee, however, there were several amendments which he should urge ought to be inserted. The Bill was read a second time. TRADE UNION PROVIDENT FUNDS BILL. Mr. HOWELL moved the second reading of thit Bill, the object of which was to exempt from income- tax the invested funds of trade unions applied in the payment of provident benefits. Mr. JAMES LOWTHBB objected. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Government did not object to the Bill, because it had been examined by the authorities of the Inland Revenue and met with their approval. SIR M. HICKS-BEACH asked whether the BiU would apply to the funds of small provident societies. The CHANCELLOR 6f the EXCHEQUER could not give an opinion as to other associations without a BiU on the subject being carefully examined by the Inland Revenue authorities. SIR M. HICKS -BEACH thought that, it wOuld b& invidious to deal with one class of societies only, Mr. MUNDELLA also urged that opposition to the Bill should be withdrawn. SIR M. HICKS-BEACH.— I object. (Cries ol " Shame.") The Bill could not be further proceeded with at this stage. NEW LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL. The House went into Committee on this BiU. Progress was immediately reported. NEW BILLS. Leave to introduce the followingBillswasobtained:— • Mr. BOOBD,— Bill to amend the Volilnteer Act, 1863. Mr. BEID,— BiU to amend the law relating to casualties in Scotland. The Bills were brought up and read a first time. The House adjourned at 20 minutes to 6 O'elook. TEUBSDAY, FISBBUARY 16. The SfeAKBB took the chair at 3 o'olook. PRIVATE BILLS. The Chipstead Velley Railway BiU was read a second time. The order for the first reading of the London Owners' Improvement Rate or Charge BiU was di8> chargedi and the BiU withdrawn. Sir J. WMtebead. 17 362 House of Commons. February 16, 1893. The second reading of the London County Cuuncil (General Powers) Bill was postponed until Fel>ruary24. LOCAL AUTHORITIES (VOTING AND QUALIFICATION) BILL. SIE M. HICKS-BBACH gave notice that on the motion to go into committee on this Bill ho should move : — ** That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to amond the law dealing with the assessment and collection of rates on small tenants." (Cheers.) WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS. Mr. ALLEN asked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office insisted that in a recent contract for bottles the contra,ctor should pay the full trade union rate of wages to the workmen employed ; and whether the contract was given to an English merchant who supplied foreign bottles : and. if so, whether it was insisted that the foreign manufacturer should pay the same rate of wages as the English manufacturer for the same work. Mr. WOODALL. — The recent contract for tottles contained the usual provision that the wages paid in executing it should bo those generally accepted as current for competent workmen of the trade required in the district where the work was carried out ; the contract was given to an English firm, but we are anable to obtain evidence as to where the bottles were actually made ; there is no power to insist that foreign rates of wages should be assimilated to home rates. SCOTTISH SALMON FISHINGS. SIR H. MAXWELL asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it was intended to give any effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Crown Riglits in Scottish Salmon Fishings, which rcpoitcd in ifflO, or to those of the Committee on White Fishery of the Solway, which reported in 1892. SIE G. TRBVELYAN.— Last week, in rpply to the hon. member for Argylcshire, I stated the steps which the Government had taken to carry out some rpoom- mendations of the Committee on Crown Rights in Scottish Salmon Fishings on which the hon. baronet did such excellentservice. With regard to the Solway Firth, the most important recommendatiuns of the committee would require legislation of a character which is engaging my consideration. In answer to Mr. Buchanan, SIR G. TREVELYAN said,— The Scotchman may iiot catch a salmon swimming within thiee miles of the coast of Scotland, and the Englishman may catch a salmon within three miles of the coast of England ; the disability imposed on Scotchmen should certainly be removed at the earliest opportunity. (Hear, hear.) CYPRUS. In answer to Admibal Field, Mr. BUXTON said, — The suggestions made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as to the administra- tion of Cyprus havo been carefully considered, and some steps havo been taken upon them, as will be seen from papers which, I believe, will be laid before the House in oonnesion with the appropriation accounts. As regards the taxation of land, the whole subject has been elaborately inquired into by a local commission and the Executive Council, and is now being con- sidered by the Secretary of State ; and it can only be said at present that the points mentioned by Sir C. Ryan will receive full attention. It is not anticipated that a grant in aid will be required for Cypras this year, and her Majesty's Government would not there- fore consider it proper to place any sum on the Estimates, But doubtless the hon. gentleman will be able to raise any question in connexion with the matter that he desires on the Colonial Office Vote in Committee of Supply. FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENTS. Mr. WEIR asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention had been called to the disclosures reported in the Daily Chronicle of the 10th inst., made in the public examination of a bankrupt of the name of Burgess, who bad turned his business when it was a losing concern and in financial straits into a limited company, consisting of himself, his father, his mother, his wife, and his friends, and who. under the cover of that fiction, had evaded the operation of the Bills of Sale Acts, by giving unregistered assignments under the name of debentures over his chattel property to the extent of £40,000 for debts amounting to £9,500 ; and whether he intended to introduce legislation that should extend the principles of the Bills of Sale Acts to assignments by limited companies. Mr. MUNDELLA. — >Iy attention has been called to this matter, and I am conferring with the Lord Chancellor with a view to taking measures for the prevention of such fraudulent practices. THE BURMAH GOVERNMENT AND PEARL FISHERIES. ■ Mr. MARTIN asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention had been called to the statement in The Timet of January 16 that the Government of Burmah bad claimed and sold the ex- clusive right of pearl fishery in the Mergui Archi- pelago, and, if so, in what manner, to what distance from the coast, and under what law ; whether any British subjects had been warned off, or compelled to leave those waters ; and whether hrr Majesty's Government intcncWd to exclude foreign fishermen from the waters in question. Mr. G. RUSSELL.— The legal qiKstion towliih the hon. member draws attention was under the con- sideration of the Government law officers in India at the end of last month. The corresponftence hns not yet come home, and the Secretary of State can only say that the questions raised by the Burmah Local Government on the subject have not yet been decided. THE RAJAH OF MANSIENSINGH. Mr. SCHWANN asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India had been drawn to an article in the February number of India, entitled " The Mansien- siugh Scandal,", signed by the Right Hon. Sir Richard Garth, late Chief Justice of Bengal ; whether he was aware that the Rajah of Mansiensingh, in a memorial to the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, formally impugned the bona fides of the proceedings taken in this case by the district magistrate, Mr. H. A. D. Phillips, of the Bengal Civil Service ; and whether he would direct a public inquiry into all the facts of the case to be made before a competent and independent tribunal. Mr. G. RU3SEIX.— The Secretary of State has seen the article refeired to. He has not officially received from India any information on the subject. It appears that on December 31 last the Lieutenant- Governor of Bengal issued a resolution dealing with the Rajah's memorial and severely censuring Mr. Phillips, although finding that there was no justifi- cation for any imputation on his motives in conduct- ing the prosecution. The Secretary of State will, however, call for an offioisl report on the matter. GROCERS' LICENCES. Mr, D. A. THOMAS asked the Chancellor of the Questions, Questions^ House of Commons, February 16, 1893. 363 Exchequer whether he could state the amount of revenue directly derived in each of the last five financial years from the issue of -what were commonly called " grocers' licences '' ; and whether, in view of the strong feeling throughout the couiitry among temperance reformers and others against these licences, he would consider the advisability of abolishing them. The CH4NCBLL0R of the EXCHEQUEK.— Grocers' licences properly so called are levied only iu Scot- land and Ireland. The average amount derived from them in those countries during the last five years has been £43,000. In England the licences to grocers are not distinguished from other licences for the retail of beer, spirits, and ' wines issued to retailers who are not publicans. They are, however, all generally called grocers' licences. The receipts from those licences for the iive years in question were — iu 1887-8 £110,947, in 188(!-9 £113,554, in 1889-90 £117,155, in 1890-1 £121,135, and in 1891-2 £123,685. The statement of what I intend to do with regard to these licences will, I think, be more properly made when I introduce the Bill for the appropriation of the Excise revenues. (Htar, hear.) RAILWAY RATES. Mr. LOUGH asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware that the railway rates throughout the kingdom were advanced in the vast majority of cases on January 1 this year, although the railway compaDics undertook before legislation was sanctioned that no such advances should take place ; and whether, in the interests of the industries whose very existence in many cases was threatened by these advances, he was willing to intimate to the vai-ious companies that the rates charged during 1892 should in all cases he restored where these were under the present rales, and that the amounts levied in excess of the rates of 1892 should be refunded pending further negotiations. Mr. MUNDELLA.— I have not sufficient information before me to be able to say what is the proportion between the rates which are raised and the rates which were reduced from January 1 of this year, hut Ihave sufficient evidence to convince me that the rates which the companies proposed to bring into force on January 1 are in many instances so much advanced as seriously to threaten soxue of the industries of this country. I am daily in communication with the Railway Association on the subject, and I earnestly hope that they will see their way to making such reductions as will satisfy the reasonable requirements of the traders, and that after revision the extra charges levied since January 1 will be refunded. (Hear.) Mr. DIQBY asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the London and South-Western Railway Company had not only now abandoned their increased rates for the carriage of milk, but had also agreed not to charge them at all since January 1 last. Mr. MUNDELLA.— In a letter dated January 30, 1893, Mr. Scotter, general manager of the London and South-Western Railway stated : — " I take this oppor- tunity to inform you that, so far as the South-Western Company are concerned, they have for the present decided to charge the old rates for the carriage of niilk, and will apply the same as from January 1." (Bear, hear.) WOMEN IN INDIAN MINES. In answer to SlE J. GoasT, Mr. G. RUSSELL said, — ^Thc employment of women in underground mines in British India is still lawful, bat the nimibers of women so employed are not known Questions, in this country. The Secretary of State has intimated to the Government of India that be concurs in the opinion of his predecessor that it was most desirable that the employment of women and girls underground should Le prohibited in India in accordance with the decision ot the Berlin Conterence. (Hear, hear.) ALLEGED ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF SALMON. In answer to Mr. T. SHAW, SIB G. TREVELYAN said,— My attention has been called to the case ot Bertraui and George Tyson. (The offence was that of being in possession of salmon caught during close time and for fishing other than by rod and line.) By the tei-ms of the Act the proof that the fish were not taken contrary to its provisions lay upon the accused, and, judging from the report of the proceedings which I have seen, I think the state- ment made in the second paragraph of the question is well founded. The many anomalies of the Tweed Acts, of which the present case furnishes one illustra- tion, will receive the earliest attention which the Government can give them, and there is no reason whatever in the view of the Government why the Tweed laws should be at all different from the general law on the subject. I may mention further that Mr. Gladstone's Government of 1K86 had a Bill in preparation for the repeal of those provisions of the Tweed Acts to some of which the question refers. (Hear, hear.) FARMING THE CROWN LANDS. Mr. HANBTJEY asked the Secretary to the Treasury why the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had failed to supply information to the Auditor-General to enable him to repoi-t to Parliament the net finan- cial result of fai*ming the Crown lands in hand, as desired by the Committee of Public Accounts and the Treasury ; and whether he would call for such in- formation and lay it upon the table. SIR J. HIBBEET.— The Commissioners of Woods have represented to the Treasury that in their opinion there are strong reasons against the publication in any form of the information asked for by the Comp- troller and Auditor-General ; and, in view of this opinion, tie force of which the Treasury are prepared to admit, they think that, before any further action is taken in the matter, it will be best that the Com- mifesioners should have an opportunity of explaining their views to the Public Accounts Committee, when the Commissioners' accounts and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon are under the consideration of the committee. (Hear, hear.) SOLDIERS' OLD CLOTHING. Mr. H. WRIGHT asked the Secretary for War when it was intended to give the soldier his old clothing and to alter the present regulations laid down for the issues of clothing, as recommended by Lord Wantage's Committee and promised by her Majesty's late Govern- ment. Mr. CAMPBBLL-BANNERMAN.— When I introduce the estimates for the Army I shall make a statement of the intentions of her Majesty's Government with reference to the recommendations of Lord Wantage's Committee, which embrace the question of clothing. (Hear, hear.) THE NOTTINGHAM POSTMEN. Mr. H. WRIGHT asked the Postmaster-General whether it was the fact t^at the Nottingham postmen had to go on duty three or four times daily in order to complete a day's work, thereby greatly curtailing the time they could spend at their homes ; and, if so, whether it would be possible so to alter the system Questions. 17-2 364 House of Commons, February 16, 1893. that no postman should have to go on duty more than twice in each day. Mr. A. MORLBY. — It would be impracticable to arrange the duties of poetmen at Nottingham or else- where 60 as to give two daily attendances only to each man without great waste of public money. At Nottingham, as elsewhere, the postmen performing the more important duties are required, as a rule, to give three attendances in the day. The postmen per- forming minor duties, such as collections (usually the younger postmen) , have to give four attendances, and it is not considered necessary to make any change. The attendances of all the postmen have recently been brought within a period of about 12 hburs oat of the 24. (Hear, hear.) ALLEGED ILLEGAL SEIZUEES BY IRISH SHERIFFS. Mr. T. W. EDSSBLL asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he had made any progress in the pre- paration of the return concerning alleged illegal seizures by Irish sheriffs, and when the result would be communicated to the House. Mr. J. MORLBY. — I understand that the figures re- lating to seizures or attempted seizures by night under civil bill decrees were obtained by a reference to the police diaries, patrol-books, and other ofBcial records. It appears, however, that in some cases writs of the Superior Courts were included, and in other instances cases where the protection by night was re- quisitioned for without reference to the hours at which the seizures were to be actually effected. The figures I gave the other night, therefore, prove to he over-statements, and I can only express my regret that I was led to make that over-statement. (Cheers and dounter-cheers.) The broad fact, however, I am in- formed remains that, during the period named by me, civil bill decrees were executed or attempted to be executed by sheriffs' bailiffs or special bailifi's between sunset and simrise, and that police protection was afforded for that purpose. I cannot undertake to lay a return upon the table which might be used for pro- ceedings outside this House. But I have directed a detailed statement of cases from each county named to be prepared. On its receipt I shall be happy to communicate with the hon. member with a view to his inspecting the statement, for the satisfaction of himself and of other hon. members, should he so iesire. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CARSON asked whether the right hon. gentle- man could name any one case in which this illegal seizure took place. (Hear, hear.) Mr. J. MOBLBY. — I have not got the figures at hand, but there are, I believe, a number of cases in the ofSce which are open to the inspection of the hon. gentleman. Mr. DANE asked what were the other sources from which the right hon. gentleman obtained his informa- tion. Mr. J. MORLEY was understood to say that he had obtained his information from police diaries, Blue- books, and other documents. Mr. DANE wished to ask the right hon. gentleman from whom he obtained his information. (Cries of •• Oh.") No answer was given to the question. DISCHARGES FROM WOOLWICH ARSENAL. Mr. LOUGH asked the Secretary of State for War whether suspensions and dismissals of workmen were still going on in the Field Gtm Section at Woolwich Arsenal ; and, if so, why such should be necessary. Mr. WOODALL, who replied, said, — Men have been suspended in turn.s in batches to the number of about 60 in all during the last three months, and 16 have been discharged. This is in consequence of the scarcity of work in the department referred to. SCOTCH SALMON FISHERIES. In answer to Dr. MaoGkeqoe, . SIR G. TREVELYAN said,— I have informed "ho House what steps the Scotch Office has taken in order to represent to the Treasury the urgent importance of stopping further alienation of Crown rights to individuals. That is all that can be done without legislation. GOVERNMENT PRINTING IN IRELAND. In answer to Mr. Field, SIR J. HIBBERT said,— The bulk of the general printing for the Intermediate Education Board is, I am informed, done under a contract, given after competitioii in the year 1890, and since extended, with a firm other than that of the Queen's printers. I have no information as to the staff employed by either fii-m, or of the matters contained in the second and third paragraphs of the question. As I stated last Thursday, steps have already been taken to secure compliance with the terms of the resolution of the House of Commops on the 13th of February, 1891, and I have seen no evidence that they have been infringed. PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING. Mr. A. C. MORTON asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a copy of the contract for Parlia- mentary reporting would be laid upon the table and distributed. SIR J. HIBBERT.— Yes, Sir. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CHURCH IN , WALES. Mr. WHITMORE asked the hon. member for Stoke- upon-Trcnt, as a Church Estates Conunissioner, whether, at a meeting of the ' Estates Committee of the Ecclesiastical Commission on the 9th inst., he stated that he was authorized on behalf of her Majesty's Government to deprecate, in view of con- templated legislation, the assignment of any new districts within the Welsh dioceses ; and, if so, by whom, and in what form, the authority to make this statement was given to him. Mr. LBIGHTON further asked whether the hon. gentleman still adhered to that statement ; and, il so, whether there was any precedent for the Govern- ment interfering with the statutory powers of an independent commission in reference to a Bill which had not been introduced into Parliament. Mr. LBVBSON-GOWER said,— Mr. Speaker,- Perhaps I may be allowed at the same tinse to answei question No. 60, addressed to me by the hon. member for the Oswestry division of Shropshire. In reply to my hon. friend, I beg to say that before taking the action which is referred to 1 consulted my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, who is the only other member of the Government taking any fjart in the work of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and obtained his concurrence. Although I am free to admit that I may have been mistaken in supposing that con- currence to carry with it any further sanction than in so far as relates to my action as a member of the Government who was also an Ecclesiastical Commis- sioner, I may perhaps take this opportunity of explaining, as some misunderstanding seems to have arisen upon the subject, that the Govemmeat has no power and has had no intention to control or interfere in any way with the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that in taking the action which I did upon the 9th inSt. I was merely stating the Questions, Questions^ House of Commons, February 16, 1893. 365 course which, in our character of Ecclesiastical Com- missioners, my right hofl. friend and I would here- after follow. Mr. S. EVANS inquired whether it was not a fact that between theyeai-sl8»3and 1883the Koclesiastical Commissioners suspended their action in Welsh dis- tricts in yiew of the possible introduction of legisla- tion. Mr. LEVESON-GOWBB replied that he was not at that time responsible for the action of the Commis- sioners. Mr. PAUL. — is it not the duty of those members of the Government who are also members of the Eccle- siastical Commission to act as a medium of com- munication between the Commissioners and the Government ; and, if not, what are they there for ? Mr. LEVESON-GOWEE.— it is ; and that is the course we intend to pursue. Mr. GOSCHEN.— Were not the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners under the impression that this was not more or less a communication from the Government, and intended to be so ? Mr. LEVESON-GOWBR.— If that be sO I desire to express my regret that i made an error in regard to that matter. Mr. H. EGBEETS asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that a scheme had been drawn up by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to provide for a new ecclesiastical district at Colwyn Bay, which set forth the particular expediency of such division, and how far this might be done without injury to the parties interested. Whether the Privy Council had power to refuse to ratify such a scheme, if it appeared that the circumstances of the case did not call for its application ; and whether he could state what, under present circumstances, would be the atti- tude of the Government towards such proposals creating new ecclesiastical vested interests in Wales and Monmouthshire. Mr. ASQUITH.— My attention has been called to this matter. I understand that in the ordinary course the only question considered by the Privy Council is whether the scheme is within the legal powei's of the Commissioners, and, if so, it is passed. Until the law is altered, as it would be by the passing of the Suspensory Bill, the Government have no authority or povfer to control the action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in respect to the creation or augmenta- tion of ecclesiastical interests in Wales, otherwise than by the votes of those members of the Govern- ment who are Ecclesiastical Commissioners and entitled to sit thereon. CAVALEY MOUNTS. Mr. BROOKFiELD asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in reckoning three men to every two horses in cavalry regiments serving at home, he could state the average proportion of trained horses ridden by recruits, and of young horses being trained ty old soldiers. Mr. CAMPBBLL-BANNBRMAN.— The hon. member will realize the extreme difficulty of fixing such pro- portions, which must to some extent depend upon individual opinions ; but, broadly speaking, in a cavalry regiment serving at home about one trained horse in four is ridden by a recruit, and about one horse in 11 is a young horse in course of training. THE 60VEBN0ESHIP OF NEW SOUTH WALES. Mr. HANBURY asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the statement in a reported speech of Sir G. I)ibbs, Prime Minister of New South Wales, was correct — namely, that no new Governor was to be appointed without the previous sanction of the Colonial Ministry ; whether this had hitherto been the practice iu the appointment of colonial Governors ; and whether the case of New South Wales was excep- tional, or was (he same practice to be extended to all the self-governing colonies, Mr. BUXTON said, — I feel sure there mast be some misapprehension in regard to the matter, as the state- ment in the telegram referred to is not correct. No change has been made, or is contemplated, in the practice (which will be found detailed in Parlia- mentary Paper C 5,828) pursued by former Govern- ments in regard to the appointment of colonial Governors. At the same time, the Secretary of State will always endeavour to secure that the Governor and the Government of the colony should be informed, as a matter of courtesy, of the selection approved by the Queen before any announcement on the etlbject is made in the Press. THE CONUiTiON OF THE NAVY. Mr. HANBURY asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it Was the fact that the six battleships at Malta, when assistance had suddenly to be sent to Zante, were none of them in a condition to be sent to sea, and the arrival of the Camperdowu had to ba 'awaited before such assistance could be sent ; and, if so, what were the causes for this condition of the Mediterranean Squadron. SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLBWOETH said,— No, Sir. The facts are these : — The Camperdown was approaching Malta when Sir George Tryon beard, on February 1, the first rumoar of the disaster in the^ island of Zante. Shortly afterwards, at 5 o'clock p.m., he received the first request for assistance. Less than eight hours later, after having been coaled and receiving tents, blankets, deals, and other stores, the Camperdown sailed. No other ship could have been despatched with this very satisfactory prompti- tude, though other ships could have been sent on this service had the Camperdown not been available. Certain ships are undergoing the usual examination and repair at Malta. The tents, stores, and provi- sions proved most acceptable to the people of Zante. itlBLAND'S REVENUE UNDER HOME RULE. Mr. GOSUHEN asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could state.inround figures, how the amount of £5,660,000, described by the Prime Minister as the amount which under the arrangements of the Govern- ment of Ireland Bill would accrue as revenue to Ire- land, was arrived at. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was under- stood to say that the amount was arrived at as follows :— Excise, £3,220,000 ; local taxation (stamps, £755,000 ; income-tax, £550,000 ; Excise licences, £190,0001. £1,495,000 ; Postal revenue, £740,000 ; Crown lands, £65,000 ; miscella- neous revenue, £140,000-^total, £6,660,000. The amount was arrived at on the same basis as adopted by the right hon. gentleman himself ; but the figures were estimated upon the revenue for 1892-3, which could now be pretty accurately gauged. Mr. SEXTON inquired whether the right hon. gentleman would lay on the table of the House a return showing the distinction between gross and net revenue, especially with regard to Excise, and also with regard to the items connected with civil Go- vernment ; or whether he should formally move for such a return. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.— If the Questions^ Questions, 3G6 Houao of Commons, February 16, 1893. lion, gentleman will communicate with me I will see which is the more convenient. EAETHENWAKE MEASURES. In answer to Mr. William Allen, Mr. MUNDELLA said, — I am awaro that certain inspectors of weights and measures (who are appointed by local authorities, and not by the Board of Trade) have refused to recognize the legality of the Stafford- shire stamp on earthenware measures, and I have called the attention of the authorities who appoint these inspectors to the provisions of the existing law, which permit the use in any part of the United Kingdom of any weight or measure duly stamped by any inspector. NATIONAL LEPROSY FUND. In answer to Mr. Caine, Mr. G. EUSSELL said,— The Secretary of State understands that the committee of the National Leprosy Fnnd will publish the report of their com- mission as early as they can this spring. TRIAL BY JURY IN BENGAL. Mr. SCHWANN asked the Under Secretary of State for India whether a commission had beeo or would be appointed to inquire into the step take by the Lieu- tenant-Governor of Bengal, with the consent of the Viceroy of India, acting under the advice of his Council, to abolish the right of trial by jury in eight districts of the Bengal Presidency, in many classes of cases which were previously subject to that mode of trial ; what measures would be taken by the Secretary of State for India, should such a commission not have been decided upon, to preserve to all the inhabitants of Bengal the right, which they have hitherto enjoyed, of trial by jury of their fellow-subjects ; and would such right be maintained for all inhabitants of British India ? Mr. G. EUSSELL said, — A commission will be appointed by the Government of India to inquire into the matter and report without delay. INFLAMMABLE GAS EXPLOSION. Mr. STUART-WOHTLEY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would be represented by counsel or by an icspector at the inquests on the deaths of two youths killed by an explosion of inflammable gas, caused by a 'fall of roof which took place on the 11th inst., at the Whit- wick Colliery in Leicestershire ; and, if not, whether, having regard to the importance of limiting In area and destructiveness the consequences of such explosions, he would cause special attention to be given to ascertaining any local causes which happily prevented this explosion from leading to results yet more extensive and disastrous. Mr. ASQCJITH. — I am in communication with the inspector, who has sent me the following telegram ; — " I inspected the mine and attended inquest last Monday. Miners' agent and solicitor present. Mine not at work at time of explosion. Two boys killed. Gas liberated by fall of roof. Effects limited in pro- portion to the quantity of gas which appears to have been ignitud. Mine very free from gas and worked with nalied lights. Verdict accidental death. Jury refused to recommend use of safety lamps." ARTILLERY MILITIA. In answer to Mr. V. Gibbs, Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNER MAN said,— Five commis- sions half-yearly in the Royal Artillery were promised in 1889 to ofBcera of the Artillery Militia. With the exception of one half-year, when only three candi- dates qualified, five commissions have been given in «ach half-year. Of the five who last passed two have received commissions, and three are awaiting the Gasette. Up to this time, therefore, the promise made has been amply fulfilled. In December, 1891, it was, however, publicly notified that this mode of entrance to the Eoyal Artillei7 would cease after the examination in March, 1893 ; but on recon- sideration it has been determined to continue it to the extent of four commissions yearly. There are not at present vacancies for more. COUNTY MAGISTRATES. Mr. CONYBEARE asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the present Lord Chancellor had in any case exercised his power of appointing county magistrates where a lord lieu- tenant had refused ; whether, in cases where the names of duly qualified persons bad been forwarded to him, he would submit them for appointment to the lords lieutenant, and, if they refused to appoint them, exercise his right to do so without further reference to the lords lieutenant. Mr. ASQUITH.— The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part, the Lord (Chancellor informs me that it would be impossible, within the limits of an answer, to state bypothetically all the points which would arise for consideration in the case supposed, and the manner in which, if they arose, the Lord Chancellor would deal with them. The Lord Chancellor hopes soon to be in a po.sition to make a full statement on the subject. INCENDIARISM IN lEELAND. Wr. MACARTNEY asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that on the night of January 30 last a quantity of hay and straw, valued at £100, the property of Moses Benizer, of Kilbreedy, Kildimo, county Limerick, was maliciously burnt ; that on the following d^y a load of straw which he had bought to replace some of the burnt stuff was also set on fire and consumed ; and that on February 2 a cowhouse, his property, was maliciously burnt down ; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Benizer was awarded compensation by the grand jury on several previous occasions for malicious injuries, any steps had been taken to afford him protection. Mr. TIMOTHY HBALY asked whether the servant of Mr. Benizer had not been committed for trial on the charge of having caused the fire. Mr. J. MORLEY. — What my hon. and learned friend has stated is perfectly true. A servant girl has been arrested and returned by the magistrates for trial. The facts stated in the first paragraph are substan- tially correct, and the result of the action taken by the police to afford protection to Mr. Bovenizer (not Benizer) and his property has been that a servant girl in his employment has been arrested and returned by the magistrates for trial to the spring assizes, charged with the crime of maliciously setting fiie to his premises. JUDICIAL RENTS IN IRELAND. Mr. W. REDMOND asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that memberji representing all sections in Ireland were agreed upon the necessity for the revision of judicial rents in Ireland, the Government would introduce or give their support to .such a measure this year. Mr. GLADSTONE. — I think that any strong, general agreement among the representatives of the different sections of opinion in Ireland on the question of the judicial rents would bo a very serious fact, and in any case might be submitted to the Government, but so far as my knowledge goes, there is no such general ajireement among Irish members on (his subject. (Juestions. Questions. House of Commons, February IG, 1893. 3G7 Mr. W. REDMOND aeked whether it was not the i fact that such agreement had often been phown by the | expressions in the House of members representing both sections of the Nationalist party, and also of representatives of the Conservative party in Ireland. Mr. GLADSTONE.— It is very difficult for me to collect and appreciate accurately the opinion to which the hon. member refers, and the terms in which I prerionsly answered him were correct. Mr. DANE inquired whether the right hon. gentle- man had communicated on this subject with the Irish Land Commission. Mr. GLADSTONE. — I have had no oonimuni cation with the Land Commissioners on the subject. FOEEIGN AND COLONIAL MEAT. MAJOK KASCH asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government would give facili- ties to a short Bill having for it« object the compul- sory labelling of foreign and colonial meat. Mr. GLADSTONE said the object oE marking foreign goods was to prevent imposition, but the question of trying bow far the system was applicable to foreign meat bad not as yet been very thoroughly examined. He had understood that it was reserved for inquiries which had not yet taken place. The Government would be glad to give facilities for such inquiries. PAYMENT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. R. WALLACK asked the First Lord of the Treasury if he could now say whether the Govern- ment intended by legislation. Budget arrangements, or otherwise to give practical effect to the principle of the payment of members of Parliament. Mr. GL.A.DSTONE. — I expected a communication on this subject from gentlemen who had been autho- rized, and, I believe, deputed, by a meeting held outside by a large number of members of Parliament sitting on this side of the House. I had the honour of receiving those gentlemen yesterday, and I am now expecting a further communication from them. Until I receive that communication I am not in a position to answer any question on the subject. MILITARY DEPuTS IN SCOTLAND. In answer to Mr. HoziBR, Mr. CAMPBBLL-BANNERMAN said,— There are no adequate barracks at Lanark for a depot, and for many reasons there are advantages in having the double depdt at Hamilton, where it is expected that certain inconveniences in the accommodation will be speedily overcome. A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. THE TIMES AND THE IRISH MEMBERS. SIB THOMAS ESMONDB.— I beg to ask the noble lord the member for West Edinburgh a question of which I have given him private notice — namely, whether he is correctly reported as having said at a banquet on Tuesday last that " they knew well from the internal difficulties of the Irish party that they (the Irish members) would no longer be paid by Irish money. Therefore they were being paid, undoubtedly being paid, by the party organization and the party now in power." (" Oh, oh.") " Therefore the posi- tion Mr. Gladstone was in was that he was undertaking this constitutional change, relying on a majority of forty paid mercenaries." (Loud Nationalist cries of " Oh, oh.") I would ask the noble lord if he is correctly reported as having stated this, and, if so, whether be will kindly state the reason on which the assertion is based. (Cheers.) VISCOUNT WOLMBB.— In replyto thehon. baronet, ' I have to say that the report from which he has quoted is substantially accurate. (Hear, hear.) As the hon. gentleman will see, if he examines the words I used, I oarf fully abstained from expressing anything in the nature of either blame or criticism (loud cries of " Ot." and cheers) on the party to which he belongs. (Cries of " Oh.") If my word is doubted, I can only quote the words I really used. These are the words with which I prefaced my remarks : — " It has been a matter of public knowledge that for the last ten years a large proportion of the Irish members could not attend at Westminster unless they received a salary. I do not think that is any reflec- tion on the Irish members. They receive a salary for purposes which their constituents approve, and for doing work which their constituents approve of, and for doing work which their constituents expect them to do." He asks me on what ground I made the assertion to which he refeis, and which is contained in the words he quoted. They are as follows : — It is generally admitted that money is no longer forthcoming from Irish or American sources, and the inference that seems, therefore, to be irresistible is that it is derived from English sources. (Laughter and cheers.) I am quite ready to admit that I went too far in stating that it undoubtedly came from the Gladstoniau p^rty funds, but I certainly thought myself justified in believing that it came either from those funds or from funds devoted generally to the further- ance of the interests of the English Home Rule party. But if the hon. meniber is in a position to say that that statement (cries of "Oh, oh," and cheers) has no foundation in fact, I need not say that I am pre- pared to withdraw it and to express my regret. (Cheers.) Let me repeat that I intended to reflect nothing upon those who are supposed to receive the money, but simply to point out the very peculiar Parliamentary position now occupied by the Govern- ment. (Cheers and laughter, and cries of " Apolo- gize.") Mr. SEXTON, rising amid cheers, said, — I call yonr attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the statement of the noble lord was that the Irish members " were being paid, undoubtedly being paid," , by the party organization and the party now in power. The noble lord has put in circulation what is an absolute false- hood (cheers), a total and absolute falsehood, a mere invention, and I think the House is entitled to know, in the first place, from the noble lord whether ho invented the statement himself (cheers and laughter), or whether be adopted it at the instance of any other person, and, if so, at whose instance, and on what grounds. (Cheers.) Now, Sir, I would a«k you, having regard to the gross and scandalous character of the allegation (cheers), whether the noble lord or any other member of the House is entitled either to invent or to adopt such statements imputing to a body of members of this House that they hold a relation to the Government of this country incompatible with the independent discharge of their duties, and whether, on beini; brought to task in this House, the noble loi-d is entitled to make a subjunctive or contingent apology, and, having wantonly set afloat a falsehood, whether he is entitled to call for a contradiction (cheei-s), or whether, being himself destitute of any grouuds by which to justify his statement, his apology should not bo instant and absolute. (Loud cheers.) The SPEAKER.— The Vords made use of were not made in this House, and, therefore, my jurisdiction does not come directly in. The House is very chary of noticing expressions used out of the House and Privilege—" The Times " and the Irish Members. Viscount Wolmer. 368 House of Commons, February 16, 1893. tringing them up for discassion in this House. The hoti. baronet asked me if the purport of what he has Said might be embodied in a question, and in accord- ance with the invariable rule I told him not, bat, as it was a personal question and ioTolred a quati kind of privilege, he was entitled to ftsk for a personal explanation. The allegation has been made and somewhat modified by the noble lord, and has been repudiated and altogether discountenanced by bon. gentlemen from Ireland. 1 think, therefore, so far as I am concerned, the matter should redt there. I cannot call upon any hon. member to apologize for anything he has said out of the House. There is only one expression which I should wish had not been used either in this House or out of it, and that is the word " mercenary." (Ministerial cheers.) VIBCODNT WOLMBR.— Mr. Speaker, I am ijuite prepared to admit that that word was an unfortunate and wrong word tb use— (laughter, and cries of " Dis- graceful ")— unfortunate, because, as I have said, my intention was to reflect upon the Government and not upon the Irish members, and the use of that word might be fairly open to the criticism tinat it also re- flected on the Irish members. Therefore, I frankly express Biy regret for having used that word. As regards what I said before, I have nothing to add to. (Cries of " Oh " and " Withdraw.") If a contradiction is made I withdraw it absolutely. (Cheers.) An IeiSh Membee. — It has been made. (Cheers.) Mr. SEXTON.— The noble lard having now in a most niggardly and ungracious manner (cheers), but yet in a manner the sense of which is complete, given his explanation, it entitles me to submit to the fiouse that he made a false statement. (Cries of " Oh.") I might call it by a shorter name if I liked. (Cheers and cries of " A Salisbury.") The House is now seised of the fact. (Cries of "Order.") I am not out of order. We mean to have this out. (Cheers.) I say that, as the House is now seised of the fact that a wanton calumny against a body of members has been set afloat, 1 must call the instant attention of yourself and the Hou^e to the use which has been made of that calumny in The Times to- day. (Cheers.) In the course of an article on the pa3mient of members, The Timet, amidst a number of other offensive and calumnious statements (cheers), indulges in the following, acting upon the evidence of a witness, the value of whose evidence the House is ablie to estimate :— " LordWolmer, whose position as Liberal Unionist Whip has given him peculiar opportnnitieS of becoming acquainted with the facts of the Parliamentary situation," made the state- ments, which are contained in the speech of the noble lord. And then The Times goes on to say : — " It is hotorions that since the Famellite split there has been no American money forthcoming for the subsist- ence of these stipendiary patriots." (Loud Opposi- tion cheers.) This (pointing to the Conservative benches) is " the party of gentlemen." (Cheers and cries of " Cowards.") There is not a peasant in Ireland who would "«*■-« ashamed of your conduct. " And," TAeriZ/issi proceeds," as these must live some- how, they are, so Lord Wolmer declared, ' un- doubtedly being paid by the party organization and by the party now in power.' . . . We have no difSculty in accepting Lord Wolmer's assu- rance " (Nationalist cries of " Pigott ") " that one- half at least of the party to whom Mr. Gladstone proudly points as speaking in the name of Ireland are in receipt of a stipend, drawn either from an English party fund or from the private liberality of rich English partisans." Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit Privilege—" The Times " and the Irish Members. that, since the foundation of this House of Commons many centuries back, it has never been held tolerable that any one, either a member of this House, or an editor, or any bther person in this country, should bo allowed tb impute, even to one member of this House, that, even in regard to any solitary act in the discharge of his functions, the discharge of his duty bad been connected with the receipt of money. Now, Sir, the charge made by the principal newspaper in the country against the main body of the representa- tives of Ireland is that, not with regard to any solitary function, but with regard to the whole dis- charge of their duty here as representatives of others, they are in the pay of the Government of the country. (Cheers.) It is as false a statement as ever was made. Neither to the Government of this country nor to any rich English partisan has any member of this party ever been indebted for one penny, or ever will be. (Cheers.) ViscOTTNT WOLMEE rose at this point, but Mr. SEXTON said, — I have not the least intention of giving way. The noble lord can speak when I have done. I submit to you very respectfully — wo are poor men striving to do oiu' duty. Whatever help we may require we should seek from our own cotintry- men, and certainly if that help should not be sufS- cient we should never seek it anywhere else. We mean to do our duty here to the end. I submit re- speetfnlly that, if writings of this kind in the Press of this country are to be petAiitted in regard to the representatives of another country who ate discharging their duties here, the discharge of these duties will become impossible. (Cheers.) I, theroforo, beg to move that the leading article in The Times of this date is a gross and scandalous breach of the privileges of this House. (Loud cheers.) The SPEAKER.— I hope the matter will not go further. There is no mcda fides imputed in the words that have been read. Discourteous they may be, but there is no mala fides imputed to au hon. member of this House in the diseharge of his duties in this Hoiose, a,nd I cannot say that there is a question of privilege raised. I hope that after the noble lord has withdrawn the word I thought improper, and which if used in this House would be unparliamentary, the matter will be left there. We have now the assurance from at least two hon. members representing constituencies in Ireland that the statement made is totally devoid of foundation. I think the House may rest upon the assurances those hon. gentlemen have given, and in the interests of the House I do implore hon. members not to let the matter go any further. (Opposition cheers.) Mr. SEXTON.— I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether mala fides is not imputed in the description of a body of members ot this House as a body of " paid mercenaries." (Cheers.) VISCOUNT WOLMER.— I only wish to say fot myself that after what the hon. member has said I apologize to the Irish party. (Cheers.) Mr. SEXTON.— I respectfully say that the Editor of The Times should apologize at the bar. (Ministerial cheers and cries ot " Move.") I respectfully submit that I am within my tight, and that the question rests ultimately with the decision of the House whether or not a breach of privilege has been committed, and I respectfully move that the leading article in The Times of this morning is a gross and scandalous breach of the privileges of this House. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. gentleman then brought up the paper containing the article and gave it to the Clerk at the tablej who read the passage which the hon. gentleman TUX. Sexton. House of Commons, February 16, 1893. 369 previously quoted, and also the following sentences, from a difEerent pa.rt of the same article : — " For a century at least the Itouse of Commons has never even been suspected of corruption. Are we prepared to run the risk of losing this priceless advantage for the sake of enabling the Giadstonian party to keep a band of ' paid mercenaries ' in steady attendance at Westminster without depleting the ' war chest ' of the party, which is conscious that, at no distant date, it will have to face another appeal to the constituencies ? " Mr. J. KBDMOND. — I have great pleasure in seconding the motion. (Cheers.) Mr. GLADSTONE, who was received with cheers, said, — I am never forward, Sir, in promoting move- ments in the House for severe notice being taken of what is said of persons or proceedings in this House by persons outside it, but the question has been distinctly raised whether this article is or is not a breach of the privileges of the House. I have firet of all to say that I am very glad the noble lord has extricated himself from at least one-half of this charge. (Laughter.) As I understand him, the other portion of it falls upon a Government composed of persons with whom he was onge associated. (Hear, hear.) He says his desire was that the brunt — I do not think he used that expression, but he implied it — that the brunt of the great weight and severity of words of that kind coming from him (laughter), the whole of the tremendous weight which attaches to his unfounded assertion, shall fall upon us. (Laughter.) I am not so sensitive — it is perhaps owing to being hardened in these matters — to that charge, but I think the noble lord would have consulted well for his own character (cheers) it he had withdrawn it altogether when he has been compelled to admit that there is no ground for it whatever. (Hear, hear.) His own character is a matter entirely for his own considera- tion (cheers), and into that sacred precinct I shall not trespass. (Laughter.) I shall leave the whole subject contentedly in his hands. So far as this article is concerned — I am aware that your powers of hearing are more acute, happily, than mine — when I heard the extract from the article first read by the hon. gentleman opposite, with a feeling which I think did him honour (cheers) — a gentleman whose pecuniary integrity I may say boldly, in my judgment, requires no more defence or vindication than the pecuniary integrity of any other gentleman in the House (cheers) — when I first heard the extract, I was doubtful whether there reached my ear anything which constituted a gross breach of privilege, because, however offensive the word " mercenaiy " may be, yet after all a mercenary need not necessarily be corrupt. I know not. Sir, what your case may be, but on hearing the article read at the table I do gather from it that it contains a most distinct charge of corruption (loud cheers) — a charge of the reintro- dnction of corruption into this House, after it has been happily cleared from it during 100 years, through the medium of the Irish members. I was quite unaware, I heed not say, that this matter was likely to be brought forward, but unquestionably, if I am asked whether a charge of corruption against a body of members of this House constitutes a breach of pri- vilege, I am afraid it is not possible for me to give any answer but one, and that one in the affirmative. (Loud cheers.) Mr. BALFOUE.— I certainly thought. Sir, that after the observations which you made from the chair, and even in the absence of the observations you made from the chair, it would have been the duty of the leader of the House to give us some guidance (Ministerial cries of " Oh ") in circumstances which all of us must admit to be of some difficulty and delicacy. (Hear, bear.) There are two questions which always arise whrd on Ulster. (Cheers-) I think the province of Ulster is the most im- portant feature perhaps in the whole Irish com- munity, the most important consideration in any measure you may propose for the government of Ireland. In 188G the right lion, gentleman, tljongh he made no special provision for Piotestant Ulster in his Bill, veiy clearly intimated, I think in his speech, that in Committee he might have certain provisions to propose for Protestant Ulster. The fate of Ulster in ISSfi was practically left to the scramble of the Com- mittee. (Laughter.) But in 1S03 the situation seems to be worse, because no provision whatever is made in the Bill for the safety and security of the minority in Ireland which is composed of Protestant Ulster. No mention of it was made in the speech of the right hon. geotlcm^in ; Ulster seems to have passed entirely from his mind (cheers), and apparently it is to him no longer a factor in the Irish situation. I suppose that Ulf>ter will have to make its own arrange- ments for itself. (Cheers.) I think perhaps that will be the best solution of the difficulty. (Cheers and laut'hter.) I have always thought that Ulster was capable of looking after itself. (Cheers.) The party under the leadership of the right hou. gentleman is, I have always gathered, somewhat sceptical and incredulous about the possible rcsist.auce of Ulster to an Irish Parliament. (Ministerial cheers.) You do not believe in the resistance of Ulster to an Irish Parliament ? (Ministerial cheers.) Well, I do. (Loud cheers.) I have seen a good deal and learned a good deal of the Ulster people. My experience of Protestant Ulster does not date from yesterday. They are a very stern and dour folk. (Laughter.) They adhere with uncompromising fidelity to the religion which they profess-and to the political cause which they believe to he bound up with the safety of that religion. (Cheers.) I have always had a very strong belief, and I have it now, that Protestant Ulster may bi' too much for the Irish Parliament. (Cheers and laughter.) I think the right hon. gentleman has been unwise and imprudent to leave Ulster, not only out o( the provisions of his Bill, but alto:;ether out of his calculations. (Cheers.) There is this to be said for Ulster in the event of their taking steps to save themselves in the great changes with which yiiu menace them as regards Irish government. The Ulster Protestants have rendered to your Imperial The Home Rule BilL Lord K. CIiurcliiLi House of Commons, February 16, 1893. 379 rarliamftnt, and to yoar Imperial Executive, during 93 years, the most unsliaken loyalty (cheers), and they have been distinguishd , with hardly any notable exceptions, for their order ; and they have un- doubtedly, by-their marvellous industry, turned por- tions of Ulster into almost what I might call the manufacturing garden of the world. (Cheers.) They have done that under your Government ; under your Government tbey have grown up and multiplied ; under the provisions of the Act of Union they have elected loyally to live. (Cheers.) I do not notice the legends which the right hon. gentleman formerly indulged in as to what the Ulster people were before the Union — at the time of the great Irish crisis of 1798. I do not take the slightest interest in these legends ; I do not care what the Ulster people were at that time ; I know what they are now, and the Imperial Parliament has no moral right to compel them to transfer their allegiance to any other body, least of all to a Parliament which has been described as practically an independent and a separate Parlia- ment, and in which Parliament the majority must mainly be a majority of the hereditary foes of Pro- testant Ulster. (Cheers.) I have heard it sometimes discussed whether Ulster would fight. (Laughter.) I have heard of an Irish gentleman of great position, Ulster born, and more Liberal than anything else in his politics, who was ssked the other day whether, if this Irish Parliament were constituted, Ulster would resist by force, and who said that, on the whole, his opinion was that such resistance might take place because of this reason — that civil wars in history had generally broken out and taken place either on religious questions or on taxation questions, and that Ulster would probably be basely wounded on both these points. (Cheers.) I stand here in the House of Commons as a member of Parlia- ment, and Sir, in your presence, and in the presence of her Majesty's Ministers, this I will say— I take the earliest opportunity of stating that everything I said in Belfast, and generally about Ulster years ago, and which excited much condemna- tion, and, I must say, the severe condemnation, of the First Lord of thi; Treasury, I reiterate now. (Cheers.) Every word ; I take nothing back ; I modify nothing. (Cheers.) 1 used these words in the plainest English sense which could le put upon them. I meant the Ulster people to take them in that sense ; I say them again now. (Cheers.) I do not think that in taking up that p'osition I shall stand alone. I think the bulk of the members of the Unionist party will have gr-iat sympathy, if not more than sympathy, with the resistance which Ulster may offer to the domina- tion of such a body — a body so odious to the people of Ulster — as thnt which you seek to setup. (Cheers.) I think I shall have some sympathy, and perhaps more than sympathy, in these opinions from the Noncon- formist bodies of England and Scotland (cheers), who share not passively but actively the affection of their compatriots and their co-religionists in Ulster for the religious doctrines which they profess as well as for the form of government which they think essential to these doctrines. They, I think, will speak out and act, and I am sure that the party opposite and that a, Government which has the responsioility of governing Ireland would make no more fatal error than to underrate and despise and ridicule the spirit of Ulster. To leave all mention of Ulster out of your Bill, to make no mention of her rights or of her merits, and not to boar in mind at the same time the history of Protestant Ulster is, I think and must be to every fair-minded man, the most craven insult over offered by a Government to a loyal community. (Cheers.) In conclusion, I would say to the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who made a sort of appeal to us the other night to moderate our opposition, and who seemed to think that a compromise on this question was possible, that there can be no compromise, not even the shadow of a shade of a compromise. (Cheers.) Somefimes I fancy, particularly when I hear such an extraordinary proposition as that put forward, that the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues hardly fairly or ade- quately realize the tremendous forces that are arrayed^ and will he arrayed, against their Irish policy. (Cheers.) Here, in the House of Commons, I admit I have never counted on the Unionist party being able to defeat the measure of the right hon. gentleman. (Ministerial cheers.) I recognize that they have a majority and I will not attempt for a moment to analyze the composition of that majority. (Cheers.) A majority of 40 is undoubtedly a majority of 40 (hear, hear), and numerical facts of that kind are rather hard to get over. I have no doubt that variou* motives, honourable and respectable motive*— partly loyalty, partly discipline, the fear of premature dis- solution and long absence from office — will induce that majority, at any rate for some time, to keep itself solid. And therefore I place the House of Commons outside of my consideration and make the right hon. gentleman a present of it. (Laughter.) But I move the issue to other courts of equal and of even greater power. (Cheers.) In the House of Lords (Ministerial laughter and cheers) I think it is possible that the right hon. gentleman and his party may And a very formidable obstacle. (Laughter.) 1 know that the action of the House of Lords on great questions is received with derision by hon. gentlemen opposite, but of this I am perfectly certain, that the peers of England on this emergent and vital occasion will not be frightened either by ridicule or by menace. (Cheers.) What forces have they behind them ? They have behind them some 320 .members of the Unionist party in the House of Commons ; they have behind them the immense majority in the con- stituencies of England. (Cheers.) They will be tightinff, it as I suppose they will fight and oppose your Bill, for the best cause that the peers ever fought for, because they will not be fighting for any class interest, they will not be fighting for an illiberal object, they will not be fighting for any selfish motive, but they will be fighting for the rights of the English people. (Cheers.) I have no fear that in fighting in such a cause as that you will be able to upset and overcome the House of Lords. (Cheers.) But beyond the House of Lords there is a third tribu- nal before which sooner or later all of ns must appear. It is a higher tribunal than either the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and from that tribu- nal there is no appeal. It is before the English con- stituencies that the ultimate issue between us must bo decided. (Cheers.) I look to the people of England OS a sure support. (Cheers.) It is to the operatives of Lancashire ; it is to the miners of York- shire and in the North ; it is to the artisans of the Midlands ; and it is to the tried loyalty of what I may call the almost solid South that I look to give us a majority big enough to overwhelm the party of Eepeal as it exists in its composite form at the present moment. (Cheers.) These classesof the population which I have enumerated know by instinct which is unfailing that their rights are endaufjcred, and I rely upon their determination, on their tenacity, and on their courage to refuse to The Home Rule Bill Lord R.CliurchilL 1^80 House of Commons, February 16, 1893. enrrender to a section of the Irish people English rights upon which the strength of the Empire, the maintenance of their commerce and manufactures, and the safety of their homes absolutely depend. (Cheers.) Never will the English allow any minority whatever, no matter of T«hat nationality, to impair their existence. "The Unionists are, in my sincere opinion, fighting for the life of England. (Cheers.) I know the nature of the English people, and thank God I know that this Bill cannot pass. (Load cheers.) Mr. ROSS said he could not imagine any scheme more ridiculous than that proposed as to the three electoral bodies. It appeared to him that every diffi- culty which was before the House in 1886 was before it agaiui and those difficulties were unsolved and insoluble. He did not understand how any Prime Minister could come down to that House and make such a proposal. It was perfectly clear that the language used indicated that Ministers were in a hopeless state of perplexity at the present time. The attitude of the Prime Minister as to the inclusion or exclusion of the Irish members showed that it was a mere excuse for the shelving of the Bill. They must all recognize the gracious manner in which the Prime Minister introduced the Bill. Having heard him, he could quite conceive and understand the extraordinary fascination which carried all before it and made him almost omnipotent in this country. But he had to look at the matter of the speech. (Hear, hear.) He sincerely believed, whether he was right or wrong, that there never was a more cruel or more unjust measure put before the nation than this Home Rule Bill. He had looked to see what protection there was for minorities. There was really none. They had heard about that extraordinary body the Legisla- tive Council (laughter) and about the veto. This was the unpractical scheme of a man of letters, but it was not the practical scheme of the man of business. If the Executive was in the hands of men they conld not trust, what mattered at all the amiable declarations in an Act of Parliament. (Cheers.) Take as an example the case of men committed for trial on a charge of agrarian muider. What had they seen in the past. He scarcely knew an agrarian case in his experience where a murder was committed in which many hon. members had not thrown every difficulty in the way of the murderers being brought to justice. («' Hear, hear " and " No, no.") The jury, the counsel, and the Judges were vilified, and, indeed, all concerned. (Hear, hear.) Under these circum- stances was it not madness to trust these gentlemen ? Under the Bill there would not be the slightest security for life and property in Ireland. If after the encounter with the Laud League the right hon. gentleman had come down and said, •' I have struggled against them but I am beaten ; and now I propose to hand over to them the control of the police, the judiciary, and the land, I will trust them " — why, the whole civilized world would have been astounded, and yet that was the very thing that the right hon. gentleman was doing now. (Hear, hear.) There might have been some excuse for it then. But since then seven years had elapsed, and Ireland had been freed from agrarian crime and conspiracy. If that was not believed by the right hon. gentleman let him ask the commercial classes in Ireland as to the eilect of the administration of the leader of the Opposi- tion. (Cheers.) They knew the state of the country, and they knew what the object of the Nationalist members was. Their declared object was to make Ireland a nation. (Hear, hear.) The objefct of the right hon. gentleman opposite was to go as far as he could with decency in assisting the Nationalist members to attain that object. This Bill put an end to liberty and to all that made life worth living in Ireland. If one part of the United Kingdom had served the Empire better than another, it was the North of Ireland. It bad done much for English liberty in the past, and had acted a creditable part in the history of the Empire. (Hear, hear.) What had Ulstermen done, he would like to know' that they should be practically cast away ? There was a time when the words of the Prime Minister had the greatest weight in Ulster. There was a time when there was hardly a house in the province in which the right hon. gentleman's portrait was not to be found. There was a time when no one could persuade the people of Ulster better thafi the right hon. gentleman. They had heard all the right hon. gentleman could say in favour of Home Rule, and their determination not to accept Home Rule was unalterable. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman had said that Ulster had not always been of that determination, but all their grievances were removed, and the movement to which the right hon. gentleman referred completely stopped, and from that time up to the present Ulstermen had been as good subjects as any her Majesty possessed. (Hear, hear.) If they had not altered their state of mind ho doubted whether the right hon. gentleman would now have had a British Empire to dismember. (Hear, hear.) It was maintained that the men of Ulster wished to uphold their ascendency. They had never sought for ascendency, and they had never enjoyed an ascendency. (Hear, hear.) They had, on the contrary, always tried to live with their fellow- countrymen on the best of terms, and now they met their reward in a Bill which practically placed them under the feet of a section of their countrymen. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister had again and again assured Ulstermen that he would never cast them off. They relied upon those assurances, and they believed that no politician would go back upon them. He submitted that the reasons which the right hon. gentleman had given for his present attitude were not the real reasons. The real reasons were 82 in munber, the hon. gentlemen who sat below the gangway. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman spoke of autonomy. He said, " Would you not like autonomy ?" What meaning could auto- nomy have in a country in which there were two races of different creeds, with different histories, and, unfortunately, hostile to one another ? It meant thatthe majority would grind down and put under their feet the minority. (Cries of " No, no " and cheers.) Hon. gen- tlemen said, " No, no," but history supported what he said. They all knew what use the Nationalist mem- bers made of an advantage when they got it. They had seen that exemplified in the House of Commons. Those who lived in the country and knew its history were better able to anticipate what would happen under Home Rule than hon. members who had no more knowledge of Ireland than had been gained in passing visits. If Home Rule would be for the gocd of the country, why should not Ulster be the first to support it ? (Hear, hear.) The ministers of the Presbyterian denomination were unanimously against the proposal ("No, no ") and were filled with horror at it, although they had never enjoyed any ascendency. One differ- ence between 1886 and the present year was that the Bill of the former year was accompanied by a LandBill, while now the Prime Minister mentioned the matter in a postscript and reserved the question to this Pari lament for three years, during which time the Irish members The Home Bule Bill. Mr. Bos& House of Commons, February 16, 1893. 381 would claim to remaia here in full force in ordfer to prevent anything being done to get the land question out of the way. That meant that there Wils ultimately to be public plunder, simple robbery, for you could expect nothing else from members who said that land- lords were entitled to nothing moro than a single ticket from Dublin to Holyhead. Besides landlords, there were Protestant tenants who were being con- tinually threatened that former occupiers would return and claim their own land (hear, hear) ; and these Protestant tenants were in a state of great alarm, for those who were immoral enough to plunderlandlords were also immoral enough to plunder tenants. It was an insulting statement by the Chuiicellor of the Duchy that tenants were thinking more about the reduction of .their rents than about Home Rule, for in the north of Ireland tenants regarded this measure with abhor- rence and fear ; and they were in a state of terror that had not existed in Ireland during this century. As to the Judges, questions were now put in this House with the object of bringing obloquy upon them; and what sort of men were the Judges likely to be when they were appointed by the hon. members around him ' Was it likely that their police would be tolerated in Ulster at all ? The proceedings in Coin- mittee-room No. 15 revealed the fact that present con- cessions were to be regarded as instalments only« The Meatb election petitions had proved that clerical influence, most obnoxious to Ulster,- wa6 still supreiiie. The priests held that the treatment of heretics and education still came within the domain of morals ; and it was shocking to hear with what oOld-blooded indifference that statement was received by Badicai members. If it was proposed to put under clerical power the people of South Edinburgh, the flight of the hon. member for that cotistituency Would be meteoric. (Laughter.) If Nationalist members were inclined to save Ulster from it, they had no more power than the bubbles on a stream had to dam it. (Hear, hear.) Tho hon. member for Water- ford should be the last man to talk of having no fear on this score after the treatment he and his party had received, which had been barbarous, cowardly, and mean. Language had been applied to them which had not been applied to any party before ; and they appeared to have forgiven it in a Christian spirit, although they were now sensitive to what appeared in print about them. Their forgiveness could not be relied upon, particularly when hon. members had the appdintment of Judges. In Canada it was fouud that the Eoinan Catholics so oppressed the minority of Protestants that Lord Dufferih was obliged to throw in the Protestant province of Ontario, and in that way, not to make a division, but to create a union, in order tt> maintain individual liberty. There was no parallel to be found in the whole of history for the treatment which tho Government would inflict on Ulster by carrying this measure. Let hon. members, if they cotild, show a Single case in history of a great nation being so mean as to hand over a small colony, which it had itself planted, to a hostile power ? Everything possible had been done to slip through this Bill, and for this pul-pose even crime was being suppressed in Ireland, and that suppression was being carried out by persons who were as unfamiliar with the process as Satan was with the singing Of fsalms. (Laughter and cheers.) It had been said that this Bill was a great and generous concession to Ireland, but that concession was a sacriflee made at the expense of the people of Ulster. He believed that if England could be induced — though he could not think it possible— to thus betray the people of Ulster into the hands of those who were hostile to them, a people who had been faith- ful to her through many centuries, she would never again hold any fame or character among the nations of the world. (Cheers.) They could not for- get the words of the hon. member for East Mayo — that " when they got the power in Ireland they would weigh out rewards and punishments," nor the words Of the hon. member for Cork county — that " when tho power was in their bands they would deal with those gentry," meaning the people of the north. Yet these were the men, who had never shown any tolerance towairds their opponents, to whom the people of Ulster were to be handed over tied hand and foot. He ventured to say it would not be possible for any nation, however great, to survive such a betrayal with honour. (Cheers.) Mr. ATHBKLEY-JONES said that there could ba but one feeling of satisfaction on both sides of tha House at seeing the noble lord the member ol Faddington once more in his place. No one who had listened to his brilliant speech could feel anything else but pleasure at seeing him once again from the front Opposition bench taking part in the debates of that House. (Hear, hear.) He did not intend ta follow tho noble lord through his speech, but there was one observation of the noble lord which he was bound to say filled him with some amazenient. In endeavouring to establish his proposition that the Bill of the right hon. gentleman the leader of the Houea was a Bill tantainount to the repeal of the Union, the noble lord stated that the Act of Union was not, as argued by his right hon, friend the leader of th# House a measure for securing the unity of the sovereignty, but a measure for securing the unity Of Parliament. He respectfully submitted that his right hon. friend was literally accurate when he described it as a measure for securing the unity of the sovereignty. The Irish Parliament was a Parliament of co-ordinate jurisdiction and power with the British Parliament. It had the same power and control not only over domestic affairs, but over Imperial affairs. It was in all respects, he repeated, a Parliament of co-ordinate power, and the sovereignly was a sovereignty not of the Crown^ but of the Imperial Parliament in conjunction with the Crown. The object of the Act of Union was that the Irish Parliament should cease to be a co-ordinate authority, and that Parliament should be a unified authority, the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. There had beeii a free expression of opinion on tha Bill from all sections of the House excepting the Liberal Section to which he belonged. In 1886 there was a free expression of opinion from the Liberal benches, and he believed that if opinions were expressed freely now the Government would be aided in their task. Speaking, not as a rebellious Liberal, but as an independent member of the Liberal party, he wished to put on record his respectful protest against the postponement of the solution of this great politi" cal difficulty for a further indefinite period. Tha question ought to bo solved with the greatest expedi. tion possible on lines that were likely to secure a permanent settlement. In creating a new Constitu- tion for Ireland it was their duty to take care that their plan would not paralyze the administrative oi legislative powers of the existing Constitution of Great Britain. In his opinion the time for discussing the expediency of Heine Bule was passed. The rigW hon. gentleman at the head of the Opposition, whc had controlled Ireland for some years with couragt and fortitude, had not brought the question an; The Home B.nle Bill^ Mr. Boss. 382 House of Commons, February 16, 1893. nearer a satisfactory settlement. There were 81 substantial reasons on the benches opposite that rendered it impossible to settle this question by any other measure than one of Home Kule. The measure could not be defeated ultimately, and therefore it was the duty of the House to settle the matter in a spirit of moderation and mutual compromise. He held that by the proposed plan the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was absolutely secured. He admitted that the reto of the Lord Lieutenant on the advice of the Executive Committee of the Privy Council of Ire- land was an illusory veto, but there was a really potential veto — namely, that which could be exer- cised on the advice of the Ministers representing the Imperial Parliament. That veto was sufficient to insure that no measure int7 a vires of the statutory Legislature would affect injuriously the interests of any class of her Majesty's Irish subjects. There were in addition other guarantees, for the Imperial Parlia- ment retained control over the education of the people, over religious establishments, over customs, and over trade and navigation and other matters. One part of the Bill to which he objected was the provision that the land question should be reserved to the Imperial Parliament for three years. He believed that if the Irish people were to be trusted at all they ought to be trusted wholly, and that they would deal fairly and justly with the land question notwithstand- ing some indiscreet platform utterances. One of the dhief reasons that had been put forward in support of the policy of Home Rule was the extreme desirability of settling the land question in an Irish Parliament. •Bat there were also reasons affecting England against this plan of reservation. If the land question were reserved for three years the Imperial Parliament would for that time be occupied with Irish Bills, such as an evicted tenants Bill, a reduction of rents Bill, and a Bill for the extension of the Ashbourne Acts. It was because he believed in the policy of broad and generous trust in the Irish people that he was in favour of an attempt in Committee on the Bill to secure that the land question should not be reserved to the Imperial Parliament. As to the retention of the Irish members, be had never since 1886 hesitated to concur in what the First Lord of the Treasury had then stated on the subject, for he was satisfied that their retention must mean that there might be in domestic affairs a majority for the English Ministry, but in Imperial affairs a majority against them. Ho admitted that the Irish members were the arbiters of the destiny of the Government, but England had a reciprocal right to interfere in the affairs of Ireland, and could pass domestic legislation for that country. We might as well import into this House 80 French Deputies or 80 members of the Keichsrath as to permit 80 Irish members to have control over our affairs and to participate in oar domestic affairs. (Opposition cheers.) He was glad that the leader had left this matter an open question (Opposition laughter), and bo hoped that his views, which were the views of some of his fellow Liberals, might ultimately commend themselves to the wisdom of the House. There was a still greater danger and difficulty in the retention of the Irish members in that it was the first stop, and a very long step, towards federation, for Scotch and Welsh members would clamour for the concession of Home Rule. (Opposition cheers.) He was in favour of Home Kule for Ireland because he believed it was an absolute political necessity ; but he was strongly opposed to Home Rule for Scot- laud and Wales, for it' was entirely uncongenial to the spirit of democracy. (Opposition laughter.) It was necessary that the Irish members should have control over Imperial matters, but he thought it might be possible to formulate some scheme by which, in respect of any financial obligation, it might be possible to consult tho Irish Parliament, and with the result of that consultation to arrive in the Imperial Parliament at a just and right conclusion. (Hear, hear.) Mr. E. M'HUGH said the hon. members from Ulster opposed this Bill not from patriotic, but from selfish motives, for they had had everything that had been denied to the Catholics of Ulster, whom they oppressed. There was not in the world a more tolerant lot of men than the Catholic priests ot Ireland, and in the south, where the Protestants were in a minority, no case had ever been brought forward in which they had acted in an intolerant or unjust manner. (Opposition laughter.) The Irish Unionists did not care a straw for the integrity of the Empire, but only for the integrity of the landlords (hear, hear), and their fear was that they would be treated in the same way as they had treated the Catholic minority in Ulster. (Hear, hear.) So far as the Catholics of Ulster were concerned the penal laws might never have been removed from the Statute-book, for they were in full force there. Although the Catholic population in Belfast was 70,000, the Catholics were practically excluded from the Poor Law board and the city council. The city council contained 40 elected members, not one ot whom was a Catholic. There were 89 officials connected with the council, receiving salaries amounting to £17,000 a year, and only two were Catholics, arid they were only scavengers. (Laughter.) In the petty sessions all the high officials wero Protestants, and on the Asylums Board the balance had been redressed a little only lately by the present Chief Secretary. And yet the Tory members for Ulster talked of intolerance. (Cheers.) There was no part of the world where there was so much bigotry and intolerance as in Ulster, It was stated that Ulster was prosperous because she was Protostant. That was a fallacy. Ulster had always been the petted child of England, and while every effort was made to suppress the industries ot the South of Ireland, no less than £1,600,000 was paid to Ulster to encourage her manufactures. The linen trade of Ulster did not happen to compete with any British trade ; but the cotton trade did, and it was crushed out of existence. (Hear, hear.) The farmers of Ulster, moreover, had always had a tenant right, and had been able to sell the goodwill of their farms. It was urged that if Home Rule wore passed all financial securities would depreciate. But previous to the Liberal Government coming into power the Irish Great Northern Railway stock was at 126, and now it was at 143. (Cheers.) Tho people of Ulster believed as firmly as the Nationalists that the Homo Rule Bill would pass. (Cheers and cries of " Oh.") It would be » great step in righting the wrong of centuries, and it would be viewed by the Irish people over the ocean even with greater satisfaction than by the people at home. (Hear, hear.) Mr. W. KENNY said that as the representa- tive of one of the five seats won from the National- ists he wished to tell the House what tho 4, GOO Unionists who were his constituents thought of the Home Rule Bill. The St. Stephen's-green Division was one of those scattered constituencies outside Ulster who looked to tho British people for protection against tho Home Rule Bill, and which would call upon the House of Commons to stand The Home Enle Bill. Mr. Atherley-Jones, House of Commons, February 16, 1893. 383 between them and the dangers which the Bill would inevitably produce. His constituency protested as strongly against the initial principle of Home Eule, and against every detail of the measure which was proposed, as Belfast, Londonderry, or any other part of Ulster. (Cheers.) The existence of a Unionist minority outside Ulster was a fact to be reckoned with. (Hear, hear.) It cannot be got rid of. (Hear, bear.) Unless the Imperial Parliament interfered in their behalf, the Irish loyalists would be left alone in the fight. The loyal minority in Ireland represented all the intelli- gence and the wealth of that counti^. (" Hear, hear," and Nationalist ironical cheers and laughter.) That was the way that the Irish loyalists were always treated by the Nationalist party — they were met not by arguments, but by taunts and jeers. (Hear, hear.) The constituency that he represented consisted chiefly of business men, of the largest merchants in Dublin — men of position and wealth. They had looked at this qaestion most carefully ; they had considered with attention the right hon. gentleman's Bill of 1«86 ; they had weighed his statement of last Mon- day, and they remained unaltered in their determi- nation to oppose this Bill with all their strength and with all their might. (Hear, hear.) They had looked upon this measure from the very practical point of view of how it would alJect their positioh as traders, and they had come to the conclusion that it was fra-ight with the utmost danger to the commercial interests of their country. (Hear, hear.) The Unionists of Ireland were most anxious that this Home Eule question should be finally settled one way or the other, because the result of this agitation had been to largely interfere with trade, while it put a stop to beneficial legislation. They felt, however, that there was no element of finality in the right hon. gentleman's measure. (Hear, hear.) It proposed to permit agita- tion with regard to the Irish laud question to continue unchecked for the next three years, and, in their view, the Bill would merely accentuate that agitation. The right hon. gentleman in the wonderful speech with which he charmed the House last Monday contrasted his policy of 1886 and of the present time with that of the late Government, and said that, while he offered Ireland a policy of autonomy, the right hon. gentle- iran the leader of the Opposition had offered that eounti7 a policy of coercion only. In the first place coercion was merely the equivalent expression fur a policy of the suppression of crime, but independently of such a policy her Majesty's late Government had undoubtedly introduced many measures which had largely conduced to the adyaucement and the prosperity ot Ireland. (" Hear, bear," and Nationalist laughter.) The question was, Had Ireland prospered under the rule of the late Government ? Under that Goveroment the deposits in the Irish joint-stock banks had increased from £29,000,000 in 1885 to £345, .532,000 in 1891, while the balances in the Irish Post Office Savings-bank had increased from £4,710,000 in 1885 to £5,932,000 in 1891. The Irish railway receipts, which were £2,751,000 in 1886, had risen to £3,146,000 in 1891. On the other hand, the number of paupers in Ireland, which was 633,000 in 1886, had fallen to 455,000 in 1890. These were practical tests that could properly he applied to show the improvement that had taken place in the condi- tion of the country mider a so-called coercion rule. (Hear, hear.) It was said that this improvement in the condition of the country was due to the anticipa- tions that were entertained that'Home Rule was about to be obtained' ; but, on the contrary, the value of the stock of the various Irish banks and railways had fallen considerably between 1885 and 1886, when it was feared that a Home Bule Bill was about to be passed. Since the latter date, however, the value of those stacks had regained its former level, and why ? Not because the people of the country believed that Home Eule was about to be given to them, but because the Irish Unionists had finally made up their minds that a Home Bule Bill would never be passed. (" Hear, hear," and Nationalist laughter.) Hon. gentlemen might laugh at that statement, hut if they were only to ask the merchants in Ireland whether they expect that this Bill is about to bo voted for by English members they would learn that, in the opinion of the merchants, such a thing was never likely to come to pass. The Prime Minister, in his introductory speech, complained that the late Government had made their so-called Coercion Act of 1887 permanent in some respects. He did not know whether the present Secretary of State for War, who was formerly Chief Secretary for Ireland, would join in that complaint, for he would remind that right hon. gentleman of the opinion he had expressed in October, 1885, that in certain parts of Ireland the ordinary jurymen could not be trusted to do their duty, mainly owing to the overbearing system of terror under the National Leagae, and he said that in order to uphold the arm of justice in Ireland it wag necessary to make the special jury clauses part of the permanent law of the land. Did he now join in the Prime Minister's complaint ? Mr. GAMPBELL-BANNEKMAN.— The Crimes Act was not invented then, much less passed. (Irish cheers.) Mr. W. KBNNy remarked that the principle was the same. (Cheers.) But he supposed that the right hon. gentleman had now changed his opinions. Mr. CAMPBBLL-BANNBEMAN.— Not in the least. Mr. W. KENNY said that in that case therighthon. gentleman, he supposed, did not join with the Prime Minister's complaint as to the permanency of certain clauses of the Crimes Act, 1887. Another member of the Cabinet, the present Secretary for Scotland, who had also formerly been Chief Secretary to tho L(H'd Lieutenant, speaking at Galashiels in tha year 1886, had stated that the Government had determined to maintain the law in Ireland, and with this object they proposed to make part of the perma- nent law, in Ireland as in Scotland, certain pro- visions as to trial by jury and change of venue. In face of those declarations by two members of the present Cabinet, were not the Unionists of Ireland fully justified in maintaining that these provisions in the Crimes Act of 1887 ought to remain upon the Statute-book as part of the permanent law of the land. He would now proceed to make a few remarks upon the proposals contained in the Bill itself. Tho country had expected that light would be thrown upon two essential particulars — first, as to the safe- guarding of minorities ; and, secondly, as to what system could be devised, except the federal system or complete repeal of the Union, to enable the Irish members to be retained at Westminster. In 1886 it was pointed out that there was no half-way house between these two propositions, if the Irish members were to be retained. The right hon. gentleman had to endeavour to eflect that which the Unionists regarded as impossible — to reconcile what was wholly irreconcilable. The secret that had been so well kept was one that was scarcely worth keeping. If this mass of incongruity had been put The Home Rule BilL Mr. W. Kenny. 384 House of Commons, February 16, 1893. before the country at the general • election the tight hon., gentleman would never have obtained his present majority. He had endeavoured to consult the feelings of two parties — the gas and water party and that which was known as the Pamellite party. What were the safeguards that the right hon. gentle- man proposed in the interests of the minority in Ireland ? The right hon. gentleman seemed to have no confidence in the legislative body which he proposed to set up ; for he proposed to keep from them for some years the appointment of Judges, the control of the police, and so on. Under the £20 franchise, he did not believe that in the Legislative Council the Unionists would command B number exceeding 14 or 15. (Nationalist cries of " Oh.") Therefore what protection would the minority get in the Legislative Council under the safe- guard of the £20 franchise ? It was said that a further safeguard would be the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament ; but the 80 Irish members would turn the Government out of office for daring to ajjply the Imperial veto where the Lord Lieutenant had refused to apply it in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) The result of the absence of efficient safeguards would be that there would be absolutely no protection for minorities iri Ireland, whether those minorities existed in tJlster or constituted part of the Catholic community throughout the rest of Ireland. The right hon. gentleman said the question of the retention of the Irish members in the Imperial Parliament was a mere organic detail. They asserted, on the contrary, that it was not an organic detail, but an essential and vital principle of the Bill (cheers), and hon. gentlemen must understand that upon the second reading they would have to vote either for the retention or for the exclusion of the Irish members. (Hear, hear.) Were the Irish members to come there at intervals or to remain the whole Session ? Were they to be about the House, to be called in whenever an Imperial (matter arose, or Were they to come there only at intervals' — to be tele- graphed for whenever an Imperial question arose ? (Hear, hear.) Did hon. gentlemen expect that there was to be any finality about this measure ? In his opinion the Bill would really be the lever and the basis for further agitation in the Imperial Parliament. The first proposal that would be made within a v«ry short time if this Bill passed would be directed to whittle away a large proportion of the Customs revenue of £2,370,000. The Irish members would then find the two^Bxchequer Judges in Dublin an intolerable nuis- ance, and they would get rid of them, election peti- tions being at the same time transferred to Judges of their own appointment ; and finally, there would be an agitation in that House, to allow Ireland to have a distinctive trade policy of her own. (Hear, hear.) He had no doubt that in a very short time a scheme would be submitted which would permit the Irish Legislature to impose protective duties and offer bounties in Ireland. Prom conversations which he had had with Qladstonian friends in Ireland he gathered that they favoured Home Eule because of the pro- tection which could be extended to Irish industries and of the bounties which could be oflfered to them. There were two questions as to which he should like to receive some information. One was the question of appeals from Ireland. The House had not been told ■whether there would he a provision in the Bill for the retention of the House of Lords as the final Court of Appeal in civil matters in Ireland, or what was to be the final Court of Appeal. He should also lite to know whether the Irish Executive was to have the power of releasing prisoners like the Phoenix Park conspiracy prisoners now in Iri.sh gaols. He referred to a letter written in December last by the hon. member for Cardiff in which it was pointed out that the recent change of Government had been effected by the Irish votes, and that the Government owed its existence to Irish votes and was dependent on them. He appealed to hon. members who agreed with the view of the hon. member for Cardiff, and with those who believed that the Irish members were in fact the masters of the Prime Minister, to think twice before they imposed such a measure as this on Irish Unionists. (Cheers.) Mr. LABOUCHBKE said the hon. member had told the House that he represented a body of men possess- ing exceptional intelligence and wealth. (-Laughter.) That might possibly b# the case, but it did not follow that because one man was wiser and richer than another that he coiinted for two. The hon. member also said that he represented 4,600 constituents, but he found in " Dod " that the hon. niember was elected by 2,878 votes, and that against him were 3,488 of the non-intelligent and non-rich. (Laughter.) Mr. W. KENNY said the hon. member was looking at the register of last year. The register had slightly improved since then. (" Oh, oh, " and laughter.) Now the majority in his favour was 781. Mr. LABOUCHERB said that he preferred to look at the election figures and not at vague facts about the register. The hon. member had treated the House to a great deal of finance. It was a remarkable fact that in 1885 the House was told that Home Eule would ruin Ireland, and the proof was that the public securities had gone down. They were now told that Home Rule would ruin Ireland because the public securities had gone up. (Laughter.) The hon. member also pointed out as one of the advantages which had followed the Irish Administl'ation of the late Govern- ment that the balances in the savings banks had increased. But the hon. member did not appear to know that on account of certain Land Acts opposed by the Tories the money which used to go into the pockets of the landlords now went into the savings banks. (Cheers.) He thought that the House was glad once again to hear the voice of the noble lord the member for South Padditigton. (Cheers.) Owing, however, to no fault of the noble lord's, he thought that much had not been added to the stock of arguments already brought forward on both sides. (" Oh, oh," and cheers.) The noble lord was per- petually saying, ' ' I want to know whether this or that is in the Bill ?" Considering that the Bill would be in print on Saturday, it seemed to him to be more reasonable to wait until it was before them before endeavouring to extract information on points of detail from Ministers with regard to it. But he understood that the noble lord was utterly opposed in principle to any scheme of Home Bule. (Lord B. Churchill assented.) That being so, his criticism appeared to be deprived of a good deal of its value. But he thought the noble lord would recognize that in whatever Bill the prin- ciples of Home Bule might haye been embodied the mode in which that Home Bule was intended to be carried out in Ireland would have met with criticisms not only from him but from others who agreed with him. Of course this was a most complicated matter ; it was very much like trying to put a square peg into a round hole, (Opposition cheers,) The angles of the peg would remain ; they could not get a fit theoreti- cally perfect, but their great object should be to get the best fit that was possible under the circumstances. The noble lord told the House of many dangers that would accrue to the Empire if Home Rule were Tlie Home Rule BUL Mr. W. Kenny. House of Commons, February 16, 1893. 383 granted j tut they might prevent every species of reform by exaggerating dangers. He had never heArd a great reform advocated without being told that it would utterly submerge and destroy the Empire, and he had not yet known any of these prognosticatious being fulfilled when the reform had been passed. He thought this Bill, assuming that it was desirable to give effect to the principle of Home Knle, was a great effort of legislative art on the part of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman had fully recognized the difficulties and had dealt with them in the most successful manner. It must be remembered that they had to choose between two alternatives. When the last Bill was before the House the Unionists told them that there was a third course — some species of local government for Ireland ; but that course had entirely disappeared. (Cries of " No.") The, noble lord made a great point of the fact that, whereas the Liberals had a majority in the United Kingdom, the majority in England was opposed to Home Enle. But surely that was a strange argument for a Unionist to use. He had been imder the impression that the Unionists held that there was to be no distinction in the Imperial Parliament. The noble lord seemed to think that the entire country had not decided at the late election in favour of Home Kule. Would he point out one member on the Liberal side who had shirked the question ? It was true that other issues were put forward, but that was the case at every election. If they had the Beferendum they could ask the country to decide solely on Home Kule, but so long as they had the present system they must submit a variety of issues to the people. The Liberals had a majority, and if ever a majority had a mandate from the country he asserted that the present majority had that niandate. (Laughter.) The noble lord had tried to frighten them about Ulster. It was not the first time he had tried to frighten them about Ulster. The.noble lord told them that he knew from his personal experience that Ulster would fight. But surely his personal experience was limited to the fact that the Ulster people siiid that they would fight, and that they knew was a very different thing. (Cheers.) He thought that the people of Ulster would as soon as there was a Parlia- ment in Ireland rally altnost unanimously to that Parliament. (Cheers and cries of " No.") He had not been in Ulster himself (hear, hear), but BO far as he could understaad the position, the farmerei there were up in arms against judicial rents. (Laughter.) When these Ul'ter farmers found that there was an Irish Parliament ready to do them justice with regard to their landlords, they would soon desert Lord Londonderry and his friends and rally to the Parliament which would give them security. Then the noble lord the member for Pad- dington told the House that it had no right to call on the people of Ulster to change their allegiance. Surely they had already changed their allegiance ? They changed it when the Union was carried. Before that they owed it to the Irish Parliament. The Bill would enable them to revert to their original alle- giance. Did hon. members on the Opposition side suggest that Ulster should be left out of the Irish Parliament? ("No.") What did it amount to? All Ireland, except a portion of Ulster, was in favour of Home Rule. The majority of the United Kingdom was in favour of Home Bule, and were these Ulster people to impose their veto on the verdict of the United Kingdom. (Cheers.) That would be Ulster rule with a vengeance. They were not to do justice simply because Ulster was opposed to it. (An hon. member. — Half of Ulster.) Yes. In the last Parlia- ment the majority from Ulster was in favour of Home Bule, in the present Parliament the majoi:ity was slightly against it ; in the next Parliament, very likely, the majority would be largely in favour of it. He ridiculed the terrors of the noble lord the member for Paddington, and, proceeding, he declared that he regarded tb6 Bill as a very good Bill ; a vely good basis to go into Committee upon (iroflical laughter), because a great deal was left open to the Committee. The Government asked to be assisted by the House. For his part he tendered his services. (Loud laughter.) The Bill in the main was a thoroughly good Bill. He was not going to pin him- self down to all the details. He was in favour of one chamber, but if there were to be two he was in favour of both being elected on the same franchise, with a difference only in areas.' Then if the Irish were fit to look after the land in three years he could not see why they should not look after it now. He suspected they wanted to get some more English money. No Government would venture to propose any more land purchase Bills. (Hear, hear.) What they wanted was a Commission for the revision of judicial rents. They had heard a reference to the Argentine Kepnblic, but surely there was some difference between that and the United Kingdom. With regard to the position of the Irish members at Westminster, that question would, no doubt, be raised in Committee. He entirely agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that his scheme was not a very good one (laughter), and it would be infinitely better to exclude the Irish members under certain limita- tions entirely. He did not make these criticisms in any hostile spirit to the Bill. They were fair subject for discussion in Committee, and he thought the deci- sion of the Committee ought to be accepted by all Home Bulers. (Ironical Opposition cheers.) He should always accept those decisions, whether they were for or against him. (Opposition cheers.) It was of paramount importance that a Home Rule Bill should be passed as soon as possible. The noble lord the member for Paddington tried to terrify them about the House of Lords. He told them the House of Lords was going to defend the liberties of England by act- ing counter to the will of the people. He had never understood why 500 or 600 gentlemen should be allowed to interfere with the decisions of the repre- sentatives of the people, and, if they did, he thought they would find that there was sufficient force in the democracy to put an end to their existence. It was perfectly monstrous that the decision of the House of Commons should not be recognized and accepted by the House of Lords. That would be admitted on all sides. (Opposition laughter.) In the meantime, he would suggest to the Prime Minister, if the Lords threw out the Bill, that he should throw over some of the Estimates to an autumn Session and tack Home Rule on to the Appropriation Bill. (Laughter.) That, he thought, was a simple solution of the difficulty. He would assure the Government that, no matter what course they took against the action of the House of Lords, they would be supported by the entire demo- cracy of the country. (Hear, hear.) He thought the Bill was a good Bill, though it might with advantage receive certain modifications in Committee. The Radicals throughout the country would recognize thai the Bill dealt with the difficulty in regard to Ireland efficiently, and would give it their cordial support. (Cheers.) COLONEL WARING was sure that his hon. and amusing friend who had just sat dow& wotald not The Home Eule Bill. Mr. Labouchere. 386 House of Commons, February 16, 1893. expect him to follow his speech in detail. His hoD. friend boldly begged the whole question, and proceeded to argoe upon it, in assuming that a Home Rule Bill was desirable. Thehon. gentleman said it was remark- able that Irish securities had not fallen as they did in 1886. They had not fallen, for the very simple reason that financial men in Ireland had not the slightest belief of the ability, and perhaps the desire, of the Government to pass the Bill. (Cheers.) It was said that no Liberal candidate had shirked the question of Home Bnle at the general election. He did not say that they did, but he was certain that, if they did not shirk it, each described it in such terms ss he thought would suit the audience he was address- ing ; and no two candidates put it forward in exactly the same light and exactly the same form. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend asked what Ulstermen wanted. They wanted to be let alone. (Cheers.) When he spoke of Ulster, he meant political and not geographical TTlstcr. It seemed to be forgotten that the House of Lords was a part of the British Constitu- tion, and the House of Commons bad no more power to abolish it than the House of Lords had to abolish the House of Commons. The Prime Minister said the Irish members had been mute during the last seven years ; but had they told their constituents they had been mute ? If they had been mute, the newspapers had displayed a wonderfully fertile invention. Did Scotch members consider that Scotland was degraded by the Union ? If they did, they had never said so. If Ireland had not equality of laws with Great Britain, the inequality had been in favour of Ireland, and England and Scotland might well wish to suffer from similar inequality. Clergymen of the Church of England could not sit in this House, presumably because they were represented by the Bishops in the House of Lords ; and by the 10th of G.eorge IV. a priest of the Church of Rome was incapable of sitting in the House of Commons. Would a similar disability apply to priests in the Irish House of Commons ? The Irish Parliament would be under the control of the Koman Catholic hierarchy. Would it be possible for Archbishop Walsh and Bishop Nulty to occupy in the Irish House positions analogous to those of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House ? The Prime Minister said that Ulster had changed its opinion about Home Rule since the Union. It bad changed its opinion once in a century ; but how often had the right hon. gentle- man changed his opinions in half a century ? In 1836 the right hon. gentleman supported the Established Church in Ireland, and said that English Pl'otestants ought to maintain the Protestant religion there. Now he proposed to put the Protestants of Ireland under the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The right hon. gentleman said that England was not to be driven from Home Rule by menaces ; and Ulster would not be converted to it by menaces whether expressed or implied. The right hon. gentleman certainly spoke of the Irish Parliament having separate and independent power like other Legislatures of the Empire ; and it was rather difficult to reconcile that position with other parts of his speech. The right hon. gentleman said the settlement was to be a real one ; but, how long was it to last ? A generation ? No ; in 15 years it was to be open to revision. That was a pitfall and a snare. Then, again, as to the two Chambers and their proposed constitution, he contended that with the proportion of representation that would be in operation no more protection would be given to the minority than if there was one Cham- ber only. (Hear, hear.) The people of Ulster had always regarded Home Rule as Rome Rule, and the election petitions in Meath had amply demonstrated that they were right in this view. Ulster disregarded equally the threats, curses, and blessings of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Nationalists, but at the same time those threats and curses were cal- culated to give the people of Ulster little confidence in the fair and tolerant treatment they would receive from a Parliament in Dublin under the domination of those so hostile to them. As the Ulster people and members rejected the Bill of 1S86 with its so-called safeguards, so they would unite with all their power to reject the present Bill, which was shorn of all safeguards for the minority. (Cheers.) He asked the Secretary of State for War to inform the House whether or not the railitarj in Ireland would he under the control of the Irish Parliament or the Lord Lieutenant, who would be directed by his responsible Ministers in Ireland. This Parliament would be a Roman Catholic Parliament dominated by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and yet English Radicals, sons of British freemen, proposed to commit the loyalists of Ireland to a tyranny which they them- selves would never for a moment submit to ! (Cheers.) Would they submit to be governed by a Parliament under the dictation . of any Archbishop, Pope, or ecclesiastic whatever ? He felt very much inclined to apply to those who supported the right hon. mem- ber for Mid Lothian the Scriptural denunciation : — ** Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men ; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Laughter.) This yoke, which their fathers broke 200 years ago, was one to which the loyali.«ts would never bow their necks. Their protests, which right hon. gentlemen opposite wore i?leased to call idle words, were, in truth, the first murrnurings of a storm which would drive them and their party on the lee shore of indelible infamy. (Cheers.) Mr. CAMPBKLL-BANNERMAN.— There may bo some members of the House, and I am among the number, who think that this debate is somewhat of a contravention of the ordinary practice of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) But I think we need not, regrety at all events, the time which has been spent upon the subject to-night, because we have listened to one or two most remarkable speeches. We heard a speech from an hon. member below the gang- way who is himself a merchant in Belfast, and who, therefore, from the very heart and core of loyal Ulster, was able to give a strong adhesion to the principle of the Bill. (Hear, hear.) On the other baud, we heard a very lively speech from the hon. member for Londonderry opposing the Bill upon a pure and simple Home Rule argument. For what did he say ? Ho said, pointing with an air of scorn to these benches, " What do you know of Ireland ? What tusinefs have you to legislate for Ireland ? It is we who know Ireland and not you." That is the very reason why we advocate Home Rule. (Cheers.) Then we had a very long speech from the member for the St. Stephen' s-green Division, and as he made reference to me and quoted some expressions of mine I will let him into a secret and will make him an offer. The secret is this — the particular position which when Chief Secretary for Ireland and up to this day I have always held is that what would have more effect than any other thing in obtaining in a right aed proper manner verdicts from jurors would be the adoption of the ordinary common-sense Scotch practice of allowing, juries to return a verdict by a majority. Ilie Home Bale Bill. Colonel Waring. House of Commons, February 16, 1893. 387 (Hear, hear.) I only regret that I have never met an English or Irish lawyer who did not look upon that as rank heresy. (Alaugh.) The hon. and learned gentleman referred also to certain provisions in the Bill of last year which he said were similar to what was to he found in the Bcotch law. There is, I admit, a bastard resemblance. (Hear, hear.) Well, the offer I will make the hon. and lea ned gentleman is that if he will apply the Scotch law in its entirety I will give him my hearly suppoit. (Bear, hear.) 'i'hen we have had a lively speecli from the hon. member for North- ampton, who^e ingenuity aud candour as well as the sweet reasouabL neis which distinguishes his character we all admire. (Laughter.) My hon. friend gave a cordial and loyal support to the Bill. Bat, chiefly, we have hal the speech of the noble lord the member for l^addington, which ca/me as a refreshing influence upon us, and as we listened to a somewhat dreary debate we rejoiced to hear the noble lord's voice again in the House. I have called the noble lord's Breech ** refreshing," because he speaks with a certain show of authority on the Opposition benches, though we are not quite sure how far that authority titfuds. He was the first member who interposed in the debate who has been able to oppose the measure and state his reasons for opposing it without proceed- ing to traduce the character and malign the motives of the Irish members. (Cheers.) That is what we expected from the noble lord. We had reason to know, or to suspect, in the last Parliament, that the noble lord gave only a chastened approval to — perhaps he regarded with somo positive dislike — a great deal of the policy of the then Irish Secretary. LOUD R. OHUKOHILL expressed dissent. Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.— Well, we had the suspicion, then. (Hear, hear.) I was going to say that he made very few open signs. The noblb lord was able during those years wonderfully to curb his natural im- petuosity , thou^h he occasionally indited a vigorous letter to T he Times . (Hear, hear.) I donot, however, re- member any occasion iowhich he allowed himj^elf to go into the division lobty, but we all had the idea that he was more or less a dissenting party. At all events, the noble lord has this to say — that he has never been one who has founded his opinion upon that unworthy distrust of the Irish people to which I have alluded, and he was able to criticize this and other measures without founding himself in the smallest degree upon a depreciation of that people. (Cheers.) 1 have often asked myself in the course of this debate and of others what would be my feeling as a Scotchman if I sat here and listened to the things said of my country- men and my country which Irish members have been obliged to listen to when said of their country and of themselves, especially if those things were said by Scotchmen. (( heers.) What should I have said it I had seen Englishman after Englishman — and, thank goodness, I have never seen thtm^gettiug up and priding themselves on knowing all about Scot- land, all their knowledge being friimdcd upon a summer holiday tour in the Highlands ? (Hear, hear.) What should we say if in such circumstances a tendency to every sort of mischief were imputed to us? Did the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition think that he was assisting in the promo- tion of good feeling between the two countries under any conceivable system of government when he rose the other night and went throiigh the whole gamut of misconduct and mischief which an Irish Executive could commit and called for safeguards against them ? His ar(.umei,t implied that if the Irish Legislature and Executive were not checked they would tyrannize over the constabulary, degrade the Judges, ruin the Civil service, and plunder the landlords. (Opposition cheers.) " Hear, hear " cry hon. members who are simple enough to be led by wild language into a belief that these things are likely to happen. Mr. BALFOUR. — I did not so much prophecy about the future as quote the past. (C'heers and laughter.) Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.— As to plundering the landlords, have they not been plundered in the past, and, if they have been subjected to plunder, who was responsible ? Not hon. members below the gang- way opposite. (Cries of " Yes," and Nationalist cheers.) What power had they to do it ? No, this Imperial House of Commons was responsible (Nation- alist cheers), and who has been the most rcTcent aad the most extreme contributor to that process of plunder hut the right hon. gentleman himself ? Mr. BALFOUR. — I do not rise to argue the point, hat I wish to say that the right hon. gentleman has misinterpreted my interruption aud my speech. What I alluded to was not the action of Parliament, but the speeches and threats of Irish representatives ; aud my argument was that wheu those same gentle- men had the power to carry out their threats they might be trusted to do so. ^Cheers.) Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.— Well, if this is the measure of the commonsense and statesmanship and knowledge of the world of the right hon. gentle- man, I am very much disappointed, because he ought to know that the exaggerated language sometimes used in days of stress and strife and turmoil by excited politicians in Ireland is no proof of any defi- nite purpose. (Opposition cries of " Oh," and laughter.) At any rate, our argument as opposed to the right hon. gentleman's assertion is this — that the best preventive of excited language and extreme action is to invest the Irish people with a degree of public responsibility. (Hear, hear.) Does the right hon. gentleman not see that, in bringing these strong, accusations against three-fourths or four-fifths of the Irish people, he really uses an argument that recoils upon himself, because, if the Irish people were really so incapable of governing and controlling themselves as he supposes, we should have in that fact a proof of the lamentable condition into which a generous nation had been allowed to lapse under the right hon. gen- tleman's system of government, and of the ueeessity for a drastic reform ! If I am asked why, as we have no share in these unworthy fears, we have inserted certain safeguards in the Bill, why we prescribe ceiiain conditions as to the Bench, the Civil Service, the constabulary, and the laud question, my answer is that we have to do our best to assuage the fears of innocent people who actually take in a serious sense the wild words that are sometimes uttered. We have also in a smaller degree to guard against' what I believe to be a small danger that this sort of talk may lead to a spirit of recrimination, and that the possession of these powers may goad some people in Ireland into a less quiet attitude. Any ono accus- tomed to the forms of this House who happened to come into the gallery during this debate would, I think, be puzzled to make out what stage we were at. This is a motion for the introduction of the Bill. The question before the House then is. Is this a subject upon which legislation is required ? On the second reading we come to the question whether the general scheme is a (!Ood one, and in Committee we have the details. This debate, however, is occupied almost entirely with the details of the measure. (Hear, hear.) There I was indeed, as we might expect, one outspoken The Home Rule Bill. Mr. Campbell'Banneriuan. 388 House of Commons, February 16, 1893. utterance by the hon. and gallant member tor North Armagh, t7ho Baid openly and honestly to us, " I do not care a straw for the details of the Bill ; it is the thing itself that I object to." (Opposition cheers.) The fact that we are discussing the details is not sur- prising, becaase the main question of this policy has been discussed and rediscussed in this House and in the country until there is nothing more to be said about it. We have dinned into the public ear, on the platform, from this House, and by every other means, our object, which was to establish in Ireland for Irish purposes a legislative body and an Executive de- pendent upon it. (Hear, hear.) That was known to every one except one person, the right hon. member for Bordesley. (Ministerial laughter.; He said in his speech the other night that he was taken com- pletely by surprise. (Loud laughter.) He was good- natured enough to suggest that as he was so taken by surprise it wonld be a very proper thing for the Government to advise her Mitjesty to dissolve Par- liament in order that the country might be better informed, upon the sapposition that everybody was as ignorant as himself. It is quite in the Tight hon. gentleman's power to redeem his posi- tion. He has only to go to his constituents, and he would be much more certain how he stood. (Laughter and cheers.) We have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an applicant for the Chiltem Hundreds is subject to no inquiry into character. (Loud laughter.) Therefore any little political difference would not stand in his way for a moment ; and if, as may be, some of the little section of politicians with whom he acts are in the same category, they might each in succession make the game application for the Chiltem Hundreds (laughter), and then we should have not only the advantage of comparing their position, but also we should have an illustrative light thrown upon public opinion in the country in a series of bye-elections. (Laughter and cheers.) I was astonished when the right hon. gentle- man went on further and said he was not contented with the constituencies in this country, and took a leaf out of the book of the right hon. gentleman the leader of the Opposition, who started the somewhat extraordinary theory not many months ago of eliminating from each constituency, in estimating the real value of its votes, every voter who was not bom in that part of the kingdom. (Laughter and cheers.) The President of the Local Govern- ment Board is going to bring in a Begistration Bill, and he has only to move a provision to the effect that on the register every person's place of birth should be recorded, and that no one's vote shall be counted who does not vote in the country in which he was bom, and the whole of his object will be accom- plished. (Cheers.) To such strange shifts are they brought that they try to explain away their straight- forward defeat before the tribunal of public opinion. (Cheers.) I tmn to that portion of the Bill which has a most direct interest for us members of Parliament — namely, that which proposes that the Irish members should remain here and that public business should be in some manner or other divided. The House will remember that in 1886 there was a temporary exclu- sion of the Irish members. If I remember aright there were two impoi'tant reasons given for excluding them ; in the first place, the fact of certain compli- cations to which I shall refer presently, and, in the second place, it was urged that there would be a difiBculty on the part of Ireland in — if I may use a sporting phrase — furnishing two teams, one for Ireland and one for England. That particular argument was urged by Mr. Pamell, and I am sure that no one could deal with this question at all without havitig the most respectful memoiy of the statesmanlike Intuitions and almost genius of that departed public man. (Parnellite cheers.) NoVr the Government have determined to include and not exclude the Irish members. I see that there is a report going about that this is a matter of comparative indifference to the Govemmeht. That ia not the view of the case which I take at all. The Bill provides for the infilnsion of the Irish members unmistakably, and I think most rightly and neces- sarily. (Cheers.) The noble lord, repeating very- much the Sentiments he expressed in 1886, talked of this Bill as pure and simple repeal. How can it be, when the Irish members are retained in the Imperial Parliament ? His observation bad some force in 1S86, but it is lost now. Speaking as a Scotchman, I must say that if there were any similar proposal at any time for Scotland, I should object to having my country excluded from its full representation in the management of Imperial affairs here. (Cheers.) The complications of which I spoke remain however. They were amply explained in 1886. They are obvious to every one with the slightest knowledge of the tacts. The alternatives are either that the Irish members should be here and vote on all subjects, or that business should be divided ; and both plans present grave diiTiculties, Nothing has been urged in this debate which could fail to have been fully before the eyes of any one who has been considering this matter for the last six years. When the Prime Minister was speaking, I was a pretty close observer of the countenances of hon. and right hon. gentle- men opposite, and I observed that when, after the Prime Minister's elaborate exposition of the difSculties in either case, he finally pro- nounced in favour of the division of business those hon. and right hon. faces increased considerably in length. (Laugbter and cheers.) So we see very clearly that there was a double bolt forged against us to be discharged at the beginning of this Parliament. We were a weak Government (hear, hear), in a weak position (cheers), with a divided and dwindling majority botti in the House and the country. (Nationalist cheers.) I will not say bow far those anticipations have been realized. (Laughter.) But of all the barrels of this many-barrelled blunderbuss which was to be levelled against us — and I adopt that weapon because of the peculiar aptness of the name (laughter and cheers) — the two most damaging batTels were these— first, there was the dastardly conduct of the Home Secretary in letting loose upon society two dynamiters of the worst description ; and before Par- liament met it was discovered that this crime was enacted upon society with the consent and cognizance of the late Government. (Hear, hear.) Then there was the intolerable injustice of allowing the Irish members to come here and . vote down English and Scotch members. What a disappointment it was then when it turned out that that was not the proposal which the Prime Minister had accepted. (Cheers.) I venture to surmise that the hon. and learned gentleman who made so brilliant a speech in following the Prime Minister came down to the House with two speeches in his pocket (cheers and laughter), one of which would show the insufferable injustice of keeping the Irish members here, and the other of which would show the ludicrous anomalies of dividing business. (Laughter.) The noble lord opposite Spoke of the provisions in the Bill for the division of business as " a dexterous arrangement." It must be remembered, however, The Home Rvde Bill. Mr. Campbell-BannermaB. House of Commons, February 16, 1893. 389 that the method proposed for the division of the work ailects not the principle but the mere machinery and form of legislative work. (Hear, hear.) I am by no means indifferent to the forms of this House which have come down to us as the result of long experience , but after all they are but forms »nd methods, they are mere machinery, and if they in any way hamper and fetter us in adopting any important and necessafy change we ought not to allow ourselves to be tied and bound by them. Surely the House of Commons will not allow itself to be nonplussed by a difficulty which would meet with a ready solu- tion at the hands of any town or county council. (Hear, hear.) Coming to the question of the Con- stitution proposed to be given to Ireland by this Bill, I may say that our object has been to create an effec- tive legislature having the most tmple powers over Irish business, and that in order to meet the fears to which I have already alluded we propose to create also for the protection of minorities a second chamber. We have heard within the last day or two comments upon our proposals from certain quarters. Thus a noble duke has given us his notion of what the supre- macy of an Imperial Parliament means. 1 give the House that opinion in order that I may at once repu- diate it. (Hekr, hear.) The noble duke, when speak- ing of the maintenance of the supremacy of the Im- perial Parliament, said, " When we speak of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament what we had in our minds was the practical, continual, and constant control by Parliament over legislation, and if need be over administration in all parts of the United King- dom." If that were so how would Parliament be relieved and how would Ireland be advantaged by the passing of this Bill. (Cheers and counter cheers.) If the Imperial Parliament were to be always super- vising, nagging, and interfering with the affairs of Ireland it would be better a hundred times that we should let things alone. (Cheers and counter cheers.) It is sufficient if jjrovision is made to prevent an excessive and abusive use of the power that is conferred, and if it were found that that power was continually and seriously misused it would always remain in the Imperial Parlia- ment to resume the power which it had conferred. The noble lord asked me some definite questions which I will endeavour to answer. The proposals for the protection of religious and educational freedom will be veiy much the same as in the Bill of 1886, and there will also be the American provision for dealing with personal freedom. As the noble lord has curbed his impatience for two years he can curb it for two days longer, when he will be able to study these provisions in the Bill itself. The noble lord asks other questions, which I will not now stop to answer in detail, but I may say that if the insufficiency of any of the provisions in the Bill relating to these is made apparent to us, we shall be glad to alter them as may seem necessary. The hon. and gallant member who last spokfe inquired who is to command the troops ? Was it ever exnected that they should be altered from the positio" they now stand in 1 The position of the troops and Militia will remain just as at present. They will continue under the supreme control of the Commander-in-Chief, under the Queen. I have noted some points as to Ulster, but I will not stop to deal with them, nor with the financial questions, which will be better understood when the Bill is in the hands of hon. members. The excuse for prolonging this debate is that, having committed a similar contravention in 1886, the Opposition have thus established a precedent which it was desirable for them to follow in 1893. We make, however, no complaint of any amount of criticism. The plain object of the measure is to secure relief for Ireland. We are confident that the more it ia criticized and discussed the more will the main features of the scheme commend themselves to the common sense of the country as a safe and reasonable plan for the accomplishment of an honourable pur- pose. (Ministerial cheers.) Upon the motion of Mr. Ansthuthieb, the debate stood adjourned until to-morrow. POST OFFICE (ACQUISITION OP SITES) BILL. Mr. A. MOBLEY moved the second reading of this Bill, and, in answer to Mr. TOUtilNso^r, said that it was limited to the three places named in the Bill. There would be no opposition by the owners of the premises which they sought to acquire. The Bill was read a second time and fefen'ed to &' Select Committee, BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. S) BILL. Mr. ASQUITH, in moving that this Bill be noT» read a second time, said that if this course were adopted he suggested that the Oommittee to which it would be refeiTed should also consider, at the same time, the other Bills dealing with the same matte! which were before the House, and that the Oomfliittee should have power to examine experts upon the subject. SIR M. HICKS-BEACH hoped the Bill would be read a second time. Mr. ASQUITH promised that the Government would do all they could to secure the second reading of the other Bills on the subject. Mr. Babtlet and the MarQuis of CARMABTfifiS objected to the Bill being proceeded with in the absence of diseussidh, ^oid it was ^ut down for Monday. LOCAL AUTHOKITIES (VOTING AND QUALIFICATION) BILL. On the question that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, SIB M. HICKS-BEACH raised a point of order. He said that he had given notice of an instruction to the Committee on this Bill, and he wished to ask whether, under Standing Order 51, the House could resolve itself into Committee at this stage after such notice had been given. Mr. TIMOTHY HEALY said that the word " notice " in the rule meant a notice on the paper. (Hear, hear.) TheSPEAKERsaidthat whenCommitteewascalledhe was bound to leave the chair, and the House was obliged to resolve itself at once into Committee unless notice had been given ; and this notice must appear on the paper. The House went into Committee. On clause 1, SIK M. HICKS-BEACH moved to report progress^ As the Government had utidertaken to bring in i measure he suggested that the further progress of thu Bill should be deferred until the Government Bill watl brought in and the whole question fully considered. Mr. H. FOWLEB said that no doubt the object Mr. Cliamberlain. 400 House of Commons, February 17, 1893. stands. (Hear, hear.) There is no necessity for any explanation. We know what it means when 80 Irish members think it their duty to take an active pai-t in our proceedings. (Oheers.) All I would ask the House to consider is how far, under these circumstances, the promise in the Queen's Speech will he fulfilled. This is a Bill to give relief to Parliament. (Laughter and cheers.) On the first occasion of the assertion of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament over Irish affairs you may bid a long good-bye to the relief of Parliament. (Loud cheers.) I may say, in passing, a few words upon this very important question of the retention of the Irish members. Now, 1 point to the curiouii way in which my right hon. friend introduced the sub- ject. He explained to us that there were two alternatives^retention on the one hand, and non- letention on the other ; and then he proceeded to set before us a balance, not of advantages, but of dis- advantages. It was very difficult to tell for certain which way his own mind inclined, but I came to the conclusion that finally he had determined to adopt the course which, in accordance with his own argument, presents the greatest number of disadvantages. (Laughter.) In 1886 I ventured to say that this question of the retention of the Irish members is the key to the situation. (Cheers.) I argued strongly for their retention ; and. Sir, I am prepared to argue strongly for It still. (Cheers.) for this reason — if you get rid of the Irish members from Westminster you must bid good-bye absolutely to any proposal to maintain the supremacy of Parliament or the unity of the Empire. Sfou cannot do it. You can- not setup a Government here which is to tax Ireland, which is to conduct its foreign policy, which is to conduct and control itstrade, and in which Ireland is to have no voice whatever. Therefore, I say that the re- tention of the Irish members at Westminster is an essential condition of the maintenance of our existing Parliamentary supremacyand also of theunity of the Empire. (Cheers.) But I also said then, ^_and I say now, that if you accept the retention of the Irish members there are only two practical and logical ways of carryiiig it out. I challenge any one to find a third. I beg the House to nndcr- stand that I am going to state what these two alter- natives are ; but do not let me be interrupted with any idea that I am arguing in favour of either. They may be both bad or both good ; but at least they are the only two, and it is between them that the House will ultimately have to make its choice if it is determined to retain the Irish members at Westminster at the same time that there is tb be a legislative authority in Dublin. The fiist of these alternatives is this — that the Itish Government and the Irish legislative body should be a wholly sub- ordinate body, something like an enlarged editiob of the London County Council. In that case it is per- fectly clear that there is no attack upon tho supremacy of Parliament or upon the unity of the Empire. At the same time, a body of that kind may be able to carry out local reforms in accordance with local sentiments, and do a great deal of useful work. That is one alternative. The other is that at the same time that yon give a Parliament to Ireland you should give a Parliament to England, a Parliament to Scotland (Ministerial cheers), and a Parliament to Wales (Ministerial eheers), and that you should set up over these four Parliaments a fifth for the United Kingdom. (Cheers.) Yes, Sir, that is a large order. (Laughter.) But I Am not sayitig that it may not be the Way out of the difficulty. (Sear, hear.) Only in that case let my hon. friends have the courage of their opinions ; let them vote for that, and, above all, do not let them vote for this. (Cheers.) But, Sir, the course which is taken by the Govern- ment is open to every objection. (Cheers.) It is neither one nor the other of the two alternatives which I have explained to the House as being at least logical and feasible. The course proposed by the Government is an absolutely impossible one. Just consider what the two main objections are. I briefly touch upon them. In the first place, what is to be the position of the Irish delegation ? They will be neither fishjflesh, fowl, nor good red herring. (Laughter.) They are to come herefor Irish affairs and not for British affairs. Everybody who knows anything of the business of this House knows perfectly well that it is absolutely impossible for us to say with certainty even for a single week that the House should be engaged entirely on Iri.sh affairs or entirely on Imperial affairs. Hon. members from Ireland would be kept dangling about the lobby— here to-day and gone to-morrow, never knowing when fhey will be called in to take their part ; and if they are absent for a minute something may come on which it is of the utmost importance to them to have a voice in. A condition of things like that is so 'anomalous that I am perfectly convinced in practice it would be found intolerable. (Cheers.) There is no Legislative Assembly in the world which has any practice similar to that. I would not throw any dodbt on the sin- cerity of the promoters of the Bill, but Boine- times it almost appears to me as if they had iiitrb- duced this clause as what in theatrical language would be called a practicable clause — that is to say, a clause which is to be withdrawn at the slightest pressure. (Laughter.) But there is a much greater objection, and it was stated admirably by nny noble friend the member for Paddington last night. He said that by this provision you will create two majorities in the British Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Nobody has attempted to get over that diffi- culty. Are you going to have such a State of things that you may have a British Ministry with an abso- lutely precarious life and with no possibility Of sup- planting it by a firm and stable administration ? Take the case as it stands to-day. Suppose this Bill had been passed this Sessioii. Why, Sir, at this mbinent, when my right hon. friend got up froth the Trfeasuty bench in order to move " One man one vote," or thfe Suspen- sory Bills for Scotland and for Wales, he would be in a mihority of 40. They might, it is trufe,, call in to- inorrow the Irish delegation, and thoy would be iii a majority of 40. (Hear, hear.) But here is a Cttribus position. This British Ministry would be absolutely powerless in all British affairs. (Opposition cheers.) Nb other Ministry would bo possible. If, when they were in a minority on some British motion, another Ministry were allowed to come in, that Ministiy, in turn, although in a majority in Great Britain, would hold its life absolutely at the mfercjf of Irish gentlemen opposite. (Opposition cheers.) What will be the consequence ? The Prime Minister is fully alive to it. He pointed it out in dignified and impressive language on the introduction of the Bill. He said then that to introduce Irishmen to deal With all British affairs while they were at the Same time dealing separately with their o*n affaiM would be to create a temptation to intrigue which iU tho long mil oould Sot bo resisted. My right hbU. friend seemed to think that by this proposal be got rid of the difficulty. But, of course, as long as they can vote The Home Bnle Bill. Mr. Chamberlain. House of Commons, February 17, 1893. 401 upon Imperial matters, and especially upon a vote of confidence, they have all British policy abso- lutely at their disposal. (Cheers.) Under these circumstances the difficulties which my right hon. friend foresaw would be intensified. What would you have ? You would have Irish membfers who were able under the Constitution to keep a British Ministry in office and then were uuabl6 under the Constitution to support a single one of the measures on which the British Ministry had set its heart. You have only got to state the question to see how absard and how monstrous it is. (Cheers.) Our Parliamentary system would only work then at the price of con- tinuous corruption. Y'ou would have to pay the Irish, not in money, but in kind. The Government in such a minority as I have suggested would, at all events, be continuously under the tempta- tion to give to the Irish members something which they wanted for Ireland in order to secure their support, their presence, or their absence, as might be desired, upon English affairs. Under these circumstances it is perfectly clear that the Irish Parliament, through its IHnglish delegation, woald be able to make its own terms, and any phantom of Imperial supremacy which may now exist in this Bill would very speedily be cleared out of it. (Cheers.) I have only left myself one condition to which I have hitherto not referred. I mean the condition which demands protection for minorities. Of course, it follows that the protec- tion to be aSor.led is to be adequate and sufficient. Now here again the argument, as far as I have heard it, from members speaking for the Government has been —You must trust to the good faith and reasonableness of the Irish members. They will not want to do any- thing oppressive, anything which would interfere with personal freedom ; they will never oppress the minority. If there were anything in that argument it would carry us to this, that you ought not to have any restrictions at all. (Cheers.) If you have put restrictions in the Bill, if you have given these pledges, if you have yourselves stated this as a condition pre- cedent to your introduction of the subject at all, you have bound yoarselves to the opinion that, at all events, the slightest chance of any opprtj^sion. of the kind we dread ought to be made impossible. And why ? is the danger so remote as some people imagine ? It is part of the case of my right hon. friend that in times past the minority in Ire- land has abused its rights in order to oppress the majority. Why are you to suppose that an Irish majority would be less likely to use its rights in the same way ? (Hear, hear.) 1 notice in to-day's paper a very interesting account of an interview with that veteran and patriotic Irishman, Sir d. Oavan Dufly,in which he points out that under this Bill the majority in the Irish Parliament will be so enormously on one side that it is almost certain to become a despotic majority, and to oppress the minority. And, when We have regard to the special case of Ireland, we must not put from us as absolutely iitipossible the sugges- tioif that if either a majority of a minority has undue powei: it might not abuse that power. Whfen we consider the bitter eoiitroversies of race, of Class, of religion, of party which have desolated Ireland for centuries, are We to expect that even the "union of hearts " w'ill do away with the dahger all in a moment? (Laughter.) Are We Bertain that TJlstfer will have nothing to fear from the legislation of the rest of Ireland ? Ai'o we certain that Protestants in Ireland will have nothing to dread from the religions legiBlatibti of gentlemen who may be nominated by the Koroan Catholic ]priesthood ? Ate we certain that landowners in Ireland will receive full justice froin those whose avowed policy it has bee* to treat them as a British garrison, and to clear them, " Stock, lock, and barrel," out of the land? (Opposition cheers.) I think the Goveminent are bound by their own statement, and the House is bound in honour, to defend our loyal fellow-subjects against the possibility of injury. (Cheers.) Now, what pro- vision does the Bill make ? In the first place, it seeks to protect the Protestants by declaring Un- \/ lawful the establishment of a Church and also by some provision with respect to education. I do not want to draw the argument too fine, but I may be per- mitted to point out that, if there were a strong feeling in Ireland in favour of an established and endowed clergy, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that being done. There are 50 ways in which your Bill could be legally evaded. I will give one, merely as ah instance. Suppose that the Irish Parliament provided a con- siderable salary for the managers of schools. What is to prevent the district from electing the parish priest in every case as manager ? (Hear, hear.) In that way, by a side wind, if the sentiment of the people were with you — it all depends on that^ you could efEect a great endowment of the Irish Boman Catholic Church, even in spite of the restrictive provisions of my right hon. friend. Then, as regards the landowners. The Irish Parliament is not to deal With the land for three years. If that is considered a boon to the landowners it is a very queer one. I am not certain that they will not petition this House that they may be executed at once. (Laughter.) But what is the meaning of it ? What is the intention of the Government in excludiiig Irish land from the Irish Parliament for three years ? Do they intend to deal with it here in the course of that time ? I argue that they must intend to deal with it, because, if they do not, the exclusion of the land question appears to me to be a most foolish proposal. (Laughter and cheers.) That is the easiest word I can use. If they do not intend to deal with it, surely, as undoubtedly the question will arise in the interval, they should allow the Irish Parliament to deal With the matter, which is to them of vital importance. But if they do intend to deal with it, I can only say that during the next three years we shall hear very little indeed of the Newcastle programme. (Opposi- tion cheers and laughter.) Will it be contended by any reasonable man that these provisions with regard to the Church and the land for the short period of three years are sufficient protection against the dangers which, at all events, Protestants and landowners now fear ? Then we have what is really the great invention of the Government — we have got the Second Chamber. I am not going to argue the principle of a Second Chamber, although I cannot help thinking that some of my right hoh. friends will be in some difficulty when this question comes to he discussed in Committee. (A laugh.) I have had put into toy hands an extract from a speech made in June, 1892, by the right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary, in Which he is re- ported to have said :— " Having somewhat carefully Studied the experience of countries where Second Chaitabers exist I have found — unless perhaps in the doubtful case of the United States where they have a Federal Constitution — that the Second Chamber is not the least s&tvice to the countiy to which it belongs." (Laughter.) My right hon, friend was asked at Gateshead for some explanation. " Vou stated," it was said. •' that you difiered in this from Mr. dlad- Tlie Home Rule BilL Mr. Cliaiubeilain. 402 House of Commons, February 17, 1893; Btone, who in bis model Constitution for Ireland in the Bill of 1^86 proposed and provided for a Second Chamber " ; and my right hoa. friend is reported to hare answered, " I never approved that provision of the Home Bale Bill, and 1 am quite sure it is not likely to appear in any Home Rule Bill for the future." (Much laughter.) Well, I consider that really to he a matter of very small importance. All I can say is that when the matter comes on in Com- mittee I shall be prepared to vote for the exclusion of this Second Chamber (hear, hear), and I shall do so because it is a thoroughly and absolately ineffective body for the purpose for which it is framed. (Hear, hear.) The idea that a body of this kind consisting of 48 members is to give any protection either tc the landlords, to Ulster, or to the Protestant minority is petfectly childish. (Hear, hear.) I have no reason to believe that such a body will consist largely either of Protestants, Ulstermen, or landlords. But even if it did, still, as we are told, all they can do is to delay the injustice against which they are protesting for two years ; at the end of that time they must be outvoted. (Hear, hear.) I have not asked whether 'this is right or not. You have given this Second Chamber as a pro- tection ; I have pointed out that it is no protection at all, and the hon. member for Northampton says " Hear, hear." (Laughter.) And now I will con- clude after one word on the question of Ulster. For the minority in Ulster — it overlaps and partly includes the other minorities — there is absolutely no protection at all. (Cheers.) And when we revert to this, what is the answer of the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy ? The answer is a sneer and a defiance. (Loud cheers ) Ulster has said by its representatives in this House that it will resist any Constitution of the kind which it is attempted to force upon it. The answer is that we are to pay no attention to the representatives of Ulster and to take no notice of their braggart ways. (Loud cheers.) Whether their ways are braggart or not Mr. BRYCB.— 1 did not say that. I said that, even if my right hon. friend did not repeat the words he used in 1886, it was because those words received no response, and he did not think it necessary to repeat them. But I never intended to intimate that any representation from Ulster now would not receive the same consideration. (Hear, bear.) Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.— Now 1 ask the House to recall the language of the right hou. gentleman. (Cheers.) He said what he said now, but he said something else. (Cheers.) Ho said that we were not to pay attention to the language of Ulster members. Mr. BRYCB.— 1 did not say that. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.— He said in effect wo were not to pay attention to the bluster. Mr. BRYCE. — What 1 said was that this House wan not to take its knowledge of Ulster from noise and bluster. (Cheers.) '' Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. — Now the House understands (loud cheers) the value of the contradictiou of the right hon. gentdeuiao. (Renewed thcering.) When members from Ulster got up and speak iu the Dame of Ulster (Nationalist cries of " A portion ") — rrotcst- ant Ulster if you like, 1 am always speaking of that minority (cries of " Majority ") — yes ; the majority in Ulster, but. the minority of Irisbiuon — when repro- seutativos of this part of the Unite Tlie Home Kule Bill. Mr. Blake. 404 House of Commons, February 17, 1893. (Hear, hear.) There was one portion of the speech of the right hou. gentleman which had sounded to him more like the speech of a Fenian head centre, and that was when the right hon. gentleman pointed out that the present measure would not satisfy the legiti- mate aspirations of the Irish people. He said that the Irish Parliament would have no control over foreign policy, no power to send ambassadors ; that they were restrained from setting up an eastablished religion and from interfering with education,Customs, and trade. The Irish members accepted the provisions which were borrowed from the Constitution of the United States to safeguard these rights, not because they thought those rights would be violated ; for he believed that the Irish majority would never, as the minority had done in the dead and evil times, use their rights to do wrong, but as practical men they accepted them without any feeling of degradation or huinilia- tion.-as recording what they considered the immutable principles of civil and religious freedom. (Cheers.) fit was important from two aspects — it would soothe ;the apprehensions of those who were really nervous as to the new constitution, and it would have practical application to attempts to transgress either the letter or the spirit of the provisions. Such attempts would (furnish a plain excuse for the intervention of the Im- perial power. The right hon. gentleman suggested that the measure would be sowing the seed of future demands. What had been the position of this Bill for many years? What had been the constant effort in Ireland? The House was actually asked to believe that an arrangement agreed to by the Irish people as satisfactory, and removing the great cause of complaint which held existed up to the present time, was only sowing the seed of future demands ! (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman asked what guarantee there was that the Bill would be accepted as a settlement. It was true that a phrase might be culled from the ntterances of a distinguished man now departed to the eSect that the Bill of 1886 was only accepted pro tanto; but the record of that man's action and speech, as the unquestionable and unchallenged representative of the Irish race in Ireland and beyond the seas, was the record to which attention should be paid (cheers), and that was a record of absolute, unhesitating, and unequivocal acceptance of the Bill of 1886 as a final eettlement. (Hear, hear.) The difficulties and delay which had arisen had furnished absolutely satisfactory tests and confirmation of this view. The ques- tion had been before the Irish people for seven years, a&d there had been an unhappy difficulty in Ireland eminently calculated to produce dissatis- faction, if it could be evoked, with the moderation of the Irish demands. He would point to the general acceptance by the Irish all over the world of the present Bill as the best and most satisfactory proof of the finality of that acceptance, on the hypotbesis that the statements of the Prime Minister were effectually embodied in the Bill. - (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman urged that in the case of a struggle with America or France Ireland would be on the side of America or France. But more so or less than now ? (Loud cheers.) It was impossible to get absolute securities in respect of the future of countries ; but, as far as reason could give a ground for security, there was the absolute assurance that the condition of things as it was before 1886 was infinitely less advantageous to this country in the emergency suggested than it would be after the present Bill had passed. (Cheers.) Then the right hon. gentleman suggested financial diffi- culties, and put the case of the Irish Parliament re- fusing the collection of taxes. The Irish revenue waa mainly to consist of excise, and the not too liberal provisions of the Prime Minister would have to be strenuously exercised to get any revenue at all. But the raising of Imperial revenue for Imperial purposes was a differeitt thing. Whatever was essential for the exercise of the taxing power of the common Parlia- ment in which Irishmen were properly repre- sented ought to be given, and no doubt would be given, in the Bill. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman further suggested that volunteers and armed forces might be raised in Ireland. The whole of these suggestions were most base- less and fantastic. (Cheers.) They meant that con- cord, contentment, and peace between the two countries were to produce a last state of affairs worse than that which the very reverse of those con- ditions h*d produced. (Cheers.) During all this time the power to place troops in Ireland and to blockade her ports remained. The only thing that was changed was that the bare idea of the necessity for such action vanished for ever. (Cheers.) On the subject of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, the House had the right hon. gentleman's own record. The right hon. gentleman had repeatedly declared that the continued representation of the Irish people in the Imperial Parliament did effectively pro- duce that supremacy which he now questioned. That was the right hon. gentleman's ground for voting against the Bill of 1886, and now, when Irish repre- sentation was conceded, the supremacy withered to nothing before the right hon. gentleman's eyes. (Hear, hear.) Did the right hon. gentleman wish to keep up Dublin Castle and the bureaucratic control of Ireland, which no man had more effectively denounced than he ? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman suggested the case of the Irish Parliament initiating land legis- lation of which the British Parliament did not approve, and urged that there would be no power to check such legislation. Apart from the land Ireland was in crime abnormally low among the countries of the world. The main lines for the solution of the land pro- blem hadnow been laiddown, and the machinery was ready tohand. It was a gigattic business of detail only now. When the Irish Legislatm'e obtained control of the land with securities — for he was no separatist and no confiscator, and would take no one's property without just compensation— the Irish Legislature would find no occasion for a Plan of Campaign, and if such a movement were started the Legislatm'e, being respon- sible for peace, order, and good government, would know how to deal with it. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman suggested that large salaries might be paid to ecclesiastics for services not rendered, so as to constitute a practical ecclesiastical endowment. He should regard any such plan as an unworthy artifice to evade the spirit of the law, deserving of the contempt of every honest man, and meriting the stem and speedy intervention of Imperial authority. Under the existing conditions provision was made, without remonstrance from any party, by which those most competent to deal with certain hospitals were appointed to the posts. Was that an iniquitous endowment of religion? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman remarked that the supremacy of Parliament was " reverently noticed in the preamble." It was not necessary to notice it anywhere. It was unquestioned ; and it had been admitted by the right hon. gentleman himself that by the retention of the Irish members that supremacy was an indisputable fact. (Cheers.) He did not object to the repetition of indisputable facts in an Act of Parliament, he did not object to tiuisma in an Aot of Parliament — because be wished that The Home Bule Bill: Mr. Blake. House of Commons, February 17, 1893. 405 they were always contained in an Act of Parliament. There wasnotaman inthat House but believedandknew that this Act otParliamentwouldleave thesupremacy of the Imperial Parliament intact in all itspurts. (Hear, hear.) But the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament would be used only under conditions in which the obvious intent of the Act meaiit^that it should be used. If the right hon. gentleman suggested that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was to be used in the way of constant, continuous operative review and reconsideration of Irish legislation and adminis- tration the last state of Ireland would be worse than the first. (Cheers and counter-cheers.) It would be better in that case thab Irishmen should not be called upon to carry out a sham system of self-government free from the responsibility which attached to and could not he divested from substantial power. Nor did the right hon. gentleman himself in days gone by think otherwise, because he bad said that the practical control of the Irish people over Irish affairs was an aspiration which he assented to as a reasonable end to be attained. (Hear, hear.) Then as to the veto of the Crown, the normal action as to Bills presented to the Irish Parliament for their assent would be the same as in the Imperial Parliament. The ^Viceroy, as representing the Queen, would act upon the advice of the Cabinet. The Viceroy would occupy a dual position. He would act ordinarily upon the advicfc of the Cabinet, but he was also an Imperial officer, and express power was in fact reserved to him to give instructions with regard to any particular Bill, and in case of those instructions being received he would act Ministerially on behalf of the Imperial Parliament. The right hon. gentleman said that that would involve the resignation of the Irish Ministers. He thought not ; he thought that it would plant them more firmly in their offices if the power was unwisely used. (Hear, hear.) They could not be called upon to resign for an act for which they were not responsible. The policy of both Imperial Ministers and of the Imperial Parlia- ment ought to be one of non-interference, save in cases where the spirit and letter of the Act under which the Irish Legislature was created was violated. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the protection of minorities, he could say that the rights of the minorities were as dear to Irishmen as they were to Englishmen. (Hear, hear, and cries of " Oh.") The right hon. gentleman had made some suggestions with regard to concurrent legislation. Of course, the Imperial Parliament, having power to carry out con- current legislation, would have the power to give ellect to that legislation, although it was obvious that any step of that kind would be a serious one. The right hon. gentleman offered no guarantee to the hon. member for Waterford that the powers for the protection of the Irish minorities would be used. But Irishmen did not ask for guarantees. They depended upon their own honour and good faith and upon their determination to carry out the conditions of this, com- pact on their part. He believed that the letter and the spirit of this Act of Parliament would be observed by the Irish Parliament, and all that Irishmen asked was that, whilst they observed that letter and spirit, the Imperial Parliament would observe them also. (Hear, hear.) If the Irish Legislature violated that letter and that spirit the Imperial Parliament would have the moral right and actual power to interfere and to redress. The right hon. gentleman suggested that the interference of 80 Irish members would make things difficult in the Imperial Parliament if that power was put into action. But what would 103 Irish representatives in that Imperial Parliament do ? (Hear, hear.) To hear the right hon. gentleman speak it would be supposed that there was no Irishquestion in existence — that there were no Irish representatives to interfere with the Newcastle programme or with proposals for the settlement of the Irish land question. Let hon. members look at the situation- look at what they had suffered during the last few years. How many Ministries had been made and unmade by the Irish members against the will of the other divisions of the United Kingdom ? (Cheers and counter-cheers.) Let them ask themselves, what was the position to-day 'I What made this Ministry ? What could unmake it ? (Cheers and counter-cheers.) But hon. mem bers talked as if all this did not exist. (Hear, hear.) The Irish members, voting on Imperial, on English, on Scotch, and on Irish questions, had forced upon successive Ministries the conviction that they must consider what was the best policy they could adopt for Ireland. The result of the action of the Irish representatives had made the position of the Imperial Ministries intolerable ; they had found their path obstructed, and had found no peace nor ease. (Hear, hear.) This Bill put forward a plan for reducing the numbers of the Irish members and for reducing their power for mischief, for abstracting from them the power to interfere with all local legislation for England, Scotland, and Wales, and, more than all, for removing the cause for Irish members dealing with those concerns otherwise than upon their merits. (Hear, hear.) Difficulties there possibly might be in the way of attaining the end in view, and no doubt the proposals of the Bill might involve logical incon- sistencies ; but the English people had never yet been intimidated by logical inconsistency from adopting great and beneficial changes in their Constitution when they had in view the redressing of evils or the conferring of benefits upon the community. (Hear, hear.) He believed that under the new plan the dual Parliament would have the same opportunities of. dis- charging its Imperial duties that it now had. It was true that the Irish members would be subject to some inconvenience in having to come here to take their part in the work of the Imperial Parliament, It was an inconvenience to them, but not to hon. gentlemen opposite, whom he would ask to allow them to bear that inconvenience. (Laughter and cheers.) The right hon. gentleihan the member for West Birmingham had pointed out that there would be no relief under the proposed Bill ; but he had now indicated that there would, on the contrary, be every relief. If they would not take Home Rule in form they would hereafter have to take it in substance, for, ultimately, English legislation would come to be specially dealt with by Englishmen ; Scotch legisla- tion, by Scotchmen ; and Welsh legislation, by, Welshmen. It would be found in practice that certain other adjustments would furnish good practical solu-; tions of the enormous mass of theoretical objections put forward by the opponents of this Home Rule scheme. It was urged that the Parliamentary system under the new plan was to work only by corruption ; but had the right hon. gentleman and his friends never before heard of Irish grants ? (Cheers.) Why, what had been the course adopted by this country towards Ireland for years past ? They had been trying to placate her with s«(is. With regard to the pro- tection of minorities, he rejoiced to know that there was in the minds of the Liberal party a trust which was well founded in the honesty and good faith and equity of the great majority of the Irish people. He rejoiced to think that the restrictions were not proposed in a form and with allusions which The Home Rule Bill. Mr. Blake. 406 House of Commons, February 17, 1893. ■would make them degrading to, and would render them dilScuU of acceptance by, the Irish people. The Liberal party said that they reposed confidence in Irishmen ; that confidence would not be abused. The Government said to them — Agree to the insertion in this Bill of provisions which are, after all, only the recorded declarations of the true principles of liberty ; which are inconsistent with the exercise of tyranny by a majority over the minority, and which recognize the sacred rights of individuals. They therefore freely agreed to the insertion of those safeguards. He regarded this as a great advance, and hon. members having recorded certain principles of civil and religious liberty as fit and proper to be applied to Ireland, might some day feel themselves able to apply those principles to themselves. (Loud cheers.) He would not argue with the right hon. gentleman the question of minori- ties, in reference to religion and education, because the principles to be adopted received the imprimatur pf the right hon. gentleman himself in a printed plan. He would set the right hon, gentleman in print against the right hoa. gentleman in speech. The right hon. gentleman had also referred to the land question and to the restrictive periods in reference to other matters. What would happen if this Bill were not to pass ? They would have these questions with them not for three years, but for all time. (Loud cheers.) The Bill also suggested machinei'y for compensation. The member for West Birmini>ham thought that the Second Chamber which was to be constituted was no use, and said that he would like to vote against it ; but the Second Chamber to be now constituted was very much better than the one proposed in the former Bill. The present measure recognized the principle of election, though the franchise was, in its case, necessarily of a restricted character, seeing the duties which that Chamber would be called upon to perform. It was, in fact, designed to give reasonable protection to the minority in Ire- land ; and it afforded two opportunities, each of the greatest value — first, full debate and di.^cussiou by au elected body; and, secondly, by preventing the popular Chamber from insisting absolutely upon any measure by giving it a joint vote. Thus it did not oppose an absolute bar to the settled will of the people of Ire- land ; if it did he confessed it would be absolutely intolerable. The Bill would afford ample opportunity for Parliament and this country to consider any particular matter, and afforded full security against rash, hasty, or ill-considered legislation. The right hon. gentleman had spoken of Ulster. He had never been able to understand the deep interest that English people took in Ulster. (" Oh.") He would tell them why ho said this. If there were a part of Ire- land which would be able to take care of itself in the Dublin Parliament that part was Ulster. Whether it was on account of the numbers of its population, or by reason of its intelligence, its education, its property, or its enteiprise, Ulster was absolutely capable of taking care of itself (cheers) — not by those violent institutions and rebellious methods which had been beard of as existing there, but by taking part and lot with the rest of its fellow-countrymen in the delibera- tions of its own Assembly, and by uniting in an effort to make Ireland what She ought to be. (Cheers.) Ireland did not demand separation ; but the leader of the Opposition, having lost his power to coerce, thought fit to exercise his power to taunt Irish members, and found no more generous name for their country than an " arbitrarily selected area," telling them that that arbitrarily selected area had no better right or claim to demand Home Rule than a fragment of one of her own provinces. The right hon. gentle- man ignored the immutable decrees of Providence, which had given to Ireland a boundary the most distinct and marked that could be conceived — the streak of inviolate sea. (Hear, hear.) He ignored the history of an ancient kingdom and passed by the treacheiy and corruption by which she had been cheated out of her rights. (Hear, hear.) But that counti-y, no arbitrarily selected area, was one country after all, and one country would remain ; and be believed Protestant Ulster would scorn the suggestion that she should part her fortunes from the remainder of the island. (Nationalist cheers.) The whole policy of the right hon. gentleman was ba.sed upon a most pessimistic view ; but he himself believed in a better future for Ireland. (Nationalist cheers.) Let them not deny in action the possibility of the supplications which they made at the commencement of their deliberatious, that Almighty God would be graciously pleased to guide their counsels, and to unite together all persons in these realms in true Christian love and charity. Let them now and hence- forward bend their energies in that direction, and he believed that towards that result the first and most vital step would be to turn this Bill into law. (At the call of Mr. W. O'Brien, the whole of the Nationalist members rose in their places and cheered the hon. member when he resn.aied his seat.) Mr. COUKTNEY welcomed the hon. member who had just spoken, and expressed admiration of tho character and ability displayed in his speech, and the belief that the hon. gentleman would rapidly reach a position not unworthy to be compared with that which he filled in the gi'eat Dominion. (Cheers.) He hoped that he might be permitted to address the House, because he had never yefc spoken on this question in the House. That was the first time he had spoken there on Irish affairs, at least in connexion with the great Constitutional change which was proposed in 1886, and which was revived in this Bill. He was in entire agreement with the hon. member that this was a grave and weighty matter, and that it could not be dismissed lightly — that tho Irish question had been not only a peiplexity to past generations, but was a diificulty which we inherited to-day ; but he differed from the hon. member iu thinking that the question was now, or had recently been, of the gravity which it formerly possessed. He differed altogether from him in supposing that they were not approaching the solution of the diffi- culty, and that the solution would not have been possible without entering on a question of grave organic change. The Union had done a great work. His right hon. friend the leader of tho House had referred, not for the first time, to the fact that when the Act of Union was in contemplation the Protes- tant population of Ulster were foremost in their oppo- sition to it. Now, the right hon. gentleman con- fessed with some regret that that population wcro in favour of it. The Act of Union had done some work even if it had only brought the people of Ireland into union with the people of Great Britain, but it had done more. The Act of Union had worked not to bring the whole population of the sister island into that feeling of amity which they would fain realize, but had operated to make the spirit of union among those who held position, whether by wealth, by education, by professional status, or otherwise, friendly and Mrong towards the people of Great Britain. (Hear, hear.) That had been done under the Act of Union, followed The Home Hule Bill. Mr. Blake. House of Commona, February 17, 1893. 407 up by the action of an assembly still somewhat aristo- cratic, and at the best animated by the middle-class opinions and the middle-class sympathies of this island. The upper and middle classes of the two populations had been brought into unison through the operation of the Act of Union, Up till the general election which followed the late Reform Bill the right hon. gentleman the leader of the House admitted that there was no Farliamentary demand for a recon- sideration of the question of dimensions which required bis attentiou ; but when they had a demo- cratic assembly brought in by household suffrage in town and country they naturally produced in the Irish representation a representation of the nouvellet couches, which had hitherto been but feebly repre- sented there . They had brought before them in striking demonstration the representation of the classes, and, without waiting to see what the opera- tion of a reformed Parliament would be, they at once rushed to the conclusion that it was necessary to enter into this question of organic change. It would have been well to wait and see whether the operation of the new electorate, speaking through new representatives, would not have brought the whole population of Ireland into the same agreement with the population of Great Britain as under the operation of the Parliament elected under the Consti- tution of 1832 they had brought the middle classes of Ireland into harmony with the middle classes of Great Britain. (Hear, bear.) For this reason he had always thought that the action taken by his right hon. friend the leader of the House in 1886 was a hurried and an impatient action. (Cheers.) He should have waited to see what was the view of this Parliament before proceeding to rend it twain. (Hear, hear.) Other counsels were adopted by the right hon. gentleman, and they had now to consider what was put before them. What was Home Rule ? \Vhat was it that was demanded ? Home Rule meant the election of a Parliament which would have complete control over Irish affairs and a Ministry which would be respon- sible to an Irish Parliament. If that were the true description of Home Rule, was it so far wrong on the part of the noble lord the member for Paddington to say the previous night that Home Rule meant the repeal of the Union 1 (Hear, hear.) It was quite true that it did not mean the repeal of the Union by setting up the Parliament which existed in Ireland, in its corrupt boroughs and in its peerage, before the Act of Union wjs pissed ; but it did represent the repeal of the Union in this, thit it made the Legislature and the Administration in Ireland independent of any influence of Great Britain and independent of any control or supervision on the part of the Imperial Parliament. (Cheers.) Here he agreed with the hon. member for South Longford, who had practically confessed that the safe- guard of the veto was perfectly worthless. The hon. member said that it would never be used (cries of " No, no ") except in relation to the affairs in- trusted to the Irish Parliament, and unless that Par- liament acted in some roost abnormal and extra- ordinary way which the hon. member believed would never arise. That was a confession that the veto would never be exercised because it would never be wanted. (Cheers.) But he would go further than this— that, wanted or not, it would never be used. He appealed to the experience of the hon. member him- self as to the relations between the Imperial Govern- ment and the colonies, not only in Canada, but in Australia, to prove that with respect to the affairs committed to the charge of the Colonial Legislature, however much the action of that Legislature might appear to be injudicious or wrong, or even unjust, to the Government at home, the Government at home did not and practically could not recommeud the exercise of the veto when the action was confined to affairs which were committed to the Colonial Govern- ment. The question had occurred again and again. When the Australian Government in New South Wales took action with respect to the admission of Chinese — action which was in some respects in violation of our treaty relations — the Home Government remonstrated and attempted to use some influence to have this policy counteracted, but in vain ; and it was recog- nized at home that, having committed that power to the local Government, it was impossible to interfere with that power. The same thing had occurred with reference to New Zealand over and over again ; and with reference to Queensland the discussions were well known which took place on the question of the Kanaka traffic. It was felt that the proposals to re- new that traffic were full of danger, but it was im- possible for the Government at home to exercise any influence by way of recommending that a veto should be placed on any legislation of that kind, because it lay in the sphere of the business com- mitted to the Colonial Government. How, then, could the veto be carried into effect by any attempt this country made to use it ? That was a practical consideration in respect of our colonies, and if this country once conceded a Parliament to Ireland it would be practically impossible to assert the veto if it attempted to use it, for the Irish Parliament and the Iri.sh Administration would insist on the mainten- ance of the law, and there would be a deadlock brought about between the two Governments, neither being able to carry out its wishes ; and the whole thing would thus end in confusion. (Cheers.) There was also the question of reserving matters for con- sideration at Westminster, and the question of the land. He said generally with respect to the reserva- tion of legislative power within matters which were local that such reservations could not be maintained. He did not see how the question of reserving legisla- tion with respect to land for three years could be worked even if this Bill became law. There must be some dealings with land going on in Ireland. At this moment a cry had been heard from Ulster on the land question, and there was another cry from the South and West of Ireland with respect to judicial rents. Were all these questions to be arrested ; could they be arrested ? It was impossible to have a stagnation of land legislation iu the course of three years, and it was impossible for the British Parliament to undertake withiu that time any settle- ment which would meet the case concurrently with this Bill. The exceptions with respect to land and commerce from the legislative power of the Irish Parliament would be mischievous as long as the reservations were made. The great question to con- sider, however, was this : — If the Government set up this Parliament in Ireland, if thoy intrusted to it the powers which were now proposed to be given to it, and if the power of veto with respect to the legisla- tive powers was one which would be inoperative iu respect of their action— then the Government had to consider what would be the probable character of the dangers incidental to the setting up of such a Legislature. In this connexion they had to take into account the recent history of Ireland (cheers) and to consider the dangers which would follow the setting up of a Parliament with Ireland in the position iu which she was now, as well as the character of the The Home Rule BilL Mr. Courtney. 408 House of Commons, February 17, 1893. Legislature it was proposed to set up. As to the Legislature, he confessed that he did not know what would be the representation in what was known as the Upper House or Legislative Council. He did not know whether the 40 gentlemen elected would represent property, the classes, or what ; but he saw that if the present 103 members were transferred to Dublin, and even if the 40 were unanimous, they would be outvoted. They were not able, even acting with perfect imanimity, to withstand the majority of the joint assemblies so constituted. It was important also to consider what would be the character of the Representative Assembly, the Lower House in Dublin. The Government were going to take the constituencies as they existed, and they proposed to transfer the same constituencies and have a body of persons elected as the present members were. The secui'ity of the veto was worthless ; the security of the Upper House was probably equally so ; and if the Gavem- ment were going to produce any securities in Ireland for the good government of Ireland it must not rest in securities provided from without, but in securities provided from within. The only true security which the Government could offer for the future government of Ireland was the constitution of an Assembly which should always contain within itself a sufficient representation of the moderation, judg- ment, and character of the best portions of the Irish population, so that they should ba able to raise a remonstrance which could not be neglected and which might lead to the prevention of injudicious or unjust legislation. He was glad to read in The Times that morning (ironical cheers) a tele- gram giving the views of Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, who had said that the weakness of the proposed Con- stitution of Ireland lay in the Assembly. If they had leally to take up the task of constructing a Consti- tution for Ireland, the present representation of Ire- land must not be taken with its present constituencies and transferred to the other side of St. George's Channel. They must undertake such a reform as would secure to the Lower House of the Irish Parlia- ment securities and safeguards which could not be found by any provision or safeguard on this side of the Channel. He did not imagine that they could have illegal action on the part of the Irish Parlia- ment, but what they did apprehend, especially having regard to the representation of Ireland here, at least a faithful representation of what might be expected by a transfer of the representatives of the same con- stituencies from Westminster to Dublin ; and having regard to the recent history of Ireland, the confusion, the hostility, the alleged wrongs perpetrated on one side and the other — these things must be remembered when the Government were constructing their Irish Constitution ; and it was in constructing the House of Assembly that the whole future legislation of Ireland depended, and by it the character of the Constitu- tion would be altogether determined. (Cheers.) He would submit one or two suggestions. There was a great demand for the revision of rents. Had they any security that the Irish Parliament would not legislate for the reduction of rent all over Ireland ? During three years after the passing of the Bill, no doubt, the Irish Parliament was forbidden from legis- lating with respect to land ; but, after that time, what security would there be against wholesale revision and wholesale reduction ? Such legislation would be wholly beyond the exercise of the veto here. Then they might have taxation partial in its effects. They had had a good deal of that in the history of the Imperial Legislature. Was there any security that it was not The Home Hule Bill. I an evil into which the Irish Parliament might easily [ run P Again, whatever authority the Imperial Parlia- ment might have over Irish legislation, Irish admini- stration would be absolutely free from their control ; and they might have a one-sided administration not corrected by a minority in the Assembly capable of standing up for equity and justice in the conduct of that administration. They were always led to the conclusion that the future of Ireland would depend upon the character of the Assembly. If they were going to undertake this labour, the Government must address themselves to the constitution of the Legisla- tive Assembly, because, unless it were animated by a sense of justice, unless it had a sufficient minority to stand up for, those who would be subject to the legis- lation of the majority, they would have no confidence as to what would be the character of that legislation, and they had no power to arrest or correct it. The scheme foreshadowed in the Bill was, in his opinion, badly constructed with respect to Ireland itself ; the Legislature was not one that they could safely launch and invest with powers. But it was badly constructed also with respect to Great Britain. Enough had pro- bably been said upon the effect in the House of Com- mons of the in-and-out method of bringing Irish mem- bers there. This plan appeared to him to combine all the disadvantages that would accrue from cutting Ireland entirely adrift and none of the advantages which they would get from thit relief ; to combine all the disadvantages which would acci'ue from the adoption of the Federal system and none of the ad- vantages which they should get from that relief. It was bad on both sides. What they would realize would be infinite confusion in the position o£ the Ministry of the day. The right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister in his speech mentioned a proposal which bad not attracted much attention, but which appeared to be a gratuitous addition to the inconve- niences which would result from this plan. He said a Bill might be brought in relating to Great Britain, but it would be possible for an Irish member to move that it should extend to Ireland, and if that motion were adopted the future conduct of the Bill would be, of course, subject to the whole Imperial House. Ho was not sure that the interest taken by an Irish mem- ber in a Bill had not sometimes been an interest taken in it for the purpose of preventing it from passing. It had been avowed that the way to prevent a Bill from being passed was to manifest an interest in it, and it would be sufficient to move that a Bill should extend to Ireland to get a foothold which would enable those who so moved to wreck the Bill alto- gether. What was the reason for this extraordinary pro- vision ? Suppose the Bill were a good Bill, and it were agreeable to Irish feelings that its provision should be adopted in Ireland, why should not a similar measm'e be passed by the Irish Legislature ? Why should Irish members be brought to Westminster to 'interrupt the progress of legislation there ? (Cheers.) There was one subject on which opinion on this side of the water was nearly unanimous, but which did not meet with general support on the other side— namely, the admission of accused persons to give evidence on their own behalf in criminal cases. An hon. and learned member opposite had manifested a great interest in a Bill on that subject for the purpose of preventing it from passing. If under that new system that Bill was brought in and confined to Great Britain it would be possible for that hon. member to interfere with its beine adopted by Great Britain under the form of wishing to have it applied to Ireland, while, if ho ' really wanted its principle applied to Ireland, Mr. Courtney. House of Commons, February 17, 1893. 409 it would be only necessary to introduce a simi- lar measure into the Irish Parliament. He was totally unable to see the reason for this extraordinary aggi-ava- tion of the difficulty which would arise. He would point out a minor consequence of that aggravation. A good many years had been spent in trying to simplify the statutes of the British Parliament. The Irish Parliament would no doubt like to see their laws in as compact a form as possible. But where would the Irish lawyer of the future find his law ? It would be in statutes passed by the Irish Parliament ; it would also be in statutes introduced into the Imperial Parliament for British purposes; but made, by sub- sequent motion, applicable throughout^ the whole kingdom. With regard to the scheme of taxation he confessed it was extremely obscure to him, but be conceived that a scheme of legislation which, while giving Ireland a Legislature, admitted Irish members to the Imperial Parliament was most dangerous in respect of taxation. The Customs duties, he under- stood, were to bo levied by Imperial officers ; and the Excise duties were to be levied by Irish officers. What he did not quite understand with respect to the Excise revenue was Whether, if the duty was paid in Ireland on whisky which was consumed in England, that duty would foim part of the Irish revenue. Mr. GLADSTONE.— You will find it clearly set out in the Bill. Mr. COURTNEY said he could see that this was a matter of very considerable embarrassment and of very considerable intricacy. If duty paid in Ireland was to be accounted for to the con- suming country it would involve something very like watching over the trade in this particular commodity between Great Britain and Ireland. This was a matter Avhich was likely to lead to some dispute between the two Governments. He was still more impressed as to the property tax. That was to be levied by each country for its own purposes. If they were going to deal with these matters at all, the object should be the complete separation of , the revenues of the two countries, so as to avoid altogether the question of contributions from one to the other, above all when that was connected with the repre- sentation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament. They had a reference last night to the experience of Ai'gentina, but they had experience much nearer home. What had been the secret of the good relations which exist between this country and its colonies ? It was that the colonies made no contributions what- ever ; that there were no monetary relations what- everjwith them. ''It was absolutely impossible that they could look after the Custom duties levied in Australia or Canada, and the consequence was that friendly relations had been maintained between Eng- land and her colonies. Look, also, at the United States. How was it that the Constitution of the United States worked so smoothly for 100 years ? One principal reason was that there never had been any pecuniary relations between the Federal Govern- ment and the States. The States had been thrown on their own resources entirely. The Federal revenue had been quite independent of the States in respect to money. There was the case of New Zealand, which had provincial Governments and a central Goverument, and the greatest jealousy arose as to the money relations between the two, some of the pro- vinces complaining that others got a larger share of money for public works than they received. TTie hon. member who had preceded him would not challenge his statement that the weak point, the unsatisfactory part of the working of the Constitution of the The Home Rule Bill. Canadian Federation, had been the money relations. It had not been free from the temptation to intrigue, and, he might say, the temptation to jobbery, by the allocation of money from the central Government to the provincial Government. The proposal of the Government woiild set up a system which would involve all these dangers, and aggravate them with the presence of 80 Irish members in that House. Were they bound to undertake this work ? He did not believe they were. (Hear, hear.) They were going on well. (" Oh.") Yes ; and with patience they should have gone on better. But if they were bound to undertake it, they ought, in the construction of the Irish Parliament, to take guarantees for the good government of Ireland ; and as to the money rela- tions, if they were to have money relations between the Imperial Government and the Irish Government, those relations should be relations which could not be modified, but relations which could only be nego- tiated between the two Govefhnients possessing the confidence of the English and the Irish people, and altogether independent of all recourse to thfe votes of the Irish members. The experience of the United States, their own expeiienoe in relation to the colonies, showed the beneficial results secured by avoiding these money relations ; while the experience of New Zealand and Canada showed the extreme danger of entering into a course which would make an allocation of money between the central GovernBient and a provincial Parliament part of the scheme. These two questions On Which hfe had dwelt were, he confessed, two faults in the construction of the Bill which they were now asked to sanction in its intro- duction. They were radical faults and could not be met except by the reconstruction of the Bill. For his part he could not admit that any cause had arisen for the construction of any such scheme as that now before them. (Hear, hear.) They had gone on for 80 years with steady beneficial progress. {" Oh," and " Hear, hear.") Steady beneficial progress. (" No, no.") The Parliament of the United Kingdom had captured the upper strata of the Irish society. (" No, no.") He could only repeat his Opinion. Mr. LITTLE. — I am an Irishman and an Irish Pro- testant, and I do say that this Parliament has not captured the upper strata of Irish society. (Irish cheers.) Mr. COURTNEY said whereas the Union at the out- set was opposed by high and low Protestants as well as Catholics, the operation of the unitsd Parliament went to capture mOre and more the upper classes and the upper strata of Irish society, and if they had gone on longer they should have had considerable hope iii the opeiations of that democratized assembly of bring- ing about a complete reconciliation. (Cheers.) He did not wish to soy anything which would be offensive to any member of that House, but when he conttftstoii the prospects under the Irish Parliament and nm^ui the Imperial Parliament he could have no hesitatK'F in expressing his opinion that they should have ievtaa, chances of justice to all parties in Ireland under the 'existing system than under the proposed Bill. (Cheers.) The Imperial Parliament held the balance between the two people. (Irish ironi'cal cheers.) Had it not cut down the powers of the landlords ? He, for his part, could see no prospect of the proposed Parliament holding the balance as ii had been justly held by the Imperial Parliament. If they were to break up the United Kingdom, if they were to give Ireland a new Constitution, they must proceed on different lines from those adopted in the I Government Bill. They taust construct a different Mr. Courtney. 19 410 House of Commons, February 17, 1893. Assembly, and produce a scheme of an entirely different character to govern the relations between Great Britain and Ireland. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BODKIN said he expected when the right hon. member for "West Birmingham rose to speak that he would have called the attention of the Speaker to a point of order, for though the House was ostensibly discussing Home Bulc, the right hon. member had said that Home Bule was as dead as Queen Anne, and if that was so it was hardly consistent with the honour and dignity of the House that it should have occupied three or four days in discussing a corpse. (Laughter.) But the right hou. gentleman and the Tory party, with whom he consistently acted, would find that Home Rule, as Mr. Mantalini had said, was " a demned unpleasant coiTpse " (laughter), and it was hardly generous of the right ' hon. gentleman now to come down to the House and triumph over the dead body of a principle which he had once advocated. But the constituency of Walsall had just proved that Home Rule was not dead. (Hear, hear.) He conteuded that there had been a social revolution in England on the Home Rule question. It was not a Bcratch vote, it was not to the conversion of Scot- land or Wales, that the First Lord of the Treasury owed his return to power, but to the conversion of the great electorate of England. He was proceeding to make an attack on the Liberal Unionist party and its leader in this House when he was interrupted by the Speaker, who said the hon. member was not in any way dealing with the Bill before the House. Having apologized, the hon. member remarked that there were two alternative taunts hurled at Irishmen. If they were in a state of agitation they were told they would get nothing until they were quiet, and if they were quiet they were told they would get nothing until they agitated. Ireland was peaceful at present because Ireland had hope. (Cheers.) One of the objections to the Bill was founded on the threats of civil war by the hon. members from Ulster and the lining of the ditches. He acquitted his hon. friend (Mr. Johnston) of any bloodthirsty intentions, and he wished that all the Ulster members were as loyal to their opinions as his hon. friend. Ulstermen and other Irishmen would get on very well together, and when hon. members talked of " lining the ditches " he believed that they meant lining their breeches-pocket. (A laugh.) The right hon. gentle- man the member for West Bii-mingham was hardly within his right when he taunted the Chancellor of the Duchy with having laughed at Orange bluster. The right hon. gentleman himself said at Newcastle, on January 13, 1884, that with boasted professions of their devotion to the Crown the Orangemen insulted and defied the representatives of the Crown in Ire- land, and they broke the laws while they pretended to defend them ; and he added that he believed if there was any danger to the peace of Ireland it was from the loyal section of Ulster, led by men of rank and education, who kuew enough to know better, and who had been stimulated into almost unreasoning ferocity by the mild eloquence of the leader of the Oppositions-meaning the late Sir Stafford Northcoto. But the right hon. gentleman the member for Bir- mingham was now trying his hand at stimulating the OrangemcL '.nto unreasoning ferocity. (Hear, hear.) He ventured to think that whefl the time came Ulster would be loyal to the Irish Government in a truer and better spirit than it had ever been before. Ulstermen had repudiated the idea of separation from the rest of Ireland. (Hoar, hear.) To paraphrase a well-known phrase, Ulster would sit tiirht and Ulster would be right. (A laugh.) They were told that the whole proceedings of that House would be futile because the House of Lords would block the Bill. He did not think there was any danger of that ; if they did they would tumble like a house of cards. The SPEAICBR. — I must remind the hon. member that it is out of order to speak disrespectfully of the other House of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BODKIN said he bowed to the rul ing of the right hon. gentleman, but he was only arguing that the Lords had no right to block the will of the people. The righthon. gentleman the member forWest Birming- ham in ' ' Plain Words to the Peers " had said : — ' ' I am rather thankful than otherwise to gentlemen who will take the trouble of wearing robes and keeping up a certain state of splendour. They are ancient monuments and I, for one, would be very sorry to deface them. But I do not admit that we can build upon these interesting ruins the foundations of our Government." The SPEAKER.— The hon. gentleman is transgress- ing the rule that I laid down, 'and I now warn him. Mr. BODKIN said that he was quoting the words of the right hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham, The SPEAJOSlv. — He is quoting words not used in this House. Mr. BODKIN said he wished before he concluded to draw attention to a statement made by the right hon. member for West Birmingham with reference to the question of the nationality of the people of Ireland — that " arbitrarily selected area," selected by the Almighty without any previous consultation with the right hon. member or Ms private secretary. (Laughter.) Speaking in 1883 the right hon. gentleman said : — " Our task will never be completed until you have succeeded by just and equal laws and wise administra- tion in enlisting on the side of the English Govern- ment and the English people the interest and influence of the bulk of the Irish nation." When the right hon. gentleman uttered those words did he think that tbe*Irish people were not a nation ? There was a time, now past, when hatred of England was part of the creed of Irish nationality. They fought in those days for freedom and vengeance ; they were lighting now for freedom and friendship. It would be well for England to have the Iiish uatiou her friend when trouble should come. Let the Irish wolfdog and the British bulldog hunt in couples, and there was no game in the world strong enough to withstand them, (Laughter.) " Come the four quarters of the world in arms, " And we will shock them." Mr. RENTOUL, who characterized the measure as the most important that had been submitted to the House during the present century, said that it had been introduced by a statesman whose knowledge of Ireland was rather partial and onesided. This measure, great for evil or great for good, having been brought in, the best thing they could do was to discuss it with as little personal bitterness as possible. He was opposed to the measure, but he hoped he would bo believed when he said that in his opposition he was influenced by no selfish motive. There were two classes of Irishmen who were supposed to be incapable f of impartiality in political matters— namely, Orange- men and landlords. He did not himself belong to the Orange organization, and he was not a landlord, his ancestors when they owned land having, like so many Irishmen, tried to solve the problem how to live ou four times the amount of their income, and the usual unsatisfactory results having followed. (A laugh.) The 23 Unionist members from Ireland were The Home Kule Bill. Mr. Bodkin. House of Commons, February 17, 1893. 411 babitaally referred to as if they were landlords, but as a matter of fact only three out of this number were present Irish landlords and two of them possible future landlords. Having, he hoped, shown that he was not open to the imputation of partiality, he proposed to state the reasons that caused him to oppose the Bill. In the first place it proposed to do that which had never been done before by any nation on the face of the earth. England's greatest philosopher, who was also a great statesman and lawyer — Lord Bacon — had, in his Essay on Innovation, said : — " It is good also not to try experiments in States, except the necessity be urgent or the utility evident." The Bill was, no doubt, an experiment. Was its necessity urgent or its utility evident 'l (Hear, hear.) Its necessity was clearly not immediately urgent, for past and present Chief Secretaries and their followers had lately been vjfing with each other in pointing out the absolute peace that had reigned in Ireland during the last seven years. Again, with regard to the financial position of Ireland, in spite of the momentary depression of agricultural produce, which had hit England more heavily than Ireland, Irish farmers were, and had been during the past few years, in a very prosperous condition, much more so than English farmers. (Nationalist cries of " No, no.") Well, he was giving his own experience. It could not be said that on either of these grounds the Bill was urgent. Was its utility evident ? No speaker, whether Gladstonian or Home Kuler, had yet, so far as he could gather, attempted to point out in what way the Bill would be useful to Ireland as regarded its financial prosperity. It was said that it would give contenlment to the Irish people. Mani- festly it would not give contentment to the Unionist portion, who formed, one-third of the Irish people. (*'Hear, hear" ; a voice, *' One-fourth.") Homain- taincd that the number was one-third, but .when Irishmen got into fractions it became impossible for them to agree. (Laughter.) There was in any event a large minority that would not be contented with the Bill, but would be rendered desperately dis- contented by it. With regard to the remaining portion he was not sure how the contentment would work out. If the hon. member for North Louth were in power as Prime Minister iu an Irish Parliament, he did not think entire contentment would be felt by the hon. member for Waterford and his followers ; if, on the other hand, the hon. member for Waterford were in power, and had against his Government some of the members who were opposed to him at the present time, he was afraid there would be considerable shadows of discontent passing over the horizon. (Hear, hear.) He did not believe in extracts from news- papers of speeches made years ago ; but if tie were in the Liberal party he would have the courage to say, ** I did say these things years ago, but I have changed mv mind." He had, therefore, nothing to do with the past either of the right hon. member for ^Vost Birmingham or of the Prime Minister. One thing which did, however, weigh with him was the conduct of other nations. There was not a single nation in the world whose conduct had not been absolutely in an opposite direction to that proposed by the Bill. Italy, which only a score of years ago was divided into several different kingdoms, had been united into one entire kingdom, and the feeling of the many Italians with whom he had been brought in contact was that the unification of their country was the most glorious thing that had ever happened, lake the case of France. There was a strong The Home Bale Bill. reason why La Vend6e should have been cut off from the rest of that country, for it was strongly Catholic and loyalist when Paris was Republican and atheistic, and yet the revolt in La Vendee was crushed out and she was compelled to give way. Every man would admit that France, from a consti- tutional point of view, was quite right, and it would have been disastrous to her if she had allowed La Vendee to form- itself into a separate kingdom. In America the Southern States claimed the right to separate from the others, and took the field and fought heroically. The result was that the Northern States prevailed ; they preserved the Union and crushed down the revolt, and there was no man now who did not say that it was well that such an event had happened. As to the opinions of other nations, and especially of America, on this matter, his answer would be, '* We do not want your opinion ; we want your action. Did you give Home Rule to the Southern States ? " (Hear, hear.) There was no half-way house in this matter between a united Parliament and total separation. He knew two or thi'ee barristers who, when they were opposed to him in the Courts, were in the habit of taking him aside and giving him friendly advice as to how he should conduct his case. He always listened attentively, and whatever they told him he invari- ably did the opposite, and he found that he was generally right. (Laughter.) In the same way, he should be very chary of taking advice from the United States. He was opposed to the Bill also from his sincere respect for the great Liberal party of the country and for their intelligence and ability. (Cries of " Oh," and laughter.) The leaders and oldest members of the Liberal party had been once desperately and mortally opposed to Home Rule ; and indeed it was from their speeches that the best argu- ments against Home Rule were to be derived. Another reason for opposing Home Rule was the present con- dition of the United Kingdom. When things were bad a change might be desirable ; but in no country iu the world had the progress in wealth been so rapid as in England during the present century. The wealth per head of the English population was £290 ; and in Scotland it was even higher — £307 per head. There- fore every Scotchman who had left Scotland to settle in England had lost £J7 by the transaction. (Loud laughter.) Then Ireland was the most prosperous counti-y of all. (Nationalist laughter.) The infor- mation of hon. members who laughed was taken from the constituencies which they repre- sented : his information was taken from the constituency which ho represented. (Hear, hear.) Belfast was the most prosperous city in the whole of Europe, aud no other city had increased so rapidly in the last 50 years, either in wealth or population. Last year Belfast turned out the largest tonnage of ships of any port, and some of the best vessels aQoat were Belfast built. Cork had greater natural advan- tages as a port than Belfast, but how was it that it had not progressed at the same rate ? The reason was to be found in the contrast between the industry, law-ahidingness, and content of Belfast and the dis- content of rebel Cork. On matters political he was always willing to take the advice of people outside the political arena. The opinion of a politician was always to be distrusted. (Laughter.) Last night, after a certain speech, he went into the lobby, and met a political friend of the speaker, who said, " Was it not masterly ?" Then he met an opponent, ■who said, " Poor fellow, I was really sorry for him." (Laughter.) The vast majority of the Mr. Bentoul. 19—2 412 House of Commons, February 17, 1893. dispassionate men, the great poet3 and historians and literary men, were dead against Home Rule. Tennyson, Froude, Matthew Arnold, Huxley, Sir F. Leighton, Swinburne — the list ot great names could be continued indefinitely almost. His next objection to the Bill was the mental state of those who would form the majority in the Irish Parlia- ment. (Laughter.) He did not imply that there was anything weak in their mental state — he would leave the two parties to say that of each other. (Laughter.) But the best indication was the Meath election petitions. The hon. and learned member for North Louth appeared as counsel at the hearing of those petitions — and, fortunately, in England it was not the practice for politicians to conduct political cases (hear, hear) — and the hon. member summed up the whole case in one phrase. He said, " The right of private judgment is the right of private stupidity." What did any hon. gentleman of great ability and high education, such as the hon. member for South Donegal, think of that doctrine in relatiori to his own constituents ? (Laughter.) In his opinion the right ot private judgment was onfe of the most valuable rights that a man could possess. (Hear, hear.) To a mild man like himself it was most startling, it was most horrifying, it was most frightening to bo told that if the hon. members near him were to be placed in power in Ireland he should not be allowed to exercise the right of private judg- ment. (Hear, hear.) He was afraid that if those hon. membei's attained power they would make short work of men like himself. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) But the next element was the unbusiness- like ideas of the Irish Home Rulers. On July 6 last the whole of the walls of Belfast wore placarded with "Vote for Sexton, your only member." ("Hear, hear," and laughter.) He had the greatest respect for the courtesy, the amiability, and the ability of the hon. gentleman, and it would be audacious for such an humble member of that House as himself even to compliment him, but as one of the crowd he could not help expressing his admiration for the judicious speech which the hon. member had made upon the subject of this Bill. But surely it was unbusinesslike to assert that the hon. member was the only member for Belfast. (" Hear, heir," and laughter.) For all these reasons he was compelled earnestly and emphati- cally to oppose the policy ot Home Rale. (Hear, hear.) The Irish Nationalist members claimed to be exclusively the representatives ot the people of Ireland. The hon. member for North Kerry had given the House the assurance that the Irish Legislature of the future would not desire to inflict injustice upon any one in Ireland. Surely such a declaration as that was the outcome ot the hon. member's private stupidity. (" Hear, hear," and laughter, and cries ot " No.") Well, how was an ignorant man like himself to know whether such a declaration was the outcome of the hon. member's private stupidity or whether he had mad" it at the dictation of his priest? (Hear, hear.) tt uue hon. member was not entitled to exercise the right of private stupidity he must have been authorized to make that declara- tion by his priest. (Hear, hear.) It was no fault of his that he was a blustering, noisy Ulsterman. That was the exact phrase used by the Chancellor of the Duchy. Why did he not tell the House that he was an Ulsterman himself ? The right hon. gentleman carefully concealed that fact from the House. The right haia. gentleman was a member of a very cele- brated Ulster family, but all the members of that family were dead against hitn upon the Home Rule question, and a brother of his had written one of the cleverest books that had been published upon the sub- ject in order to do away with the evil influence of his relative. (Laughter.) So that the Chancellor of the Duchy, who wanted to speak for Ulster, could not even speak for his own family. No 23 members taken at random from the House were returned by such large majorities as were the 23 Irish Unionist members. The word " blustering " meant " leading to assume, in manner and language, a power and responsibility for which there is no foundation " ; but if any men had a right to speak in the name of the constituencies which they represented, the 23 Irish Unionists were so entitled. Was it passible to speak out more power- fully in the same direction than Ulster did last June — and would, he hoped, speak again? Then, as to the epithet " noisy." All that was loud was not necessarily noisy. The word implied a want of harmony ; but could any 23 members be found more in harmony with one another than he and his 22 friends ? (Cheers.) He thought the right hon. gentle- man .should express his sorrow for what he had said. Although an Ulsterman himself, the right hon. gentleman did not represent an Ulster constituency, for obvious reasons. (Laughter.) The Unionists did not believe that they had any right to break up an Empire which was founded, not by themselves, but by their forefathers ; and in that belief they were now opposing, and would continue to endeavour to defeat, this or any other scheme of separation and Home Rule. (Cheers.) Mr. B. WjVLLACB said that, as a new member, he had not intended to interpose in this debate, but for the challenge which fell from one of the hon. members foi- Tyrone, and which had been emphasized by the last speaker. Under present circumstances, however, he felt bound, as an Ulsterman (cheers) — one who possessed a considerable stake in that part ot Ireland — to stand up and let the House know that which the members from Ulster had kept back — namely, a true statement of the feeling which prevailed there. So strongly did he feel that the proposal to confer Home Rule upon Ireland would be for the benefit hnd prosperity of the country that within the past three months he had considerably added to his property in Belfast (cheers), being fully persuaded that his stake in that town would increase in value under a Home Rule Government. (Ironical laughter and cheers.) Hon. gentlemen behind him might laugh, but it was so. He would first like to refer to the statement ot the leader of the House in reference to the Protestants of Ulster and the men of 1798. He was a grandson ot a 'i)8 man (cheers), who, in his turn, was descended from honest and honourable sheep-stealers from the south ot Scotland. (Loud laughter.) Yes ; that was at a time when the practice was considered an 'honest and honourable occupation in Scotland, and the only inconvenience which attached to those who practised it was that, if caught, they were hanged on the spot. (Renewed laughter.) He hoped he inherited some of the sense of his ancestors. (Loud laughter.) As to the reiterated assertion that the Pro- testants of Ulster were opposed to Home Rule, he might say that ho had the honour of beine the vice-president of the Irish Protestant Home Rule Association, which hon. members had said very little about in the House. He did not deny the high position occupied by Messrs. Harland and Wolff in Belfast, but neither of them was an Ulsterman. (Laughter.) He had himself been present in the office of the Home Rule Association in Belfast when Messrs. Harlaud and Wolff's own ship The Home Rule BilL Mr. Bentoul. House of Commons. February 17, 1893. 413 carpenters had come bynight and asked to be enrolled in the Pioteatant Home Bule Association on the con- dition that their names were never to be published, and that their subscriptions to the association were to be acknowledged under initials, so' that they might not lose their employment. (" Oh.") These men wfjre enrolled, and he and the secretary pledged their honour that it should never be revealed in public that they were members of the association. Merchants of Belfast had also told him in private that they sympathized with his views, and, therefore, it was wrong to assume that the whole of the Protestants of the town were against Home Bule. (Niitionalist cheers.) As far as he'was concerned. Home Rule was the particular plank on which he fought the constitu- ency of Limehouse, and on every occasion when he bad attended the meetings of other Knglish candi- dates Home Bule had received the same prominent consideration. Thq arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite resolved themselves into this — that there were no special reasons, no privileges, appertaining to Ulster why she should have prospered more than any other portion of Ireland. (Opposition cheers.) He was very glad to find that he had not misunderstood the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite. Possibly that was more duo to his acumen than to their lucidity. (Laughter.) There were, how- ever, cogent and legitimate reasons why the south and west of Ireland were not so prosperous as Ulster, and the first of these was found in the altered condition of the fishing industry, which was once so flourishing. The Irish had obtained control of the Baltic fish trade to the extent that it excited the desire of the Scotch- men. (Laughter.) The Irish fish brand was \7ith- drawn, and Scotland obtained the Government brand for their fish with a bounty of 4s. per barrel. The woollen trade was also carried on in those districts, but the exportation of wool was prohibited and the trade died out in the south and west of the countiy. Then the importation of Irish cattle was prohibited, and when, in addition to these facts, the rack-rented condition of the poor tenant was borne in mind reasons would be seen why the south and west of Ire- land were not in such a prosperous condition as they might have been in other circumstances. Eeference bad been made to the shipbuilding trade, the linen trade, and the agriculture of the north as reasons for the prosperity of Belfast. He pointed out, however, that the building land in that town was let on per- petual leases, while in the towns of the south and the west this system of tenure did not exist. Again, there was the tenant-right ih Ulster, by which the tenant was partially protected in the fruits of his industry. As to the shipbuilding, he showed that Messrs. Harland and Wolff, being shrewd men of business, saw how favourably Belfast was situated for the carrying on of the shipbuilding trade, the port being adjacent to the iron and coal fields of the south of Scotland, and the reason why Cork had not been so prosperous was because the freights to this town for coal and iron were three timesashighas they were to Belfast. The hon. member proceeded to enter into details as to the linen trade for the last 200 years amid mani- fe.stations of impatience which induced him tj say that when he entered that House ho thought he should address an assembly of gentlemen. He had had the honour of displacing a Tory in a metropolitan con- stituency, and he was not going to be put down. (Laughter.) He denied that creed had anything to do with the success of the linen trade. Belgium had progressed with more rapid strides. He, a Presbyterian bom and bred in Belfast, had no fear for Preflby- tovianism in Ireland under this Bill. PresbyterianiSih would stand or fall on its own merits, and if it was wrong the sooner it fell the better. An hon. member near him had recently been on a Voyage to America, but ho did not point out this important fact — that in America between the two political parties the Boman Catholics were about equally divided, and the Eoman Catholic priest never interfered. (Hear, hear.) Why? Becauseheknewhe should be travelling beyond the domain of his duties. It was to be regretted that one Irish Bishop had issued a circular, but no other Bishop approved his action, and the oilence was brought home by Boman Catholic witnesses and a 'Boman Catholic Judge. No, the Ulster farmers were not afraid of that ; what they wished was to see justice done between them and their landlords. (Hear, hear.) Mr. GOSCHEN, who was received with cheers, said, — In that bright bit of banter which was the only answer that the Secretary of State for War gave to the very powerful speech of the noblo lord tho member for Paddington, the right hoc. gentleman com- mented noli severely on the fact of the long debate that was taking place on the first reading of this Bill. I think he said it was in contravention of ordinary Parliamentary practice. I have precedents which I could quote to the House where, on questions of infinitely minor importance compared with this great issue, there had been four, five, and six nights' debate on the first reading. But I am not concerned to establish a precedent for this case, because it appears to me that the Bill itself is unprecedented (cheers) ; and if this Bill is unprecedented it will be oiir duty to debate it and to open the eyes of the cauiitry to its provisions on every possible occasion. (Cheers. )i I entirely agree with the Secretary of State for War that we have had some interesting speeches, and if he said that with justice last night, I think We may still further congratulate ourselves to-day on the prolonga- tion of this debate, looking to the most interesting speeches to which we listened at an earlier part of the evening. But comparatively few Badical supporters of the Government have taken part in this debate. (Hear, hear.) It has not been in order to save time, because the debate would have come to a conclusion in precisely the same number of days even if Badical members had taken part in it. But I can quite understand their absteusion, because they found that the whole field of discussion was thorojghly honeycombed with pitfalls into which an unwary supporter of the Go- vernment might walk. (Cheers.) What line was he to take up ? Was he to defend the precise proposal of the Government with regard to the retention of the Irish members in this House ; would it be wise for him to put forward his views after the tentative character of the proposal which was submitted by his lender himself ? I think it was very wise that the Badicals did not embarrass themselves in that respect. Again, what should they say of the financial clauses ? Should they approve straightway of what my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition called the war indemnity of 17 millions, which is to he paid as the price for the cessation of hostilities ? Mr. GLADSTONE.— Seventeen millions ! Mr. GOSCHEN. — Perhaps the right hon. gentleman did not hear what I said. It is the capital sum repre- senting the £500,000. (Cheers.) Hon. members will admit; — if they prefer to have the annual payment rather than the capital taken — they will admit that it is £500,000. Well, were theytoapproveof the £500,000 a year, and say that that was the correct figure ? That would have been a very dangerous position to have Ibe Home Bnle BllL Mr. S. Wallace. 414 House of Commons, February 17, 1893. taken up, because hoa. members for Ireland declared that the financial proposals of the Government are thoroughly unsatisfactory and that they will have to be remodelled. And point by point hon. members will find pitfalls — some have already begun to stumble into them. (Laughter.) With regard to the safeguards that are offered, the £20 Legislative Chamber has not been received very warmly by Radicals opposite, and I think the Government will find that on this point they are opposed by a very large portion of their own supporters. Therefore I think it perfectly natural that there are comparatively few of the independent English and Scotch supporters of her Majesty's Government who have taken part in the debate. Bat we have not had much light even from her Majesty's Government. We have had a speech from the Chancellor of the Duchy and a few observations from the Secretary of State for War. The Government have proceeded, it appears to me, upon the principle of partial revelation. They were not prepared to show this great piece of legislation to their followers at once. (" Oh, oh.") I will make good what I say. Take the case of the land. Nothing whatever was said by the Prime Minister upon the land question — this most important question, in regard to which the hon. member for Longford in his most eloquent speech said it must be settled— a matter of primary importance with regard to which the leader of the House had said that the very honour of the House of Commons was engaged. This subject was slipped over entirely and no ray of light was shed upon it. (Cheers.) The Prime Minister, when asked, said he had forgotten to state that the land question would be hung up for three years. It was a very important statement ; but how little that was for our guidance ! With regard to the veto, it was the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Dnchy who had to reveal the fact and to explain the nature of the veto of the Imperial Parliament. The Prime Minister slurred over that important question in one single sentence. He said there will be special occasions when the Viceroy will receive instructions from the Sovereign. That was all that was vouchsafed on the first occasion. Mr. GLADSTONE.— Very inaccurately stated. Mr. QOSCHBN. — I have no wish, I can assure the right hon. gentleman, to quote him in any way, but by this I stand — that it was only in a single line that the right hon. gentleman alluded to that part of the Bill. Am I not right, therefore, in saying that this is a system of partial revelation ? With regard to the financial question, how inadequate was the first explanation, and as regards the police it was necessary to press into the service of the Government the hon. member for Kerry, who explained what are the police provisions with infinitely greater expansion than the authors of the Bill. (Laughter and cheers.) The Government have proceeded upon this principle — that what light they would throw upon the Bill should be a kind of revolving light, green sometimes, when it was shown to the Irish party, and at other times red to the other sections of the House. (Laughter and cheers.) I should wish to say a word or two on the question of finance, and I should wish to be corrected if I state the general position inaccurately. There appears to me to have been some confusion between the comparison of the financial arrangements of 1886 and the present financial arrangements. It appears to a good many on both sides of fchn House as if the present demand from Ireland was a much smaller demand than that in 1886, for this reason — that the present contribution asked for from Ireland is two million three hundred odd thousand pounds, whereas in 18S6 it was to be three million two or three hundred thousand pounds. Am I not correct in saying that this difference arises partly from the fact that in the 1886 arrangement the proceeds of the Excise, which are practically paid by the English consumer, remained in the hands of Ireland, whereas it is now to be paid into the English Exchequer? £1,400,0C0, which under the arrangement of 1886 would have remained with the Irish Exchequer, will now come into the English Exchequer ; consequently, the contribution from Ire- land must on that account be diminiehed. If I under- stand the matter rightly, that is the reason why the present demand appears to be much smaller than the demand in 1886 ; but, as a matter of fact, I umier- staud that the demand now is practically about the same as that which was luado before. (Hear, hear.) I have thought it right lo give ,niy opinion on ihe subject, not in any controversial spirit whatever, bvit only to avoid misconception. But the sooner we have the statement promised with regard to finance, the better it will be. Look at this financial question for a moment as it is now revealed to us. Without going into figures at all, what is it ? The Customs are lo be kept for Imperial pai-poses, the Excise, income- tax, and stamps are to be handed over for Irish purposes. Well, then, what are thej Customs duties ? The Customs duties mean the duties on tea and tobacco and on foreign spirits ; but so far as Ireland is con- cerned it is on tea and tobacco alone that they will pay contributions to the Imperial Exchequer. Mr. TIMOTHY HBALY.— And on foreign spirits. Mr. GOSCHEN.— Yes, on foreign fpirits ; but I thought that Ireland, on the whole, would consume its own spirits (laughter), and that foreign spirits would not compete with the admirable beve- rages (renewed laughter) which are now going to be constituted as the fundamental basis of Irish finance. I will show in a moment that the whole of the Irish finance, as constructed by the right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister, depends on whisky. (Laughter.) Now as to customs and Imperial finance, mark this, as the Bill has been explained, if you increase tho customs duties you increase the share Ireland has to pay ; but if you diminish the customs duties you will diminish the contribution which Ireland will be asked for. What does the hon. member for Leicester, who is in favour of the abolition of the tea duty, say to this proposal ? No answer has been given to tho point that if the tea duty is reduced the contri- bution from Ireland is reduced, and if the duty on tobacco is reduced Ireland will no longer pay that share which the Prime Minister thinks it is necessary for her to pay. (Hear, hear.) See, then, how tho arms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are tied in the future in this respect. I must protest with all my might against this tying of the hands of the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer and embarrassing the finance of the country by making the customs duties dependent upon the maintenance of the Irish contribution. It should be understood that by this measure we are tying our hands as regards customs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us the figures which together constitute the Irish contribution— £5,660,000 ; and that was the total to be paid by Ireland. Of that total, £3,200,000 are excise; and nearly the whole of the excise consists of duties paid upon spirits. The consequence will be this — that the people of Ireland will know that, when they consume tea and tobacco they are paying tribute, as it will be called, to Great Britain, but whisky-drinkers will be supporting the The Home Bule Bill. Mr. Goschen. House of Commons, February 17, 1893, 415 national finances. (Laughter.) It was the hon. member for Waterford who said, in his very able speech, " We have a balance now of £500,000, but we depend mainly upon the excise." What is, then, to happen if the excise should fail ? Why, certainly, the surplus will vanish. The budget of Ireland, as reconstracted, will simply depend upon the consumption of whisky by the people. It will not be increased in other items because their destination will he fixed by Imperial law ; and therefore the position is that the finances of the country will depend mainly upon the drinking of the people. I will not inquire to what extent they will then encourage or not encourage those efforts to promote temperance which they have often supported by their votes in this House. (Hear, hear.) Such is the finance ; and I feel confident that this scheme of finance cannot stand ; it will have to be recast. Neither Irish members nor English members will be prepared to accept such finance. There is one great change that is made in this Bill as compared with ths Bill of 1886, and it is that the whole collection of the revenue is to be placed in Irish hands. The income-tax, stamps, and the miscellaneous revenue — all excex^t Customs — are to be put in Irish hands. Evei-y Excise officer will be an ofiicer, iiot of the Imperial Government, but of the Executive Govern- ment ; every oificial in Ireland will be a servant of tjie new Executive ; every collector will be a servant of the Executive. We shall pai-t with the whole collection of the revenue ; we shall part with every one who represents her Majesty's Government in Ireland excepting two men — the Commander-in-Chief and the Viceroy. Every other representative of the sovereignty will have vanished from Ireland except the Viceroy, the red-coated soldier, and the Custom-house officers at the ports. The power of the purse is an immense power, and the right hon. gentleman parts with the power of the purse as regards both collection and expenditure. The whole civil service of Ireland is to be revo- lutionized and to have a new master. I do not think the right hon. gentleman can quote a precedent for the replacement of a service like the civil service in Ireland such as is to be proposed by this Bill. It is an immense revolution. Do hon..njembers thoroughly grasp the effect of it 1 Take Belfast— take Ulster— the whole patronage will be in' the hands of the new Executive. (Ministerial cheers.) What protection is there for persons in the Bill ? The cheers show in what spirit hon. members will be prepared to administer the Bill in this respect. Looking to the differences between Ulster and the rest of Ireland, looking to the claims of Loyalists in other parts of Ireland, to place the whole patronage, tot in the hands of an impartial body, but in the hands of an Executive Government, is a ve^ bold step, which must be regarded by this countiy with very considerable distrust. Our opponents tell us at eveiy step that we distrust the Irish people (hear, hear), not only that we have mistrust as to what they will do, but that wo malign their motives and hold them up to contempt or blame. We have often protested against that insinuation and that charge. It is an absolutely false charge. (Mr. Timothy Healy. — Hottentots.) Does not the hon. member, who is a literary man and knows the English language, know that the word was never employed in the sense which he wishes to give to it 1 It was a malicious attempt to mislead the public. It is strange that the word should be revived (" It will be revived ") at a time which we are told is to be a season of recon- ciliation and " union of hearts." (Opposition cheers.) 1 could quote words in answer to the hon. mem- ber for Louth and the hon. member for Long" ford, but we are told that the sponge is to wipe out all that has been said. We were told by the Secretary of State for War that the language which has been held in Ireland during the last ten years has been the language of excited politicians, and that we ought to forget that language 'at the present moment. I wish that it were possible to do so. I wish, looking to the reconciliation that we all desire, that we could forget — that it would be right to forget — every violent word that has been spoken oa the hillsides of Ireland. (Cheers.) But can we do so ? Are we entitled to believe, looking to the duty we owe to the loyalists of Ireland, that the policy which has been announced for years has been abandoned by the Irish party, and abandoned at this moment because moderate words are now asked for ? (Cheers.) I am not anxious to introduce controversy into this matter. (" Hear, hear," and Nationalist laughter.) But when we are told, as we have been by the Prime Minister, that we are holding up the Irish nation to contempt, we are bound to reply ; and if we are warm in our replies it is not in the spirit of controversy, but rather in a spirit of regret that such charges should be lodged, and lodged against a party who represent a majority of Great Britain, taken as a whole. (Cheers.) Such charges are not calculated to encourage the Irish people to believe in the alleged great desire for reconciliation or in the sincerity of hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) We protest against such insinua^ tions and such reproaches. The Secretary of War, when he spoke of excited politicians, seemed to think that all the violent language that had been used should be forgotten, because it really meant nothing but heat ; but I ask. Has that lans^uage had no effect on the Irish peasants ? (Cheers.) Can they at once forget all the lessons they have been taught ? (Hear, hear.) I wish to know, because this is a very important matter. Has the language with regard to land and landlords which has been used during the last ten years been only so much political capital— so much humbug, so much blarney, indulged in simply in order to make excitement ? (Hear, hear.) If so, I can only say that the Irish peasants and tenants have not read it in that light. The excited words of hon. members have lighted a flame in Ireland, and we cannot believe that that flame will at once be smothered because a Home Rule Bill is passed and those hon. members are installed in College-green. The hon. member for Longford seems to think that it will cease at once. Do hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite think it will so cease ? If it does, will the fact not show that all the outcry about judiciiil rents and other matters was so much mere political Tiachinery employed in order to pro- duce a Home Bule Bill ? (Cheers.) The hon. member for the city of Cork used these words not long ago : — " The Irish party will never accept any national settlement — any Home Kule settlement — that will not draw the last fangs of landlordism." Are these the words of a serious or of an excited politician f And how will the tenants take these words ? The hon. member possibly may be installed as Minister of Agriculture on College-green, and wo shall then see whether he will perform this interest- ing act of dentistry-— namely, ** drawing the last fangs of landlordism." But we have got to provide securities that this kind of policy should not be carried out, and we have a right to ask — Do hon. members abandon their language in this respect ? The Home Bnle BilL Mr. Goschen. 416 House of Commons, February 17, 1893. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman says we use hard words. The leader of the Opposition spoke of plunder. That was a hard word, but it is not harder than " rapine," which was used by a very high authority. (Laughter and cheers.) Hon. members below the gangway call that justice which we call plunder. The fact is they have a different standard. (Cheers.) Through the agrarian difficulty their whole minds are in a different position ; their attitude of mind is different. They call landlords robbers. Are they prepared to give up the demand for " restitution " ? It is these questions which must be faced ; and are they to be faced ? (Cheers.) Now I ask the Chief Secretary — What is to become of the land during the next three years ? Are the landlords of Ireland to bleed to death during that period ? Do her Majesty's Government intend to deal with the land themselves, or has the whole subject gone by the board ? We consider that the Government, after their declara- tions in 1886 and the attitude they have taken throughout, are bound in honour to deal with the land question. The question of education cannot be disposed of as the hon. member for Louth tried to dispose of it this afternoon. The hon. member said that perhaps the Irish would show us an example of civil and religious liberty. The hon. member comes to us from abroad, and I am sure I am echoing the Words of every hon. member when I say we rejoice to see tbe hon. member amongst us, and that we were glad to hear his eloquent speech. We welcome him as an addition to this House. (Cheers.) But the hon. member has not known what has been going on with regard to education in Ireland, the bitter controver- sies, the Eoman Catholics doing their utmost to carty out a policy which the Protestants have strenuously resisted. The Roman Catholic majority will have the power of the purse, and that power will be able to decide many most important questions in regard to education. There are Protestant schools, not in Ulster, but in the south of Ireland, which have struggle enough to maintain themselves. They can only be maintained by an impartial administration. How will the Education Board be constituted in future, and what weight will be thrown upon it ? I say, in connexion with education, that again you can ibtroduce into this Bill no securities when you have parted with the whole of the executive power. I am relieved froni the necessity of dealing with the vast changes which would take place through the transfer of executive power by the most powerful speech of the right hon. member for West Birmingham. He showed the power of the Executive. If hon. members had the whole of the personnel in their hands the power of the purse would be also in their hands, and they Would be making a revolution quite as great and as serious as any revolution which could be made in -any other manner. (Hear, hear.) What securities are we to have ? This is the ques- tion put by the right hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham. He spoke of the Legislative Council — and hew) I may observe that no answer has been given to a very good point made by the member for Plymouth when he asked why this figure of 48 has been introduced. (Hear, hear.) He showed that this figure of is would prevent the Legislative Council ever having a majority if they sat together with the popular Assembly. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, this very security, this very body intended to protect the loyalists, is in its very origin generated by a piece of gerrymandering. (Cheers.) We have already had notice with regard to this part of the case. There are a large number of hon. members opposite who will attack this principle. Not only the member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), but the member for the BridgetoU Division (Sir George Trevelyan) will come down and make one of those speeches with which we are familiar, showing that this is a privilege which has been established, and that it will have to be abolished. (Hear, hear.) Then we come to the question of the veto. The hon. member for Longford said that he was content with the provision in the Bill. He said that the veto would be used on the advice of the Irish Cabinet by the Viceroy. That is no veto at all. If the Viceroy is to act on the advice of the Irish Cabinet that is simply asking him to veto a Bill which they themselves have passed. (Cheers.) Such a security is not worth the paper on which it is written. (Hear, hear.) .4s to the other veto, the questibn was ably dealt with by the hon. member for Longford. He went through the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham, but he did not tell us what advantage Canada has experienced with regard to the veto, nor what the Canadian people would think if the Canadian Parliament was subjected to the same kind of veto. Canada is placed in a totally different position from Ireland. Is Canada a nation or not ? We look upon Canada as a loyal and devoted colony. (Hear, hear.) The Canadians do not claim to be a nation, and yet they have their own tariff ; they are not tied down as regards representa- tion ; they have fiscal freedom — freedom in every respect, and yet they are not a nation ; and the hon. member speaks of Ireland as a nation. (Hear, hear.) He spoke of her national rights, and yet he thinks that Ireland will be satisfied with an in- finitely lower concession of privileges than is given to Canada. (Hear, hear.) A country that claims to be a nation is to be satisfied with less than a colony demands. (Hear, hear.) How often does the veto require to be exercised in Canada ? I have not the same knowledge of Canada as I have of other colonies, but we know that when- ever there is a question of the exercise of the veto there is an agitation at once, and they speak oi separation. (Hear, hear.) In the Australian colonies they say, " It the English Government forces this upon us wo will not be responsible for the consequences.'* Both the hon.memberforWaterfordandthehon. member for KeiTy told us that they consent to a nominal supremacy and that the weapon of the veto is not to be used. Mr. SEXTON.— I never said so. Mr. GOSOHEN.— I have the hon. member's speech in my pocket. (Laughter.) The hon. gentleman said, " The framing of the Home Rule Bill will amount to a compact which no doubt will be observed on both sides so that there would be no arbitrary and capricious interference by Par- liament." (Cheers.) And then the right hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham asks a question, which has not been answered, " How are the words ' arbitrary and capricious ' to be inter- preted ?" How are you to judge ? Mr. SEXTON. — Leave it to common sense. (Cheers.) Mr. GOSCHBN.— The hon. member has not only common-sense but great acuteness, and if time per- mitted I could put to him a great many questions as to what he considers capricious and vexatious, and I think his definition of those words and the definition of the majority of the British people would probably be very different. (Mr. Sexton.—" I think not," and cheers.) The hon. member Is politician enough to know that as regards caprioiousness, at all events the The Home Rule Bill. Mi. Croschen. House of Commons, February 17, 1893. 417 views of the contending parties .will always be diametrically opposite. (Hear, hear.) This veto, then, is not to he used ; or, if it is frequently used, if it is used for purposes for which a majority of the people of Great Britain may claim to use it, we have fair notice from hon. members below the gangway as to the consequences : the 80 members from Ireland will know how to give a good account of themselves. (Hear, hear.) One other question on which I wish to touch is that most important one of the retention of the Irish members in this House. The Secretary of State for War in his interesting speech last night treated this question in the lightest possible way. He seemed to say, " There is no difficulty about the matter at all. Solvitur ambulando, we will settle it as we toddle along." (Laughter.) When I heard the first intimation we had on this subject the old quota- tion occurred to , me, so^OTJniur risu tabulce, and I thought the right hon. gentleman would be laughed out of court. I should like to have been present in the Cabinet when the Prime Minister expounded his views and said, I suppose, "I do not want to have lop- sided members in the House, members with limited liability." Then I presume the Secretary for War got up and said airily, " Solvitur ambulando ; there is no difficulty ; why, a town council could settle the matter." (Laughter.) We have heard of something that baffled the wit of man, and yet the Secretary for War thinks that a town council could solve the problem. But that is not the opinion of others. Lord Rosebery, for example, did not think that yon can settle this question as you "toddle along," for he said not long ago :— " If you say, as many have said, ' We will admit the Irish members, but only for Imperial matters,' what are you going to do with the Irish members when Imperial matters are not going on ? Is the Speaker to ring a bell and say, ' The Irish members may come in ?' Then some hon. member who may object will rise and say, ' I object to the presence of the Irish members ; this is not an Imperial matter, ' and then we shall have a debate of two nights as to whether the question under discus- sion is Imperial or not. Then, the Irish members having been admitted, you may find the Speaker ring- ing his bell and saying, ' Irish members may retire.' You will thus have these unfortunate Irish members in a state of perpetually suspended and restored anima- tion." (Laughter.) I think that the right hon. gentleman is a little hard upon his colleagues in treating the matter so lightly as he treated it last night. I should like to read the following passage from the late Chief Secretary. He said : — "I do not care what precautions we might take. I do not care where you draw the line in theory, you may depend upon it there is no power on earth which can prevent the Irish members from being in the future what they have been in the past— the arbiters and masters of the English policy and English legislative business " (loud cheers) " and of the rise and fall of British Administrations." (Cheers.) Let us mark these words. No single member who addressed himself to this subject has been able to dis- prove this assertion. (Cheers.) It had been proved over again. I should like to know whether the country will admit the truth of what has been said, that if you pass this Homo Rule Bill no power on earth will prevent these gentlemen below the gangway from being masters of English legislation. (Cheers.) Have you tried to prevent it or do you admit that you have not pre- vented it ? I think the Prime Minister admits it has not been prevented, and we shall Mr. GLADSTONE.— I said that it would not apply The Home Rule Bill. to 19-20ths or 99-lOOths of the business of Parlia- ment. (Ministerial cheeis.) Mr. GOSCHBN.— Yes ; but if the 20th means or the 100th means the fall of an Administration engaged in English legislation by a combinatioa of the English minority^ and the Irish, what then ? It cannot be answered. (Cheers.) I do not think that hon. members have tried to answer it. Well, if that is so, the Irish members are to remain in this con- dition. (Cheers.) Can that be permitted ? We are asked to vote for this measure partly on the ground of finality ; I think finality has been repudiated by the hon. member for Waterford. The hou. member for Longford seems to think that Mr. Pamell had accepted the Bill in 1886 as a final settlement. That statement was denied in public and it could not be a final settlement ; and as it is not a final settle- ment we are to retain the Irish members in this House to be the arbiters and masters of the English Parliament. (Cheers.) We have neither got the security in this Bill nor finality. I believe that from the Bill you will have to remove the finality part ; you will have to change a great deal connected with the second .legislative Chamber and the Irish repre- sentation. (Cheers.) I wonder how much will remain of the whole Bill. (Laughter and cheers.) We should like to see the Bill (Ministerial cheers), and we are glad that the sight of the Bill will have been accom- panied by this debate. There is much hidden away in the Bill. There are many little clauses, the effect of which would never have appeared unless this debate had taken place. (Opposition cheers.) It is not easy to read in a little clause how the Irish remain the masters and arbiters of English legisla- tion. (Cheers.) These things are not found in a Bill. We shall see the Bill to-morrow, and we shall then be able to judge how far even the policy, as announced, has been carried out by the right hon, gentleman ; but that Bill will never pass into law. (Loud Opposition cheers.) It will be added to the Bill of 1886, and very probably there will be a future third attempt. They will not be bound up in the Acts of the realm (laughter and cheers), but they will be bound up in a little volume which may be headed " Failures to solve the insoluble." (Laughter.) The problem is insoluble (cheers), and th-erefore I attach no blame to the Cabinet for being unable to solve it. They ask for incompatible things. They wish to retain the English sovereignty, and at the same time to make Ireland a nation (cheers) ; to maintain the fiscal unity, and yet to give a separate finance to Ireland ; to allow the Imperial Parliament to go on deciding Imperial questions, and to have ns here deciding British questions without the Irish. No doubt the attempt is made from what may be called a righteous motive but it must fail. (Cheers.) These Bills were introduced originally— and the Chief Secretary contributed very much towards their intro- duction—with a feeling of despair (cheers) from tho idea that this country had been proved impotent to govern one of the integral parts of the kingdom. Ihere were others who desired to make more rapid progress with English legislation. They were content to abandon the Irish loyalists for that object. But now I admit to the full that amongst hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite there is a large class, perhaps the majority, who have given up the ideas of despair and of convenience, and who are animated by the simple desire for conciliation— the attempt to unite the Irish and the English peoples. I can imagine the immense attraction which such a hope- must have for the Prim? Minister. (Cheers.) There Mr. Goschen. 20 418 House of Commons, February 17, 1893. is no oreration in engineering which lias a greater attraction to ambitious and clever engineers than the construction of a bridge which will bridge a wide chasm. The right hon. gentleman has had that ambition, and it is a noble ambition. (Loud Ministerial cheers.) But the foundations of that bridge must be firm. (Opposition cheers.) It must be so con- stmcted that it will bear the stress of storms ; and that strength we do not see in the bridge which the right hon. gentleman attempts to construct. But, in all sincerity, I have acknowledged the desire of the right hon. gentleman for this conciliation ; but let him and his friends in their turn also give us credit for the motives which make us resist this Bill, and which will continue to animate us to resistance. (Cheers.) It is no small motive. It has been pointed out to-day by the right hon. gentleman the member for West Birmingham, in language so powerful that I will not attempt to imitate It, that we believe, rightly or wrongly, the intogi-ity of the Empire to be at stake. (Cheers.) We may be mistaken (Ministerial cheers), but at least it is a motive which, if hon. gentlemen opposite felt it, would make them fight as we do ; and they would not think that we were merely wasting the time of the House. We believe that the highest interests ever intrusted to Parliament depend upon our action. (Cheers.) And there is another motive which is inspiring us — a motive which you are bound to respect, if you cannot share it. Cannot your imaginations carry to you the idea that we feel the dictates of honour compel us to stand by the loyalists of Ireland ? (Loud cheers.) Cannot you feel what we feel and have repeated so often, that these loyalists of Ireland have believed in the British connexion, and have stood by it in good times and bad ? And is it right now to hurl all these remon- Btrances at them, as the Prime Minister did, because they have not thrown in their lot with those who desire to separate from the United Kingdom ? (Cheers.) We are bound to stand by them ; and never in the history of the world has a great Power like this country consented to abandon a population of a million who desired to remain under its sway. You talk of reconciliation, but in that reconciliation the million loyalists ought to take part ; a-nd so long as they stand by in despair we will not surrender to any demands which would bring about the betrayal of those who have been true to us, (Cheers.) I should like to quote to the Prime Minister the words of one of his leaders, Sir Robert Feel — words spoken in 18.34 in opposing the motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the Repeal of the Union. That debate lasted for four nights. It was not supposed that on a question like that the opportunities for debate should be stifled. (Hear, hear.) Sir Robert Peel said : — " Opposuit natura ; physical necessity forbids repeal.'* Those words are true now ; and this Bill is repeal. (Loud cheers.) Nearly 60 years have passed since then, and in that period our honourable obligations to the loyalists of Ireland have increased and grown, and constitute now an additional duty to tUe people of this country to resist the demands by which they will be lost to the British rule. (Cheers.) Sir RobertPeel said: — " Opposuit natura ; physical necessity prevents it." Wo add, honour forbids it. (Loud cheers.) Mr. MORLBY, who on rising was received with loud cheers said, — I can assure my right hon. friend who has just sat down that we on this side of the House do not in any way underrate either the strength or the sincerity or the uprightness of the motives of hon. gentlemen like himself and those who take his point of view with regard to thi» question. (Hear, bear.) But I think he is rather unfair in charging ns by implication with trying to scamp this discussion. The right hon. gentleman said, "Let us have the Bill," and then he attempted to justify the four nights' debate which has taken place. I think this plea for the length of the debate would have been a little better justified if the debate had been followed by a divi»ioD. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman harped on the phrase " partial revelations." Whose fault is it that the revelations have been partial ? If the debate had stopped on Monday night you would have had the Bill the next day. Is it not absurd to charge us with making partial revelations 1 The right hon. gentleman was very angry at being accused or suspected of distruft of Irishmen. Why should he regard that as so wounding an accusation when we remember that 14 years ago the whole of his policy upon domestic legislation was stamped by a distrust of his countrymen. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman touched upon certain points of finance, but he almost put himsell out of court as a financial authority — if I may say so without dis- respect — by his borrowing the extraordinary figures which were used by the right hon. gentleman the leader of the Opposition on the first night of the debate. My right hon. friend adopting those figures says, " We are going to pay to Ireland a tribute of £17,000,000." How did he get those figures ? That is the capital value of £500,000 per annum, but that figure is absolutely misleading and absolutely worth- less, because the £500,000 per annum, be it too much or too little, represents & vanishing charge. (Hoar, hear.) Yet both my right hon. friend and tho loader of the Opposition treat this vanishing charge as if it were a permanent charge — that is to say, he capitalized the amount and then taunted us with paying that tribute to Ireland. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman made some remarks upon the subject of the Civil servants in Ireland, and said that there would be a great displacement of them ; and he illustrated this by saying that when this Bill becomes law the officers in the postal service will be no loHger nominated by the English Post Office Depart- ment, but by the native Government. What a dreadful thing that such a change should take place, and that the nomination of the postal servants should be taken away from Englishmen and put into the hands of ths population of tho country ! Then, as to the land ques- tion, the right hon. gentleman suggested that ths future Irish Government might institute legislation which, said ha, they — i.e., hon. gentlemen on this side of the House — would call plunder. I have never paid much attention to these high-flovm words from ihe lips of hon. gentlemen upon the bench opposite, rcmemberiog, as I do, what occurred in 1887. (Cheers.) What Act could an Irish Parliament pass as to which either Lord Salisbury or the leader of the Opposition in this House could use stronger language than they both employed only about a month before tho passing of that measure ? (Cheers.) Lord Salis- bury then said that any revision of judicial rents would be dishonest, and the leader of the Opposition stated that, in bis opinion, it would be fraudulent, monstrous, and so forth. And yet a month later, after considerable vacillation, they passed a measure which, if it were passed by an Irish Parlia- ment, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would have characterized as an act of injustice or of plunder. Then the late Chancellor of the Exchequer asked— What is to become of the Irish land question during The Home Eula BilL Mr. J. Morley. House of Commons, February 17, 1893. 419 the next three years ; do we intend to deal with Irish land ? My answer is, that the Irish land ques- tion will remain, during those three years, as it is at present, subject to he dealt with if any emergency arises. (Ironical laughter.) I do not know what there is in this to excite ridicule. It seems to me a very reasonable proposition. My right hon. friend then made a truly extraordinary reference upon the matter of education^. He said that the hon. member for South Longford could not have known what had been going on in Ireland during the past six months in regard to education. I suppose my right hon. friend had been referring to certain proceedings before the National Board, and said that those proceedings were a warning of what would happen if there were a Catholic majority in the Irish Parliament, of which Archbishop Walsh would be the dictator. If my right hon. friend inquired, he would have known that the pro- posals which were made to us bad the support of Lord Justice Fitzgibhon, of the Senior Fellow of Trinity College, and of throe other Protestant authorities. Mr. GOSCHEN. — I alluded to no particular pro- ceedings. Mr. MOKLEY. — Then I cannot imagine to what the right hon. gentleman did refer. (Laughter and cheers.) Mr. GOSCHEN.— The right hon. gentleman surely must he aware of the numerous discussions there were upon every kind of question when compulsory educa- tion for Ireland was discussed. (Hear, hear.) Mr. MOELEV. — Among other things it was imputed to my predecessor the Chief Secretary and to the gentlemen who sit round him by the member for South Tyrone that they, and not Archbishop Walsh, weie designing to make this change. (Nationalist cheers.) Mr. T. W. RUSSELL.— The right hon. gentleman is not entitled to make any such assertion to this House. I never imputed anything of the kind. (Opposition cheers.) Mr. MOKLEY. — I am speaking from recollection, and if I am in error in supposing that it was the hon. gentleman, I am ceitainly not in error in saying that the hon. member for South An^rim made a distinct charpe in this House against the right hon. gentleman. (Ministerial cheers.) This only shows that the right hon. gentleman the late Chan- cellor of -the Bicheque.L- was merely uttering a platitude as to the true facts of there being a Parlia- ment in Dublin, and that he entirely overlooked Ihe fact that the only demand that Archbishop Walsh has BO far made has been backed by Lord Justice Fitz- gibhon, by the senior Fellow of Trinity College, and by three other Protestant authorities. The debate to-night, I gladly recognize, has reached a higher level than debates in this House sometimes attain, and the right hon. gentleman I he member for West Birmin£h«m did what he promised when ho said ho would abstain from the recriminatory arguments which sometimes play a larger part in his speeches than one likes to see. The duel between him and the hon. member for M'cst Longford was worthy of the best traditions of this House. (Cheers.) I look upon discussions of that kind — which I believe would be frequent enough in an Irish Parliament — as among the prime agencies in enabling all sections of Irishmen, who are divided by old feuds and by new feuds, to understand each other, and to find better and surer ways out of their difficulties. (Nationalist cheers.) The right hon. gentleman the member for West Birmingham said that the tests which he should apply to any Holne Rule plan were : — " Did such a plan satisfy Imperial unity ; did it satisfy the demand for the supremacy of Parliament ; did it furnish Thfi Home Eule BilL guarantees for the protection of minorities ? " I must be allowed to say that the right hon. gentle- man attached a very peculiar significance to each one of thOEO three phrases. As I listened to his speech and followed, as attentively as I could, all his argu- ments, I found that this was the net result— that by Imperial unity he did not mean Imperial unity at all, but simply centralization (hear, hear) ; that by the supremacy of Parliament he meant the negation of self-government (hear, hear) ; that by the protec- tion of minorities he meant the prolonged ascendency of Ulster backed by one English party. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman deals in sinister prophecies. I should think more highly of him as a prophet if his prescience had come a little earlier and his promises, both to Ireland and in other matters, had been more abundantly fulfilled. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman makes light of the fact that the declaration of the supremacy of Parliament comes in the preamble, folio rfing in this, I believe, the authority of the hon. and learned mem- ber for Plymouth. But may I say, without dis- respect to the hon. and learned gentleman, that there was a Sir Edward Coke before there was a Sir Edward Clarke (laughter) ; and Sir Edward Coke said this : — " The preamble is the key to the statute." (Cheers and laughter.) I do not know whether the hon. and learned gentleman knows his " Coke " (laughter), but that is our answer to the very light store which the right hon. gentleman sets on the declaration in the preamble. The right hon. gentleman also enumerates what arc callo'd the re- strictions and exceptions as so many badges of servi- tude. The taking away of property with due process of law and with provision for just compensation, together with other restrictions, are not badges of servitude. They are recognized as the principles upon which the foundations of every free modem Govern- ment must be built up. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman predicted, as did also the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, various evils from various denomi- nations. Ilesaid there wasnothing to preventan IrishPar- liament from practically endowing the priests by voting salaries for clerical managers and schools. Of course there is no end to prophecies of that kind ; but one must look at this question largely and broadly, and in the light of experience. I am not goingback to the de- bate on the Meath election. The right hon. member for Bury did me the honour to quote several passages from various writings of mine as to clerical domination and priestly usurpation. I have not much, perhaps I have nothing, to unsay ; but I rest my defence of theproposal to set up afree Parliament in Ireland on a broad politi- cal proposition — which, I maintain, is supported by all the lessons of European experience ; and that pro- posal is this — I do not say how much priestly usurpa- tion prevails in Ireland — the way to baffle priestly usurpation, if usurpation there be, whether in Ireland or elsewhere, as distinct from sacerdotal influence in the region of faith and morals — the way to bailie priestly usurpation is to confront it by a strong lead- ing national representativst, political authority. That is my answer to that most important point ; and I repeat in this House what I have often said out of it, that there is not a Catholic country in Europe in which the priesthood have achieved a standing poli- tical supremacy. Then my right hon. friend who has just pat down, and the right hon. gentleman the member for West Birmingham and other speakers, have gone through the anomalies which will arise if Irish members are retained at Westminster under the plan proposed in the Bill. These anomalies are Mr. J. Morley. 420 House of Commons, February 17, 1893. perfectly obvious ; it roqniros no ingenuity, no skill, no ability to trace them all out and expose thetfi. My right hon. friend exposed them sufficiently the first night. (Opposition cheers.) But if it be granted — as we maintain, of course yOii do not accept it — but if it be granted that it is a matter of the highest national and political expediency that a Legislature and a national Government should be erected in Ire- laad, then this question of the manner in which the Irifih menibers are to retain their seats and voting power in this House is a question — I do not call it secondary in relation to the Parliamentary constitn- tion, because it is not — but it is secondary to the great object, the paramount object, for which we start. And the mere fact that the arrangement pro- posed is anomalous can scarcely be pressed very hard by gentlemen opposite. I will give them an illustra- tion, if they will allow me, of an anomaly in the existing Constitution. This Bill will pass this House. (Cheers and cries of " Qub«tion.") They know that. (Opposition cries of " No.") But you do, and that is why your leaders go about saying that, what- ever this House does, all will be set right in another place. (Cheers.) That is the whole point of that often-repeated remark. Now, is there no anomaly in such a state of things as that when we, after seven years of stress and controversy in the country, achieved a majority for a certain policy in this House (cheers, and cries of " No.") How can hon. gentlemen keep saying " No " ? If I am wrong in that, then the Bill will not pass. If the Bill passes that will show that we have got a majority in this House. Very well. We achieve a majority in this House, and you who protest agsJinst anomalies are leaning upon the rejection of this Bill in a House which is not representative (loud cheers), and where the majority in this House as now constituted will, perhaps, be represented for aught 1 know by 40 or 48 votes. Why, if you are going to begin hunting up all the anomalies you can find you should look at old institutions. (Cheers.) After all there is one broad question which I put without the slightest desire to enter into any recriminatory discussion which may be in the slightest degree annoying to tho Dissentient Liberals (" Oh ") below the gangway. I think it deserves an ans^frer. Mr. J. CHAMBBELAIN.— Liberal Unionista. (Laughter.) Mr. J. MoELEY was resuming, when Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose and said,— We do not call you Separatists because you object to that word. I ask you to call us by the name we have chosen. (Hear, hear.) Mr. J. MOELEY. — I assure the right hon. gentle- man that I would just as soon use the one word as the other, and if " Liberal Unionist " is pleasanter to the ears than " Dissentient Liberal " I shall use the term. But when he says that he and his friends never call us Separatists (^laughter)— well, that is taxing the crednlity of the House to a large degree. (Cheers.) The Liberal Unionistsowe usan answer to this question. In 1886, and constantly since— as the member for Bodmin has reminded us — they declared that they were ready to give to Ireland the utmost measure of self-government compatible with the safety of the fSmpire ; that they would give overythihg to Ireland that England and Scotland had. (Hear, hear.) They have been in power these six years ; for those years they have been in a majority. It is quite true that the member for Manchester was coerced into bring- ing in a Bill for improving local government in Ire- land. But oh ! what a Bill. (Laughter.) That Bill was not passed. (Renewed laughter.) It was laughed out of the House ; and I am bound to say that nobody laughed at it more heartily than its author. (Hear, bear.) This is the position in which we now stand. You refused our proposals for Home Eule in 1886, and you said you had an alternative policy — namely, to widen popular institutions in Ireland within safes limits, to give Irishmen a greater share in the govern- ment of their own country. Tte ."member for West Birmingham in those days used to say that — it was in 1885 — ^the Irishman had no share in the government of his own counti-y. That is eight years ago. What has he done, with all his power, with all his supporters in the Midlands and in this House, to give a single Irishman, let him be an Ulsterman or not, an increased share in the government of his country ? (Cheers.) What refoiTO has been effected in Ireland during the last seven years when the late Government and their allies had the whole administration of Ireland and the whole machinery of this House and the votes of this House Mr. ASQUITH.— Of both Houses. Mr. MOELEY. — Quite true ; the votes of both Houses in their hands ? That is a question which they ought to answer. They may deplore Homo Eule as much as they please, and I do not impugn their motives when they do so ; but they know as well as we know that the present state of things in Jreland, the present exclusion of Irishmen from all part in the government of their couiitry, the absence in Ire- land of all local institutions which are the very sources of our political system — they know that until something is done to remedy that state of things, England is dishonoured and Ireland is misgoverned. (Cheers.) Mr. Speaker, I thought I discovered a consciousness of this weakness in the speech of the right hon. gentleman opposite and those of his political friends. I notice that in no part of his arguments did he reject or repudiate Home Rule as a principle. What he did, without really going into the heart of the argument, was to criticize our plan. I wondered whether the right hon. gentleman, in the event of the Government being defeated, was revolving in his mind the possibility of another Round Table Conference. (Laughter and cheers.) I do not know whether I shall be invited to take a seat at it, but if I am it will be my duty to decline. (Laughter.) My right hon. friend the member for Bodmin made a speech full of argument, and brought forward some criticisms On the Bill, but many of them were not at all to the point, because my right hon. friend had not seen the Bill. And that shows what I must describe as the futility of these prolonged discussions before a Bill is brought in. (Hoar, hear.) Hon. gentlemen get up and say, " I do not know what is in the Bill, but if this is in the Bill it is wrong." We say, " You must wait until you see the Bill." (Hear, hear.) Every one of my right hon. friend's points will he met, I do not say satisfactorily to him, by the Bill, and the Bill will convince him that his points have been considered when he sees it. My right hon. friend said that the weakness of the Con- stitution proposed in the Bill is shown by the charac- ter of the Assembly, or Lower House. He said there is no power in it sufficient to protect minorities. Then I knew well what was coining. - (Laughter.) My right hon. friend deserves all credit, 1 am sure, for the honourable persistency with which he adheres to his panacea that there should be a proper representation of minorities ; but surely my right hon. fnend must know that you can introduce no plan for the repre- sentation of minorities in Ireland which will The Home Hole Billc Mr. J. Morley. Addendum (House of Commons). ■ attain the end he desires, because the minori- ties, outside ; a narrow though important cir- cumscription, are too small to be distinct, One is always sorry to deprive any one of his idol ; but my right hon. friend ought to realize that of all E laces Ireland is the place where a plan for the artl- cial representation of minorities would be least able to secure the object he has in view. The right hon. member for Manchester said a few words about the Irish Constabulary with which in substance I concur. The right hon. gentleman dwelt upon the unfairness that wouldbe perpetrated, and forwhich this Parliament would be responsible, if there were any slackness in the full acceptance of all the obligations the Imperial ■ Government has entered into with that important ar:d valuable force. I should regard myself as one of the unworthiest of Ministers if I were a party to any transaction which did not recognize in the very fullest way every obligation that has been entered into with the men and officers in that force. The right hon. gentleman may depend upon it that, in the Bill - and in schedules which may not be inserted iu the first instance, we have not lost sight of what is due to that great and important force. (Hear, hear.) The late Chancellor ot the Exchequer pointed to the difficulties which attend the arrangements for the fixing, imposi- tion, and collection of Customs duties. Upon finance generally it is too late to expatiate ; but it is important I should say that there is a clause in the Bill laying down the principle that, while accepting the customs as a full discharge under present circum- stances of revenue and of charge, the Imperial Exchequer may be entitled to fm'ther aid in a fair proportion from Ireland, should those circumstances undergo a material change, or should any great common emergency arise. As regards the particulars of this and one or two other clauses, our present knowledge of the facts does not enable us to give them their final form. We acknowledge and do -honour to the office which is rightly assumed by gentlemen from Ireland, as the champions of their country, not only in political respects, but in finan- cial respects also ; and their views and suggestions will receive from us the most careful consideration. On future stages of the Bill we shall be glad further to state our views. We regard the committee as the decisive stage. When we know the exact accurate estimate of revenue and of charge for the coming year we cau consider not merely in provisional, but in precise terms, the language in which the clause should he finally expressed. I will not detain the House longer, as the general . arguments on Home Rule will be better dealt with in the remarks on the second reading. The only point made strongly to-night was this — in case of -vvar we should find ourselves at an immense disadvantage, and that the moment would be seized upon by gentle- men from Ireland to wring and extort coucessious from us. The right hou. gentleman seems to have forgotten that 1782, when G rattan s Parliament was granted, was the year when Britain's power stood at its very lowest. But in all these arguments as to the eflect of Irish legislation on the power of this country, hon. gentlemen seem to forget that there is no reason why the safety and greatness of the Empire are incompatible with the happiness of all those who live in it. (Cheers.) All the arguments against this Bill, except, perhaps, that used by the right hon. member tor Bodmin, have dwelt on the assumption that Ireland is a constant, perpetual, and irreconcil- able enemy. We accept no such proposition. I, for one, would never accept it, and I can only say that the more I see of Ireland, and the more I am brought into relations with different kinds of Irishmen— and I have some friends who are called loyalists as well as a great many who are Nationalists — the more convinced I am that there are no people more ready to profit by a free Parliamentary Govern- ment. (Cheers.) The right hon. member for Birming- ham taxed us with goin^ into these proposals with a light heart. I have never gone into this difficulty with a light heart. I have always felt that it was a serious task in which we have embarked ; and .rl know there are risks, though I believe they are not great. I am, like the right hon. gentleman, for insurance, and we are insured. (Cheers.) The last time I spoke in this House upon a Horn* Iiule Bill comes into my mind. I warned the House that if they rejected that Bill, as they did, they must cot think that the Irish Sphinx would gatber up her rags and immediately depart from our gates. That prophecy has come true. It is as true to-night as it was seven years ago. (Cheers.) It is because I believe now as firmly as I did then that only by such a measuje we shall exorcise this evil spirit in Ireland, and between Ireland and England, that I ask this House to allow us to introduce this Bill. (Loud cheers.) Ihe Speaker then put the question " That leave be given to introduce the Bill." There was a loud cry of "Ay" from the Ministerialist and Nationalist benches, and a few cries of " No " from the Opposition, and the Speaker declared that the " Ayes " have it. Mr. GLADSTONE having stated that the names which backed the Bill were those of himself, Mr. Asquith, and the Attorney-General, proceeded to the bar and then brought up the Bill to the table, amid loud demonstrations of enthusiasm from the Ministerialists and i,he Nationalists. The Bill was read a first time, and the second reading was fixed for Monday, March 13. BILLS ADVANCED. The Plumbers' Kegistratiou Bill was read a second time. The Municipal Corporations Act (1882) Amendment Bill was read a second time. AGEICULTURAL DEPEESSION. On the motion for the adjournment of the House, Mr. CHAPLIN said he understood that at a very early hour in the atternoon the President of the Board of Agriculture gave notice that on Monday next he would move for the appointment of a committee to inauire into the subject of agricultural depression. He would ask when they would have the terms of the motion, and also whether, in view of the great interest taken in it by the counti'y,it would be put down as the first order of the day. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said hfc understood that his right hon. friend had already put the terms of the motion oo the paper, and they would appear on the paper in the morning. He could give no assurance as to its being made the first order. No doubt the question was important anJ the House would have a r roper opportunity for discussing it. Mr. GARDNER said that the motion that a com- mittee be appointed had been already affirmed by a majority of 40 on the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. (Mr. Chaplin. — Certainly not.) He appealed to the House whether it had not been previously alluded to by the mover of the Address, and accepted by a majority of 40. (Opposi- tion laughter.) Mr. CHAPLIN said that there would be no oppor- tunity of placing an amendment on the paper if it were necessary to do so when the House met on Monday, He asked for a distinct assurance that the motion would not be taken next Monday. The CHANCELLOR ot the EXCHEQUER said that the Government would do what appeared to be necessary to give hon. members the opportunity ot raising- objections. He hoped that the right hon. gentleman opposite would find that the terms of the reference were large enough to satisfy him. Mr. GOSCHEN observed that those who sat with him on the front fipposition bench did not accept, the view that it had been determined by a majority of 40 that the House would agree to the committee. The de- cision of the House in the debate on the Address was not as to the acceptance of the committee offered by the Government. Mr. TIMOTHY HBALY accused the occupants of the front Upposition bench and their supporters of a sinister design to prevent any business being transacted after 12 o'clock. The House adjourned at 1 o'clock. [The Addendum will he repeated in the next miinber, and therefore should not be bound with the volume. J ■SS-\\<\\\\s\«*\\H«,\\\\\\\\\\s\««»«S!«»^^