said he wished it to be made clear that the Irish Catholic demand was simply one of equality in the matter of University education. There was no desire on the part of the Catholic people of Ireland or the Catholic hierarchy to take away from existing institutions any privileges they now possessed. All other denominations in Ireland had ample provision made for educational training, yet the Catholics, constituting the vast majority of the people of the country, had practically no provision whatever made for them. This was not a demand on behalf of the Catholic clergy and hierarchy of Ireland alone. The question affected the Catholic laity in a greater degree, and a body representative of the laity had addressed a declaration to the Members of the House of Commons. The request made was simply that in the matter of University education the Catholics of Ireland should be placed on an equality with their Protestant fellow-countrymen. The hon. Member for South Belfast had spoken of the insatiable demands of the Catholic hierarchy. But though the claims of the Catholics had been recognised by all parties from the beginning of the century, what serious steps had ever been taken to satisfy their demands for University education. Speaking at Partick in December, 1889, the present Leader of the House said:—

"I find there are at this moment four colleges in Ireland enjoying public endowment. There is Trinity College, Dublin, and there are the Queen's colleges of Belfast, Galway and Cork. The Roman Catholic population is, I suppose, about four-fifths of the whole population. They are the poorest as well as the most numerous part of the population; yet I find that only one in seven of the existing students of those endowed colleges belongs to the Roman Catholic religion. And I find that the number in Trinity College, Dublin, is only 6 percent of the whole; and that actually at this moment in Ireland there are enjoying the advantages of higher education in the endowed colleges less than 250 individuals in all who are Roman Catholics."'

That was the cool and deliberate opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury, and no language from the Irish Members could put the situation more forcibly. The right hon. Gentleman in that speech further said:—

"Now, I say that the state of things, whosever fault it is, whether it be the fault of the educational system or the fault of the hierarchy, at all events it is not a creditable state of things; and I, who am one of those who are desirous of seeing higher education promoted in every part of Her Majesty's dominions, cannot look on with equanimity."

That was the declaration to which he wished to pin the First Lord and the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman made that declaration he was not in so favourable a position for giving effect to his convictions as he was now; and all that was asked was that he would take immediate steps and fulfil his declaration. The hon. Member for South Belfast had urged that, as a religious test was no longer applied at Trinity College, there was no reason why Catholics should not enter. But it was vain for the House to attempt to examine the reasons which induced Catholics to keep out of the College. They could only deal with the fact as it existed. The abolition of the religious test in 1873 did something to lower the status of Trinity College, but it did nothing to meet the objections of the Catholics. They did not demand that step; and they strenuously resisted it when it was proposed in the House of Commons by Mr. Fawcett. All Irishmen were proud of the traditions of Trinity College; but if the hon. Member for South Belfast and other Protestant Irishmen had this institution for their own benefit, why should they grudge similar advantages to their Catholic fellow-countrymen? Why should Protestants deprive Catholics of all chance of competing with them in the race for life? All departments of the public service were now open to Catholics; but Protestants were endowed with the means of acquiring a University education, and the Catholics were deprived of those means. He would appeal to the hon. Member for South Belfast, whose convictions were at least sincere, to say whether this was fair. He would quote another passage from the speech of the First Lord. The right hon. Gentleman said:—

"It cannot be denied, and I for one will not affect to regret it, that, by its composition, Trinity College is now what it has been always, a Protestant institution by its general flavour and complexion. I believe that not 7 per cent. of the students are Catholics. Every Sunday in the college chapel, the services of the late Established Church of Ireland are celebrated, and the theological chairs, which have done such service in the advancement of a sound and learned religion, are necessarily filled by members of the late Established Church of Ireland. You cannot ignore the fact that the whole current of thought in such an institution is and must be antagonistic to the current which would be acceptable to the large majority of the Irish people."

That was a complete expression of the whole Catholic position. The extract plainly pointed out that Trinity College was a Protestant institution which Catholics could not avail of; its whole atmosphere was Protestant, and it rejoiced in that fact. Irish Catholics had no inten- tion of interfering with the Protestantism of Trinity College, or with its opinions. They made no demand that its great endowments should be diminished by one penny; but they asked that the Government should be just towards the great body of Irishmen, and give them the same facilities for higher education which Protestant Irishmen had enjoyed for centuries.

Scholarships and fellowships in Trinity College are open to Roman Catholics.

Yes; but so late as the year 1854 Roman Catholics were absolutely precluded from possessing a single scholarship in Trinity College, and a late member of this House—Mr. Denis Caulfield Heron—who had actually in competition won the right to a scholarship, was precluded from taking it because he was a Catholic and could not perform the religious conditions required in the College. In the words of the First Lord of the Treasury it was a Protestant institution.

The hon. Member for Waterford was in Trinity College.

He was, and so were several Irish Catholics. He was, himself in the college too, as a student. And why? When he sought his profession at the Bar, owing to his having had to take a pretty prominent part in Irish politics, he would have had to deal with a Bar Committee which could prescribe for him everything they liked in order to disqualify him from the position he was seeking. But by becoming a student of the University of Dublin he had a right to enter the Bar without any further examination. Therefore he availed himself of Trinity College. The very cases the hon. Member opposite cited went to show how rarely Catholics in Ireland could avail themselves of the advantages of Trinity College, and how it was under circumstances of the kind he had mentioned that they were compelled to do so. But the vast majority of the people could not touch it because, in the words of the First Lord of the Treasury, it was "a Protestant institution." Last night the hon. Member for South Belfast had referred to Mr. Gladstone's Bill of 1873, and he had said it was not accepted by the Bishops of Ireland—that there was no satisfying that body.

Hear, hear.

But the most strenuous opposition was offered to that Bill, and he thought reasonably offered, by the senate of Trinity College. He should like also to point out to the hon. Gentleman that that Bill did not include what Ireland most urgently needed—a provision for the endowment of a Catholic University as a teaching body. There were provisions for examinations and for getting degrees. All these were provided by the Dublin University and by the Royal University. Was it not a mockery to tell the Catholics of Ireland that these two Universities are open to them for degrees, if every other section of the community possessed rich endowments for the purposes of teaching and give nothing in that way to the Catholic body? He should like to glance at the Parliamentary history of this question so far as the present Government were concerned. After the rejection of Mr. Gladstone's Bill in 1873, an Act was passed for the abolition of the religious tests in Trinity College. The Irish people didn't demand or desire that Act. They wanted a Catholic College—not a theological chair, but an endowment for a college which would enable them to give secular instruction in the college to their own students, where their faith would be safe. Then there was the question of the Queen's colleges. The objection of the Catholic laity in Ireland was stronger against these institutions, where no form of Christian worship was recognised, than I was their objection to "a Protestant institution" like Trinity College. On July 28th, 1885, this question was brought before the House by the hon. Member for North Longford, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then also Chancellor of the Exchequer, used these memorable words:—

"It is remarkable that a college, not directly endowed with any public money, indirectly receiving only so small an amount as the Catholic University of Dublin receives, having to provide all its buildings and apparatus, still should, in a fair competition in University education with the students of the Queen's colleges, show such surprising results as has been stated to-night. The statement which has been made appeared to me almost to require some explanation; lie-cause I cannot understand how an institution which, according to the Parliamentary returns that had been quoted, only possesses 104 students, should he able to secure so large a proportion of University degrees and honours."

He quoted these words to show that there was a burning desire on the part of the Irish people to avail of the advantages of higher education if the colleges in any way conformed to their views and convictions. In the Catholic University College, an institution without any endowment or support—an institution which for years had been appealing in vain to the House to get recognition for it to confer degrees upon its students, the Catholics of Ireland were able to compete with the Queen's colleges and practically to double them in the honours they received in every department of University education. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say on the same occasion:—

"The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir Charles Lewis) has expressed the hope that he will not depart from the old lines on which the whole question has been dealt with. But what are they? The lines on which it has been dealt with successfully are those of the Intermediate Education Act of 1878, and of the Royal University Act, 1879, whereby it was decided that the State should pay for the results of secular education wherever given and however obtained, quite irrespective of the circumstances, whether they were gained by private tuition in a denominational college or in a mixed college. Now these are the principles the Government ought to maintain. We shall continue to regard this question on the principle I have laid down, with the hope and the wish to do something to make University education more general and widespread in Ireland, and if it should be our lot to hold Office next Session, to make some proposal which may deal in a satisfactory way with this most important matter."

These words were delivered in the House in the Session of 1885. It was true that early in the next Session the Government went out of office, but again they assumed office at the general election of 1886, and though the Unionist Government had, with a short interval, been in office since, not one attempt had been made to redeem the promise recorded in the speech he had quoted. On the 15th July, 1889, the present First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to a question put by the late Mr. Parnell, said:—

"The resolutions of the Standing Committee of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland have, I believe, been forwarded to the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Treasury. I have not seen a copy until to-day. The resolutions deal with many questions, and cover the whole field of education in Ireland. Without giving specific answers to the various points alluded to in them, I may say that some of them—notably higher education—have long been under the consideration of the Government, and in respect of these we hope to he able to make proposals to the House."

That speech was made on the 15th July, 1889, and since then no effort had been made to redeem the promise held out. Still later in the same Session of 1889, the right hon. Gentleman, the present First Lord of the Treasury, made the following announcement on the subject:—

"I repeat in the House what I have said outride the House, that, in my opinion, something ought to be done to give higher University education to the Roman Catholics in Ireland."

So far, therefore, as the justice of the demand was concerned, there had been the most complete recognition by the leaders of the present Unionist Party in that House. The First Lord was under no delusion as to the position, for he continued:—

"I regret—I do not deny that I do regret—that the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland have felt it their duty to discourage men of their religion from taking full advantages of the Queen's colleges in Galway and Cork, or of Trinity College in Dublin."

The right hon. Gentleman had himself spoken of Trinity College as a Protestant institution, and that description was a justification of the position taken up by the Roman Catholic clergy, who would be unworthy to lead their people if they advised them to go into what the right hon. Gentleman had described as a Protestant institution. The right hon. Gentleman continued on that occasion:—

"But regrets are vain things. The Roman Catholic hierarchy have thought it their duty to adopt this policy, and we have to take the facts as we find them. The experiment of undenominational higher education in Ireland has now been tried sufficiently long to make it, I am afraid, perfectly clear, that nothing Parliament has hitherto done to promote that object, will really meet the wants and wishes of the Catholic population of the country. That being so, we have no alternative but to try and devise some new scheme by which the wants of the Catholic population shall be met. This would not be the proper time for me to suggest, even in outline, the main lines of what the scheme should be; but we ought to make some attempt, if possible, to carry out a scheme of the kind I have indicated."

These promises had been repeatedly made, and Government after Government had recognised what was their duty in regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman in a later speech laid down three conditions without which, he held, it would be impossible for the Government to settle this question. First, he objected to founding a Catholic University, having regard to the desirability of Catholic and Protestant Irishmen competing in the race for University distinctions. But the Catholic hierarchy raised no objection to a scheme founded on that competition, but by so doing it seemed to them it would be necessary to interfere with the status of the University of Dublin. The Catholics were perfectly willing to be attached to the Dublin University so long as they had endowment for their own education, but they had no desire to force themselves on the University of Dublin or in any way to interfere with its prestige. It seemed to them that the simplest plan, and that which would give the best satisfaction in Ireland, would be to endow a Catholic University for the Catholic people of Ireland, so that they might not interfere with any other existing institution. Another condition which the right hon. Gentleman laid down was that there should be no State endowment of theological training, but there had never been any demand on the part of the Catholic hierarchy that theological training should be taught. They could themselves take care that there was a theological chair if it was necessary. He undertook to say, moreover, that there would be no objection to a conscience clause if it was desired—and that was the third objection of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—

"But, subject to these throe conditions, my own opinion is that we ought to give them a well equipped college—a college thoroughly well equipped for all modern purposes of higher education, in which they could learn, as I have said before, Latin, Greek, mathematics, science, medicine, and law."

That was the promise held out to them, to which the Irish people were determined to hold the right hon. Gentleman and his Government, and they looked to him, not for any further promise, but for the immediate execution of the schemes which he then foreshadowed. It was right to say that on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman spoke of other conditions; he said:—

"It is absolutely impossible that anything should be done except by general consent."

If nothing was to be done for higher education in Ireland until all Parties in Great Britain as well as Ireland were agreed, then there was very little hope of ever satisfying the desires of the Irish people. The doctrine of satisfying the predominant partner might have some weight so long as it affected to some extent the government of the three countries, but when it was a question of providing education within one of these countries only, he thought the doctrine had no application whatsoever.

said that, although he did not intend to vote for the Amendment, he hoped that in the course of the present Parliament the Government would see their way to gratify the desire of Irish Catholics to have either a University of their own, or else an endowed college connected with the Royal University. It seemed impossible to deny that the great preponderance not merely of Catholic opinion in Ireland, but of opinion amongst those Catholics who alone could send their sons to a University was in favour of an establishment of a more sectarian and ecclesiastical type than at present existed. It seemed equally evident that the number of Catholics at present enjoying a University education was very inadequate. Much allowance, no doubt, must be made for the fact that an enormous preponderance of the Catholic population of Ireland belonged to a class who were unable to afford their sons a University education, and for the fact that while Divinity students formed a large proportion of the Protestant students at the Universities, Catholic Divinity students were educated at Maynooth. Still, when all this was admitted, it remained an incontestable fact that the number of Catholic students enjoying a University education was smaller than it should be, He did not believe that this was largely due to their dislike of the existing Universities, but the influence of the priesthood in this field was a deterrent one, and if a University was set up which the priesthood actively encouraged, the number of the students would probably increase. If the Government could see their way to found a new college he could assure them that it would experience no unworthy jealousy on the part of Trinity College. Trinity College regretted that Catholic students did not come to it more freely. It regretted that they did not think the University of Moore and Sheil and the immense majority of Catholic laymen who had played the greatest part in recent Irish history good enough for them. But it recognised clearly that the time had come, for some modification in the University system in Ireland, and it only wished well to the Government in the action they might take. [Nationalist cheers.] He said this frankly, but he could not agree with hon. Members opposite as to the extent of their grievance. In the first place, Divinity students were amply provided for at Maynooth. That college was originally set up by the Protestant Parliament of Ireland, it was enlarged by the Imperial Parliament, it received for many years a large grant from Imperial funds, and when that grant was abolished it was compensated for by a large capital sum which was not drawn, as it should have been, from Imperial sources, but from the distinctively Irish Church fund. [Nationalist cheers.] Maynooth was a well-endowed college, entirely and completely in the hands of ecclesiastics without any kind of meddling inspection or control on the part of anyone connected with the Government. Then came his own University—Trinity College. As far back as 1793, before the English Universities had taken such a step, Trinity College threw open her degrees to Catholics. It was a remarkable fact, illustrating its spirit, that the first great advocate of undenominational and liberal Catholic education in Ireland was Hely Hutchinson, one of its Provosts, and that one of the most powerful advocates of Catholic claims who ever appeared in the Imperial Parliament was the great Lord Plunket, Member for Trinity College, at a time when the electing body was purely Academic. In those days many Catholics entered the college, and he believed that nearly all the Catholic judges who had shed so much lustre upon the administration of the law in Ireland had been members of Trinity College. In fact, with the exception of O'Connell, there was scarcely an eminent Catholic lay man who had not been educated there. A great objection, and a just one then, brought against the college was that its great honours and prizes were exclusively in the hands of Protestants. All that, he was happy to say, had been abolished. It was true that there was a Divinity school, but it stood apart from the rest of the college, and had no relation to anyone who was not reading for Anglican orders. For the rest, every post from the highest to the lowest, every honour and prize was open to every denomination in Ireland; the most zealous theological scrutiny could discern nothing in its curriculum which had the smallest sectarian tinge, and he ventured to say that the whole tone of the University, the tone of the undergraduates, as well as of the Fellows, was entirely unsectarian. As an illustration of the tone of Trinity College at the present time, he might read a letter which had been written in 1895 by a Catholic student after passing through the college. It gave a more vivid picture than he could give of actual life in the University. He said:—

"I entered Trinity College, Dublin, as a Roman Catholic. My tutor Fellow, the late Dr. Maguire (Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University), was a Roman Catholic.

"From the day I entered the college, in January 1885, until I obtained the degree of Master of Arts in June 1891, I never was asked to what religion I belonged, nor did I ever feel the slightest unpleasantness or disadvantage from any one connected with the University on account of religion. I knew the geographical position of the college chapel, but I was never in it.

"I never heard any Roman Catholic graduate or undergraduate object to the Divinity school. I found that Roman Catholics are exempt from catechetical (religious) lectures and examinations as well as college chapel, and are not only eligible for all honours, prizes, medals, scholarships, moderator-ships, studentships, and fellowships, etc., but are actually carrying off such distinctions from time to time. I do not believe the religion of any candidate is at all considered in the competitions. One of the present Fellows is a Roman Catholic. The list of eminent Roman Catholics on the Bench, at the Bar, medical, and, in fact, all the learned professions, show a very high percentage of T. C. D. men and the fact also remains that these men invariably send their sons and friends to the college."

It might, it is true, be justly objected that there was no definite religious teaching for the Catholics in Trinity College. But he did not think this was altogether its fault. An arrangement had been made under which Protestant pupils belonging to the Episcopal Church had their own catechetical lectures on religion, and certain persons were appointed to look after their spiritual wants. The college now paid Presbyterian ministers to teach the Presbyterian students, and look after their moral welfare. He believed it to be notorious that the college authorities would be delighted to make similar provision for Catholic students if the Catholics would accept it. This was the position of Trinity College. The Queen's Colleges had been condemned by the Church, but they were entirely unsectarian in their teaching. Two of them were presided over by Catholics, and every prize they could offer was open without restriction. As to the Royal University, Catholics there preponderated, and the University was set up specially in the governing body for their benefit. He would ask any fair man, any foreigner from any Catholic country, whether this state of things was one which could be reasonably described as it had been repeatedly described in this House and in Ireland, in language which would scarcely be too weak if it were applied to the persecution of Diocletian. The sum of it all was that Catholic Divinity students were entirely taught at the public expense by their own ecclesiastics, and in the secular Universities every test had been abolished; every sectarian element in the University teaching had been eliminated; every prize had been thrown open to competition regardless of creed. But he thought the time had come to go further, and he hoped the Government would soon see their way to do so. Personally, he was somewhat half-hearted on this question. In his opinion, there could be no greater misfortune for Ireland than that members of the Protestant and Catholic religions in their early days should be entirely separated; that young men, at a time when their hearts were warm, when their enthusiasms were at their height, and when, they were forming friendships which might mould their future lives, were kept apart and knew nothing of each other. [Nationalist cheers.] Then he was sceptical whether purely sectarian education ever produced the same standard of good intellectual work as a more truly Catholic one. The first condition at Trinity College was that the whole of the teaching staff should be appointed, not by any kind of nomination or patronage, but solely by merit totally irrespective of theological opinion. But the teaching of a University did not come merely from its professors. An immense proportion came also from the stimulus of the students, and he believed the more they narrowed the area from which that competition was derived the more feeble that stimulus would become. He had an in curable prejudice against the secular education of laymen being altogether intrusted to ecclesiastics. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed if they educated young laymen more or less in the principles of a monastery, the result would be they would turn out one class of mind—credulous, emasculated, stunted and prejudiced—and another of a stronger class of mind—acidulated and exasperated, inclined to go all lengths in opposition to what they had been taught. [Laughter.] He was very much afraid, too, that when this Catholic University was set up, the efforts of the hierarchy to prevent students of their faith going to any other University would be even stronger that at present. Very strong coercion of this kind goes on already in Ireland. They saw, for example, a Catholic Bishop absolutely declaring he would refuse to administer the Sacrament to any Catholic who sent his children to the National Model schools, and this same Bishop shortly after saying that these schools were an imposture, as the Catholics did not go to them. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] They had seen another Catholic Bishop exercising a kind of censorship over the Press, and threatening with spiritual penalties anybody who dared to read a newspaper representing, he believed, the polities of the hon. Member who had last spoken. [Laughter.] He was afraid this sort of thing might extend. There was an extremely remarkable letter in the "Life of Cardinal Manning," written by Dr. Newman in 1864, in which he observed that the only chance of a Catholic college in Dublin succeeding was that there should be the most stringent ecclesiastical prohibition against any Catholic going into any other University either in Ireland or in England. He was happy to say that lately in England there had been some relaxation of that spirit, and he thought it a hopeful sign that in Oxford, at all events, Catholics were allowed to go to the University and mingle with the Protestant students. ["Hear, hear!"] He was afraid hon. Members would say that he had been speaking to two sides of this question, but he had been trying to put the matter as candidly as he could. [Cheers.] He hoped the Government, at all events, in setting up this University would first make certain that their offer would be accepted. ["Hear, hear!"] Their experience in this way had not been very happy. The Queen's colleges were set up and immediately denounced as godless colleges. In 1868 there was the scheme which Mr. Disraeli brought forward, supported by Cardinal Manning in England, but thrown over by the Catholic Bishops. In 1873 Mr. Gladstone's scheme was thrown over by the Catholic Bishops. In 1879 the Conservative Party took up the question with somewhat more success. They established the Royal University in hopes of satisfying the Catholic demand, but as far as he could see there was scarcely any difference either since the opening of Trinity College to Catholics, or since the establishment of the Royal University in the course pursued by the Catholics. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought two points should be made clear before there was any legislation on the subject. One was what proportion of lay influence there was to be on the governing body? He need scarcely say that with the disciplined action that characterised the hierarchy in Ireland if the Bishops formed a majority, or if they even formed an exact half of the body, they might just as well have a monopoly. Another point hardly less important was the position of the professors. Of course, they would be chosen not merely on the ground of competence, but also to a great extent on the ground of creed. This was inevitable, and therefore he did not wish to object to it, but he trusted that, having been chosen, something would be done to give them security of position, and not leave them, like the unfortunate National schoolmaster, liable to be dismissed at the instance of some ecclesiastical authority. ["Hear, hear!"] He would conclude, as he began, by saying he thought the time had come for some change in the University system of Ireland, and that as long as they in Trinity College were left unmolested to do their own work, were allowed to keep their own unsectarian basis, and were not obliged to refuse anybody on account of religion, they would certainly not play the part of the dog in the manger or be hostile to anything that might be set up for the benefit of the Catholics of Ireland. [Cheers.]

, who was received with cheers: I do not know whether, after the most interesting and instructive speech of my hon. Friend, the House will think it time for some statement to be made from the Government Bench. I Sir, have unwittingly already, I may say, taken up a good deal of the time of the House this evening and last night in my views on this question, for all certain speeches I have made in this House and out of it appear to have been divided up among Gentlemen opposite, and column after column has been poured out upon a patient House, and after so full an exposition of views which I once held and still hold—["Hear, hear!"]—it may seem almost superfluous that I should address the House in my own person and not entirely trust to the repetition of previous utterances which hon. Gentlemen have so largely favoured us with. But I imagine what the House really wants to know is the view the Government take at the present moment upon this question. I may express, in the first place, my general agreement—I will not say with everything, but with almost everything that fell from my hon. Friend who has just preceded me. Amongst other things, I entirely agree with him in the delicate censure which he passed upon the violence of the language used on the other side in pressing the Irish claims. After all, let it be remembered that in France, in which the proportion of the Roman Catholic to the Protestant population is far greater than in Ireland, the position of higher University education in reference to Roman Catholic teaching is, as far as I understand, not nearly so favourable as it is even now in the case of Ireland. There is, as has already been stated, a method by which a State subvention of Imperial money does go towards the endowment of professors in a distinctively Roman Catholic University. No such privilege exists in France, and it will hardly be maintained that that which is tolerated by the great majority of French Roman Catholics is in itself deserving of all the vehement invective levelled against the Irish system by hon. Gentlemen to-day. [Cheers.]

hoped the right hon. Gentleman did not think he levelled any invective against the Irish system. He certainly did not do so.

I apologise to the hon Gentleman. I had not his speech in my mind when this observation dropped from me. The hon. Member for Donegal indulged last night in a vehemence of rhetoric to which the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was a stranger, and it was his eloquence I was thinking of, and not that of the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] While I desire entirely to dissent from the attack made upon the existing system in Ireland by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I must also frankly dissociate myself from the views put forward last night by my hon. Friend one of the Members for Belfast. ["Hear, hear!"] I confess myself really quite unable to understand the I attitude of a man who views with perfect serenity a system of primary education in which the manager of the elementary school is a priest, in which the teacher of the elementary school is a Roman Catholic, liable at any moment to be dismissed by the priest, and in which religious emblems specially characteristic of Roman Catholic teaching are exhibited during some hours of the day—I cannot understand the frame of mind which can regard that system with perfect equanimity as in no sense inimical to the Protestant faith, and yet regard with horror the establishment of University education—education that is, which is directed to minds of students at a time when they are far more capable of reacting against the teaching which they listen to than they are at the tender age when they are subjected to primary education. ["Hear, hear!"] It appears to me that nobody who can contemplate the existing system of education in Ireland can object to the establishment of higher education of a kind more acceptable to the Roman Catholic people on grounds of principle. We have gone so far in our primary education, we have even gone so far in what we have already done in regard to University education, that, if principle there be which says that the State abstains, as from an unclean thing, from spending a single sixpence of public money on any system of education in which Roman Catholic teaching is at all concerned, that is so absolutely abandoned that I confess I should think that my hon. Frend and those who think with him would do well to reconsider the uncompromising position which they have consistently taken up upon this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] But whilst I hold that view, as I have always held very strongly, I do not deny anything which my hon. Friend who has just sat down has stated with regard to the evils of segregating one denomination from another in different denominational establishments. Everything my hon. Friend said about those evils has a real existence in fact. But let the House remember that, so far as experience teaches us anything, it teaches us this—that the question is not between having Universities in which Protestant and Roman Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian are joined together in a common system of education, between that system and a system in which each member of a denomination is taught separately in his own establishment. The choice is not between these two things. If we could find a system which carried out the idea of my hon. Friend, then I for one should abandon every word I have said in regard to the establishment of a Roman Catholic College or University in Ireland. If I could see rise up in Ireland an institution such as Trinity College aspires to be, as my hon. Friend has told us, and which is only prevented from being so by what I cannot help regarding, and what I hope I may call without offence, the prejudices of the Roman Catholic population in Ireland—if I could see that, then I should regard the question as having been solved most profitably for the furtherance of all educational requirements in Ireland. But I am afraid that everybody that knows Ireland, whatever his opinions may be and whatever party of politics he belongs to, is reluctantly compelled to admit that any such prospect is incapable of realisation. ["Hear, hear!"] We have to accept the fact that, unless we are able to contrive some system of higher education in winch the Roman Catholic population will consent to take part, it is vain for us to hope that higher education will be practically brought within the reach of a large number of the members of that community which certainly ought to take advantage of it. ["Hear, hear!"] But in stating this view I hope I shall not be considered as in any way minimising the statements I have made before if I say we ought to be convinced, before any new plan is carried into effect, that it really will give what we want—a good system of higher education. [Cheers.] I used to hold the view, and have expressed it with great confidence, that the higher education should not be given in a Roman Catholic University, but in a Roman Catholic College, the distinction being that while the Roman Catholic University could give degrees the Roman Catholic College could not, and that there might be a prospect of the students of the Roman Catholic College meeting the students of the other Protestant colleges in equal competition, and that the general standard of education would thereby be kept up. In that argument I still see very great force, but I admit that since I made the speeches to which such lavish reference has been made in the course of this Debate I am more impressed than I used to be with the disadvantages from the purely educational point of view of dividing the examining authority from the teaching authority. ["Hear, hear!"] The system prevalent at this moment in London University and in the Royal University of Ireland undoubtedly has some merits, but I think that almost all those who are in terested in higher education will agree with me when I say that the general experience of mankind is that, if you want to get the best results, you cannot and ought not to depend on examinations alone, but that you ought to associate the teaching body with the examining body, and that the same influences which prevail with the ex amining should prevail also with the teaching. ["Hear, hear!"] That is an argument against a Roman Catholic College and in favour of a Roman Catholic University, but it leaves us open to the danger which I hope to avoid by having a college rather than a University—that the University, if or when it were set up, would not maintain at a high level the secular education which is the sole object we have in view in promoting higher education in Ireland at all. ["Hear, hear!"] I confess I should like to have some information as to what the views prevalent in Ireland are with regard to the governing body of the institution which it is desired to set up. I wish I were more intimately acquainted than I am with the efforts which have been made in different parts of the world to deal with the special problem now before us. I understand, for example, that in the United States of America there has been a purely Roman Catholic college instituted under ecclesiastical management. I do not know how far it has yet been a success, or whether, indeed, there has been time to show whether it is likely to be a success or not. It appears, so far as I can discover with such information as is at our disposal, that at present, at all events, judging from the statistics of the courses which the students attend, it is principally for the purpose of educating theological students. That, of course, is not the object we have in view in setting up a new higher educational machinery in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] Then I notice that in France, as I have already said, the State jealously, and even brutally, appears to desire to exclude anything in the nature of ecclesiastical influence in the higher education of the country. That may be due perhaps to those rather sharp political divisions which in France have divided the Republican Party, or sections of the Republican Party I should say, from the Roman Catholic hierarchy. But if we go to Germany, I am informed that in Bavaria and Austria, countries in which the general prevalence of Roman Catholicism will not be disputed by anybody, the Universities, which are admirable institutions, are kept entirely free, so far as I know, from anything in the nature of clerical control. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bavarian Universities are in many respects necessarily different from anything we have, or perhaps should desire to have or could have, in this country. But the German Universities have done a work the importance of which to Germany and the world it is impossible to exaggerate—["hear, hear!"]—and I think that, even while it would be absurd to attempt slavishly to imitate their constitutions, there may be lessons to be learned from those constitutions which all persons interested in higher education would do well to take to heart. ["Hear, hear!"] All I want to do in this very brief and very imperfect survey of our existing means of information is to show that here is the real crux in the problem. This House cannot be asked, and should not be asked, to set up an institution which when set up will not fulfil the object we have in view. If the machinery is such that we cannot as reasonable men hope to get from it the very best fruits of the higher learning, then we had better not touch the subject at all. ["Hear, hear!"] We have therefore to meet a double condition. We have got so to contrive a University that it shall meet with the general approval of, or be largely used by—let me put it that way—those classes of the Roman Catholic population who now refuse to take advantage of the existing institution. That is our first object. Our second object must be that, when they carry into effect their willingness to attend the lectures and to gain all the advantages of this new educational institution, the institution itself should be one worthy of the efforts of this House, worthy of the great cause in which it is to be set up, and should be of a character which, if it does not speedily rival Trinity College in its immense services to the civilisation of the United Kingdom and of the world, shall at all events in the course of generations rival that great institution. I confess that upon this perplexing problem we have not had so much guidance from the leaders of Irish public opinion as we should like to have. My hon. Friend has given the House a piece of advice which I think should be laid to heart, and the common-sense of which it is probable everybody will recognise. He said—

"Don't let us propose a scheme until we are tolerably sure that it will he acceptable."

I have indicated the difficulties which must attend the framers of any scheme on the subject. I hope everybody, on whatever side of the House he sits, will recognise that I have approached this question in a spirit which is not hostile—[Irish cheers]—even to the most specially Irish view of the subject. I was amused on looking at a speech delivered many years ago by the present Leader of the Opposition on Mr. Gladstone's University Bill of 1873. The then Mr. Vernon Harcourt observed that—

"For himself, not being a Home Ruler "[loud laughter], "he had never adopted the idea of governing Ireland according to Irish ideas."

[Renewed laughter.] I am not a Home Ruler, but I do not draw from that the doctrine and the corollary drawn from it by the then Mr. Vernon Harcourt. Though not a Home Ruler, I am sincerely anxious that in this matter we should put all sectarian prejudices aside—[cheers]—and attempt to meet the wishes of Ireland in this respect, and I am certain that those who sit on the other side of the House, and who are most opposed to me in general politics, will agree with me, at all events in this, that we should be doing Ireland no service whatever if in our attempt to give them a form of higher education acceptable to the majority of the people we were to set up either a college or a University which would not compare on equal terms with other educational institutions on both sides of St. George's Channel. [Cheers.]

I am sure no fault can or will be found with the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached this, as he says quite truly, very difficult problem. He has approached it in exactly the spirit which I expected from him in view of the various utterances quoted, as he says, so lavishly in this Debate, and more especially in accordance with the view which he laid before the House four years ago upon an occasion of which I will take the liberty of reminding him and other Members. It is useful to remember it, because on that occasion, contrary to the expectation of the Government of that day, in both Irish quarters of the House—the senior Member for the University of Dublin and Mr. Sexton, who was then, but who is, I am sorry to say, no longer, a Member of this House—we hit upon an agreement as to which both these hon. Gentlemen assented. That was on the occasion of the Irish Government Bill of 1893 being discussed in this House, and the question then raised was whether an Irish Parliament should be or should not be allowed to establish and endow a place for higher or University education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University moved an Amendment to the effect that the Irish Parliament should be prohibited from establishing or endowing any body of that kind. Upon that occasion that right hon. Gentleman said that he still held the view he had always entertained, and was in favour of allowing the Imperial Parliament to do this, although he was against its being done by an Irish Parliament. I then, on behalf of the Government, while desiring to assent to the Amendment in that form, proposed an Amendment of our own, which was eventually, after a certain amount of discussion, assented to by both Parties, and was passed without a division. We did not propose that course without great misgiving. The question was a burning one, and we apprehended that, with the narrow majority which; we then enjoyed, we might have great difficulty in carrying it. What was the proposal we made which, as I have said, commanded universal assent It was that the Irish Parliament should be allowed to establish a place of Catholic University education with two provisoes—first, that they should not endow out of public funds any theological chair; and, secondly, that such an endowment should be subject to all the restrictions which the Act of 1873 imposed upon the University of Dublin. To that proposal the right hon. Gentleman assented. He said that it was a wise and genuine way of meeting a real difficulty, and he also said that, if the Home Rule Bill had no other result, it would not be fruitless if that agreement were carried into effect. Mr. Sexton also regarded the agreement as of very great value, and as being a step in the right direction. That is the history of the proposal. I have heard with the greatest satisfaction the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has made to-night. No man in the House would give more than I would to avoid setting up any teaching University in Ireland in which ecclesiastical teaching should be a prominent feature, and I wish it had been in our power to avoid this necessity. I believe that, without that course being adopted, a natural emulation would arise amongst the teachers and students of the Catholic college and Trinity College—a rivalry which might not be to the disadvantage of either. I do not know what view of the matter may be taken by high ecclesiastical personages in Ireland, but I may say, without any breach of confidence, that I had an opportunity of consulting some of them on this point when the Home Rule Bill was before the House, and I understood that they would assent—of course, through an Irish Parliament—to the proposal that no Divinity chair in a Catholic university or college should be endowed out of public funds. Of course, those high ecclesiastical personages may have since seen occasion to change their views on the subject. ["No, no,"from the, Nationalist Members.] That I regard as an important admission. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman opposite rather minimised the denominational character of Trinity College, but he cannot deny that it is one of the most important institutions in Ireland for the training of ministers for the Protestant Episcopal Church, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not exclude from the Catholic University the theological faculty, provided that the chairs are not endowed out of public funds. ["Hear, hear!"] However, I need not now go into further details. Speaking for myself, I have heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with great agreement, and I hope that we shall not go much longer without something being carried out in the direction on which we are both agreed. ["Hear, hear!"]

shared the hope that appeared to be entertained on all sides of the House that something effectual might at length be done in regard to the subject. One argument used by the hon. Member for Trinity College rather told his own position; he pointed to the fact that the overwhelming, proportion of the Irish Catholics who had played a prominent part in the history of their country had been students at Trinity College. That was roughly true, but did it not tend to show how great was the grievance? As a matter of fact a small proportion only of the Catholics of Ireland had been members of Trinity College, but it was found that of that small proportion a very large number had risen to distinction, not merely in Ireland but in other countries. Was it not reasonable to suppose, therefore, that if similar educational advantages had been open to a larger body they would have made simlar use of it, and there would have been a much greater number of distinguished Irish Catholics than there had been. The House had reason to be grateful to the hon. Member for the tone of his speech. That speech was free from sectarian bitterness, and in that respect he was sure it would be approved by the vast majority of educated Irish Protestants. For the most part educated Protestants in Ireland had been free from religious bigotry. It was no small thing for Irish Protestants to point back that it was an Irish Protestant Parliament which, first amongst the Protestant Legislative bodies of the world, established a separate State-endowed college for the education of Catholic priests? The work which was done more than 100 years ago, under the influence of Edmund Burke, in establishing Maynooth, showed that amongst the educated body of Irish Protestants there was no inherent sectarian bitterness which would prevent them giving adequate educational facilities to their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. He sometimes heard that the Presbyterians were opposed to any further facilities being given to Roman Catholics for university education, and it was therefore a pleasure to him to read yesterday the speech of the head of the Presbyterian College at Belfast, in which it was declared that this question urgently demanded treatment and that its solution was a task worthy of any Statesman. There were one or two other points he would like to refer to. For instance, he thought the case of the Queen's colleges was not sufficiently stated. When it was said those institutions were unsectarian it would be generally supposed that the Queen's colleges were very much like the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. But the rules which had been applied to the Queen's colleges were much stronger than most Members of the House no doubt magined. Every Queen's College professor was prohibited from giving any instruction to his class except what was strictly undenominational, and every professor before entering upon his duties must append his signature to the following declaration:—

"I further promise and enagage that in lecturing and examining, and in the preformance of all other duties connected with my class, I will carefully abstain from teaching or advancing any doctrine or making any statement derogatory to the truths of revealed religion, or injurious or disrespectful to the religious convictions of any portion of my class or audience."

He had the honour of the acquaintance of Professor Young, the Professor of English History in the Queen's College, Belfast, and that Gentleman had explained to him the great difficulty in which he was placed when lecturing on the period of the Reformation, because he found it quite impossible to give any effective instruction to students on that subject without saying things which were disrespectful to the religious convictions of some of them. So that in the rules imposed on the Queen's colleges in the vain hope that the Catholics might come to them, they had clone an injury not merely to the Catholics but to the Protestants of Ireland. For the sake of the Queen's colleges themselves it would be well, he thought, if that part of their strict rules was somewhat modified. The effect of such rules as he had mentioned was seen in the state of the Galway Queen's College, and he thought that upon that institution there was a ridiculous waste of public money. According to the last Report the income of that college was £9,000 a year, and the students numbered 105. Only 48 of the students were Catholic—48 in the overwhelmingly Catholic province of Connaught. And the majority of the students were not Connaught men at all; they came from Munster, Leinster, and, in the greater part, from Ulster—43 of the 105 came from Ulster. The fact was there were a large number of Scholarships that were easy to get, and consequently the Ulster Presbyterians who could not win the Scholarships in the Queen's College, Belfast, went to Galway to win them. To spend the large amount now spent at Galway was nothing else than waste, and the sooner the money was applied to the real work of education in Ireland the better. The First Lord of the Treasury referred to the question whether in the interest of education it was better the Catholic college should be part of the University of Dublin, which would also include Trinity College, or whether, on the other hand, there should be a separate Catholic university.

never contemplated including Trinity College in the University.

was sorry if he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman did not contemplate the union of the new Catholic college with the University of Dublin he was driven at once to the other alternative, a separate Catholic university. He thought that in dealing with this problem the separate circumstances of Ulster should for educational reasons be taken into account. He believed that it would, be possible to set up in Belfast with advantage a separate Catholic college forming part of the University of Belfast. He was told that in the University of Sydney, New South Wales, there were three colleges, one Catholic, one Presbyterian, and one Episcopolian, and that the University was worked effectually and with little religious difficulty. The example of Sydney might be followed in Belfast with useful effect. He trusted that some steps would be taken to give a practical result to the Debate. It had been well said on both sides of the House that no satisfactory solution of the question could be arrived at without arranging a plan in concert with the representatives of the Irish Catholics. Having admitted the grievance he hoped the Government would go further and admit that it was part of their duty to set about ascertaining whether they could not, in concert with the representatives of the Irish Catholics, devise a plan, which would meet with the approbation of Parliament. There was just one other aspect of the question to which he would like to refer in conclusion. It had reference to a grievance which was being aggravated day by day. The Indian Civil Service used to be open to boys of eighteen at the close of their school education. Formerly a very large number of Irish Catholics entered the Indian Civil Service, and some of them had risen to the highest posts. The men upon whom, as Lieutenant Governor of the North West Provinces, the chief duty of battling with the famine today rested, was one of those Irish Catholics, Sir Antony MacDonnell. Most of these young men proved themselves to be efficient servants. But four or five years ago a change was made by the Civil Service Commissioners in the regulations for entering the Indian Civil Service. The age was changed from 18 to 23, and candidates, instead of going up for examination at the close of their school career as boys, were henceforth to go up as young men at the close of a university career. The result of that change was that Catholics were now almost entirely excluded from the service. That fact alone showed that the question was a pressing one, and as they had now arrived at something like an agreement on the main principles of the question it was the duty of the Government to give effect to those principles. The First Lord of the Treasury had shown that he understood the position of the Catholics of Ireland in this matter, and that he, to some extent, sympathised with them in the disadvantages they suffered through the want of adequate university education; and that being so, surely he ought to set about the task of proposing a scheme which Parliament could accept. He thought they ought to receive some sort of promise from the Treasury Bench that steps would be taken by the Government to frame such a measure, acting in concert with the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, as would satisfy the minds and consciences of the Irish people. [Cheers.]

said that after the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, the question, must become much more largely one of terms, and he thought the hon. Member for Kildare would be well advised not to press the Amendment to a division, because the object he had in view had been practically met by the right hon. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"] The First Lord in this question had certainly been consistent, and he would ask the hon. Member for South Belfast to remember that the first thing the present Viceroy did when he arrived in Ireland was to pledge the Government to the establishment of a Catholic university for Ireland. Twice after that the Viceroy was invited to Belfast, and he was received with distinction by the citizens, showing that there was not the strong feeling against the establishment of such a university as the hon. Member suggested. ["Hear, hear!"] The First Lord of the Treasury in his able speech laid down the conditions to which he thought the Irish Members should respond, but abstained from saying anything as to what the Government would do if those conditions were not accepted. It had been admitted—apart from all conditions—that there was a real grievance to be dealt with, and that being so, it was the duty of the Government to deal with it. The right hon. Gentleman adopted a suggestion thrown out by the eloquent Member for Trinity College, to the effect that the Government should not propose any scheme until they were certain that it would be accepted. But how could it possibly be known that a scheme would be accepted until it was proposed? The Irish Members, or Catholics, could not declare in advance their acceptance of a scheme which they had not seen. It would be fairer to ask them to indicate the conditions of a scheme they would accept. The right hon. Gentleman asked for guidance on one point. He said that he should like to have some information and guidance as to the governing body of the proposed university. Now, in everything the right hon. Gentleman had said as to the objects the Government should have in view in the formation of a Catholic university he entirely concurred. Neither the Catholic Bishops nor the Catholic people generally desired to set up anything in the nature of a mere ecclesiastical seminary. What they desired was a university of liberal culture, of liberal training. They had no desire to impose anything like a narrow institution on the country. ["Hear, hear!"] They made no such demand. Those who read the recent declaration of the Irish Bishops would perceive that the Catholic hierarchy did not even claim a dominating position on the governing body of such a university; and, indeed, the general desire of the Catholics of Ireland would be that the lay element should dominate the governing body. But the Catholic Bishops and clergy of Ireland felt very strongly on this matter in the interests of the people. They had long seen that the Catholics of Ireland had been shut out of positions of emolument and positions of liberal attainments, because there was no institution to which they could resort in their youth by reason of the Protestant atmosphere that prevailed in the existing colleges. He would ask the hon. Member for South Belfast whether he would like to send his children to a Jesuits' school—to place them under the care of the Jesuits? Then, why should he be forced to send his children to a Protestant school, and to place them under the care of Protestant clergymen? ["Hear, hear!"] The existing condition of things in Ireland with regard to this question of Catholic university education was not only very unjust, but was absurd in a country like Ireland. Therefore what the Catholic Bishops and people desired and demanded was the establishment of an institution of liberal learning, in which a Catholic atmosphere should prevail. ["Hear, hear!"] To say that they could have this—that they could secure the object they had in view in connection with Trinity College—was little less than an absurdity. He would give an illustration about Trinity College. There fell vacant recently a Gaelic Chair in the college. Now, the ablest professor of Irish, either in Ireland or elsewhere, was a well-known Protestant gentleman—Dr. Douglas Hyde. What did the college do? They gave the position to a gentleman who, he admitted, was also a man of high attainments, and against whom he had not a word to say, but who was a Protestant clergyman. They passed over the layman, and elected the clergyman, because they wished to continue the old policy of Protestant teaching. Under existing circumstances he could not blame the college—

said the appointment was not made by the college, but under a private deed, providing certain persons to make it.

did not see that that touched the question, and even if it did it strengthened his case. Even under a private deed it was not obligatory to appoint a parson; that was his point.

said that personally he supported the other candidate.

said that that still further strengthened his case. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] But he had only used the illustration for the purpose of showing that Trinity College was immersed in what he called doctrinal and militant Protestantism. ["Hear, hear!"] Whatever endowment was conferred on a Catholic university, no matter how distinguished the gentlemen appointed to manage it might be, it must be many years before it acquired anything like the prestige of Trinity College. The position he took up was this. The Government had now admitted the principle of a Catholic university; but were they, while inquiries were being made, to be delayed for years and years? The right hon. Gentleman had made eloquent and able speeches on this question in former years, when he was not, perhaps, in a position of the same responsibility, and he recognised in the tone of the speech he had made that night a tone of graver responsibility; but he presumed he would not have made that speech unless he had intended that immediate action would be taken in the event of satisfaction being given on the point of the governing body. The right hon. Gentleman had demanded to be satisfied that in the matter of secular learning this institution should be worthy of the intentions of the Government. The Catholic had hardly yet emerged from the restrictions of the penal laws; and could they hope in the course of two or three generations, to rival or distance the Protestants? It was as absurd as to suppose that when the restrictions on the commerce of Ireland were removed, Ireland could compete with Lancashire or Yorkshire. But take the Catholics as they had been, and what was found? Wherever the Catholic had had an equal chance with the Protestant, he not only equalled him but in many instances surpassed him. The position he wished to press on the Government was this. The Bishops in Ireland in putting forward their demand were acting only as the spokesmen of the laity, and they were so acting because their position entitled them to put forward a demand peculiarly concerning men in their position. For his part, he would have no hesitation, if he were asked his opinion, in saying, either in public or in private, what he thought of this proposition or that, in his position of a Member of Parliament. He did not see why they should hold themselves aloof. The Bishops were the trustees for the Catholic laity. They had fought their battle well and long, and no man in dealing with this question could avoid saying a word of thanks to men like the Archbishop of Dublin for their long and skilful battle by voice and pen. The First Lord had not made a merely platonic suggestion that night, and for his speech he thanked the right hon. Gentleman. He was sure he would find himself able when inquiries were made, without wounding the sensitive conscience of any Protestant, to give satisfaction to the legitimate demand of the Catholics of Ireland.

said he was sincerely grateful for the speech of the First Lord, and begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

moved as an Amendment to the Address, at the end to add:—

"And we humbly express the regret of this House that, although the Commissioners appointed by your Majesty in 1892 to inquire into the Land Question in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have reported that nearly 2,000,000 acres of land now occupied as deer forests, grouse moors, &c., 'might be cultivated to profit, or otherwise advantageously occupied by crofters or small tenants,' there is no indication in your Majesty's Speech that arrangements will be made for acquiring some portion of this land, so that the crofters, cottars and fishermen may be able to live under more favourable conditions than those under which many of them now exist."

He said that the Highland people had no imaginary grievance. It was a real and substantial one, and had existed for a number of years. The last Government when it came into power appointed a Royal Commission to inquire whether any lands were available for the purpose set out in his Amendment. Up to that time, and indeed up to the present time, the landlords had been creating new deer forests. When a deer forest was put up for sale in London, it was usually stated in the conditions of sale that part of the forest had been in the occupation of crofters, and that consequently there was good grazing for deer. The Commission appointed in 1892 held 64 public sittings in various parts of the Highlands, and they took the evidence of landlords, crofters, cottars, fishermen, factors and the law agents of landlords. The Commission also inspected the lands in question personally. Their Report was issued in 1895, and it showed that there were 1,782,785 acres of land suitable for crofters, cottars, and fishermen. They divided that land into three classes. That suitable for new holdings they put at 794,750 acres, for the extension of existing holdings at 439,188, and that suitable for moderate-sized farms at 548,847 acres. They also distinguished between the old arable and pasture land. It was worth noting that as the arable land fell out of cultivation population diminished. In Argyleshire, for instance, 23,116 acres of old arable had gone out of cultivation, and whereas the population in 1831 was 100,973, in 1891 it had fallen to 74,998—a decrease of 25,975, or upwards of 25 percent. during 60 years. What a record! This end was attained by evictions of a brutal and merciless character. In Inverness-shire the old arable land out of cultivation was 20,779 acres. In 1841 the population was 97,799, and in 1891, 89,847, a decrease of 7,952, and in these figures no allowance was made for the normal increase. This was a sad record for the Queen's reign. The condition of these people to-day was as bad as it could possibly be. In the Island of Lewis, with a population of 30,000, some years ago 27 townships were cleared in order to add to deer forests and large farms. The people were driven from these townships to the sea-shore and barren spots to eke out a living as best they could. These were people who had brought their land into cultivation, and had built their own houses, and yet they were ruthlessly driven from their homes. The Royal Commissioners in their Report referred to the need and the pressing importance of providing these cottars and fishermen with land, and they recommended that each should have a patch of ground for the cultivation of potatoes and grazing sufficient for one cow. The Commissioners spoke of the men as honest and hard-working, a character they well deserved. He was always pained when he heard the Highlanders of the West Coast spoken of as if they lacked the energy and industry which would enable them to thrive. Those who made such remarks knew nothing of life in the Highlands of Scotland, and the hard conditions under which the fishermen pursued their industry. Their work was at night, and if they were seen in the daytime smoking on their crofts, it should be remembered that men could not work 24 hours a day. The Commissioners spoke of them as hard-working, capable men, who would readily take up holdings and carry them on successfully. When he was last in Lewis, a few months ago, the new owner of the island happened to be there, and it was arranged that a deputation of leading men of Stornoway and the island, merchants, traders, ministers of religion, and others, should wait upon the owner with the view of getting a few holdings for fishermen's dwellings in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners. He introduced the deputation. He had a letter from the owner yesterday refusing to give an inch of land, and as regards the congestion of crofters, he said he hoped this would be gradually relieved in course of time. That the crofters' children were being educated in English in the Board Schools, and when they grew up they would be able to migrate to the mainland or other parts of the wide world in order to gain a living. Such was the owner's answer. But the Government should do something for one of the darkest spots in the British Islands. When he was there the people were greatly dissatisfied. He begged them to be quiet and patient, for he believed that the owner would do something for them, or that the Government would take action to carry out the recommendations of the Comissioners. As the result of the policy of the past, poverty abounded to an alarming extent. As an indication of that he quoted the assessable rental of the parish of Barvas, £2,785. The total amount of rates per £ was 10s. 4d., the assessment for the poor being 8s. 2d. The population of the parish was 7,500. The corresponding statistics for the neighbouring parish of Lochs were: Assessable rental, £3,634; total amount of rates in the £, 8s. 8d., of which the amount for poor rate was 6s. 6d. Of course there was poverty, and well there might be, when for generations the people had been robbed of their inheritance, and had not enough ground upon which to cultivate potatoes for their own wants. A special meeting of the Parish Council of North Uist was recently held to consider the question of allotments. The Council applied to the proprietors in North Uist for allotments for 82 applicants, who had among them 51 horses, 103 cows, 77 younger cattle, and 525 sheep, besides other means, and they asked for some 2,000 acres of rough pasture and 140 acres arable land. The proprietors failed to give any land for such purposes. This, notwithstanding the fact that the Report of the Commissioners showed there were 1,529 acres of old arable land gone out of cultivation, and more than 8,000 acres of pasture land. To the Government he looked to find a remedy for such a grievance, to put this question of allotments on a satisfactory footing. The state of matters in the island of Lewis was most serious. He should regret extremely a recurrence of such a state of things as arose before the passing of the Crofters Act, when the Government sent gunboats to the outer islands to compel the payment of miserable rack-rents. The Crofters Act was a godsend to the people, it, gave them fixity of tenure, and rents fixed by a Land Court. In many cases rents were reduced from 40 to 60 per cent., and in some instances arrears were wiped out to the extent of 90 per cent. The Highland population were a peace-loving people, and he only wished that some Members of the Government would visit the Western Highlands and Islands, as a few years ago the Secretary for the Colonies did, and see the conditions of existence there for the fishermen, crofters and cottars. It was no use merely going to Stornoway or Portree. Too often the Scotch Office derived its information from landlords and their agents. Let a Member of the Government go to the islands and realise the conditions of life of the people. In the course of debate much had been said as to the condition of the peasantry in the West of Ireland, and he sympathised with the people there. He had been in the poorest districts in the West of Ireland, and he could safely say that, horribly bad as were the conditions of life there, the conditions of life in the outer Hebrides were worse. Let English Members understand that landlords in those districts spent no money on the holdings as English landlords did, everything was provided by the tenant, who built his own house, such as it was, with turf. Every year the roof of the house was renewed, the old material being strewn on the land for manure. If the people had more land, if they had some of the 2,000,000 acres the Commissioners said were fit for cultivation, soon their condition would improve, and they would have those well-built houses which it was gratifying to see had, in some instances, resulted from the working of the Crofters Act of 1886. He might be asked what he proposed should be done for the landlords. He would reply, "Let the land be valued by a Land Court." The people were prepared to pay a fair rent, and the machinery of the Crofters' Commission could be used for the purpose which he had in view. The Commissioners were able men, who would act fairly towards the landlords, and they knew the nature of the land. He could not understand why the Highlands received so little attention from the Government. Was it because the Highlands had so few representatives? If there were a solid phalanx of Highland representatives he could not help thinking that more would be done for that part of the country. The Government had set aside some £15,000 for the benefit of the congested districts. For that he was grateful, although the sum was so trifling that only a small experiment could be made with it. How was this money going to be spent? Were the Government going to aid the fishermen or were they going to make roads and harbours, or were they going to provide for a better system of education so as to enable the rising generation to go into the world with a better mental equipment than they could obtain now? What, however, the people chiefly needed was land. In 1895 the late Secretary for Scotland brought in a Bill containing proposals for utilising some 500,000 acres out of the 2,000,000 to which his Amendment referred. The present First Lord of the Treasury, who was then Leader of the Opposition, opposed the project, saying that the Bill was not a generous one, and did not make provision for the poorer crofters and cottars. In fact the right hon. Gentleman then showed the most ardent affection for the Highland crofters and fishermen, but now that he had crossed the floor of the House his sentiments appeared to have undergone a change. He looked upon the question to which he called attention not only as a Highland but as a National question. In recent years unusually large sums had been voted for naval and military purposes, and it was well known that many of our best soldiers and sailors had come from the Western Highlands. Some years ago as many as 10,000 soldiers came from Skye. But now recruiting in the Highlands was not as successful as it used to be. The children of men who fought the battles of this country in days gone by felt that successive Governments had not treated the people fairly, and resenting this they refused to join the army. Special efforts were made when the late Secretary for War was in office to obtain recruits in the Highlands, but the success of those efforts was so small that it was calculated that each recruit cost the country something like £100. If the people were but fairly treated they would, he felt sure, readily join the services. The Highlands were rapidly becoming places for breeding and rearing deer and sheep. Surely the production of a hardy and contented race of men was more important. If things went on as they were now, the Highlands would become depopulated, and there would be no more Highlanders, men of splendid physique and fine fighting qualities, to replenish the ranks of the army and navy. He appealed to the Government to take some action in the matter, and to make a start. Let them give the people access to the land. This was a year of rejoicing, being the jubilee of the Queen's reign. Her Majesty had always shown the greatest affection and regard for the Highland people. Let the Government then this year gladden the heart of Her Majesty by doing something to improve the conditions of the Highlander's life. The sons and descendants of the men who had fought at Waterloo, Inkerman, Alma, and in many other battles, were assuredly entitled to some consideration and sympathy. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name. On the return of Mr. Speaker after the usual interval,

, in seconding the Amendment, said that he had always taken a great interest in the crofter question, and had endeavoured to keep it out of Party politics, as all questions of distress among the people should be kept. When the Liberal Government were in office he had supported an Amendment similar to the present one. Both Parties had admitted the existence of distress in the Highlands, but they differed as to the means of relieving it. The Liberal Government passed the Crofters Act to secure fair rent and fixity of tenure, and gave grants from the Imperial exchequer for encouraging the fisheries and making roads. Put the Unionist Government had, of course, been afraid of any legislation which would alter the Land Laws, and they had spent Imperial money in improving communications. At one time, too, they made a grant to encourage emigration, but that policy had not been persisted in, because it had failed. Out of the money allocated to Scotland under the Local Government Act, they had set aside £10,000 a year to be devoted preferentially to the Highlands, and in the Agricultural hating Bill another £15,000 a year was devoted to the Highland congested districts. One might object to that policy as throwing the burden on the kingdom of Scotland instead of on the United Kingdom. The grants for the Irish congested districts were made out of Imperial funds: but he would not press that point. When, however, the people of Scotland were paying £25,000 of their own money for the Highlands, there was the better case for asking the Government to do something which the Government alone could do. Everything that could be said about agricultural distress in England or Ireland, applied with equal force to the Highlands; and there were in the Highlands special aggravations of the distress which did not exist elsewhere. The soil and the climate were much worse than in the Irish congested districts; the yield per acre was smaller in every kind of crop, and the crofters had no means of obtaining manure. But the real deficiency was in the size of the holdings. In the crofting counties the average holding was only about £4 a year; and it was impossible for a man to keep himself and his family on the produce of such a holding. Though there were 2,000,000 acres suitable for cultivation, it was impossible for the crofter by any means to increase his holding. Therefore he had to combine crofting with fishing, or go somewhere else to work for a period of the year. Both expedients were bad for the man's cultivation of his holding. What the Government were asked to do in this case was simply what they did for a railway company, or a public body desiring to acquire land. Let the Highlands be treated as an exceptional ease, and the taking of land be authorised for the purpose of increasing the size of the holdings. It was often said that this was a question of rent. It was nothing of the kind. Supposing the crofters who paid £4 or £10 a year rent for their holdings got those holdings for nothing, how could they support themselves and bring up their families in the circumstances in which they found themselves, being cornered on every hand? The crofter cannot get an inch of ground beyond his own holding, and if even he got the benefit of the Crofters Act and had a fair rent fixed, or even if he got the holding for nothing, what earthly use would it be to him? The landlords' policy in the Highlands was a policy which had existed some years ago in the other parts of Scotland also. The landlords generally had got the feeling that if a population were brought about their places by trade and by manufactures the poor rates would go up. There was no doubt that the poor rates were high in the Highlands, but when the people were kept in poverty and prevented from earning a living it could not well be otherwise. Even if the policy of the landlords which he had indicated kept down the rates, it was most detrimental to the public interest, because the industrial centres of Scotland would badly feel the want of a population reared in the Highlands upon which to draw for workers. The best workers in Glasgow were men and women who had been born and brought up in the Highlands. About three-fourths of the policemen of Glasgow had been reared in the Highlands, and were selected for the force because of their fine physique, and it was well known that there was no better recruiting ground for the Navy and the Army than the crofting districts of Scotland. It was, therefore, obvious that in the interest of the country as a whole, apart altogether from the question of humanity, it would be a good thing to develop the population of the Highlands of Scotland by enabling the crofters to live, and not to starve as they were doing, at present, upon the land. There was no difficulty whatever in carrying out the policy recommended in the Amendment. There was no difficulty whatever in finding land in order to increase the crofters' holdings. The landed proprietors who would be affected by the policy of the Amendment had millions of acres, and their interests would not be interfered with in any way, for the land that would be required for the crofters would be to them a mere bagatelle. Then the effect would be to benefit even the landlords themselves. In the first place, if any land was taken from them for the purpose of increasing crofts they would be compensated by getting the full value of the land. The rates would get less because the land would increase in value; railways would pass through the districts, and they would be followed by tourist traffic, and therefore, a great service would be done to the landlords themselves from a pecuniary point of view. For all these reasons he had great pleasure, though not representing a crofters' constituency, in seconding the Amendment.

said he did not think any apology need be made by his hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromartie for having brought this question before the House. Scottish business was usually neglected, and it seemed likely that fewer facilities would be given this year than hitherto for the discussion of questions affecting Scotland; and, therefore, his hon. Friend was fully justified in having availed himself of the Debate on the Address in order to lay the sore grievances of the crofters before the House. He himself did not belong to a crofting district, but in Aberdeenshire they had a large population who were living under the same conditions as the crofter population of the Highlands, and, as he had often urged in the House, were fully entitled to enjoy the great benefits of the Crofters Act. Therefore, from the point of view of his own constituency, he thought it was his duty to support the Amendment. He remembered well that during the Debates on the Crofters Act many prognostications of evil were indulged in. But all these prophecies were falsified, and he believed that the prophecies that were now being made by the opponents of the Amendment would meet with the same refutation in time to come. Everyone acquainted with the writings of Sheriff Brand knew the great benefits that had followed to the crofters from the Crofters Act. Even in his evidence before the Welsh Land Commission Sheriff Brand pointed out, that the. Act had made a remarkable change for the better in the crofters of the Highlands. They were more industrious, more independent, and greatly improved in every way. The House had admirably carried out all the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission except one, namely: that the crofters should have in addition a fixity of tenure and a fair rent, and the right to have their crofts extended in order that they might have scope for the energies they undoubtedly possessed. The Commission pointed out that the only way to do that was to enlarge the holdings. The crofters were often accused of laziness by people who knew nothing about them. Men could not well be otherwise but lazy if they were deprived of the opportunities for industry. If they put men down in a certain district and did not give them land to cultivate, and refused them harbours by which they might develop the trade of fishing, they could not be blamed if they walked about with their hands in their pockets, simply because they could not find any industrial occupation. But, as he had said, the crofters—thanks to the Crofters Act—were already different men. They worked more industriously, they built their own houses out of their own pockets, and, if they got the opportunity of extending their crofts, there was no doubt that they would become as industrious and hard-working as any other section of the agricultural classes of Scotland. If the Crofters' Commission had done nothing more than to show beyond all doubt that there was plenty of land that could be worked benefically by the crofters, it would have done a great service, for one objection formerly to the policy recommended in the Amendment was that the necessary land could not be obtained. The Commission had pointed out that there was a large quantity of land in all those districts that might be acquired without hardship to anyone to enlarge the crofting holdings. Some years ago he took the opportunity of visiting the Islands of Lewis and Skye, accompanied by his late respected friend, Sir George Campbell. They might talk about Ireland, but really he saw in those islands places more wretched than could be seen in any other part of the world. They had, no doubt, been since improved, but they could be still further improved, and the way to do that was by giving the crofters some of the available land which was lying idle all around them. He should say that in Lewis, although the surroundings of the people were miserable, he saw the finest race of human beings, male and female, that he ever saw anywhere, and he saw on their little holdings crops produced that would have done credit to much finer soil. He believed it might be urged that if the policy they recommended were adopted it would interfere with the sport of the landlord. He himself was a sportsman, as was the Lord Advocate also, he thought, and he should be very sorry to do anything which would interfere with sport; but he held that sport must always give way to public opinion. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not, however, think that it would interfere with sport; on the contrary, it would secure the loyalty and co-operation of the tenants, and, inasmuch as the landlord would only part with some of his land on fair and honourable terms, it might have the effect of propping up some struggling Highland families of old descent who were now very impecunious. They ought not to allow the population to leave the country until they had exhausted all the resources of civilisation in the endeavour to keep them at home. The crofters were a very fine set of men, who would fight for us, and had done so in the past, and if their lot was ameliorated they would be a happy and united set of people, whom it would be a great advantage to us to keep at home.

said he was greatly disappointed with the reference which was made in the Queen's Speech to Scotland. It appeared to him that, after the repeated inquiries which had been held in regard to this matter of more land in the Highlands, an undoubted case had been made out. He had no doubt that the Lord Advocate would have no difficulty in going back to the period before the Royal Commission of 1883 had reported. When that Commission took evidence the cry was not so much that the rents were high and the conditions of tenure onerous, but that the people had insufficient holdings. The Liberal Government in its wisdom made provision for the giving of more land in the Crofters Bill of 1886, but unfortunately there was a considerable minority on the Government side of the House opposed to that part of the Bill, which was accordingly very considerably modified, with the result that the Act was practically of no value as a remedy. So marked was its failure in this respect, that a year after it came into operation the then Lord Advocate of a Conservative Government asked the Crofters Commission to make a Special Report on the subject. That Commission unanimously reported that the reason why no land, or very little, had been given to the crofters was that it was impossible for them to get it under the conditions laid down in the Act. The controversy as to whether there was or was not land available continued for some years, until at last they who had agitated this question succeeded in getting a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject. He had had the honour of serving on that Commission. So careful was the right hon. Gentleman the then Scottish Secretary (the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridge-ton Division of Glasgow) as to the composition of this Commission, that without the vote of the Chairman, who was practically in a judicial capacity, it was impossible for those of them who more particularly represented the crofter interest to succeed in scheduling any land as available for crofter purposes. That Commission, as was well known, re ported that close upon 2,000,000 acres of land were available for the enlargement of holdings or for new holdings. He confessed that he had no expectation that the present Government would settle this question of more land on the lines which he would like to see adopted, but he did expect they would have introduced legislation which would have made the land available, whether in the shape of peasant proprietorship or other wise. The more intimately he became acquainted with the condition of things in the Highlands the more surprised he was that any Government, whether Liberal or Conservative, should allow these conditions to continue for a single day. He found from the returns of the Registrar General of Scotland that in his own constituency the poverty was so great that the marriage rate was only one-fourth of what it was in the Lowland counties of Scotland. It might be urged that it was a very strong measure to endeavour to compel proprietors to give up land for the purpose of its occupation by crofters, but he did not think it was necessary now to argue that question. The historical position had been stated too often, and they had the authority of the present Prime Minister for saying that, so far as the tenure in the Highlands was concerned, it was an exceptional case, and they were entitled to special treatment. ["Hear, hear!"] Land not money was wanted in the High lands. The Highland people did not come to the House as beggars, and he spoke as the son of a man who had been evicted. Let them have the natural facilities and opportunities which but for laws passed by that House they would have access to. That was all they asked for. From his own personal knowledge he did not believe the land lords would suffer any loss of sport. If they had access to natural opportunities, he could assure the House it would hear no more complaints from the Highlands of Scotland.

supported the Amendment, which he considered embodied a just and reasonable demand. He submitted that a very complete case had been made out from the prayer of the Amendment. It was a disgrace to any Government calling itself Progressive that bodies of people possessed of great if rugged virtues should be compelled to eke out a miserable existence on a few acres of soil while round about them nature had provided almost unlimited room for industrial expansion. The most valuable article that land in Scotland or elsewhere could grow was men, women, and children. For the life of him he could not understand why Statesmen should deny that it was better for Scotland that two million acres of land in the Highlands should be devoted to the growth of sheep than the cultivation of sport. Five or six years ago he visited the Crofters' Colonies in Manitoba, and he was glad to say he found some of those hardy islanders doing remarkably well. They were not restricted to small crofts, for the Manitoba Government recognised the value of an industrious body of men cultivating the soil of the country. Public money was freely voted to transplant these Highlanders to the Canadian North West, and he could not help, while speaking to the crofters out there, thinking that that money would have been better expended in providing them with larger holdings in their own country. ["Hear, hear!"] He sincerely trusted the Lord Advocate would give some hope that action would be taken before long to enable these crofters to extend their holdings.

said he intervened with reluctance in the Debate because he recognised the probable futility of the whole proceeding. But if the Debate should have the effect of impressing on the Government the desirability of doing something during their tenure of office for the crofters in the Highlands of Scotland, the Mover of the Amendment would have reason to congratulate himself. Everyone who knew anything about the Highlands at all would be aware that there was a large portion of the population living on the confines of starvation. The necessity for doing something had been practically admitted by the Government, inasmuch as at the close of last Session the Lord Advocate allocated £15,000 out of the grant under the Rating Act, nominally to the relief of the congested districts in the Highlands. Had the Government made up their minds as to the destina- tion of that sum of £15,000? If not, he would suggest that they might, as a be ginning, purchase some of the 2,000,000 acres of land which the report referred to showed to be available for cultivation by crofters. What sort of men were these Highland crofters? They were hardy, they were brave, they were loyal. When Great Britain was menaced by the greatest war we ever entered into—the Peninsular War—the Isle of Skye furnished the country with 10,000 men—the flower of the British Army. Such a contingent of fighting men might be looked for now in vain in Skye or the islands of the Western Hebrides. And why? Because whole masses of the inhabitants had been evicted, their homesteads razed to the ground, and the tracts they occupied given up to sheep, deer, and grouse. More land for the crofters would not materially diminish sport. ["Hear, hear!"]

, in supporting the Amendment, asked whether the Government should not give considerable sums of money to be allocated, in order to deal with the 2,000,000 acres of land which the Commission had reported to be suitable for cultivation, so that the Highlanders would not be compelled to leave their native lands and crowd into towns, where their influx lowered the wages. If the Scotch Members were now alive to the necessity of combination and agitation, Parliament would hear a good deal more about the state of things in the Western Highlands. The very fact that last year the Government gave £15,000 to those districts proved that they recognised the necessity for some steps to be taken, though the amount was fully ten times too little for adequately dealing with the question. He trusted the Lord Advocate would be able to give them an assurance that an honest attempt would be made to improve the necessitous condition of the crofters and fishermen in the west of Scotland. If they attempted to make a comparison between the Imperial money spent on Scotland and Ireland it would be seen that a large margin was still to the credit of Scotland, which might very well, in part, be devoted to the social alleviation of the condition of the crofters and fishermen.

said the question of the extension of the crofter tenure to parts of Scotland described as being under crofting conditions, was not a question fairly raised by the Amendment. If the Commission which reported in 1895 made one thing clearer than another it was that the so-called case against deer forests had entirely broken down. The Commission came to the conclusion that not much was to be done in the way of making land available for cultivation which was at present occupied as deer forests. They said themselves that the land used as deer forests was, to a great extent, rocky, sterile, often remote and inaccessible, and, in configuration of surface and other circumstances, not suited for crofter holdings. He entirely agreed with the observation of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire as to the necessity for sport giving way to public convenience, but he would remind the hon. Member that sport had two aspects. If by sport he meant the pleasures of the class he quite admitted that could not be taken into account in consideration with other interests much more serious to the community. But sport besides that had an entirely economic aspect, which must be taken into consideration and bear its full weight, even in comparison with those other interests. No one could look at the rentals in Scotland without seeing that the economic value of sport was of the greatest importance to Scotland, and accordingly he did not think they could enter into any measure which would tend to alter the conditions of sport without facing a very grave economic difficulty. As regarded the Debate generally, he thought a somewhat false assumption had underlain the discussion, more, perhaps, in tone than in anything that had been actually said. It seemed to be assumed that the problem was a perfectly easy one, and that there was nothing to do except simply to take the land that was wanted. The Amendment stated that nearly 2,000,000 acres of land were available for the extension of crofters' holdings, but, as a matter of fact, the report of the Commission stated that there were only 439,000 acres so available. The difficulty at the bottom of the whole matter was the disregard of the means by which that land could be made available with any certainty of success. It was very notable how completely some hon. Members disregarded even the terms of the report. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark, for instance, gave an account which entirely reversed not only the historical process, but also what the Commissioners said. The hon. Member said that one of the great disadvantages of the present system was that the land was so small that the crofter was driven away from his proper occupation of crofting, and had to undertake the occupation of fishing, or something of that sort. On the other hand, he thought most people would agree that the historical origin of crofting runs precisely in the other direction; that was to say, that the man had originally some other sort of occupation, and then, having a home, he eked out the resources of that home by the possession of a croft. The report of the Commission stated that the kind of a holding which, for the most part, crofters were accustomed to was one affording a home, but making it necessary that the crofter should supplement what he derived from his holding by labour, or fishing, or carrying on some trade or business in the various districts. The Commissioners also declared that the practical success of any scheme depended upon the land being cultivated by men with adequate means. He thought he had said enough to show that this was a very complex problem. The hon. Member for Mayo intervened in the Debate, and he would ask that hon. Gentleman whether he had not had experience in Ireland of the great injury a population suffered by being quartered on land which was really insufficient to support them. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment complained that people had been driven down from the hills to the sea shore.

Not from the bills; from the fertile land.

He was sorry he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. After all it was a question of degree; but, as he was saying, Ireland afforded an illustration of how unfortunate it was for a people to be quartered on land which was insufficient to support them.

The evils in Ireland arose from the fact that the people were driven off the good land on to the bad.

He only used that as an illustration to show that people might be quartered on land which would not support them. It was all a question of making such arrangements as would bring about the result that the land was properly cultivated by people possessed of adequate means. They had always admitted on his side of the House that the condition of the Highlanders left something to be desired. The Government tried to show their views on that question last year by devoting a sum of £15,000 to the improvement of that condition, and they were at this moment engaged in framing a scheme by which that money would be utilised. No doubt it had been the way of Governments in past years to embrace in the Queen's Speech every sort of question on which they might think of embarking at some time or other; but the Government had, this year, taken up the practical position of limiting the references in the Queen's Speech to what might be called the immediate possibilities of legislation. When he said they were engaged in framing a scheme he was using no mere vague phrase, but he meant that they were really considering and drafting a measure under which the sum of money he had referred to might be made available. In doing that, to a certain extent, they initiated a general scheme; but anything that was done on a small scale must be done by way of experiment before any large measure could be taken. He thanked hon. Members for their generous assurances of their belief that both the right hon. Gentleman and himself were in sympathy with the difficulties of the congested districts, and he could assure them that he was in good hope that it would not be very long before they would be able by the introduction of a Measure to show that they were in the way of putting that sympathy into a practical shape.

said he was very glad to hear that the Government intended to do something in the way of migrating some of the people in the congested districts, and settling them in other parts. He denied that the Highland crofter began as a fisherman. A couple of centuries ago he was a type of the old Aryan Village Communities, in which the people held a certain amount of land in common. Even now, in certain districts, the same condition of things would be found existing, which 500 or 600 years ago existed nearly all over Europe. In Shetland, people would be found living as they lived 200 years ago, with a certain amount of pasture land in common. At the beginning of this century, when wool was high, men were driven from being farmers to become fishermen, and to try to make a sufficient living out of that pursuit, together with the produce of a small piece of soil. He had certainly been astonished at what the Lord Advocate had said in reference to the Report of the Royal Commission. The Commission in that Report stated that there were between four and five millions of acres of uncultivated land in the country, but that it was perfectly impossible that a large portion of the mountain districts could be used for grazing or for agricultural purposes. But when they came to deal with the deer forests they found themselves able to schedule certain portions of land which were fit for either occupation or for cultivation. Of course, in certain parts the soil was of a higher and more fertile character than in the neighbouring districts. Such land, however, was better than the crofters held as a rule. In his view there were two or three million acres of land which were of such a character that they might be applied for the extension of existing and for the creation of new crofts. All that they claimed was that there were large tracts of land which were now deer forests upon which crofters might make a living. All that he maintained was that they were right in their statement that there were at least a million and a-half of acres now used as deer forests which were available for the purpose. Why was it that in the face of this fact the Poor Rate in the congested districts amounted to 8s. in the £. The Commissioners had pointed out that during the previous five years there had been something like 2,500 applications on the part of the crofters in Lewis in respect of land, the rent of which was valued at from £4,000 to £5,000 a year, and they pointed out that in some 500 cases the fair rent fixed was 20s. Let the House compare that statement with the fact that one man paid £4,000 a year as the rent of a deer forest extending over 50,000 acres. Deer forests sometimes extended over 100,000 acres. That was the reason that they had the existing state of things in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The fact was that it paid better to let the land as deer forests than in any other form. Why was there such a large amount of distress, and why were the rates so high in the county of Caithness? The Report of the Commissioners showed that in that county 56 farms, the rent of which averaged £300 per annum, were held by twelve individuals, who between them paid some £16,000 per annum rent. The result was of course that other people could not get land for agricultural purposes, and in consequence they had to flock into the congested districts. He did not know what the Government were going to do in the direction of relieving the congested districts, but he had gathered from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland that they were not even aiding the people to make the most of the present law. Parliament had passed a Small Holdings Act for Scotland, under which power was given to Parish and District Councils to acquire land and to distribute it among the labouring classes. The crofters who held crofts of the annual value of 20s. could not get an extension of their holdings under the Crofters Act, but it was supposed that they might be able to do so under the Small Holdings Act, and the Parish and District Councils had taken steps to grant their applications. The Lord Advocate however had held that the labouring classes did not include the poorer crofters, and because the latter held small crofts they were excluded from the benefit of the Small Holdings Act, and the Parish and District Councils were prohibited from acquiring land in order to distribute it among them. He did not know why the Scotch Office Law prevented Parish and District Councils giving the crofters more land. He and his friends had been able to establish the fact that there was land, and that the misery and poverty which existed was the consequence of men being driven off the land. If the Government would do something to enable the hardy peasantry in the Highlands to live under fair and decent normal conditions they would do a great deal. And the present Government could do more than a Liberal Government, because the latter had always to fear another place. A Conservative Government could take up the question and settle it in a really final fashion.

said the Lord Advocate had omitted to notice the fact that the Crofter Commissioners reported that there were 794,750 acres of land suitable for new holdings.

I quoted the words of the Commissioners—"suitable for new holdings 794,750 acres."

understood the hon. and learned Gentleman considered that that figure was not applicable to the present Resolution. It was quite certain that land was as much wanted for new holdings as for extension of holdings. What he and his hon. Friends wanted was to prevent the expatriation of the Highland population, and it was because the sons and grandsons and nephews of the existing crofters had no new land to take up that they were obliged to emigrate to Australia, America, and New Zealand. In another respect the hon. and learned Gentleman had somewhat minimised the importance of the Resolution, for he had said the crofters would not be benefited by getting an extension of holdings, because they were suffering from having bad land and it would not do them much good to receive more bad land. The Commissioners, however, asserted that a great deal of the new land was not only as good as the land now occupied by the crofters but very much better. Again, the Lord Advocate pointed out that sheep occupied much more of the land scheduled than deer. A very natural and reasonable explanation of that was that the land occupied by sheep was much better land than that occupied by deer, and the object of the Commissioners was to provide the crofters not with bad but with good land. There was another point to which it was well to draw attention. The House might be under the impression from what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman that the Commissioners were not unanimous in respect to the scheduling of land. There was a difference of opinion amongst the Com- missioners with regard to the method by which the land was to be given to the crofters, but as to the scheduling of the land they were unanimous. He was surprised that hon. Members, especially Scotch Members, opposite had not used their great influence to induce the Government to take action in this matter. At elections hon. Members who sat on the Government benches were most zealous in advocating the claims of the crofters, but in the House of Commons they were silent. It was left to the scattered remnant of the Opposition to do the best they could for these poor people. It seemed to him an extraordinary thing to appoint an important Commission, receive the Report, and then stultify the Commissioners by taking no action. He and his Friends did not ask for charity but they asked for justice. They asked that capable and honest men should have the means of earning bread for themselves and their families.

said it could not be said that the speech of the Lord Advocate was unsympathetic, but it certainly was very indefinite. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of £15,000, but he did not say how that sum was to be applied or whether he intended to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission. They should not forget that this Commission was appointed by a Conservative Government, and there were reasonable grounds to show at the time that it was necessary. The findings of the Commission, too, had since proved that there were very strong reasons why it should have been appointed. Without going into the details recorded by the Commission, it was sufficient to know that there were hundreds of crofters in dire distress because their holdings were not sufficiently large to enable them to earn a livelihood upon them, and that at the same time there were thousands of acres of land available in the districts to either enlarge the holdings of the crofters, or to place very many of them on new and larger holdings. No one who had not been to the Island of Lewis could fully realise the distress of the crofters there. A few years ago he went to the island to see for himself the condition in which the people lived, and his experience was a very painful one. Since then, doubtless, some improvement had been effected through the visit and work of the Crofter Commission, but notwithstanding this the condition of the people was still very bad, and it was absolutely necessary that the Government should do something for their relief. Hon. Members on the other side had on previous occasions expressed sympathy with the efforts to improve the condition of the crofters. In 1895 when the question was before the House, the present leader of the House—who was then in a position of less responsibility—approved the object in view, and said the crofters were deserving of all sympathy and support. That being so he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to now put that sympathy in practical operation by urging the Government, of which he was a leading member, to take further action in the matter. They

proposed another Amendment—at the end of the Question, to add the words:—

"And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that, in our opinion, the explanation given by the Government to justify the release of the dynamitards is inadequate, and is calculated to encourage a recrudescence of that form of crime."

He said he thought that this Amendment had a gravity and importance which hardly attached to any other Amendment on the Paper. The interest of them all—and this was the question at issue—was the integrity of justice of which that House was the ultimate guardian. By the integrity of justice and its protection several things might be meant. It might mean protection against overt and crude attacks such as were made in ruder days, and which were no longer possible, and which were therefore no longer a danger. Or it might mean protection against more insidious attacks by which justice was made subservient to the exigencies of political strategy. A very profligate instance of this kind was the reopening of the Maamtrasna trials. [Irish cries of "Oh!"] But there were other reasons why this protection was needed which did not involve any moral obliquity, and which therefore perhaps had a more sinister portent. He meant the undue interference by the authorities at the Home Office with the decisions of Courts of Justice, the responsibilities of juries, and with the judgments of Judges. In this country they had secured what no other country had succeeded in securing—a masculine type of citizen to whom they could intrust the jury system of the country. They perhaps had certain racial instincts for the work, but they had certainly trained a class of men who were courageous and who were careful in their judgments, and anything that tended to lessen the sense of responsibility in these men—anything that led them to think that the hand behind the screen, not always with due responsibility, might intervene to dislocate and sophisticate the results of their careful consideration and of their work, might lead to dangers and difficulties which they could scarcely foresee. If juries begin to fancy their work may be revised presently by others, the care and courage they had hitherto shown would begin to fail, and there would be a feeling that their carelessness or want of courage in critical cases would presently be remedied by other hands. This was the particular danger to which his remarks would be chiefly directed. When his right hon. Friend in August last released from prison four persons all convicted of desperate crimes at one moment, and released them at a time when most Members of the House had left London and it was impossible to raise any issue in the House—["hear, hear!"]—there was a certain troubled feeling went over the country, and was reflected in all portions of the Press. He had means of testing this feeling in another way, for he ventured to write two or three letters to The Times on the subject—["hear, hear!" and laughter]—and he received from all parts of the Empire letters from men of consequence and influence, all of them sympathetic, all exhibiting a certain anxiety about the particular course the Home Secretary had deemed it right to follow. Before he addressed himself to the immediate question, there were two personal questions he wished to mention. His right hon. Friend would bear him out when he said that in all the years they had known each other there had never been a breath of personal difference between them. One other personal issue he would mention with another right hon. Friend, who, speaking at Manchester the other day on the course Lord Londonderry and he (Sir Henry) had deemed it right to take, said that what had been done virtually amounted to some imputation on the integrity and honour of his right hon. Friend. He could not possibly understand how such an opinion—

What I said at Manchester so far as I remember was that if, after the statement I then made in public, on my honour as a gentleman, anybody repeated that accusation, he would be disgraced by it, and I should not. [Cheers.]

said he thought it would be a serious matter—a very serious matter—if, whenever any difference of opinion as to the policy or as to the prudence of a certain public action arose between himself and any of his right hon. Friends who happened to be in positions of great responsibility—if he were to be precluded from criticising that conduct or policy, because he would be charged with making some attack which, in some way, would convey an imputation of dishonour.

I am most reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I want him to clearly understand I made no criticism on what had passed before I spoke—no criticism whatever; but after the full explanation then made undoubtedly I considered that any person who repeated that I knew there was any transaction in the matter, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, would incur, as I thought, very serious responsibility.

said he had not anywhere made any imputation of any kind—he could not make an imputation—in the House or out of it affecting the honour and character of his right hon. Friend. That character, both in the House and outside the House, was absolutely beyond suspicion. ["Hear, hear!"] He had questioned, and did still question, the prudence of the policy he adopted on a certain occasion—a policy which involved a reversal of the policy of two other right hon. Friends, both of whom had decided on different occasions in a matter closely connected with this particular issue. In no criticism he and his friends proposed to make was there the least thought or hint of causing an issue that involved anything in the shape of a sinister imputation. That was not his motive or purpose, but he did feel that if the Home Office on this and other recent occurrences had intervened with definite authority in a matter decided by a Court of Law after very serious consideration, then it was a matter which ought to be discussed on the floor of the House, and that under any circumstances the matter ought to be discussed after the subject had been matter of comment in the Press, as it was during the autumn, and that it had better be raised from those Benches than from the other side. The particular issue he purposed to raise was the dispensing power of the Home Office in cases where the Queen's mercy has hitherto been introduced to mitigate the sentence of a Court of Law in a criminal case. The intervention of the doctrine of the Queen's mercy was a very old, a patriarchal, way of mitigating hard cases of law, and so long as it was a personal act of the Sovereign—so long as it was the act of King or Queen—to soften certain acerbities of the law there was little or no ground of complaint. But directly it became a vicarious act it became much less gracious, and certain elements of danger and difficulty had become attached to it. The first of these elements of danger and difficulty was that when the exercise of the prerogative of mercy became attached to a political officer he was eventually at the mercy of a large number of outside influences, which it required a man of strong character always to resist. It was extremely indecent that in a number of cases discussed in the Press the political or private friends of prisoners should bring pressure to bear upon the Home Secretary to exercise the powers which he possessed. [Mr. DAVITT: "What about Dr. Jameson and his friends?" "Hear, hear!"] These applications placed the Home Secretary in a position of great difficulty, and his powers, unless limited by very precise rules and to a very small number of peculiar cases, would be very dangerous in the hands of a man who had not the high character of his right hon. Friend. In the particular cases to which he was referring the Home Secretary's action was open to criticism on several grounds. In the first place it was extremely unfortunate that the release of these four men should have taken place at a time when it was impossible that the subject could be discussed in Parliament. [Mr. T. M. HEALY—"No; it was long before the House rose."] The House was undoubtedly still sitting at the time, but the great mass of its Members had left London. It was on August 15 that the Home Secretary announced in the House that he had resolved to release these men, and it-seemed to a great number of people in this country that their release was in curious proximity in point of time to the complacency of certain politicians, who were found to be extremely complacent when the Irish Land Bill was under discussion. [Nationalist cries of "Oh,"and laughter.] All who knew his right hon. Friend knew that he was above suspicion of any kind, but it was a fact that organs of the Press, representing large bodies of opinion, commented on the coincidence to which he had drawn attention. Then he could not think that these cases were cases for exceptional kindness and consideration. The crimes for which the men had been sent to prison were crimes of exceptional gravity. They were so considered by everyone who had referred to them in that House. No one had spoken more severely about them than Mr. Gladstone, and hon. Members opposite had described them in the same strain. When these criminals came out of prison, instead of hiding in corners, ashamed of themselves and objects of shame to their neighbours, they passed from town to town in a sort of triumphal progress, acclaimed by a population demoralised in its moral standards. When men who had committed such crimes were treated exceptionally by the authorities it was an encouragement to people to view the worst of offences as glorious and praiseworthy whenever they were perpetrated from motives which the perpetrators chose to believe heroic. He held that there was exceptional treatment extended to these men. In 1805 there was an average of 4,500 prisoners in the convict gaols of the country. Out of this number there were five prisoners released in 1895 and five in 1896 on the ground of the medical recommendations of the gaol doctors. But out of the entire category of nine dynamite prisoners, four were released in one year and at one time, leaving five in prison. This was one of the elements in which there was a distinct difference made between the one class of crime and the other. If a choice had to be made it was surely to be made in the interests of men who under some momentary impulse or capricious associations had committed crime, rather than in the interests of men who had prepared and elaborated infamous designs to destroy large towns and the people who inhabited them. But that was not all. The fact that these men had friends and political allies outside had led to the appointment of one commission of doctors after another—["no, no"]—until there had been five commissions inquiring into the condition of these men. ["No, no."] There was here a distinct and very different method of treatment in the case of those criminals from that which was adopted in the case of the ordinary criminals. It was somewhat noteworthy that we had not in this country doctors who were specialists appointed to make periodical visits to all prisoners reported to them by the ordinary gaol doctors, and whose duty it should be to examine and report irrespective of any outside pressure. As to the medical condition of these prisoners, he was bound to say that he could not quite understand the theory on which his right hon. Friend based his action. Hitherto, he believed, this special intervention had been limited to those cases where a man's death was imminent; otherwise the ordinary course in all cases of long sentences was to make a quinquennial examination in regular order, and to make in those cases where good conduct could be alleged, a reduction of the sentence. The exceptional intervention of the Home Office only arose in cases of imminent death. ["No, no."] He made that statement on the high authority of Sir Edmund Du Cane.

What about the bank forgers?

said that hitherto it had not been the custom to release a prisoner because he happened to have gone out of his mind. The proper place for such a prisoner was Broadmoor. ["Oh, oh."] The country had provided a special place and a special method of treatment for prisoners who lost their reason. Why, then, should two prisoners who were lunatics be turned out into society when the proper place for them was Broadmoor? But was it certain that these men were mad at all? ["Oh!"] The evidence was of the strangest character. They had had the reports of four doctors on four different occasions, in addition to those of the medical inspector of the gaol; and every one of them testified that these men were shamming madness. And, when his right hon. Friend came into office in February of last year, he reported in that House that he had put the case specially before Dr. Maudsley and Dr. Nicholson, and that these two specialists had both reported to him that these men had been shamming, and that they had not suffered in any way, either mentally or bodily, during the years of their incarceration. Dr. Maudsley, he understood, made a fresh report in August last in conjunction with another medical officer, and ill this he had reported in a sense which at present he could not gauge, because the report had not been published. But if it was on the testimony of Dr. Maudsley that these men were released from prison, they had the evidence of these last three days in the House of Commons, when one of these four men—Daly—was actually sitting underneath the gallery after having had triumphal processions in different parts of Ireland—[Nationalist cheers]—and being the hero of one banquet after another, and making speeches which in the Irish papers occupied three columns ["Hear, hear,"from the Nationalists.] Yes, hon. Gentlemen cried "hear, hear," but the only justification for the release of the prisoners was that they were either mad or on the point of death. What was the value of Dr. Maudsley's report when he was completely at issue with the reports of all other Commissioners who had examined into their condition in the course of the last nine or ten years? Who was to say that these men who shammed madness so well were not shamming at this moment, and that they had been released on the testimony and by the advice of a doctor whose judgment had been proved to be utterly worthless by the presence in this House of the individual on whom he passed judgment? [Cheers.] He complained very much of the reticence of his right hon. Friend in this matter. The American papers of the last seven months had been full of the vilest and most abominable imputations against the predecessor in office of his right hon. Friend, and against the gaolers and doctors and other officers. "Bloody Asquith"—[laughter]—was a heading that occurred continuously. "The Ruffian Asquith "—[laughter]—was another prominent headline, [Interruption from Nationalist members.]

I must ask hon. Members to give the hon. Member who is addressing the House a fair and proper hearing.

said that these phrases might arouse laughter on the other side, but when they were accompanied by phrases involving flattery to officials who happened to sit on the Ministerial side at present, and for whom they all had the highest respect, he could not help feeling that these phrases were rather a shame to the Ministerial side which they could by no means be proud of. He and his Friends felt that the right hon. Gentleman opposite when in office was cheered very loudly from the Unionist benches for his courageous conduct—doubly courageous considering the pressure behind him. [Ministerial cheers.] That pressure was far greater than any which could be felt by the present Home Secretary; and he and his Friends did not like to think that this reversal of the decision of the right hon. Gentleman opposite might have the very painful result that no future Liberal Home Secretary would dare to face the responsibility and difficulty of resisting pressure from behind, because he would be told that others would do what he had been courageous enough to refuse to do, [Cheers.] Not only ought the predecessors of the present Home Secretary to be considered, but the officials of the gaols also. They had been denounced in shameless language—[cheers]—and had been accused of the basest cruelty. If those charges were true, the prison officials ought to be removed from their offices. If they were not, then the natural guardian and protector of the officials—the Home Secretary—ought immediately to give an answer which would be complete—an answer based on the documents in his hands proving the whole of the charges to be utterly slanderous. [Cheers.] He could not understand why there should be any hesitation about publishing the doctors' Reports in these cases. In a Court of law, where a doctor was called to prove anything his evidence was published. Over and over again in the Blue-books doctors' Reports had been published. The doctor was acting in a perfectly responsible manner; he was paid a fee for his opinion, and in these critical cases—it was not necessary in ordinary cases—where special Commissions of Inquiry had been appointed and where a great deal of public discussion had taken place, the doctors' opinions ought to be published. This might seem a small matter if it were limited to the case of the four dynamiters. But there were other cases where public opinion had been inclined to the belief that the benevolence of the Home Office had been a stain upon the previous traditions of that office. Though it might be quite right now to have a kind of Star Chamber on a small scale, whose inquiries and decisions were secret, and based on secret evidence, and whose duties were to revise the findings of Judges and juries arrived at in open Court, face to face with the witnesses and the evidence, yet it might be that seeds were being sown which would presently have bitter fruit when some one, without the high character and antecedents of the present Home Secretary, occupied his office. For that reason many felt that it would be very expedient if some Royal Commission were appointed to inquire into the whole system, under which the supervision of ordinary criminals was now conducted by the Home Office officials. It would be a good thing if some set of rules were drawn up by which the personal equation of the Home Secretary for the time being should be restricted. He had tried to show why the exercise of the Home Secretary's judgment in this particular case had not been satisfactorily explained to those who looked with great suspicion upon the interference with the ordinary course of justice by the Home Office. He hoped that he had not said a word which would imply that the integrity of the Home Secretary was questioned in any way. They differed from the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman in the matter, and they would continue to differ from it; but it was due to himself to repeat the protest he had made at an early stage of his speech, that in raising this discussion he meant to cast no imputation on the, Home Secretary. If there was any word or expression of his that bore any other sense he hoped it would be cancelled.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down ended his speech by expressing the hope that, if any phrase of his was regarded as an imputation upon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that phrase might be erased. Sir, the whole speech of the hon. Gentleman, from the first to the last word he tittered, was not merely an imputation upon the judgment of my right hon. Friend—which he was perfectly at liberty to call in question—but it was an imputation upon the honour, not only of my right hon. Friend, but of every man that sits upon this Bench. [Cheers.] I shall leave my right hon. Friend on a subsequent day—for this Debate will not, conclude to-night—to deal in detail with the statements of the hon. Gentleman; but I cannot allow what the hon. Gentleman has said to pass for one moment without stating on my own behalf and on behalf of the Government that I regard the imputation he has deliberately thrown upon us—by insinuation, perhaps, more than by direct statement, but insinuations that could not be mistaken in any part of the House—[cheers]—that I regard those imputations as utterly unworthy of a Member of the Party to which he belongs—[renewed cheers]—and that either we who sit upon this Bench are unfit to lead the Party any longer, or else he himself would have found some difficulty in following us. [Irish cheers.] The hon. Gentleman, from beginning to end of his speech, has either stated or insinuated in unmistakable terms that the action of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in releasing the four dynamiters in August last was dictated, not by his duty as Home Secretary, but by his interests as a politician. ["Hear, hear!"] He has stated, or he has insinuated, that my right hon. Friend has started a new principle of policy in the Home Office. He has stated, or he has insinuated, that my right hon. Friend has constituted himself, for the first time in the history of the Home Office, a kind of court of appeal—[cries of "Star Chamber"]—yes, "Star Chamber"; that was the phrase of the hon. Gentleman—that my right hon. Friend has constituted himself the chief of a secret court, or Star Chamber, whose deliberations are carried on far from the public gaze, and whose verdicts are given, not in consonance with justice or with the criminal law of the country, but in order to serve the particular Party ends of a particular Party at a particular moment. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not know whether he thought the head of that Star Chamber acted or did not act in concert with his colleagues. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman supposed that my right hon. Friend said to himself in the secrecy of his chamber—

"It may help the Government to let out this man or that man, and I will do it without consultation with my colleagues,"

or whether, on the other hand, he supposed my right hon. Friend came to the Cabinet and said—

"It may be desirable at the present moment to conciliate this section or that section of our political opponents, and I think I could so manipulate medical reports that a plausible case might he made out for a release, and if my colleagues think it desirable I am ready to carry it out."

I know not which of these hypotheses is accepted by the hon. Gentleman. But rue of the two must be accepted by him. Either he thinks my right hon. Friend is utterly unworthy of the place he occupies, or he thinks my right hon. Friend is one of the band of conspirators who are perfectly ready to sell the honour of their country for a temporary Parliamentary triumph. [Cheers.] Sir, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that so long as he confines himself to an attack upon the administrative ability of my right hon. Friend, whatever else we may have thought of hint, we should not think that he was going beyond the bounds which ought to limit Parliamentary criticism, even Parliamentary criticism that comes from those who are opposed to us in polities. ["Hear, hear!"] Put when he attacks, not the prudence or the discretion of a particular Minister, or the prudence or the discretion of the Cabinet as a whole, but their honour as politicians and as men, then, in my judgment, he oversteps the limits. [Cheers.] I will only content myself to-night with one statement, for the time is brief, and I do not mean to discuss the medical reports as to the health of this criminal or that criminal. Let me only conclude by saying that my right hon. Friend never consulted his colleagues upon the decision which he came to, and that the invariable tradition of the office to which he belongs is that such decisions should be taken upon the authority of the Minister, and upon his alone. [Cheers.] I believe my right hon. Friend was actuated by a sound discretion in the matter, but that whether he was right or whether he was wrong he initiated no new practice, he started no new principles, but he followed with undeviating fidelity the traditions which have regulated the great office of which he is head, not for one Ministry, nor for two Ministries, but for generations. Sir, that statement which I make now to the House I have made in public before, and that statement was before the hon. Gentleman before he uttered the words to which we have listened. ["Hear, hear!"] I have no hope that by repeating those words I shall affect his judgment or the judgment of any other man, if another man there be who is ready to follow him in the line of argument which he has adopted to-night; but I am con- vinced that, speaking as I do not merely to friends, but to opponents, there is not a man in this House except the hon. Gentleman who is not prepared to accept with absolute credence the statement which I have now made upon my honour as a Minister of the Crown. [Loud cheers.]

thought it was matter for regret that his right hon. Friend had imported into the discussion a warmth which was scarcely called for by the speech to which he responded. He had listened very carefully to the remarks of his hon. Friend behind him, and if he were to criticise them he should say that with a reiteration, which was, he thought, uncalled for, he had not in any shape or form made any attack upon the Home Secretary except in respect of his judgment. [Laughter.] His hon. Friend made no attack upon the right hon. Gentleman's character or honour. The Home Secretary had explained his own view of the situation on more than one occasion, and he had placed these prisoners in a category which they had never been in before—that of political prisoners.

No.

Do I understand my right hon. Friend to deny that?

Certainly; I have always denied it.

said he was very glad then to have an opportunity of enabling his right hon. Friend to give a more emphatic contradiction to the statement contained in "Hansard "(page 415) to the effect that on February 14th, 1896, he said that the ground upon which hon. Members had asked for this amnesty was because it was sail that these men were political prisoners; that he was willing to admit that a distinction might properly be drawn between political and other prisoners; and that he was willing to admit that these men might be properly regarded in the light of being political prisoners because they Were tried under the Treason Felony Act. If that was not putting them in the category of political prisoners he should like to know what was. Doubtless, from what his right hon. Friend had said that report was inaccurate—[laughter]—but it had been in the library of the House for 11 months, and he thought his right hon. Friend should have taken some public opportunity, other than that of an interjection in the course of the present Debate, of contradicting that statement of "Hansard." His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary also said, on August 16th, 1895 (page 223 of "Hansard") that he was not going to argue whether these were political prisoners or not, these men were tried under the Treason Felony Act—a statement which was nearly upon all fours with that to which he had already referred. He protested against the notion that Members were to be debarred from expressing their honest opinion upon the public acts of a Minister because he happened to be a political associate. He contended that prison doctors were likely to be more reliable authorities upon malingering than the most eminent private practitioners.

said that, in the ease of the four prisoners, the report upon which he acted, in the first instance, was that of the Chief Medical Inspector of Prisons. He was so impressed by his report that he thought it should be strengthened by the highest medical opinion.

said the Home Secretary seemed to think that when a prisoner was suffering from insanity his duty was to let him loose on society. If these men were insane, they should have been sent to Broadmoor, especially if their insanity took the form of homicidal tendency. No one would question the motives of the right hon. Gentleman, but his judgment was seriously questioned. When they were brought to his knowledge he always contradicted the sinister rumours rife throughout the country during the recess in consequence of the apparently unaccountable release of these prisoners. It was rumoured that the policy of the Government had changed, that they had thrown over their own supporters, that they had flung to the winds their obligation to the owners of land in Ireland, and were now going to kill their foes with kindness, and were going to rely for support on the representatives of what were called the bulk of the Irish people. The failure of justice at the old Bailey was associated with a general tendency of that kind. He thought his hon. Friend was justified in making the statement he had. What was the line the House of Commons ought to take in this matter? He hoped he had already enabled the Home Secretary to withdraw from "Hansard" what was a very ugly blot upon its pages—namely, the endorsement, for the first time by a responsible Minister of the Crown, that persons who flung dynamite, right, left and centre, amongst innocent persons were to be thought guilty of a political crime. He hoped also, the House of Commons would allow no doubt to remain on the public mind that this must not be done again. He confessed having grave doubts whether they should not find, under some pretext or other, more of these dangerous persons let loose on society. What was the ground the Home Secretary took now in resisting the demand for further releases? His right hon. Friend, instead of saying that he had already burned his fingers by listening to the Gentlemen opposite, and that he had no wish to have a repetition of his recent experiences—did what? He said only two days ago:

"It has been a very great source of regret to myself that I have not been able to see my way to recommend the exercise of Her Majesty's prerogative of mercy towards these treason-felony prisoners now in Portland. I am afraid I am not able to give any assurance at the present moment that would be entirely satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite."

If that was the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman approached his duties, they did not know what day they might not hear that a further consignment of criminal lunatics had been let loose on society. He thought the thanks of the House were due to the hon. Member for Salford for having brought this question in a temperate manner before them.