moved for a Return of monthly accounts relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain Foreign countries and British Possessions.

Motion agreed to.

My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of a Bill to facilitate the foundation of new bishoprics and the alteration of dioceses and to amend the Bishops' Resignation Act, 1869, it may, perhaps, be advisable that I should make a few observations upon the past Parliamentary history of this subject within our own time. When, now a good deal more than a generation ago, the Church of England awoke from what had been a long period of religious stagnation to real activity of spiritual life, I think one of the first matters that engaged the attention of those who were promoting her work was the defect in her organisation as regards the number of dioceses and the duties imposed upon the Bishops of those dioceses. Of course, in an Episcopal Church a diocesan Bishop is necessarily the head of all spiritual work within his diocese; but, in addition to that, Parliament has imposed upon our diocesan Bishops very considerable administrative responsibilities and jurisdiction, the exercise of which must in any case take up a large amount of their time.

Owing to the great growth of population in our country, especially within certain areas, it had become evident many years ago that certain dioceses were far too large for the effective control and supervision of their Bishops, and a movement was originated for dividing those dioceses in order that they might be brought into manageable shape. I am afraid it is not too much to say that in not a few cases the Bishops of such dioceses as those to which I am alluding have been completely overborne by the mere machinery of their administrative duties. Men of great ability, zeal, and energy have been so overborne by those duties that they have simply found no time for that pastoral and paternal work which I am sure every member of the Episcopal Bench must feel is, after all, the most important part of the duties of a Bishop. By degrees several of the larger dioceses have been divided, and I think within the time to which I am referring as many as nine new bishoprics have been founded, solely by contributions from the revenues of existing Bishops whose dioceses were divided and by the voluntary offerings of Churchmen without any call whatever on the funds of the State or on the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

This movement, of course, like all movements of the kind, has had its opponents. I do not wish to dwell upon the opposition which it has experienced at the hands of those who are not members of the Church. I never could understand the reason for that opposition, because I should be very sorry to attribute to any of those who, being Nonconformists themselves, have opposed the foundation of new bishoprics, no better feeling than an ignoble desire to force the Church to disestablish- ment and disendowment by preventing her from obtaining through Parliament, which is the only way she can obtain them, facilities for the performance of her proper work. But there has been opposition within the ranks of Churchmen themselves. Some have suggested—and with considerable surprise I saw the suggestion repeated the other day—that by the foundation of new bishoprics money which Churchmen might have contributed for another great need of the Church, the increase of the incomes of the poorer benefices, was practically being diverted from that purpose to the foundation of bishoprics. I was very glad to see that in another place the Prime Minister expressed his entire dissent from that opinion. I believe that absolutely the contrary has been true. I believe anybody who cares to look into the matter will find that wherever an unwieldy diocese has been divided and a new bishopric founded there has been, in every way, a growth of spiritual and active life in the Church within both those dioceses; and I could name one divided diocese of the kind in which, to my own knowledge, the Bishop of part of the diocese has, by his own generous initiative, raised more money for the endowment of small livings quite recently than has ever been dreamt of in that diocese before. I am sure that what has hitherto been done in this respect has promoted the welfare of the Church in all that could be desired.

But another objection has been raised, and it is this. Some persons have considered that by dividing dioceses and constituting new bishoprics with, necessarily, smaller incomes than those to which we have hitherto been accustomed, the dignity and influence of the diocesan episcopate will be lowered. I do not think there has been any result of that sort. It has been suggested—and it was suggested in a debate on this subject some thirty years ago, I think—that the way to meet the case of these large dioceses was not so much to divide them as to aid the diocesan Bishop with a suffragan Bishop. No doubt some of the spiritual work of a diocesan Bishop can be and is done by a suffragan Bishop, but, nothing can relieve the Bishop of a diocese from the responsibility, which no one else can bear, for the proper carrying out of his functions as regards jurisdiction and administrative work. And I think it may be said that the more the suffragan Bishop relieves the Bishop of the diocese from confirmations, or from attendance at church openings or matters of that kind, the fewer opportunities does the diocesan Bishop enjoy of meeting with the people of his diocese both clergy and laity, and of that personal contact with them which alone can give him a real knowledge of persons and places such as is necessary, above all things, for the proper exercise of his paternal influence as a Bishop, in matters with which he is concerned.

I have heard it complained—I have never made the complaint myself—that, in their control of ecclesiastical ritual, the diocesan Bishops have not been so active as some persons holding what are known as Protestant opinions have desired. I have had the honour, as some noble Lords may be aware, of serving as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, and I can say from my own experience what I believe would be concurred in by all my colleagues, that we were very much struck with the extreme difficulty of the proper supervision of dioceses, in these and in other matters also, when they were of an unwieldy size In fact, where there have been these extravagancies in ritual, they have existed I think, to a greater extent, and have been much more difficult to deal with, in those very large dioceses than in the small dioceses; because, in the first place, it is extremely difficult in a very large diocese for the Bishop to be acquainted with such practices, and, in the second place, when he does become acquainted with them they have very likely arrived at such a point that it is far more difficult to deal with them, either by law or by the exercise of the paternal and personal influence to which I have already alluded and which is infinitely better than coercive law can possibly be in matters of conscience of the kind, than if his diocese had been smaller and he had been better acquainted, of his own knowledge, with what was going on within it.

Those are, I think, the two main objections which have been raised by members of the Church to the extension of the Episcopate; but, nevertheless, nine new bishoprics have been founded within the time to which I have alluded. They have been founded under very considerable difficulties. The Bills relat- ing to them have been introduced time after time into the House of Commons before they received the Royal Assent, causing much waste of Parliamentary time, great disappointment to the Churchmen who were specially interested in those measures, and also very great labour to those who endeavoured to carry the Bills through. If it was merely that in each separate case the assent of Parliament was required by an Act to the foundation of a new bishopric, that would be bad enough; but matters are really infinitely worse than that. When I represented the City of Bristol in the House of Commons I naturally took a great interest in the foundation of the Bishopric of Bristol, and I remember that I had to be responsible, more or less, for passing no fewer than three Bills with regard to that diocese, the first one being the Bill which originally founded the diocese, the second being a Bill to allocate—of course, with the consent of all parties—something more of the stipend of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol to the new diocese than had at first been thought fit, and the third for altering boundaries. No one who does not know the procedure of the House of Commons can quite appreciate the immense labour and trouble required to pass a Bill of that kind—a Bill which really was opposed by nobody, but which the mere interference of a single Member might have prevented from becoming law in the course of the session. The Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline had this matter before them in connection with the enquiries to which I have alluded, and they unanimously made the following recommendation— "That for the purpose of effective supervision and administration it is desirable that many dioceses should he subdivided, and that a general Act providing machinery for the creation of new dioceses by Order in Council should be passed so as to prevent the necessity of the enactment of a separate statute on the formation of each new diocese.

The Bill to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day has for its main object the carrying out of the recommendation of the Royal Commission. In the first place, it proposes that, with the consent of the Archbishop of the province and of the Bishop whose diocese is affected, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might formulate a scheme for the foundation of a new bishopric, provided that such endowment for the new bishopric as they considered adequate was ensured, no portion whatever of such endowment to come out of their common fund. The scheme so framed would, of course, be submitted to the Privy Council—in other words, to the Government of the day. If approved of by the Government of the day, it would be brought before Parliament and lie on the Table of both Houses for thirty days, and if not objected to by either House within thirty days the bishopric would be founded and the scheme would have the force of law. In the same way by an Order in Council a dean and chapter might be formed in new dioceses that have been already constituted and which do not possess them, or in any new diocese which may be constituted in future

Then there is another provision in the. Bill dealing with the pensions of retiring Bishops. Under the present law the pension of a retiring Bishop, whatever the income of his See, is stereotyped at £2,000 a year, or, I think, one-third of the income of the See, whichever should be the greater. Those figures are obviously too high for the incomes of some dioceses that already exist, and they would certainly be too high for the incomes of dioceses that may be founded in the future. The amount of such pensions, like the amount of endowment of future bishoprics, is left to the decision, first, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and then of the Government of the day and of Parliament in each particular case. Those, my Lords, are practically the sole contents of the Bill.

Now perhaps I may be asked what steps will be taken if this Bill should receive the assent of Parliament in the course of the present session. I have made careful enquiry on that subject. In Yorkshire one new diocese would be founded, and in the east of England two new dioceses would be founded, I think I may confidently say, within the term of a year from the present time. The great arch-diocese of York has a population of 2,000,000, and it is proposed to divide that by allotting a new diocese to Sheffield, with a population of 840,000. I understand that seven-ninths of the money required to be subscribed for that purpose has already been subscribed. St. Albans, with a population of 1,336,000 at the last census, has 630 benefices and 1,015 clergy within its borders. The diocese of Ely, which embraces three and a half counties, has 763 clergy. The diocese of Norwich, comprising the great county of Norfolk—the fourth in area in England—and the county of Suffolk, has 890 benefices and 1,006 clergy. It is proposed out of these three dioceses to constitute two new bishoprics, a bishopric of Suffolk and a bishopric of Essex, allocating £3,200 a year from the incomes of the existing Bishops towards the endowment of the new dioceses, and, of course, making up the balance by voluntary subscriptions. The diocese of St. Albans would then consist of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, and the diocese of Ely of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. All the necessary funds, I am told, have been subscribed in Hertfordshire and Essex, and nearly all in Suffolk. In all cases the funds have been subscribed not merely by a few rich men whose fancy may be to constitute new bishoprics, but by the great body of Churchmen in the respective counties or cities concerned with a general desire to improve the work and the organisation of the Church to which they belong.

It is proposed, I understand, that the incomes of the new bishoprics should be somewhat less than the incomes of those which already exist. I believe that the bishopric at present with the smallest income is endowed with £3,000 a year. It is proposed in these three cases that the endowment shall be £2,500 a year, with sufficient provision for a house for the Bishop. I do not propose this Bill with the smallest wish that there should be a very great creation of new bishoprics. I feel very strongly what was said a few weeks ago by His Grace the Archbishop of York, that you must have a very strong local feeling before you can constitute a bishopric of any real strength. He said, I think, that such a desire must be based on self-consciousness and pride of locality. With that I entirely agree. There must be that feeling of separate existence which makes a separate community. So guarded, I believe this Bill will work great benefit to the Church and do no harm to anybody who is not a member of it. And I would add that if anybody should object to the reduction of episcopal incomes to the extent to which I have referred, I think it should be remembered that the great expense of many of our dioceses is the maintenance of the palaces which are allotted to our Bishops. In these new bishoprics the houses need not be comparable in any way with such places as Farnham and Auckland Castles, which are, of course, relics of past times. At the same time I think everybody would wish that the endowment of a bishopric should be sufficient to enable a Bishop to exercise that generous hospitality which I believe our Bishops always do exercise, both to the clergy and laity of their dioceses and to candidates for ordination, to the great benefit of the Church. I have to thank your Lordships for listening to my arguments in support of this Bill, and I now beg to move that it be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—( Viscount St. Aldwyn. )

My Lords, on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department I rise to express a general approval of the terms of this Bill, and to say that although. important points of detail may arise at a later stage, still I shall be very glad to give the noble Viscount all the assistance in my power in passing the Bill through your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount has dealt so lucidly with the object of the Bill, and has answered, I think, so completely any arguments which might be advanced against it, that it is unnecessary for me to say much to your Lordships. I might, however, refer to one point on which I think the House will be agreed. It is obvious that great care and caution should be exercised in such an important matter as the enlargement of the Episcopate, but, as at present advised, at any rate, it seems to me that the provisions of the Bill as they stand, necessitating that the scheme should lie on the Table for thirty days, will probably be sufficient to meet the case. Certainly no member of your Lordships' House who had the advantage of acquaintance with Bishop Creighton and realised how much overwork contributed to his early death will fail to do his utmost to pass this Bill into law. It is difficult to exaggerate the amount of business detail, often of a trivial character, which a Bishop is called upon to attend to, and from my own experience I can corroborate the noble Viscount's words as to the advantage which accrues from the sub-division of a diocese. As a consequence of the constitution of the new diocese of Birmingham, I believe laymen have contributed far more largely than they did before for general diocesan purposes, both in the new diocese and in the diocese left behind. That, I think, goes to prove the statement which has just been made by the noble Viscount, and I do not doubt that what has happened in the past will probably happen again in the future.

My Lords, having been Bishop of a new diocese in the North which was manageable, and being now, unfortunately, in the position of Bishop of an absolutely unmanageable diocese in the South, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words upon this Bill. When I heard of the question being asked in another place as to the possible impoverishment of the clergy as the result of this Bill I could not help feeling that anyone who knew the real state of things in a new diocese would be able to answer that objection at once. It happened that in the year 1897 I visited officially the diocese of Newcastle for the first time, and I found that during the fifteen years since the See had been constituted the number of clergy had increased in the diocese from 216 to 318 —rather a large increase, I venture to say, within that period—and every single fund had increased in the same proportion. I am almost afraid to mention the sums of money that had been raised in those fifteen years; they might seem exaggerated; but they were raised for the purposes of Churches, parsonages, and everything which concerns the Church; and if I were to state what had been done there to help the impoverished clergy I could prove that there had been a great improvement in consequence of the constitution of that diocese.

Coming South, at the earnest request of the authorities of both Church and State, I found myself in charge of a diocese as unhappily constituted for purposes of supervision as it is possible to conceive. I have two counties, Essex and Hertfordshire, which once found a rather natural centre in London. In 1846 they were transferred to Rochester; in 1877 that was found to be wholly impossible and the diocese of St. Albans was founded and really without a centre, for St. Albans is in the western part of Hertfordshire and never in any form can be made a centre for Essex. London has extended into Essex, and London over the border, as it is called, has a population of 800,000 and will soon have a million, so that I have to supervise a diocese a large part of which is really in London, extending over the counties of Essex and Hertfordshire; and if anybody is acquainted with the means of locomotion in these counties he will know perfectly well that they are based on the principle that every sane man desires to go to London in the morning and return in the afternoon and to go nowhere else. The result is that a man who wishes to go to Hertfordshire from Essex or vice versa , except through London, finds the greatest difficulty in doing so.

When this diocese of mine was founded the population was not quite half what it is to-day. From 658,000 in 1871 it rose to 1,336,267 in 1901, and to-day it has a population considerably exceeding one and a half millions. With population, benefices have increased, and every additional benefice adds considerably to the Bishop's responsibilities and labours. The noble Viscount mentioned just now 630 as the number of benefices in my diocese; the number to-day is 635. Benefices are continually being added, the number of clergy necessarily increasing as the population increases. It is not merely the ordinary population. I am annually asked to take at least twenty extra-parochial confirmations in various schools. I have often said that if dumping requires an illustration it will be found in Essex and Hertfordshire. The fact is that every large London parish desires to have its schools or asylums in the counties outside London, and these require chaplains and supervision by the Bishop; there are also a great number of secondary schools, so that the Bishop in charge of such a diocese with no real centre has not the time for that mature thought which he ought to give to the affairs of his diocese. Therefore I venture to say the case is plain and clear, in such a diocese as mine, for some relief. If you continue the present condition of things in these unwieldy dioceses it will mean short tenures of office for the Bishops, as no Bishop could retain the diocese in full vigour for more than a limited number of years. Each one of us would, no doubt, be perfectly willing to be sacrificed. But it is not a matter for the Bishops alone. It is just as much a question for the dioceses which have no fair scope for expansion and for realising their common life if their areas are too large. Speaking for my own diocese, at any rate, the diocese itself feels most strongly the necessity for division. In 1905 I put the question before my diocesan conference, and there was a unanimous vote of the clergy and laity in favour of division. A committee was then formed, and early in 1906 we determined to canvass the diocese and ask for assistance. It was thought that in about three years £45,000 might be raised to supplement the surrender of part of the Bishop's income, but in about a year and a half the whole of that sum had been raised or guaranteed. I appealed to the diocese to, if possible, raise £5,000 on a given Sunday to complete the fund, and the amount raised was rather more than £7,000. This, I venture to think, shows no lack of local interest.

I have had nothing but good will from the Nonconformist bodies in reference to this matter, and if Nonconformists object to an increase in the Episcopate it is certainly not in my diocese. A public meeting which I convened in the Town Hall at Stratford in order to test local Church feeling on the matter was so crowded that people were compelled to stand, and a Presbyterian mayor attended to express his goodwill and his hope that the scheme would succeed. I went, in the same way, to Colchester, and there the local interest was equally as great and a Congregational mayor came to wish "Godspeed" to the scheme. This is the experience I have had in my own diocese. Determining that if the scheme took effect it should not be merely by large donations from the wealthy but by the general goodwill of the people at large, I delivered addresses at some twenty centres explaining the office of a Bishop and what he has to do, and I venture to say that the inhabitants of the diocese of St. Albans, knowing far more than they did five years ago what the work of a Bishop is, are almost unanimous in favour of this scheme. If this is the case in reference to one particular area, I venture to say it may be repeated elsewhere.

The question simply is whether it is desirable to arrive at extension of the Episcopate by Bills dealing with specific dioceses, or by such a general enabling measure as that which the noble Viscount has laid on the Table to-day. Two years ago I had an opportunity of discussing the subject with the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and it is no breach of confidence to say that, the two methods being put plainly before him, the late Prime Minister strongly favoured the general enabling method embodied in the noble Viscount's Bill. It is simply and solely on the lines with which we are already familiar in relation to extension of parishes. When it is desirable to divide a parish the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have the power, with due consent, to form a new parish. In the same manner, in regard to the Episcopate, if there is no demand on public funds, if the funds are simply raised by voluntary contributions and surrender by the Bishops of existing incomes, and, further, if there is no idea of increasing the number of Bishops in this House, then I submit there is no reason why this matter should not be considered as one of administration, Parliament having the fullest opportunity during thirty days of expressing dissent to any proposal. I venture, therefore, to express a strong hope that the Bill will pass your Lordships' House, and in another place receive such facilities as will enable it to become law this session.

My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes, but I do not like to remain quite silent lest that silence should be misunderstood. Those who are in positions of central responsibility in the Church, like myself and my most reverend brother the Archbishop of York, are eagerly anxious that this Bill should become law. It is the product of long deliberation, it has been drafted and re-drafted by different hands, and practically this consideration has always resulted in a Bill like that which is now presented by the noble Viscount. No one could have explained the position more clearly than the noble Viscount, and no one is more entitled from experience and knowledge of the subject to be its exponent. The Bill has been supported by my right reverend brother the Bishop of St. Albans, whose experience has been of a practical and unique character. I, too, can speak from some personal experience. I was for some years Bishop of Rochester and have of recent years had the diocese of Canterbury under my control. In each of those cases the diocese has been divided, the former since I left Rochester and the latter while I have held the See. In each case the gain in improved work and more effective administration has been marked. It is no mere money question. There is a general demand, on moral and religious grounds, for such a measure. We look for better supervision, with more local enthusiasm, zeal, and activity as the result of dioceses of more manageable size. I can say that from observation both in the north of England and in the south, and I am certain that if your Lordships give a Second Reading to this Bill and it should pass through the House of Commons and become law during the present session the gain to the country as well as to the Church will be great in the stimulus which will be given to effective moral and religious work. The proposals in the Bill hurt nobody; they are proposals of obvious and natural common fairness; and I find it difficult to understand how the Bill can be reasonably opposed by any man who has the religious and moral welfare of his country at heart.

On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the following statement, which had appeared in several newspapers, was substantially correct—viz.: "At the weekly Petty Sessions at Ennis, Mr. C. L. Rynne presiding, a number of persons were prosecuted at the suit of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, through Mr. D. O'Connell, supervisor, for carrying arms without a licence. In one case it was proved that Michael Lyons was found lying drunk in a lane off one of the principal streets. In his pocket was found a seven-chambered revolver, loaded in six chambers, with one empty cartridge; defendant said he got the revolver for his own protection; the Chairman said the Court would put down this conduct; every second man coming into Ennis had a revolver in his pocket; it was simply intolerable, and should not exist in any civilised country where the law was enforced. Defendant was fined £2 108. At the same Sessions two men were charged with possessing guns, and another, John Donohue, was charged with having a revolver without a licence. Constable Crowley deposed that he arrested defendant for drunkenness. He had on him a five-chambered revolver and fifty-five rounds of ammunition"; and, if so, whether they saw no risk in allowing the free carrying of arms to continue in Ireland. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I desire to direct your Lordships' attention to a recent instance of the evils which proceed from the unwarranted carrying of firearms. A report has appeared in several newspapers in terms which your Lordships will read in my Notice. The Chairman of the Ennis Petty Sessions said the Court must put down this carrying of firearms; that every second man coming into Ennis had a revolver in his pocket; and that it was simply intolerable and should not exist in any civilised country where the law was enforced. One man had a revolver and fifty-five rounds of ammunition, and another was drunk in possession of a five-chambered revolver. I am quoting only a single instance; I believe many could be produced, but it seems hardly necessary that I should trouble the House with many details on the subject. I may remind your Lordships that the only way by which these evil practices can be arrested in Ireland is in the event, which frequently happens, of the persons who carry the revolvers not having even gone to the expense of taking out the necessary licence.

To give your Lordships some idea of the state of things, I will take the charge of Mr. Justice Kenny to the Grand Jury at the Connaught Winter Assizes, held in Limerick. He said that, when reading the deposition in several cases, he had been— " very much struck by the general and prevailing use of firearms in these several counties, and particularly of revolvers.

He added that— "In the counties Clare and Galway a large proportion of the outrages were accompanied by the use of firearms. In the county of Clare alone there were eleven cases of firing into the dwelling-house and ten cases of firing at the person. He need scarcely impress upon the jury that that was a very terrible condition of things, disorganising society and bringing, as it necessarily would, untold misery to many a home.

The Grand Jury—they were all tradesmen—passed a resolution recording their "unanimous protest against the indiscriminate sale of firearms," and requesting the Judge to report the matter to the Government. Mr. Justice Kenny pointed out that the resolution was a very proper one to pass, but said he thought the foreman of the Grand Jury should make the representation to the Executive Government direct. As I say, I could give your Lordships many more instances of a similar kind. There was one in Galway reported in the newspapers only two days ago, and I may say that other Judges during the same winter assizes made very strong observations with regard to the unwarranted use of firearms.

When this matter was last under discussion in your Lordship' House the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack greatly understated—of course, it was not his fault, because he could merely give up the figures which were supplied to him by the Irish Office—the number of outrages by firearms which had occurred. He said, I think, that there had been something like eighty-one outrages, whereas in the other House it was stated by the Chief Secretary himself that during the first eleven months of the year 1908 there had been 193—I think that was the number. At all events", it is quite clear that this offence is very prevalent and is spreading. What does Mr. Birrell say? Taken to task with regard to this matter, he said that— "If a measure had been introduced applying to all parts of the country, I certainly, on behalf of Ireland, would offer it nothing but a general support; but what Ireland objects to is the invidious singling of it out as if the Irish people were such savages as to be unfitted to carry these arms.

What I have to say, in reply to that, is that Ireland has been singled out, but in exactly the opposite sense, because Ireland alone is free from any restriction as to the purchase of firearms. If a man wishes to buy a revolver, all he has to do is to pay the licence duty, and, provided he does that, he is free to purchase as many firearms as he chooses. In England, Scotland, and Wales there is the law of 1903, which places certain restrictions upon the sale of pistols, upon the ages of persons who may be allowed to purchase them, and other matters of that sort. From that Act Ireland was exempted. Why? Because at that time the Peace Preservation Act was in force, and under the terms of that Act it was not possible for men to purchase firearms without limitation or restriction. Therefore, when the Chief Secretary says that Ireland objects to being singled out, I reply that Ireland has been singled out, and in a way which is most prejudicial to peace and to property. The only check that exists in Ireland on the purchase of firearms is the Excise duty; that is the only thing. It is sometimes argued that the offences are committed by the Irish because of their great desire for Home Rule and because they have not been able hitherto to obtain it. I do not think that argument will be advanced in reference to the use of firearms. I put it to noble Lords from Ireland whether, if they did obtain the blessings of Home Rule, firearms would be likely to diminish in quantity.

Now, do the Government consider this state of things safe? And if they do not, are they prepared to do anything? I much regret that the present Chief Secretary for Ireland shows no disposition to do anything of any sort himself. He encourages the magistrates. He says they are quite right to protest against this importation of revolvers. He says the Judges are quite right. But with regard to the Executive authority, he says he himself is not prepared to introduce any exceptional legislation for Ireland. It is not necessary to introduce any exceptional legislation. All that it is necessary to do—I merely suggest one check; it is a small one—now that you have, by doing away with the Peace Preservation Act and making it possible for anyone in Ireland to obtain any number of revolvers he chooses, produced a state of things not conducive to the safety of life and property, is to introduce a small Bill, omitting from the Pistols Act the clause which exempts Ireland from its operation. I suggest that to the Government as a way in which they could deal with this matter very simply. I beg to put the Question standing in my name on the Paper.

My Lords, in replying to the noble Earl I will, first of all, confine myself to the Question on the Paper. The noble Earl asks His Majesty's Government whether a statement which has appeared in several newspapers is substantially correct. I believe it is substantially correct. But the speech of the noble Earl would seem to imply that the state of things referred to is due to the non-renewal of the Arms Act. As the noble Earl in his Question quotes Mr. Rynne, the Chairman of the Petty Sessions at Ennis, as his authority, I should like to read to the House what Mr. Rynne said on a subsequent occasion on this matter. He said this:— "He would here take the opportunity of stating that the remarks at the last Ennis Petty Sessions made by him as Chairman and by other magistrates had been made use of to an extent not intended. Efforts had been made to show that these remarks indicated a very disturbed and lawless state of the county. He did not for a moment admit that the county was in any way less law-abiding, or more disturbed owing to the repeal of the Arms Act. Therefore I think it is a mistake to infer that these particular cases are due to the non-renewal of the Arms Act.

He said that every second man who entered Ennis had a revolver in his pocket.

But he also said that he did not consider the state of the county affected by the non-renewal of the Arms Act. The noble Earl has made some observations about the non-renewal of that Act. I should like to remind the House that the Arms Act was passed in the first instance in the year 1881 by a Liberal Government; and it was, at all events, intended that its duration should be for a term of five years. It was subsequently renewed; but in 1906 Mr. Bryce and his colleagues, in view of the peaceful condition of the country at that time, thought it undesirable to differentiate between Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom. Consequently it was decided not to renew the Act. Now we are told that there has been a large increase in the number of weapons in Ireland, and that intimidation is due to that increase.

Is facilitated.

Is facilitated by that increase. But, if there has been an increase in Ireland, I should like to point out that there has also been a very considerable increase in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I will quote some figures to the House to bear out that statement. In 1897-98 there were, in England and Wales, 172,321 gun licences issued; and ten years later—in 1907-8—there were 201,247. In Ireland in 1897-98 there were 14,098 gun licences issued, and in 1907-8 there were 19,690. Therefore the House will observe that there has been an increase in England and Wales for these ten years of nearly 30,000, whilst for the corresponding period there has been an increase of over 5,000 licensed arms in Ireland—but of that increase nearly 4,000 occurred in the years between 1900 and 1903, at the time when the late Government were in office. According to the census of 1901 the popula- tion of England and Wales is between seven and eight times that of Ireland, so that it is evident that the number of gun licences in England and Wales per head of the population is considerably in excess of the number in Ireland. I do not quote these figures for the purpose merely of comparison between this country and Ireland, because I think they are quite sufficient to call for very serious consideration in themselves—I am speaking of the figures for England and Wales—although I believe that the extent to which firearms are carried in Ireland is very generally disapproved of by all classes of the community in that country. I do not wish to imply for one moment that firearms are used in this country, as they have been used in Ireland, for firing into dwellings and as aids to intimidation; but I think it must be a matter of concern—in fact, I know it is a matter of concern—to trio police and others that amongst so large a proportion of the population the possession of firearms should have increased in this country to such a very large extent, and I think it must be admitted that what I may term the indiscriminate arming of such a large proportion of the population is not a desirable state of things. Of the large number who have got licences there are, I have no doubt, many who have little experience and little knowledge of the use of firearms, and must on that account be a danger not only to themselves, but to their neighbours; and then there are people of undesirable character, both British and foreign, in whose case the possession of firearms must constitute a danger to those with whom they are brought into contact. Therefore the Government are seriously considering at the present time whether it may be possible to find means to place further restrictions upon the carrying and use of firearms, particularly, I may add, of pistols and revolvers, in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Will the Government, in that consideration, apply their minds to the very obvious expedient of bringing in a short Bill to deal with the present state of affairs? The introduction of the case of England and the suggestion that there is not such a grievance in Ireland because, with a much smaller population and with different laws, there has not been the same increase in the carrying of arms there, is simply playing with the question. The noble Earl, in his clear and temperate statement, drew attention to the fact that the law is not the same in the two countries, and that you have a more reckless want of law in Ireland.

The complaint is that in Ireland there is no check or stint on the possession of firearms. I do not say that each particular crime can be traced to the non-renewal of the Arms Act, but it is obvious to every man of sense that by that action you give facility for crime. Any one can now go to a gun-maker and, lodging two shillings as a deposit, obtain possession of a pistol or revolver. It cannot be denied that such a state of things gives treat assistance for the commitment of crime and outrage. This is really a very important question, and it is not sufficient for the House to be told that the Government are considering the general question of the carrying of firearms. Here is an evil in the living present in Ireland, and the question is—What are the Government going to do to rectify it? The noble Lord comforted himself by saying that there was a large increase in firearms between the years 1900 and 1903, when the late Government were in power. I should be glad if we could have the statistics showing what took place during the period before the late Government went out of office and what has taken place since the Arms Act was dropped.

I am not satisfied with the way in which this question has been dealt with by the noble Lord. The figures as to the increase which he gave are not so very instructive, because before the Arms Act was allowed to be dropped discrimination could be shown in regard to the licences granted. There is no discrimination now, and if a person has a gun licence he can obtain pistols and revolvers at his own will. Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the licence duty is paid by everyone in the possession of arms in Ireland? I do not wish to say a word against the integrity of the Irish people; but, after all, the paying of licence duty is an acquired taste, and I fear they have not yet acquired it. Therefore the payment of licence duty is no check at all as to the number of people in the possession of arms. At these times when the Government are not too well off it might be a useful thing for them to give attention to this matter. I am sure that any responsible police officer in Ireland would say that the duty has not been paid with anything like adequate completeness since the dropping of the Arms Act. The case to which the noble Earl has drawn attention is, as far as I know, the first one that has been reported where persons have been summoned at the petty sessions court for not taking out licences. Have there been any other cases, or is this an isolated case? I trust that we shall have a Return, not only of the number of licences for all kinds of arms issued while the late Government were in office, but continued down to the period when the present Government allowed the Arms Act to drop, and also showing how many licences have been taken out since, and what prosecutions, if any, have been instituted in reference to the matter. I do not wish to use any harsh or unnecessarily aggressive language, but it must be obvious that the Government are dealing with a position of deadly peril when they allow everyone in Ireland who pleases to carry arms; and what is needed is not the general considertion of the matter as it affects the United Kingdom, but prompt action in the particular case of Ireland.

My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced this matter did so, if he will allow me to say so, very moderately indeed. He stated his facts and drew his conclusions in a manner of which we on this side certainly cannot complain, and I have, indeed, no complaint to make of the way in which the subject has been touched upon by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. Of course, noble Lords opposite do not agree, and will never agree, with us in our disinclination to apply to Ireland a different code in a matter of this kind from that which we apply to England or to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a matter on which I am afraid the two sides of the House must agree to differ. It has been' pointed out, with perfect truth, that the Pistols Act, introduced, I think, by the noble Earl now on the Front Bench opposite in the year 1903, does not apply to Ireland. But the noble and learned Lord seemed to be under some misapprehension as to what the Pistols Act is. It does not oblige any person to take out a special licence for the possession of a pistol. In England there is only one form of licence, the gun licence, and that covers the possession of a pistol as well. The Pistols Act deals severely with the vendor of a pistol to a person who has no licence, and it also deals severely with the vendor of a pistol and the possessor of a pistol if he is under a certain age. The Government, in considering the matter, will certainly bear in mind as one possible expedient the application of that Act to Ireland. My noble friend behind me stated that the matter is under consideration. I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is not a subject which ought to be in any way shelved or allowed indefinitely to rest; but I think it is perfectly relevant to say, as my noble friend behind me said, that this is not an Irish question only. The noble and learned Lord spoke of the particular case which the noble Earl has placed on the Paper. That was the case of a man who was found drunk with a pistol in his possession. There were no suspicions, I believe, in any way connecting him with agrarian crime or with crime of any kind. It was an ordinary case of what one can only call this utterly stupid practice of carrying revolvers and pistols.

There is very little stupidity in Ireland.

I am delighted to hear it. The noble and learned Lord will not say for a moment, I think, that all the pistols possessed by people in Ireland, whether they live in the north or in the south, are kept and used for the purpose of committing outrages, any more than that the enormous number of revolvers and pistols carried through the streets of London are kept with the object of committing crime. Personally I should like to see it made as difficult as possible—almost impossible, if it could be done—for any private person to own a revolver or pistol at all. Noble Lords opposite who have had experience of using revolvers know how much practice it takes to be able to use one effectively for purposes of self-defence, and, as a rule, in an ordinary hand a revolver is an infinitely more dangerous object to its possessor than it is to any person against whom he may desire to defend himself. But, however that may be, it is undoubtedly the fact that both in England and in Ireland pistols and revolvers are carried to an altogether improper extent by those who can only use them for purposes of mischief. We are considering carefully how this may best be checked in either country. It might be possible to proceed by way of the revenue. I cannot say whether that would be found to be a feasible method. I note once more the particular suggestion of the noble Earl, that the Act of 1903 should be applied to Ireland. And I believe that what my noble friend behind me said is perfectly true, that this indiscriminate carrying of firearms in Ireland is regarded with great dread and dislike by a very large number of people who are not in sympathy at all with the political views of noble Lords opposite, and that public opinion would support a, stringent measure to render their possession difficult, provided, of course, as I say, that Ireland were not picked out as a specially criminal country for this purpose. I hope noble Lords opposite will be satisfied with our assurance that we are considering the matter very carefully. It is not altogether an easy one, but we are anxious to arrive at a proper solution of it.

My Lords, in these not infrequent Irish discussions we so rarely extract any grain of comfort from the statements made to us from the Bench opposite that I cannot resist rising to express my gratitude for the grain of comfort afforded by the statement of the noble Earl who has just spoken. We take note of his assurance that His Majesty's Government are giving this matter their serious attention, and I hope that my noble friend who moved this evening, or some other member of the House, may before long recur to the question, and that we shall then be able to elicit from His Majesty's Government a categorical statement of their intentions. The noble Earl gave us to understand that whatever measures were resorted to would apply, not to Ireland alone, but to the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not imagine that in the rest of the United Kingdom there will be any general disinclination to submit to rules more stringent than those now in force concerning the carrying of firearms; but I must protest against the assumption that there is no special case for dealing with Ireland. It has been established by this debate that the law at the present moment discriminates in favour of Ireland in regard to the carrying of firearms. Can the noble Earl or anyone else suggest a reason why it should be so? It has been admitted in this House and elsewhere that one-third of Ireland is in a dangerous and disorderly state, and, in spite of that, you submit to a condition of the law under which it is actually easier for persons to carry firearms in these districts than it is in the most law-abiding parts of this country. What has been the result? The result has been that the trade in firearms in Ireland has proceeded at an extraordinarily brisk pace, and you have, been told by the magistrate in the case discussed this evening that every other man carries a revolver in his pocket. Now, will anyone suggest that in districts where cattle-driving is going on it is not infinitely more dangerous that the people who take part in them should carry firearms than that they should be unarmed? The matter is really a serious one. I cannot admit that the English analogy is worth anything; and I wish, in conclusion, to say that no legislation which the Government may determine to adopt can possibly be of a kind which would occasion any real hardship to the people of Ireland. Irish farmers do not want revolvers to drive off crows. They do not want rifles to carry about with them wherever they go; and there really is no hardship in rendering it somewhat more difficult than it is at present for the population in these disorderly parts of the United Kingdom to carry arms.

The noble Earl, Lord Camper-down, referred to some figures I gave in the debate the other day, and said they understated the case. I think the noble Earl will find that my statement of the figures was perfectly accurate; but, if he thinks not and will be so kind as to let me know the part in which he believes there was an error, I will make further inquiry, and, if wrong, will substitute the right figure.

House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.