Commons Sitting of 3 August 1882

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 34 to 36.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Ionian Bank *, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [August 2] reported—Ordered—First Reading—Royal Irish Constabulary (Pay, &c.) [264].
Second Reading—Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) [256]; Revenue, Friendly Societies, and National Debt [260]; Intermediate Education (Ireland)*[258].
Committee—Government Annuities and Assurance [190]—R.P.; Allotments (re-comm.) [227]—R.P.
Committee— Report—Reserve Forces Acts Consolidation*[124]; Militia Acts Consolidation*[123]; Parcel Post [254]; Bombay Civil Fund [225]; Artizans' Dwellings [255].
Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue [239], and passed.
Withdrawn—Settlement and Removal Law Amendment*[194]; Police*[197].

QUESTIONS.

  BRAZIL—THE ST. JOHN DEL REY MINING COMPANY—SLAVE- HOLDING BY ENGLISH SUBJECTS.
  MR. M'COANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a Memorandum recently issued by the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, showing that some two hundred negroes are now held in slavery in Brazil by the St. John del Rey Mining Company, an English Company working under English Law, and the head office of which is in London; and, whether, if the facts be as stated by the Society, the directors of the Company in question being Bri-
  582
  tish subjects are not liable to criminal prosecution under the Slave Trade Act of 1873?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I observe that this Question is substantially the same as was asked of the Attorney General by my hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease); and as it is a legal Question I shall refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer of the Attorney General.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—FALSE CHARGE OF ATTACK UPON SUB-CONSTABLE FINNEY.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. O'KELLY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Sub-Constable Finney, stationed in the iron but at Derreenavoggy, near Keadue, reported on the night of the 18th of April that he had been fired at by five men on the public road, and that he had returned the fire; whether it did not afterwards appear that this statement was unfounded, and that, instead of being attacked, the sub-constable had waylaid and threatened to shoot five persons; whether on the night in question Sub-Constable Finney had not asked a man named Muldoon to take his (Finney's) revolver, and fire a shot at him; whether, subsequently, be did not stop two men, named Patrick Walsh and John Regan, and, without provocation, present his revolver and threaten to shoot them; whether Messrs. Muldoon, Walsh, and Regan, summoned Sub-Constable Finney before the Keadue Petty Sessions; and, whether, a few days before the trial day, the Crown entered charges against Finney; whether it was suddenly discovered, on the day preceding the trial, that Finney was insane; and why the opinion of the local dispensary doctor was not taken as to alleged insanity of Sub-Constable Finney; whether Finney has since been discharged from the Ballinasloe Lunatic Asylum; and, what steps the Government mean to take in his regard?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I answered the five first Questions now put to me on the 25th ultimo. The hon. Member will see my Answer in The Times of the 26th. With regard to the Question why the local dispensary doctor was not consulted, the Sub-Inspector explains that when he received information that the

  583
  constable was insane he ordered him into head-quarters in Boyle at once, as he considered it much safer to have him there than in a confined hut. From a Report dated the 31st of July, I learn that the sub-constable, though not then discharged from the asylum, has been pronounced almost convalescent, and is about to be discharged. As regards the further steps to be taken with respect to him, I beg to say that having been placed in a lunatic asylum, legally certified as a dangerous lunatic, he cannot be retained in the Constabulary, and must accordingly be discharged.

  POST OFFICE—REPLY POST CARDS AND TELEGRAMS.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Postmaster General, If he will be good enough to inform the House when the Reply Post Cards will be issued; and, if, as a step in the direction of reduced cost of telegrams, he can see his way to allow a telegram of twenty words, answer prepaid, to be sent for one shilling and sixpence?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the Inland reply Post Card will be ready for use on Monday, the 2nd of October. I may take this opportunity of stating that it has been arranged about the same time to issue foreign reply Post Cards, which will be available for most of the countries in the Postal Union. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, although I should be very glad when it is thought, in view of financial considerations, that the price of telegrams can be reduced, I do not think it would be expedient to charge a smaller sum for a reply to a message than for the telegram first sent.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—ORANGE MEETING AT ROSSMORE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, when Major Blair, R.M., went on the platform at the Orange meeting on the 12th July, at Rossmore Park, County Monaghan, he did so in his official capacity; and, whether it is usual for the stipendiaries in command of police drafted to prevent disturbance at meetings to go upon the platform?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. Major Blair informs me that he did not
  584
  go on to the platform at the Orange meeting on the 12th of July.

  STATE OF IRELAND—EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS AND MARINES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On whose recommendation a party of marines, in addition to the ordinary police, is stationed at Aughrim and Kilconnell, county Galway; whether the extra pay or expenses of soldiers or marines is ever levied off a district where the constables in charge of the stations have ever had to report an agrarian outrage to person or property; and, whether he will consider the advisability of restricting as much as possible the use of soldiers or marines?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There are four soldiers at each of the places named in the Question of the hon. Member on duty in aid of the civil power. They are employed there on the application of the special Resident Magistrate. The pay and expenses of soldiers or Marines specially employed on such duty is borne by the Army Votes. Soldiers and Marines will be replaced by Constabulary as soon as the requisite number can be obtained. A Supplementary Estimate has been introduced with this object.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. W. M. MILLER, R.M.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. W. M. Miller, R.M., of Armagh, who for over twenty years has retained the respect and confidence of all classes in his district, by his integrity and independence, has received notice of his compulsory retirement; whether, though growing old, Mr. Miller is still both active and painstaking; if so, on what grounds, and on whose recommendation, the Government are going to supersede him; and, if he can state by whom he will be succeeded?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Miller was the senior of all the Resident Magistrates, and was one of those whom His Excellency considered should, in the interests of the Public Service, be invited to accept the terms of retirement offered to certain Resident Magistrates on account of age or infirmity. He will be succeeded in Armagh by Major Traill.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—CONTINUANCE OF THE ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSION.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is proposed to bring in a separate Bill to continue the powers of the Charity Commission with regard to endowed schools, or whether the matter will be dealt with in a general Continuance Bill?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is proposed, Sir, to continue the Endowed Schools Commission for another year in the general Continuance Bill, and during next Session we hope to be able to deal with the whole question.

  EGYPT—"CONVICTS" AT ALEXANDRIA.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any of the "convicts," whom it is stated were let loose on. Alexandria after Arabi's retreat, were caught by the British and punished for burning and pillage; if so, how many; what number are supposed to have been enlarged; and, if anything is known as to what has become of the remainder?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have to thank the hon. Member for having put off his Question at my request. I am, however, unable to give him any information as to the numbers or fate of convicts released at Alexandria, as the despatches we have received contain no reference to them. All that we know is the fact stated in one of the telegrams, which I read to the House at the time, that the convicts were released on the 12th of July.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether it was a fact that the telegram from Sir Beauchamp Seymour, stating that the convicts released by Arabi were setting fire to the town, was sent by the Admiral to the Home Government before Sir Beauchamp Seymour or any British officers had penetrated into Alexandria; and whether he would inquire on what authority Sir Beauchamp Seymour brought that charge against Arabi Pasha?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the hon. Member had better give Notice of that Question. My impression is that, at the time the telegram was sent, Sir Beauchamp Seymour had full
  586
  knowledge of what had occurred at Alexandria.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SUB-INSPECTOR O'CALLAGHAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the amount of public money entrusted to Sub-Inspector H. D. O'Callaghan during the period he was stationed at Drogheda; in what it was disposed of by him; if any receipts or vouchers are forthcoming relative to its distribution; and, if so, whether he has any objections to a copy of same being laid upon the Table?
  MR. TREVELYAN: While Sub-Inspector O'Callaghan was stationed in Drogheda, £6,730 of public money was remitted to him for the purpose of defraying the pay and allowances of the men in his district, and other departmental expenditure. He has duly accounted for all the public money entrusted to him, and all the receipts have passed into the Exchequer and Audit Department, except those for the month of May last, which are still in the Constabulary Department.

  ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION ACT, 1881—INSPECTORS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, under the provisions of the Act of 1881 relating to alkali and other works, the inspector at Manchester and Salford (with one assistant) has charge of a district which extends to and includes the Isle of Wight; whether there are in that district 250 works to be inspected; whether, under the Acts of 1863–74, the number of works allotted to each inspector was about 40; and, whether he can state what measures Her Majesty's Government proposes to take in order to secure that the Act of 1881 shall be effective in its operation?
  MR. DODSON: It is in a certain sense true, Sir, that the district referred to extends to and includes the Isle of Wight; but it is, in reality, two districts—one north and one south—divided among two Inspectors, one of whom is a Sub-Inspector. The present arrangement of districts, however, is altogether provisional, and the final arrangement can only be made after further ex-

  587
  perience of the amount of work to be done and of the facilities for visitation. In the entire area referred to there may be as many as 250 works; but many of them are very small, and will occupy only a short time in inspection. Under the previous Acts the number of works allotted to each Inspector was about 40; but they were exclusively alkali works, while now many of the additional works, being in the same neighbourhood, can be visited on the same occasion. The measures which I am now taking in organizing a system of inspection will, I trust, secure the effective execution of the Act, and the Chief Inspector has no fear but that such will prove to be the result.
  MR. WARTON (for Mr. GORE-LANG-TON)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether there is any objection to the printing of the register of alkali and other chemical works under the Act of 1881; and, if not now printed, when it will be?
  MR. DODSON: There will be no objection to the printing of a list of the alkali and other works registered under the Act of 1881, and I propose to lay such a list on the Table of the House as a Parliamentary Paper before the close of the Session.

  ADULTERATION OF FOOD ACT—ADULTERATED BUTTER AND MILK.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of Mr. Blyth, Analyst under the Adulteration of Food Act, to the Devonshire Court of Quarter Sessions, dated June 13th 1882, in which, speaking of the adulteration of butter and milk, he compares the difference of limit between the public analysts of 1874 and that of the Somerset House Certificate at the present time; and, whether he proposes to take steps in the interest of the public to raise the standard of purity in both those articles?
  MR. DODSON: Mr. Blyth, in his Report, speaking of the adulteration of butter and milk, compared the difference of limit between the public analysts of 1874 and that of the Somerset House certificate at the present time. There is no doubt as to the difference in limit between the two bodies. The Somerset House analysts, however, are not alone in their opinion, and I am now in communication with them on the subject;
  588
  but at present I am not prepared to say whether it would be practicable to define any such standard of purity as would effectually protect the public from adulteration on the one hand, and the honest dealer from prosecution on the other, simply because the natural products in which the latter deals may happen to fall below some arbitrary standard of quality.

  STATE OF IRELAND—PROCLAMATION OF COUNTY WICKLOW.
  MR. M'COANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the peaceful condition of county Wicklow, as attested by the Judges of Assize and of the County Court, and, as admitted in a recent Return, that the chief or only reason why the county was and remains proclaimed is its "geographical situation," he will recommend to Earl Spencer the withdrawal of that proscription, which affects the constitutional liberty of more than 70,000 people?
  MR. TREVELYAN: As appears from the Parliamentary Return referred to by the hon. Member, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant quite recently decided that he could not revoke the proscription of the County Wicklow, and I cannot give the recommendation sought for.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he must trespass briefly on the time of the House to show the extreme hardship of the case, and to put himself in Order he would conclude with a Motion. The county of Wicklow had been one of the quietest and most law-abiding in Ireland. Under the iron rule of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), only four men were arrested in the county under the Coercion Act then in force; one of these was an unjust and despotic arrest, and after considerable efforts had been made on behalf of the innocent man, he was at length released. Notwithstanding the small number of arrests in the county, it was proclaimed and was subject to all the hardships of the old Coercion Act, and the still sterner severities of the new one. He had applied to the present Executive, asking whether the outlawry could not be removed, and the reply was that they felt bound to endorse the act of their Predecessors. The fact that Earl Spencer and the present Chief Secretary felt bound to endorse and continue the

  589
  action of the late Chief Secretary indicated, he thought, the extreme danger that lurked under the present Coercion Act, even as administered by these two Gentlemen. It showed how it might be abused, and how despotism could be practised under it. A Return he had moved for showed that in 18 months there had been 124 offences for which conviction had been obtained, and there had been no complaint of failure to obtain conviction. Of the total of 124, 62 were trumpery cases of threatening letters, and he described them as trumpery on the authority of the Judge of Assize. There were 16 cases of injury to property, one riot and affray; four came under the elastic head of intimidation, and the remainder were trivial offences. The Lord Lieutenant, while gratified with the quietness of the county, said the necessity for its being proclaimed arose from its geographical position, and this should not be regarded as a reflection upon the inhabitants. They, however, did not share the opinion of His Excellency. The charge of Baron Dowse to the Grand Jury at the County Assizes contained expressions of congratulation upon the absence of crime as compared with other counties. There were only five bills to go before them, and three of these were substantially the same offence. Two were for threatening letters, the accused being two boys, aged respectively 14 and 16. The other cases were for petty larceny. Notwithstanding the notorious fact that the county of Wicklow was less touched with the virus—as hon. Members above the Gangway would say—of the Land League teachings, the Lord Lieutenant thought proper, on account of its geographical position, to proclaim the county. To show the consistency of Earl Spencer, although Wicklow was proclaimed on account of being unhappily coterminous with the county of Dublin, at the same time half the county of Carlow, which was coterminous with Wicklow and no less disturbed, was free from proclamation. He believed also that the County Wexford was not proclaimed, although it had the stimulating advantage of being represented by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Healy), and although he believed its criminal statistics were much heavier than either those of Wicklow or Carlow. How was it that the anomaly
  590
  existed in one county and not in the other two? He had hoped that cases of this kind would not have continued under the present Chief Secretary; and he trusted the facts he had adduced would induce the right hon. Gentleman to recommend the Lord Lieutenant to reconsider the matter. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. M' Coan.)
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he should best meet the sense of the House by simply stating that he did not propose to continue the discussion of the subject. Districts were proclaimed in the interests of the public safety, and were carefully considered with a view to those interests; and it was certainly not expedient that those who were responsible for the public safety should give the reasons for the proclamations, nor was it consistent with the public safety that they should do so. He could assure the hon. Member that the matter would not be affected, and the withdrawal of a proclamation would not be expedited, by a debate in the House. It would soon be the duty of Lord Spencer and himself to consider whether the proclamation of Wicklow and of other districts should be continued, and they would do so with the utmost desire to relax the administration of the law, wherever it could be done with due regard to the public interests. The process would not be quickened by the prolongation of the debate. He meant no disrespect to the hon. Member by declining to continue the discussion; and he trusted the House would be allowed to proceed with its ordinary Business.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that almost all Questions asked by Irish Members were inconvenient, and if such an objection were raised on every occasion, they would be precluded from asking any Questions. He certainly thought that the Chief Secretary might state the reasons for which the county of Wicklow had been proclaimed, especially as he had been asked to do so by an hon. Member who had not very strenuously opposed the Coercion Bill. If, as seemed probable, a Dissolution was at hand, he hoped that Irish constituencies and Irishmen in the English constituencies would show whether they ap-

  591
  proved the conduct of those of their Representatives who had so often been conspicuous for their absence when the Coercion Bill was under discussion. Out of 130 Divisions on the Bill the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) took part in only about 40. But they all knew that even a worm would turn at last.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE BELFAST UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the result of the meeting of Belfast guardians on the 1st instant, and to what decision the Local Government Board has arrived regarding the keeping infirm and aged paupers lying at the workhouse gate all night, although they had urgent tickets for admission from the relieving officer?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In consequence of a communication addressed by the Local Government Board to the Board of Guardians of Belfast Union, the Guardians have requested the Local Government Board to institute an inquiry on oath into the matter referred to in this Question, in order to ascertain the exact circumstances of the case; and the Local Government Board have ordered the inquiry asked for, to be conducted by one of their Inspectors.

  ARMY—ARMY PAYMASTERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there are now serving any Paymasters in some of the most responsible positions of the Army Pay Department, who have never received either the regulation or over regulation value of their former combatant Captains' commissions, while other Paymasters serving did, previously to or at the time of their appointment, receive the regulation and over regulation value of their former Captains' commissions; whether the former, in comparison with the latter, have discharged Paymasters' duties at a far less cost to the public and income to themselves; and, if they have received an equivalent; whether those officers, notwithstanding their service, have been largely superseded by officers fourteen years their juniors, who will be presently retired with the rank of Colonel and £450 a year, while the
  592
  former will get only £400 a year and the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel; whether, within the last twelve months, a paymaster having no money invested in former commissions was allowed voluntarily to retire on the same rank and pay as older officers were compelled to accept on compulsory retirement after twenty-four years' service; and, whether, in consideration of the comparative loss of income to those officers and the saving effected by the public during their service, it is intended to give those officers any equivalent, or to repay them on their retirement the price their commissions would have realised when they became paymasters?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member's first Question, I have to state that paymasters who were formerly combatant officers had either sold out or had joined direct from half or full pay. Those who sold out received their sale money from other officers if they sold out before the 1st of November, 1871; from the public, if they sold out subsequently. The answer to the second Question is that this may be the case. An officer who sold out can only count his pay service towards retirement, whereas the officer who joins without selling counts all his service. The answer to the third Question is, Yes. The retired pay of £450 is limited to the rank of chief paymaster. Certain staff paymasters were superseded by their juniors, either because they had passed the limit of age for promotion, or because they were not selected for the higher rank. The answer to the fourth Question is, Yes; and to the fifth, No. The general answer to all these Questions is that perfect faith has been kept with all these officers.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—CORNELIUS DOYLE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there exist any special reasons, unknown to the prisoner and his friends, why Cornelius Doyle, of Keelcolought, Killorglin, county Kerry, is still detained as a "suspect;" and, if not, whether the Lord Lieutenant will reconsider his case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Cornelius Doyle's case was considered by the Lord

  593
  Lieutenant on the 23rd ultimo, and His Excellency decided that he could not at present order his release.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—THE TRANSVAAL—THE BOERS AND THE NATIVE TRIBES.
  MR. ARTHUR PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that bodies of Boers have been for some time past levying war on the native tribes on the western border of the Transvaal; armed Boers crossing and re-crossing the borders, and obtaining arms and ammunition within the Transvaal; whether it is true that the natives are prohibited from armed assistance or munitions of war from British territory; whether the attention of the Government has been called to a report of the Volksraad, in which it is admitted that the object of the Boers is to obtain more land from the natives than was given them by the Convention; and, what steps have been taken by the Imperial or Colonial Government to bring these hostilities to a close, and to protect the natives?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Boers and European adventurers, and, I regret to say, also some deserters from the British Army have been and still are taking an active part in alliance with one tribe to levy war on another, stimulated, no doubt, by hopes of plunder both of land and cattle. They have availed themselves frequently of the proximity of the Transvaal frontier to save both themselves and the cattle which they have stolen. The supply of munitions of war is regulated by the laws of the Colony, and both the Cape and the Orange Free State appear from all accounts to have severely enforced their regulations. A suggestion has, however, been made to them whether, on the cessation of actual war between the several tribes, sufficient ammunition should not be sold to the Native Chiefs to enable them to protect themselves from marauders. The Report and Resolution of the Volksraad to which reference is made affirm that the boundary, as laid down in the Convention, is the "inducing cause" of the present disturbances, and recommend that a Commission should be applied for to rectify the boundary, so as to include the territories of the tribes who are being stirred up by these adventurers. It does
  594
  not appear to me that there is here any connection of cause and effect. The Government have agreed to a proposal that they should contribute to the expenses of a small body of mounted police—to be provided by the Cape Colony, the Transvaal Republic, and the Orange Free State in due proportions—and which will arrest those who are engaged in these illegal acts and carry them across the respective frontiers to be tried by due course of law. The Government have signified, at the same time, that they only join in this action—
  "As a special and exceptional measure, in order to facilitate united action on. the part of the local Governments."
  They cannot undertake the duty of preserving order on the border, which properly belongs to the Governments of the adjoining countries.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DISSOLUTION OF THE CARRICK-ON-SUIR BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Under what circumstances, upon what evidence, and on what authority, the Irish Local Government Board have dissolved the Carrick- on- Suir Board of Guardians, and appointed Vice Guardians to act instead; and, whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of any letters and other official documents on the subject?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board have been obliged to dissolve the Carrick- on- Suir Board of Guardians and appoint Vice Guardians to manage the affairs of the Union, because, through the default of the Board of Guardians, their duties have not been duly and effectually discharged according to the intention of the Acts in force for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland. In dissolving the Board of Guardians the Local Government Board acted under the authority of Section 18 of 10 Vic. c. 31. If the hon. Member moves for the Correspondence he can have it.

  IRELAND—THE KEEPER OF THE FREEMAN'S ROLL, GALWAY.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Keeper of the Freemans' Roll, in the town of Galway, has yet signified

  595
  his intention of holding a Court this year for the admission of freemen?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was not aware whether the Keeper of the Galway Freeman's Roll had signified his intention of holding a Court this year; but he believed that he had not yet announced his intention of holding such a Court for the admission of freemen. The hon. Member asked him a similar Question this time last year, and the Answer he gave then was that the Court should be held on the 1st of September.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not consider that it was necessary that a Court should be held, and whether the Keeper was not obliged by the laws regulating his office to hold the Court?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had no doubt whatever that this officer was obliged, the same as every other officer performing similar duties, to properly discharge them. He believed that, under the Municipal Corporations Act, these officers were compelled to give notice of the holding of the Court in January of each year.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether, in view of the fact that this officer had allowed his duties in this respect to fall into disuse for the last four or five years, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would correspond with him and warn him of his neglect?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it was no part of his duty to do so, and he was not sure but if he was to ask that gentleman as to the reasons for the neglect, he would not ask him what right he had to put the question. Notwithstanding this, however, he would, if necessary, cause a communication to be addressed to him.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—SUNDAY BANDS.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the promoters of the Sunday bands in the Hyde, Victoria, Battersea, and Regent's Parks are permitted by the Department to sell programmes and let seats within the boundaries of the said parks, in aid of the funds to support the bands; whether any evil results have become known to the Department from
  596
  such sales, &c.; and, whether it is the intention of the Department to allow the present arrangements, whereby the bands are rendered self-supporting, to be continued during the present and succeeding seasons?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The hon. Member has correctly described the practice which exists and is permitted in the Parks he names in respect of the Sunday bands. I know of no evil which has resulted; on the contrary, I believe they have given innocent enjoyment to many thousands of people, and I have no intention to interfere with them so long as their promoters observe the law.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would use his influence with the Metropolitan Board of Works to extend the boon to the Parks under their direction?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he had no authority over the Parks under the management of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but he would communicate with the Board on the subject.

  LAW AND POLICE—ALLEGED MORMON RIOTS AT HACKNEY.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the Mormon riot at Hackney, and to previous disturbances at Mormon meetings; and, whether, as the United States Government has declared polygamy to be illegal, some means can be found to prevent the emigration to Utah of young women and others who may be ignorant of the American Law on the subject?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With reference to the first part of this Question, I may say that I have seen no reports of Mormon riots either at Hackney or elsewhere. I must remark, as regards the latter part of the Question, that I find new duties almost every day thrown on the Home Office; but I have no authority to prevent young women from emigrating to Utah, or any other place, if they please, nor can I inquire into their matrimonial views or their knowledge of the American law.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY LAW.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  597
  Affairs, Whether instructions have been sent to the Military authorities in Egypt respecting the administration of criminal justice during the occupation, with special reference to the capitulations, and the right of subjects of Foreign Powers in Ottoman territory to be judged by their own consuls in criminal cases in which they are defendants, and in which no Ottoman subject is involved? He might, perhaps, ask, at the same time, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to a paragraph in the corrrespondence of the "Daily News" of the 2nd August, stating that Ricciotti Garibaldi is inviting volunteers to support the Insurrection in Egypt; whether such statement is correct; and, if so, whether Italian subjects found in arms against Her Majesty's troops will enjoy the benefits of the capitulations, and be justiciable by their own consuls?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The rights of subjects of Foreign Powers in Egypt under the Capitulations are well known to the military authorities, and will, no doubt, be respected to the fullest extent that is compatible with the exigencies of a military occupation. Her Majesty's Government have not sent general instructions on the subject, but are prepared to deal with any difficulty which may arise on the subject according to the particular circumstances of the cases which may be reported. With regard to the second Question, I can only say that we have no knowledge of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the Table the telegrams quoted by him on Monday, which have passed between himself and the Government of India, on the subject of the contribution out of Indian revenues towards the cost of the expedition to Egypt?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that the telegrams in question were so brief as to make it hardly worth while to lay them on the Table of the House. Some of them were in cipher, and it was not very convenient to give accurately telegrams transmitted in that manner. He had no objection, however, to state the purport of the telegrams. On the 24th of July he telegraphed to the Government of India that the Government at home, subject to any representation the Government of India might desire to make, proposed that all the expense of
  598
  the Indian troops sent to Egypt should be charged on India. On the 26th of July the Council of India telegraphed that they unanimously objected to that proposal, and that they would address to the Government at home a despatch upon the subject. On the 27th the Viceroy telegraphed—
  "We gather from Reuter's telegram that you have applied to Parliament for consent to payment of the expense of the Indian Contingent by Indian revenues. We conclude that the promise given in your telegram of the 24th July, that representations we may desire to make will be considered before final decision is arrived at, holds perfectly good."
  He (the Marquess of Hartington) replied—
  "Yes. Resolutions in Parliament are necessary, whatever final decisions may be."
  He added, that he thought Indian interests in the Suez Canal justified them in asking the Indian Government to bear a very large proportion of the charge from the Revenue of India. He would take that opportunity of answering the Question which the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) had put on the Paper—namely, whether he would lay the despatch of the Indian Government on the Table. That was not possible, as he had not yet received the despatch. But he would lay it on the Table when he received it, if there was no objection.
  MR. BOURKEasked whether, when the Indian Government sent the telegrams, they were aware of the number of troops that might be required?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: They were preparing a considerably larger force than they are now asked for.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has remarked, on pages 44 and 45 of Blue Book, 3230, of 1882, that three days before our Consul General's final rupture with the Egyptian Chamber of Delegates, Lord Granville telegraphed to him for a report as to the "precise effect" of granting all the Chamber demanded, namely, the right to vote that part of the Budget which provided for the internal administration of the country, and that his reply was, that the effect would be that—
  "Official salaries not regulated by contract would be under the control of the Chamber, so

  599
  that it would be able to abolish the land survey, and dismiss many Europeans;"
  and, whether he will state what reply was given by Lord Granville to this telegram between the date of its receipt (January 13th) and the 15th of January, when, as shown in page 48 of the same Blue Book, our Consul General finally repudiated the demand of the Chamber, declined all compromise, and so led to the formation of the National Ministry and succeeding events?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no instruction in regard to the powers of the Chamber of Notables was sent to Sir Edward Malet between the dates mentioned by my hon. Friend. On the 16th of January the telegram to Lord Lyons of that date (No. 66 in the Blue Book) was repeated to Sir Edward Malet for his guidance. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's version of Sir Edward Malet's proceedings on the 15th of January. He did not "finally repudiate" the demand of the Chamber, or "decline all compromise;" but he stated to the President of the Chamber the grounds on which he considered that the demands of the Chamber infringed international engagements, and gave no encouragement to a suggestion that he himself should endeavour to find a compromise.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether Her Majesty's Government did not oppose the claims of the Egyptian Chamber of Delegates to control official salaries not regulated by contract, and to dismiss Europeans?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The House is aware of the statements I have made in the course of debate. The great majority of officials are dismissable by the Egyptian Government up to the present time. With regard to the action of the English Government, the hon. Member will find all the information in the Papers.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the hon. Baronet had very adroitly avoided answering his Question. In his (Mr. O'Donnell's) opinion, the Government had carefully excluded from the Papers the information he desired.
  SIR WILFEID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in the second edition of the "Times" of 1st August, as to the absence of the usual native population from Alexandria; whether he is
  600
  able to state approximately the number of the population before and after the bombardment; and, in the event of the alleged serious diminution existing, he has taken any steps to inquire what has become of the remainder; and, whether he can state that numbers have not perished outside the city, deprived of their means of subsistence?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am not able to give the figures asked for by my hon. Friend. We have no information as to the number of the Native population of Alexandria who may have left the city with the troops, nor can I say how many have returned, or what has become of those who remain absent.

  IRELAND—THE ASSISTANT UNDER SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT—APPOINTMENT OF MR. E. G. JENKINSON.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government have any intention of appointing, or considering the appointment, of Mr. Clifford Lloyd to the post of Assistant Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, vacated by the resignation of Colonel Bracken-bury?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has appointed Mr. E. G. Jenkinson to fill the office rendered vacant by the resignation of Colonel Brackenbury. Mr. Jenkinson was a Civil servant in India, who early in his career displayed such courage and ability that he was thanked by the Governor General in Council, and subsequently had the approbation of Her Gracious Majesty the Queen conveyed to him by direct despatch from the India Office. Few men have ever had the opportunity of doing more brilliant public service at so early an age, and no man could have taken advantage of the opportunity more effectually than he did. Since then lie has filled with distinction a series of offices in India as high as a man of his standing could reasonably be expected to hold, because he is still in the prime of life. Judging from his training and antecedents, and from a knowledge of the manner in which Mr. Jenkinson conducts the business of administration, gathered during an intimate association in public work during the last two years, I am satisfied that he will efficiently discharge the arduous duties of his office.
  MR. GIBSONdesired to know what were the terms of the appointment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I think the office is held during pleasure—exactly as an Under Secretary.
  Mr. J. LOWTHER: In the same way as his predecessor held the office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Exactly.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—MISS MARY KEANE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed the proceedings of a special Petty Sessions Court, held at Waterford on Friday last (and composed of Mr. Redmond, R.M. Dungarvan, and Mr. Meldon, R.M. Tipperary), with reference to a charge brought under the fifth section of the Crime Prevention Act against Miss Mary Keane, for interfering with the business transactions of Mr. Edward Courtney, a butter merchant; whether, although Miss Keane, pleading that the summons had only been served the day before, requested an adjournment for a week to prepare her defence, secure the attendance of her witnesses, and provide herself with professional assistance, the magistrates refused to adjourn, and sentenced her forthwith to a month's imprisonment, one of them remarking, as a reason for the refusal, that he had come fifty miles to try the case; and, whether, in the further administration of the Crime Prevention Act, care will be taken that due facilities will be given to persons charged to prepare their defence and provide themselves with professional assistance?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have had to obtain a Report upon this Question by telegraph, as it only appeared yesterday. The Resident Magistrate informs me that when the case was called, the defendant, Miss Mary Keane, refused to appear, although at the time outside the Court. Information had to be sworn, and a warrant issued to compel her attendance. She then alleged that she had not been served with a summons; but it was clearly proved that a summons had been served on her personally on the previous morning. The charge was gone into, and a case of persistent intimidation proved in the clearest manner. Miss Keane cross-examined the principal witness; but, when called on for her defence, she asked to have the case
  602
  adjourned for a number of witnesses. When asked to name them she refused several times, and eventually named but one. She refused to state what her defence was, and the magistrates were satisfied that the application for adjournment was not bonâ fide, but merely vexatious. Mr. Meldon, the Resident Magistrate, stated so, adding that the magistrates would not adjourn the case, especially as the Court was formed at some inconvenience, and he himself had travelled 50 miles to hear the case; but this was not assigned as the reason for not adjourning. The defendant did not claim that she had made any effort to procure professional assistance or the attendance of witnesses.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—EMIGRANT AND PASSENGER SHIPS.
  MR. MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fact that there are a number of emigrant ships which, on their homeward voyages, come to this Country laden with cattle, returning to America with large numbers of steerage passengers; and, if he can state what, if any, special precautions are enforced for the disinfecting and cleansing of those ships after each voyage with cattle?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. I am informed that those ships are thoroughly disinfected and cleansed after each voyage, and that they are subsequently inspected by Board of Trade, emigration, and sanitary officers. Emigrants would not be allowed to go out in them if there was any reason to suppose that they were in a condition dangerous to health.

  THE ORDNANCE SURVEY—CADASTRAL SURVEY OF WARWICKSHIRE.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the First Commissioner of Works, When the cadastral survey of Warwickshire will be completed?
  MR. GERARD NOELasked when the whole Survey would be concluded?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the plan of the Survey was based on the supposition that it would be completed in 1890. He could not give the hon. Member for North Warwickshire any other answer than he gave him last year. The survey of Warwickshire would be commenced in 1885.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—BUTTER AND BUTTER SUBSTITUTES.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the Statistical Inquiry Committee that is examining into the subject of the better classification of butter, oleomargarine and other butter substitutes, is likely to issue its report; and, whether he will communicate the result of that inquiry to the House?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, he was informed that the Committee was now considering its Report, which would probably be ready in a few days. It dealt with a great many matters besides those referred to in the Question. The Committee had been appointed by the Treasury, which would have to decide whether the Report was of sufficient public interest to have it presented to the House.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JOHN KAVANAGH.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. John Kavanagh has now been confined, under the Coercion Act of 1881, for a period of nearly fifteen months; whether the other men, arrested on suspicion of the same offence, and in the same locality, were released eleven months ago; and, whether, as Mr. Kavanagh has now endured a protracted term of imprisonment, the Government will now release him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: John Kavanagh has been detained under the Coercion Act since the 11th of May, 1881. Two other men, arrested at the same time in connection with the same offence, were released on the 16th of August and 17th of September respectively. John Kavanagh's case will come up for consideration on the 11th instant.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE BENCH AT LISTOWEL.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the composition of the Bench at Listowel, Whether the application for the presence of the Cork and Clare resident magistrates at the trial of Mr. T. Harrington and others was made after or before the local justices had admitted the accused to bail on the 3rd July, or
  604
  referred in any way to their adjudication on that day; and, whether he would have any objection to lay upon the Table a Copy of the application?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The application for the presence of the two Resident Magistrates was made after the accused had been admitted to bail; but I cannot lay the application on the Table, or give the hon. Member any further information regarding it.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—ROBBERIES IN DUBLIN CASTLE.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether two burglaries were recently committed in the Irish Police Stores Lower Castle Yard, and property to the value of about £80 stolen; whether the desk in the office of the Pay Clerk of the B Division was broken open and upwards of £100 stolen; whether the Aide-de-camp's quarters in the Lower Castle Yard were robbed of jewellery valued at about £30; whether a desk in the Chief Secretary's Office was broken open and some £35 stolen; and, whether the property has been recovered and whether the thieves have been made amenable to justice, or whether they are still at large?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have made inquiries in reference to this Question, and find that in July, 1879, property to the value of about £2 was stolen from the General Police Stores in the Lower Castle Yard. No person was made amenable for the offence. About five or six years ago the pay clerk's desk was forced open, and, as well as can be ascertained, about £4 was stolen. No one was made amenable. In April, 1881, some jewellery, valued at £49, was stolen from the aide-de- camp's quarters; upwards of £35 worth was recovered, and one person was arrested and convicted of receiving stolen goods. And in January last a sum of £34 was stolen from a desk in the Chief Secretary's Department; but the thief has not been discovered.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN CHINGLEPUT.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that wide-spread discontent at the administration of justice in Chingleput has existed for a long time among the

  605
  Native population; whether he is aware that all the leading Madras newspapers, both English and Native, join in the complaints of the Native population; and, whether he has ordered any steps to be taken in the matter?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, it appears from the Indian newspapers that in May, 1881, charges of attempted extortion were made by some Brahmins in the Chingleput district against the Tahsildar—who is a subordinate Native Revenue officer—of their Talook, and that these charges resulted in a Departmental inquiry and the institution of a variety of criminal proceedings in the Courts. These proceedings, it would appear, were at first favourable to the incriminated Tahsildar, but subsequently seem to have assumed a different aspect. The Tahsildar is said to have absconded, and a warrant to have been issued for his arrest on the charge of stealing certain papers connected with the case. Whether he has been arrested or not is not certain. This information is gathered from the Indian newspapers; but no information on the subject has reached the India Office officially; and, under the circumstances, I have not ordered, and have no present intention of ordering, any steps to be taken in the matter. The case seems to have attracted a great deal of attention in the Press, English and Native; but I am not aware that widespread discontent at the administration of justice in Chingleput can be said to have existed for a long time.

  EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any proposals have been made for the admission of Spain to the Conference respecting Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no formal proposals have been made; but there have been some confidential conversations on the subject.
  MR. O'DONNELLinquired whether the Government had heard, as stated in the Madrid Press, that Germany had invited Spain to a share in the proposed International Protectorate of the Suez Canal, and that the offer of Germany had been accepted by the Spanish Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; I should regard that story as entirely imaginary.
  MR. BOURKE: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow, on going into Committee of Supply, I shall make inquiry of the Government with respect to the position of this country in our relations with Egypt at the present time, and also as to our relations with Foreign Powers on the same subject. And as the proceedings of the Conference are evidently not secret, I shall ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give us any information with respect to certain telegrams which appear in the papers as to the proceedings at the Conference during the last two or three days, and also with respect to the neutralization of the Suez Canal and its protection both in times of peace and war?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I can say at once that no arrangements for the neutralization of the Suez Canal have been made. Although I shall be very glad to listen to what the right hon. Gentleman may have to say, it will not be in my power to make any statement with regard to the proceedings of the Conference.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, When the Indian Budget will be introduced, and whether the Government will grant facilities for the discussion of its details in Committee?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Prime Minister proposes that the Indian Budget shall be brought on as soon as the Business of Supply and the Lords Amendments to the Arrears Bill shall have been disposed of, and we hope that that will be by the middle or the end of next week. I propose, before making my Statement on the Indian Budget, to lay upon the Table of the House Papers containing a considerable number of figures, which will enable the House to consider the Budget with greater facility than if no such figures were supplied. This course will also have the desirable effect of considerably curtailing my Statement. I presume it will be for the Committee to determine the extent of the discussion on the details of the Budget.

  GIBRALTAR—THE NEWSPAPER PRESS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary of State for the

  607
  Colonies, Whether the Government are aware of the action of the Governor of Gibraltar in respect of the local newspaper, "El Calpense," the licence to publish which was revoked on the 20th ultimo; and, whether the Government approve of the action of the Governor?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, in reply, said, that the Governor of Gibraltar possessed full legal power to act in the manner in which the hon. Member in his Question alleged that he had acted. No information on the subject had reached the Colonial Office.

  PORTUGAL—THE "CITY OF MECCA."
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Papers on the City of Mecca case against the Portuguese Government will be in the hands of Members before the recess; and, if Her Majesty' Government intends to insist on an International arbitration?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Portuguese Government have declined arbitration in this case on grounds stated in a Note which is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government in consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown. The Papers will be printed and distributed as soon as Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon has received further instructions in the matter.

  BRAZIL—CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can yet say how much longer the unfortunate British subjects who have claims against Brazil are to wait for justice being done them?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government are fully sensible of the hardship entailed on the British claimants against Brazil by the long delay which has occurred in the settlement of their demands; but the adjustment of these claims and of the counterclaims of Brazil has been attended with great difficulty. The question has received the most careful consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's Government during the last few months; and they are considering, at the present time, measures which they have reason to hope will facilitate the settlement of this question.

  ARMY—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS.
  MR. MOOREasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, What steps have been taken to obtain the services of Roman Catholic Chaplains for the troops serving in Egypt?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER, in reply, said, he could assure the House that the spiritual interests of the Roman Catholic soldiers who were to serve in Egypt would not be lost right of. No less than five Roman Catholic chaplains were going to the East, and they would be distributed in such a manner as should be most expedient.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped that similar regard would be shown to Presbyterians.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, that two Presbyterian ministers would accompany the Forces.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (EXPENSES).
  MR. GIBSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What does he now estimate the expenses of the Irish Land Commission at for the current financial year; what was the amount of the original estimate; is it intended to submit any Supplementary Estimate on the subject; and, what is the amount of the estimated receipts of the Irish Land Commission for the current financial year from the stamps and fees of suitors?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the original Estimate for the Irish Land Commission is £92,552, to which should be added £3,500 charged on the Consolidated Fund for the salary of the Judicial Commissioner. I have no information as to the present rate of actual expenditure on the Vote, and have heard nothing of a Supplementary Estimate; but I may mention that the Exchequer issues for the first four months of the year indicate an expenditure well within the limits of the Vote. As the fixed salaries form little more than one-half of the Vote, and the figures of the other items are Estimates based on very slight experience, it would be obviously premature to express an opinion at present as to the probable cost of the Commission in the present financial year. The receipts from fees have been estimated at £6,600; but

  609
  we have not ventured to form an estimate of the produce of stamps on originating notices, which depends upon the number of such notices.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that the appointment of the four additional Sub-Commissioners, involving an expenditure of £6,000 each, would amount to £24,000; and there was a further anticipated expenditure of £2,000.
  MR. COURTNEY: The right hon. and learned Member, I think, has been too liberal in his estimate with regard to the Sub-Commissioners.
  MR. GIBSON: What is it, then?
  MR. COURTNEY: I have not the figures by me. I can only repeat that I believe the original estimate will cover the whole of the expenditure.

  VACCINATION—ALLEGED DEATH OF CHILDREN AT NORWICH FROM EFFECTS OF OPERATION—THE REPORT.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has yet received the Report of the Medical Inspector of the Board in regard to the vaccination fatality at Norwich; whether he is aware that other similar cases have since occurred there; and, whether he will issue immediate instructions forbidding the use of the lymph which has produced such results?
  MR. DODSON: I have not yet received the report of the Medical Inspector of the Board, as the investigation has not yet been completed. I have heard that one case of erysipelas has occurred at Norwich in a recently-vaccinated child since the group of cases to which my attention was first directed; but, at present, I have no information showing that the erysipelas was due to the lymph employed.

  EGYPT—THE PORTE AND THE REVENUES OF EGYPT.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the statement contained in a telegram from Constantinople, which appeared in the "Times" of Wednesday last, that the Porte is raising money upon the security of the Egyptian Revenues; and, if so, whether the Powers, under existing circumstances, recognise these Revenues as chargeable in that manner?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have received no official information with regard to the report mentioned by my hon. Friend. The matter has not been brought before the Powers; but Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that such charges would not be justified.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CASES OF PATRICK REILLY AND JAMES YOUNG.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he will state the reasons why Patrick Reilly, who was returned for trial by the magistrates sitting at Cavan Petty Sessions on 12th June, and Thomas Young, who was returned for trial by the same Bench on 26th June, were not put upon their trial at the recent assizes; and, whether the charge upon which both men were committed was for threatening and endeavouring to intimidate a man who had taken certain Boycotted lands?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Patrick Reilly was not put upon his trial, because I, in the exercise of my powers, did not think the evidence sufficiently strong against him; and Thomas Young was not put upon his trial for precisely the same reason. The charge against them was that mentioned in the Question. I did not think that the evidence was reliable.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any objection to answer my Question?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I have answered it.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: That was not an answer to my Question.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I think the House will agree with me that I have given a very complete answer to the hon. Member's Question. He has asked me why these men were not put upon their trial, and I have said that it was because the Crown did not think the evidence sufficiently reliable. Then he has asked me as to whether the charges were for threatening and endeavouring to intimidate a man who had taken "Boycotted" lands, and I have said it was, but I believed that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the charge.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: The Question is, "If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will state his reasons?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I have stated the reasons. I had to consider whether the cases were such as should be submitted to a jury or not, and I considered that they ought not to be for the reasons stated.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA.
  MR. MACLIVERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will consider the twenty-eight days' additional training of the Militia (practically putting two years' training into one) a reason for giving the men the £1 bounty as well as the pay?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir. A militiaman is liable to serve for 56 days, and I see no reason for the suggestion that he should receive extra bounty for service to which he is liable, and for which he is paid.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—DUBLIN CROWN PROSECUTOR.
  MR. WARTONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, What is the reason of the delay in the appointment of the Crown Prosecutorship for Dublin?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I have to apologize to the hon. and learned Member for not being in the House last night. The reason of the delay is that I have not yet determined upon whom the office shall be conferred. If the hon. and learned Member will tell me in whom he is interested, I will tell him whether the gentleman is among the applicants for the post.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—EXAMINATION OF VOLUNTEER OFFICERS.
  MR. MOSSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the result of the Examination of Volunteer Officers in Tactics will not be soon made known, the Examination having taken place so long ago as the 6th of June last?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; the results of the examination have been made known to the general officers commanding districts to-day, and will be published.

  MALTA—THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he is aware that it is stated, in Maltese newspapers, that Sir Adrian Dingli is about to be added to the Executive Council; and, if he can give them any assurance that the step in question will not be taken?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, in reply, said, the report was not true.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—MAJOR GENERAL FEILDING, C.B.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state why Major-General the Hon. Percy Feilding, C.B., commanding the troops at Malta, a very distinguished officer, mentioned in Despatches, and promoted for service in the field at Alma, severely wounded at Inkerman, employed for four years as A.Q.M. General in Ireland, and, after holding regimental command for twelve years, selected to command the troops at Malta, was not sent in command of the three battalions which have recently left Malta for Egypt?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I feel sure that the House will support me in declining to answer any Question why a particular officer, however distinguished, is not employed on any particular service, and I much regret that the gallant Officer should set such an example. I may, however, add that he is mistaken in two respects. General Feilding does not command the force at Malta, but is second in command; and no force of three battalions has gone to Egypt from Malta as a brigade requiring the appointment of a brigadier. Three battalions have, at different times, gone to Alexandria from Malta; but they have been replaced by other battalions, and the services of the general second in command are as much required now as they were before the battalions left. The troops in Egypt, whether drawn from home or from the Mediterranean garrisons, will be commanded by the general officers who accompany them from this country.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF A PICKET OF THE 60TH RIFLES.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there

  613
  was any foundation for the report which appeared in yesterday's newspapers, with respect to an alleged flight of a British picket at Alexandria, and whether there was any reason to believe that any members of the gallant regiment of Rifles referred to had done anything that was discreditable to a British soldier?
  MR. CHILDERS: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for asking me this Question, and although the hon. Gentleman did not give me Notice of it until we met to-day, I have been able to get a copy of a despatch which the Government received from General Alison last night, and which was in these words. It appears in the newspapers of to-day—
  "Left front picket of Ramleh lines driven in by body of Arabi's cavalry at 2 o'clock this morning. Picket maintained its position 80 yards in rear of its original post. Firing continued some time, and Arabi's men shortly withdrew. Post re-occupied. No casualty."
  I also telegraphed yesterday, as I think my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated, to know whether there was any truth in the statement made—I think in a most extraordinary and much to be regretted manner—in a supposed message sent to The Daily Telegraph. General Alison's reply, in general terms, was that he knew nothing about it, but that the facts were as stated in his despatch. Perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of expressing the hope, which I have expressed before, that editors of newspapers will be cautious in publishing telegrams of this kind. This is the second time it has occurred. Some days ago there was a statement published in another newspaper—which I read in letters six inches long all over London—about a great defeat of the British troops. There was not one iota of truth in it. Considering the very bad effect that these inaccurate statements—I will not use stronger words—produce not only upon the public mind, but upon the Army itself, I hope that newspaper editors will exercise to some extent the use of the scissors, which they know how to use so well, and that they will be cautious as to the insertion of statements of that character.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: Having regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, I will ask him whether, considering that the consequence of this
  614
  message in The Daily Telegraph has been most injurious to the feelings and honour of one of the most gallant regiments in Her Majesty's Service, he will draw the attention of the general officer commanding at Alexandria to the matter, with a view to the exclusion from the British lines of that correspondent?
  MR. CHILDERS: I should not like to give a definite answer to that Question at this moment; but Lord North-brook and I are in communication with the authorities at Alexandria on this subject, and I think the House will be satisfied that the regulations which have been recently published, and have been made known to the editors of newspapers, as to the duties of correspondents in the field will have the desired effect of producing more care in the despatch of information by those correspondents.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Premier on what day the House would be called upon to consider the Amendments made by the House of Lords in the Arrears of Rent Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the Lords' Amendments on the Arrears Bill, I may say that we propose to take a little time, that the House may have an opportunity of fully considering them, and we propose to take them on Tuesday next. I promised to state to-day what course we should take in regard to the Police Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is very sorry to find, from the declarations of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that he has no prospect of carrying it without considerable delay and discussion, and it would be probably inconsistent with the pledges given as to the period when the Session will terminate to go forward with it. Under these circumstances, therefore, it will be dropped. I may say we shall continue to press forward Supply as far as we can, with only the interpolation of certain Bills that are not expected to take any length of time. In regard to those Bills, we have been anxious, if we could, to avoid asking the House to sit on Saturday; but we are not certain yet whether it will not be necessary to make a suggestion of that kind. I have a request from Mr. Blunt, who was mentioned the other day, that I would make known, on his behalf—

  615
  "That with, the exception of receiving, on the 13th of July, Arabi Pasha's letter to Mr. Gladstone, I have had no communication, direct or indirect, with Egypt since the bombardment."
  He likewise, as a question arose as to the genuineness of that letter of Arabi Pasha, is desirous that I should state publicly in the House of Commons that the gentleman who took down in English the letter from the dictation in Arabic by Arabi Pasha at Alexandria, on the 2nd of July, is now in England, and can bear testimony to the fact that it was a lelter dictated by Arabi Pasha.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSbelieved that the majority of the names that were put down in opposition to the Police Bill were those of Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I understand, Sir, that the opposition of those hon. Gentlemen has for the most part been withdrawn.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I wish to ask a Question in connection with the statement just made by the Prime Minister, who dwelt upon various topics, but did not conclude with any absolute Motion. It will, therefore, be necessary for me to confine myself to the form of interrogatory. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the course upon which he has decided in connection with the consideration of the Amendments made by the other House on the Arrears Bill is most unusual—["Order!"]—especially in connection with a measure which we have been constantly informed—[Loud cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, of course, if necessary, I shall, to make use of a phrase just now employed by the hon. Member for Wicklow, regularize my proceedings by concluding with a Motion. I ask whether that course is not most unusual, especially with respect to a measure in regard to which we have been constantly assured it was most important that it should be definitely disposed of without a moment's delay? I further ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that that tacit understanding has led to arrangements being made by both Houses of Parliament which would cause a great deal of inconvenience, owing to the postponement of the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to a far later date than had been generally anticipated? ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is entering into debatable matter.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I will, if necessary, conclude with a Motion. [An hon. MEMBER: You cannot.] The hon. Member says I cannot. Evidently, he is not aware that I can. I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question—Whether he is not aware that the relative proportion of forces between the Government and the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament, when the month of August is entered upon, proceeds at a rate and in favour of one side which is tolerably well known, and if he can give the House any reason beyond that which he has stated why such an unusual proceeding has been adopted? In addition, I will ask if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the result of divisions, under these conditions, can be fairly taken as represented the opinion of Parliament?
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he would like to ask, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire, whether there would be a Morning Sitting on Tuesday?
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill not becoming law in a short time, Her Majesty's Government would consider the propriety of refusing to give the support of the Crown to the evicting of tenants, whose eviction would have been avoided if that Bill had been passed?
  COLONEL NOLANasked the right hon. Gentleman whether 100,000 Irish tenants were not worth more consideration than 100,000 Scotch grouse?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane), I may say his Question is an expression of feeling which is natural enough; but, at the same time, I do not think he can expect me to give any answer to the effect that we could, under any circumstances, act or do otherwise than perform our duty in the execution of the actual laws, whatever they may be, so long as we find it consistent with our convictions to remain the Government of the country. In regard to the Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), I stated a few nights ago that at the close of the Session it will be usual to revert

  617
  to the Afternoon Sitting, and that will be the course we shall take on Tuesday next. With regard to the Question of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), I am not quite sure into how many Questions it branches out. There are various interrogations as to the state of my information, with reference to the period of the Session, and the importance of divisions taken at the present period of the Session, on which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will consider that any opinion given by me is very greatly worthy his consideration. Consequently, I am not disposed to trouble him with an opinion on these matters. The point he has put to me, on which he may fairly expect an answer is—How is it we, who have expressed the greatest possible anxiety to have expedition with respect to the Arrears Bill, have proposed that some days should elapse before we proceed to consider the Amendments, which undoubtedly might have been taken into consideration at an earlier date? My answer is this. We have been extremely anxious to expedite the Arrears Bill both in this and the other House of Parliament. I confess in regard to the other House of Parliament, I was rather at a loss to understand some of the intervals that were allowed to elapse; but if the right hon. Gentleman asks me why we have not asked this House to come to an immediate judgment upon the Amendments made by the House of Lords, I tell him plainly that it is because of the extreme importance which we attach to some of these Amendments, and the consequences that may possibly result from them. On that account we have been most desirous that nothing should be done precipitately, and that the House should have full opportunity of considering before it comes to what may be a very momentous decision.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA.
  COLONEL STANLEY: I beg to give Notice that I shall, on Tuesday next, ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the Constitutional obligations of calling Parliament together within 10 days after the embodiment of the military, and the fact that the extended time for duty must in many cases expire within a few days after
  618
  Parliament shall have been adjourned or prorogued, it is the intention of the Government to take the necessary steps during the present Session for embodying any Militia or other regiments?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had better reply to that Question at once, by saying that the Government had no present intention of embodying the Militia.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTgave Notice that he would, on Monday, ask the Prime Minister why the Papers on the proposed Channel Tunnel had not yet been laid on the Table, and why the discussion upon them had been deferred so long as to be practically impossible this Session?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had only today received the final revise of these Papers. They would be laid upon the Table in the course of a few days.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTasked whether the House would have an opportunity of discussing them?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not think it would be possible. He reminded the hon. Member that the Bills before Parliament could not be gone on with this Session.

  PORTUGAL—NATIVE EMIGRATION FROM MOZAMBIQUE.
  MR. ARTHUR PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have any information from Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon, or other sources, as to arrangements reported to be in progress for obtaining slaves as "engageés" for the French planters in Nossibe, Mayotte, and Réunion from the Portuguese settlements in Mosambique?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Consul at Mozambique has reported that a Decree had been passed by the Portuguese Government permitting the emigration of Natives from the Portuguese Possessions on the East Coast of Africa to Mayotte and Nossibe. Her Majesty's Government have expressed to the French and Portuguese Governments their apprehension that such an emigration would, under another name, be tantamount to a revival of the Slave Trade. Her Majesty's Government are awaiting the result of this representation.

  EGYPT—LETTER OF ARABI PASHA.
  MR. M'COANasked the Prime Minister, Whether the person referred to in Mr. Blunt's statement who corresponded with Arabi Pasha was a certain Rev. Mr. Sapûnjy, who was either a Copt or a Syrian by birth, and was now an English missionary, and at the present time in London; and whether it was this gentleman who "took down" Arabi's letter to the Prime Minister?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no information as to the name of the gentleman. It is simply stated that he is in England.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  RESERVE FORCES ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.— [BILL 124.]
  (Mr. Secretary Childers, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  RESERVE FORCES ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.— [BILL 124.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Calling out army reserve in aid of the civil power).
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the 3rd sub-section of the clause provided that the Lord Lieutenant should exercise the power of calling out the Army Reserve to aid the civil power in the preservation of the public peace, vested by the section in the Secretary of State. He wished to know what the powers of the Lord Lieutenant were in regard to the Army Reserve?
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, that under the late law the powers given to the Secretary of State in Great Britain were also given to the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. A question had arisen whether, under the words of the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 110, s. 9, these powers were sufficiently explicit. It was considered doubtful whether, under that section, the power possessed by the Secretary of State would extend to Ireland; and the words contained in the 3rd section were inserted in order to make the matter perfectly clear?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was one Question in connection with the calling out of the Reserves which he
    620
    wished to put to the Government. He had put the Question a night or two ago, but had failed to elicit a satisfactory answer. Some years ago an alteration was made in the Regulations in reference to the rights of the Reserve Forces when called out for active service. Whereas, before that time, they had been allowed to count their service, in the Reserve, towards their good conduct pay and pension; their rights in that respect were taken away from them by the new Regulations. When a man enlisted, it was always the practice to supply him with a small book giving detailed explanations, shaped for his guidance, of the terms of service which he was under. One of the Regulations contained in that book stated that the Reserve men were to count their Reserve service towards their good conduct pay; and when an alteration in the Regulations was made recently, no change whatever was made in the instructions contained in these small books under which the men had been enlisted all over the country for many years. Therefore, the men naturally concluded, according to the terms contained in the books supplied to them, that they had full right to calculate their Reserve service towards their good conduct pay. When the Reserves were called out on the last occasion, it was found that a great grievance existed in almost every regiment in consequence of the military authorities having declined to sanction the issue of good conduct pay, as regulated by Reserve service. He asked the Government to make an inquiry as to the date on which proper information was issued to the recruits upon this point. If a man joined prior to the issue of direct information, he ought not to be refused the good conduct pay he had a right to calculate upon.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL. (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he did not see under what part of the clause now under discussion the question could arise.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it naturally arose on Clause 5 in regard to the calling out of the Reserves. There were certain Regulations in force as to the terms on which the Reserves were to be called out.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he was afraid he was not in a position to

    621
    answer the Question at the present moment.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he should be glad if the War Office would tell him, before the Session closed, how many men of the 1st battalion of the Army Reserve had had notices sent to them, and how many men had appeared in answer to their names? He did not press for the information now, because it was possible that even up to the last day the men might be coming in. It was, however, an important matter for the country, and it certainly would very greatly relieve his own mind, if a statement of these facts were made, because he had already heard a good deal about the Reserve, and he had himself expressed a fear that they would not come up when called on. It would, therefore, relieve his mind to a considerable extent, if he were informed before the Recess in what manner the men had answered to the call. He would also like to put one further Question to the military authorities in connection with these matters. He should like, before the House rose, to have some information as to the number of fraudulent enlistments which had taken place during the last 12 months? That was an important matter in connection with the calling out of the Reserves. He was of opinion that it would be ascertained that a great number of men belonging to the Army Reserve had fraudulently enlisted again in the Army on account of not being able to obtain civil employment, and not being in a condition to live on the Reserve pay allowed to them.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, that if his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Henry Fletcher) would address to him, or to the Secretary of State, a Question, before the House rose, he would be able to obtain all the detailed information in the possession of the War Office as to the manner in which the men had come up. Perhaps it would be sufficient to say now that they were coming up satisfactorily. A Report had been received from the Bristol district, in which it was stated that every man had appeared in answer to his name. It would not be necessary to move for a Return; but if his hon. and gallant Friend would put a Question, later on, he (Sir Arthur Hayter) would be glad to answer it.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, that he would endeavour to obtain the information before the rising of the House.
    COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he hoped that the calling out of the Reserves at this moment would not be allowed to interfere with the harvest operations of the country. He wished to know if there was any objection to the same system being carried out now as was carried out at the time of the Crimean War, when those farmers who could not obtain a sufficient number of hands in their own neighbourhood to assist them in getting in the harvest, were allowed the services of the men who had joined the Reserves? If the necessity arose this year for any such assistance, would there be any objection to grant it?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not come before the Committee upon the present Bill, and it would be better to mention the subject on Monday upon the Army Estimates.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Punishment of certain offences by Army Reserve men) agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Men exempt from parish offices, &c).
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that, under this clause, a man belonging to the Army Reserve was not to he liable to serve the office of constable, or any other parochial, township, or borough office. But it was very well known that Army Reserve men were serving in the Police Forces all over the country. He would, therefore, ask this question—Whether it was not true that the Army Reserve men, to a very large number, were now in the Metropolitan Police Force; and whether they had been called upon to join their regiments at once? He had heard that there were in the Police Force of the country a very large number as well as in the Metropolitan Police Force. Was that so or not?
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)was afraid that he was not in a position at present to answer that question. Clause 7 merely continued the present laws—the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 110, s. 17, and the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 77, s. 9.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend ought to be aware that the clause had nothing to do with the local Police Force. When the Reserves were called out on a previous occasion, a difficulty arose in regard to the men who were serving in the Police Force of the country, not only in the Metropolis, but also in the various Municipal Police Forces of the country. Representations were made to the public bodies by which these men were employed, and there was a general agreement to keep open their places and allow these men to return to their employment in the Police Force when their services were no longer required in the Reserve.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 8 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Assembly of Parliament when reserve forces ordered to be called out on permanent service).
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he had stated on Saturday that this Bill was purely a Consolidation Bill; but he had forgotten to say that there was a new provision in the measure—namely, the 13th clause, which provided that when the Reserve Forces were ordered to be called out, Parliament should be assembled within 10 days after they were called out on permanent service. The object of that provision was to assimilate the law in respect to the Reserves to that in force in regard to the Militia.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 14 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Punishment for inducing reserve man to desert or absent himself).
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he had an Amendment to propose in the 2nd sub-section, to insert the words "as if," instead of "to," in line 9, and to strike out the words "in like manner as if such man," in lines 9 and 10. The sub-section would then read that—
    "Section 152 of the Army Act, 1881, shall apply as if a man belonging to the Army or Militia Reserve were a soldier," &c.
    The clause was intended to apply to any
    624
    person who, by any means whatsoever, procured or persuaded a man belonging to the Army or Militia Reserve to be absent without leave or to desert.
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 9, leave out "to," and insert "as if."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the clause would read intelligibly if the proposed alteration were made?
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, the second Amendment must be taken in conjunction with the first, and then, instead of the section applying to a man belonging to the Army or Militia Reserve in like manner as if such man were a soldier, it would apply in any case in which a man belonging to the Army or Militia Reserve had been prevented or persuaded to be absent without leave or to desert, just as if he had been a soldier.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 9, leave out from "reserve" to "were," in line 10.—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 18 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 25 (Trial of offences).
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)moved, in page 11, line 36, after the word "shall," insert "notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act." It was provided by the Metropolitan Police Act that the Court should always have power in any case, notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act, to fix the minimum amount of fine or term of imprisonment; and the object of the Amendment was to provide that the amount of fine or term of imprisonment should be duly observed by the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and should not be reduced by way of mitigation or otherwise, notwithstanding any provision contained in any other Act.
    Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 36, after "shall," insert "notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 26 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 29 (Repeal of Acts).
    On the Motion of the JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 13, line 35, by inserting, at end—
    "Where a proclamation has been issued, or any man belonging to the Army or Militia Reserve has been called out before the commencement of this Act, this Act shall apply as if such proclamation had been issued, and men called out in pursuance of this Act."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MILITIA ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Childers, the Judge Advocate General, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MILITIA ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.

    [BILL 123.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Childers.)
    COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsaid, he wished to call attention to a number of details, which showed that the Militia was not prospering under the new system. The experience of the last few years in the county of Essex seemed to show that the Force was not so popular as it used to be, and recruiting had steadily fallen off. The enlistments numbered 411 in 1877, and they had since fallen as low as 220 in one year, and 107 in another. He believed, amongst other causes, this was due to the longer period of prior drill which recruits had now to undergo, and to the fact that they were mixed with the older soldiers at the depôt. The payment of 10 s. per recruit having also been stopped, the effect was seen in the diminution of enlistments. The recruits not only lost more time than they formerly did, but since they had been taken out of the hands of the non-commissioned officers they were not so well treated as they used to be. The consequences were seen in applications for discharge, which
    626
    had risen to 60 in the year. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would follow Lord Cardwell in his treatment of the Militia, and not allow the local element to be disparaged. That element was not as readily forthcoming as it used to be, and the old local character of the Force was, therefore, not being maintained. He would only add that he thought that the commanding officers should have some voice in the selection of the officers of their battalions.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the present was simply a Consolidation Bill, and he had not, therefore, prepared himself with the necessary material to answer the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member. He was, however, much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his suggestions, and they would be considered as far as practicable. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken as to the extent to which colonels of Militia battalions should have a voice in the selection of their officers. It would not be possible to give them the appointment of the officers, but he would be ready to consider whether they should not have some voice in the matter.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

  PART I.

    MAINTENANCE AND GOVERNMENT.
    Clause 3 (Raising and number of Militia).
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, in line 20, at the end of the clause, to add the words "and shall belong to some county Militia, under the provisions for raising the quotas of the several counties." He thought the Amendment would be in harmony with Clause 38, which made provision for the division of the Militia into quotas for service in several counties of the United Kingdom.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 30, after "Parliament," insert "and shall belong to some county Militia, under the provisions for raising the quotas of the several counties."—(General Sir George Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, it would be highly inconvenient to introduce the words proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend in the present clause. If they were required at all, they would come much better in the 9th clause, which provided that every militiaman should be enlisted as a militiaman for some county, and should be appointed to serve in some corps of that county, or for some area comprising the whole or part of that county.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he presumed that the object of the clause was to enable Her Majesty to embody as many Militia as were voted by Parliament. He regretted that the Irish Militia were not placed on the same footing as those of the rest of the United Kingdom. In other parts of the Kingdom there were territorial regiments; but in Ireland it seemed that Militia regiments were not wanted at all.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Organization of Militia).
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, in page 2, line 12, after "officers," insert—
    "And for attaching to such corps such staff, composed of officers and non-commissioned officers and men of the Regular Forces, for such periods as may be deemed advisable for aiding in disciplining and training the Militia bodies."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he thought that the Amendment proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend was quite unnecessary. According to the present system the Militia regiments belonged to one corps. The 2nd sub-section of Clause 4 made provision for the formation of militiamen into regiments, battalions, or military bodies, either alone or jointly with any other part of Her Majesty's Forces, and also regulated the appointment, rank, duties, and numbers of the Militia officers and non-commissioned officers. If the Amendment were accepted, and the officers and non-commissioned officers of the corps were discarded in favour of a staff composed of officers and non-commissioned officers from the Regular Forces, it would be necessary to have a change in the con-
    628
    stitution of the Militia altogether. He thought that Section 71 of the Army Act fully provided for everything his hon. and gallant Friend desired to meet.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Vesting in Her Majesty of jurisdiction under certain Acts in relation to the Militia) agreed to.
    Clause 6 (First appointments to lowest rank of Militia officer).
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, in page 3, line 12, after "manner," insert—
    "Provided the person or persons fulfil all the conditions prescribed by a Secretary of State, as to age, physical fitness, and educational qualifications."
    Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he would accept that Amendment with a slight alteration. He proposed to leave out the requirement that the conditions should be prescribed by a Secretary of State.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he would accept the alteration.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 12, after "manner," insert the words "provided the person or persons fulfil all the prescribed conditions, as to age, physical fitness, and educational qualifications."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Permanent staff).
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he proposed to add at the end of this clause an Amendment specifying that "all regulations providing for the duties, ranking, and position of such staff, shall be prescribed by a Secretary of State."
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he proposed to omit Clause 7 altogether.
    Motion made, and Question, "That Clause 7 be struck out of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  PART II.

    VOLUNTARY ENLISTMENT.
    Clause 8 (Raising of men by voluntary enlistment) agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Enlistment, term of service, and re-engagement) agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Application to Militia recruits of certain enlistment sections of 44 and 45 Victoria, c. 58).
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, in page 4, line 40, after "by," insert—
    "Or by any lieutenant or deputy lieutenant of any county in the United Kingdom, or by any justice of the peace, or by."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, the words "justice of the peace" were unnecessary, because all Justices of the Peace could enlist a recruit at the present moment. Indeed, he thought it hardly necessary to insert the Amendment at all, because he believed that, as a matter of fact, every Lord Lieutenant and Deputy Lieutenant was a magistrate.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken; it was not so.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)remarked, that if that was so, he should be happy to accept the Amendment so far as the words "lieutenant or deputy lieutenant in the United Kingdom" were concerned.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had no objection to strike out the words "or by any justice of the peace."
    Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, after "kingdom," leave out "or by any justice of the peace."—(General Sir George Balfour.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, the adoption of the Amendment would necessitate a consequential Amendment in the same section of the same clause. In page 5, line 3, it would be necessary to
    630
    leave out the word "an," in order to insert the words "lieutenant, deputy lieutenant, or."
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 3, leave out "an," and insert "lieutenant, deputy lieutenant, or."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Enlistment of men discharged with disgrace from Army or Navy, or contrary to rules) agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Enlistment of militiamen in regular forces) agreed to.

  PART III.

    GENERAL PROVISIONS.
    Clause 13 (Area of service of Militia).
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, in page 6, line 24, after "part," insert—
    "And such volunteers from the Militia shall be formed into separate battalions and companies, and provided with such staff of officers and men of the Regular Forces as may be prescribed by a Secretary of State, or may be attached to and form part for the time of such corps of the Regular Forces under regulations as may be issued by any officers to whom Her Majesty may, by the advice of a Secretary of State, delegate powers."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, it was impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. In point of fact, it was altogether contrary to the whole spirit of the clause. The clause, as it stood, re-enacted the existing law under the 38 & 39 Vict. c. 68. ss. 49 & 50, and empowered Her Majesty, if she thought fit, to employ the Militia in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Malta, and Gibraltar, but only when a voluntary offer of service was made. What the hon. and gallant Member now proposed was that the Militia should be allowed to volunteer and form separate corps of Volunteers to be attached to, and form part of, the Regular Forces, being officered by officers of the Regular Army. That would be altogether contrary to the present system. It would create a special corps of Volunteers, and entirely alter the existing law. Norwould it prove very effective, because, as a rule,

    631
    militiamen desired to serve with their own bodies, under their own officers. For these reasons, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that it was part of the old system to allow volunteers from the Militia to serve with the Regular Army. He believed that it would be found that in 1756, when the present system of Militia came in force, such a practice was in existence. At the same time, if the Government did not think it desirable to insert the Amendment, he would not press it upon them, but would withdraw it
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 14 (Oath of allegiance of militiaman) agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Preliminary training of Militia recruits).
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, in page 6, line 39, insert—
    "And may be trained by such staff of officers and men of the Regular Forces or of the Militia, as may be prescribed."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he would accept the Amendment; but it would be necessary to insert after "officers," the words "non-commissioned officers."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he accepted the proposed alteration.
    Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to insert after "officers," "non-commissioned officers."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 16 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 26 (Punishment for inducing militiaman to desert or absent himself).
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he had an Amendment to propose in this clause similar to the one which he had already explained in dealing with the
    632
    corresponding clause of the Reserve Forces Consolidation Bill. He proposed, in page 10, line 39, to leave out "to," and insert "as if."
    Question, "That the word 'to' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'as if' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of The JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 10, line 39, by leaving out the words "in like manner as if such militiaman."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 27 (Fraudulent enlistment, or false answer of militiaman) agreed to.
    Clause 28 (Liability of deserter, absentee, or fraudulent enlister to further service).
    On the Motion of The JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 12, line 11, after "deserter," by inserting "or absentee without leave."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 29 (Record of illegal absence of militiaman) agreed to.
    Clause 30 (Appointment of lieutenants of counties) agreed to.
    Clause 31 (Appointment, approval, and removal of deputy lieutenants).
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, in page 13, line 26, after "Act," insert—
    "And a Return of all persons by name who have been appointed deputy lieutenants or have ceased, shall be annually laid before Parliament, made up to thirty-first December, within ten days after Parliament meets."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he had no objection to the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 32 to 42, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 43 (Trial of offences and recovery and application of fines under Militia Acts).
    On the Motion of The JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 17, line 8, after "shall," by in-

    633
    serting "notwithstanding anything in any other Act contained."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SOUTH AFRICA (NATAL)—NATIVE SUBJECTS OF THE CROWN.

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he rose to call attention to the recent despatches of the Secretary of State for the Colonies regarding responsible government in Natal with special reference to the policy pursued towards the Native subjects of the British Crown in South Africa, and to move for Papers on the subject. He was anxious that Great Britain should occupy the South rather than the North of Africa, yet we had practically no power over the South African Colonies, which might at any time decide to proclaim themselves independent. He had had his Motion on the Paper for a long time, and the importance of it had now to a certain extent died out, as the Colony of Natal had shown its indisposition to accept responsible government in the terms in which it was offered by Her Majesty's Government; but the fact remained, nevertheless, that Her Majesty's Government did absolutely propose to make over to a body of Colonists, variously estimated at from 20,000 to 30,000, the rule and dominion over 400,000 black Natives of the territory. No opportunity would be given to the Natives, or to the British Parliament, to express any opinion beforehand as to the justice or propriety of a proceeding which embraced the fortunes, not only of these immediate 400,000, but to a large extent of the hundreds of thousands of Natives beyond the border, who, unlike the Maoris, rather increased in number and vitality than succumbed to the White man. He was not one of the "Rule Britannia" school. He was in no degree in favour of extending our
    634
    Empire; but he felt that we must exercise great care and great consideration before we withdrew from an Empire and a rule which we had already exercised, and it was in that sense that his mind had been a good deal exercised in regard to the policy which successive Governments of Her Majesty seemed to be bent on carrying out in South Africa. It seemed to him that the Natives of South Africa, who were now subjects of the British Crown, had a very strong case indeed for the continuance of the protection which had hitherto been accorded to them. It was unfortunately the case that where the mercantile interests of these islands were concerned, the people were much more disposed to take strong views with regerd to empire than to strictly observe the principles of faith and honour. This mode of conduct was strikingly displayed in our treatment of the Basutos, who had given up their independence on condition of being protected, and were then, without any consultation of their wishes, handed over to the Government of a Colony. He was in favour of retaining British control over the Native States of South Africa on various grounds. These Natives had already been receiving the protection of the British Crown, and in justice that protection could not suddenly be withdrawn. This policy might impose certain burdens on this country; but they would not be great, as, with the exception of the Zulus, the Natives were peaceable and docile, and the further one went into the interior the more peaceable they were. To afford this protection contingents from the Sikhs, Afghans, Beloochees, and other Indian troops might be employed. The climate would suit them; it would enable British troops to be employed elsewhere, which, owing to the smallness of the Army, would be an advantage, and a larger Indian force might be maintained, without keeping too many Indian soldiers in India. The South African Natives, when civilized, were a peaceful, hard-working people, quite capable of becoming good subjects, and especially capable of becoming good Christians. Further, it would be for all parties better that, under English guidance, these Colonies should eventually become English-speaking Colonies than Dutch-speaking Colonies, in some respects antagonistic to us. The more this subject was discussed, the

    635
    more was he convinced that while our highway to India through the Suez Canal was very useful in time of peace, our real resource, in a time of difficulty and war, was the route by the Cape, and it was, therefore, of the utmost importance that we should maintain our hold on the South African Colonies. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will he graciously pleased to give directions that there he laid before this House, further Papers relating to the policy pursued by the Government of Natal towards the Native subjects of the British Crown,"—(Sir George Campbell,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he desired to point out that, although the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) began by admitting that the time for bringing forward his Resolution had passed, as the Colony of Natal had recently declined to accept responsible government, yet he had managed to bring into his speech a variety of subjects, and had stated views as to the proper mode of dealing with the Natives in South Africa, in which he (Sir Henry Holland) hoped very few Members would be found to concur. The hon. Member had not hesitated to declare that this country ought to take under its direct protection and care all the Natives outside the Colonies. This was a very sweeping proposal; and the way in which it was to be worked out, if he had rightly understood the hon. Member, was most extraordinary. First, he proposed to flood the poor Natives with Sikhs, Beloochistanees, and other Indian troops; secondly, to make the Natives pay all the expenses, so that this country should not be mulcted; and, thirdly, to make them all Christians. The question how to deal with Natives outside the Colonial frontiers was grave enough; but it could hardly be disposed of in this off-hand manner. Then, as regarded Natives within our Colonies, the hon. Member said he would not go into detail; and it was fortunate he did not, for it would have been very difficult for him to show
    636
    from the correspondence that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to hand over the absolute government of the Natives to the Colonists upon their acceptance of responsible government. He (Sir Henry Holland) should be very much surprised if hon. Members on the Government Bench assented to this view. In truth, the very reverse was the fact, for the Government made it an express condition that all legislation affecting the Natives should be subject to the consideration and, if necessary, veto of the Home Government. But he (Sir Henry Holland) had interfered in the debate mainly to protest against it being thought, as the hon. Member seemed to think, that the Natives were now unfairly treated and oppressed by the Colonists. The hon. Member had drawn a contrast in this respect between the Cape Colony and Natal in favour of the former. He (Sir Henry Holland), while contending that the Natives in the Cape Colony were well treated, was satisfied that they were not less well treated in Natal. During all the time that Sir Theophilus Shepstone managed Native affairs the greatest consideration was shown to them; and he asserted, from his experience at the Colonial Office, that, as a rule, the Natives were well satisfied and content. The best proof of this was, that during all the time when there was so much disturbance in Zululand, and elsewhere outside the Colonial frontiers, the Natives within the borders remained quiet, and, indeed, supported the Colonial cause. And, as a further proof, he would point to their increase of numbers, and to their increasing wealth and prosperity, and generally improved condition. These were facts, and he had thought it only due to the Colonists to rise in his place and defend them against attacks of this kind. There were no grounds for assuming that the case would be different if they had responsible government; but, if they were so inclined, the Home Government had reserved a power to interfere.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that during the 10 or 15 minutes his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy had addressed the House, he had managed to introduce more new ideas, more average questions, and more involved and insoluble problems than he had ever heard in one speech before. The questions of the disposition of the Indian

    637
    Army, of the Constitutional rights of interposition, of the general question of Colonial Government, he would, with the hon. Member's permission, pass by. With respect to Natal, that Colony was quite an exception among our Colonies. It enjoyed a representative system of its own to a certain extent, but had not full responsibility. His hon. Friend was perfectly right in saying that the question of full, responsible, representative institutions was not the pressing question. He begged distinctly to express his agreement with his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Holland) as to the conduct of the Colonists to the Natives. There was, no doubt, great temptation to a certain class among the Colonists to trespass on the rights of the Natives. But he was convinced that the great body of the Colonists did not do so. He wished to tell his hon. Friend that there was no such thing as a particular territory occupied by the Natives, while the rest was given up to the Colonists. The Natives and Whites freely intermingled with each other, and were on the best terms. Lord Kimberley, in his recent despatch on the question of responsible self-government in the Colony, had dwelt on the importance of securing the rights of the Natives in their locations. These "locations" were a very different thing from a territory. They were lands vested in trustees for the good of the Natives, and Lord Kimberley desired to see the Natives secured in the enjoyment of them. There could be no doubt that, if the offer of self-government had been accepted by the people of Natal, the Colonial Office would have taken care that the provisions hitherto made for the protection and prosperity of the Native population should be secured to them by legislative enactment. The Basuto Question was entirely distinct. After the receipt of Lord Kimberley's despatch, the Colonial Assembly was dissolved in order to obtain the opinion of the people by a fresh election on the questions submitted to them by that despatch. No official information or Papers had been received, and for the present he could say no more on the subject.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that as there were no Papers to give, he would, of course, withdraw his Motion. He wished to explain, however, that he in no degree charged the people or the
    638
    Government of Natal with oppressing the Natives.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy did well to keep a sharp look-out on the treatment of the Natives of South Africa. When the South Africa Bill was under discussion, he (Mr. O'Donnell) had succeeded in passing an Amendment, the effect of which had been described in the statement that Natal was forbidden to annex anything. The Bill had been virtually dropped, and after five years the Government had recognized that the Irish Members were fully justified in the 26 hours' vehement opposition which they offered to it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—RELEASE OF PERSONS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that in accordance with the Forms of the House, and after what had just taken place, he was precluded from moving the Resolution with regard to the circumstances connected with the present administration of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act; but he thought he might usefully occupy the attention of the House in calling attention to the subject connected with the administration of the Act of last year. He promised to keep well within the terms of his Motion whilst he endeavoured to press on the Government one or two aspects of the case, with the view of inducing them to put a stop to coercion by the infliction of punishment upon innocent persons. On the 1st July last he saw by the Returns that there were 186 persons still in prison under that Act, and he did not think that since that time the number had been very much diminished, and if he said there were at present 150 persons still there, he was well within the mark. These might be divided into two classes—those who were suspected of personal complicity in crime, and those who were not so suspected; and even in regard to the former class, he thought the time had come

    639
    when they should be set at liberty. The Protection of Person and Property Act was passed on the plea that the Government knew who were the guilty men, and that they would be put on their trial but for two circumstances—first, that witnesses were afraid to come forward to give evidence; and, secondly, that juries were unwilling to convict. He contended that the Coercion Act of the present year removed these grounds for passing the Act. The law now afforded ample security against intimidation of every kind, while Government officials were empowered to conduct trials without the intervention of a jury. With regard to those "suspects" who were not accused of complicity with crime, there were still 60 of them in prison; and he based the case for their release upon the statement made by the Prime Minister, on the 2nd of May, that the list of "suspects" would be examined immediately, as the Irish Members understood, with a view to the release of all who were not suspected of personal complicity with crime. Three Irish Members were released, but 60 "suspects" of the class in question were still in prison. Why had they not been released? If they had been brought before the Summary Courts established by the Coercion Act, the whole, or nearly the whole, of them would ere now have served out the full period of the maximum sentences which such Courts might have passed upon them. The Chief Secretary had assured him that he would consider the propriety of releasing these men when the time for harvest operations had arrived. Harvest operations were now going on, and yet the men were in prison. One whose case he had repeatedly mentioned was a young man with an aged father, who stood much in need of the son's help. More influential persons who had been arrested at the same time had long been set at liberty, and from these anomalies the Act appeared to be administered in a random and zig-zag fashion. There were cases in which farms were left in charge of the prisoners' wives and female relatives, to the great detriment of the families' interests. The further imprisonment of these men could not apparently serve any other purpose than vindictiveness. The Coercion Act would expire on the 30th of September, and to keep all the "suspects" in prison until that day and
    640
    release them all at once would not have a salutary effect upon an imaginative and warm-hearted people. The Executive ought to show a little graciousness in dealing with such a people, and ought not to act the part of political Shy locks by keeping these men in prison till the last moment the Protection Act would allow. They might fairly let them out in the present month.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had made two counts against the Government, upon which there was a good deal to say from the points of view of strict logic and practical reason; but there were two or three considerations which required to be remembered in judging the charge brought against the present policy of the Government in Ireland. The first count was that of putting persons into prison under the Protection Act when the Government were armed with a very powerful Crimes Prevention Act The hon. Member would believe him, he hoped, when he said that one of the features of the Crimes Prevention Bill which commended that measure to himself was that it would enable the Government to dispense with a species of legislation which might have a temporary effect, but could not have a permanent one in maintaining law and order. But the operation of the Act must necessarily be slow. That Act, he believed, would do a great deal to increase the confidence of witnesses in giving their testimony; but it would accomplish that purpose slowly, because some convictions of criminals must take place the justice of which would commend themselves to the general population before that population, unaccustomed now to convictions in agrarian cases, could feel that punishment followed crime. When convictions of that kind had been obtained, he had no doubt that evidence would slowly but steadily be coming forward. They knew well, however, from experience, that such a condition of things had not yet arrived. Since Lord Spencer had come into Office about 50 persons had been put in prison under the Protection Act; but from what districts and under what circumstances had they been imprisoned? He believed that no person had been imprisoned under the Protection Act by Lord Spencer for intimidating or "Boycotting." Thirty-five of those 50 "suspects" were from Galway and the neighbourhood of those ter-

    641
    rible murders which had shocked Ireland and England. Eleven were from Dublin; but these were put in prison in consequence of, and in connection with, the recent murders there, which were connected with the Fenian Society. Three were from the County Cavan; but they were arrested distinctly and avowedly on account of a very serious outrage committed on a man named Trimble. One was from Silo, and, though he did not know that case very well, he believed the arrest was on suspicion of having taken part in an unlawful assembly.
    MR. SEXTON: Was he the man arrested on the old warrant?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Yes. Hon. Members might say that 35 was a large number to have arrested, even in connection with terrible offences like the murder near Loughrea; but the real cause of the arrests having been so numerous was that an unhealthy state of society existed in that district with which any Government would have been unable to cope without them, even under the more potent weapons provided by the Prevention of Crime Act. He allowed that when the Protection Act expired these men would have to be released. He allowed that whatever crimes might be committed they could not, after the 30th September, put any person into prison on suspicion. He disliked extremely to have to stand up there and appear to account for imprisonments which he was responsible for, but the reasons for which he could not give. He looked forward with pleasure to the time when he should be free from the responsibility of detaining men for reasons which he could not state publicly, and when none would be imprisoned except after conviction by a judicial tribunal. But he could not think that any legitimate charge could be brought against the Irish Government, because in the transitory state of society before the effects of a terrible social plague had vanished, and before the country had become accustomed to that healthier mode of punishment provided under the Prevention of Crime Act, Earl Spencer had thought it necessary, during an interval of two or three months, to make arrests which were absolutely necessary for the preservation of human life. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks referred to persons who were still in prison on account of suspicion of intimidation.
    642
    The hon. Gentleman had referred to a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Administration, and had fairly summarized the promises which the right hon. Gentleman gave regarding the release of certain "suspects" in prison when that speech was delivered. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government had been tardy in fulfilling their promise. They would admit, with regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's promise, that he at once proceeded to enlarge the three Members of Parliament. He did so because he was thoroughly convinced that their being out of prison would not be in any sense to the danger or disadvantage of the community at large, but that it would be to its profit. The right hon. Gentleman's course of conduct had been absolutely justified by the facts. It was impossible for anyone to say that any evil had resulted from the enlargement of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends. Their release had caused the addition of three Members to the House who had given valuable assistance during an important portion of their proceedings. At the time Earl Spencer came into power there were about 255 persons in prison on suspicion of the lighter crimes known to the Protection Act. The hon. Member for Sligo, whose figures were almost always accurate, told them that the number now in prison on account of those lighter crimes was 60, and he believed the exact number was 55. The enlargement in three months of no less than 200 persons suspected of those offences was a large instalment of the fulfilment of the right hon. Gentleman's promise. His promise was that the cases of those persons should be considered, with a view to their enlargement, if it would not be dangerous to the peace of the country. Wherever the Lord Lieutenant had been able to come to a conclusion that the enlargement of these people would be as innocuous, or nearly as innocuous, as the enlargement of the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends, His Excellency had released them. The 50 persons who remained in prison were probably persons whose dangerous character certainly was of a much deeper class than that of the 200 who had been already dismissed. But the Government most certainly did attach great weight to the considerations put forward by the

    643
    hon. Member for Sligo. It was not intended, however, that there should be a general gaol delivery on the 30th of September, when the Protection Act would expire. He was thankful to say—and it was impossible to imagine any subject which could give greater pleasure to those who now sat upon the Treasury Benches—that the diminution in outrages, though not as rapid as could be wished, was, perhaps, as rapid as could reasonably be hoped. Every month the outrages decreased in number by about 80, and since the terrible series of murders that had disheartened the country a few months ago, they had decreased in gravity and importance as well as numerically. The diminution had gone on steadily during the last four months, and that was more than could be said of any other equal period since the passing of the Act. It was in the hope that the Prevention of Crime Act was now beginning to work in the manner desired, and in the hope that measures much more agreeable than the Coercion Act to the Government were beginning to have a good effect, and that the spirit of sympathy with Ireland which actuated the men who were now carrying on the government in Ireland—in Ireland itself—had begun to tell upon the people at large, that he looked forward with the belief that in the earlier part of the next two months they might see that work which the hon. Member for Sligo was constantly urging them to hasten—namely, letting out those persons whose presence in their district would not be absolutely and immediately dangerous to life and order—brought to something very like completion.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, that if anything could remove the irritation felt from the operation of the Coercion Act, it was beyond question the conciliatory speeches of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, which had done very good service in that direction. They noticed with pleasure the great contrast between his tone and that of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster); and he (Mr. Redmond) would not be speaking honestly if he did not express the great gratification with which he had listened to the manner in which the present Chief Secretary approached irritating and perplexing questions. But he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his very encouraging
    644
    statement regarding the diminution of crime was a very significant fact in support of the argument of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). It appeared that the release of the "suspects" was followed by a diminution of outrages; but that was exactly what the Irish Members had always prophesied; their contention having been from the very first that the men who were imprisoned as "suspects" were, in fact, the best guarantees for the peace and order of their respective districts. The release of 200 prisoners was, of course, an instalment of what the Prime Minister had promised; and it now only remained for the Government to prove their sincerity by ordering the release of the comparatively few remaining "suspects."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would remind the Prime Minister that in announcing the release of the three imprisoned Members of Parliament on May 2, he had said that—
    "The list of persons similarly imprisoned will be carefully examined further, with a view to the release, in accordance with like principles and considerations, of all persons who are not believed to be associated with the commission of crime."—[3 Hansard, cclxviii. 1967.]
    That was the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, which had not yet been completely fulfilled. Coercion, however, was defended on ever-varying grounds, and the present excuse was that the "suspects" still in prison were persons dangerous to the peace of their localities. That was the opinion, not of the Government, but of the local Sub-Inspector. Warrants were issued upon one ground, and the men were kept in prison upon another. He recognized, in common with his hon. Friend who had last spoken, the perfectly good spirit with which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant approached Irish questions. He did not admit, however, that the law was administered in that spirit of sympathy with Ireland which the right hon. Gentleman alleged. He protested against the cant about benevolence in dealing with Ireland. It was just like the benevolence of the hangman who, when he had pinioned you, adjusted the rope round your neck, and, drawing the black cap over your head, shook hands with you. If the Government wished to keep Ireland down, they should do it; but let there be no more cant of that kind. They had been told that the Lord Lieu-

    645
    tenant had arrested only 50 persons. Well, he had arrested 35 in connection with the Galway murder, and 11 in connection with the murder in Dublin, and shut them up in prison for three or four months—for they must be released at the end of September. It was not wise to put men charged with such crimes into gaol for so short a time. If these men belonged to secret societies, of course they would endeavour to gain recruits among the "suspects" from all parts of the country who were in prison with them. In fact, the Government had set up schools of art, national academies, to enable these men the better to indoctrinate others with their own ideas at the public expense. The Galway murder was committed on Thursday, Mr. Clifford Lloyd appeared in Loughrea on Friday, and by the following Sunday 35 men were sent to gaol on his warrant. In fact, Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the most powerful man in Ireland. He did the acts, and the Government had to sustain him in what he did. It was through him that they committed the blunder of putting a priest in prison. Mr. Clifford Lloyd sent up the name of Eugene Sheehy, omitting the word "Rev.;" and so the Government, without knowing that he was a priest, arrested and put him in prison. A person named Starkey, whom he had seen in Court the other day, swept the Millstreet district of 60 men on the information of Connell, the informer. The diminution of crime was to be attributed, not to the Prevention of Crime Act, but to the Arrears Bill and the changes that had taken place in the personel of the Government of Ireland. Though the right hon. Gentleman rejoiced that the Prevention of Crime Act was about to lapse, he was glad to take advantage of it after all. But if the Coercion Act was effective, why make use of the other Act, which would expire so soon? He advised the Government to acknowledge that the Coercion Act had been a failure, and leave it to be remembered solely in connection with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) said that they would not have a general gaol delivery on the 30th of September. No; the English were too great hypocrites for that. About the 20th of September the Lord Lieutenant would take thought and dribble out the prisoners
    646
    one by one, so that public attention might not be excited. As they had a Coercion Act, let the Government use it, and let them temper their severity with a little justice.

  LAW AND POLICE (ENGLAND)—INSECURITY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON, who had given Notice that he would call the attention of the House to the insecurity of life and property in England; to the extraordinary precautions lately found necessary for the protection both of public and private individuals; to the dangers to which public buildings are now exposed; to the publication in London of a revolutionary journal; and to the growth of secret societies; and to move—
    "That the existence of associations in the. United Kingdom, organised for the purpose of carrying out political designs by unlawful means, demands the most serious and prompt consideration of Her Majesty's Government,"
    said, there seemed to be some desire to divert public attention from the great importance of the subject; but, however much it might be for the advantage of any Department to represent matters as progressing smoothly, there could be no doubt that the public advantage was best served by a full knowledge of the facts of the case.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON, resuming, said, he would compare the six months at the opening of last year with the last six weeks of the present year; and it would be found that, so far from the country having become less subject to these alarms, the contrary was the fact. In the opening of the year 1881, there were rumours of a Fenian attack, and orders were sent to the Volunteers to look to their stores of arms and ammunition, and the same instructions were also sent to some of the depots. How true those alarms were was proved by the explosion at the Salford Barracks, when a large section of them was blown down, and by the tremendous incendiary fire at Plaistow, which destroyed £500,000 worth of property; while in March, May, June, and July almost equally serious attempts were made on public and private property. Grave as were the out-

    647
    rages which were then committed, at that very moment special precautions were deemed necessary at Chelsea and Wellington Barracks, at Devonport, Chatham, Croydon, and at Richmond, in Yorkshire; The Times Office was under special police protection; at Clerkenwell there was a large supply of arms kept; The Freiheit was still published, not withstanding repeated prosecutions; and today, at the trial of the man Walsh, at the Central Criminal Court, elaborate precautions were considered desirable, policemen going about with revolvers in their pockets. The Premier, in his movements in London and in the country, was carefully guarded by the police. That meant that a certain number of persons were watching for an opportunity to make an attack upon him. He had shown that the secret societies existed, that they were dangerous to life and property, and that they extended all over England. They had a common origin and a common action. They were not of sudden growth. They took a long time to get established, but when once established they were very difficult to root out. No truer words were ever spoken than those spoken by the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) the other day, when he said that secret societies were now the most living and dominant mischief in Ireland. Of course, they were now, but they were not three years ago. The Government endeavoured to counterwork secret societies by secret agencies of their own, whereas in public they often gave encouragement to secret societies. Many Gentlemen would not now be Members of that House were it not for the heavy Socialistic vote thrown at the last Election, and there was a not unnatural reluctance on their part to offend those who controlled or influenced that vote. Words supposed to have been spoken by the Prime Minister had given encouragement to these secret societies. It was an idea very widely spread that the Prime Minister had somewhere intimated that a murder in Manchester and an explosion in the heart of the Metropolis had brought theoretical opinions into the sphere of practical politics. That outrageous sentiment had assisted secret societies, and had encouraged people to join them. What secret societies wanted was exactly to bring theoretical opinions into the sphere of practical politics.
    648
    When the Prime Minister stated the means by which theoretical opinions could be brought into the sphere of practical politics, was it likely that perverse men would neglect using those means? There was another piece of advice which was supposed to have been given by the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—that if our rulers were sufficiently alarmed they would yield. It might be said that the right hon. Gentleman meant moral means of alarming; but the question what were moral means and what were immoral means depended upon the conscience of the man who used them. There were a number of persons who thought the dagger and the pistol were not immoral means to induce their rulers to take action in matters which they had at heart. There were a number of persons who thought murder and explosion were justifiable means; and could we wonder that we had the doctrine of murder publicly supported in England and assassination preached? What ought the Government to do? The Home Secretary had been singularly unsuccessful in dealing with secret societies. Prevention was better than cure. The Government ought to refrain from foolish and rash speeches both in that House and in the country. They should endeavour to restrain themselves, and not give encouragement to these societies by using words of a double construction—words which they could explain in one way to their own consciences and their own friends, but which were taken by the world at large in a very different manner.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for North Shropshire had, no doubt, expected that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have been present to reply to his observations; but his right hon. and learned Friend had no reason for suspecting that the hon. Gentleman was going to bring forward his Motion that evening. He would undoubtedly have been in his place if he had thought the speech they had just heard would have been delivered. But, with the highest respect to his right hon. and learned Friend, he did not think the House had lost very much by his absence, because he believed that if his right hon. and learned Friend had been present he would have thought that that

    649
    speech deserved scarcely anything more than his silence. He should like to know whether any good would be attained by the speech just delivered? The hon. Gentleman had referred to what had been spoken and to what had been written in many newspapers. He (Mr. Courtney) would recommend the hon. Member to practice two economies, that of reading and that of belief. He would advise him, in the first place, not to read all the rubbish which appeared in the newspapers, and especially not to reproduce it in speeches in that House; and, above all, he would recommend him to exercise some economy in the amount of the belief which he gave to what he read. The hon. Member complained of the patronage which had been given by the Government to what was going on; and if that was so, it was a curious sort of patronage, for they had successfully prosecuted both the editor and the compositor of The Fresheit. He also complained that some Members of the Government had indulged in vague and foolish speaking. He dared say that some Members of the Government, including himself, were open to that charge; but he thought it rested with those who complained to show them the example. They would not get to the bottom of these things by such speeches as that which the hon. Member had delivered; they must meet them in a practical way. The Government was fully aware of the necessities of the case, and if they had not shown more activity—some people thought they had shown too much—in suppressing open evidence of discontent, it was because it was felt that they must deal with it in a more radical manner.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that certainly the House had not lost anything by the absence of the Home Secretary, as the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had amply filled his place in giving utterance to remarks of a personal character. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), however, rose to complain of the want of facilities for discussing the Estimates and the details of public expenditure. Supply had been put off this year till a period when the House was exhausted, and even then the necessary details for the discussion were not before them. The Appropriation Accounts, which by Act of Parliament should be laid on the Table by the 28th
    650
    of March, were not even yet upon the Table, and they had to go into this discussion without them. The financial changes which had been made in the Army and Navy Departments made it the more important that the House should be furnished with those Papers with a view to a proper discussion of the Estimates. Some of the salaries of State officers were charged on the Consolidated Fund, and some were made part of the Estimates. The House, he thought, should have been furnished with information with regard to that difference of treatment. While the salary of the Lord Lieutenant was charged on the Consolidated Fund, the expenses of his Household were charged on the Estimates. There were similar anomalies in connection with judicial establishments and diplomatic expenditure. In connection with Greenwich Hospital there was a fictitious debt, on account of which part of the sum voted went into the Consolidated Fund. There were other complications with the Board of Trade and with the Navy, and it was almost impossible to obtain an intelligible view of the financial position of the Hospital. These complications were misleading to the Committee in the voting of the Estimates. He had made every effort for the past three years to master the details of the Public Accounts, and had come to the conclusion that the control exercised by Parliament over the Public Expenditure was of a most illusive kind. The charge upon the Consolidated Fund ought to be restricted to the permanent Debt and to the Civil List, and then the Estimates and the Accounts would be more intelligible, and simplification would probably save a good deal of clerical and other labour.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,587, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending

    651
    on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the Vote contained an item of £829 for the salary of the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He believed that that office was now vacant, and that Mr. E. G. Jenkinson, who had up to this time held the office of Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, had now been appointed to the post of Assistant Under Secretary. Now, the post of Private Secretary was a very important one, and he wished to impress upon the Government the necessity of making a judicious selection of the person who was to succeed Mr. Jenkinson. The Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was not, strictly speaking, a public official; but he was the medium of communication between the Lord Lieutenant, who was the head of the Irish Executive, and the Irish Members and others who were interested in the proper administration of affairs in Ireland. He believed that the gentleman who had been appointed Assistant Under Secretary had derived his experience and had had an opportunity of exhibiting his valuable qualities in a sphere far removed from Ireland. Mr. Jenkinson was employed for a considerable time in the Public Service of India; and it had been stated that day in the House that he had distinguished himself while in India in a manner which was highly questionable. He hoped the Government, in filling up the office of Private Secretary—rendered vacant by the promotion of Mr. Jenkinson—would duly appreciate the importance of selecting a suitable person for the post. He thought the person appointed should be one personally acquainted with the affairs of Ireland, and who had not in his past conduct exhibited any bias as between different classes in Ireland. He should be a man whose public life, as far as possible, had not brought him in conflict with any of the proceedings which had recently occurred in Ireland. He himself (Mr. Sexton), and he believed the majority of the Irish people, would be very glad to see a person of that kind appointed. There was another matter connected with this Vote to which he desired to call attention. He did not object to the office of Ulster King-at-
    652
    Arms; but he found that the expenses connected with that office amounted to nearly £1,200 a-year, whereas the receipts from the office did not reach one-half that amount. He did not under-value at all, he hardly liked to say the utility, of the Ulster King-at-Arms, because he dared say that the proceedings of that gentleman were interesting to those who were concerned in such relics as armorial bearings; but he was not aware that the office had any practical relation to the welfare of the country, or the general interests of the people. He had no wish to destroy all the interesting relics of the past, but he should like to see those interesting relics paying for themselves; and if the office of Ulster King-at-Arms was confined to the exercise of functions which only concerned a limited class of society, that class was well able to pay for the luxuries they enjoyed, and he was of opinion that the salary and expense involved in the Vote should be drawn wholly from that class, so that the fees should pay the annual expenses of the office. There certainly ought not to be any charge upon the public. He should like to hear from the hon. Member for Athlone (Sir John Ennis), or from the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Gill), whether they could inform the Committee of any useful functions performed by this official, with so high-sounding a title? He hoped the Government would be able to give the Committee some satisfactory assurance that the annual out-goings in respect of the office would be so arranged that the returns from those who were interested in armorial bearings would be large enough to pay the annual expenses of the establishment.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member had been rather deceived by the notice which had appeared in the public papers as to the position which Mr. Jenkinson had held in the Lord Lieutenant's Household. It was scarcely correct to say that Mr. Jenkinson had filled the post of Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Mr. Jenkinson was living with the Lord Lieutenant rather in the capacity of a private friend than that of an Irish official. Indeed, he thought he was correct—he was almost certain that he was correct—when he said that Mr. Jenkinson was not in the receipt of any public money at all. The Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

    653
    was Mr. Courtney Boyle, a gentleman who had been transferred for that purpose from the Local Government Department in England. Mr. Courtney Boyle had for several years been pretty closely connected with the administration of Irish affairs. He did not think it necessary on this occasion to say anything more with regard to Mr. Jenkinson, except this—that since he had said the few words he did in the House earlier in the evening—words which naturally came from his own general knowledge of India, and his intimacy with persons who were well acquainted with Mr. Jenkinson's career—he had had an opportunity of reading a record of Mr. Jenkinson's services, and that record certainly bore out every word he had said; and he was glad to be able to add that Mr. Jenkinson's connection with the Indian Mutiny and the outbreak at Benares was a connection which only redounded to his very great credit. The part Mr. Jenkinson took in that year simply consisted in the most strenuous exertions to save the lives of his fellow-countrymen. With regard to the Ulster King-at-Arms, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) said that the charges ought to be paid by that portion of the public who followed the elegant and recondite pursuits with which the time of that officer was taken up. But it might almost be said that the wishes of the hon. Gentleman were fulfilled, because he (Mr.Trevelyan) found on examination that the Ulster King-at-Arms received in fees from the public considerably more than an average of £1,000 a-year, which sum was paid into the Treasury, in addition to which there was paid over for Stamp Duty on the instruments in which the Ulster King-at-Arms dealt a sum of between £300 and £400 a-year; so that the salary and expense of the office were more than paid by the general public, who had the advantage of the services of this officer.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the Ulster King-at-Arms ought to be very well pleased at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. With regard to the gentleman who filled that office, he was a very intelligent and highly popular gentleman, and he did not think that anybody would dream of getting rid of him. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had had relations with him in one capacity some years ago, and
    654
    he had found him a most courteous and obliging official. But he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of not employing the Ulster King-at-Arms in future in the installation of Knights of St. Patrick, inasmuch as those Knights were alway chosen from a class which exhibited hostility to the people of Ireland. He did not know whether he would be in Order or not in raising the question of the action of the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the Prevention of Crime Bill under this Vote? The reason he asked the question was this. He did not hold the Chief Secretary for Ireland personally responsible for the manner in which that Act was being carried out; and, as he did not hold the right hon. Gentleman personally responsible, he did not wish to raise the question on the Vote connected with the Office of the Irish Chief Secretary.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would be irregular in raising a question connected with the Executive duties of the Chief Secretary on a Vote which applied to the salaries of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought that he would be in Order if he were to move the omission of the salary of the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who might be considered partly responsible for the action of his Chief.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought that he had laid down a rule on the same point either last year or the year before. The question which the hon. Member proposed to raise would come under the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office, and not under that of the Lord Lieutenant's Household.
    COLONEL NOLANrose to a point of Order. Part of the Private Secretary's work was to give effect to the directions of the Lord Lieutenant; and he was of opinion that they might fairly raise this question upon the Vote for payment of the salary of the Private Secretary.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must repeat that the proper course would be to raise the discussion for the Vote on the Chief Secretary's Office, and not upon the Vote for the Lord Lieutenant's Household. The Chief Secretary was a Parliamentary official responsible to the House for his acts.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that was, undoubtedly, the case last year. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E.

    655
    Forster), who then filled the Office of Chief Secretary, was a Cabinet Minister and a responsible official, and the Lord Lieutenant was not a Cabinet Minister. But now they had a Chief Secretary who—although a very capable and valuable officer—did not hold the same rank, because he was not a Member of the Cabinet, whereas the present Lord Lieutenant was.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had explained to the hon. Member that the question must be raised upon the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office. Surely the Chief Secretary was a more responsible official than the Private Secretary.
    MR. CALLANproposed to reduce the Vote by the sum of £788, the salary of the chaplain of Dublin Castle. If his memory served him rightly, all State religion had now been abolished in Ireland for a period of 12 years; and he did not see why it was necessary to retain the services of the chaplain of Dublin Castle. He could not see what such an officer would really have to do, and he might be a person who paraded about the country vilifying the character of the Irish people on all possible occasions, and with all the impress of a Castle authority. He did not know what was meant by a chaplain to Dublin Castle. He had often heard of a chaplain to Her Majesty the Queen; but he had never heard of a chaplain to Windsor Castle, which was merely a building. It would be better, if there was 'to be a chaplain at all, that he should be chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant; and if there was to be a chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant, he did not see why every other Member of the Government should not have a chaplain also. Why should there not be a chaplain to the Home Secretary? He thought the Home Secretary just as important a person as the Lord Lieutenant; but, at the same time, he believed the Committee would strongly object to vote a salary of £700 a-year for a chaplain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On the same ground, he (Mr. Callan) objected to this Vote for a chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant. He presumed that as the salary was for the chaplain to the Castle of Dublin instead of the Lord Lieutenant, in the event of the Lord Lieutenant being a Presbyterian, the chaplain of the Established Church of Ireland—although
    656
    that Church had been abolished—would still retain his salary as Dean of the Chapel Royal. He should be glad to learn whether there was any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to abolish this sinecure office, or to continue it?
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £6,000. He should like to abolish the Office of Lord Lieutenant altogether. As a general rule, he abstained from passing any censure upon the expenditure connected with the Lord Lieutenant's Household, because that expenditure was for the advantage of the Dublin shopkeepers. At the same time, he very much objected to the present arrangement in connection with the Office of the Lord Lieutenant; not that he objected to Lord Spencer, who was in every way an estimable Nobleman; but he objected to the Office being altogether beyond the control of the Irish people and the Irish Representatives. Most of the Irish people had no means of access to him. It was a central power of ruling Ireland from the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and it was a system of centralization which he very strongly objected to. With regard to the Office of Chief Secretary, he did not think they had ever had a more efficient Chief Secretary, or one who was more ready to listen to the representations of the Irish Members. But, at the same time, he could not conceal the fact that the Lord Lieutenant was a Member of the Cabinet, and the Chief Secretary merely a subordinate officer. That fact totally changed the position of affairs, and practically put all questions connected with the Administration of Ireland in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. There was a sum of £20,000 a-year charged upon the Consolidated Fund for the salary of the Lord Lieutenant. That salary the House of Commons could not touch; but there were items included in the present Estimate for the Lord Lieutenant's Aide-de-Camp, the Steward of his Household, his Private Secretary, and soon, and he thought that, instead of attacking those appointments, the best plan would be to get rid of them altogether. He, therefore, moved the reduction of the Vote by £6,000, and if he obtained any support he would certainly divide the Committee against the present system.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,587, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    COLONEL NOLANpointed out that he had moved the reduction of the Vote by a sum of £6,000, and not £2,000.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The total Vote is £4,587, and I cannot reduce £6,000 from £4,000.
    COLONEL NOLANapologized to the Chair for having forgotten that this was only a Vote to complete the sum necessary for the Household. He thought, however, that the practice of passing Votes on Account, before the Committee had an opportunity of discussing such Votes, was highly objectionable. Of course, under the circumstances, he would only move the reduction of the Vote by £2,000.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was glad to support his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) in bringing forward this question, because it afforded a convenient way of enabling the Irish Members to state their objections to the Viceregal institution in Ireland. He imagined that if the House of Commons reduced the Household the Lord Lieutenant would not remain very long in Dublin Castle. He thought there was nothing more injurious to Ireland than the continuance of the Office of Lord Lieutenant. A great deal might be said for the splendour and ceremony of a Royal Court; but for the mock splendour and ceremony of a sham Court he did not think anything could be said. The whole history of the Irish Viceroyalty illustrated the fact that when they got an able and capable man to relieve the dull monotony of the list of Viceroys, he was never allowed to confer any real benefit on Ireland, his advice being rejected and rendered of no account by the Government and by the influences which surrounded him. He had the honour not long since of meeting an amiable Nobleman who was then going over to fill the post of Viceroy in Ireland, and the Nobleman in question asked him what be thought was the right sort of thing for a Lord Lieutenant to do in Ireland? He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy)
    658
    told him, with candour, that the best thing a Viceroy could do was to be civil and friendly with everybody, to offend nobody, and otherwise to do nothing in particular. He thought, on the whole, that that was good advice. He had no doubt that the estimable Nobleman to whom he referred would have followed that advice, and would gladly have done nothing, but he had a Chief Secretary who did a great many things; and, therefore, the result of the advice which he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) volunteered was not in the end very successful. They had had in Ireland two or three great and good Viceroys; but very few who had endeavoured to govern Ireland in accordance with Irish ideas. Lord Chesterfield did so attempt to govern the country; but not the smallest attention was ever paid in England to any word of counsel that came from him. Again, Lord Fitzwilliain was a most earnest and capable Viceroy, and he pointed out to the Government at home that it was impossible to rule the country without Catholic Emancipation. Then, when everybody thought that Catholic Emancipation was on the point of being gained, Lord Fitzwilliam was recalled for his impertinence in having tendered such advice. These were almost the only men who, in the monotonous history of Irish Lord Lieutenants, ever did anything worthy of note. Anyone looking over the historical personages who had figured in the Viceregal Office found himself in the position of a visitor to the Gallery of Holyrood Palace, in Scotland, inspecting the portraits of the ancient Scottish Kings, all of which seemed to have been painted after one model by one artist, or, rather, one contractor. There was once a Lord Lieutenant in Dublin who was popular amongst certain classes, and who had, moreover, a most charming way of conveying the ceremonial kiss, which was believed to be the common privilege of all Viceroys at Dublin Castle. This Nobleman was a pleasant and gracious personage—perhaps the most popular Viceroy Ireland ever had—and the grace with which he imparted the ceremonial kiss gave it a paternal tenderness which dispelled alarm, while it yet retained warmth enough to cause an agreeable flutter. Then they had another Viceroy who distinguished himself chiefly by bribing the editor of an infamous and

    659
    obscene publication to write down the patriots of 1848. Since Lord Fitzwilliam's time these were the only two Viceroys who had made any mark, or who had left any historical record. In the meantime, while the Viceroyalty did no decided good, it had done a good deal of negative harm. It had created in Dublin a vulgar striving after social distinction; and the Castle fever had made Dublin, among certain classes, the capital of flunkeyism and snobbishness. He remembered being in Dublin some years ago, when there came to him a well-dressed youth, who talked with an air of languor about a ball at the Castle which he had just attended. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) asked him how he had enjoyed himself, and the languid youth replied that the people there were all shopkeepers, and shopkeepers' wives and daughters, and if that sort of thing went on much longer he would have to cut the Castle altogether. Now, who was this aristocratic personage who looked down with such contempt upon Castle entertainments and the Dublin shopkeepers? He was the son of the worthy woman who kept the hotel at which he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was staying. He had only related the anecdote to illustrate the kind of snobbish feeling which this sham Court and this mock Sovereign engendered in Dublin society. If there was a Viceroy who desired to do anything for the people of Ireland he was not allowed to do it. If they had a strong man as Viceroy, they had generally an incapable man as Chief Secretary; and if, as in the present instance, they had a capable Chief Secretary, then—of course, he did not refer to Earl Spencer—they had generally a Viceroy who was altogether incapable of doing good in the Office he held. Political virtues, as an institution, the Viceroyalty had none; political vices it had many; and these political vices were fast growing into national grievances. Most sincerely he wished to see the institution abolished altogether; and he thought the Irish Members would best mark their contempt for it, and the strong objection they entertained towards it, by voting in favour of the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan).
    MR. HEALYsaid, he regretted that Her Majesty's Government persisted in maintaining this unnecessary expendi-
    660
    ture, which amounted, probably, to some £60,000 or £70,000 a-year, in spite of the protests of the Irish Members. But, seeing that they did take that course, he could only look upon the expenditure for the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant as being kept up for purposes of corruption. It was used in order to draw away the shopkeepers and others of Dublin, by some petty form of custom or dealing, from all sympathy with National movements, and also to corrupt the aristocracy by keeping up the semblance of Royal dignity. He was afraid that, so long as the claims of Ireland to consideration depended upon this £20,000 a-year paid to the Lord Lieutenant, all their desire to obtain a separate and distinct nationality would be passed over. The people always looked forward to the time when they would be able to assert a distinct nationality for their country; but, so far, every feeling of nationality which existed in that country had been blotted out by corrupt means of this nature. So long as the aristocracy of Ireland were in the habit of leaving their own country, and so long as foreigners were appointed to administer their affairs, there would not be much chance of the people of Ireland securing their nationality. He was strongly in favour of the abolition of the Office of Lord Lieutenant. He believed that the retention of the Office had scarcely got a friend in Ireland; and he was somewhat astonished that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—who, like all his Predecessors in that Office, was at all times anxious to keep a tight hold of the public purse—did not see the matter in the same light. When the Irish Members asked the House for some portion of the money annually wrung from the country in order that they might construct piers and harbours, they were invariably told that they could not have it; and yet they were required to expend some £20,000 or £30,000 in maintaining the Viceroy and his Household, together with other considerable sums of money for Kings-at-Arms and Pursuivants. He asked the Committee why they did not abolish these meaningless pieces of tomfoolery? At present they had a Lord Lieutenant receiving this large salary, and yet all his servants and assistants were paid by the State—expenses which other people had to pay out of their own pockets. If a Viceroy required a sur-

    661
    geon, why should the State be called upon to pay the cost? Why should not the Lord Lieutenant—that high functionary with £20,000 a-year—pay his own doctor's bills, like other people, out of his own pocket? High as his position was, the Viceroy was not above taking £100 to pay his doctor, and even £30 for his office cleaner. The country had been paying these items year after year, and it was not a matter of surprise that the Irish Members should be so constantly complaining of the expense. He remembered reading in The Times that England was a sort of milch cow which Ireland was always milking; but he wished England would leave the Irish people to themselves to manage their own taxation and their own expenditure, and then it would be seen how little they would ask from England. He strongly protested against this system of keeping up useless offices. There were included in this Vote the salaries of a Private Secretary, an Under Secretary, a Steward of the Household, a Comptroller of the Household, a Master of the Horse, a Dean and Chaplain of the Chapel Royal, down to the humble individual who swept out the offices. Surely, if the Lord Lieutenant wanted his office cleaned, he should pay for it out of his own pocket, without abstracting the cost out of the public purse. These Royal personages, or, at any rate, Viceregal personages, were very lofty and dignified individuals; but, nevertheless, they all of them wished to have a pull at the money bags of the State. Even the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland himself, John Poyntz, Earl Spencer, was not above getting £30 a-year from the State to pay for having his office cleaned. He verily believed that if the Viceroy had the whole of Ireland for an estate, he would still want to have the Isle of Man for a kitchen-garden. Year after year the Irish Members were endeavouring to din into the ears of Englishmen the fact that they did not require a Lord Lieutenant at all—neither himself individually, nor any of his officers.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he did not agree with the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway for the reduction of this Vote. Although, if the question of the abolition of the Viceroyalty were brought forward in that House, he might be prepared to vote for its abolition, yet, as long as the Office existed, he was in
    662
    favour of its being properly maintained. His hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), with the ability which always characterized his speeches, had given them some details which tended to show that the Viceregal Court sometimes deserved the appellation of "a sham Court;" but he thought that was the very reason why, for the sake of the national credit of Ireland, as long as the Viceroyalty existed, it should be maintained in a becoming manner. Now, with regard to the items to which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had alluded—for the Surgeon to the Household £100, and office cleaner £30—he thought, for such an office as that of the Viceroyalty in Ireland, these sums were not extravagant, and that there was no occasion for seeking to pull down anything in these directions. Allusion had been made in the course of the discussion upon this Vote to Earl Spencer. He believed he was correct in saying that, during the time that Nobleman had filled the Office of Viceroy, he had spent considerably more than the Viceregal salary, and certainly there never was a Viceroy who maintained the dignities, hospitalities, and charities of the Office more completely than Earl Spencer; and, therefore, he respectfully asked his hon. and gallant Friend not to make the occasion of his Viceroyalty the opportunity for seeking to reduce the Vote for the maintenance of the Office by the sum of £2,000. He thought when the time, which he believed was not far distant, arrived for raising the whole question as to the desirability of maintaining the Office of Viceroy of Ireland, it would be quite soon enough to give a decisive vote; and he was altogether opposed to anticipating it upon the paltry matters now brought forward.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he could not approve the object of the Mover of this reduction of the Vote, and still less did he approve the reason given in support of it. He regarded the reason given by the hon. and gallant Member opposite as a most unhappy one. He said he made this Motion for the reduction of the Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant as a protest against the Office being occupied by a Cabinet Minister. He had every respect for the occupant of the Office of Chief Secretary, and fully estimated his good-will towards Ireland,

    663
    as well as his capacity for carrying out his instructions for the benefit of the country. But he looked upon Earl Spencer as being a much stronger man for carrying out the policy which, he hoped, would be inaugurated by the present Chief Secretary. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) said that the Members of the House of Commons were under this great disadvantage, that they could not approach the Lord Lieutenant as a Cabinet Minister, although they could approach the Chief Secretary. He had had some experience of Earl Spencer as Lord Lieutenant, and also of a number of Chief Secretaries; and he asked what Member endued with common sense would not prefer to wait upon Earl Spencer, with all his natural courtesy and kindness of disposition, rather than stand five minutes in the company of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland? Earl Spencer would give you kindly reasons; but if one went to the late Chief Secretary he would be met with nothing but gruffness. For his own part, he certainly preferred to deal with Earl Spencer as Cabinet Minister and Viceroy of Ireland, much more than all the Chief Secretaries he had ever met, with the exception of one—the late Conservative Chief Secretary, who, as he had always found him, was straightforward and above-board. Now, with regard to the Office of Lord Lieutenant, if hon. Members wished to abolish it, let them bring forward a Motion with that object, and take the sense of the House upon it. The whole subject could then be dealt with in an exhaustive discussion; but he thought it was most misleading to use a Motion for the reduction of the Vote as a means of expressing the opinions of hon. Members upon the question of abolition. Although he thought the Lord Lieutenancy should be abolished, he should support the Vote, if it were only to show that he anticipated some good from the present occupant of the Office.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 111: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 311.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. BIGGAR, said, he wished to draw attention to the fact that when he opposed the Vote for Queen's Plates for
    664
    Scotland, and divided the Committee against them, he said he should also divide against the Vote for Queen's Plates for Ireland. He was convinced that horse-racing in any country did an enormous amount of mischief; and he believed he should not be fulfilling his duty if he omitted to do anything in his power to discourage the vicious conduct on the part of the inhabitants of Dublin, which was caused by the sums of money given for Queen's Plates at the Curragh. His objection was not confined to the Plates at the Curragh; he held the same opinion with regard to Queen's Plates in whatever part of the country they were given—namely, that they were mischievous and ought to be discontinued. For these reasons, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,562.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,025, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. A good deal more money was given in England for Queen's Plates than went either to Ireland or Scotland.
    MR. CALLANsaid, at present the Queen's Plates were distributed in Ireland by wholly irresponsible parties, who, it was believed, really arranged which horse was to win. There was a complaint that too many of the Plates were run for at the Curragh, and it was said they ought to be more fairly distributed. He thought that some attention should be paid to the manner of their distribution, and that the system should be revised, because men of all classes in Ireland with whom he had spoken on the subject felt that the Plates were distributed upon conditions which had at this day become obsolete.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was ready to believe that his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan knew a great deal about many matters charged for in the Estimates, although he doubted whether he knew anything about horse-racing. He was not prepared to vote for the abolition of the Queen's Plates in Ireland; but, as there seemed to be some objec-

    665
    tion to the number of Plates at the Curragh, he suggested that the Estimates of next year should contain a statement showing where the Plates were run for.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, about seven years ago a suggestion was made to the Chief Secretary for Ireland that, instead of giving £100 at a number of small races in various parts of the country, the whole of the money expended should be divided into two sums of, say, £750, and run for at two places only. It was believed that this would bring out a better class of horses. The reason why the suggestion, which appeared to him a reasonable one, fell through was, as he understood, because the authorities at the Curragh were disposed to keep all the money there. He trusted the Chief Secretary would see that in future these gentlemen did not have their way entirely in this matter, and that he would take into consideration the suggestion made seven years ago, when the question was fully discussed in the House. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Cavan should oppose these Plates so strongly, because he had been told that the county in Ireland which was most inclined to racing, and produced the greatest number of jockeys, was that which the hon. Member himself represented.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not quite able to follow the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Patrick O'Brien), who said it was desirable to cut the amount given for Queen's Plates into two parts, and then to give one of the two halves to each of the four Provinces of Ireland. It appeared to him that the proposal of the hon. Baronet would be very difficult to carry out. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) said the money was distributed by irresponsible parties, and that matters relating to the races run were so arranged that it was known beforehand which horse was going to win. If that were the practice, he could not regard it as at all conducive to good morals; and, therefore, the statement of the hon. Member amounted to an argument in favour of his Motion. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had expressed the opinion that he knew nothing about horse-racing. However that might be, he had read and heard a great deal about it and its mischievous effects; and, notwithstanding the argu-
    666
    ments against his Motion, he felt it his duty to go to a division upon it.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished to correct an error into which the hon. Member for Cavan had fallen. He had said that the money should be divided between two races to be held every year in Ireland, and that these races should alternate so far as regarded the Provinces in which they were held.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 102: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 312.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £26,106, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the Vote just put from the Chair, including, as it did, an amount of public money required for the emoluments and establishment of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, afforded Irish Members a recognized and Constitutional opportunity for criticizing the general administration of the country. It would be obvious that if they were to avail themselves of the occasion now Constitutionally offered to a legitimate extent, the questions brought forward would extend over a very wide range indeed; and, therefore, for his own part, he had intended to limit himself to a consideration of the way in which some portions of an Act which passed through Parliament some three weeks ago had been administered. He referred to the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act. He would have been under the necessity of referring at length to the administration of what was called the Coercion Act of last year, were it not that at an earlier stage of the evening he had called attention to certain matters in connection with it; and he was bound to say that the reply given to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had inspired him with such hope that he did not think it necessary to allude any further to the administration of that Act.

    667
    He confessed that had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) still occupied the position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, he should have felt himself, on the present occasion, compelled to trouble the Committee with much fuller remarks than he now intended to make. The very absence of that right hon. Gentleman limited the necessity of the occasion. He need not say that in the observations he was about to address to the Committee, he intended no personal reference to the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Moreover, he intended to confine himself to the question of the powers of the Lord Lieutenant himself, and the manner in which he had exercised those powers; but before doing so he would refer to some things which had occurred within the last two or three days. In the first place, he must express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the case of the poor woman who was sent to prison at Waterford last Friday on a charge of interfering with the business of a butter merchant. Upon this subject the right hon. Gentleman had given him an answer altogether opposed to the facts. This was a case respecting a hard-working and respectable woman, against whose character nothing had been alleged, who, as he had said before, was thrown into prison charged with interfering with the business of a person who dealt in butter; the magistrate was appealed to for an adjournment of the case in order that she might produce witnesses; but he refused, and put forward, as the reason for refusing her most natural request, that he had travelled 60 miles in order to hear the case, and could not consent to the adjournment in consequence. Her father occupied a piece of land which he had reclaimed from desert, and the woman herself had been able to hold it by selling milk in the market; but she found herself, in the bad times, unable to pay her rent, although, if she had had a little time, she could have done so. The landlord, however, because she was one day behindhand, turned her out of the farm and let it to another person. He (Mr. Sexton) said it was not to be wondered at if, under these circumstances, she lost her temper and used language which brought her within the law. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not
    668
    confine himself to the strictly legal view of a case like this; but that he would take into consideration the grievous circumstances of this poor woman who had been refused an opportunity of engaging counsel and bringing witnesses into Court. With regard to the general question of the administration of this particular Act, he had noticed that some of the members of the Police Force had, during the last three weeks, behaved in the most indiscreet and wanton manner in putting the Act into operation. In one case there were three men who were going to pay their rent, and these men, to get a light for their pipes, went under the shade of a hedge to avoid the wind. Having done so, and lit their pipes, they were arrested and brought before the magistrates. Then there was the case of an Irish-American who was arrested simply because he came to revisit his native land; and, finally, he would refer to the case of the three young girls who were now lying in gaol, suffering 14 days' imprisonment, under circumstances which had already been described. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see the necessity of moderating the unjust and hard conduct of the police on such occasions as these. But the real purpose he had in view was to speak of the manner in which the Act had been used since it became law. It received the Royal Assent on the 12th of last month, and two hours after midnight on the succeeding day there appeared a special issue of The Dublin Gazette, containing two proclamations from the Lord Lieutenant, bearing his name at the top, and at the bottom the names of the Master of the Bolls and another lawyer who appeared to constitute, at the time, the advising body of the Lord Lieutenant. These proclamations at once swept 15 counties of Ireland within the net of the Coercion Act. Coupling together these two facts—the extent of country brought suddenly within the operation of this most stringent law, and the limited time taken by the Lord Lieutenant to consider the matter, and to ascertain what was the condition of each particular county, and what special provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act referred to them severally, he thought he was entitled to say that the method pursued had not been dictated by the necessities of the case; but by that slavery to the dominant will of the Tory

    669
    Party which first appeared in that House, and had since exhibited itself in the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. But from this general proclamation of the country the Province of Ulster was excluded, although he had heard from time to time in that House descriptions of districts in that Province which, had he been disposed, as he was entitled, to make a comparison between those districts and the districts proclaimed, would not have resulted to the advantage of the Province in question. The exclusion of the Province of Ulster appeared to him to be a step dictated by political feeling, and not by the necessities of the case. Besides Ulster there were three or four counties on the Eastern seaboard of Ireland that were entirely excluded from the Act; but, with the exception of Ulster and this limited strip on the Coast, the whole of Ireland was exposed, by a single issue of The Dublin Gazette, to the operation of the Coercion Act. It seemed to him that the proclamation, with such undue haste on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, was conclusive proof of a desire to get a reputation for energy, and not of a desire to do strict justice. The Committee should understand that the Act was, with regard to its provisions, largely automatic. Except in the case of four of its clauses it applied to every county in Ireland. But with regard to them, in order that they should be put in operation, it was required that the Lord Lieutenant should issue a special proclamation. He referred to the clauses relating to riot and unlawful assembly, the arrest of persons found out at night, the arrest of strangers, and the power of search by day and night for arms by any Inspector of Police having the authority of the Lord Lieutenant. It would hardly be believed that the Lord Lieutenant had not made any distinction or used any discrimination in regard to the particular clauses that he should put in operation in the case of the several counties proclaimed. But the fact was, that he did take the 15 counties mentioned, and applied to every one of them the whole of the provisions of this Act; and, in doing so, he recognized no difference between the comparative quietness of Meath and the disturbed condition of Galway. He repeated that this act on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, in not recognizing any
    670
    shade of difference between the several counties proclaimed, showed clearly that a weak desire to gain a reputation for energy overcame the desire to maintain law and order in those districts. Four days later the Lord Lieutenant extended the proclamation to King's County, Queen's County, and Meath. And so within five days of the passing of the Act 18 counties were subjected to its full, unmitigated powers. Moreover, the principal towns in Ireland had been subjected to the powers of the Act. He did not mean, of course, that they had been brought under the Curfew Clause, because that would be an absurdity, nor that they were subjected to the clauses for the arrest of strangers and persons found out at night, because in the case where so many people were gathered together that would be practically impossible; but he did mean that all the other provisions of the Act were applicable to Dublin, Limerick, Cork, Kilkenny, Waterford, Galway, and every considerable city and town in Ireland, with the exception of Belfast, which was well known to be the most disorderly of them all. But the same reason which excluded the Province of Ulster from the operation of the Act allowed the Lord Lieutenant also to exclude the town of Belfast; and it was clear, from the very fact he had just mentioned, as to the disorderly condition of that town, that political considerations, and not the desire to maintain law and order there, were the cause of its exemption. He asked, why had the Lord Lieutenant proclaimed these counties and large towns? The Act required that he should be satisfied that this step was rendered necessary in order to prevent crime; that was the condition, and that condition was set forth in the proclamations of the Lord Lieutenant. Passing from that subject for a moment, he turned to the question of searches by night, and to this he asked the close attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. A short time ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the search warrants issued by the Lord Lieutenant had been issued to every Inspector of Police, and, if not, how many officers of police had been entrusted with them? The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, stated that they had not been issued to all the Inspectors. He (Mr. Sexton) wished to point out

    671
    that the specific provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act with regard to searches by day and night had not been complied with, but that they had been departed from in applying the 14th clause to the 18 proclaimed counties. He found from an examination of the Dublin Gazette that every warrant was addressed to the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors. Now, the word "Inspector" was defined by the Act to mean a County Inspector—the Sub-Inspector being the Inspector of a district; and it was therefore plain from the wording of The Gazette that these warrants had been issued, not to the Sub-Inspectors, but to the Head Inspectors of each county, and he complained that this was a gross misuse of the powers of the Act. The Act, as hon. Members would be aware, gave power to search houses by day and, under certain circumstances, by night also. This last provision was a very trying one to the people of Ireland, because, as hon. Members knew well, it was a very serious thing to allow an Inspector to enter any house without warning, especially when its inmates were nervous women and nervous men, or when there was anyone lying ill there. The warrants having been addressed to the County Inspectors in the case of each of the counties, it followed that the power of the police to search extended over all the area of the county. This was a most extreme application of the Act, and had it been known that this practice would be resorted to, he believed that many English Members would not have voted for the clause. But what was the condition of the country when the 18 counties were proclaimed? Last year there were 1,000 "suspects" in gaol—now there were only 260. Many of them had been released, it was said, because the condition of the district from which they came had returned to a state of peace, order, and obedience to the law. But if, under the old Coercion Act, 700 men had been released from gaol in one year, he was entitled to infer that the districts had returned in the course of that year to such a condition of order and peace that the Government were able to release them. But how did the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the administration of this Act? If the districts had returned to such a condition; if peace was re-
    672
    stored to an extent that enabled the Government to set 700 men at liberty, why did they address to every County Inspector in Ireland a warrant to enter any house by day or night? It was perfectly well understood that the power of search would not be exercised except there was good reason to suppose that arms were concealed on the premises; but it was never for one moment supposed that this power would be handed over upon the morrow of the passing of the Act to the heads of police in 18 Irish counties. If the warrants had been addressed to the Sub-Inspectors, he might have seen more reason for the act of the Lord Lieutenant, because he would have thought that the Lord Lieutenant had reason to believe that in the districts of these Sub-Inspectors secret meetings were held, and secret organizations were likely to be found. But that argument could not apply to the 18 proclaimed counties; and, therefore, he said that the proceeding he had described constituted the most unjustifiable and the most wanton abuse of power on the part of a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland which had presented itself in the whole course of his reading, or had occurred within his recollection. On what information did the Lord Lieutenant act? If he were to quote the official records of crimes on account of which persons had been made amenable in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, reply that the crime which came before the Judges of Assize was a very small part of the crime committed in the country. He might say there was a good deal of undetected crime—a good deal that did not come within reach of the arm of the law; and that this Prevention Act was passed for the purpose of putting down the class of crime which did not come before the Judges of Assize. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to listen to what had been said by several of the Judges of Assize. Besides the Calendar of prisoners, the Judge had before him the Constabulary Report, which he considered a much more important and valuable document, and upon which he founded the Charge he made to the Grand Jury. The Committee would have seen that Louth was one of the counties proclaimed; it had had all its liberties placed in the hands of the police. In that county people who struck

    673
    a constable, or committed an aggravated assault, were deprived of the right of trial by jury, and were liable to be brought before two magistrates, who would try them without a jury. But what had happened at the Louth Assizes? Why, there was only one Crown case, and that, curiously enough, was a charge of perjury against a Crown witness—a wretch named Drew, who swore to a conspiracy amongst a number of respectable farmers to murder certain persons. The presiding Judge was Chief Justice May, and everyone would know him to be incapable of any exaggerated popular sympathies. Chief Justice May said, in charging the Grand Jury at the Louth Assizes nine days before the Lord Lieutenant proclaimed the county, that he found the statement of detected and undetected crime contained in the Report of the County Inspector to be very satisfactory; that there were only 13 cases of crime returned since the last Assizes, which was certainly a most satisfactory state of affairs; that the condition of the county, as compared with others, was satisfactory; and, added the learned Judge to the Inspector—"I hope this state of things will long continue to exist." Yet, notwithstanding this, nine days afterwards the condition of the county was such that the Lord Lieutenant considered himself justified in placing the county under the powers of the Prevention of Crime Act. Then, at the Meath Assizes, Chief Justice Morris, who presided, said there were six cases, none of which presented any particular feature, and he did not feel called upon to make any remark whatever as to the state of the county, or as to the amount of detected or undetected crime. After this statement on the part of that diligent Judge, he was quite sure there was nothing to call attention to. Nevertheless, the county of Meath was proclaimed nine days afterwards. Again, Judge Ormsby, who presided at the Tipperary Assizes, told the Grand Jury that their duties would be both short and light; there was no crime of any serious character, and he said—
    "I observe with pleasure that during the period over which my duties in connection with it have extended, the county has not been disgraced by any crime of grave character."
    But, although no crime had been committed in the county, by a stroke of the
    674
    pen it had been brought under the Prevention of Crime Act. Further, Judge Deasy, who differed from all the other Irish Judges, inasmuch as he had won promotion to the Bench by the force of his judicial ability alone, said to the Grand Jury at the Queen's County Assizes that their duties would be very light; that there was only one serious case, and that the Constabulary Report was in some respects more favourable than it was last year. But although the Judge reported an improvement as compared with last year, the Lord Lieutenant felt bound to put the county under the ban of the Prevention of Crime Act. If there had been anything in the state of Queen's County which called for the restriction of the liberties of the people, he was quite certain it would not have escaped the observation of this learned and impartial Judge; but he had not uttered a single word to that effect, and, therefore, he (Mr. Sexton) said that in the case of Queen's County, as in the cases of Meath, Louth, and Tipperary, there was nothing whatever to justify the action of the Lord Lieutenant in respect of these counties nine or ten days later. He would now turn to the case of cities, and, as he had already pointed out, a number of the principal cities in Ireland had been subjected by proclamation to all the clauses of the Act. Here, again, at the Assizes held at Drogheda, Chief Justice May said that there was only one case to go before the Grand Jury, and that he felt sincere pleasure in congratulating them upon the state of the district; that there had been a diminution of every description of offence since the last Assizes, which was very satisfactory, and that he congratulated the community on its immunity from crimes of violence. The Committee would see that the learned Judge went so far as to congratulate the people of Drogheda on the state of affairs, and even contrasted that town favourably with the rest of Ireland. Then, at the Assizes in the city of Limerick, where Judge Lawson presided, there were only five Crown cases; and, as the learned Judge said nothing to the contrary, he was entitled to conclude that there was nothing in the state of affairs which called for special remark. At Kilkenny Judge Deasy had only three cases to try, and there was no case of any public interest. In Waterford there was only one case to try, and

    675
    the learned Judge said—"He was happy to see that the state of the city was most peaceful." Having now gone through the list of cities, and quoted in every case the opinions of those who were most entitled to respect—the opinions of the Judges of the Crown—he once more emphasized the fact that the Judges did not speak from the Calendar, or with reference to the prisoners in the dock, but of the whole amount of crime committed in the district. Under these circumstances, he maintained that the manner in which the Act passed three weeks ago was being exercised called for the most serious attention on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It was apparent to him—and he thought it would be to anyone who for a moment considered the circumstances under which the Lord Lieutenant had proclaimed the 18 counties and six of the principal towns of Ireland—that in issuing these proclamations the Lord Lieutenant had neither regarded the conditions of the particular localities, nor the statements of the Irish Judges with respect to them; and he considered that this fact alone entitled him to condemn in the strongest manner what he could not but describe as a most unjust and wanton use of the powers of the Act.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was under the impression that when the House passed this Act of Parliament and armed the Executive in Ireland, it well understood that the Act would be enforced, and when it was about to be enforced the attention of the Executive was directed to this matter; and what the hon. Member termed a rapid decision of two hours after midnight on the day on which the Royal Assent had been received was not a correct description of the action of the Government. The decision of the Government was the result of deliberate consideration while the Act was passing. What grievance was there in the fact that the Act had been applied to the whole of Ireland? The hon. Member was not correct in saying that the whole of Ulster was excepted, and Monaghan and Armagh were included. The allegation was that Ulster was excluded.
    MR. SEXTON: Four baronies altogether, and two Catholic.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)asked
    676
    how that affected the question? The Act was applied whenever it was required. There were four baronies in which it was required, and, therefore, it was applied. What was the grievance, he wished to know, in persons being subjected to punishment if they took part in any of these offences? Suppose they took part in any riots or unlawful assemblies, would any hon. Member say that they should not be punished? Again, what grievance was there in the fact that the Act was made applicable? It did not require persons to bring themselves under the Act and make themselves liable to punishment. If they took part in riots or unlawful assemblies, he failed to see why they should not be punished; and he certainly thought it would be a strange act on the part of the Executive if, when it had been armed with these powers, it should lay them aside. Nearly all the crime in Ireland recently had arisen from violence, or from driving people out by intimidation, by "Moonlight" riots, and by shooting people in the legs for having taken possession of lands from which others had been evicted. What harm was there in the Act being applied to such cases? It was not because the Act was brought into existence that people were necessarily to subject themselves to its operation; and if these "Moonlighters" went about and committed these offences they could hardly complain at there being an Act of Parliament strong enough to grapple with them, and that the Executive put it into force. Then, with regard to aggravated violence towards persons, one of the complaints was that such acts were allowed to go unpunished. The Act intended that such cases should be punished; but it did not follow that because the Act was passed people should put themselves under its operation. In Louth, for instance, a man might commit an outrage or take part in a riot or "Moonlight riot." He could not see why that man should not be punished, and he thought it would be a dereliotion of duty if the Executive did not put its power into operation. The rest of the grievances were of the same character. The hon. Member practically said unless some of these acts could be pointed out in each district the Act of Parliament ought not to be applied. That was an entirely mistaken view, because the Act was not to be applied after crime had

    677
    been committed, but was to be applied, so far as possible, to making crime impossible; and if it was made applicable to a particular locality, although no crimes were committed in that locality, no harm would be done, because the Act was practically not applied. Neither could it be applied to one side of a boundary and not to the other, because those boundaries were usually very like imaginary boundaries, and nothing would be easier than to commit a crime on one side of the boundary and, by crossing over to the other side, evade the Act. Suppose an Act was passed which applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, the hon. Member would say that it ought not to apply to the whole of the Kingdom, but only to those places in which there had been an exhibition of crime of a character which the Act contemplated. With such a view as that there might as well be no legislation. If an Act made punishment sure and speedy, it rendered crime less likely. Of course, if a stringent Act of Parliament was in force some people must be put to inconvenience—some persons, for instance, might be stopped by policemen and obliged to give an account of themselves. But in this ease every kind of horrible crime had been committed. He did not wish to make the case worse than it was; but he had been brought very much in contact with these matters, and, in his opinion, crime was vastly diminished. But it must be recollected that the object of an Act of Parliament of this kind, and of every Act of Parliament, was not merely to punish crime, but to supply powers which might render crime impossible. If people knew that execution would speedily follow an offence, they would be likely to abstain from committing the offence, just as without such punishment they would commit offences with impunity. Therefore, it was not because crime did not now exist to the same extent as it did some time ago that the Act was less necessary; on the contrary, it was more necessary, and the fact that crime was diminishing was largely due to the circumstance that the people who had been committing these crimes knew very well what was now in store for them. The Calendar only represented certain cases which the Attorney General thought should be tried. It did not represent the cases sent for trial, nor all the crime which
    678
    was indicated, but for which nobody was made accountable. The hon. Member had referred to the case of a person named Keane; but the hon. Member's information differed entirely from the statement made by the Chief Secretary in reply to his Question to-day, and the facts were not as the hon. Member was instructed to represent them. The hon. Member had stated that the lady had applied for an adjournment in order to prepare her case. The fact was, she denied having been summoned at all, although she had really been summoned the day before she gave the denial.
    MR. SEXTON: She stated her sister had received the summons.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the lady's statement was that she had not been summoned, and she remained outside the Court in defiance until the warrant was issued, and she was brought into Court. She did not then ask for an adjournment because she was not then ready to go on with the case. The hon. Member stated that the lady had been the holder of a farm from which she had at that time been evicted, her rent being in arrear; and that, the farm having been taken by the landlord at the end of six months for redemption, it was not unnatural that she should, on two or three occasions, have used language which brought her within the law. It was not unnatural that if a man received an insult he should knock his insulter down. But this lady appeared to have used language which was of an exceedingly guilty character, and which it was quite necessary to stop. But, whatever the charge was, she did not ask for an adjournment because she was not ready. Her first defence was that she was not amenable at all, because she had not been summoned, and when she was brought into Court upon the warrant she went on with the case. The case was reported in The Waterford Mail.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the lady pleaded that she was not guilty, and wanted the case adjourned for a week in order that she might get professional assistance, because she had been taken by surprise.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was not disposed to take the newspaper reports as correct, because many

    679
    of the cases were reported in such a way as to give to the cases a totally different complexion to the one they ought to bear.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the speech they had just listened to was that of a practised counsellor, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a speech of considerable length without uttering one syllable about the real point at issue. The main argument of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) was that when the Prevention of Crime Bill was passing through the House its employment was limited to those districts which would be named; that, in fact, it would only operate in proclaimed districts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir William Harcourt) laid it down that this would be a limitation upon the operation of the Act, so that it came to this—that the Act would only be applied where the Government had strong reason for employing it. The hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) had said that the Government declared they would only apply the four clauses in districts the state of which peremptorily required their exercise; but in spite of this declaration they had used them in districts where there was not the smallest need for them. Last year, some time after the now expiring Coercion Act came into operation, the Irish Members had reason to complain of the impossibility of reconciling the use to which that Act was put with the promises and undertakings made during its passage through the House. But he did not think so short a time as three weeks had elapsed when they were able to make that complaint. Some months were allowed to elapse before the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster), who, he hoped, would never again rise to an official position, especially in regard to Ireland, was guilty of a flagrant violation of the pledges upon which the Act was obtained. But now, three weeks after the Prevention of Crime Bill became law, they found the Government absolutely putting it to uses to which they declared they did not intend to put it. He had taken the trouble to refer to the report in Hansard of the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary in regard to the application of these clauses, and he found that nothing could be clearer than the words of the
    680
    right hon. and learned Gentleman. In vol. 270, page 1,042, the Home Secretary was thus reported—
    "He only rose to offer a few words which, he thought, might remove some of the difficulties which had been raised by hon. Members to this clause. It was the desire of the Irish. Government and of Lord Spencer not to use these extraordinary powers except in cases where the Lord Lieutenant considered their exercise was absolutely required. It would be observed that several clauses of the Bill referred to proclaimed districts, and the Irish Government were of opinion that that limitation of proclaimed districts might be extended to other clauses of the Bill. The Government were perfectly willing to agree that this clause should only operate within a proclaimed district—that was, a district which was in such a state of disturbance as would justify and require the use of these summary powers. A sort of premium would thus be placed upon a district to keep undisturbed and quiet, and he hoped that the announcement he had now made would tend to facilitate the passing of the clause. Effect could either be given to the concession at the end of the clause, or perhaps, better still, on Report. In the meantime, he would ask hon. Members to consider that the clause should only apply to proclaimed districts."—[3 Hansard, cclxx. 1042.]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was not in Order in reading from debates which had taken place during the present Session.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether it was possible to reconcile the statement of the Home Secretary, that these clauses would only be applied in districts which were in a state of disturbance, with the application of the clauses in districts which had been complimented by the going Judges of Assize because of the absence of crime? A few days ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether it was a fact that the going Judge of Assize had complimented the town of Galway on the absence of crime, and that only six cases at most were brought before the Judge? The right hon. Gentleman, with perfect candour, admitted that only two cases were brought before the Judge; but the county of Galway had been proclaimed, and in face of the facts the right hon. Gentleman said the Lord Lieutenant had no intention of withdrawing the proclamation. He did not wish to bring charges of bad faith against Ministers, though he might have occasion to do so if he wished to be discourteous or ungracious in his re-

    681
    marks. It was, however, perfectly impossible for him to reconcile the proclamation of certain undisturbed districts with the statement of the Home Secretary.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had not the pleasure of being present during the discussion; but when he entered the House he found reference was being made to the proclamation of counties in Ireland. As the subject had been introduced, he wished to declare his opinion that there had been a deliberate breach of the pledges made by the Home Secretary during the passage of the Prevention of Crime Bill. He (Mr. Callan) brought forward three Amendments to that Bill. The object of one was to limit the power of the Lord Lieutenant to proclaiming meetings except in proclaimed districts; and one of the arguments used against him was that if his Amendment were carried there would be an inducement to unnecessarily proclaim counties, so as to have the power of proclaiming meetings. Another of his Amendments was to the Curfew Clause, and was to the effect that the clause should only operate in districts which had been proclaimed in consequence of the crime prevailing in it. The Home Secretary said—
    "The Irish Government were of opinion that that limitation of proclaimed districts might be extended to other clauses of the Bill. The Government were perfectly willing to agree that this clause should only operate within a proclaimed district—that was, a district which was in such a state of disturbance as would justify and require the use of these summary powers. A sort of premium would thus be placed upon a district to keep undisturbed and quiet, and he hoped that the announcement he had now made would tend to facilitate the passing of the clause."—[Ibid.]
    He (Mr. Callan) was never more surprised in his life than to find, within three days of the Act coming into operation, that the county town of Drogheda and the county of Louth were proclaimed. What had happened? He would quote from the Drogheda Conservative paper, a respectable print which gave very accurate reports, and it stated that the Commission of Drogheda was opened by the Right Hon. Chief Justice May. The district of Drogheda was proclaimed the same week that the statement he was about to quote was made; in fact, the statement was made on the Monday, and the county town of Drogheda was proclaimed on the following Friday. Chief
    682
    Justice May, in addressing the Grand Jury, said—
    "Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury of the county of the town of Drogheda,—The business you have to transact on this occasion is very light. There is only one case to go before you, and it is one that presents no difficulty and requires no observations on my part. From inquiries I have made it affords me sincere pleasure to be able to congratulate you and the inhabitants of this district on its very satisfactory state. There appears a diminution in every description of offence since last Assizes, and a very satisfactory diminution in the offence of drunkenness. It is a very great pleasure in these unhappy times that we are thus able to congratulate you, and that this appearance contrasts favourably, and very favourably, with that which is presented in other parts of Ireland. There is an utter absence in this part of that unhappy class of offence that has fallen upon and disgraced other parts of the country. I am glad to think this part of Ireland is free from such foul outrages as we hear of occurring elsewhere, and which act as a stigma upon our National character. It is with great pleasure I am able to tell you that your county of the town of Drogheda is free from outrage."
    Within a week of that congratulation the promise made by the Home Secretary was deliberately broken. So far as the Home Secretary was concerned, the Prevention of Crime Act was obtained on false pretences; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem as ashamed as he ought to be of the manner in which the Irish Executive had falsified the pledges which he had made to that House. What had happened in Dundalk, in the county he (Mr. Callan) represented? The next day another eminent Irish Judge—Mr. Justice Harrison, a Conservative—addressed the Grand Jury in this language—
    "It gives me sincere pleasure on this, the first occasion on which I have the honour of presiding in this Court, to be in a position to tell you that the criminal business to go before you is very light. There are only three bills sent up; one is a larceny, another is an assault case, and the third is a case of a peculiar kind, which I am sure you will examine carefully, and return a true bill if, in your opinion, a primâ facie case of perjury is made out.…. The only other thing to which I may refer is the Report of the County Inspector, which I find to be very satisfactory. There are only 12 cases of crime reported since last Assizes, and this, certainly, is very satisfactory. It is a very satisfactory distinction when compared with other counties, where I get a return of 500 or 600 cases to investigate. I hope and trust this state of things may long continue in your county; but I am sorry to say that some of your cases of undetected crime are of a class pointing to a disorganization of society—writing of threatening letters and other forms

    683
    of intimidation; but they are not numerous; and I hope the symptoms will not spread into anything more serious in this comparatively happy and contented portion of the land."
    It was a fortnight now since he (Mr. Callan) presented the Chief Secretary for Ireland with a copy of the report of the observations of Mr. Chief Justice May and Mr. Justice Harrison with respect to the county town of Drogheda and the county of Louth. The Grand Juries of both those counties were congratulated upon the peaceable state of the counties, and yet, within a week of that congratulation, the districts had been proclaimed. The county of Londonderry, represented by the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Porter), was not proclaimed, and yet crime was ten times as great there as in the county of Louth. The people of Louth would resent this insult to their county by, at the next election, making it compulsory upon any candidate who proposed to offer himself that he must oppose in every way this pledge-breaking Government. Just imagine that in the county of Louth, where there was no crime, if a man went out of his house at 7 o'clock at night he could be arrested. "When the Curfew Clause was before the House, the Home Secretary misled the House into the belief that no county would be proclaimed except where the crime was of such a character as to absolutely require that those extra powers should be put in force. He (Mr. Callan) did not complain of any other county not being proclaimed; but he did complain that the worst clause of the Bill should be put in force in respect of his own county. He hoped to have another opportunity elsewhere of showing up the Government in their true colours. For instance, in the county of Monaghan, which was represented by one of the ardent supporters of the Government, he should make it a point of informing the people of the acts of this unprincipled and pledge-breaking Administration.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought he was right in supposing that, under the present Vote, they were asked to contribute a salary for the New Crime Under Secretary; and, if that was the case, be wished to move a reduction of the Vote by the salary of Mr. Jenkinson. He considered that Mr. Jenkinson was not an official who, from his antecedents, ought to be designed to fulfil
    684
    the important functions of the Head of the Criminal Investigation Department in Ireland. He noticed that the salary of the Assistant Under Secretary—
    THE CHAIREMANsaid, he thought that this subject would more properly come under the Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked whether it was under this Vote that a portion of the salary, at any rate, of the New Crime Under Secretary, was to be paid. He had a right to information on that point from the Government. He hoped be should receive it, because he did not wish to be bound to move to report Progress.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, this Vote was prepared at the commencement of the financial year, before Earl Spencer came into Office; and it was only after Earl Spencer came into Office that the duties connected with law and order in Ireland, and with the prevention of crime in Ireland, were removed from the Under Secretary, and in consequence the Vote did not appear in the Chief Secretary's Office for this financial year. He presumed the money would be provided in a Supplementary Vote at the commencement of the next Session.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked if he was to understand that the New Crime Under Secretary was to draw no pay until next year?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that when a new official was appointed it was not customary to present an Estimate for his pay.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked from what fund was Mr. Jenkinson to be paid in the meantime? It was quite evident that somehow or other the expenses of this new official were to be paid, and he presumed they were to be paid out of some portion of the money that the House was now asked to vote; but whether or not a regular sum would be brought in, separately allocated to that office, he did not know. In the meantime the official was appointed, and that official was to be paid. Did Colonel Brackenbury receive no remuneration for the time he was in office?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Gentleman must be conversant with the manner in which the financial business of this country was conducted. From time to time, in the course of the financial year, it was discovered that a new official was required, and it was impos-

    685
    sible that that discovery should always be made immediately on the very eve of the presentation of the Estimates. The salary of the new official was paid out of the general fund of the House; and, in order that the sense of Parliament might be taken before the close of the financial year, a Supplementary Estimate was presented, under the head, in this case, of the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. Parliament then had an opportunity of discussing the propriety of the Vote. He should imagine that the hon. Member would be in Order in making what remarks he chose, because in the interval, before the Supplementary Estimate could be presented, Colonel Brackenbury did receive, and Mr. Jenkinson would receive, a salary out of the lump sum voted for the Chief Secretary's Department.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that was clear and satisfactory, and he was glad that his intervention had led to this explanation of the manner in which the financial business of the country was carried on. Upon this Vote, therefore, he was entitled to refer to the appointment of Mr. Jenkinson, and to object to that appointment. He objected to the appointment of Mr. Jenkinson in the strongest manner; he would object to the appointment of Mr. Jenkinson even if there were no special circumstances in his career, because he considered that an official who had been trained in the despotic school of Indian officialism was no proper person to be employed in a post of responsibility in a country like Ireland, which still entertained some hope of recovering its Constitutional liberty one day or other. The first objection he had to make against Mr. Jenkinson was that as Crime Assistant Secretary he would really be the master of the liberty of the Irish people; and in the discharge of his functions he should be, if those functions were to be discharged properly, armed beforehand with a proper knowledge of Ireland and of the Irish people. It was not a post which should be given to a stranger. In the first place, Mr. Jenkinson was a stranger in the most thorough sense of the word. He had served some 22 or 23 years in India, and he had not served at all in Ireland. He entered the Indian Civil Service somewhere as far back as 1856, and he only left the Indian Civil Service a couple of years ago. He had no experience whatever of Ireland, of
    686
    the ways of the people of Ireland, of the crime of Ireland, of the inducements to crime in Ireland, of the provocations to crime in Ireland; he was an absolute stranger to the country; and it was, therefore, unreasonable to import Mr. E. G. Jenkinson from India, and to entrust him with the work of the detection of crime in Ireland. But, in the second place, he objected to Mr. E. G. Jenkinson from the nature of his Indian antecedents. He was a Commissioner in Oude, but had left no record behind him of having introduced any improvement into the condition of the Province. With regard to Oude, it would be enough to say that it was an Ireland on a large scale. Mr. Irwin, a distinguished Indian Civil servant, had written an able book on the Garden of India, which was the name Oude was known by—a name derived from ancient tradition, but by no means appropriate under the English Government. Writing about Oude, this gentleman had said that it might be supposed that the Irish cultivator had reached the very lowest limits of human existence; but a considerable proportion of the population of Oude lived a life still lower and more miserable than that. Such was the country from which Mr. Jenkinson had only recently come—such was the country over whose miseries he presided—such was the country whose miseries he did nothing to remove. A gentleman of that description, who never felt for agrarian misery in India, was not the man to be entrusted with the supervision of agrarian crime in Ireland, because he who did not understand, the misery of Irish agrarian life could not be an intelligent observer, or an intelligent supervisor of that agrarian crime which in nine cases out often was the almost natural outcome of agrarian misery and oppression. But he did not only object to Mr. Jenkinson as one of those Oude officials who had done nothing for that miserable Province. He objected to Mr. Jenkinson being appointed to the permanent Secretaryship in Ireland, because he objected to Ireland, in its present condition, being governed by one of the Mutiny Magistrates of India. He had no wish to detract from the undoubted high qualities, in many respects, that Mr. Jenkinson possessed; but than his there had been no more iron hand, or iron heart, amongst all the strong-handed and hard-hearted

    687
    men who drowned in blood the struggle of a portion of the Indian people in 1857. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was not going into unnecessary details; but they knew that even such an English writer as Colonel Malleson had declared that the Indian outbreak of 1857 was "due to the bad faith of the English Government"—and he was using the Colonel's own words. In 1857 Mr. Jenkinson held the grade of Assistant Magistrate in Benares and, as an officer of that distinction in the English Government of Benares, he must take his responsibility for the manner in which the rebellion, mutiny, or popular discontent were suppressed in that place. On that subject, he (Mr. O'Donnell) was not going to ask the Committee, and he was certainly not going to ask his countrymen in Ireland, to believe any charge against Mr. Jenkinson solely on his unsupported testimony; but he surely had a right to tell the Committee and his countrymen that Mr. Jenkinson, the Assistant Magistrate, and a member of the body of English magistrates who ruled at Benares during the time of the Mutiny, was not, by his antecedents, a man who ought to have the power which, in the position to which he had been appointed, would be intrusted to him under the last Irish Coercion Act. Sir John Kay, the distinguished British historian, in his history of the Reign of Terror in Benares during the rule of the Commissioners—in the history called The Sepoy Mutiny—said, in the second volume, page 236, that our military officers were hunting down criminals of all kinds, and hanging them with as little compunction as though they had been vermin. The Military Courts, he said, sentenced old and young to be hanged with indiscriminate ferocity. On one occasion, some young boys, who, perhaps in mere sport, had flaunted the rebel colours, and had gone about beating tom-toms, were tried and sentenced to death, and what was done with some show of formality was nothing to compare with what was done with no formality at all. Volunteer hanging parties were established, and went to work in the district, and one man boasted of the number of Natives he had "finished off" "quite in an artistic manner," with mango-trees for gibbets, and elephants for drops—the victims being strung up for pastime in the form of the figure 8. It might be said, on behalf of Mr. Jenkinson, that he pro-
    688
    tested against these nameless and horrible atrocities; and before Mr. Jenkinson, the Mutiny Magistrate of Benares, was furnished with all the powers of "Spymaster General" in Ireland, the Irish people had a right to know that he had protested against these atrocities, and that he had raised his voice against this "artistic finishing off" of untried prisoners, and against the sentencing to death of children whose only crime was that of flaunting about the rebel colours and beating tom-toms. In the name of the Irish people, and in the name of the Indian people, whose grievances were so sadly neglected in that House, he protested against the present promotion of the Mutiny Assistant Magistrate of Benares, and he told Her Majesty's Government that they could not obtain from the Irish people sympathy, respect, or support for the man who had on his hands the blood that was foully shed by Englishmen during the panic of 1857.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had been several times complimented, since he took the rather difficult post he now had the honour to occupy, on the courtesy and moderation with which he answered the questions and statements of hon. Members; but he must say that, if ever his courtesy and sense of moderation was tried, it had been by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. If that speech had come from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) at a time when he was moved by that deep sense he had of what he believed to be the wrongs of his country, he (Mr. Trevelyan) could have understood it; but the hon. Member who had just spoken was not the hon. Member for Wexford. The hon. Member who had just spoken was an hon. Member who, if there was anyone in the House who knew the exact strength of words, both in writing and speaking, had that faculty at his command. Every single word the hon. Member spoke was spoken deliberately; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) ventured to say that there never was an attack made upon anyone in that House which was more repugnant to the judgment and the feeling of all those Members who desired not to excite the prejudices of the Irish people against those who had to administer the affairs of that country than the attack which was now made upon Mr. Jenkinson. What had the hon. Member done? Knowing that

    689
    an ex-Indian official was going to be promoted to a most important position in Ireland, he had endeavoured to prejudice the Irish people by a method of reasoning which appeared to him (Mr. Trevelyan) extremely well calculated—when used with the skill which he would not characterize—to effect the object in view. The hon. Member, after 20 years, referred to what was worst in the repression of the great Indian Mutiny—he rooted out a certain description of cruel doings on the part of the English, and described them in order that his description might be reported in the Irish papers to-morrow, and that Mr. Jenkinson's name might be associated with them. The hon. Member said at the outset that the outbreak in India was due to the bad faith of the English Government, and that Mr. Jenkinson must take his responsibility for the way in which that popular outbreak was repressed. Now, what was Mr. Jenkinson's connection with the Indian Mutiny? When it broke out he was a lad of 19. He found himself at Benares—or in the neighbourhood, he (Mr. Trevelyan) was not quite certain which—as assistant magistrate in the month of June, 1857, having been two or three months in India altogether. He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not suppose Mr. Jenkinson had very much to do with the so-called crimes of the English Government which brought on that outbreak. According to the statement of Mr. F. M. Lind, of the Bengal Civil Service—
    "His (Mr. Jenkinson's) first care was to see to the safety of his friends, whom he sent off in a carriage to Rajghat, where they would be out of harm's way. He then borrowed his friend's pony, and set off towards the Civil lines to join the magistrate of the district, and to place his services at the disposal of that officer for any work that might be required of him. On the road he was twice fired at by Sepoys."
    The account went on to say—
    "Our position was a very precarious one. We could get no information as to what was going on in cantonments, and the Native messengers we had sent to seek this information did not return to us. Under these circumstances we decided that one of ourselves should go on this mission. Mr. Gubbins, the Judge, expressed a wish to go, if anyone would accompany him. Eventually, Messrs. Jenkinson and De Momet accompanied Mr. Gubbins, the two latter driving in a buggy, while Mr. Jenkinson rode his borrowed pony. In crossing the Burma Bridge the party were going slowly, Mr. Jenkinson closely following the buggy, when suddenly, only a few paces off, he detected several Sepoys
    690
    lying in ambush, preparing to fire. Fearful lest any remark from him might induce his friends to pull up, and thus give the Sepoys a standing shot, he called out to Mr. Gubbins to drive on as rapidly as possible, and then, drawing himself up alongside of the buggy, interposed his own person between his friends in the buggy and the Sepoys. On reaching the ambuscade the Sepoys fired a volley from behind the parapet of the bridge. Fortunately the bullets flew harmlessly by. Still, the unselfish offer of his own life for the protection of his friends was a gallant deed, bravely done, and might have been the means of saving the life of one whose counsels, arid influence, and local knowledge, in those days were of infinite value to us all at Benares."
    Mr. Jenkinson almost immediately came under the notice of the authorities. As Mr. Lind said—
    "It was under this phase of matters that Mr. Jenkinson came to the front. It was true that he was young in the Service and inexperienced in the routine of official life, still he was a man of quick perception and ready action, and possessed in his person qualities which were of inestimable value in those days, a happy combination of physical activity, mental vigour, and untiring energy. He was clearly the man for the times."
    Mr. Jenkinson, as he (Mr. Trevelyan) would presently show, was not a man likely to take part in what might be called the penal side of the rebellion. He was one of those happy specimens of the Indian Civil servant who combined a love for the Natives with that spirit of enterprize and patriotism which had made England what she was. Mr. Jenkinson obtained leave from the Indian Civil Service to go into the very thick of the fighting. He raised a corps of 150 horsemen, part being English and part Natives, and, followed by these men, he went into many of the most severe actions. This was what was said of what he did on one occasion—
    "Mr. Jenkinson accompanied the Cavalry, and was engaged in all their operations during the day. He was close to Mr. Venables when that gentleman was wounded, and was engaged in a hand-to-hand fight with a Sepoy armed with musket, shield, and sword, whom he eventually vanquished and killed."
    Brigadier General Franks refers to this in paragraph 57 of his despatch thus—
    "Messrs. Lind, Jenkinson, and Venables, Civil Service, accompanied the force in the action at Chanda and Amereepur. In the former action Mr. Venables, charging the flying enemy with the Cavalry, with whom he did good service, received a severe spear wound through the thigh. Mr. Jenkinson, after the above action, assisted me in escorting Mr. Venables into Jounpur for medical treatment. It should be stated here that Brigadier Franks' force having

    691
    advanced to the relief of Lucknow, Mr. Jenkinson was ordered to return to his own district."
    Mr. H. G. Astell, late Judge and Special Commissioner of Jounpùr, in a testimonial, said of Mr. Jenkinson—
    "Mr. Jenkinson showed both courage and skill in carrying out his plans. He started at dark, and arrived before daylight, securing the men, who were found ploughing by moonlight, to prevent them giving alarm. The informers, who had accompanied the party, pointed out a small palisaded enclosure in the middle of a thick jungle, and only about 300 yards distant from a large village, which was under the protection of a large and influential Talookdar of Oudh, whose name I now forget. Mr. Jenkinson, with some of his men, dismounted and forced their way through the palisade, and succeeded in securing Umuldàr Singh and his son, whom they found asleep, with the guns and pistols of the plundered indigo factory lying loaded at their side. Mr. Jenkinson personally headed the manoeuvre, and was the first through the palisade. All the party were back into the Jounpùr district before daylight, and before the alarm was given. It was a most spirited and successful operation. The prisoners were both sentenced to transportation; I forget for what period. I was with Mr. Jenkinson all through the Mutiny in the Benares and Jounpùr districts in 1857 and 1858, and can safely assert that he was foremost in all acts of energy and gallantry, never sparing himself either in the matter of hard work or exposure."
    And Mr. W. Muir wrote—
    "Notwithstanding his ill-health, he has borne himself bravely, and no public servant devoted himself more unreservedly to his duties than Mr. Jenkinson. His services at Jhansi, as Deputy Commissioner in charge of the Revenue Settlement, and subsequently at Saharunpùr, were much appreciated by the Government. The drainage works, which he carried out with great energy and intelligence, have proved most successful in improving the sanitary condition of that town; and his administration generally was vigorous and able."
    Mr. Jenkinson obtained such a reputation that he not only received a special vote of thanks from the Indian Office, but received the thanks of Her Majesty the Queen. He was one of those men whose success was very much due to those qualities which rendered him eminently fitted to bring benefit upon his fellow creatures when put in a position of authority over them in times of peace. Mr. Jenkinson returned to the ordinary duties of his Civil Service in India; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) would quote from one or two testimonials to show how he conducted himself in that Service. Sir George Couper wrote as follows: —
    "When Sir John Strachey made over the harge of this Government to me, he said you
    692
    were the best magistrate and collector in the North-Western Provinces; and, as a Commissioner of a non-regulation division, you have fully justified this eulogium from so good a judge."
    Hon. Gentlemen knew what it was to be one of the best magistrates and collectors in the North-Western Provinces in India; and when they considered what it was to be not only an eminent magistrate, but an eminent Commissioner at the head of five or six districts, governing 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 people under the eye of a man who rose to be Governor of those great Provinces, they would agree that Mr. Jenkinson's reputation could not be better established. Another testimonial came from the Hon. Edward Drummond. He said—
    "Everyone whom I have ever met regarded Mr. Jenkinson in those days as a young officer full of the highest promise. His zeal, energy, and intelligence were admitted on all sides; and the result of a long official acquaintance with him has fully justified the high opinion I always entertained of his abilities and perseverance. We have, for many years since 1857, been associated together in district administration, the last occasion being when he was for some years collector and magistrate of Saharunpùr, and his official superior as Commissioner of the Meerut Division, and I confidently say that it was a pleasure to work with him. If there was a fault at all, it was that of over-zeal. I have often entreated Mr. Jenkinson to spare himself a little, and to make over work, not absolutely requiring his personal attention, to his subordinates. I was fearful lest over-work might break down his health. It is hardly necessary for me to add that Mr. Jenkinson, as an executive and administrative officer, was second to none of those who ever came under my cognizance, although many officers, admittedly among the most able in the Service, have served under me. In entrusting any duty to him, I felt confident that it would be most thoroughly and perfectly done, whether it was a matter of ordinary importance, or one requiring tact and judgment and careful handling. Mr. Jenkinson has left his mark wherever he had any official connection with a district."
    Mr. Jenkinson showed quite recently that the old spirit which he displayed during the Mutiny was not out of the way when it had to be used in the pursuit and apprehension of a criminal. This gentleman, who was—as he (Mr. Trevelyan) would show—regarded as the protector and friend of all the populations he governed, had only one set of enemies, and they were the enemies of law and order. Mr. Jenkinson, on one occasion, heard of an extremely powerful robber chief, who had obtained the protection of the landowners of the district;

    693
    and this was how, according to a statement before him (Mr. Trevelyan), the robber was captured—
    "Mr. Jenkinson had to attempt the capture with the aid only of a very few followers; the presence of a larger number would have incurred the risk of an alarm, thus defeating the object of the mission. Slowly and silently the palisade round the enclosure was forced, and then, with silent step, the resting-place of the dacoit was approached. Had there been the slightest noise so as to awaken the sleepers, Mr. Jenkinson's position would have been a most hazardous one, and it is not too much to say that his life would not have been worth a moment's purchase. As it happened, the sleepers were resting in fancied security. There was then an anxious moment of suspense, the prize was all but in the captor's grasp; but there was still the cordon of followers to be gone through. This being successfully done, Mr. Jenkinson sprang upon the sleeping dacoit, whose hands were quickly tied, and the possibility of escape prevented. But it was still necessary to carry off the prize without raising the country. This, too, was done, and the captured men were soon conveyed into British territory. Mr. Jenkinson alone deserves the whole credit of the capture; he it was who conceived the scheme; he it was who so pluckily carried it to a successful ending. The dacoits were tried by Mr. Astell, and were convicted and sentenced by him as Special Commissioner. This was only one instance of good work done by Mr. Jenkinson. I had nearly overlooked it. I may have overlooked many others. It is illustrative of his desire to do his duty under all circumstances."
    No one in Dublin, during the terrible events of three months ago, could ever forget the bearing of Mr. Jenkinson during that trying time. No one could ever forget his coolness and good feeling; and at that time, when everyone's heart was sick within him, everyone felt that they had amongst them one of those men who could always be relied upon at a crisis. Mr. Jenkinson was ordinarily of a remarkably quiet and unassuming manner; but the moment there were dangers or disaster, or trying circumstances, or heavy responsibilities to be encountered, he seemed to draw himself up and become quite another man. He (Mr. Trevelyan) would now read another extract—a very interesting one, and one which he hoped would receive the attention of the readers of the Irish newspapers, or those of them who read the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Donnell). The extract he was about to read had reference to the last place but one at which Mr. Jenkinson was Commissioner—
    MR. O'DONNELL: What is the extract taken from?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was about to quote from the Report on the Settlement of Jhansi from the Board of Revenue to the Government of the North-Western Provinces. He (Mr. Trevelyan) would read this extract, and would then wind up by reading a much more important document. The former extract was as follows:—
    "Mr. Jenkinson's Report is so able and exhaustive that the remarks to he made in this review may be much briefer than in the districts of Dehra and Saharunpùr. His Report contains a full account of the history and economic condition of the district prior to British rule, and since it became a part of the British Possessions. The mode of Native assessment, the fiscal results of the assessment now effected, the determination of proprietary rights, and cultivating holdings, are in turn discussed with conciseness, and clearness, and succinct enumeration of the more salient points, is all that is now needed.
    "In conclusion, I am desired to bring prominently to the favourable notice of Government the services of the Commissioners, and the exertions of several Settlement officers. The excellent work performed by Mr. Jenkinson in drawing up the Record of Rights, in settling the numerous and difficult claims to proprietary title, and in embodying in an admirable Report a full account of all Settlement operations, is especially deserving of the thanks of the Board."
    He (Mr. Trevelyan) quoted this to show what the British officials thought of Mr. Jenkinson's conduct at Jhansi. The next document he wished to quote was an address from the people of Saharunpùr district to Mr. Jenkinson. It said—
    "During the seven years you have been in charge of the district you have, by your unvaried high sense of justice and clemency, inspired all, whether high or low, with feelings of sincere respect and admiration, and have earned their loyalty and lasting gratitude to the Government whom you have so faithfully represented. During your administration of the district, all the inhabitants, as well as the various officers who had the good fortune of serving under you, have to acknowledge that their comfort and welfare have ever been your first consideration; and now, on your departure from amongst us, there is not a heart that does not feel the pang of being parted from a kind benefactor and sincere friend. But, though absent from us, your name and good deeds will live for centuries among us, and our children and grandchildren will he taught to recall your name as a household word."
    The address then went on to refer to Mr. Jenkinson's exertions to improve the sanitary condition of the place, and to put a stop to epidemics and sickness; and it expressed the gratitude of the

    695
    various religious sects—especially the Mahomedans of the district, for the mosque he had been instrumental in procuring for them—for the interest he had taken in their welfare. It ended by saying—
    "There are, moreover, many landlords in the district who will never forget the fatherly kindness by which you have enabled them to extricate themselves from what appeared to them inevitable ruin and poverty, and, by enabling them to pay off their debts, have re-established them in the high position they held."
    Such was the testimony of the Natives in favour of Mr. Jenkinson. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had now gone through Mr. Jenkinson's career at greater length than he should have wished; but he had felt it impossible not to try to do this eminent public servant justice when an attack had been made upon him—an attack which he could not but feel the hon. Member who had made it, on thinking the matter over, would be sorry for.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had stated in his previous speech that he did not underrate many qualities which Mr. Jenkinson possessed. What he said was that that gentleman did not possess the qualities or the antecedents which fitted him for this post in Ireland. Quickness of perception and great resolution, no doubt, he possessed in a high degree, and those qualities rendered him all the more responsible for the part he took in the suppression of the Mutiny at Benares, where, on the admission of the Chief Secretary, he volunteered his services. He asked the Chief Secretary to produce some proof that Mr. Jenkinson could dissociate himself from the horrors perpetrated against the Native population at Benares. In the whole course of his observations, the Chief Secretary had been unable to bring forward a single word in such exculpation of his friend. The Chief Secretary also stated that Mr. Jenkinson, who was to discharge such delicate and quasi-official functions in Ireland, had actually volunteered to lead a body of free-lances in the suppression of the Mutiny at Benares. That might prove that gentleman to be a bold and daring leader of men, who trusted to cold steel in preference to anything else; but it did not show that he was fit to be at the head of the Criminal Investigation Department of a Constitutional country like Ireland.
    696
    Every statement of the Chief Secretary only confirmed the justice of his (Mr. O'Donnell's) original observations. The right hon. Gentleman had read out a certain number of testimonials to Mr. Jenkinson; but did he not know, with his experience of India, that every Anglo-Indian official of any consequence who desired testimonials could obtain the most abject addresses of gratitude from all the officials and Indian ratepayers in his jurisdiction? Did the imprisonment of 11,000 Natives in Bengal diminish the testimonials showered upon Mr. Ashley Eden when he quitted the Governorship of that Province the other day? The Chief Secretary quoted a testimonial from Sir George Couper, the late Governor of the North-Western Provinces. Would the right hon. Gentleman give him the opportunity of proving to the House the manner in which Sir George Couper left the population to die like flies from preventible famine a few years ago? The good qualities of Sir George Couper—
    MR. R. N. FOWLERrose to Order, and asked whether it was open to the hon. Member to discuss the merits of Sir George Couper?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite out of Order in discussing the appointment of Sir George Couper.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Chief Secretary had referred to the superior manner in which Mr. Jenkinson had settled the Jhansi difficulty. He must inform the Chief Secretary that the settlement of the Jhansi matter had been so bad, and so out of keeping with the habits of the people, and so productive of endless dissensions, that one of the questions engaging Indian legislation this year had been the new Bill—the Jhansi Encumbered Estates Bill—which was specially intended to redress some of the more glaring defects of the settlement to which the Chief Secretary alluded. When the right hon. Gentleman alluded to Anglo-Indians, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would remember that he was well acquainted with the biographies of Anglo-Indian officials. He had no desire to mar the brilliant prospects of Mr. Jenkinson, that dashing leader of free-lances, who went through the black multitude with sufficient vigour—that most bepraised master of dependent officials. If he had the

    697
    power of dealing with the complicated business of Ireland, surely he might be still more useful in some other country more suited to his peculiar capacities. They did not want Anglo-Indian administration in Ireland; they did not want ex-suppressors of Indian Mutinies in Ireland; they did not want Jhansi Settlement officers in Ireland. The Jhansi Settlement was one of the most cruelly confiscated districts in India. He repeated his protest against this appointment, and sincerely hoped the Government would place this Anglo-Indian official in some position where his rough-and-ready methods would be more appreciated than they would in Ireland. He was certain that the appointment of that gentleman, with his ignorance of Ireland, with his training in the bad school of Indian despotism, would be the cause of endless troubles in Ireland.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member may relieve his mind of any anxiety lest he should injure the present prospects of Mr. Jenkinson. Nothing falling from the hon. Member, and in such a tone as that in which he has addressed the Committee, will affect the character or the position of Mr. Jenkinson. He has said they do not want Indian officials in Ireland. There is one thing we do not want in this House; we do not want such language as we have heard to-night. The House of Commons has reason to be ashamed of any Member of the House who shall be capable of uttering such language, which. I venture to say every man of right feeling and mind in this country would condemn. What is the language we have heard with reference to this gentleman, who, when a gallant youth of 19, was engaged in the desperate conflict of the Indian Mutiny, when a handful of Englishmen were struggling against thousands and hundreds of thousands of barbarous savages at Cawnpore and Lucknow, and whom the hon. Member has attacked as if he were a ruffian, because at the head of a few gallant men he resisted those savages and maintained the honour of the English name? This is the language which a man ventures, in the presence of English Gentlemen, to thrust on this House. This gallant gentleman will not be injured by language which I venture to say no man has heard without disgust. In the pre-
    698
    sence of the House of Commons, expressing that feeling of indignation and disgust with which, I am certain, the language by which the hon. Member for Dungarvan has endeavoured to injure the character of this gallant man will be regarded, all I can say is, that the character of Mr. Jenkinson, if it wanted raising, would be raised by these two things—by the noble tribute paid him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who knows India as well as any man in this House, and by the vituperation and abuse of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Home Secretary had omitted to state the one thing which, above all, would complete the fame of Mr. Jenkinson—namely, that Mr. Jenkinson had aroused the enthusiastic admiration of the Home Secretary.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had heard it said that there was no better evidence of the badness of the case of a disputant than the fact that the disputant became excited, and exhibited symptoms of anger. He should be disposed to say that the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary must have a wretchedly bad case, because both of those right hon. Gentlemen had shown that they were not able to discuss this subject with cool reason, but had given evidence of their being exceedingly great partizans of Mr. Jenkinson. So far as he was concerned, he never had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Jenkinson's name until today, and he was not very much prejudiced against him personally; but he had heard a eulogium of Mr. Jenkinson, quoted from the writings of officials in India; he had heard the criticisms by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell); and he must confess, that taking the matter all in all, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan had made out a much better case than the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the indignation of the Home Secretary had raised the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his estimation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had defended his friend, and if he found it hard that his friend should be abused, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do him (Mr. Callan) justice if he should feel indignant on hearing his constitu-

    699
    ents abused and ill-treated. He thought the Home Secretary in former times, when he had no case, must have received instructions to abuse the plaintiff's attorney, and no doubt, in the Inferior Courts, he had carried out these instructions. He had shown his capacity for vituperation by abusing the hon. Member for Dungarvan in a manner worthy of Billingsgate. On the 15th of June, when an objection was raised to a clause in the Bill then under consideration, the Home Secretary made an announcement which, he said, he hoped would facilitate the passing of the clause. Having obtained his purpose and every facility for the passing of the clause, he had paid no further attention to the matter. If he had deliberately violated his pledge, or if he had made that pledge without any knowledge that it would be carried out, he was guilty of very improper conduct; and he hoped some statement would be made with reference to the violation of that promise.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is imputing improper motives to the Home Secretary. He has no right to do that.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he imputed no motives whatever. He simply said this pledge was made by the Home Secretary, and it had been violated. He was imputing no motive, and he was not sufficiently a metaphysician to know how a statement of facts could be considered an imputation.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member said the Home Secretary was bound to explain something he had not fulfilled. He then imputed an improper motive to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am entirely indifferent to any imputation of motive the hon. Member may make upon myself.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he simply mentioned that the pledge had not been fulfilled, but violated. That was the fact, and he only asked the Home Secretary to review the proclamation of County Louth, and to reconsider whether there was any ground for that proclamation.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, a very important portion of this Vote was now reached, and he thought it might be advisable to report Progress; but before moving that he wished to address a few inquiries to
    700
    the Home Secretary, in order to ascertain what had been done, or was proposed to be done, in the matter to which he would now draw attention. The next Vote related to the Irish lunatic asylums, the controlling body of which was, perhaps, one of the most important Departments in Ireland, on account of the great number of unfortunate people in Ireland who were confined in asylums in Ireland, and also because Ireland, in common with other parts of the United Kingdom, showed a considerable increase in the number of lunatics. As the House was probably aware, the entire support of the pauper lunatics in Ireland, fell upon the occupying tenants, and it was most essential that the chief department should be carried on vigorously. The head of the Department, Dr. Nugent, was now 90 years of age, and the second Inspector was considerably over 70 years of age. He submitted that it was not right that a gentleman nearly 90 years of age, and another nearly 70 years of age, should continue to have the entire control of this important Department. From time to time assurances had been given that there should be a recasting of the Lunacy Board in Ireland; but years had gone by, and nothing whatever had been done in that direction. He had considerable fault to find with the mode in which the administration of the lunatic asylums was carried on, and since he had returned to Parliament many things he formerly complained of he found still remained unremedied. He asserted positively, though with perfect kindness to the two gentlemen he had named, that the time had arrived when they should retire, but upon as liberal terms as possible. The administration of so important a Department as this ought not to continue in the present hands. Younger men, and men who were better acquainted with modern methods of carrying out a curative system, should be substituted; and he respectfully asked the Chief Secretary to give some information as to what the Government proposed to do in regard to recasting and remodelling the administration of this department.
    MR. TREVELYAN: With regard to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Blake) about the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, I shall certainly consider it my duty in the next five or six months to

    701
    inquire into the Public Departments of Ireland. I earnestly hope that in his remarks the hon. Member did not foreshadow his intention to move to report Progress before this Vote is passed. With, regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), I cannot be answerable for every word from the lips of every person in connection with the Prevention of Crime Bill; but I fully recognize the general gist of the observations the hon. Member quoted from the Home Secretary. I likewise fully acknowledge that the intention of the Lord Lieutenant as to the application of this case was something of the nature to which the hon. Member refers. His intention was, that particular districts should return under the ordinary law -when all chance of serious disorder had been extinguished.
    MR. CALLAN: No disorder ever existed in this district.
    MR. TREVELYAN: It is impossible to apply it to a particular district, and it is impossible to give to Parliament the reasons why the Lord Lieutenant applies a particular clause to a particular district. The more so as the Judges' Charges are not sufficient evidence for and against the existence of crime in a particular district. The Lord Lieutenant has very many opportunities of knowing what the dangers are, and sources which cannot come into open Court; but I can assure the hon. Member that, in the spirit of the original intention, the cases of different counties will be carefully inquired into, and certainly, if we consider that there is no sufficient reason for keeping a particular county or town under the proclamation, we shall remove the proclamation. I hope that, after this protracted and certainly very interesting discussion, we may now be allowed to take the Vote.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the county to which, he had referred had never been—at least, for the last 10 years—in a state justifying the application of any repressive measures beyond the ordinary law. He knew that the Chief Secretary had not been able to attend to these matters himself, and the Lord Lieutenant was dependent upon advisers who knew the district. The county of Down, which joined Louth, was not proclaimed. In the county of Armagh two Catholic baronies were proclaimed; but the remainder of the county was not pro-
    702
    claimed. In the county of Monaghan there was one barony which was eminently Catholic which was proclaimed; but the other portions were not proclaimed. Every Catholic portion of Monaghan and Louth was proclaimed, while the Protestant portions were not. How was it that other counties in Ireland were not proclaimed? When the next General Election came, the opinion of the people as to the way in which this Act was administered would be shown, and every supporter of the Government which unjustly administered the Act would be visited with political annihilation.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, that on the promise of the Chief Secretary to make personal inquiries into the Departments in Ireland, and the Lunatic Asylums Department amongst them, he would not press for Progress; but he must respectfully warn the right hon. Gentleman that if something was not done before the Session in February next, he should bring the whole question of lunatic asylums under consideration. What the right hon. Gentleman undertook to do he was sure would be done; and, therefore, he was satisfied with the assurance. The next Vote related to the fisheries. Inconsequence of the Prime Minister having absorbed all the days of private Members, he had been obliged to move for the discharge of the Irish Fisheries Bill. He hoped, therefore, he should receive from the Chief Secretary a similar assurance with regard to the fisheries to that respecting the lunatic asylums. There was one most important matter to which he wished to draw attention. Frequent representations had been made by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, during the last 15 years, as to the necessity of having an investigation respecting the fund for carrying out the fisheries. He could positively state that, even if a moderate expenditure had been incurred, the catches of fish would have been increased fifty-fold. It had been proved from the Reports of Inspectors of Fisheries that vast catches of fish had been lost to fishermen in consequence of their not having vessels to send out to bring the fish ashore. He earnestly trusted the right hon. Gentleman, during the Recess, would devote some of his time to investigating the condition of the Irish Fisheries. The right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor in

    703
    Office (Mr. W. E. Forster) undertook to do so, and he did so. Unfortunately for the fisheries, he left Office before he was able to give the House the benefit of the investigations he made on the subject. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to give the fisheries a part of his attention during the Recess.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he understood that an official in Ireland must be in office 20 years before he was entitled to one-third of his salary as pension; while in England an official could retire, after 15 years' service, upon two-thirds of his salary. That was a great injustice, which ought to be remedied as soon as possible.
    MR. COURTNEY: It is not so.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that with regard to the Prevention of Crime Act, and the Curfew Clause especially, he would like to know whether the police had been instructed to send up to Dublin Castle a list of all the arrests made, and the results of the inquiries subsequent to the arrests? Was there any objection to give the House every month, or every quarter, a Return showing the people arrested, the result of the prosecutions before the magistrate, and then before the two stipendiary magistrates? He was sure the right hon. Gentleman had no wish that people should be arrested without proper cause; but if newspaper reports were to be believed men had been arrested unnecessarily. For instance, in Rosscrea a man was standing outside his own door, and the police told him to go in; he said he would go in when he liked, whereupon the police took him off to gaol, and kept him there for 24 hours. Now, the Act was passed for the prevention of crime, and he could not believe it was a crime for a man to stand outside his own door, even in Ireland. It was a crime to stand about under suspicious circumstances; but, unfortunately, the police were to be the judges of the suspicious circumstances. He would like to ask the Chief Secretary whether he would issue a Circular to the police telling them where they had evidently taken a wrong view of matters, and telling them also what it was they were expected to do? Certainly it could never be intended that a man should be locked up for 24 hours for simply standing outside his own door. He trusted there would be granted
    704
    a Return periodically of the number of arrests made, how soon they were brought before the magistrate, and, if they were not discharged by the single magistrate, how soon they were brought before the double-barrelled Court, and what the result had been.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he noticed an item for allowances to Sub-Inspectors of Irish Constabulary, and allowances for 32 sub-constables. Now, these men were detached from the general Police Force; and he wanted to ask the Chief Secretary whether he could say it was a fact that the absence of these men from their duty in their several counties imposed a charge upon those counties in respect of extra police?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that with regard to the hon. Member for Waterford's (Mr. Blake's) remarks on the fisheries, he sympathized with the hon. Member for being obliged, on account of the pressure of circumstances, to withdraw the Bill, in which he took so much interest. He could only repeat what he had previously said—that the question of the Irish Fisheries should have his best consideration. In reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he might say that all the arrests made under the 11th section of the Prevention of Crime Act were reported under various headings. If a man were taken up under suspicious circumstances and got 14 days hard labour, it would be reported in the usual course. He presumed, that such a man would have had some disguise about him, or some weapon, which would cause the suspicion. All the cases were reported in full to the Chief Secretary's Office, and a very careful watch was kept upon them.
    MR. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman says hard labour; they have no power to give hard labour; but simply to imprison.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would look into that case. With regard to the last remark of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor') about the police who were transferred from one county to another, he had to say that if the county from which they were transferred required to have its quota of police made up, it would be made up before any extra police could be charged for. The county into which they were sent would, he presumed, be

    705
    charged with extra police if it was so ordered.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that a county would require to have its quota made up before extra police could be charged upon it. When last year he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) maintained there was no power to charge for extra police until the quota of the county was made up, the Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) said the Government had such right, and insisted upon using it.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that in reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), a distinct pledge was given by the Chief Secretary that extra police would not be charged on the county until the full quota was made up. With regard to the question raised by himself, he was sorry to say he must trouble the right hon. Gentleman again, because he had not answered it. He did not ask him whether returns were made up to the Chief Secretary; but what he wanted to know was whether the arrests and the results of them would be reported to Parliament? Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to present to Parliament periodically a Return showing the number of arrests made under suspicious circumstances, how soon the person was brought before the magistrate, what the result was before the single magistrate, whether the man was referred to two stipendiary magistrates, and then what was the punishment awarded? He would like to know what suspicious circumstances were; but, of course, he could not ask too much from the Irish police.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought the question raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) deserved a reply at the hands of the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General for Ireland.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he presumed that the reason why no answer was made was that hard labour had been imposed where there was no power to impose it.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that imprisonment with hard labour could be awarded under the 11th section in conjunction with the 21st section. In the course of the debates upon the Act in its progress through the House, it was laid down that certain Returns were to be presented to Parliament. He was
    706
    very unwilling, during this Session, to make any absolute promise as to the Returns to be presented next Session. Certainly, when the time came, he was disposed to consider very favourably the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said, a moment or two ago, that the statement he (Mr. Findlater) made with regard to the officers of lunatic asylums in Ireland was not correct. Now, he found that on the 11th of July the Chief Secretary for Ireland was asked by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) whether it was not the case that officials in England were entitled to retire, after 15 years' service, on two-thirds of their salary; whereas the same officials in Ireland had to serve 20 years, and then could only retire on one-third of their salary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary stated that the facts were correctly set forth in the question, and that the matter was regulated by the Superannuation Act of 1859. On referring to the Act he found it was the fact that a man must serve 40 years in Ireland before he could receive two-thirds of his salary on retirement.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not question the fact with regard to Ireland, but in regard to England.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 4: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 313.)
    (3.) £1,203, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought they ought now to report Progress. They had been sitting for 10 hours, and, although the number of Votes taken had not been large, they had disposed of several important subjects. The Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office, considering the present state of affairs and the recent enactment, was one of considerable importance, and the Government might congratulate themselves upon having obtained it in so little time. He did not suppose there was any objection to the Vote for the Office of Charitable Donations and Bequests; and hon. Members would be glad to let the Government take it without discussion, if they

    707
    would postpone the remaining Votes of the Class.
    Vote agreed to.
    MR. TREVELYANmoved to report Progress; but hoped that for the rest of the Session hon. Gentlemen would allow the Committee to make substantial progress.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Trevelyan,)—put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, there seemed to be some misunderstanding as to the hour of Sitting to-morrow, some hon. Members being under the impression that it was 4 o'clock, and others that it was 2 o'clock.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought it had been decided that there should be no more 2 o'clock Sittings.

  GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES AND ASSURANCE BILL.— [BILL 190.]
  (Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Courtney.)
  GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES AND ASSURANCE BILL.— [BILL 190.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that this being a Money Bill, the half-past 12 Rule did not apply. He would simply propose, when they got into Committee, that the Chairman should leave the Chair, as he did not intend to make any progress tonight, many hon. Members having gone away not knowing that it was coming on.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preamble postponed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PARCEL POST BILL.— [BILL 254.]
  (Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Courtney.)
  PARCEL POST BILL.— [BILL 254.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd August.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 8 (Arbitration under Act 22 and 23 Vict. c. 59).
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to this clause, in
    708
    respect of any services performed under the measure—namely, in page 6, line 19, after "Company," to insert "or any Company or person owning any steam vessel."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 9 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Application of Act to steam vessels).
    MR. PENDERsaid, he wished to move an Amendment requiring steam vessels carrying on regular trade between certain ports of the United Kingdom to carry parcels at a remuneration to be decided by agreement or by arbitration.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 9, line 7, after "arrive," insert "and where any steam vessel carries on regular communication between a port in the United Kingdom and any other port or place within the United Kingdom, and such steam vessel is neither owned nor worked by any Railway Company, the Company or person or persons by whom such steam vessel is owned or worked shall, from and after the passing of this Act, be bound to convey parcels, and the remuneration due for the services rendered by such steam vessel, in respect of the conveyance of parcels, shall be determined by agreement between the Postmaster General and the Company or person or persons owning or working such steam vessel, or, in case of difference, such remuneration shall be determined by arbitration, and the amount so determined shall be paid direct to such Company or person or persons, and the parcels conveyed by such steam vessel shall not, in respect of that conveyance, be deemed to be parcels conveyed by Railway."—(Mr. Pender.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted, put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    First Schedule agreed to.
    Second Schedule.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTwished to ask the Postmaster General, what arrangement would be made to deal with the very large increase of labour that would fall upon the shoulders of that ill-paid class of public servants, the letter carriers, when this Bill became law? The work of these men would not only be increased in carrying parcels to the persons to

    709
    whom they were addressed in the country districts, but in collecting them, and taking them to the post towns. He did not know what amount of extra carrying the Postmaster General expected in consequence of the passage of the Bill; but if the Parcels Post was availed of to anything like a large extent, the additional labour to the letter carriers would be very great. Had the Postmaster General taken this matter into his consideration; and did he intend, besides increasing the wages of the carriers, to substitute mail carts in certain of the rural districts for the ordinary walking postmen?
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, this matter had been before the attention of the Post Office authorities for some considerable time, and they had asked the Provincial postmasters to furnish reports as to the charge which would probably have to be made for carts where at present there were foot posts. He had no doubt that many rural districts, instead of being served by foot posts, would be served by carts; and, therefore, the labour of many letter carriers would be reduced.
    Second Schedule agreed to.
    Third Schedule agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 239.]
  (Mr. Playfair, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to move the re-committal of the Bill with reference to Clause 11, his desire being to substitute 2¼ for 2⅜.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time, in order to insert the word "re-committed,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. COURTNEYcould not agree to the proposed re-committal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  BOMBAY CIVIL FUND BILL.— [BILL 225.]
  (The Marquess of Hartington, Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
  BOMBAY CIVIL FUND BILL.— [BILL 225.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he felt bound to express some little surprise that the noble Lord had not on any occasion—either on the first or second reading, or on the present Motion—taken the trouble to explain to the House anything in connection with this Bill, the consequence of which was that hon. Members found themselves in a state of complete ignorance as to the character of the measure, the necessity for its introduction, and its probable effects. But, although, looking at the matter casually, the majority of Members of the House might imagine that it was of no great consequence, in reality it affected a great many interests, and interests of a very serious and substantial kind. He had hoped to hear from the noble Lord on the present occasion some statement of the nature of the fund which it was proposed to affect by the Bill, as well as an account of the alterations which had from time to time occurred in it and, in the rates of interest allowed by the Government of India upon the money accumulated, and also a statement of the surplus which was now in hand. This information was most desirable, because it was absolutely impossible for any private Member—certainly for the majority of private Members—to arrive at anything like a reasonable judgment on the provisions and conditions of the Bill as it stood without having a clear exposition of the materials with which it was proposed to deal. He had moved some time ago—immediately Notice of the Bill was placed on the Paper—for certain Returns relating to the Bombay Civil Fund, and the noble Lord had been good enough to furnish some Returns. But he had not given him

    711
    those he asked for; and those which he had given were so very imperfect that, although they enabled one to arrive at a general notion of the character, history, and extent of the meausre, they were altogether insufficient to enable anybody to judge, except in a hazy way, of the probable effect of this Bill when it became law. He did not wish to detain the House at that hour (2.15 A.M.); but he must say that if they were asked to do Business so late in the evening, they ought, notwithstanding, to do it properly, and that, if it were impossible, owing to circumstances, to bring forward Business at a reasonable hour, the House should have an opportunity of doing work relating to India, and, still more, the work of this country, at an earlier period in the Session. As far as he was able to gather from the Papers furnished by the noble Lord, it appeared that this fund was originally started amongst the members of the Civil Service in India, by subscription, in order to enable them to provide for the widows and children of members of the Service, and also for some members of the Service compelled, by ill-health, to retire. There seemed at first to have been a payment of 2½ per cent by the subscribers, and it eventually became a recognized custom for every person in the Service to pay this percentage; but, on an emergency, it was proposed by the members of the Civil Service that a further ¾ per cent should be imposed. The Government then agreed that upon this further fund, raised by voluntary contribution, the rate of interest allowed on the balance should be 8 per cent instead of 4 per cent; whereupon there arose a kind of duplicate fund, a portion of which was allowed interest at the rate of 4 per cent, while the remainder was allowed interest out of the Revenues of India at 8 per cent. The consequence of this, as anybody might have anticipated, was, that after a time the 4 per cent fund ceased to have any balance, and the only balance that existed was that which received from the Revenues of India interest at the rate of 8 per cent. That balance went on accumulating, and at last there was a large sum of money, with interest accruing upon it at 8 per cent, which latter came out of the pockets of a portion of the taxpayers in India. Moreover, it was admitted in the Papers furnished by the noble Lord,
    712
    that the large additions to the fund in the three Presidencies became very unsatisfactory, and this state of affairs was noticed by the Government as far back as 1872; and from that time until the present, there had been a wrangle between the Government of India and the Civil Service as to how much money was entitled to the higher rate of 8 per cent, and how much was to receive only 4 per cent. The Government made up its mind that it would somehow or other put an end to the fund; and it appeared from the Papers that the Secretary of State for India had intimated to the Civil Service that if they would consent to close the fund they would not only be secured with regard to the balance of the 8 per cent fund., which ought never to have existed at all, and which was made by means of unfair proceedings at the expense of the taxpayers of India; but he went further, and said if they would allow a new fund to take over the subscribers, he would not only secure them the benefits they were now receiving, but would also secure the widows £60 a-year. After further dispute, the Civil Service wrung from the Secretary of State for India an apparently reluctant consent, that if they were willing to surrender the fund altogether into the hands of the Government, they should have not only all the advantages which they were entitled to, but also £100 a-year for the widows. That was, no doubt, a very satisfactory arrangement for the Civil Service in India, but it was very unsatisfactory to the inhabitants of the country; because the Civil Service, who all along had been receiving very considerable benefits at the expense of the unfortunate taxpayers, were now to be benefited by a new fund, which was also to be similarly kept up by the taxpayers in India, apparently without their deriving any advantage whatsoever from the arrangement made by the Government. He had been in hopes that the noble Lord would have explained the object of the Government in getting rid of the fund, and that he would have stated generally what the effect of the passing of this Bill upon the Revenues of India would be; therefore, he could not but express regret that the noble Lord had not thought fit to offer any explanation to the House.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he should have been most happy to

    713
    give any explanation in his power had he thought the House desired it. He had not supposed for one moment that the House desired any further information than was contained in the Bill itself; on the contrary, it appeared to him that if the two parties concerned were satisfied—namely, the Government of India and the Trustees of the new fund, it was not necessary to define the legal effect of the amicable arrangement arrived at. The hon. Member for Queen's County had given a fair account of the origin of the fund, and had correctly stated that the way in which the question had presented itself was that for a long series of years there had been a controversy between the Government of India and the subscribers to the fund as to the amount of money on which the Government was to pay interest at the rate of 8 per cent. The hon. Member said the Government of India ought never to have paid 8 per cent at all; but, however that might be, they had contracted a legal obligation to do so. The controversy to which he referred, appeared to be utterly incapable of settlement; and, after several valuations of the fund, and examinations of the whole subject by competent persons, the Government of India determined to take over the fund on the most equitable terms that could be arrived at. He ventured to say that the only course to be adopted was to take the advice of eminent counsel as to the legal rights of the subscribers, and the opinion of the most competent actuaries as to the value of the fund at a certain date, and as to the terms which the Secretary of State could grant. Accordingly, an arrangement had been made on the advice of counsel and on the opinion of competent actuaries. It had been accepted by the Secretary of State, and by the subscribers, or, at any rate, a very large majority of them. As to the actual details of the arrangement, they were so intensely complicated that he could not pretend to give any opinion on the merits of the arrangement arrived at; but he ventured to think that no other course could have been adopted than that which had been followed—of referring the matter to the most competent authorities that could be found, in order to arrive at what was, on the whole, an equitable compromise both with regard to the interest of
    714
    the taxpayers and the interest of the subscribers.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORhad no wish to detain the Committee, but rose simply to say, with reference to the explanation offered by the noble Lord, that he had not shown that this Bill did not impose a very unfair charge on the Revenues of India. It was perfectly open to the Government, as appeared by the despatch from the India Office, signed by the noble Lord on the 23rd of March, 1882, to have refused to continue to pay an exorbitant rate of interest upon the fund. The Bill threw an enormous charge upon the Revenues of India, notwithstanding that there had been complaints before the India Office officials, over and over again, of the serious injustice done to the taxpayers of India by the arrangements hitherto existing.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS BILL.
  (Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS BILL.

    [BILL 255.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, as there had been no discussion at all with reference to this Bill, he took the opportunity now afforded for making a very few observations upon a particular point which it contained. He must say generally that he approved what appeared to him to be the two main objects which the promoters of the measure had in view—namely, the modification in the number of people displaced for which accommodation had to be provided, on the one hand; and, on the other, the enabling of the local authorities to purchase houses for the purpose of opening alleys, &c. Those were, in his opinion, very

    715
    proper objects, and they were based upon the recommendation of the Select Committee which sat to consider the subject of artizans' dwellings. But there was a point on which the Committee made no recommendation, but which the Bill proposed to deal with; and the way in which it proposed to deal with it appeared to him to be open to very great objection. He alluded to the question of the cost, in certain localities, of putting the Bill into operation. By Clause 6, when the improvement related to not more than 15 houses, the expense of carrying out the scheme was to be borne by the locality; whereas, when more houses were concerned, the expense had to be spread over the whole Metropolis. And so with reference to Clause 8, which gave power to purchase houses for opening alleys, the cost of this had to be borne by the locality, although the authorities might have to pull down good property in order to carry out a scheme which would improve the value of other property. He thought the cost in this case ought to be borne—at least in part—by the proprietors of the properties that were thus improved, and not confined to the locality, as the Bill proposed. He was aware that it would be contended that under the Act of 1868 it was incumbent on the local authorities to bear the expense of carrying out improvements in small areas. That, no doubt, was true; but since the larger Act of 1875 had been passed the Act of 1868 had not been acted upon, so that the improvements which had taken place since the passage of the Act of 1875 had been practically spread over the whole Metropolis. Now, he could not tell on what principles the provision of the Bill was based that the cost of large schemes should be distributed over the whole Metropolis, and that the cost of smaller schemes should be borne by the localities. He could not understand why it should be that an improvement which affected 15 houses and less should be paid for by the locality, and that one which involved a larger number of houses should be distributed over the whole Metropolis. In matters of this kind, the tendency of legislation for a long time past had been to treat the Metropolis as a whole, and he thought rightly so. The localities which would be affected by the Bill were those least able to afford the expense of the im-
    716
    provements, and, as such, stood in need of help on the part of their richer neighbours. He contended that it was most unjust to the poorer parts of the Metropolis, where Clause 6 would take most effect, that they should have to bear the whole cost of effecting the smaller improvements. He thought the ratepayers in those localities had a right to maintain that the cost should be distributed over the Metropolis in the same way as the cost of the larger improvements; and unless he heard some very good argument indeed in support of the proposal in the Bill, he should be compelled to put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and which he now begged to move.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the cost of carrying out all improvement schemes in the Metropolis under this Act should he defrayed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and not charged wholly upon the locality,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Question just put from the Chair was one of considerable interest; but he thought it would be more properly raised by way of Amendment in Committee when they reached Clause 6, upon which the whole matter turned. With reference to the object of the clause, it had been found by experience, since the passing of the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1875, that in some cases improvements had not been effected, because neither the local authorities, on the one hand, nor the Metropolitan Board of Works on the other, would carry them out under the existing Acts. The Committee which sat to inquire into the subject recommended that this question should be dealt with; the clause was, therefore, practically recommended by them, and it proposed to put a limit below which it should be the duty of the Vestry to deal with cases under the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1868, and above which it should be the duty of the Metropolitan Board of Works to deal with them under the larger Act of 1875. There might, of course, be some difference of opinion

    717
    amongst hon. Members as to the numerical limit of houses fixed by the clause; but that could be adjusted in Committee. He hoped the hon. Member would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon his Amendment, and that any further remarks upon the question raised might be reserved until the clause to which it particularly related was reached in Committee.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsuggested that the 6th clause of the Bill should be left out. He thought the Report of the Committee was singularly defective in dealing with the cardinal difficulty involved in the question—that was to say, how this point of cost should be settled. As long as the distinction between districts or localities and the Metropolis as a whole existed, he thought it would be impossible for the House to be satisfied with the result of legislation in this direction. It was in the little courts of the Metropolis that the principal mischief occurred; and if it was intended to tax the localities in which they existed, it was only to be expected that they would shirk the duty of getting rid of them. He thought the proper thing would be, as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had pointed out, to look upon the Metropolis as a whole, so far as this matter was concerned, and to say that the interest of the rich should contribute to the cost of the improvements, as well as the interest of the poorer classes. He, however, preferred that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets should withdraw his Amendment, and take a division on the clause in Committee.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was aware that the point brought forward was one of great importance, and that it had been the subject of considerable discussion by the Committee. He hoped, however, the hon. Member would not press his Amendment on that occasion; at all events, he trusted they might be allowed to go at once into Committee on the Bill. If, in course of time, it appeared that any hardship was inflicted by the local authorities, he said by all means let the matter be reconsidered hereafter. He had no doubt that everyone would feel that the improvements effected by the local authorities ought to be small improvements only; but the real question to be solved was, how to avoid a limit that would place them in danger of falling between two
    718
    stools. He was not pledged to the limit of 15 houses proposed by the Bill, and was willing that it should be altered in order to relieve the localities if necessary. It must, however, be borne in mind that the areas were improved by getting rid of the little courts, and it was only fair that those whose property was improved in this way should contribute something to the cost.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Amendment of 38 & 39 Vict., c. 36, s. 5, as to the provision of accommodation for the working classes).
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, with the object of giving definite instructions to the local officer in making his report of the proceedings and of the special circumstances of the locality, and enabling him to give effect to what was the intention of Parliament.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 12, after "locality," insert "and to the number of artizans and others belonging to the labouring classes dwelling within the area or being employed within a mile thereof."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, these words carried out the spirit of the clause, and were in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, would it not be better to say "the number of the working classes," instead of using the words "artizans and others"? This was the phrase used elsewhere in this class of Bills.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he took the words he had proposed, because they were in accordance with the very title of the Bill.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would look into the propriety of using these or equivalent words when the Report stage was reached.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he proposed to substitute the words "of

    719
    those" for the words "as may be," for, as it would be seen, the presumption would be against re-housing.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 24, leave out the words "as may be," and insert "of those."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
    Question, "That the words 'as may be' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    On the Motion of Mr. LYULPH STANLEY, Amendment made, in page 1, line 27, after "authority," by inserting "on a report made by the officer conducting the local inquiry."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Limit of area to be dealt with on official representation).
    MR. RITCHIEsaid he wished to substitute "ten" for "fifteen," in line 25. The course he proposed was to endeavour to minimize the clause by reducing the number; but, having done that, he should ask the Committee to strike out the clause altogether; but, first, he proposed to make it as innocuous as possible.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "fifteen," and insert "ten."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was about to offer this Amendment as a compromise; but he did not think the hon. Member ought, after such a concession, himself to move the rejection of the clause thus amended.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Word "ten" substituted accordingly.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he wished to add a Proviso to the end of the clause, that half the expenses should fall upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. The clause itself could not be dispensed with, and he thought there was a good case for throwing the whole expense upon the population of London. But if a part were thrown on the local authority, then there would be no reason to think the local authority would abuse the discretion given it to proceed in this way. It would have sufficient regard for the in-
    720
    terests of its own ratepayers not to proceed where it ought not to do so; while, at the same time, it would be relieved of a part of the expense that might deter it.
    Amendment proposed,
    At end of Clause, add—"The expenses incurred by the local authority in so dealing with such oases shall be defrayed as to one moiety by the local authority, and as to the other moiety by the Metropolitan Board of Works."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid he could not assent to this proposal. He had endeavoured to meet the views expressed by reducing "fifteen" to "ten;" but the proposal now made introduced an entirely new principle, the division of cost between the Board of Works and the local authority, and that was so wide a question that it could not be dealt with in the discussion of a sudden Amendment to a clause in Committee. It would be introducing a very serious danger in the proceedings of the local authority, for if they found they could enter into speculations by throwing half the cost on the Board, he confessed he felt some alarm as to what, in some cases, the result might be.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, there was one aspect of the case he would like to point out, and that was that by the words of the clause it was not possible for the Board of Works, even if they were desirous, to contribute at all to the expenses. Would the right hon. Gentleman consent to insert words that would enable the Board of Works to pay a portion of the expenses?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would consider that on Report.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he would not press his Amendment; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consider on Report not only the suggestion just made, but suggestions generally as to payments under the clause.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he did not see how the system proposed would be likely to lead to speculative jobs.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 7 agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Power to local authority to purchase houses for opening alleys, &c).
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he had an Amendment which raised the point of throwing part of the cost of repairs on the persons whose property would be benefited. The effect of his Amendment would be that, whereas generally the authorities would demolish buildings for sanitary purposes, their doing that might render other buildings in themselves equally objectionable, and, therefore, liable to demolition, perfectly sanitary, enabling the owners to keep them. The improvement in the value of standing property should not be made at the expense of the ratepayers; part of the expense should be borne by the owners of the property which would be improved by the alterations.
    Amendment proposed,
    At end of Clause, to add another sub-section (9) as follows:—"Where in the opinion of the arbitrator the demolition of an obstructive building adds to the value of other buildings, the arbitrator shall provide that so much of the compensation to be paid for the demolition of the obstructive building as is equal to the increase in value of such other building as the result of such demolition, such sum shall be paid by the owner or owners of such remaining building accordingly."—(Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he approved of the principle of the Amendment; at the same time, such an Amendment required very careful consideration of the wording. If his hon. Friend would put it down for Report, he would consider it. As to the principle, he approved of it.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, perhaps the words might be inserted, and the draftsman might be consulted, and any alteration made on Report.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, no; they had better be allowed to stand over.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Amendment of 42 & 43 Vict. c. 64 s. 12, as to enforcement of Act by Metropolitan Board of Works).
    MR. BRYCEsaid, before this clause was passed, there was another subject
    722
    to mention. It was with regard to the exemption which the City enjoyed from contributing to the cost of improvements under the Artizans' Dwellings Act. If the House were not so near the end of the Session, and in Committee upon so short a notice, he would have proposed Amendments altering portions of the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1875 in this respect, and making the City contribute to the cost of Metropolitan improvements of this kind throughout the whole Metropolis. That seemed a matter of plain and simple justice. It was discussed in the Select Committee, and there was a division on the proposal, and the proposition was lost only by the casting vote of the Chairman. But it did not matter very much; there were evidences that before long the House would have to deal with the question of Municipal Government for London altogether, and then would be a better time to take up this subject. But he could not let the Bill pass without giving expression to the strong feeling there was on the point.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, with reference to the remarks just made, when the Bill of 1875 was passing through the House, he moved an Amendment in the direction indicated by the hon. Member; but he could not induce the Committee to accept it. He quite agreed with the principle that it was unfair that the wealthy neighbourhood of the City should not contribute. Before the clause was put he would like to point out that the clause was grammatically incomplete; and, looking at the original clause in the Act of which this clause was a recital, he found the same mistake there. The words read thus—
    "Whereas it is provided that in the event of a local authority declining or neglecting for a space of three months after notice from the Metropolitan Board of Works to put in force such notice or report upon any premises described in such notice,"
    and so on. But it did not say what they declined to do. Should not there be the addition of the words "decline to give effect to?"
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there was no omission, it was a mere recital.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, as being in part responsible for the Act of 1875, he thought the City would be willing to take up the Act and work it. He trusted to the City to do this, and

    723
    the Committee had evidence before them that the Corporation would, if left to themselves, work the Act thoroughly within the City. But he was bound to say they had done nothing of the kind. It was too large a question to deal with now; but as part of a larger subject it would have to be considered.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) BILL.— [BILL 256.]
  (Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. John Holms.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Evelyn Ashley.)
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he thought it was hardly fair to ask the House to pass the second reading without explanation, and at such an hour.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade he could give any explanation. The first part of the Bill entirely concerned financial arrangements between the Treasury and the Board of Trade in reference to the Mercantile Marine Fund, and the second part simply recognized what was already the practice.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  REVENUE, FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, AND NATIONAL DEBT BILL.— [BILL 260.]
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Bill; but he wished very much that his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was absent because he was unwell, had had an opportunity of seeing the Bill, and he hoped such an oppor-
  724
  tunity would be given before the Bill went into Committee. There was one question he would like to ask in reference to the 25th clause—whether it affected the rights of the Crown in the Duchy of Lancaster? It seemed a strong measure to put the clause in the Bill, and it might affect the principle of the rights of the Crown in other matters. He did not know which Member of the Ministry could answer the question. Offices were so duplicated he did not remember who represented the Duchy of Lancaster; perhaps the Attorney General could answer?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, when the present Government came into Office they found a long-continued litigation proceeding in reference to rights to escheats and fines in the Duchy of Lancaster. The costs in the suit had greatly exceeded the amount involved, and efforts were made by the Chancellor of the Duchy to bring this litigation to an end; and this at last was effected by a compromise, in which a sum was to be paid by the Treasury to the Duchy, and the Treasury would receive in return a sum equal to 10 per cent yearly from the Duchy. Everything had been done to bring the litigation to an end; and if this had not been done the costs which would have fallen on the taxpayers would have been a much larger sum.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would be satisfied provided there was nothing in the Bill to imperil the right of the Crown in the Duchy.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, no; the Duchy was paid for all that was taken.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was not proposed to take the Committee until Monday.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  ALLOTMENTS (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Burt, Mr. Brand, Mr. Bryce.)
  ALLOTMENTS (re-committed) BILL.

    [BILL 227.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Trustees of lands vested for benefit of the poor to give notice as to letting).
    On the Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Amendment made, in page 2, line 4, by leaving out from "necessity," to "shall," in line 5.
    On the Motion of Mr. HIBBERT (for Admiral EGERTON), Amendments made, in page 2, line 6, by leaving out "appropriated," and inserting "used;" in page 2, line 7, after "ground," by inserting "or otherwise for the enjoyment or general benefit of the inhabitants."
    On the Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Amendment made, in page 2, line 7, after "ground," by leaving out to end of Clause, and inserting (after Amendment proposed by Admiral Egerton)—
    "Take proceedings, subject as hereinafter mentioned, for letting such lands in allotments, to cottagers, labourers, and others, and—

    (1.) They shall set apart for the purpose of this Act such field or other portion of the said lands as is most suitable, as regards distance and otherwise, for allotments, and give public notice, in manner directed by the Schedule to this Act, of the field or portion so set apart, specifying the situation and extent therof, and the rent per acre or rod which they are ready to accept for the same when let in allotments, and the times and places at which applications for allotments are to be made;"

    (2.) If any applications for an allotment are received, the trustees shall forthwith proceed to obtain possession of the field or portion set apart, or of so much thereof as is required for the applications, and to fence the same (if necessary), and to let the same in manner provided by this Act;

    (3.) If the whole of the field or portion so set apart is let in allotments, the trustees shall proceed forthwith to assign another field or portion of their lands for the purpose of this Act, and give public notice thereof as directed by this section, and so on until the whole of their lands are let in allotments, or no applications are received for further allotments;

    "Provided, That—

    (a.) If application is made for part only of the field, or portion so set apart, the remainder thereof may be let as provided by this Act in the case of unlet allotments; and

    (b.) If no application is made for any part of the field or portion so set apart, the like public notice as is required in the first instance shall be given by the trustees once in every succeeding year;

    (c.) Where the said lands are at the passing of this Act held on lease, the trustees shall proceed to act in pursuance of this
    726
    Act immediately upon the expiration of such lease, and this Act shall apply as if such expiration were before the passing of this Act."

    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, as the hour was late and there were three pages of Amendments left to deal with, he would move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Hibbert,)—put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PAY, &C.) BILL.
    Resolution [August 2] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. TREVELYAN and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 264.]

    MERCANTILE MARINE FUND (CHARGES)
    [PAYMENTS TO FUND, &c.].
    Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an annual sum to the Mercantile Marine Fund, and the transfer of certain sums to the said Fund; and of authorising the repayment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of charges paid out of rates in respect of costs incurred in prosecutions for offences committed at sea, and of expenses connected therewith, which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the charges on and payments to the Mercantile Marine Fund, and to expenses of prosecutions for offences committed at sea (Queen's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [ADVANCES, &c.].
    Committee to consider of authorising further advances, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, for the promotion of public works, and to the Irish Land Commissioners for the purpose of advances, or purchases of estates; and also of authorising the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to advance, with the consent of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, to the Irish Land Commissioners, such moneys as the said Land Commissioners may require to raise, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision respecting certain arrears of rent in Ireland; and to consider of authorising the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to guarantee the repayment, to the said Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, of any moneys so advanced; and to con-

    727
    sider of authorising the postponement of the Interest on a Loan, and of amending certain Acts (Queen's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.