Commons Sitting of 10 August 1882

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE, Votes 31 to 34; Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART, Votes 2 to 8A, 10 to 17; Class V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES, Votes 1 to 8; Class VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES, Votes 1 to 10.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Essex County Loans [New Title]*; Halifax Corporation*; Huddersfield Corporation*; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Loans, &c.)*; Rotherham Corporation*; Swansea Corporation Loans*; Tynemouth Corporation*; Wolverhampton Corporation Loans*, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—East India (Home Effective Charges of Troops) [Settlement of Arrears]*.
Resolution [August 9] reported—Ancient Monuments [Purchase, &c]*.
Committee—Citation Amendment (Scotland) [267]—R. P.
Committee—Report—Public Works Loans* [269].
Considered as amended—Royal Irish Constabulary [264].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Allotments [227], and passed.
Withdrawn—Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement)* [118].

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—INTERVENTION OF TURKEY.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Arabi Pasha was to be declared a rebel; and, whether a Military Convention with Turkey had been concluded?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already stated, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), that all the Powers concurred in advising the Porte to issue a Proclamation declaring Arabi a rebel. The draft Proclamation has been submitted by the Porte to Her Majesty's Government. It supports His Highness the Khedive, and declares Arabi by name to be a rebel. The answer to the second Question, as to the Military Convention, is that the Porte has expressed its readiness to conclude one.

  METROPOLIS—WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it is a fact that the Metropolitan Board have required the fixing of only 22 hydrants in a district in the East End of London, receiving a constant supply of water, and comprising an area of 2,090 acres, 8¾ miles of streets, 49,000 houses, and a population of 400,000 people; and, if so, whether, having regard to the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Metropolitan

  1359
  Fire Brigade 1877, that hydrants should be substituted for the obsolete wooden plugs, and to the powers given the Metropolitan Board by Statute, he has considered whether the requirements of the district in the case of fire are sufficiently met by the erection of 22 hydrants?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I have no doubt my hon. Friend's figures with regard to the area, houses, and population of the district he refers to are correct; and assuming that to be the case, and that the district is part of that supplied by the East London Company, I beg to inform him that it is true that only 22 hydrants have been required there, for the reason that the pressure of water afforded by that Company is too low for the purpose of extinguishing fire without the aid of a fire-engine. I may add that the number of hydrants to be required in any district is decided upon by the Board after careful consideration of Reports made by their engineer and the chief officer of the Fire Brigade; and where, as in the Kent Company's district, the pressure is good, far larger numbers of hydrants have been ordered, and the Board do not necessarily await formal notice of a constant supply.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—CESSIO FEES IN HAMILTON SHERIFF COURT.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that fees still continue to be paid to officials of Sheriffs' Courts in connection with cessio proceedings; whether it is not the case that section eleven of the Debtor's (Scotland) Act provides that no fee fund, or other dues of court, shall be exigible in respect of any proceedings under Cessio Acts; and, whether he will take steps to put an end to the illegal exaction of fees in cessio cases?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): On inquiry I find that in one Sheriff Court—that of Hamilton—fees to the bar officer have been charged for cessio cases. So far as I know, this is exceptional. The hon. Gentleman has correctly stated the provisions of the Debtor's (Scotland) Act. I consider these fees to be illegal, and I shall cause this opinion to be intimated to the officer of the Court.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—TREATY WITH COREA.
  MR. HINDE PALMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Treaty has been concluded between this Country and Corea; and, whether he will lay a Copy thereof upon the Table of this House?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: A Treaty between this country and Corea was signed on the 6th of June last, the text of which only reached the Foreign Office last night. The Treaty, if ratified, will be published in due course. The substance of it was given in my reply to a Question in the House on the 13th ultimo by the hon. Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease).

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE SPANISH CONSUL AT SINGAPORE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated in the "London and China Telegraph" of July 24th, that the Spanish Government has bestowed the Grand Cross of Naval Merit upon the Spanish Consul at Singapore, who recently, in the case of the "Leon XIII." encouraged his countrymen in that port to resist and outrage British Law; whether it is true that a similar decoration was simultaneously bestowed upon the captain of the "Leon XIII.;" and, whether he can now lay upon the Table the Correspondence relating to the affair of the "Leon XIII." and especially to the conduct of the Spanish Consul at Singapore in connection with it?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have received no information of the Grand Cross of Naval Merit having been bestowed by the Spanish Government on the Spanish Consul at Singapore, or on the captain of the Leon XIII. The Correspondence between the two Governments on the subject of the case referred to is not concluded, and, therefore, cannot conveniently be laid before Parliament.

  IRISH LIGHTS—STRANGFORD LOUGH.
  MR. HEALYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, although for thirty years a fine lighthouse has been built at Rock

  1361
  Angus, at the entrance to Strangford Lough, it has never been lighted, so that on stormy nights fishing boats have had to remain at sea for hours in imminent danger; and, whether he is aware that, as there are upwards of two hundred boats belonging to the Lough, the fishermen complain bitterly of the want of a light; and, if he will state why one is not provided?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The lighthouse on Rock Angus was erected before the passing of the Merchant Shipping Acts, and before the present mode of managing lighthouses was in existence. At that time the Irish Light Board were in the habit of paying for Irish local lights out of the dues on the passing trade, a practice much complained of, which was put an end to by Mr. Cardwell's arrangements and the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1853 and 1854. A light at the entrance of Lough Strangford would be almost, if not quite, entirely for the benefit of the local trade, and ought not to be provided without a large and substantial contribution from local funds. In the absence of sufficient funds from the locality, the Board of Trade have not felt themselves justified in sanctioning the appropriation for this purpose of the Mercantile Marine Fund, to which fishing boats do not contribute, and which is composed of light dues paid by the passing trade.

  ARMY—CAPTAINS OF THE ROYAL ARTILLERY—THE ROYAL WARRANT.
  MR. WARTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration the position of those Captains of the Royal Artillery who will be unable, under the provisions of the Royal Warrant of this year (Section 1, Division 1, paragraph 10), to obtain Brevet majorities after twenty years' service, owing to the fact that in and about the year 1864 they were, by reason of the exceptional fulness of the regiment, kept waiting for several months, after passing out of the Royal Military Academy, before being gazetted; and, whether he will allow their first Commissions to be antedated (without back pay) to the date of their passing out of the Royal Military Academy?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and learned Member, I have to state that I have taken into consideration the cases of the captains of Artillery to
  1362
  whom he refers, but that I do not think that I should be justified in adopting his proposal. The benefit to the officers would be slight, while it would be dearly purchased by the adoption, on a considerable scale, of an antedate going back 17 or 20 years, a proceeding quiet without precedent, and which might lead to very inconvenient consequences.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT, 1880—LOANS AND GRANTS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the whole amount of the loans sanctioned under the provisions of "The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880," has been advanced; and, if not, what is the total of the balances?
  MR. COURTNEY: The total of loans and grants sanctioned out of the £1,500,000 authorized by Parliament is £1,423,000; up to Saturday last £1,235,000 had been actually advanced.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SUB-CONSTABLE TESKEY.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, on the 4th July, a charge of larceny was preferred at the Thomastown (Kilkenny) Petty Sessions by Sub - Constable Golden against Sub-Constable Teskey; whether the latter was charged with, breaking into the box of the prosecutor on several occasions, and extracting various sums of money therefrom; whether this charge was substantiated in the strongest manner by certain marked coins, which were found in possession of the defendant by the head - constable in charge of the station; whether, notwithstanding this, the Bench of Magistrates dismissed the case, and refused to return Sub-Constable Teskey for trial; and, whether he approves of the action of the magistrates?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The facts of the case appear to be stated with accuracy in the Question. The case was investigated by three magistrates, who acquitted Sub-Constable Teskey, and stated that he left the Court without a stain on his character. The Inspector General informs me that he is a man of good character, with nearly 22 years' service. I see no reason for reviewing the action of the magistrates.

  THE MAGISTRACY(IRELAND)—ALLOWANCES TO RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to make any additional allowances to resident magistrates in Ireland (other than special resident magistrates), for the largely increased duties thrown upon them during the past two years, and for the further additional duties now being imposed on them in carrying out the provisions of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is not the intention of the Government to make any special grant to the Resident Magistrates in Ireland, such as that suggested in the Question of the hon. Member. Their allowances have just been rearranged and put on a footing which, it is believed, is satisfactory to them. The operation of the Prevention of Crime Act will be carefully watched, with a view of preventing its pressing unduly upon any magistrate; and if it is found to be necessary the scale of allowances and emoluments will be revised.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to the action of the Local Government Board in the matter of an account, furnished to the Belfast Board of Guardians for a supply of books for the inmates, amounting to the sum of £64 9s. 1d.; if it be correct that the Board of Guardians acted in express violation of a Resolution passed by them some time ago, and subsequently approved of by the Local Government Board, by which they were bound to advertise for tenders for supplies of any kind when the amount exceeded £20; if it be true that in the matter of the books no advertisements for tenders appeared in any of the local papers; why did the Local Government Board fail to insist on the Guardians observing this Resolution before sanctioning payment of the account for £64 9s. 1d. by their letter to the Guardians, as read on the 1st August instant; is it true the workhouse master never received the books into his stores, although they were delivered at
  1364
  the workhouse so far back as the 21st June last; is it true that, up to the 25th July ultimo, the master never thought fit to check the account nor count the books, and that he, on that date, obtained a week's leave to have them counted, but on the expiry of which time he still had omitted to check the account or certify it for payment; is it true that the books were produced on the Board room table by order of the Guardians on the 1st August, with the view to having them counted in their presence, when it was found that there were 149 volumes unaccounted for; is it true that no satisfactory evidence is forthcoming of the missing volumes; is it true that the Chairman of the Guardians read a letter from the Local Government Board (two hours before the books were counted for the first time after delivery) actually sanctioning payment of the account for £64 9s. 1d.; and, in the circumstances, is he prepared to offer any explanation for the gross neglect of the workhouse master and the serious misconduct of the Local Government Board; and, if not, what steps does the Irish Executive intend to take in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received a Report from the Local Government Board in reference to the accounts referred to in the hon. Member's Question, from which I find that the books were ordered on the requisition of the Roman Catholic chaplain, and were not advertised for as they ought to have been. The Guardians state that they were not aware that the books would cost more than £20, and, consequently, did not invite tenders for them. Under these circumstances, the Local Government Board did not object to the payment of the bill. The attention of the Local Government Board had not previously been called the other irregularities alluded to in the Question; but I have now given directions for having them inquired into.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—POLICE BARRACKS IN ARMAGH.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that a police barrack is about to be erected in the best and quietest street in the city of Armagh, to the injury of the vested interests of the occupiers and owners of dwellings therein; if it is true that the erection of the proposed barrack

  1365
  was arranged and agreed on without consulting any of the public bodies acting for the citizens; whether any notice was given asking for tenders for a new barrack, and if he will say what rent is to be paid, and the terms of years for which the barrack is to be taken; and, whether the Government will direct an inquiry to be made by some disinterested person or persons into this controverted matter, before any further steps are taken in it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Beresford) also put a Question to me to-day on this subject, and I perceive that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) has a Question in reference to it down for to-morrow. The Inspector General of Constabulary informs me that the Town Commissioners were consulted by the architect relative to the proposed site, and consented to the building thereon; the site was selected by the County and Sub-Inspectors, who naturally may be expected to be the best judges upon such a question. Their experience is that the street is not so orderly as the hon. Member seems to imagine; and they state that the occupiers of the houses are, for the most part, not the owners, and that the real occupiers have no objection to the erection of the barrack therein. The architect did invite contracts for the building by printed notice, and the matter was ventilated in the local papers. I do not see any reason for interfering with the discretion of the Constabulary authorities, who, I have no reason to doubt, were anxious to select the most convenient site available.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE POLICE IN BELFAST.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be correct that two sub-inspectors of police have been doing the entire duty of four sub-inspectors, in Belfast, for the last two months; and if, having regard to the present very peaceable state of the town, the services of the other two, who have been so long absent on duty in the south and west of Ireland, can be permanently discontinued, and thus assist in relieving the heavy police rate with which Belfast is burdened?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is, at present, only one Sub-Inspector absent from
  1366
  Belfast. Another Sub-Inspector, who had been absent on special duty in the County Cork, has since returned to his station. The absence of these officers has been very much felt in Belfast, and their services cannot be permanently discontinued. The police rate in Belfast would not be affected by a reduction in the number of Sub-Inspectors, as the Town Council pays no part of their cost.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—JUDGE O'HAGAN'S MEMORANDUM.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could explain why it is that Judge O'Hagan's recommendation, recently presented to Parliament, recommending an amendment of the Land Act is (unlike Mr. Litton's) undated; if he would state what the date is; whether Judge O'Hagan made any other communication on the subject of leases other than that now presented; and, whether any communications passed between Judge O'Hagan and the Government regarding his recommendation; if so, whether they can be laid upon the Table, and what the cause of the delay has been in presenting the recommendation to the House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Justice O'Hagan informs me that he does not know how it was that he omitted to date his Memorandum referred to. It was written at the request of the Lord Chancellor on the 4th of June last. He wrote two other Memorandums on the subject of leases. They were merely to enable the Prime Minister to answer Questions, and were to the same effect as the document now printed. The Memorandum which has been presented was prepared for the private information of the Government, and not for presentation to Parliament. After the hon. Member obtained the order, it became a question whether the public interest would not suffer by complying with it, and some delay consequently arose.
  MR. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to put the documents in order of date? He has mentioned other Memorandums; but I do not gather that he has given the date of this one.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have given the date on which this Memorandum was written. It was written in compli-

  1367
  ance with the request of the Lord Chancellor; and I think I may fairly say that the Memorandum contains all the advice which the Land Commission has given to the Government on the subject in question.
  MR. HEALY: Is there any objection to give the date?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have already given the date. It was written at the request of the Lord Chancellor on the 4th of June last. Justice O'Hagan does not know how it occurred that the date was not given.
  MR. GIBSONasked what was the request the Lord Chancellor made to Mr. Justice O'Hagan—was he asked to recommend the proposals of the Government, or simply to point out the machinery for working the existing Act?
  [No reply was given to the Question.]
  MR. TREVELYANsubsequently stated he had made a mistake. The letter of Mr. Justice O'Hagan was written in reply to a letter of the Lord Chancellor on the 4th of June.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSIONERS—THE HON. ROBERT WHITE, J. P.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is correct, as stated in the Cork papers of the 31st ultimo, that one of Her Majesty's gun-boats has had to be placed at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners who are trying land cases at Castletown, Berehaven, in order to take them every day to and from their hotel at Glengariff, a distance of 20 miles; whether this has been owing to the refusal of accommodation by the hotel keeper at Castletown; whether this gentleman is the Honourable Robert White, J. P.; whether a prosecution for Boycotting has been instituted against Mr. White; whether the police will be instructed to object to Mr. White's licence at the next licensing sessions; whether, in a similar case of refusal of hotel accommodation at Charleville, the proprietor, Mr.. O'Gorman, after being subjected to a civil action, was prosecuted criminally by the Crown; whether his licence was subsequently objected to by the police; whether there is any difference between Mr. White's case and Mr. O'Gorman's; if not, whether he can explain why the authorities took action in one case and not in the
  1368
  other; whether it is the fact that, under the Crimes Act, persons of the humbler classes have been sent to gaol in Cork county for refusing to work for persons whom they disliked; what the reason is for the neglect of the police in not taking similar action against the Honourable Robert White; and, whether, as Mr. White holds the Commission of the Peace, the Lord Chancellor will take similar notice of his conduct, as was done some years ago in the case of Lord Leitrim when he refused the use of his hotel to the Lord Lieutenant?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he had to apologize for the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend. It was correct, as stated in the Cork papers, that one of Her Majesty's gun-boats had been placed at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners trying cases at Castletown for the purposes mentioned, owing to the want of hotel accommodation there. The fact was the hotel keeper, having had some difference with his servants, was obliged to close his hotel, and that without any reference to the Sub-Commissioners. The keeper of the hotel was not the Hon. Robert White, who had nothing whatever to do with it, except that he was the landlord of the place, and he had not even heard of the alleged refusal to accommodate the Sub-Commissioners until he saw this Notice of Question. No prosecution had been instituted against him, nor was there likely to be one. The police would not be instructed to object to the licence of the Hon. Robert White, because he had no licence, and had nothing whatever to do with the hotel, excepting that he was the landlord; and even if he had, nothing had been done to necessitate interference. It was a fact that against a hotel keeper named O'Gorman a prosecution was directed some time ago by the Attorney General for Ireland; but this was withdrawn when it was discovered that two civil actions had also been instituted, and that he had likewise been imprisoned as a "suspect." The police, he believed, did object to a renewal of his licence, and it was refused; but there was a very great difference between this case and that of the Hon. Robert White's. It was not a fact that persons of the humbler class had been sent to gaol under the Prevention of Crime Act for refusing to work

  1369
  for persons whom they disliked. He felt certain that the Lord Chancellor would not interfere in the matter by instituting an inquiry, as he had nothing whatever to do with it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it a fact that the Attorney General for Ireland did prosecute Mr. O'Gorman?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): I have already stated that a prosecution was commenced; but that it was dropped when it was discovered that two civil actions were commenced.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman—["Order, order!"] This is a question arising out of the answer. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that Mr. O'Gorman was never put upon his trial by the instructions of the Attorney General for Ireland? Is he ignorant of the fact that Mr. O'Gorman was actually put on his trial, and that it was only upon the disagreement of the jury that the case was stopped?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): I dare say that what the hon. Gentleman states is a fact; but it is not inconsistent with the answer I have given.
  MR. HEALY: After the distinct denial of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I may state that I know of my own knowledge that the full and entire facts of the matter have been set out in the public Press.

  MINES REGULATION ACT, SEC. 26—IFTON COLLIERY.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the inquiry into the death of Joseph Kynaston, a boy who was killed at Ifton Colliery on the 30th of June; whether it was brought to his notice that Mr. G. Hill Trevor and Mr. Williams were prosecuted for manslaughter, and, though acquitted, there was strong evidence of the bad management of the colliery, and that it appeared from the evidence that there was no certificated manager in the colliery, Mr. Williams, the so-called manager, being an ordinary workman receiving 23 s. per week; and, whether, seeing that both the mines inspector and the judge who tried the case condemned the management of the colliery, he will instruct the inspector, as pro-
  1370
  vided by section twenty-six of the Mines Regulation Act, to call upon the owner to place the colliery under the control of a properly qualified manager?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): This Question, as soon as it appeared on the Paper, was referred to the Inspector for his remarks; but his reply has not yet been received. On receipt of his Report the suggestion of the hon. Member will be carefully considered.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—THE RANEES OF BARODA.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether there is now any objection, since the death of the Ex-Gaekwar of Baroda, to the widowed Ranees having confidential communications with Mr. Kavanagh in his capacity as Counsel of the deceased Ex-Gaekwar and of themselves; whether the Government of India will give facilities for handing over to the Ranees, as the legal personal representatives of the deceased Ex-Gaekwar, the moneys saved out of the stipend lately allowed to him, the other personal property at Doveton House, Madras, and the crore and a half of rupees or thereabouts which form the dowry given to them on their marriage, and which the Government of India is holding on their behalf; and, whether the Government of India will allow the younger Ranee to receive the property formerly belonging to her deceased son?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to the first Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that the matter of confidential communications between Mr. Kavanagh and the widows of the Ex-Gaekwar of Baroda is one which lies entirely within the discretion of the Indian authorities. Mr. Kavanagh has been accordingly informed, in answer to a letter on the subject sent to the India Office, that any application he may have to make in regard to it should be addressed to the Government of India. With reference to the remaining Questions of the hon. Member, I have only to say that the Government of India will, no doubt, give immediate attention to all matters which may require their intervention or decision consequent on the death of Mulhar Rao. Certain claims, however, made on behalf of the

  1371
  Ex-Gaekwar to balance of stipend and private property alleged to belong to himself and his Ranees have been declared by the Government of India, after careful investigation, to be inadmissible, and this decision has been approved by the Home Government. As to the property said to belong to the deceased son of the younger Ranee, the Government of India are making inquiries into the matter, the result of which inquiries is not yet known at the India Office.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—DROMOD AND DRUMSNA PETTY SESSIONS—MR. RUTHVEN, J. P.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an independent inquiry is about to be instituted at once into the circumstances attending the election of clerk of petty sessions for the districts of Dromod and Drumsna, county Leitrim, held on the 24th July last; whether it is a fact that Mr. Ruthven, J. P. for the counties of Galway, Tipperary, and Leitrim, and who was one of the magistrates that voted on that occasion, after the election was concluded, peremptorily ordered the acting clerk at Dromod, Constable Walker, R. I. C. to insert his (Mr. Ruthven's) name in the order book, as having attended at Dromod in his magisterial capacity once in January 1882 and once in March 1882, in order to be qualified to vote for a clerk of petty sessions in the Dromod district, although it can be proved, on sworn evidence, that Mr. Ruthven did not act in his magisterial capacity on either occasion; and, whether it is a fact that Constable Walker strongly remonstrated when ordered to make the above-mentioned entries; and what action do the Government propose taking with reference to Mr. Ruthven's conduct?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The attention of the Lord Lieutenant had already been called to the circumstances attending the election of a clerk of petty sessions for the districts of Dromod and Drumsna; but no decision on the subject has yet been arrived at. I can, however, promise the hon. and gallant Member that the matter will be fully investigated before His Excellency's decision is pronounced.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—EXPENSES OF INDIAN CONTINGENT.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India, If he has still reason to believe that the total cost of the expedition from India to Egypt will not exceed one-fourth part of the sum voted for the expedition from this Country?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not think that I myself have ventured to make any calculation as to the relative cost of the Expedition from India to Egypt. I think it was the Secretary of State for War who said that the cost to India might be about one-fourth or one-fifth of that incurred by this country; but I do not think he said that it would not exceed one-fourth of the sum voted for the Expedition. What he did was to compare the relative strength of the two Forces, and to express the opinion that the amount to be charged upon India would be about that stated. I hope shortly to be able to make the Financial Statement with regard to India, and I will then be happy to give any information I may have as to the Indian Expedition. But it is not desirable that I should anticipate that information now.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—THE TREES IN KENSINGTON GARDENS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he has yet obtained any reliable opinion of the cause of the frightful mortality among the trees in Kensington Gardens this season, which seems to threaten their early extinction, and any suggestion of any means by which their places may be supplied by trees which will not succumb to the urban climate?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The mortality of the trees in Kensington Gardens is not, I am sorry to say, of recent date. It has been progressing at a rapid rate for four or five years past, and it has not the least reference to the application of clay. Two years ago a Committee, consisting of my Predecessor (Mr. Adam), Mr. Mitford, Sir Joseph Hooker, and Mr. Clutton, investigated the cause of this mortality; and they came to the conclusion that it was due—first, to the fact that the trees had originally been planted too closely, and had not been properly thinned some 40 or

  1373
  50 years ago; and, secondly, to the ground not being properly drained. They considered that it would be useless to plant trees in place of the dead ones unless the land could be properly drained, and that the proper course would be to wait till a clearance of a part could be effected, and then to drain and replant the part thus cleared.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—CETEWAYO, EX-KING OF ZULULAND—CONTEMPLATED RESTORATION.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will inform the House before it rises whether Her Majesty's Government has come to any decision as to the restoration of the ex-King Cetewayo to Zululand; and, if so, what means it is proposed to adopt to prevent civil war, and to protect the interests of the Chiefs in the rights established for them by Sir Garnet Wolseley's settlement?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I am not in a position to give a positive pledge that before the House rises the Government will be able to announce the decision as to the future of the ex-King Cetewayo; but I am hopeful that if the inquiry were repeated in the course of next week, just before the rising of the House, I might give a definite answer.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—RATHDRUM UNION—ELECTION OF A GUARDIAN.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the election of a guardian for Killeskey Electoral Division of the Rathdrum Union, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the report of the official inquiry, as printed in the local Conservative paper of the 5th instant:—
  "The election came off in March last, Mr. Croften being declared returned by a majority of 40. There were 32 rated occupiers' votes for Mr. Croften (the landlord candidate), whereas Mr. Gaskin (the tenants' candidate) had 75; but the number of proxies for Mr. Croften amounted to 83. It had struck Mr. Gaskin as somewhat singular that these 83 proxy votes were given by only twelve persons, and he accordingly placed the matter in his solicitor's hands;"
  whether it is a fact that, after repeated applications and refusals, an inquiry was at length granted to Mr. Gaskin; and, whether it is true that the result of the
  1374
  inquiry has been to reduce Mr. Croften's majority to nil; and, if so, what steps he intends to take with reference to the conduct of the returning officer whose action on the occasion was impugned from the beginning?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have not seen the paragraph in the local paper referred to by the hon. Member; but the Local Government Board has received the special Report of their Inspector on the matter, together with the Minutes of Evidence taken by him at the inquiry. The Board has not yet arrived at any decision on the subject, but hopes to do so in a few days.

  CONVICT LABOUR—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Committee on Convict Labour have made their Report; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Report was only received yesterday, and there has, therefore, not been an opportunity of considering it. I cannot at present say whether it will be possible or advisable to present to Parliament the whole or any part of it.

  POST OFFICE—FEMALE CLERKS.
  MR. W. S. ALLEN (for Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS)asked the Postmaster General, What number of female clerks are employed in the Post Office under the recent arrangement, including those just appointed; and, whether it is intended to make any considerable addition to the present staff within the next six months?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to my hon. Friend, I may state that the number of female clerks now employed at the Central Office in London is about 350. A considerable addition will be made to the staff in the next six months; but the increase will probably not exceed the number of the fresh appointments made during the last six months.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS—MR. MEEK.
  MR. BRODRICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government are

  1375
  aware that reductions to the extent of 39 per cent. have been made by the Sub-Commission, of which Mr. Meek is a member, on estates in the district with which he was connected previous to his appointment, and that the great majority of these decisions have been appealed against; and, whether they will undertake to remove Mr. Meek to some other district, or to cancel his appointment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The reductions of rents by the Armagh Sub-Commission average about 26 per cent. and a large number of appeals have been lodged. It is the intention of the Land Commissioners to transfer Mr. Meek to another district after the Vacation.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (IRELAND)—IMPROVEMENT OF TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY (for Mr. ERRINGTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any steps have been taken for carrying into effect the recommendations of the Commission of 1870, and the proposals of the Board of National Education, for improving the training of elementary school teachers in Ireland; and, if not, whether he will during the Recess consider how the deficiencies in the training system can best be met?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This matter had received the serious attention of my Predecessor, and I fully intend to enter into it myself during the Recess.

  THE SASINE OFFICE (EDINBURGH)—RESULTS OF THE LORD CLERK REGISTER ACT, 1879.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table of the House that portion of Messrs. Gurdon and Morton's Report to the Treasury (of date 3rd February, 1881) on the position, duties, and requirements of the several departments affected by "The Lord Clerk Register Act, 1879," which describes-in detail—
  "The system of the Registration of Land Rights, the indexing of Registers, and the method of searching for incumbrances affecting land, as it formerly existed, and as it is now carried on;"
  and, if he will also lay upon the Table
  1376
  any recommendations made by Messrs. Gurdon and Morton as to the classification of the clerks in the Sasine Office, and the salaries to be paid to the several classes?
  MR. COURTNEY: I will present to the House that portion of Messrs. Gurdon and Morton's Report which describes the system of registration and searching as it formerly existed, and as it now exists, and is carried on, as it may be of general interest. It would be contrary to practice to publish that portion which relates to administrative details, and it would be misleading to publish the recommendations as to salaries, because they formed only a part of the information on which the Treasury acted in fixing the salaries; but I may mention that the amount which they proposed to insert in the Estimate for the Sasine Office was less than that actually voted for the current year.

  CYPRUS (FINANCE, &C.)
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Report of Mr. Fairfield, of the Colonial Office, who visited Cyprus last autumn, or the Report of the High Commissioner for 1881, will be in the hands of the Members of this House before the Vote of £90,000 in aid of the Revenues of Cyprus is taken?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Mr. Fairfield's Report has not been laid on the Table of the House because we are awaiting Sir Richard Biddulph's observations upon it, and the High Commissioner's Report for 1881 has only recently been received. I would point out, however, that Mr. Fairfield's Report only refers to financial changes and reforms in the future, and cannot, therefore, affect the proposed Vote of £90,000, which is to meet a past deficit.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—THE GALWAY RACES.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, By whose authority and on whose representation were a large number of soldiers present at the Galway Racecourse during the races recently held near the town?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The High Sheriff of Galway Town and another

  1377
  magistrate requisitioned the Sub-Inspector of Constabulary to have a force of 150 men, inclusive of the town force, in attendance at the races. There were, however, no Constabulary available for this duty; and consequently Mr. Gardner, Resident Magistrate at Galway, sent in a requisition for 175 Infantry, there being but 20 policemen of the town force available. In former years 150 police were usually employed on this duty.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the grounds of the requisition of the magistrates?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was believed that there was reason to expect that the races would not end without a disturbance, and he was bound to say that a disturbance did occur. A riot broke out with little or no cause, except that a well-deserved arrest had been made, and the police and troops were attacked, and the Riot Act was read twice.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the so-called riot arose out of the arrest of a poor deaf and dumb man by the police; and whether the reading of the Riot Act and the intervention of the troops and police only resulted in the arrest of a number of young lads; and whether he considered that that was a riot of the character which was reported to him by the local authorities?
  [No reply was given.]

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—THE MARINES.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, By whose authority and at whose request has a party of Marines been stationed along with the Police in each of the police stations of Aughrim and Kilconnell, and are the extra pay and expenses of the Marines to be made payable by the district; and, whether the Police in charge of those districts have reported a single case of outrage?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) put a similar Question to me on the 3rd instant, and my answer is correctly reported in The Times of the following day. The point of the Question appears to be whe-
  1378
  ther the expense of these Marines is to be levied off the district. The hon. Member will see that I explained that the cost of Marines or soldiers employed on such duty is borne by the Army Votes.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—INSTRUCTIONS TO H. M. INSPECTORS OF SCHOOLS.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he is now able to lay upon the Table the Instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, as promised in an early part of the Session?
  MR. MUNDELLA,in reply, said, from inquiries he had made, he believed the whole of the Instructions of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools would be presented to the House next week.

  POST OFFICE—PROVINCIAL LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has yet made known the details of his new scheme as applied to the provincial letter-carriers; and, if not, when they will be issued?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the details of the new scheme as applied to the Provincial letter carriers are not yet quite complete; but I hope to be able to make them known in the course of a few weeks.

  ARMY—ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT—VALUE OF OFFICERS' FORMER COMMISSIONS AND RETIREMENT.
  MR. WARTON (for Colonel BARNE)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there are some Officers serving in the Army Pay Department who have never been permitted to realise the value of their former combatant Commissions, and have thus been deprived of the use and interest of their money, whereas the large majority of other Paymasters have received either the regulation, or over regulation, value of the Commissions they previously held, or, having entered as civilians, have no such capital invested; whether some of the most deserving of these old Officers will, by reason of age, be compulsorily retired, and thus be

  1379
  debarred from all the benefits of retired increased rank and pay granted by Royal Warrant of 25th December 1880, and will be army retired on lower rank and pay than any other Paymasters their juniors; and, whether he will grant to these old Officers the value of their former Commissions, or some reasonable equivalent, for the loss of use and interest of their money?
  MR. CHILDERS: May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, before putting these Questions on the Paper, he might have spoken to me? Had he done so, I should have saved him some trouble, as I answered precisely the same Questions on the 3rd of August, when they were put to me by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar).

  ARMY—THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE—PROMOTION FROM THE RANKS.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would direct that all vacancies arising in the rank of sub-lieutenant from the deaths of officers with the Egyptian Expeditionary Force should be filled mainly from non-commissioned officers employed with that Army?
  MR. CHILDERS: My hon. and gallant Friend appears not to have noticed that there is now no such rank as sub-lieutenant. But, as to the object of his Question, I may say that I have already since I took Office authorized the number of promotions from the ranks to a lieutenant's commission to be doubled; but I could not adopt any rule under which all or most of the vacancies arising from deaths of officers in the Egyptian Expedition would have to be filled by non-commissioned officers. The Commander-in-Chief will, of course, pay due attention to every recommendation to this effect which he may receive from the General Officer commanding.

  AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION—CORK BUTTER MARKET.
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Irish Government has been called to the severe strictures passed by the Duke of Richmond's Commission on the present constitution and working of the Cork Butter
  1380
  Market; whether he is aware that this is a subject in which great interest is taken in Ireland; and, whether the Irish Government will consider this Report, and the evidence given during the recess?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I believe that the attention of the Government has been given to the matter; but I will inquire into it when in Dublin.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CARRICK-ON-SUIR UNION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement forwarded on the 7th instant by the Committee of elected guardians of the dissolved Board of the Union of Carrick on Suir, to the Irish Local Government Board, submitting the following facts for consideration; that, at the meeting of the Carriok Board, on the 1st of July, a motion was made and seconded, by elected guardians, to postpone contentious matter, but such motion was refused by the chairman; that, at the meeting of the 8th July, the elected guardians and the clerk endeavoured ineffectually to induce the chairman to first proceed with the ordinary business of the day, and that it was the refusal of the chairman to proceed with the ordinary business, or to put a motion to that effect from the chair, which led to the adjournment of the meeting; that, at the meeting of the 15th of July, the elected guardians present explained to the Hamilton Local Government Board Inspector that, on the previous occasions in question, they had been willing to transact the ordinary business, had offered and attempted to do so, and had been prevented by the chairman; and, whether, in view of these and other facts set forth in the statement of the guardians, the Local Government Board will now revoke the sealed order which had been issued upon the ground that the guardians had repeatedly adjourned the meetings of the Board, "with the view of interfering with the transaction of the ordinary business of the Union!"
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received the statement referred to, and the matter will receive my immediate attention. It will, however, be necessary to make some further inquiries on the subject.

  REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT—IRISH SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. BLAKEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as the Sea Fisheries (Ireland) Bill, which stood for Second Reading on August second, had to be withdrawn in consequence of the appropriation of the days of private Members by Government, he will be kind enough to undertake, during the Recess, to make inquiries with a view of ascertaining the desirability of extending the loan system to the eight maritime counties of Ireland not having the benefit of the Reproductive Loan Fund Act, and devising means for the purpose?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This seems to be a matter for the Treasury and Board of Works to consider, and I will communicate with them on the subject.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—THE TRANSVAAL—THE BOERS AND THE NATIVE TRIBES.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give the House any information about the contest between the Boers and Montsioa; and, whether it is true that the Boers are organising forces for a fresh attack?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The only information the Colonial Office has received is contained in a telegram received four days ago, which stated that 100 freebooters having disposed of Mankoroane, were then about to proceed to assist Moshette against Montsioa. We have no official news of their defeat, as reported in the newspapers. I may take this occasion to state that the proposed mounted police force to which I referred the other day as having been agreed to by Her Majesty's Government has for the moment been suspended, owing to the Orange Free State having declined to join and the Transvaal having not yet given a definite answer.
  MR. GORSTasked whether the Government had protested against the action of the Boers?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; we are continually protesting.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE GUARDIANS OF TUBBERCURRY UNION CO. SLIGO—REPAYMENT OF INSTALMENTS OF THE SEED RATE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1382
  Whether his attention has been drawn to a Resolution passed by the Tubbercurry (county Sligo) Board of Guardians on the 27th ultimo, declaring that the Board had no funds to meet the instalment of the Seed Rate falling due on the 1st instant; that the collectors, owing to the circumstances of the country, had been unable to collect the Seed Bates; and that the Union Treasurer had refused to allow an overdraft; whether, in view of this state of facts in Tubbercurry and other Boor Unions in the West of Ireland, the Government will, as in the case of the Swinford Union, extend the time for payment of the instalment of the Seed Rate till the end of the present year, so as to give time to the ratepayers to realise the value of the harvest, and to the collectors to obtain payment of the Bate; and, whether the Government will consider the suggestion of the Tubbercurry and other Boards of Guardians that the collectors be authorised to collect the current Boor Bates without at the same time collecting the instalment of the Seed Rate?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board had not received a communication from the Tubbercurry Board of Guardians. The best answer I can make is that each case will be considered on its merits.

  THE "PRINCESS ALICE" CALAMITY—THE INQUEST—REPORT.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is a M. S. Report of the proceedings taken at the inquest, arising out of the loss of the "Princess Alice" steamer near Crossness in the Thames, during the month of September 1878; and, if so, whether he has any objection to the publication of such Report?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): A Return of the proceedings at the Coroner's inquest, with other Papers, was ordered to be laid before the House of Commons in December, 1878, and the documents were duly deposited with the Librarian; but on account of their excessive length, 5,000 pages, the order for printing was discharged. Under these circumstances, I cannot promise that the documents in question will be published at the expense of the State.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. PATRICK J. DUFFY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the case of Mr. Patrick J. Duffy, now imprisoned in Kilmainham, has recently been reconsidered, as promised; and, whether the Government now intend to release him? The hon. Member reminded the Chief Secretary of the recent pledge which he had given, that in the course of the next fortnight he would release a large number of suspects; and asked whether it was his intention, on his arrival in Ireland, to apply himself to that question?
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary answers that Question, perhaps he will allow me to ask him another—namely, whether it is a fact that Mr. Henry George, the distinguished American writer, has been arrested under the recent Coercion Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot account for not having received an answer to a telegram despatched early to-day with regard to the case of Mr. Henry George and that of an Eton Master. At present I know no more about the case than other Gentlemen who have seen the newspapers. Mr. Patrick J. Duffy was released by order of the Lord Lieutenant on the 6th instant. The policy indicated in the hon. Member's Question is certainly correct.
  MR. O'DONNELL: In view of this danger to tourists in Ireland, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of the Irish Government issuing passports for the use of inoffensive foreigners in that country?
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this Mr. Henry George is the same Mr. Henry George, the correspondent of The Irish World, who was considered by two Cabinet Ministers to be a person of so much importance that they invited him to dine with them at the Reform Club, and that he accepted their invitation?
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked, whether the report was true that Mr. Henry George was a correspondent of the American Irish World?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not know.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND.
  MR. BLAKEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the event of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill becoming Law this Session, he will be kind enough to undertake to bring under the notice of the Irish Government the generous proposal of the Government of Canada to co-operate with the Imperial Government in settling Irish immigrants fitted for farming pursuits in Manitoba and the North West Territory, as detailed in the Despatch of the Governor General to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated Ottowa, November 9th, 1880?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Certainly, Sir; should the Bill become law, the proposals, which have already deeply interested the Irish Government, shall receive our full consideration.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ELCHOrose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before engaging in military operations, other than such as may be necessary for the defence of Alexandria, the protection of the Khedive, and the security of the Suez Canal, they will endeavour to ascertain the true state of feeling of the Egyptian Nation? The noble Lord said, he proposed slightly to amplify his Question, and with that view he should conclude with a Motion. He felt constrained to apologize for the course which he was about to take; but he was so deeply impressed with the gravity of the situation in Egypt that he could not forego making a few observations on the subject. Look where they would, the situation was grave—there was darkness all around. He had no wish to open up the question of the general policy of Her Majesty's Government, or to enter into the general Egyptian Question. All he wished to do was to get a distinct and clear expression from the Government as to whom they were at war with. The first part of the present military operations consisted of the bombardment of Alexandria. Two reasons were given for that bombardment—namely, the protection of the Fleet, and the necessity of asserting their prestige

  1385
  after the murders that had taken place. The bombardment was followed by the despatch of troops to Egypt—not by any declaration of war, because there was no Power against whom they could declare war; but the reasons given for the despatch of troops were, as he understood, the necessity of putting a stop to, or crushing, military lawlessness, of restoring order where anarchy prevailed, and of restoring the authority of the Khedive. The Prime Minister had said at the Mansion House on Wednesday evening—
  "It is true that we have gone to Egypt with the Forces of this country in the prosecution of the great interests of the Empire which it is our duty to cherish and defend."
  Nothing could give him greater pleasure than to see his right hon. Friend coming forward as the defender of their Imperial interests. He admitted that, in the absence of the action of the Sovereign of that country, the Sultan, whose proper duty it was to maintain order, it might be right and just, considering the interests which England had in Egypt, and considering the necessity of making the Suez Canal secure, that they should endeavour to put a stop to military lawlessness, and restore order in that country. But what he wanted to know was this—was this question in Egypt simply one of military lawlessness and anarchy, or had they to deal, as was much more likely, with the Egyptian people? Now, how was the evidence? Was there any evidence one way or the other? He asked his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other day whether he could contradict or confirm the statement that a public meeting had taken place in Egypt to demand administrative reforms. His answer was that they had no information. On the 29th of last month another great meeting was held. Those present determined to support Arabi Pasha. Were they men of straw? A list containing the signatures of those who approved of the meeting included the names of the Minister of the Interior, 10 Princes, many Pashas, the Armenian Vicar, the Vicar of the Maronites, the Vicar of the Orthodox Greeks, the Grand Rabbi of Cairo, and Notables of all parts of Egypt. It might be said that in giving their signatures they acted under the duress of bayonets. There was no proof of that.
  1386
  As far as they knew, there was no evidence that it was not an absolutely free assembly of Egyptians. He was not aware that they had made any "Rules of Procedure" in Egypt, and he had not yet heard that in Egypt they had established the Caucus; and, therefore, everything tended rather to show that it was an absolutely free expression of free men managing their own affairs in that country. They had the testimony of an English gentleman who had arrived at Alexandria from Cairo that the meeting was held with open doors; and, in the absence of anything more distinct and definite, he thought they were justified in assuming that they were dealing with the Egyptian people as a whole. But there was one other authority he knew of to support the opinion that they were dealing with more than a mere army of rebels, and that was the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself, who, in his speech at the Mansion House, said—
  "I do not deny that there is in Egypt something besides a military tyranny;"
  and—
  "There are a section or class of men in Egypt who now wish to help the military tyranny which prevails."
  Who was this section? Unless it could be shown that all the important personages who signed the determination to which he referred—all the local magnates, all the Ministers at Cairo, and all the heads of the Native religion—were not acting freely, he was justified in saying that the section and class to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was practically the whole of the Egyptian people. His right hon. Friend would doubtless ask him—"What do you wish us to do? Do you wish us to stop in our military action altogether? Do you wish 30,000 men to be kept idle in Egypt, and that no further step should be taken?" That was not what he wished at all. What he wished was this—that the Government should proceed with their despatch of troops and the Military Convention with the Sultan, occupy all the strategic points on the map at once, and, having done that, they would be in such a strong position that they would be able to find out what was the true state of affairs, and what course it was necessary to take in

  1387
  regard to them. If, after having done that, they found that it was simply a matter with regard to a rebel colonel and a mutinous Army, they would find that the affair would suddenly come to naught; but if, on the other hand, they discovered it to be the national will of the people, then they had no right to interfere in order to prevent that national will being carried out. If the people of Egypt had good ground for their objection to the Khedive—and it was plainly shown that they had—then Her Majesty's Government had no right to support the Khedive, and should allow the people of Egypt to manage their own affairs. For his part, he should be glad if it could be shown that Her Majesty's Government were justified in taking action for the restoration of order in Egypt; but he hoped they would not act unadvisedly or hastily. In taking the course he had he was aware that he was likely to render himself unpopular, because, at the present moment, the nation was bent more or less on war; but he hoped the Government would not listen to the irresponsible advice that they obtained by the yard through the columns of the British Press, because, if they did, they would be prepared to put all Europe up in arms against them, to risk bringing the whole Mussulman population of the world against them, and to treat the Turkish Government of Egypt as if it had no existence. The simple object he had in putting his Question was to give them an opportunity of stating with whom they were at war; whether it was a rebel colonel and a mutinous soldiery or the Egyptian people? The noble Lord concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF,in seconding the Motion, disclaimed any intention to embarrass the Government in the military operations which they had undertaken. But, while desirous of assisting the Government to carry the war to a successful issue, he would like to hear a statement from them as to its exact objects. They were at that moment employed, he supposed, in conjunction with Turkey, in suppressing an insurrection on the part of Arabi, who thought to depose the Khedive. He could conceive that they might be very much bound to support the Khedive, because he undertook the government of Egypt
  1388
  at their request, and had shown himself all along to be a loyal ally. At the same time, he could not conceive, if the people of Egypt really objected to him as their Sovereign, that they had any right to retain him there against the consent of the Egyptian people. When they recommended the King of Greece in 1864 they did not undertake to maintain him in Greece, but made stipulations by which, in case Greece wished at any time to get rid of him, he should have ample provision for a living. If, in the same way, it were found that the present Khedive was repugnant to the Egyptian people, this country was bound to secure, not merely the safety of his life, but an ample provision befitting his dignity. What he wanted to know was, what the Government intended to do in Egypt? They would probably not find it difficult to suppress Arabi; but, after that, were they going to maintain the occupation of Egypt indefinitely, or to establish some form of popular government which would enable it to remain independent of foreign occupation? He could conceive nothing more dangerous than a British occupation of Egypt for the purpose of establishing Prince Tewfik, unless, at the same time, Europe was given to understand that the occupation would last no longer than was necessary to establish such a form of government as would be acceptable to the people of Egypt, and enable them to maintain order without any foreign intervention whatever. A great part of the recent complications had arisen from the action of the Government on every occasion being influenced by France. It was the object of France to suppress the popular movement in Egypt. The Chamber of Notables professed no desire to interfere with the international obligations of the country, and asked no more than was the right of every Representative Body; yet, when Cherif Pasha asked the Government of this country to suggest some compromise, no notice was taken of the request. He would not go into the question of the Debts, because that had been settled by the Control; but he could not help expressing his anxious wish that the Control would not be established in the form in which it had hitherto been conducted. These were matters on which everyone must feel anxious. They were anxious to know

  1389
  what was the policy of the Government in this intervention—whether they had any policy as to the future? They were anxious to know whether they were going to attempt to do what was impossible—namely, to re-establish the status quo ante; or whether they really and truly intended to establish such a state of things in Egypt as would, while maintaining the internal obligations Egypt had entered into, establish the liberties of the Egyptian people on a firm basis?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lord Elicho.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is some difficulty on raising a great question of this kind in narrowing the issue, and the tendency is that the discussion, when once opened, should extend itself to a much wider field; and my noble Friend the Mover of this Motion will be able to see how this proposition is illustrated by the far greater scope of the speech of his Seconder, who entirely, in seconding the Motion, passed away from everything that was contained in the Question that gave rise to it, and really supplied a text upon which, if the House were so inclined, we might renew the debate of four nights which we had, I think, during the week before last. Well, now, Sir, I sincerely hope that the House will not accept the invitation which has thus been given; and I say that, not because I object to the spirit of most of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion. On the contrary, I commend his sympathies with the Egyptian people. It is a fair and proper question, indeed, to raise, whether, in conjunction with any Proclamation from the Sultan, or in connection with the commencement of the full operations contemplated, it may be right for Her Majesty's Government to convey a distinct and formal assurance in a shape likely to become known to the Egyptian people as to the nature and extent of the objects which we contemplate. I may, perhaps, draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman and of the House to a circumstance which is worth remembering. The subject has not escaped our attention, and, under the instructions of Her Majesty's Government, the Commander of the Fleet has already conveyed to the Khedive of Egypt distinct
  1390
  assurances upon those questions. Undoubtedly, at a later stage those assurances might be repeated and enlarged by someone with larger authority than that of the Admiral of the Squadron; but an assurance from him seemed the best adapted to the earlier stages of the proceedings. Sir, I must decline to enter at the present moment upon a definition of the objects of the military operations now proceeding; but I can go so far as to answer the hon. Gentleman when he asks me whether we contemplate an indefinite occupation of Egypt. Undoubtedly, of all things in the world, that is a thing which we are not going to do. It would be absolutely at variance with all the principles and views of Her Majesty's Government, and the pledges they have given to Europe, and with the views, I may say, of Europe itself. With respect to the Chamber of Notables, I must, in passing, say one word. That question is a question in respect to which our conduct and our exact proceedings have never been laid before the House. It may be necessary to lay them before the House; but as the proceedings were in some respects joint proceedings, I cannot at present give a definitive answer as to producing the Papers. I only wish to point out that the House is not at the present time in possession of the evidence that would be necessary in order to enable it to form a conclusion upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Chamber of Notables. There is one part of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman which I heard with unfeigned regret, and which I cannot help thinking, on reflection, will inspire him with some misgiving. He stated, and stated very fairly, that we were under very great and strong obligations to maintain in Egypt the position and authority of the Khedive, who has been placed in his present position with the very highest sanction and authority, and who has been completely faithful, under very difficult circumstances, to the obligations under which he came when he assumed them. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman most fairly and justly says that we are greatly bound to maintain the authority and position of the Khedive; but he goes on to say that if we should find that the Egyptian people were not in favour of his remaining in his present position, then it is a matter with which

  1391
  we have to do to see that a respectable and ample provision is made for him during his life. Now, Sir, why raise that question? If we wish to maintain the authority of a Ruler, one of the most unfortunate and left-handed methods of setting about it is to refer to contingencies before us not founded on the reasons of the case. Undoubtedly, if such language were adopted by the Government, instead of being, as I must say it is, repudiated by the Government, if the tendency was to give the impression that we were not, after all, more than half in earnest, if we were to give the impression that we had some secondary purpose—some latent idea—on which we intended to fall back, in case of need, with the view of bringing about a totally different state of things—
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: What I meant to say was that we were certainly not bound to maintain the Khedive by an indefinite occupation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very glad to accept any explanation which the hon. Gentleman makes for the purpose of obviating the inferences which may be too hastily drawn from his speech with regard to the position of the Khedive. The reason I do not speak fully on the question of the final arrangements with regard to Egypt is not because I differ from the hon. Gentleman, when he says that he thinks, after all that has now taken place, the re-establishment of the status quo ante can no longer be regarded as the definite and adequate purpose with which we are to move and to conduct our military operations—in that I agree with him, and I admit that the larger field of consideration is of necessity open to us—but it is because it would not be expedient at this stage of affairs that we should attempt to anticipate by declarations—necessarily delivered in a crude and in an immature condition of the evidence—that we should endeavour to anticipate by such declarations the results, which, according to our own positive engagements, must be arrived at with the intervention and under the authority of Europe, and which never could be adequately founded on the simple conclusions of any single Power in Europe. I pass now to the Question put by my noble Friend, and to the argument by which he supported it. It would, perhaps, be wrong in me to complain of my noble Friend giving the sanction of
  1392
  an old Member to this practice of moving the adjournment after he has so frankly admitted that it is a course requiring apology. I am thankful to believe that the time is near at hand when apology will no longer be necessary, and when the House, by positive and resolute methods, may take security against its occurrence. I fully admit to my noble Friend that he is justified in demanding from me an explanation of any words used by me at the Mansion House, and I will give him that explanation. He says I admitted that in Egypt we have something to deal with besides the Military Party. I am willing to give him that admission, and it is an admission which I think will be readily perceived to be really inherent in any attempt to describe thoroughly the facts as they are in Egypt with reference to its recent history and its present condition. There is no doubt that if we go back to the period antecedent to the establishment of the Foreign Control, we come upon a state of things when the cultivators of the soil in Egypt, who, like the cultivators of the soil in Ireland, may be said almost to form the bulk of the nation, were subject to a system of abominable oppression. But wherever there is oppression there are oppressors; there are instruments of that oppression; there are people who profit by it, people who live by it; and it is the oppressors of the people who most resent interference, and who most readily avail themselves of any opportunity that may offer for complaining of the means by which the interference is effected, and who are most ready to enter into any measures, whatever they may be, for the purpose of bringing back a state of things which was to them a paradise, but which to their fellow-countrymen was more like a hell. Those are the gentlemen whom I fully admit to be the allies of Arabi Pasha and of the Military Party. I need not go back upon the discussion of the question of the Foreign Control, which I have endeavoured myself to treat in what I may call an historical sense—that is to say, to recognize its advantages and its disadvantages. Its disadvantages have been that it might be represented, and not only so, but it might in some respects be said to be an interference with the fair rights of the Egyptian people, and a limitation of the development of their future institutions;

  1393
  but we must not forget the fact that it had considerable apology and justification from the state of things to which it applied, and that it is beyond all question that great practical benefits resulted from it, and from the substitution of European for Oriental methods in the administration of finances and the levying of taxes in Egypt. That is one thing which accounts for the nature of the very limited scope of the admission which I made when I said that something besides the Military Party might be found in support of Arabi Pasha. Then I come to the evidence which my noble Friend has given and to the question of the evidence which he has demanded of me. He desires that we should endeavour to ascertain the true state of feeling of the Egyptian people, but he does not desire that without limitation; because he says that he considers it right that we should take all the measures necessary for the defence of Alexandria, for the protection of the Khedive, and for the security of the Suez Canal, and I think he explained that to mean that we might take into our own possession the principal strategical points of the country. Well, I think if we take into our own possession the principal strategical points of the country we shall have very little occasion to quarrel with my noble Friend as to the limitation which he imposes upon us in respect to ascertaining the feeling of the people of Egypt; for after we have obtained the principal strategical points of the country we shall be in a condition, without prejudice to any of the objects that were in view, to make any inquiry we please into either the feeling of the Egyptian people or any other subject. But the matter is a serious one; and I wish to challenge the mode which my noble Friend takes of presenting what he appears to think is adequate evidence of a feeling of the people of Egypt favourable to Arabi Pasha and his confederates, for he is not the only one, after all, with whom we have to deal. He has a knot of other persons around him who find a considerable portion of the brains that are engaged in these mutinous and mischievous operations. I am very sorry that my noble Friend has found it his duty to raise a discussion at the present time; because, undoubtedly, although I do not anticipate very serious public mis-
  1394
  chief from it, I think the mind of this country is pretty well made up on the subject of the rights or wrongs of the quarrel in which we are engaged. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No, no! and cries of "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad, therefore, to think that my noble Friend does stand, to a great degree, in that respect in an isolated position. I do not mean to say that there are no differences of opinion with regard to the question of intervention in the affairs of Egypt—that is quite a different matter—but I mean I believe the mind of the country is well made up in general as to the necessity, and as to the justice, of the cause which we have in hand, and is yet more clearly made up on the question whether it is or is not with the concurrence of the Egyptian people that we are now going in conflict. My noble Friend thinks he has evidence to produce, and he produces the evidence, and quoted from journals published under the permission of what I may call the rebellious and military Government in Cairo, which gives accounts of certain meetings and treats them as representing the sense of the people. I believe my noble Friend would find that these very same journals are the journals which have seriously reported for the information of the Egyptian people the sinking of the British iron-clads before Alexandria; and which, when Moubarek Pasha came down to Alexandria and saw for himself the British iron-clads afloat, propagated the story likewise for the information of the Egyptian people that the original iron-clads had been sunk, and that they were a new set which had come to take their places! That is the evidence drawn from such a source. The fact is that a system of falsification is employed wholesale in Egypt with reference to the Khedive, with reference, of course, to the English, and with reference to whatever obstructs or impedes the plans of military violence. I think it is not difficult to understand that such a system of falsification may prevail, when it is borne in mind that falsification has been carried, avowedly and unquestionably carried in the case of this Military Party in Egypt, beyond, I believe, any point it has ever been known to reach in the history of the world. For that Party did not scruple to falsify the most sacred of all obligations in war—namely, those attaching to the use of a flag of truce,

  1395
  and while pretending to have pacification in view, not only had no such purpose, but used the hours gained by the employment of that flag of truce for the base and abominable purpose of conflagration and looting. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No, no!] I believe I am speaking of a matter subject to no dispute, but which is absolutely as certain as is the bombardment of Alexandria. My noble Friend asks what evidence we have that we are not at variance with the sentiments of the people of Egypt. Well, Sir, those who know that those who decline the authority of Arabi Pasha are dismissed from their offices and imprisoned; those who know that Arabi Pasha has set aside the authority of the Notables; those who know that we have a large body of European and British residents in Egypt—and if I except the unfortunate case of Mr. Blunt, which it is not for me to explain, who, I believe, still remains under the delusions which have been formed—I believe there is not one among these, even including gentlemen who were formerly inclined to take a more favourable view, who has the smallest idea, or who does not emphatically repudiate the idea, that Arabi Pasha and his confederates are the representatives of the National movement. I think I am bound to say that, besides those residents, we have the testimony of official men—those connected with the Consulate and those connected with the Control, gentlemen of high position, of high character. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No! and cries of "Order!"] I affirm that Sir Auckland Colvin, Sir Edward Malet, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cookson, and the various other gentlemen who have been connected with the official representation of this country in Egypt, are gentlemen of high character. The gentlemen I have named are all competent and fair witnesses, and we may fall back with confidence upon their testimony were it necessary. But the matter does not rest with them; there are public men of high character in Egypt—Egyptians, Mahomedans, men known to the world—who have borne high office in Egypt. Is there one of these men who has given the smallest countenance, direct or indirect, to the cause of Arabi Pasha? Some of them are men of well known character and reputation. There are Riaz Pasha, who was at the head of the Egyptian Govern-
  1396
  ment; Cherif Pasha, who was at the head of the Government only dismissed a few months ago; Sultan Pasha, the head of the Chamber of Notables, and a Mahomedan of the highest influence and best character. There is not one of these men who has not been found on the side of the Khedive in support of his lawful authority. It is really too late to raise a question of this kind, because the conclusion we have arrived at, and on which we are acting, is not a British conclusion alone; it is the conclusion of all Europe. Europe has met together at Constantinople, and Europe has by its united voice and by its united appeal to the Sultan declared that the Power which has paralyzed the authority of the Khedive is an unlawful, a rebellious, and a mischievous Power, and has appealed to the Sultan to put it down by force of arms. Surely, under these circumstances, it is late for any Member of the British Parliament, not only when his country has definitely acted, but when Europe has acted and has delivered its own deliberate conclusion, it is too late to ask the question whether Arabi Pasha is or is not the representative of the Egyptian nation. I hold that the authority of the united Powers of Europe and the evidence afforded by their conclusion are the highest and the most conclusive of which the case admits, and it absolves us from the necessity of a minute discussion of this or that—evidence I need hardly call it—gossip or tittle-tattle, and those figments which newspapers, under the domain of military violence, would seek to palm off upon the world, representations which were thoroughly and entirely false. That is my answer to my noble Friend. We have not the results of formal inquiry, of which the case does not admit; but we have a mass of moral evidence, supported by intelligent testimony of every character and from every quarter unvaried and unbroken, and supported by the responsibility of every Government; it is a known, patent, and notorious fact that we have the judgment of the whole civilized world. That is my answer with regard to the Egyptian people. I trust the ulterior development of this question and the conduct and policy of this country will be such as to verify the assurance with which we have entered into the struggle we are about to commence—namely, that we are not making war against the

  1397
  Egyptian people; but that we are determined to put down those who are oppressing the people of Egypt, those who are, in our opinion, not only contemning the lawful authority of the country, but are likewise engaged in machinations contrary to liberty, having for their certain result, were they to succeed, the revival of all the abominable abuses and oppressions which formerly debased the condition of that country.
  SIR GEORGE ELLIOTsaid, he had listened with interest to the statement of the Prime Minister, and he was able from personal knowledge to endorse it. He knew the eminent Egyptians who had been named, and knew that they joined in the strongest condemnation of Arabi Pasha. On the other hand, as to those whose names had been mentioned by the noble Lord as having assembled at Cairo, many of them were Turks, many had shared largely in the distribution of what the late Khedive had at his disposal, and he did not wonder that it was their desire to restore a former condition of things. With regard to the people of Egypt—to those who cultivated the soil, and on whom the wealth of Egypt mainly depended—it was out of the question to talk about the representation of these people. They were not prepared for it, still less were they ready to fight for it. He felt sure that they would rather be under the protection of this country than that any other kind of Government should be imposed upon them. He did not, however, say that Egypt ought to be put under the Government of this country; but during the last few years there had been a great improvement in the condition of the country. Messrs. Baring took off no less than 34 taxes that were oppressive to the people. He hoped they would be of one mind in the House, and that they would strengthen the hands of the Government, for on our success depended the security, peace, and well-being of the Egyptian people, as well as the security of our own communications with the East.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he rose to challenge almost every statement that the Prime Minister had made. He admitted that there never was a question which was subject to such gigantic falsification, and he was sorry that the Prime Minister was the most eminent victim of it. No doubt it was asserted that the Go-
  1398
  vernment were acting for the benefit of the Egyptian people, but Lord Granville did not assign that as the reason for objecting to the Notables voting the Budget; he said that it was not compatible with the pecuniary interests on behalf of which Her Majesty's Government had been acting. What were those interests? Who were the gombeen men for whom the Government had been acting? On their behalf the Control had imposed forced labour on classes formerly exempt from it. In 1879 our Consul General reported that three months after the reinstatement of the Control it was found necessary to exercise pressure to get in the taxes which were pledged to the Commission. All the facts were set forth on the authority of Blue Books in the admirable exposure of the horrible policy of England, in Egypt made in the pamphlet, Spoiling the Egyptians; a Tale of Shame, by J. Seymour Keay, and if the facts were appreciated by the people of this country the policy of the Government could not stand for a day. Three months after the establishment of the Control, the state of Egypt, or of the poor in that country, was exceedingly wretched. The fellaheen were oppressed and severely treated; large numbers of Europeans had become possessed of their property, and the whip and bastinado formed part of the necessary equipment of every tax-gatherer. And those exactions were enforced in the interest of those who had lent the Egyptians large nominal sums, of which but a small part found its way into the Egyptian Treasury. The Joubert-Goschen mission was a triumph of usury not excelled in the most horrible imaginings of usurious excess. The Prime Minister had quoted Cherif Pasha on his side of the argument; but he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to prove that a single eminent Egyptian had been in favour of the bombardment. The real casus belli was the rejection by the Control of the claim of the Chamber of Notables to vote the Budget. Our Consul General told the President of the Chamber (Sultan Pasha) that the claim was an infringement of international engagements, and refused to enter into any compromise, though that solution of the difficulty was earnestly desired by the Chamber. Sultan Pasha, by the way, in appealing to the Consul General for a compromise, took occasion to observe that the policy of the

  1399
  Chamber was moderate and friendly, and was not dominated by the Military Party, and on this point completely contradicted the statement of the British Government. Now, he would not defend the Military Party, though they had their grievances as against the Control; but everyone who knew anything of soldiers would sympathize with the 2,500 Egyptian officers who were placed on half-pay while their pay was in arrear, and while the demands of the Europeans were being satisfied to the last penny. As the Prime Minister said—and the admission was most remarkable—the policy of the Government in regard to the Chamber of Notables had never been laid before the House. He thought it most discreditable that this crucial question, which was at the root of all the difficulty, should not have been discussed. It was mere nonsense to say that the difficulty originated in the relations between the Government and the Egyptian Army, and to suppose that the presence of our Fleet in a fortified harbour justified the bombardment. He should like to know whether a peremptory note would be sent ashore if the guns of such a place as Cronstadt threatened the anchorage of a British Squadron? ["Question!"] That was the precise question. He had a right to show the logical futility of the plea that the Government acted in self-defence, as alleged by the right hon. Gentleman. Again, he disputed the assertion of the Prime Minister that England had the moral assent of Europe. Neither the moral nor the immoral assent had been given. A diplomatic game was in progress at Constantinople; but the Press of Europe, except the organs of M. Gambetta, who had such close relations with certain Members of the Government, was practically unanimous in condemning our action. Then the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he could distinguish between the case of Arabi and that of the Mussulmans throughout the world. But the excitement of the Mussulman world increased every day, and the latest news was that the policy of the Government had borne fruit in Syria in a riot between Mussulmans and Christians at Beyrout. He found in the Beyrout correspondence of The Allgemeine Zeitung of Augsburg a statement that throughout Syria the Mussulman feeling was unanimously and
  1400
  excitedly in favour of Arabi. Thus the Government had sown the seeds of conflict between Mussulmans and Christians in Syria, as well as in Egypt, and an outbreak might be expected at any moment. This Egyptian Question was the subject of much mystification. The Prime Minister was as confident to-day that Arabi did not represent the Egyptian people as he was 12 months ago that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) did not represent the Irish people. In no long time the right hon. Gentleman would see his mistake. Whatever became of Arabi Pasha, whether he was killed in the field or hanged by Her Majesty's Government, the champion of nationalities, it would never again be possible for the European Control to extort £10,000,000 of taxation from a wretched population of 5,000,000. Whatever the result, the English and French Control would never be re-established. Whoever gained, the pirates who had bombarded Alexandria would never gain. In The Standard of the previous day there was a record of an amusing incident. According to that account, a gentleman sent to Sir Beauchamp Seymour informing him that an unexploded shell was in his drawing-room, and a party was sent from the Inflexible, who carefully took it out of the house. He did not think, after that, it could be said that all the shells fell into the fortifications—indeed, it showed the truth of what he had urged as a notorious fact, that a large part of the conflagration of Alexandria was caused by shells which fell in the town.
  Question put, and negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
    PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—SUSPENSION OF IRISH MEMBERS (JULY 1).

      RESOLUTION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [9th August], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee of Supply).
      And which Amendment was,
      To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the record of the suspension of John Dillon,

      1401
      Member for Tipperary, Dr. Commins, Member for Roscommon, Joseph G. Biggar, Member for Cavan, and Frank H. O'Donnell, Member for Dungarvan, be erased from the Minutes of Proceedings, on the ground that the suspended Members were not in the House during the proceedings for the obstruction of which they were so reported,"—(Mr. Joseph Cowen,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      Debate resumed.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  THE PATENT MUSEUM (SOUTH KENSINGTON).—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HINDE PALMER,who had the following Notice on the Paper:—To call attention to the state of the Patent Museum at South Kensington, to the necessity of providing a new Museum, and to an eligible site for the same; and to move—
  "That the Patent Museum is greatly inadequate and ill adapted for its purpose, and inasmuch as a site, designated in several successive Reports of the Patent Commissioners, is now vacant and available to the Government, steps should be taken for the erection of a proper Museum thereon,"
  said, he had frequently brought the subject before the House, and in 1868, when Mr. Ayrton was at the Office of Works, he received a promise that when the Natural History Museum was built some provision should be made in a wing of that building for the reception of the Collection of Models. In Paris the Museum of Inventions was of a most interesting character, and was conducted in an admirable way. Provision was made that all persons who went to see the models should be able to examine them carefully. In Washington, he was told, there was a very perfect Museum, and as, by the Patent Laws of the United States, all American inventors were obliged to present models to the Institution, the Collection had now outgrown the accommodation provided for it. The expense of creating a new Museum could easily be defrayed out of the surplus fund derived from patent fees. In 1879 the sum to which that fund amounted was £144,230, and in 1880 it was £189,987, while the aggregate surplus approached £2,000,000. One year's surplus in-
  1402
  come would thus almost pay for the building. He wished to impress upon the Government that the question was of a National character. The Patent Museum at Kensington was arranged in a most inconvenient manner, and was crowded with machinery in such a way as to make it impossible to examine any of the models exhibited there, except under very great difficulties. He had seen attempts made to disparage the Museum and to represent it as being one not of great practical utility, but of curious old relics and things which were more curious than useful. That was quite a mistake, because he had seen working men examining the older models with great interest, and had heard them comparing those models with other and similar ones of a more modern kind. There was another reason why the present was an opportune time for the erection of a new Museum. The site which the Patent Commissioners had pointed out as a very suitable site for the building was now vacant, and at the disposal of the Government. The spot in question was in Whitehall Gardens, close to the Offices of the Board of Trade, and more accessible for working men than South Kensington. That the Museum would be well patronized was certain. Since the opening, in 1858, of the present Museum, which was in a less convenient neighbourhood, 4,000,000 persons had visited it. The Museum was either useful or it was not. If useful, then it ought to be made creditable to the country; but if it were not made so, then it ought to be broken up and the models distributed among the various local Institutions in the Kingdom.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,having regard to the lateness of the Session, would confine himself to a very few words in expressing the opinion which he had formed of the present position of this matter. He was quite prepared to admit that a Collection of the kind referred to would undoubtedly be of considerable interest and value. He might differ a little from his hon. and learned Friend as to its comparative value; but he was ready to admit it had a distinct value of its own, and he should be sorry to see this Collection broken up. The building in which the Collection was now exhibited was altogether inadequate for the purpose; but the question remained whether the very large amount required to establish such a Museum as his hon.

  1403
  and learned Friend contemplated could be applied to any better purpose at the present moment. He was not prepared to admit that the fees received on patents should go back to inventors in the shape of a reduction of those fees. On the contrary, he thought that persons who obtained a valuable monopoly for a certain period should pay something to the general taxation of the country. His hon. and learned Friend proposed the site of Fife House for the new Museum; but that site was worth £500,000, while the cost of building would be another £500,000. The question was whether £500,000 could be appropriated to this purpose at the present time with advantage. Before coming to the determination to enter upon that expenditure he thought they were bound to exhaust every other alternative. A proposal had been made by the Patent Commissioners and laid before the Board of Trade, and it was a proposal which he himself favoured. It appeared that the buildings now occupied were to be required for some other purpose, and therefore in some way or other the question had to be decided. It had been suggested by the Commissioners that the exhibition should be transferred to the Science and Art Department at South Kensington and arranged on the principle of the Arts et Métiers of Paris. The Vice President of the Council had had the matter under his consideration, and would be able to tell the House what preparation his Department was likely to be able to make for the accommodation of the Collection. He himself thought the proposal was one which deserved the favourable consideration of the House.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he thought the value of models could not be overestimated for the promotion of invention, and he could not consider the proposal merely to enlarge the present Museum at South Kensington as at all satisfactory. The natural home of all our Museums should be in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross. It was a great pity that the present Government had allowed the magnificent sites there to be used for what he might term a fashionable public-house and for hotels, &c., rather than appropriating that land to building our Picture Galleries and Museums. There was still left the site which had been referred to, and the Government ought to be ashamed of itself, if it allowed it to be bartered away for
  1404
  the purpose he had stated. The Museum at South Kensington seemed to be built to suit the convenience of large masses of people, who had plenty of time at their disposal. Charing Cross was convenient to the whole of the Metropolis, and, above all, to the great number of people who visited Loudon from the country. The expenditure that was asked for would be for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Those who asked for a reduction of patent fees did so on the ground that an increase of income might be expected from such reduction. The Prime Minister was well aware that a reduction of taxes on articles of consumption led to an increase of the Revenue.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, this subject had been brought to his notice by the Treasury so late as the 25th of last month. He was far from underrating the value of the Patent Museum. On the contrary, he considered their Patent Museum a most admirable and almost unique Collection, for it showed the very commencement of all the great industrial inventions of the past and present generations, and contained objects of which no other Museum could boast. That it was at the present moment most miserably and inadequately housed he fully agreed. He believed that for the benefit of inventors they wanted a Museum of Practical Science—a Museum of Invention, so to speak—and not merely a Museum of Patents pure and simple. The Patent Museum of New York contained a most valuable Collection; but the objects of real value were choked and encumbered by rubbish and worthless inventions. To his mind the Musée des Arts et Métiers in Paris was the model which they should have in view, for in that Museum the gems of invention were to be found. What he proposed to do was to take one of the Galleries at South Kensington and to appropriate it to the use of the Collection of Patents, together with other objects of scientific invention. The Collection would be arranged in proper order, so as to show the beginning and the development of each great invention, and would be placed under the charge of the Science and Art Department. With respect to the situation of the Museum, he did not think that a better site could be found than South Kensington. Not only was it as accessible as any in London, but it was found

  1405
  that many more people visited Museums when they were kept together than when placed in detached and isolated buildings. If the hon. and learned Member who had brought forward this subject would allow the matter to stand over until next Session, he hoped that satisfactory arrangements would be made.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcomplained that the fees formerly payable to the Law Officers of the Crown were still charged to inventors, although the Law Officers were no longer paid by fees.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE HALL OF SCIENCE, OLD STREET, E. C.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR HENRY TYLER,who had placed on the Paper a Motion—
  "That the Hall of Science is, by reason of its associations, not a proper place, and Dr. Edward B. Aveling, Mrs. Besant, and the daughters of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, are not proper persons to he employed for the work of instruction, in connection with the Science and Art Department of Her Majesty's Government,"
  disclaimed bringing this forward as a Party question in any sense, and declared that he had no personal feeling in the matter. He desired no worse to the persons mentioned in the Resolution than that they should see the error of their ways, and that they should in future use their abilities for the public good instead of continually employing them for evil purposes. The question might be asked—"What has science to do with religion?" and certainly as long as persons taught science properly he did not desire in any way to inquire into their religious opinions. But this particular case stood in a very different position, as Atheism and irreligion constituted the first object of the persons he was referring to, who used science as a means of promoting their doctrines. In proof of this view, the hon. Member read extracts from a series of articles written in The National Reformer, under the title of Design in Nature, by Dr. Aveling, who asserted that "God is left out of all calculations in science." Again, in a pamphlet entitled The Wickedness of God, Dr. Aveling said—
  "The God held up to reverence by the Christian religion is by his own showing a being of the most immoral character."
  1406
  Yet this man was chosen by the Vice President of the Council to teach science.
  MR. MUNDELLA: By the late Vice President.
  SIR HENRY TYLERobserved that, in a pamphlet entitled Irreligion and Science, Dr. Aveling stated that there was an internecine warfare between science and religion. Mrs. Besant, too, had asserted that "all science is by necessity Atheistic," and that "every branch of science must be Atheistic if it is to progress;" while Miss Hypatia Bradlaugh had expressed her opinion that "scientific education is the most efficient aid in our Freethought movement." He maintained that such persons ought not to be employed by the Science and Art Department to instruct the people of this country in science.
  MR. LABOUCHEREcomplained of the bad taste, not only of the hon. Member's mode of treating the question, but of the course he had pursued in introducing into a Notice, which he had allowed to remain 12 months on the Paper, the names of the daughters of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh as not being proper persons to be employed in instruction. These were quiet, inoffensive young ladies. The hon. Member seemed to think it a high crime and misdemeanour that they were the daughters of their father. The hon. Member said he had no ill-feeling towards Mr. Bradlaugh; but he come had forward as a species of Defender of the Faith, and brought an action against the father of these young ladies for blasphemy. Whether that was an indication of good or bad feeling he would leave the House to judge.
  SIR HENRY TYLERexplained that what he said was that he had no ill-feeling against the persons named in his Notice of Motion.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, because the hon. Member had an ill-feeling towards the father he sacrificed his good feeling towards the daughters. The young ladies taught botany and mathematics. The hon. Gentleman urged that because The National Reformer taught Atheism these young ladies should not be allowed to teach mathematics. He complained of the time this Motion had been kept on the Paper, and left the action of the hon. Gentleman in regard to his (Mr. Labouchere's) Colleague to

  1407
  the appreciation of Members of both sides of the House.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought that a Member who put on the Paper a Motion reflecting on other persons and on ladies ought to have used due diligence to have brought it before the House in less than 12 months. He could not congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the support he had now from his own Party, for every Member of it had deserted those Benches, not to be subjected to the infliction they had had. The hon. Member spoke of these persons as if they were employed by the Science and Art Department. The fact was, that he and the noble Lord who preceded him (Lord George Hamilton) had no option in the matter, and could not impose a religious test as to who should be employed. Among the teachers of science in this country there were no fewer than 35 clergymen of all denominations. The hon. Member objected to these persons teaching science on account of their Secularist opinions.
  SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, he had not said that; but he objected to them on account of their connection with The National Reformer, with the circulation of pamphlets, and with other means for propagating Atheism in the country.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, let it be supposed they were connected with The National Reformer, what right would that give him to say that they should not receive grants for the teaching of science? In "another place" a noble Lord had lately attacked Professor Huxley in connection with the publication on his own account of a science primer. Was the Education Minister to begin inquiring into the religious opinions of Professors of Science? If he were to do so at all, surely he must begin at the head. Did the hon. Member assume that all opinions were orthodox except those of the Secularists? The science classes at the Hall of Science had been formed three or four years ago, strictly in accordance with the regulations laid down in the official directory, with a committee which included a clergyman of the Church of England. He had requested one of the Inspectors to ascertain what kind of teaching was really going on there, and whether anything was being taught of that horrible literature to which the hon. Member seemed inclined to give a wide circulation. The
  1408
  Inspector made several surprise visits to the Hall, and reported that the teaching that went on there was sound and deserved commendation. He might say that the Inspector in question was a religious man, and the son of a clergyman. What was taught there was simply dry science, without reference to religious subjects. On what pretexts could he withdraw the grants for good science teaching? Was it wise to make these attacks in the House and to give a wide circulation to extracts such as had been read? Was it serving the cause of charity and of true religion to attack in this way lady-like and well-educated women, and to attempt to associate the Government with blasphemy? He had as much reverence as the hon. Member; but he could not see any grounds on which he should be justified in interfering with the efficient teaching of science in strict accordance with the prescribed regulations.

  INDIA (BENGAL)—FLOGGING OF PRISONERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that, as they were approaching the end of Supply, he was bound to take this opportunity of reverting to a subject which he had previously brought forward. He had given Notice that he would call attention to the flogging of 11,000 prisoners in the gaols of Bengal during the period of excessive mortality between the 1st day of January 1879 and the 31st day of March 1880, almost exclusively on charges of short work; and, had the Forms of the House permitted, he would have moved—
  "That the appointment to the Indian Council of Sir Ashley Eden, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal under whose tenure of office these floggings took place, is a condonation of reprehensihle misgovernment calculated to hinder and discredit good government in India."
  His complaints were borne out by official Papers recently circulated, and they were fully justified by a despatch of the Secretary of State this year, in which he said—
  "I have been much impressed in particular by the statement contained in the Bengal Gaol Report for 1879 that heavy mortality has been going on from month to month without the attention of the Government being called to it, and I request that measures may be taken to prevent the recurrence of such a state of things."

  1409
  The statement of the noble Marquess implied his recognition of the want of supervision which, during the year 1879, allowed the mortality to continue unchecked. When Sir Ashley Eden became aware of the state of the gaols in his own Presidency, he began to make effectual improvements. Writing on July 20, 1880, he admitted the extreme gravity of the case, and the fact that during 1879 the great mortality among the gaol population could not be attributed to the general condition of the public health. He stated that the chief cause of the increased sickness in the gaols was the new diet scale, which was insufficient for men who were frequently in a poor state of health. When it was introduced the Superintendents were instructed to watch its effect, and to report any sickness resulting from it; but its effect was probably too gradual to be noticed by them. No Report, therefore, was received for nine months, although, to say nothing of the deaths that occurred, the majority of the discharged prisoners were found to have lost weight. That was Sir Ashley Eden's account of the matter; and it followed, from his own admission, that for nine months he asked for no Report—a fact that argued serious dereliction of duty. Had similar deaths occurred in English gaols, verdicts of manslaughter would certainly have been returned. Sir Ashley Eden also admitted that during the year 1879 prisoners were flogged, probably for short work, in unprecedented numbers. The noble Marquess would, perhaps, maintain that Sir Ashley Eden was in no way responsible for that; but he contended that a Lieutenant Governor who knew that p, new dietary was being tried, and made no further inquiry, was responsible for the result, if he had any responsibility at all. During that year—1879—there were 8,232 floggings; and in the first six months of 1880 there were 3,386; and a whole year was allowed to pass before even quarterly Returns of corporal punishment were ordered, for those Returns were mentioned as having been prescribed in January, 1880. The deaths were 97 per 1,000, so that every tenth man who was imprisoned for a few months found himself virtually sentenced to death. The noble Marquess had said last year, in reply to a Question he had put to him, that—
  1410
  "On its being discovered that the diet scale was unhealthy, a change was made and the health of the prisoners improved."
  That reply was technically accurate, no doubt; but the phrase "on its being discovered" did not fairly describe the state of the case, seeing that the discovery was not made for 12 months. One might conclude from the ambiguity of that answer that a remedy was immediately applied, and the House would be so misled as to have a right to complain of that sort of answer being palmed off on the noble Marquess by his informants. The statement was technically true; but the lateness of the so-called discovery was the all-important omission. In the Report of the Sanitary Commissioner of the Government of India—a Report as exculpatory as possible of the Central Government—it was admitted that the supervision of the prisoners was so neglected that there was no security for their getting even the reduced scale of diet. The Report says—
  "The temptation which presents itself to the gaol officials to enrich themselves at the expense of the prisoners is very great. …. The embezzlement of their food is very profitable."
  And yet the Superintendents paid so little attention to the condition of their gaols that they did not even report the number of deaths which occurred in them. Accordingly, the Government of India had now to warn the Superintendents to observe when the prisoners were falling in weight, and when the gaol officials were plump and sleek. A large number of the articles of food which the prisoners were required to use appeared to be worthless. And yet the Superintendents, who were so careless or so ignorant of what was necessary for the food of the prisoners, were allowed by Sir Ashley Eden, in Bengal, to go on without sending in a Report for nine months, though during the whole of that time the prisoners were perishing like flies. On the 7th of June, 1882, two years after Sir Ashley Eden began to remedy the evils in the Bengal gaols, and three and a-half years after those evils had reached their culminating point, Sir Ashley Eden's successor said that under the head of offences relating to work, the number fell from 40,000 and odd to 27,963 in 1881; that the Inspector of Prisons attributed it to better diet, and an extra early morning meal; and that

  1411
  the decrease in the number of punishments was in some measure due to the orders under which no prisoner who was losing weight was punished for short work. It was impossible for the noble Marquess to whitewash the kind of Government supervision which allowed what he had described to take place without any Report received or required. He was happy to say that there was little doubt now that the necessary reforms would be carried out in the gaols of Bengal. There was, for instance, a prospect that wooden platform beds would be substituted for raised beds of earth. For the information which had led him to bring the subject of the Bengal gaols before the House he had not been in any way, in the first instance, indebted to the letters of his brother, Mr. Charles O'Donnell, of the Bengal Civil Service, who, however, owing to the suspicion of being the informant, had been exposed to dastardly persecution in a variety of ways. As a matter of fact, not one but several correspondents had called his attention to the condition of the Bengal gaols, and the details he subsequently received on some points from his brother only formed part of the evidence on which he had acted. Official persecution would not deter his brother from doing his duty, nor would it prevent him (Mr. O'Donnell) from bringing forward the grievances of the people of India. He hoped that ere long not only one but 50 Irish Representatives would stand up in defence of the 250,000,000 of people in India.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that he had had some difficulty in following the hon. Member through his rather discursive examination of the Papers presented to the House. He did not think that it was necessary that he should answer the hon. Member at any great length, as the hon. Member had himself admitted that the grievances formerly existing, including the maladministration of the gaols, had been carefully investigated and, to a great extent, removed. More than once he had paid a fair tribute to the service rendered by the hon. Member in bringing facts bearing on the subject under the notice of the House; but it was to be regretted that he should have thought it necessary to make, for the second time, what he (the Marquess of Hartington) could not help thinking were unnecessary and un-
  1412
  founded charges against the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. Before making any observations upon the prison diet and similar matters, he would refer to what fell from the hon. Member at the close of his speech. The hon. Member said that some of his information came from his brother, who had been exposed, so he alleged, to the most dastardly persecution because he had supplied that information. Well, he knew that Mr. O'Donnell had had the misfortune to incur on more than one occasion the censure of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal and of the Governor General of India. He also knew that the recent conduct of Mr. O'Donnell had met with the most careful, minute, and impartial investigation at the hands of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, of the Members of the Supreme Council, and of the Viceroy himself, and that the Viceroy was satisfied that Mr. O'Donnell had been treated with great consideration. He ventured to say there was not the slightest foundation for the statement that had been furnished to the hon. Member, that the action taken by officials with reference to his brother was influenced in the slightest degree by the course he had adopted with reference to the Bengal prisons. The hon. Member had referred at great length to Papers that he (the Marquess of Hartington) had laid on the Table, and he had referred to what he called the admissions of Sir Ashley Eden. The fact, however, was they were not admissions, because it was Sir Ashley Eden who, in his review of the Gaol Administration Report of 1879, first called attention to the excessive number of corporal punishments and the great increase in the mortality of prisoners. That information was published and commented upon; and, but for the course thus taken by Sir Ashley Eden, the matter might have been ignored up to the present time. Therefore, it was unjust to Sir Ashley Eden to say that the matter was first brought forward by the hon. Member. The hon. Member complained that action was not taken by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal as soon as the facts were brought to his knowledge. It was impossible for the Lieutenant Governor, who had to administer the affairs of 40,000,000 people, to exercise personal supervision over the administration of prisons; and it was only when he had brought before

  1413
  him, from time to time, official Reports that he could take action. The statement of the hon. Member that prisoners were starved was, no doubt, borne out by what Sir Ashley Eden had said, perhaps somewhat hastily, as to the great mortality having been caused by a change of diet. It appeared to be doubtful whether the great mortality was owing to starvation or to a change of diet. Dr. Lewis was of opinion that the mortality was not owing to a change of diet, and that the cause of the mortality must be sought for in some other direction. It was far more important to ascertain what were the real causes of sickness and mortality which prevailed in Bengal than whether some official had or had not failed in the discharge of his duties. When the attention of the Government of Bengal was called to the matter, means were taken to remedy the evils complained of; and there could be no doubt that measures had been adopted that were likely to be productive of improvement, not only in the gaols of Bengal, but in the gaols all over the country. Instead of deserving censure, Sir Ashley Eden deserved the highest approval of the House; and he considered it fortunate that the country had obtained at the Council of India the assistance of one who had so vast and great a knowledge of Indian subjects as Sir Ashley Eden had.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he could not sit in his place and listen to the remarks of the hon. Member without assuring the House that Sir Ashley Eden was one of the ablest administrators they had in the Government of Bengal. He did not wish to say one word against the hon. Member's brother; but he would say this—that no hon. Member had a right to come to the House and endeavour to get his brother out of a very serious difficulty into which he got entirely through his own fault in writing anonymous and scurrilous articles in newspapers and elsewhere against his superiors. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No; that was the charge against him.] He did not know what the charge was; he knew it was the fact. He knew something about the gaols in India, and he knew that many years ago nothing could be more awful than their condition. He thought it was manifest there had been some reform. It was impossible to effect reforms in India all at once. That had to be done gradually.
  1414
  Anyone who went to India would see that a thousand things wanted reform; but an immense amount of money was required to reform all of those things. He hoped that a real attempt would be made by the Government to ameliorate the condition of prisoners in India. With respect to what had been said as to the oppression of the Natives of India, he did not believe that they were oppressed; but that, on the contrary, they had never been better governed than they were at present.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORcontended that the despotic power exercised in India was worse than useless if it were not used to redress the evils of which they had heard. Respecting what had been said as to Irish Members taking up the cause of the Indian people, he did not think that any interference by them would be calculated to do the people of India much good. He was surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should have permitted the sole responsibility for bringing forward these terrible grievances, or for getting them in any way redressed, to rest with his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell).
  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 III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £63,238, 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, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, this Vote included certain allowances to the County Court Judges in Ireland, and he would take advantage of that circumstance to inquire from the Chief Secretary whether he could give any explanation of the very limited extent to which the people in Ireland went to the County Courts for the administration of the Land Act. Looking over the Return for the month

    1415
    of June, he found that, whereas the Government claimed that the Sub-Commissioners had in that month had several thousand cases before them, only 200 cases were settled by the County Courts throughout Ireland, and in the greater part of Ireland the County Courts were not resorted to at all. It would be a great advantage if the people of Ireland could feel such confidence in the County Courts that they could resort to them for the fixing of fair rents. The Irish Members had lately impressed on the House the calamitous character of the fact that the machinery for the administration of the Land Act was very inferior to the necessity of the case. If, as he said, the County Court Judges enjoyed the confidence of the people, and the people resorted to them, it would greatly ease the congestion which prevailed in the administration of the Land Act; and he should be curious to hear for what reason farmers and landlords resorted so little to County Courts to have fair rents fixed. Perhaps one individual fact which he was about to state might throw some light upon the avoidance of the County Courts by the farmers of Ireland. Was the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary aware of any peculiar circumstance connected with Mr. Lefroy, County Court Judge, who was one of the gentlemen entitled to administer the Land Act? He found upon the prospectus of Mr. Kavanagh's extermination Company the name of Mr. Lefroy as a subscriber to a considerable amount. In the ordinary exercise of his functions as County Court Judge, Mr. Lefroy was to say whether or not the rent which the tenant was to pay to the landlord was a fair rent for the farm held, and he (Mr. Sexton) would like to know whether a gentleman who subscribed to a Company for the purpose of keeping rents at their present height, and for the purpose of preventing tenants availing themselves of the Land Act, was a fit person to be charged with the administration of the Land Act? It was also possible—indeed, it was probable—that Mr. Lefroy might be called upon to administer the Arrears Act, which, by a sudden and unexpected failure of valour on the part of noble Lords in "another place," was now about to become part of the law of the land. Surely a gentleman who was a subscriber to a Company intended to clear the land of the present tenants was not a proper
    1416
    person to decide whether a tenant was unable to pay his rent, or whether a tenant should be allowed to remain on his holding, or to administer a law intended to keep the tenants in their holdings. This Vote also provided for the salaries and expenses of Resident Magistrates in Ireland. The stipendiary magistracy in Ireland had lately been the subject of some re-organizing work on the part of the Government. A number of magistrates had developed symptoms of dissatisfaction, and he desired to know for what reason that dissatisfaction was developed. Was it true that the ordinary stipendiary magistrates had been provoked by the fact that they had been practically deprived of their ordinary functions, and that persons like Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been appointed to play the part of despot over them as well as over other people? It had been said a number of Resident Magistrates had been invited to retire on favourable terms. How many had retired, and what were the favourable terms? In other words, to what extent were the public to be burdened by these favourable terms of retirement in consequence of the fact that Mr. Clifford Lloyd and others had made the service intolerable? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary lately promised the House that in any new appointments of magistrates two principles would be kept in view. The first was that the gentlemen appointed should have some legal training; and the second was that they should be persons who, as far as possible, would be free from bias as between the landlord and tenant classes in Ireland. From day to day persons were appointed to the office of stipendiary magistrates in Ireland; and he thought the time had come when the right hon. Gentleman might conveniently and usefully inform the Committee and the country on what principle the selections had been made. He had heard criticisms with regard to the new magistrates which led him to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman had either been overborne in reference to the appointments, or he had not borne his pledge vividly in mind. It was impossible to forget for a moment the name of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He was by far the most prominent and conspicuous man in the magisterial service in Ireland; and he (Mr. Sexton) would move that the Vote

    1417
    be reduced by £1,000, which he conceived to be about the amount of the salary and allowances to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He considered that the fact that a gentleman like Mr. Clifford Lloyd held an official position was a danger to the Government and a calamity to the country. Early in the Session he placed on the Paper a Notice of Motion to the effect that in the opinion of the House Mr. Clifford Lloyd should be withdrawn or ought to retire. He, however, found no favourable opportunity of bringing that Motion forward; and in making the Motion which he did make to-night—namely, that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000 in respect of the salary and allowances of Mr. Clifford Lloyd—he did so in order to mark his sense, as perfectly as he could, that the time had come when it was imperative that Mr. Clifford Lloyd should be either dismissed from the Public Service or transferred to some other sphere of labour for which he was more fitted than that of magistrate in Ireland. A little time ago the Chief Secretary was asked a very pertinent Question with regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He was asked in how many counties or districts in Ireland Mr. Clifford Lloyd had, during the last year, exercised jurisdiction; what was the number of outrages committed during his magistracy, and during the corresponding period before he took charge; what were his qualifications; by whom was he recommended; and in what district he first acted? It was well to remind the Committee of the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave. The right hon. Gentleman said he had endeavoured to obtain a Return of the outrages committed in the district during Mr. Clifford Lloyd's magistracy, and during the corresponding period before he took charge; but the Inspector General of Constabulary informed him that the Constabulary and magisterial districts were not conterminous, and the crime records in his Office did not afford the information asked for. Of course, the Constabulary districts might not be conterminous with the districts of the Resident Magistrates; but surely it had lately been the practice to issue Crime Returns for counties. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the Superintendent of three counties all at once, so, in spite of the very civil answer given by the right hon.
    1418
    Gentleman the Chief Secretary, nothing could have been easier than to have given the information requested—namely, what had been the crime in Limerick, Clare, and Galway before Mr. Clifford Lloyd assumed the charge of these counties, and what was the crime after his advent? He (Mr. Sexton) had looked over the Returns of Crime, which were preserved in the Library, and he was prepared to stand on the assertion that after the arrival of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in counties Limerick, Clare, and Galway there had been no considerable diminution in the most serious classes of crime, neither had there been any improvement in the detection of crime—in fact, no criminal had been detected in respect of any conspicuous or any serious crime since Mr. Clifford Lloyd took charge of those districts. Mr. Clifford Lloyd adopted a very peculiar method of detecting crime, for he told the inhabitants of Roscrea that he "would make the grass grow in the streets of the town, or he would find out who committed a certain murder." He had made the grass grow in the streets of the town, but he had not found out who committed the murder. He had ruined the town by oppressing the people, but he had not discovered a criminal of any importance. The right hon. Gentleman was asked by whom Mr. Clifford Lloyd was originally recommended. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman said there was no official record of by whom Mr. Clifford Lloyd was recommended, or of what qualifications were submitted to the Government at the time. The right hon. Gentleman, feeling, no doubt, the hollowness of that reply, went on to add that it appeared from Returns that the gentleman in question had held various legal and Executive offices in British Burmah. He should hardly think the right hon. Gentleman would say that an experience gained in British Burmah would qualify a gentleman to hold a magisterial office in such a country as Ireland, where the people were supposed, at least in theory, to be equal before the law with every British subject of the Queen. The Committee would remember that early in the present Session the question of the erection of huts for evicted tenants in the county of Clare came under the notice of the House. He should say that one of the first acts of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in Kilmallock was to stimulate a pro-

    1419
    secution against certain ladies of the town for having gone to the lodgings of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and waited outside the door to receive and welcome the hon. Gentleman. The prosecution, however, turned out to be of so ridiculous a character that Mr. Clifford Lloyd himself was obliged to throw it overboard. While in the East Mr. Clifford Lloyd appeared to have acquired a passion for theatrical display, for it was his practice to go about Limerick and Clare, surrounded by a body-guard of policemen, and amidst the glittering of spurs and the clattering of sabres. Now, in regard to the question of huts. The Committee would remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) early in the year visited the district of Tulla, in Clare, where a number of families had been thrown out of their farms and cast on the roadside. While in Tulla the right hon. Gentleman was asked by the priest of the place whether it would be legal to erect huts for these people, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that it would be legal and laudable. Encouraged by this decision, the Ladies' Land League sent down Miss Kirk to procure shelter and provide food for the evicted families. Mr. Clifford Lloyd, however, suddenly took the notion that this work, which the then Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) had described as being legal and laudable, was illegal and dangerous to the peace of the district. He arrested Miss Kirk, who had been sent on this mission of charity; and by way of illustration of the manner in which Mr. Clifford Lloyd performed his magisterial duties, he would read the affidavit sworn by Miss Kirk in the High Court of Justice in Ireland—
    "I, Annie Kirk, now a prisoner in the gaol of the City of Limerick, aged 20 years and upwards, make oath and say as follows:—No. 1. On the morning of Friday the 21st day of April instant, I was arrested in my sitting room in Tulla, in the county of Clare, by the Head Constable of the district, and informed by him that I should proceed in his custody to the police barrack to appear before Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The said Head Constable added that he had a warrant for my arrest, and that I should go with him at once. No. 2. I was then taken to a room in the police barrack, which was in a few minutes afterwards entered by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R. M., Mr. O'Hara, J. P., and Mr. Crean, Sub-Inspector. No. 3. When so arrested I was wholly ignorant of the nature of the charge made against me, and thereupon at once applied
    1420
    to Mr. Lloyd for an adjournment of the case, whatever it might be, with which he appeared to be about to proceed, as I was entirely unprepared to defend myself. I asked for a postponement for throe days, in order that I might ascertain the nature of the charge against me and produce such witnesses as might be necessary to show that the statements made against me were unfounded. No. 4. Mr. Lloyd, however, refused to grant me any adjournment or postponement, and insisted on the case being proceeded with forthwith. No. 5. I then asked that one of the local clergymen whom I wished to examine for my defence might he allowed to be present, but Mr. Lloyd positively refused to allow the reverend gentleman to be present. No. 6. An information of the Sub-Inspector was then read, in which he stated that he believed mo to be an emissary of an illegal Society known as the Land League, and that I was engaged in creating discord and dissension amongst Her Majesty's subjects. No. 7. I stated, as I swear the fact is, that I was solely engaged in charitable purposes—namely, endeavouring to provide food and shelter for the families of tenants evicted for non-payment of rent; but I was nevertheless ordered to enter into recognizances in £50, with two sureties of £50 each, to be of good behaviour for three calendar months, and on refusing to enter into the same was committed to Limerick Prison for that period. No. 8. I admit I am a member of the Ladies' Land League, but I deny that it is an illegal body, and no proof whatever that it is such was given at any trial. I say that its objects are to promote the cause of charity and humanity, and I submit that until the contrary has been properly established the said Ladies' Land League should not have been assumed to have been an illegal body. No. 9. I say that if the postponement for which I applied had been granted I would have been able to produce and would have produced witnesses who would prove that I was innocent of every charge alleged against me, for I say that I never excited discord or dissension amongst any of Her Majesty's subjects, and I never intimidated or attempted to intimidate anyone, nor was I then or at any time engaged in any illegal practice, nor was I guilty of any misconduct whatsoever or any act which would justify the order made against me. No. 10. I submit that the said order ought to be quashed; that I was taken entirely by surprise by the proceedings, and was denied all opportunity of defending myself or obtaining professional assistance which said opportunity, if granted, would have enabled me to give complete proof of my innocence," &c.
    Such was the case with regard to Miss Kirk. It was a case disgraceful to Mr. Clifford Lloyd and to the Government, and it was typical of the manner in which the law had been administered in Ireland during the last few months. Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and others like him, refused to allow adjournments of cases, so that the persons brought before them could not put their cases in a legal shape. He hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would attend to this matter. Mr. Clif-

    1421
    ford Lloyd refused to allow Miss Kirk and other ladies to provide themselves with counsel, but threw them into goal; and the Court of Queen's Bench held that unless legal points had been raised in the Court below the Court above could not receive them. Mr. Clifford Lloyd took care that by gagging the prisoners no legal points should be raised in the Court below. When the question of huts came up in the House of Commons, Mr. Clifford Lloyd was defended by the late Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster). He (Mr. Sexton) asked on what pretence Mr. Clifford Lloyd said the huts were erected for purposes of intimidation; and through the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) Mr. Clifford Lloyd said that the grossest intimidation was being practised on the tenants, that they were prevented in many instances from paying their rents, and under Land League intimidation they suffered eviction; and in order to keep a grip of the soil the Land League built huts on other tenants' land, who dared not refuse to allow it. There were 24 evicted tenants, and this was what they themselves said—
    "We, the undersigned, evicted tenants from the property of Major Molony, D. L., of Kiltanon, Tulla, now occupying and about to occupy the houses provided for our shelter by the Ladies' Land League, having seen the statement of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, read by Mr. Forster in the House of Commons on Thursday last the 20th instant (April), to the effect that' many of us had privately paid our rents, are not permitted by the Land League to return to our farms, and are forced to occupy the Land League huts,' hereby give our unqualified denial to these several statements, and pronounce them to be a tissue of falsehoods. We suffer no intimidation, except from the myrmidons of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, from whom our liberties, even our very lives, are unsafe; yet we feel obliged in the interests of truth and justice to make this declaration,"
    And then followed the names of the tenants. The tenants went before the Board of Guardians for the purpose of procuring out-door relief, and they made this additional declaration—
    "We solemnly declare, and are prepared to testify on oath, if necessary, that we have paid no rent privately or otherwise since we were evicted from our holdings by Major Molony. We have no means by which to pay, and, therefore, did not pay. We have not been forced by anyone to occupy the huts erected for us by the Ladies' Land League; on the contrary, we gladly availed ourselves of the shelter provided for us, which also relieved our poor neighbours from the trouble and inconvenience they have
    1422
    been put to, in making room for us and our families in their own already crowded dwellings, and which, in many cases, could not possibly be continued for any lengthened period."
    With regard to the allegation that tenants were induced to give sites for Land League huts, five tenants made a declaration denying the statement in toto. Now, there was a complete reply to the false statements which Mr. Clifford Lloyd induced the Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) to make in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford opposed to him (Mr. Sexton) in the matter a resistance like a wall of adamant, for he credited the declaration of Mr. Clifford Lloyd that these huts were intended for the purpose of intimidation. But what fastened attention upon the truth was the case of the poor old man, John Kenny. Old Kenny had gone to one of the huts; but he with others were turned out. They were obliged to herd together in a house which was not large enough for them, and when meal time came, they had to go out on the hedge side. He asked if that were true, and Mr. Clifford Lloyd, adding to his former falsehoods, put it in the mouth of the Chief Secretary that it was not true. Kenny, however, in a few days, died from exposure, and his death fastened the attention of the Executive upon the case of these huts. Lord Spencer personally inquired into the case, and the result was that he allowed the erection of the huts. The wonder to him (Mr. Sexton) was that, after such a result, Mr. Clifford Lloyd was retained at all in the magisterial service. Mr. Clifford Lloyd put forward a series of falsehoods in this House; he said that the tenants who were evicted had been evicted because they were afraid to pay their rents; he said that the tenants who gave sites for the huts did so because they were afraid to refuse them. He (Mr. Sexton) had produced the evidence of the people themselves, and he was able to point to the conclusion arrived at by the Lord Lieutenant himself in refutation of the statements. He was curious to know how long this gentleman would be continued in his present position. It was well to consider what bearing the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd had had upon the remainder of the Resident Magistrates. He was reliably informed that no Resident Magistrate was content to live under him.

    1423
    Formal representations had been made to Dublin Castle by the magistrates of Limerick, Clare, and. Galway that it was impossible for them to act in concert with Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He would take one case which would serve as an illustration. Mr. William Morris Reade retired recently from the Resident Magistracy of Galway, and The Galway Observer, a paper on the popular side, writing on the retirement, said—
    "It is believed that Mr. Reade has resolved upon this step rather than be under the control of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who it appears, though not coming to reside here, has jurisdiction in this county. Mr. Reade has been a Resident Magistrate for 20 years, and during that time has earned the respect of all by his impartiality, yet withal, his firmness in giving decisions. All classes in this town have a high opinion of his judicial capacity. It is said that he himself has been so successful in the discharge of his duties, both towards the Government and the people, and on account of his long standing as Resident Magistrate, that he objects to be controlled by a meddling military man, who knows nothing about the duties he is called on to perform."
    Lest there should be any doubt about the cause of his retirement from the service, he had here a letter addressed by Mr. Morris Reade himself to The Irish Times. Mr. Morris Reade wrote—
    "I was appointed to serve Her Majesty by one of her representative Lord Lieutenants, to every one of whom in turn, and to every subject of the Crown, without fear, favour, or affection, I have, to the best of my ability, honestly done my duty; and, though not one word of complaint was made in the resignation which I tendered to Earl Spencer, and which he was graciously pleased to accept. I trust it may be distinctly understood by every man, woman, and child in Ireland, that I would cut my right hand off before I would 'Kowtow' to any Special Resident Magistrate."
    It, therefore, did not appear that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was very successful or popular amongst even the magistrates. Certainly, by the people of the town of Belfast, where he formerly served, he was held in anything but happy memory, and in the places where he now officiated the feeling against him was exceedingly strong. Amongst the official classes he seemed to have provoked feelings of a very nearly identical character. It was one of the peculiarities of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's character that he seemed to infuse in the officials around him a desire to act like himself—Sub-Inspector Smith affording a memorable example. He distinctly wished the Committee to understand that he stigmatized Mr.
    1424
    Clifford Lloyd as a person who was not to be believed upon his word, a person who, for the sake of his official position, had made statements, which had been read in that House, which were flagrantly contrary to the truth. Some time ago he asked in that House whether it was true that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had caused a telegram to be sent to the sergeant of police at Carrigaholt, asking him to send in the names of half-a-dozen tenants of Colonel M'Donnell who had not paid their rents, so that he might have them arrested under the Coercion Act. The late Chief Secretary denied that such was the case, but he (Mr. Sexton) had been supplied with the exact words of the telegram. The telegram ran—
    "If Colonel M'Donnell's rents be not paid by Monday or Tuesday, send me names of 20 prominent Land Leaguers, with a view to consideration of their arrest."
    This was the way in which this gentleman used his magisterial power. And what was the extraordinary fact? Why, that the tenants referred to in the telegram had since gone into the Land Court; some of them had had their rents reduced by 75 per cent, but upon the average the rents of this very property had been reduced 50 per cent. In other words, these rents had been reduced one-half by the constituted Judges of the land, and yet last spring, before these rents had been reduced at all, Mr. Clifford Lloyd considered the delay in paying them a sufficient reason for arresting the tenants under the Coercion Act. If the Chief Secretary had any doubt that Mr. Clifford Lloyd sent the telegram in question, let him apply to the telegraph office in the district, and he could easily obtain the original. He had no doubt whatever that the telegram was sent, and upon that ground alone he maintained that this gentleman was extremely incapable of holding his position any longer. He desired, in conclusion, to refer to the condition of the counties of Limerick, Clare, and Galway under this gentleman's regimé. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had exasperated the people of those counties, and he had produced no healthy effect upon the state of crime. In the first place, Mr. Clifford Lloyd had failed in detecting crime; and, in the second place, he had failed as regarded veracity. When the interests of his position, and the moral claims of

    1425
    veracity came into conflict, in his mind the moral claims of veracity went by the board. He had disgraced the magisterial service; he had caused heartburnings wherever he had gone, and he had created a sort of mutiny among the people. He had done all that the most active official could do in the way of exasperating the people; and, at the same time, he had done all that an incompetent official could do to exasperate those who acted under him. The Committee would remember what happened last Friday in Limerick. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had the audacity to call upon the police to parade before him, and to interfere with their financial arrangements with the Government. He insulted them because they had combined together; afterwards the men refused to parade before him, and he had not the temerity to appear again. The time had really come when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might invite Mr. Clifford Lloyd to retire from the Public Service. It was not merely a calamity to the country, but it was a disgrace to the Government that so incapable a man should be continued in so responsible a post. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would represent to the Cabinet the propriety of reconsidering the position of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The Government, by retaining this man, condemned themselves. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £62,238, 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, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that some weeks ago a very horrible murder was committed in Loughrea, and 26 people were arrested in the town. Many of the people he happened to know. Several of them occupied very respectable positions, and he believed three of them were Poor Law Guardians or Town Commissioners. These people were arrested upon evidence, or they were not; but certainly the time had come when something definite should be done. If no evidence could be brought forward, the people ought to be released. Mr. Clifford
    1426
    Lloyd happened to be the official on the spot, and he arrested the people. It was a terrible thing for respectable people to be accused of a foul murder, and, therefore, he hoped the Government would state what they intended to do in the matter.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that as the salary of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was included in this Vote, he thought it would be very desirable that the Chief Secretary should inform the Committee what Mr. Clifford Lloyd really cost the country, since the date of his appointment as a Special Resident Magistrate. There was more than the actual salary of Mr. Clifford Lloyd concerned when he spoke of what he had cost the country since the date of his appointment; for instance, allowances were made to him for servants and orderlies. If Mr. Clifford Lloyd was withdrawn from the service of the country, the service of a large number of police, who had been told off for his special protection, as he called it, would be dispensed with. These men, as the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had put it, had been withdrawn from the service of the country for the pleasure of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and to give him the satisfaction of making a grand military display wherever he went through the streets and cities and towns of Ireland. It was a fact that he went out in "high pomp and circumstance." He was fond of going about with an advance guard and a rear guard; and in the house where he lived he had a large body of police on guard in various passages and lobbies, and so forth; and therefore, in calculating the cost of this famous gentleman to the country, all these circumstances were bound to be taken into account. It was desirable that the Committee should freely and honestly be told what the country had to pay for such a man as Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He (Mr. Sullivan) saw the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) in his place, and he had never forgotten the testimony which that hon. Member gave, some time ago in that House, when first the name of Mr. Clifford Lloyd began to come up in debate; he had never forgotten the testimony that the hon. Gentleman gave as to the character of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and as to the effect which was likely to be produced in any part of the country which might be afflicted with his pre-

    1427
    sence. The hon. Gentleman told the House, upon the authority of his brother, who was a magistrate in Drogheda, that it was his opinion that wherever Mr. Clifford Lloyd was sent, whether it be to the South, East, North, or West of Ireland, he would produce something very like a rebellion. That was told to them a very long time ago, when the name of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was almost new to them; but did not the facts and circumstances which had since occurred bear out the description of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's character given on that occasion? He would be glad if the hon. Member for Drogheda would again refresh the memories of the Committee by repeating, on this occasion, the testimony he gave at that time. On a previous occasion he (Mr. Sullivan) referred to Mr. Clifford Lloyd as a very costly luxury to the British Government. Besides the actual cost in salary and allowances, Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been an enormous burden upon the country in other respects. There was no estimating the amount of mischief he had done; there was no estimating the amount of evil he had created; and long after that gentleman should have disappeared from the stage which he was now so unworthily occupying, the evil he had done would remain. It was absurd and improper for the Government to maintain this gentleman in the position he now held, because, instead of doing service to the cause which they professed to have at heart—the cause of peace and order in Ireland—Mr. Clifford Lloyd had shown himself its enemy. That being so, unless the Government wished to maintain the irritation of the Irish people; unless they desired to show themselves to be bullies of the Irish people, why did they maintain this firebrand in the position he held? Let the Government justify, before this Committee and the country, their policy in maintaining such a man in an office he so unworthily filled, and filled to the detriment of good order and government in Ireland, and to the shame of the Government that maintained him.
    MR. PARNELLwished to join the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) in urging upon the Government to bring the gentlemen—for many of them were in the position of gentlemen and respectable traders—who were arrested on suspicion of being
    1428
    concerned in the murder of Mr. Blake, at Loughrea, to trial or to release them. He was very much surprised to find that the Government had yielded to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, after that murder, so far as to make these wholesale arrests. It was not until Mr. Clifford Lloyd came into the town of Loughrea that the arrests were made, and it was evident that they must have been made upon his suggestion. He should be very indisposed to attach any weight to any representation Mr. Clifford Lloyd might make with regard to the act of any person, unless he was willing to bring him before a magistrate in order to make out his case. He could tell some strange stories to the Committee of the language and action of Mr. Clifford Lloyd towards accused persons who had been brought before him. He knew that in many cases Mr. Clifford Lloyd held his inquiries in prisons and other places, in the absence of the Press, and that he had sought to bully and intimidate people into admissions of guilt. He could tell a story with regard to a prisoner who was brought before Mr. Clifford Lloyd for attempting to murder Mr. Wilfrid Lloyd, and who was sent under the Coercion Act to Kilmainham subsequently. No particle of evidence had been brought against the man, and he could repeat to the Committee expressions used by Mr. Clifford Lloyd during his secret inquiry into the case against the prisoner which were an outrage to all justice, and certainly expressions which a Resident Magistrate should be ashamed to use towards an accused person. The Government in Ireland appeared at one time to imagine—he would not say they did so now—that they could succeed in creating a respect for the law by meeting the illegal acts, which had undoubtedly been done in some cases by the popular agents, with intimidation of a much more extreme kind on their own side. The struggle carried on in Ireland resolved itself simply into this—whether the officers of the law should use more illegal intimidation than the people themselves. So far, certainly, the effect had been that the officers of the law, instead of vindicating the law, had simply put down popular right by the exercise of intimidation. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had proved himself one of the most unscrupulous agents in the administration of that sys-

    1429
    tem. He (Mr. Parnell) had been hoping, having got rid of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and seeing that another policy had been inaugurated by the Government in Ireland, a policy that was signally justified by the result that there had been a reduction of outrages by 80 per month ever since it had been introduced, that they would also have got rid of the right hon. Gentleman's pet—Mr. Clifford Lloyd. This officer was only fit to rule in some savage country where it was necessary to adopt martial law, and where a number of persons were endeavouring to obtain a settlement on land that did not belong to them. It would suit him well to be engaged upon the North-Western Frontiers of America, or he might have been suited for the position of magistrate in Burmah; but, certainly, to introduce this man into a civilized country, where the Government were endeavouring to win the people over to law and order, was the most palpable absurdity that any Government could contrive. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would make a statement as to what they intended to do with regard to the 26 respectable persons who were languishing in gaol without hope or expectation of trial. Why were they arrested? What was the case against them? Did the case to any extent rest upon the representations of Mr. Clifford Lloyd? Did he hold out any hope that he would be able to obtain evidence to justify what had taken place, and had he obtained any evidence? He had now some experience of the use made of the Coercion Act by the late Chief Secretary and the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in arresting men on suspicion of murder against whom there was not a single particle of evidence, whom they did not bring to trial, and whom they themselves did not believe to be implicated in the crime. He wished to know whether it was right and just to apply the powers of the Coercion Act to respectable men who had lived for years in their native towns, where many of them had been engaged in large businesses, and whose businesses were irretrievably injured by their forcible detention? One of these men having been detained in gaol for 12 months was released, and had been since re-arrested. The promise
    1430
    made by the Chief Secretary when the Coercion Act was passing through the House had never been fullfilled—namely, that no person should be arrested except upon evidence which, if he were in the jury-box, would justify him in finding that person guilty. The persons he had referred to were still detained in prison, although there was not a particle of evidence against them. Why had they not been proceeded against under the ordinary law? When a policeman could swear that he expected to get evidence a prisoner could be remanded from time to time until some evidence was forthcoming, and the magistrates in Ireland were never unwilling to commit a prisoner for trial if there was a promise on the part of the police that they would introduce evidence at the trial. There were still 170 prisoners in gaol under the Coercion Act of last Session, almost all of whom were entirely innocent of any offence; and had he known that this would have been the case he should certainly have preferred to remain in Kilmainham until that day. Looking at the fact that outrages in Ireland had decreased, he thought Irish Members were entitled to complain that this large number of 170 men should still be languishing in gaol without trial, and without hope of trial; and, therefore, he hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was able to go over to Ireland and see the state of affairs with his own eyes, he would use his influence to get rid of such agents of disorder as Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and to bring about the release of a very large number, if not all, of the 170 men now in. prison on suspicion.
    MR. WHITWORTHsaid, he rose because he had been appealed to by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) to say a few words about Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He had not the privilege of knowing Mr. Clifford Lloyd personally; but he had stated in that House that his brother had told him that the conduct of that official in Drogheda was anything but creditable, and that he was an exceedingly dangerous man to send down to the South or West of Ireland. The hon. Member for Westmeath exaggerated when he said the statement was that, "Mr. Clifford Lloyd was a dangerous man to be sent either to the West, North, East, or South of Ireland." He (Mr. Whitworth), only mentioned

    1431
    the South and West, because he believed that in the North, where Mr. Clifford Lloyd was first stationed, he gave perfect satisfaction to the people. He must candidly admit that he had greatly changed his opinion with regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd since he first mentioned his name in that House. He found he was condemned by every rebel in Ireland. Every rebel in Ireland hated Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and he was bound to say from the evidence he had heard that evening that he had been of immense service in the South and West of Ireland. Moreover, he had such confidence in Her Majesty's Government as to believe that if they were convinced that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not doing his duty they would at once dismiss him.
    MR. CALLANcalled upon the Attorney General for Ireland to say at the Table of the House what he had said on the Treasury Bench a short time ago. When the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) referred to the fact that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had put women in prison, he heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say—"Served them right." The brother of the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) was a man of largor experience and greater knowledge than the hon. Member, and his language was that Mr. Clifford Lloyd "was a firebrand, and would prove himself to be so wherever he went." And had he not justified that description of himself? Why, it was only a few days ago that he was on the verge of driving the Irish Constabulary into revolt; he was nothing else than a meddling busybody, and there were other persons in Ireland of the same character. Mr. Clifford Lloyd went to Limerick last Saturday; the Inspector was to arrive at 2 o'clock, but Mr. Clifford Lloyd went into the police barracks, paraded the men, and used language for which he had been obliged to apologize. It was true that afterwards he sent a communication to the newspapers explaining away his language; but he (Mr. Callan) asked whether the Government were willing to grant a Court of Inquiry as to his conduct on the occasion referred to? For his own part, he was almost sick of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's name, and he had only risen to express the feeling of indignation with which he heard the remark made use of by the Attorney
    1432
    General for Ireland on the Treasury Bench.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has no right to refer to remarks that were not made with the intention of their being heard by the House.
    MR. CALLANsaid, with all respect to the Chair, when an observation of the kind he had mentioned was directed in an insulting tone to the remarks of an hon. Gentleman, he was entitled to notice it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not refer to that subject again.
    MR. CALLANsaid, with the dread consequences of suspension before him, he should, of course, bow to the Chairman's decision. He had heard observations, even of the Prime Minister, called in question, and if he had erred at all, he had erred inadvertently in not closing his ears to an insulting observation. He could not help remarking that it would conduce more to the order and harmony of the debates if the presiding authority censured Members of the Government for irregularity as readily as it censured Members sitting in that part of the House.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he rose with reference to the statement of the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) that he had been guilty of some exaggeration in recalling the remarks of his brother, the late Member for Drogheda, with reference to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. If there had been any exaggeration in the matter, it was certainly unintentional on his part. He understood the hon. Member to state that his brother had said, "Wherever Mr. Clifford Lloyd is sent he will do this evil work"—that was to say, he would get up something like rebellion. The hon. Member now said it was only in the South and West of Ireland that it was supposed these consequences would ensue from his being sent amongst the people. But was it not a curious fact that these were the very quarters of Ireland in which the Government had set Mr. Clifford Lloyd to work? He was, it seemed, doing no harm in the North; but they would not leave him there; they sent him to the very parts of the country—the South and West—where he was likely to do a great deal of harm. But they had now heard the hon. Member for Drogheda say that he had changed his mind about Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and that he regarded the

    1433
    South and West of Ireland as fit fields for the exercise of his talents. He would like to know the whole amount that the country had to pay directly and indirectly for Mr. Clifford Lloyd, because, as far as he had been able to gather, the Government were paying altogether "too dear for their whistle," so far as his services were concerned.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the Committee had listened to several suggestions as to the best kind of occupation which the Government could find for Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had suggested that he should be sent to the North-West Frontiers of America, and he believed the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had recommended that he should be appointed to the office of magistrate in Burmah. But his own opinion was that it would be a good thing to find him a situation as stipendiary magistrate in England. He was bound to say that, having visited the district in which Mr. Clifford Lloyd was engaged the last time he was in Ireland, his acts there did not appear to bear out the character which had just been attributed to him by the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth), but rather that which had been given by Irish Members below the Gangway—namely, that he was a disturbing element amongst the Irish people, and that his transfer to some other part of the Kingdom would be an advantage for all parties. He had already asked his right hon. Friend a question about Mr. Henry George, who had been arrested and released after some detention. Although he did not then suppose he had suffered any serious injury by that detention, yet he now found that Mr. George and his companion, whom he (Mr. Cowen) was not acquainted with, had been subjected to great personal indignities by the police—he believed their luggage had been broken open, and all the usual indignities done to them which were practised under such circumstances by "Jacks in office." He knew Mr. George was a man of considerable eminence in his own country, and that he was also a man of great ability; he was not an Irishman, but an American subject, and had no more to do with the political organization existing in Ireland than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and his Colleagues who sat beside him. He
    1434
    said it was a great hardship that a man like Mr. George, who went into a village purely for the purpose of getting information, should be arrested under the despotic powers of the Prevention of Crimes Act, and that, too, under circumstances of indignity and, in some measure, of pain; and he urged that if the Act was to be enforced in respect of foreigners, it must be applied with some amount of discrimination. It was fair to ask that some amount of consideration should be shown to persons arrested under such circumstances as he had described. Mr. George was a man known to many Members of that House, and he was known, moreover, throughout Europe and America; his companion, too, was well known, and he had no difficulty in getting the Justices to release him. But suppose he had been a man in different circumstances, and that he got into the hands of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, he would, in all probability, have been detained in gaol for weeks or months. He asked what would be the feeling here if the representative of an English newspaper, a political economist, had been taken when in a town in Germany collecting information for the purpose of writing a book or making communications to the newspapers at home—was arrested at, say, Breslau or Halle, and subjected to gross indignities on the part of the local police? The feeling here would be one of great indignation; yet that was the part we had acted towards Mr. George. He had no other intention in making these remarks than to insist, as far as he was able, that some amount of leniency and consideration should be shown in exercising the powers of the Prevention of Crimes Act. There were still under the Coercion Act of the previous year 170 men in prison. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that the Prime Minister had stated that when this Act came into force, the old Act would cease to operate—at least, if that was not given literally, it was given in substance in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—and, therefore, he thought it was only fair to ask that the men now imprisoned on suspicion should be brought to trial or released. Her Majesty's Government talked of restoring order; it would be a matter of surprise if order were not restored, considering the despotic powers of the Acts he had referred to. It was very easy to govern in a state of siege;

    1435
    and if Her Majesty's Government could not govern Ireland with these two Acts at their disposal, he said there were no circumstances in which they could preserve order in the country.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had begun his speech by referring to the amount of confidence which the Irish farmers had in the Civil Bill Courts, in respect to the administration of the Land Act. It was quite true that the Civil Bill Courts were more applied to than the Land Commission, a fact which he regarded as somewhat surprising. He had lately cursorily examined the statistics of recent months, and his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for England had also examined them, but much more carefully; and the result of the latter examination was a complete confirmation of the superficial examination he had himself made of the decisions arrived at by both the Civil Bill Courts and the Land Commission. It showed—first, that the Civil Bill Courts had done their duty in a manner which entitled them to the confidence of the tenants of Ireland; and, secondly, it proved beyond all question that the charges brought against the Sub-Commissioners, of being actuated by a dislike to landlords and indifferent to local information, and of having been set to work simply for the purpose of reducing rents, were absolutely illusory. With regard to the four Provinces, it appeared that a certain average of reduction held both as to the cases decided by the Civil Bill Courts and those decided by the Land Commissioners, which showed that, although these Courts decided without reference to each other, there was the same method running through the judgments of both. Both the Courts had decided that, on the whole, the reductions in Ulster should be about 22 per cent of the rent; in Connaught something less than that; in Munster about 20 percent; and in Leinster about 13 per cent. If there was anything that could prove that these reductions were made upon a system, it was that both the Civil Bill Courts and the Land Commissioners, as well as the Sub-Commissioners, had arrived at almost the same average amount of reduction for the four Provinces of Ireland. Therefore, he hoped that in future very much less would be heard of the Sub-Commissioners being too Conserva-
    1436
    tive in their views, and that they would possess the confidence of the people to a larger extent than they did at present. The hon. Member for Sligo had referred to the case of a Judge of one of the Civil Bill Courts being a member of the Land Corporation. Upon this point he had to observe that the Land Corporation was a body which existed in perfect conformity with the law; and, therefore, it was quite certain that the Irish Executive could take no notice of the circumstance; but, speaking as a Member of Parliament, he must own that the less a judicial functionary was associated with any organization which took an active part in the burning questions that were arising in Ireland the better. Again, the hon. Member for Sligo referred to a matter in connection with the magistrates in Ireland, and his remarks upon that subject had, on the whole, coincided with what had fallen from hon. Members who had followed him. He said that dissatisfaction existed amongst the Resident Magistrates on account of the appointment of Special Resident Magistrates. Now, he must admit that to some extent that was the case; but it was extremely difficult, in any re-organization or re-arrangement of the service, to distinguish the cause from which dissatisfaction sprang. It might be the inevitable dissatisfaction caused to individuals who had hitherto been supreme in their district, and who found someone sent there who would in future stand between them and the Central Government, to report upon their proceedings, and to be, to a certain extent, the arbiters of their fortunes. But this special arrangement had not been long enough in force for the Government to be quite certain whether the dissatisfaction was due to the cause he had just indicated, or to something faulty in the plan of re-organization; and upon this point he was better able to judge than he was upon some other matters, because the arrangement had existed such a short time that very few hon. Members had seen more of it than he had. With regard to the system, Her Majesty's Government were not able to say whether it was going to be confirmed or not. The hon. Member asked who had retired amongst the magistrates, what were the terms on which they had retired, and whether those terms constituted a very great

    1437
    burden on the public purse? He was glad to notice the growing anxiety in the matter of expenditure that was showing itself more and more in that quarter of the House where the hon. Member for Sligo sat. Well, three magistrates had retired willingly and without any pressure or invitation, and 12 had retired under a certain amount of pressure and invitation.
    COLONEL NOLANasked how many had refused to retire without invitation?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not think it necessary to state to the Committee how many magistrates had taken the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. They here came to the question of official administration. Both at the time when a service was reorganized, and at the time when it was simply doing its ordinary work, it was absolutely necessary that the Heads of Departments and high Ministers of State should have power to put pressure on officers whom they considered really inefficient to retire. If Ministers were not able to perform that function when justice or the interest of the State required it, the country could not be well governed. These gentlemen had retired under circumstances in which men retired compulsorily at the time of administrative changes, under the well-known terms of abolition of office which were laid down by the Treasury in the Minute of the 14th of June, 1859—that was to say, every person who had served not less than five years would be awarded an allowance at the rate of one-sixth of his income; in the case of a person who served 10 years, three years would be added in counting his pension; in the case of persons serving under 15 years and not less than 10 years, a period of five years would be added; in the case of persons serving under 20 years and not less than 15 years, eight years would be added; and in the case of persons who served 20 years and upwards a period of 10 years would be added in connection with their pensions. This arrangement, it was believed, afforded a legitimate solatium for men who retired, not when they wished to leave the service, but when, as a matter of fact, the authorities thought it better that they should be retired in the interests of the public, obviously without any stain on their character, because if
    1438
    there were such stain they would not be qualified for the pension that would otherwise be awarded to them. The operation was one which he had seen performed in large offices in cases of difficulty, and it was an operation which must, from time to time, be performed in every Department, unless that Department was to become inefficient for its work. With regard to the new appointments, very great care had been taken. The officers who had been selected belonged to three classes; and he might say that in making these appointments an infinitesimal amount of weight had been given to interest and patronage. Whether the selection was good or not, it had been made with a desire to appoint men who would do justice without fear, without favour, and without being oppressive to the people. As he had before pointed out, these gentlemen belonged to three classes. Four of them were Sub-Inspectors of the Constabulary, who had shown those qualities which the Irish Government imagined would fit them for the office. Four of them were Irish barristers, of which class of men the Government would gladly have got more; but it was found to be impracticable. It was necessary, in order to tempt gentlemen out of the Legal Profession, to give them much higher emoluments than would tempt men out of the Military Profession, or, still more, out of the professions in civil life. The salaries of civil magistrates began at, say, £400 a-year, and for that sum they could not get good lawyers to undertake the office. He had gone into these matters for the purpose of showing that the Government had done their best to fulfil the pledge given in Committee on the Prevention of Crime Bill, to get as many gentlemen as they could from the Legal Profession who were qualified to discharge the duties of the office, not simply because they were lawyers, but because they were men of the requisite legal attainments. As he had already said, then, four of them were barristers; one of them was a magistrate, who had been very active on the Bench; and eight of them belonged to what he might call the general public and, to a great extent, to the Military Profession.
    MR. SEXTONasked whether these were ordinary magistrates?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, they were ordinary Resident Magistrates, and there

    1439
    were 17 of them in all. Before concluding, he wished to say a few words with regard to another subject which had been referred to at length in the course of the evening. It was obviously impossible, with the feelings which hon. Members had about Mr. Clifford Lloyd, that they could pass this Vote unchallenged. A great many cases had been referred to in connection with that officer, and discussed with more or less detail. The case of a lady sent to prison in default of bail had been referred to. As he always wished to be practical, he should forbear to go back to the past, and would merely observe that since there had been a new method in operation of dealing with intimidation, he did not believe that any lady had found her way into prison.
    MR. SEXTON: Mary Keene.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had only to say, in the case of Mary Keene, that she went to prison in default of bail. He did not think he was called upon to defend this case any more than he was called upon to defend any of the cases of the kind which came before Petty Sessions. However, he earnestly hoped that no lady would go to prison under the same circumstances hereafter. With regard to the question of the huts, hon. Gentlemen opposite had acknowledged that whether the Irish Government, six or seven months ago, in the agony of that great struggle between the law and those who defied the law, were right or wrong in the strong course which they took with respect to these huts, the present Government had come to the conclusion that it was not necessary any longer to continue the embargo. Further, the Government considered that, in this matter, their judgment had been vindicated by the result. Hon. Members had spoken of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's method of procedure as not being successful in the districts to which he had been sent. They said that offences had not diminished there, and that this, in all probability, was due to the arbitrary opinions he had expressed. Without going into that matter, he thought that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's district showed a very great improvement. That officer became Special Magistrate of Clare and Limerick in December, 1881. In Clare the outrages in October were 48, in November 42, and in December 58. Well, in the next month, January, they rose to 61; they stood at 56 and 55 for
    1440
    February and March; but in April, May, and June, they were for these months 35, 23, and 28 respectively. In Limerick, for the month in which Mr. Clifford Lloyd was appointed, the outrages fell from 62 to 30, and since that time they had averaged about 35 per month. In June they fell to 20. It might be the case that this diminution of outrages was coincident with the diminution of outrages all over Ireland; but it could scarcely be said that there was any evidence in these figures that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's measures had so far failed. Again, the hon. Member had alluded to Mr. Clifford Lloyd's conduct at Limerick a few day ago; and upon this point also his remarks had been supported by hon. Gentlemen who followed him upon the subject of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's interview with the Limerick police. Now, he had in his hand a telegram sent by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and which he had received since the hon. Member asked him a Question upon that point, and spoke of Mr. Clifford Lloyd as having addressed the police in an irritating manner, and of the police as replying that they were not soldiers. In the telegram Mr. Clifford Lloyd said he did not use the language mentioned by Mr. Sexton, or any language similar to it in the sense or manner suggested by him. The language he had used was reported in The Irish Times of the 7th instant. In pointing out to the men the gravity with which such action by an armed force was viewed, and the impossibility of listening to demands made under such circumstances, he had instanced soldiers, saying that if soldiers so acted they might even incur, under certain circumstances, an extreme penalty. There was no such response from the men as indicated, and no declaration or hint even from them that they would not parade again. Putting aside the actual agitation, their conduct had been and continued to be, so far as he could learn, satisfactory. One man had replied, in a perfectly respectful manner, "But, sir, we are not soldiers," which was the only foundation for the statement made. That was not on parade, but while he was talking afterwards to some of the men standing around him. He was inclined to think that that bore out his original view of the question—namely, that the magistrate had used his influence in a legitimate way.
    MR. PARNELL: Did these men parade again before Mr. Clifford Lloyd?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not think they did. Before referring to the observations of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he wished to say a word with reference to a Question which the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) asked him the other day. The hon. Member said that since he asked that Question he had received some information. Well, so had he (Mr. Trevelyan). He had had the advantage of reading a letter written by Mr. Joynes, and what had taken place, according to that gentleman's statement, was exactly what had been said in the newspapers. The two gentlemen were arrested, searched, but not detained more than a few hours. He (Mr. Trevelyan) was extremely sorry for it. Within the past two or three days an hon. Member had asked him in the House whether cases of this kind had occurred, or were likely to occur—he forgot the Question—and he was now in a position to say that he had been in communication with the Irish Government, and that it had been agreed that a specific Circular should be sent out giving a very distinct warning to the police. It was obvious that this sort of thing must not occur again. He did not mean that such a person as an Eton Master might not be arrested again, but that if people of a certain standing in this country were arrested it might be easier for them to get away, although people less known might find it difficult to obtain relief. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had referred to the question of the arrests at Loughrea; but on that question he (Mr. Trevelyan) had spoken at length in answer to a substantive Motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Sligo. These arrests had not been made in consideration of one murder only; but within comparatively recent times there had been nine murders in the vicinity of Loughrea, the perpetrators of which had avoided detection. The crimes might be said to have been committed with the connivance of the inhabitants, because no one could doubt that a large number of the residents must be aware who were the murderers in, at any rate, some of the nine cases. The murders could not have been so carefully planned and executed unless there had been general sympathy with them amongst the people. The
    1442
    hon. Member said there were still 171 persons incarcerated under the last Coercion Act, and he had said that he little valued his own release when he knew that there were so many of his friends still in prison. In fact, the hon. Member had said, he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought, that he would willingly go back again if he found himself alone when he got there. The hon. Member had said—and no doubt it was a generous feeling which prompted him to say it—that he valued the release of himself and his two Colleagues only as an earnest of what they expected to follow in the case of the other "suspects" Well, in the presence of the Prime Minister, he (Mr. Trevelyan) would say what he believed was the fact—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the list of "suspects" would be carefully examined in order that the Executive might see who of them could be let out with reasonable safety to the public. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had not the figures before him; but he believed that since that day—that was to say, during the last three months, 130 "suspects" had been released, and only 110 of the old "suspects" remained in prison. As a matter of fact, he believed there were not more than 100 in prison now, the list being made up by 50 who had been put in by Lord Spencer, every one of whom, with, perhaps, a single exception, had been put in under suspicion of the very gravest crimes. There were three from Cavan who had been put in in connection with a horrible assault, 11 from Dublin in connection with the Fenian murders, one from Sligo on account of a crime of a very serious kind—
    MR. SEXTON: On a warrant 13 months old.
    MR. TREVELYAN: And some from Loughrea. A good deal of what had been said to-night referred to a state of things which was rapidly passing away, in which crimes of violence were rampant in the country, and in which that kind of crime was being dealt with by a process which it was hardly necessary to defend or attack, seeing that on the 30th of September next it would be a thing of the past. The process by which the Executive proposed to deal with crime of that kind in the future was much more easy to defend in the House, and he believed it would be very much more satisfactory and effective. He was

    1443
    very sorry that in the interval between the passing out of the old system and the coming in of the new certain very dreadful crimes in a particular part of the country had obliged the Executive to have recourse to the old system; but by the 30th of September the advantages of doing away with that system would decidedly outweigh the disadvantages. He looked forward with confidence to the prospect of being able to deal with violence in Ireland in two ways, first by the operation of beneficent laws which were beginning more and more to tell upon the country, and next, to a subsidiary extent, by a scheme of Criminal Law, which, though by no means mild, was still far less objectionable than those methods which they had been obliged to have recourse to in the past.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was so satisfactory that he (Mr. O'Connor) should not find it necessary to trouble the Committee for more than a few minutes. The right hon. Gentleman had carried out his promise by sending out the Circular he had referred to; and his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) might, he thought, claim that the right hon. Gentleman had practically taken the same view on the question as the hon. Member had taken himself. He was glad to find that some of the rates fixed by the County Boards had been much better than those fixed by the Sub-Commissioners; but when the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with the magistrates his statement was not so satisfactory as that of the hon. Member, because he said that only some 12 of them had been forced to resign their positions, and that altogether about 15 had been got rid of. But 15 was not a bad proportion of magistrates to compel to resign out of a total of 72. The case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been so fully dealt with, and so frequently gone into, that he would be brief in his reference to it. The right hon. Gentleman, although no doubt from no want of candour, had rather evaded that point. His hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) brought four main capital charges against Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He said, in the first place, that outrages had increased under his administration; in the second place, that no detections had followed under his administration; in the third place, that his administration had led to the exasperation of the people
    1444
    in the district; and, fourthly, that it had conduced to the disorganization of the Public Service. The right hon. Gentleman failed to meet a single one of these four capital charges. He had given them statistics to show that outrages had decreased in Mr. Clifford Lloyd's district; but he had failed to take into account the extraordinary help that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had had in the beneficent working of the Land Act. When the right hon. Gentleman gave them the total of outrages, he might have told them how many were trifling, and how many were serious. He (Mr. O'Connor) believed his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) was quite right when he said that the outrages of a serious character had increased during the administration of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. With regard to the outrages that remained undetected, it was a fact that under Mr. Clifford Lloyd not a single case of the detection of an offender had taken place. That point which the right hon. Gentleman had failed to deal with was a matter of popular notoriety in the district; and that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's administration had led to the exasperation of the people was also a matter of public notoriety. No name in the whole of Ireland excited more bitter, acrimonious, and terrible feelings than that of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the resignation of several magistrates had been caused by the appointment of the Superintendent Resident Magistrates, of whom the most notorious was Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and, in fact, on all four charges Mr. Clifford Lloyd stood convicted on the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who was responsible for his acts as being his advocate and defender in that House. The right hon. Gentleman had given them figures to show how the outrages had decreased; but he did not tell them the reason why the three counties over which Mr. Clifford Lloyd ruled were proclaimed? Why did he not tell them that extra police had had to be stationed in those counties, and that of all the cities in Ireland the only one to which the Curfew Clause had been applied was the City of Limerick, where Mr. Clifford Lloyd lived? The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the change that had taken place in the condition of Ireland. That was also the subject of the address of the Prime Minister. He (Mr. O'Connor) was expressing

    1445
    not only his own sentiments, but those of all his hon. Friends around him, when he said that the change in the condition of Ireland was a matter that must bring gladness and joy to the heart of every honest man in the House. If there was anyone in the House who ought to take to heart the fact that the condition of Ireland was improving, it was the Members on those (the Home Rule) Benches. It was in the name of that change that they asked the Government to get rid of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. When they heard that the Government meant to stand by that gentleman, half the bright hopes, founded on the change in the Chief Secretaryship of Ireland, were darkened. Was it worth the while of any Government to keep within the body politic a disorganizing and disturbing element like Mr. Clifford Lloyd? Both the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken about Ireland had had the good sense to acknowledge that it was just legislation and not coercion that must bring about peace and order in Ireland; and he would here say one word to hon. Members on the Radical Benches. ["No, no!"] Perhaps the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would allow him to exercise his own judgment. He would say one word to hon. Gentlemen sitting upon the Radical Benches, and it was this—none of them had thought proper to take part in this debate. He did not blame them—it was a matter for their own discretion. But his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) intended to go to a division on this Vote; and he would, therefore, ask those hon. Members, if they could not support his hon. Friend by their voices, at any rate to give him their votes on this occasion. He would ask them to do so for the sake of Ireland, for the sake of their Party, and for the sake of the Administration they believed in.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the Chief Secretary was apparently very indignant at what had taken place in Ireland—namely, the arrest of Mr. Henry George and Mr. Joynes. During the discussion which had taken place on the Coercion Bill, which some persons seemed to think was a little exhaustive, it was frequently pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the consequence of giving arbitrary powers to so many people for the arrest of suspected persons in Ireland would be to
    1446
    lead to great injustice. They gave power in the Coercion Act to every constable in Ireland to arrest anybody whom he thought he found under suspicious circumstances. How in the world could they suppose that that power would not be abused? For his own part, he was rather glad that English tourists were arrested in Ireland, because that sort of thing seemed to him very likely to bring home to the English mind a desirable knowledge of what a Coercion Act really meant. On the other hand, so far as Ireland itself was concerned, it was an undesirable thing that these arrests should take place, particularly at this period of the year, when a great many people were going away from home on their holidays. A great many people might feel inclined to visit Ireland, and when there they would, of course, spend money, which would be a substantial benefit to the country. The right hon. Gentleman told them that these mistakes must not occur again, and that a Circular would be sent round to the Constabulary requesting them to stop them. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that? Did he mean that the police were to exercise more caution, or that they were not to put in force the clause of the Coercion Act under which Mr. Joynes and Mr. George had been arrested? He (Mr. Labouchere), for his own part, thought if the English people were to travel about in Ireland, as they did in any other civilized country, if this clause was to be maintained in the Coercion Act, the Irish Executive should prepare passports to protect tourists and travellers from arrest and annoyance. It was necessary in Germany to supply English travellers with passports, because it had been found that they went wandering about, getting into trouble here and there, it always being supposed that they were suspicious persons if they were without their passports. In this case of Mr. Joynes, he found that his letters were seized by the police, and that was a circumstance that gentleman had to be thankful for, as the result was that they discovered his identity. But it was a monstrous thing that a gentleman visiting Ireland for his pleasure should be in danger of having his letters seized in this way. It would be much better, to guard a man against such an annoyance as that, to give him some paper or docu-

    1447
    ment which he could produce to prove that he was an honest person, travelling on business or pleasure. He (Mr. Labouchere) hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would take this suggestion into his consideration.
    MR. O'SHEAsaid, that, as one of the Representatives of a county in which Mr. Clifford Lloyd was a Special Magistrate, he wished altogether to dissociate himself from the remarks which had been made hostile to that gentleman.
    MR. LEAMYasked whether the police, before they took those two gentlemen—Mr. Joynes and Mr. George—before the magistrates, examined the documents and letters those gentlemen had in their possession; and, if they did, by what authority under the Prevention of Crime Act did they proceed? As far as he (Mr. Leamy) was aware, the Act did not give them the authority. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the police were justified in going outside the Act? There was another thing he wished to ask, and it was a question which had been asked several times before—namely, what Mr. Clifford Lloyd cost the country—what were his expenses? That question had been put to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) on several occasions, and it had been put to the present Chief Secretary; but no satisfactory reply had been received, and surely the House was entitled to know such a fact as this. How much did Mr. Clifford Lloyd get as salary, and how much in allowances—how much did he get for a salary, how much for clerks, how much for police protection?—because he (Mr. Leamy) had not the slightest doubt, if all the amounts were known, the grand total of the amount spent on Mr. Clifford Lloyd would startle the country. The right hon. Gentleman, in referring to the Land Courts, mentioned the average of reductions made in the different Provinces of Ireland, coming to 22 per cent in Ulster and 13 per cent in Leinster; and he had said it was evident from the way in which the reductions were made, both in the Land Court and in the Civil Bill Court, that both the Commissioners and the County Court Judges were reducing the rents on a system. It would be well that they should have evidence of the system; but it seemed to him that it would be very
    1448
    hard to get it from the Government: If the right hon. Gentleman could give the opponents of the Land Act assurance that there was a perfect system, and could describe it, he ought to do so.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that great complaint had been made with regard to the arrest of Mr. George and Mr. Joynes; but, so far as he (Mr. Healy) was concerned, it seemed to him that the police officer who had made the arrest had acted rightly. He did not know what else the constable could have done. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had made the most extraordinary statement, as far as inconsistency was concerned, that he had ever heard, even from a Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the police were to do this kind of thing no more. Why should they not do it again? Was it because Mr. Joynes wore a black coat, and, say, John Murphy wore a frieze—was it because Mr. Joynes wore a shiny hat and John Murphy a cloth cap, that the latter was to be arrested and the former allowed to proceed on his way? Only the other day a policeman met a man in the street and told him to go home. The man replied, "I shall go home when I like," whereupon the constable arrested him, took him to the police station, and had him locked up for 24 hours. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant complain of that? Why, it was because this poor fellow had not dined with two Cabinet Ministers at the Reform Club. It appeared to be a passport to respectability to dine with two Cabinet Ministers. The people to blame were not the police; they were to blame George Otto Trevelyan and Sir William Harcourt, and the Ministers who passed these Acts giving the police such powers. What was the use of blaming the miserable subordinates who put these Acts into operation? Those Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench were, in reality, the pendulum and weights, and the police were but a minor part of the machinery. Well, it was said that they were not going to arrest people like Mr. Joynes and Mr. George any more. He hoped they would—he should like to see them arrest a few Archbishops and a couple of Cardinals, and keep them in a close cell for a night on the principle that he believed Sydney Smith advocated, when he said the best way to stop railway

    1449
    accidents was to put a railway director on each buffer of the engine. As for those poor wretches who lived on potatoes and stirabout, and earned, perhaps, only 1s. a-day, it appeared they might be arrested, and welcome, without rousing any right hon. Gentleman's indignation. It was a very different thing when they came to arrest a Professor from Eton, and Head Master Henry George, a person who had been invited to dine with two Cabinet Ministers. When these gentlemen were arrested, the country began to understand the horrors of the situation, and their indignation at once burst out. They could arrest a poor man in the West of Ireland dressed in a frieze coat; but directly they arrested a gentleman in a black coat the House was going to come to pieces. Hitherto the right hon. Gentleman had been afraid to caution the police about abusing the Prevention of Crime Act; but now, because they had arrested two swells, they were told that the police were to be cautioned not to do it any more. He might say, of all the absurdities of the British Government, he had never heard the equal of this. If he, like the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, were a British official, he should defend everything the Irish police did. If the British Government in Ireland was good, it was proper for them to defend it all through. In the view of the Irish Members, the end the British Government had in view was frightfully bad; but, bad as it was, the English Government, holding the opinion they did with regard to it, ought to stick to the machinery they had prepared for its maintenance. One of two things would happen to the right hon. Gentleman—either he would get hardened in defending the police in swearing that that which was white was black, and that that which was black was white; or, in spite of his official character, the honesty of his soul would come to the surface and assert itself, and they would find him retiring from his post dismayed and disgusted.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, that, as an old Eton boy, he wished to bear his testimony to the fact that Mr. Joynes was an Eton Master and a perfect gentleman. He was a straightforward and an honest Englishman; and he (Sir Henry Fletcher) was sure that all that
    1450
    had been done had been done by mistake.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 81: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 326.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £75,317, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Office.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,082,146 (including a Supplementary sum of £300,000), 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 Constabulary Force in Ireland."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he supposed the Government scarcely cherished such an expectation as that this Vote could pass without a fight upon it. Under other circumstances, it seemed to him that it would have been necessary to have made the subject of this Vote a matter of extended observation; but they had had on recent occasions an opportunity of discussing the condition and the recent duty of the Constabulary in Ireland, and they had an assurance from the Chief Secretary that his personal attention would be given to the subject of keeping the members of the Police Force in that country within the pale of the law. They had also heard that a Circular had been sent round warning the officers and the men not to exercise more discretion than they had authority to exercise under the extraordinary powers of the Coercion Act. Under these circumstances, he did not think it necessary to enter into a discussion of any great length; but, at the same time, it appeared to him to be desirable to say that with regard to certain officers of the Constabulary, officers whose names had been prominent before the House and the country, it was necessary to insist that some action should be taken on their account. He referred especially to County Inspector Smith, of Clare; to Inspector Ball, of Ballina; to Inspector Rogers, of Tullaghmore, and others. The nature and extent of the misconduct of these officers had been more than once explained in that House, and he should not trouble the Committee with any further detailed reference to it; but

    1451
    he would appeal to the Chief Secretary that if Sub-Inspectors and County Inspectors provoked conflicts which led to the loss of life, they could not be punishable in the course of law. He entertained a hope that there might be some inquiries into the conduct of these officers. He had heard complaints from more than one constable that the conflicts which had occurred between the police, and the people were due in a large measure to the officers, who had provoked conflicts against the wish of the men. The officers had thought it necessary to maintain the military character of the Force; and it was due to that desire to develop the military character of the Force that it had become so useless to protect life in Ireland. He would put before the Chief Secretary an axiom which might be of some use—that in proportion as the military character of the Force was lessened, and was freed from the oppressive military code of drill, so its efficiency would increase. There was a wanton arrest of men, and bad treatment of men when they were arrested. In one case a man, who was suffering from lung disease, was confined in a cell seven feet by nine inches, and he had to be held up to the small window to get air. He knew of cases in which men were thrown into prison under the Coercion Act, and in their absence the police annoyed their families by prowling about their houses, greatly to the discomfort of their wives and children. The right hon. Gentleman had urged that bygones should be bygones in relation to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. That was, no doubt, the Government view of dealing with the outcome of that gentleman's actions; but he hoped while the right hon. Gentleman said that, there would be some assurance that the future would be different from the past. He could refer to the conduct of the police under the Coercion Act; but it was enough now to say that they had arrested men simply for lighting their pipes under a hedge; and they had even thrown girls into prison. The opinion in Ireland was that there was a Police Force every member of which felt himself at liberty to irritate and annoy and torment those whom he took into custody, and to alarm those who were left at home, and that the youngest constable felt that in pursuing this course he was commanding, at least, the tacit approval of the higher
    1452
    officials placed over him. He hoped all this would be changed. Before the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) left Office, he had lost all faith in that right hon. Gentleman, not only in regard to his administration, but in regard to his Answers to Questions in that House; but he regarded in a different light the present Chief Secretary. He had had occasion to ask that right hon. Gentleman many Questions, and up to the present time he had not found in any case anything such as he should call a suppression of facts, of the substitution of equivocal Answers for the plain, frank facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary told the truth. He did not mean to convey an imputation that the right hon. Gentleman would tell a falsehood under any circumstances; but he thought there was something in the right hon. Gentleman which prevented the authorities from playing disgraceful deceptions upon him as they did on the late Chief Secretary. It was for that reason that he refrained from referring to those improprieties and cruelties which might be laid to the fault of the police. He would make an abstract of the communications he had received, and would place in the hands of the Chief Secretary the names of the persons accused of misconduct, with a statement of the nature and time and circumstances of their misconduct. He would depend upon the right hon. Gentleman to have a careful and independent inquiry into these statements, and to rely upon his own independent judgment. He would do this with more confidence because there might be an Autumn Session, when, although it was intended to devote that to a particular purpose, there might be opportunities of judging of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman fulfilled his pledges. In the meantime, he was content to rely upon the character of the present Chief Secretary.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to draw attention to the answer of the Solicitor General for Ireland with regard to certain police transactions. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave a series of denials which he might have spared the House; and he (Mr. Healy) desired to place the true facts of the case before the Committee, and ask upon what the hon. and learned Gentleman founded himself. He had brought before the

    1453
    House a case of "Boycotting" Her Majesty's Sub-Commissioners in Castletown, and the fact that a gun-boat had been placed at their disposal, because the Hon. Robert White, J. P., had closed his hotel. The hon. and learned Gentleman fell back on the excuse that Mr. White closed his hotel because of a lack of waiters; but there was another hotel in that town, kept by an "ex-suspect," and the police permitted Mr. White to shut up his hotel for the alleged lack of waiters; and, of course, Mr. John George M'Carthy would not bemean the Sub-Commissioners by going to the hotel of a "suspect." He (Mr. Healy) had put a Question with regard to the "Boycotting" of the Sub-Commissioners by Mr. White, whether it was not the fact that, under the Prevention of Crime Act, persons of humble class had been sent to gaol for refusing to work for persons whom they disliked; and the hon. and learned Gentleman, taking advantage of the absence of his Colleague, denied that that had been the case. But just before, near Cloyne, a smith was sent to prison for refusing to shoe the horse of a person, and a labourer in the smithy was also sent to prison. The smith stated that he would only shoe the horses of his customers, and. the Inspector told him he should shoe anybody's horse that was brought to him. Yet the Solicitor General for Ireland denied that persons of humble class had been sent to prison for "Boycotting." He supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman's subterfuge was that the smith was not a person of humble class, but he would dispute that; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman denied that labourers had been sent to gaol he would take leave to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman stated what was grossly inaccurate. Here was Mr. Robert White shutting up his hotel, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said he was not an hotel-keeper, because the licence was not in his name. But he drew the money, and was a brother of Lord Bantry, against whom land cases had been filed; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman gave this unsifted statement simply, he presumed, on the word of a local police officer down in Castletown-Berehaven. A gun-boat was placed at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners, and they had to travel 40 miles a-day in the gun-boat in wild weather, because
    1454
    Mr. White was short of waiters. If, instead of Mr. Robert White, it had been the case of Mr. O'Gorman, of Charleville, the police would have been sent to call upon him. There was not a single record of a process in Ireland under the old Act used against Mr. O'Gorman, and Mr. Justice Stephen, in the Criminal Code Bill, proposed its repeal; but the Attorney General for Ireland came and rooted up that Act, and put it in force against Mr. O'Gorman. Not being content with a civil verdict against that gentleman, he entered a criminal prosecution against him; and then to-day, with disingenuousness, the Solicitor General for Ireland stated that that prosecution had been "dropped." He should like to characterize that statement with the strongest words it was possible to use in that House. The statement was wholly and absolutely inaccurate. The prosecution was not dropped, but was pursued vindictively against this man under this old Statute, which had never been put in force in Ireland or in England; and it was only when an honest jury refused to be a party to nefarious chicanery that the prosecution was dropped, because it could not be sustained any longer. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman came forward to-day and claimed in his clemency to have dropped the prosecution. If there was an Act in force, let it be applied with an equal hand. He could understand the Chief Secretary being horrified at black-coated people being put in prison sometimes. Labourers might be put in prison, but not Hon. Robert Whites and brothers of Lord Bantry, who carried on the high and mighty trade of hotel-keepers, and shut their doors because they were in want of waiters. Were waiters so short in Ireland? Were the numbers of excursionists so small? Why did not the Chief Secretary inquire into the matter when the hotel was closed? The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) went down there and took good custom with him in the shape of military and police, and the hotel was not closed; but when the Commissioners went down the Hon. Robert White was short of waiters. All that was claimed was that the Act should be put in force with equal hand; and all he would say was that he hoped when the Attorney General for Ireland achieved high office, as he had not chosen to pro-

    1455
    ceed against the Hon. Robert White, he would order the release of the humbler individuals who were in prison.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he could not quite see what purpose the hon. Member for Wexford had in view; but be could not allow the hon. Member's remarks to pass without some observations. He did not rise to defend himself in this matter, for he had given an answer from the best official information he could obtain, and he had not the faintest doubt that his statement was perfectly accurate in every respect. As to the other charge—that against the Attorney General for Ireland—it was one of the ways of the hon. Member to use the words "nefarious chicanery;" but he did not think such a remark would commend itself to the judgment of the Committee, or would tend much to the propriety of the debates. His right hon. and learned Friend was known to the House to be absolutely incapable of swerving from the truth; and he thought that observation, in his absence, might have been spared. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman did in the Charleville case was this. Mr. O'Gorman refused to open his hotel to Emergency men. That was an offence under the English and the Irish law, and had been punished both in England and in Ireland—[Mr. HEALY: Never.]—and he thought it undesirable that the law should be dispensed with. The Attorney General for Ireland, therefore, in the exercise of his duty, took proceedings against Mr. O'Gorman. Since the Question was asked to-day upon this matter, he had ascertained that the hon. Member was quite accurate as to the case having gone so far as a disagreement of the jury; but he himself had been perfectly accurate in what he had then said—not being aware that the trial had gone so far—that the Attorney General for Ireland deliberately and advisedly allowed the prosecution to drop. A prosecution was not terminated by a disagreement of the jury, but the Attorney General for Ireland allowed the matter to drop, because the landlord had been mulcted in two civil cases, and was in prison under the Coercion Act, and the Attorney General for Ireland thought the proceedings might be allowed to drop. With respect to the other matter, he had not the least doubt that Mr.
    1456
    White was the landlord of the hotel, and he was informed that Mr. White was the landlord of the hotel, and nothing more. As to the gun-boat, it was true that the Sub - Commissioners had to stay at Glengariff—an exceedingly pleasant place to stay at—and, one hotel being closed for the want of servants, they preferred to go to the hotel at a distance. This matter was really not worth being dealt with in Parliament, and he should not have thought of speaking, but that the hon. Member had made some rather strong remarks.
    MR. HEALYsaid, it was too much the custom of Law Officers to make statements simply on their own authority; but there never had been either a conviction or a prosecution in England under this old Statute, and Mr. Justice Stephen, in his Criminal Code, had recommended its repeal.
    MR. O'DONNELL,upon this Vote, wished for some information which he casually applied for some time ago in a Question addressed to the Chief Secretary with reference to the disproportion of Catholics and Protestants in the Royal Irish Constabulary, from the lowest to the highest grades. He did not bring this question forward in any religious spirit, nor did he care whether a constable was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant; but he was bound to call attention to serious facts of which he wished some explanation. He procured a Return in 1880 of all the members of different ranks in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and from that it appeared that there were some 11,000 or 12,000 sub-constables; and of those, two-thirds, or nearly three-fourths, were Roman Catholics. As he advanced to the rank of constable and to the higher grades he found the number of Roman Catholics strangely diminished, until he came to the officers, of whom there were 240; and of those, only about 35 or 40 were Roman Catholics, while three-fourths of the men of the lower grades were Roman Catholics. He wished to know what was the reason of this apparent exclusion of Roman Catholics from the rank of officers? To a certain extent he could answer his own question. There were so many vacancies filled up by the Inspector General of Constabulary, so many by the Lord Lieutenant, and so many by competition. But in the competition nominations were required,

    1457
    and the result of this system of recruiting was that the Inspector practically himself nominated Protestants; the Lord Lieutenant also largely nominated Protestants, and the result of the system of nomination by which officers were chosen excluded Roman Catholics in nine out of ten cases. He thought he should not press too much on the Liberalism of the Chief Secretary if he said it was high time for this sort of thing to cease. The idea that the Protestants were better educated in Ireland than Roman Catholics had more truth formerly than at the present, and did not explain the preponderance of Protestant officers in the Constabulary, because the educational requirements of the Constabulary officers were slight—not to exaggerate the matter. Any ordinary young country gentleman, with a small amount of coaching, could makeup all that was required for a Constabulary officer. He presumed that the Roman Catholic was pretty nearly as open as the Protestant to the reception of that species of knowledge which was calculated to make a police officer of him. Then, again, among the County Inspectors, of whom there were about 30, the Protestants were in the proportion of two to one, so that, practically, while all the good berths in the Constabulary were secured for Protestants, the merest minority of Roman Catholics were admitted—not more than one in seven or eight; while the vast majority of the rank and file were Roman Catholics. He made this statement on the authority of a very large number of men of all ranks in the Constabulary. At the time when he took this question up a couple of years ago, he received a large pile of letters from the Constabulary all over Ireland, who, without making any complaint against their officers, pointed out that in a great number of cases the Protestant officers found themselves almost naturally led to choose Protestant sub-constables for promotion; and the fact that there was such an enormous Protestant preponderance of officers explained the circumstance that there was also an undue preponderance of Protestant constables and head constables. The mass of the sub-constables were Roman Catholics; but in the non-commissioned ranks Protestants always got the best promotions and the best places. Another explanation had been given to
    1458
    him, which he would ask the Chief Secretary to bear in mind. He was told by dozens of correspondents that most of the favouritism which existed in the ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary in regard to selection of constables and head constables for promotion, and also in the promotion in the officers' ranks, was to be attributed less to the Protestantism of the leading authorities than to the Freemasonry of the leading authorities. He received statements that it was almost impossible for a Roman Catholic member of the Constabulary to be promoted unless he were a Freemason; but, unfortunately, that offered no escape for a Roman Catholic. He did not wish to say a word that was disrespectful to the Masonic Body; but by the regulations of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, as in other countries, no man could be at the same time a Freemason and a Roman Catholic. If a man became a Freemason he ceased to be a Catholic, and that must be a certain bar on the consciences of Catholics. A Protestant constable had to take an oath that he was not a member of a secret society; but, although the Freemasons were a secret body, the oath did not obtain in regard to them. The Freemasons were a most respectable body in Ireland and in England; but, on the Continent, they were one of the most formidable revolutionary bodies in existence, and he thought the Government ought to watch the influence of Freemasonry so far as it tended to convert the general comradeship which ought to exist in the Constabulary into the comradeship of Freemasonry as distinct from that which should exist in the general body of the Force. He only wished now to lay these considerations before the Chief Secretary without asking for any explanation on the subject; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take note of these facts, and inquire whether there was any jealousy of Freemasonry in the Constabulary, and whether he should take steps to redress the enormous existing inequality between Protestants and Catholics in the higher grades of the Constabulary, looking to the fact that an overwhelming majority of constables were Catholics.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Dungarvan had stated that he only proposed to lay these matters before the Irish Government; and al-

    1459
    though, he did not think the hon. Member wanted any detailed answer, he should like to see the figures from which the hon. Member had quoted from memory. The general bearing of the Return, as described by the hon. Member, he would take for granted; but the practical question was whether the Irish Government would do what they could to correct this inequality. He might fall back on the principle that he ought not to inquire into matters of religion. In this case it was sufficient that the idea had got abroad that the Roman Catholics had not their fair proportion of men in the Constabulary. Under ordinary circumstances, he should have said that men ought not to be excluded from the Service on account of their religious principles; but, fortunately, the principles of open competition had been introduced into the Royal Irish Constabulary, and one of the many advantages of those principles was that the authorities were enabled to appoint even a somewhat overplus of nominations to a particular class, because it was certain that they would be tested by the process of open competition. Ever since he had been in his present Office he had been glad to receive the name of any young Protestant or young Catholic for the Constabulary. He had not received as many as he could have wished, and it was not always easy to find Irish Roman Catholics such as he wished to see in the Constabulary. He was always glad to receive such names and to see such young men try their chance against others in the open competition. Up to the present that competition had been held under circumstances which, on the whole, he thought were not the best. As vacancies occurred very often these men were appointed for trial; three or four of them were, perhaps, good Roman Catholics; but there might be one who was better than they were, and the consequence was that the three eligible men were defeated, and then they had to come forward subsequently as other men went out. That was not the process for Fellowships at Oxford; and he proposed to correct this system by waiting till there was a small reservoir of vacancies and a somewhat larger examination, which would secure a greater average of candidates, so that each person who was deserving would have a chance, and everyone who was very deserving
    1460
    something little less than a certainty, and four or five out of 20 men might get in.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 14: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 327.)
    (4.) £100,704, to complete the sum for Prisons, Ireland.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDdesired to urge upon his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland the expediency of appointing a small Royal Commission to examine into and report upon the condition of the convict and local prisons in Ireland, upon the management of those prisons, and upon the constitution and working of the present Prisons Board. He felt quite sure that the Chief Secretary would, if a Commission were not granted, set to work with the ability and vigour which he had displayed in his Office to inquire into these points; but he felt equally sure that, looking to the pledges which the Chief Secretary had already given to examine into other Departments and other subjects, it would be simply impossible for him to undertake such an inquiry. He could not find time to make that personal inspection into the prisons which was absolutely necessary. He (Sir Henry Holland) spoke from experience upon that point, as he had acted as one of the Royal Commissioners who were appointed in 1878 to inquire into the working of the Penal Servitude Acts; and they found it not only necessary to visit the different convict prisons, and to see themselves the cells and food and general system of working the prisons, and to take the evidence of Governors and warders, but also to communicate with many of the convicts alone in their cells, without the presence of the Governor or warders. In this way only could they get the prisoners to speak freely. He need hardly add that such statements had to be very carefully tested, as they were often highly coloured, and, indeed, often without foundation; but it was desirable to get hold of these complaints, as they formed the groundwork of further inquiry. It might be urged against his proposal that the Royal Commission, to which he had referred, had, in fact, examined into the convict prisons of Ireland, and reported

    1461
    as recently as in 1879. No doubt that was the ease; but he would point out that the Commission did not inquire into the working of local prisons, and this would form the first part of the work of the proposed Royal Commission. The second branch of their work would be to see how far effect had been given to the recommendations made by the Royal Commission with respect to the convict prisons. He would not, at that late hour, go through those recommendations; but he might state that the most important ones referred to the abolition of Spike Island as a prison; an alteration in the dietaries; a revision of the system of marks, so as to make it more uniform with the system in force in England; and to the establishing an independent inspection of prisons by persons unconnected with the Government or with the Prisons Board. Now, as regarded Spike Island, he believed that some prisoners had been removed, but that the place was still kept up as a convict prison, although it was most unsuitable for that purpose. As regarded the independent inspection, he was informed that it had failed, from what cause he was not now prepared to say; but, unless he was mistaken, the Chief Secretary himself admitted, a short time ago, that since December, 1880, there had only been one visit paid. The third branch of the inquiry of the proposed Commission would relate to the constitution and working of the present Prisons Board. In 1854, a Board of Directors, with a Chairman, was appointed under the Convict Prison Act for Ireland. It was very similar to the Board now existing in England, and the members of it themselves personally and regularly visited the prisons. Now, in his opinion, and he thought he might add in the opinion of the Royal Commission, members of the Board, who were both Directors and Inspectors—as now in England—were, if they did their duty, in a far better position to understand and to remedy the evils and defects of the system than if they merely acted on the Reports of Inspectors and Governors. It was good also for the prisoners, as it made them feel that they were treated with justice. They then knew that their cases and complaints reached the highest executive authority. If the Directors did not visit the prison, the prisoners did not feel sure that their cases were
    1462
    reported, or, at all events, that they were accurately reported and not coloured by the Inspectors or Governors. It was no slight advantage to make the prisoners believe that, though they were treated with severity, they were treated justly, and that no favour was shown, and a face to face inquiry greatly promoted that belief. But from 1862 to 1869 there were several changes in the constitution of the Prisons Board, and in 1869 there was only two Directors, and, in fact, for five years after 1873 Captain Barlow was sole Director. The present Board was constituted in 1877, and consisted of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and two other members. One of these latter members was unpaid; but he was paid in respect of other official duties which he performed, and which must take up a considerable portion of his time. Under the Board were three Inspectors. He (Sir Henry Holland) was not sure how far the members of the Board paid visits to the prisons; but, if he was rightly informed, they acted, as a rule, on the Reports of the Inspectors; and if such were the case, he thought the system needed revision for the reasons he had above stated. He trusted that, without going at length into the matter, he had shown that there was good ground for appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the convict and local prisons of Ireland and into the working of the Prisons Board, and that the Chief Secretary would favourably consider the proposal.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had long been distinguished for the care and attention which he had paid to the question of prison discipline, and for the humanitarian views he had always expressed on the general question. He was glad the hon. Gentleman had given the weight of his powerful recommendation to the appointment of a Royal or small Commission in Ireland, for the purpose of investigating the condition of the prisons subject to the Act of 1877, and also to the condition of the convict prisons in that country. In addition to the matters which the hon. Gentleman had alluded to, he (Mr. Parnell) wished to direct the Chief Secretary's attention specially to some other matters which constituted clear defects in the management of prisons, and which required to be immediately

    1463
    looked to. The subject of independent inspection was a very important one, although it was a very difficult one. He feared very much that one of the great evils attending the passing of the Prisons' Act of 1877 had been the doing away with the independent inspection by the Justices which previously existed. Experience had shown that the Visiting Justices appointed under the Act of 1877 took no practical interest whatever in their functions; and, having no power to cause obedience to their recommendations, they visited the prisons in a most perfunctory fashion. In fact, as a general rule, the functions of Visiting Justices had entirely ceased under the new regulations. He thought that a very wise course to adopt with regard to independent inspection of prisons would be to take advantage of the Local Boards which now existed in Ireland, and to appoint the Boards of independent inspection, partly from the elected Guardians, and partly from the ex-officio Guardians of the Unions in which the prisons were situated, and, where there were Corporate Bodies, that those Corporate Bodies should be empowered to name persons from amongst their members to act as independent Inspectors of both county and borough prisons and convict prisons. By doing that, a body of men would be got who would fulfil the duties of independent inspection, both to the satisfaction of the public and of the Government. He would wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, while on the question of independent inspection, to a Circular which was issued lately by Sir Walter Crofton in regard to this matter, and to the treatment of men who might be imprisoned under the Prevention of Crime Act for agrarian offences. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Sir Walter Crofton filled, for many years, with the utmost distinction, the position of Chairman of the Irish Prison Board, and only resigned that office so recently as 1878. Sir Walter Crofton said that, in 1879, Lord Kimberley's Commission on Penal Servitude, after a very close examination of prison officials, recommended that arrangements should be made for the independent inspection of convict prisons by persons appointed by the Government and unconnected with the Department, and unpaid. In the case
    1464
    of Ireland that recommendation had been practically disregarded, although the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), then Home Secretary, did institute a system of independent inspection for English prisons, which he (Mr. Parnell) thought was far from being sufficiently minute to satisfy the requirements of the case. Sir Walter Crofton pointed out that, in his evidence before Lord Kimberley's Commission, he showed the special necessity which existed in Ireland for such a control over the prison administration as would be afforded by a real independent outside inspection, and stated that, although in England such inquiries had constantly been held, no such investigation had been made in Ireland for 25 years, the obvious result being that the Governors had been unchecked in their management. That was a state of things which would not be tolerated in England. Sir Walter Crofton went on to say—
    "Having regard to the consequences of the Prevention of Crime legislation,"
    —and this was what he (Mr. Parnell) particularly wished to direct the attention of the Committee to—
    "I do not think any time should be lost in instituting safeguards against abuse. In my early management of Irish convict prisons I had a very large number of men convicted of belonging to secret societies, administering unlawful oaths, &c., and I know them to be a sensitive class, requiring great care in their management."
    Sir Walter Crofton separated the class of persons who were likely to be convicted under the Prevention of Crime Act from the criminal class. He looked upon them as a different order of men, not necessarily criminal by nature, and almost as having committed a sort of political offence requiring special treatment and care. Sir Walter Crofton wound up by making several recommendations; but it was not necessary to trouble the Committee with them at that time of the night (12.30). He (Mr. Parnell) wished to add one or two observations derived from his own practical experience of the treatment of convicted persons in Kilmainham. The part of the prison in which he and his hon. Friends were imprisoned was separated from the main body of the prison, where the other "suspects" were confined; it was that in which the criminal prisoners or convicted prisoners were imprisoned.

    1465
    He believed there were 60 or 65 of such prisoners, and he had daily opportunities of observing their treatment, their appearance, their demeanour, and so forth, and also the condition of their cells. The general impression made upon his mind was that these prisoners were suffering from insufficient food and clothing, that their cells were not properly warmed, and that many of them were exceedingly damp, and that the prisoners were treated with an ostentatious appearance of harshness and brutality by the warders. Knowing, as he did, many of the warders to be most humane men, he could only suppose that, owing to long custom and habit, they had come to believe it was necessary that this class of prisoners should be treated in this way. These convicted prisoners were spoken to, and ordered and directed by the warders as if they were dogs. He had seen men after they had suffered 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour—he had known them before they were sent into prison; he had known them to be well and able-bodied men, and he had seen them after 18 months' imprisonment come out permanently, he feared, enfeebled both in mind and body. He had seen a statement in print by one of the Irish Judges to the effect that no person could stand a sentence of imprisonment for two years with hard labour without its leaving a permanent effect upon his mind or his body, and that such a period of imprisonment was more useful in its effect than sentences of five, six, or seven years' penal servitude. He (Mr. Parnell) believed that to be perfectly true. There were very few men who, under the present prison discipline in Ireland, could stand six months' imprisonment with hard labour without it permanently enfeebling them in body; and he believed that an imprisonment of two years would, in all probability, also enfeeble them in mind. Of course, he was making a general attack. What he had to say applied to every class of prisoners. He considered that the treatment of prisoners in Irish prisons was inhumane, that the prisoners did not get enough to eat. Short term prisoners only got 20 ounces of farinaceous food a-day, and long term prisoners received very little more. The demeanour of the warders towards them was, in many cases, exceedingly brutal; and he trusted there might be a Commission
    1466
    appointed to inquire into the general management of prisons, and also to inquire what difference, if any, there should be as regarded the treatment of prisoners who might be convicted for offences against the Prevention of Crime Act, which, of course, would not be offences against the ordinary law of England. He thought he was entitled to ask for somewhat less harsh treatment of prisoners convicted under the Summary Jurisdiction Clauses of this Act for offences specially constructed by the Legislature this Session. He wished to give the Committee an illustration of the need for independent inspection, and of the absolute necessity, where that inspection took place, that the prisoners should be examined apart from the prison officials. He had reason to believe that that was very seldom done. It was the custom—it was the law, in fact—that when a child was sent to a Reformatory, it must, first of all, be imprisoned for a fortnight in one of the common gaols of the county. He did not know the reason of this provision; it was a very foolish and absurd one; but it was the law, and the consequence was that children of tender ages were kept in solitary confinement, and many of them almost frightened to death. When he was in Kilmainham, he often heard children crying in their cells for nights and nights together, and he had wondered that the law should be so. The incident to which he wished to refer was that of a child who was crying all night—crying for its mother. The next day it was still crying. He was out in the yard exercising just under the child's cell. He heard a blow administered to the child; he heard the child dragged from the cell to some distant part of the prison where it cried even louder. He reported the incident to the Governor, and told him he believed the child had been struck. The Governor, a most humane man, at once inquired; but his inquiries were conducted in the presence of warders, and, he believed, in the presence of the very warder who had struck the child. The child, of course, denied that it had been struck. He inquired of the chaplain, and that gentleman told him that the child had been struck. He mentioned this as an illustration of the necessity for such inspection as would insure the examination of prisoners in private, and apart from the prison

    1467
    officials. Now he wished to say a word in regard to the treatment of political prisoners—that was to say, of prisoners who might be sent to penal servitude, like the prisoner Walsh, for political offences. It was one of the disgraces of this country that there was no separate or different treatment for political prisoners. No one would say that even the man Walsh, who had been sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, ought to be classed with murderers, wife beaters, and the ordinary criminal scum of the cities. He did not mean to say that such a man as Walsh ought not to be punished now that he had been convicted; but if there were to be many convictions of a similar kind in Ireland, he warned the Government that the treatment of the men would leave marks behind which they would not be able to get rid of for many years to come. It was so in the case of the last Fenian outbreak, during which outbreak many men by their treatment were driven out of their minds. The Committee had it on evidence given before the Devon Commission that many of the Fenian prisoners were brought over from Ireland and stripped of their flannels in the winter time in order that their punishment might be the more severe. Some of the prisoners lost their health permanently in consequence of the treatment they had received; and their sufferings, he said, would constitute a lasting disgrace to the prison discipline of the time. Let the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence given before the Commission which sat to inquire into the treatment of prisoners who were confined for political offences; let him read the evidence of Mr. Davitt, and then say whether, in his opinion, the treatment which he received was proper treatment for a man of his class and character to receive; whether he did not feel ashamed that he had received such treatment. The cruelty from which he suffered continued until he was invalided and allowed to go into an infirmary cell. There was no power under the existing law to give exceptional or lenient treatment to a person convicted of treason-felony; unless he was made out to be an invalid he would have to go through the same horrible treatment that was meted out to the criminal classes. He said this was a wrong, and in the event of there being convictions obtained for treason-
    1468
    felony in Ireland he appealed to Her Majesty's Government to look into the matter, and save themselves from the reproach of treating men honourable in their opinions as if they were the enemies of the human race. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to grant what the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had asked for, and Irish Members would then have somebody before whom they would be entitled to lay their complaints with regard to the present treatment in Ireland of political and other prisoners.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that at that time of the evening, and at that time of the Session, he should be very much to blame if he were to detain the Committee with an argumentative speech. His hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Holland), who opened this discussion, had stated with great truth that, when he (Mr. Trevelyan), went back to Ireland, he would have to look into a great many questions; but that they were questions which, on the whole, anyone accustomed to administration might hope, with care and attention, to be able to influence. But his hon. Friend, than whom no man in that House had a wider or more exact knowledge of the various Departments of the State, knew very well that the question of prison administration was one which it would be idle for him to say he would pay attention to when he went back to Ireland. But he might say that the Lord Lieutenant, with whom he had conversed on the subject, appeared to be favourable to the appointment of Commissioners to examine into the state of the Irish prisons, and very much so for the reasons laid down by his hon. Friend opposite. He would only detain the Committee for the purpose of adding that, in view of the many questions and problems presented by the carrying out of the Protection of Person and Property Act and the Prevention of Crime Act, and considering the great changes that had taken place within recent years, he could not but feel that the time had come for an inquiry into the management of Irish prisons.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTdesired to express the great satisfaction he felt at the announcement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the management of prisons in Ire-

    1469
    land. The appointment of such a body would be very likely to rectify any abuses which might exist in the Irish prisons, and so remove the just causes of complaint which, unfortunately, gave occasion for the exaggerations of popular speakers. There were two points which he wished to urge on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Commission—first, that they should consider the condition of Spike Island Prison; and, secondly, the question of the establishment of a system of outside and independent inspection of Irish prisons. He had, as a member of the Penal Servitude Commission, seen Spike Island, which had left upon his mind the most painful recollections; and he felt sure that those Members who had seen it, or might see it hereafter, would retain equally unpleasant impressions of it. He did not remember to have spent a more disagreeable time than when he visited the place in question. Not only were the approaches to Spike Island objectionable, but the arrangements under which it existed were altogether eminently unsatisfactory; and, therefore, he trusted the whole subject would be considered. He had on many occasions been forced to disregard complaints made in that House by Irish Members; but he had no hesitation in saying that the management of prisons in Ireland was a question which ought to receive attention; and he repeated the satisfaction he felt at the announcement that it would meet with the consideration it deserved at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to an independent system of inspection of prisons, he pointed out that the Commission on which he had the honour of serving, under the Presidency of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Kimberley), reported in favour of the application of that system to the prisons in England and Ireland, and that recommendation with respect to England, where few complaints were heard, had been carried out; but with regard to Ireland, the prisons of which country were the subject of constant reproach and complaint, nothing had been done in the way of providing independent inspection. He would therefore impress upon Her Majesty's Government the desirability of organizing a system of real inspection by means of Committees, before
    1470
    whom people would have an opportunity of laying their complaints.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORremarked that the convicts at Spike Island found useful occupation in constructing a breakwater. However, the place was condemned on all hands; and he took that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether, if a Royal Commission were appointed, its functions would include the examination of witnesses, or the investigation of the question as to whether a new convict prison should be made in place of Spike Island, and, if so, whether the public would be allowed to give evidence?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was under the impression that an official inquiry had taken place in connection with the subject just referred to by the hon. Member for Galway, and that ground had been marked out whereon to erect a new prison. He could not, however, pledge himself to any details, nor make any other promise than that when the time came for taking into consideration the scope of the inquiry, the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for Galway should be named.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    (5.) £231,400, to complete the sum for the Science and Art Department.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, at the beginning of the Session he had called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President on the Committee of the Council of Education to a Memorial signed by the Geological Society, and addressed, to the Science and Art Department, with reference to the Geological Survey of Great Britain. It appeared from the reply given that the Survey, so far as England was concerned, might be completed in two years and a-half from the beginning of last April, and that then it was intended to set apart a certain number of men now engaged upon the English Survey to complete the Survey of Scotland. Having regard to the rate of progress up to the present time, it was possible that in 1895 the Survey of Scotland might be completed; but it by no means followed that the public would then reap the benefit of the Survey, because they found that, although the Survey had

    1471
    now been going on in England for 20 years, and notwithstanding the fact that £4,000 a-year more was spent on that Survey than was spent in respect of the Scotch Survey, only 20 maps had been published in England, and in Scotland only two. So that, although the actual Survey might be completed in 1895, he feared it would be 10 years later before all the sheets were published. He regretted to find by the Estimate now before the Committee that, instead of there being a prospect of the work being accelerated, or even going on at the same rate as last year, there was a decrease of the staff engaged upon the active work of the Survey. No doubt there was one argument that might be used against increasing the active staff, and which was entitled to weight—namely, that work of this kind could not be turned over to men who were inexperienced; but, considering the importance of the work, he regarded it as extraordinary that there should be a decrease of the staff engaged on the Survey. He hoped the matter would be proceeded with vigorously, notwithstanding that the reduction of the staff seemed to indicate a further consumption of time for the completion of the Survey. He did not wish to express any dissatisfaction with the work done in connection with the Geological Survey in Scotland; but merely to remark that the Survey generally, which appeared to be going on very slowly, might, in his opinion, be very much accelerated by the exhibition of a little more generosity on the part of the Science and Art Department.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the Department was doing everything in their power to facilitate the Geological Survey. But, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh had justly remarked, it was not desirable to place important work of this kind in inexperienced hands. It was the intention, as soon as the Survey now in progress in England was finished, to transfer the staff engaged therein to Scotland, so that the work there would from that time proceed much more rapidly.
    MR. BUCHANANasked whether a successor had been appointed to the Director of the Scotch Survey?
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought no appointment had been made.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, it appeared by the Estimate that there would only be four assistant geologists employed
    1472
    this year on the Scotch Survey, as against six employed in 1881–2.
    MR. MUNDELLAassured the hon. Member that there was no diminution of the staff. There had been changes from time to time; but the acting number was the same this year as it was last.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6.) £82,375, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
    MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, the increased amount asked for this Institution was partly due to the increase in the salaries and wages at the British Museum, and still more so to the increase in the salaries, and the transfers of Collections which had taken place in connection with the Natural History Museum at South Kensington. Three out of the four Collections intended to be sent to South Kensington had already been transferred—namely, the Geological, Mineralogical, and Botanical. The fourth, or the Zoological Collection, had not yet been transferred, the preparation of cases for its reception requiring considerable care, pains, and labour. He believed, however, that the transfer would be undertaken at the commencement of next year. He had some years ago made a promise with regard to sending duplicate specimens to the various Institutions in the country; and he begged to assure the Committee that every pains had been taken to admit of that distribution taking place. But he might point out that great difficulty had been experienced in many cases in arriving at a conclusion as to what were and what were not duplicates. Some time had necessarily been consumed in considerations of that kind; but he was happy to inform the Committee that within the last two years nearly 20,000 duplicate specimens had been distributed amongst the various Museums of the Kingdom. The Accounts laid upon the Table of the House for the past year showed that a considerably greater interest was taken by the public in these Natural History Collections than before, and he felt confident that the arrangement with regard to them was the best that could be made. One strong proof of that interest on the part of the people was that the number of visitors had increased during the last five years from 563,000 to 764,000, while the number of visitors who attended for the purpose of study had increased from

    1473
    709,000 to very nearly 1,000,000 for the same period.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was one of very great interest to those who had at heart the well-being of the Museums throughout the country. He hoped the distribution of specimens would be in future carried out to the fullest extent of the powers of the Trustees. They were aware that the powers of the Trustees were limited—that when an object was sent to the Museum the Trustees were obliged to keep it there, and that they had no power to move many specimens which would be most serviceable and proper in other museums, notwithstanding the fact that there were at the British Museum whole Collections of objects which would be much better placed elsewhere. He thought the time had arrived when the large Collection of Medals at the British Museum should be placed in a position where they could be better inspected. He thought that a great deal more than could be effected at the present time under the existing system was necessary to bring an appreciation of all these Collections home to the minds of the people which, after all, was the real object in view. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education make a firm stand at an earlier period of the evening against the creation of a new Museum in London.
    Vote agreed, to.
    (8.) £3,462 (including a Supplementary sum of £1,977), to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, that this Collection of Portraits, which had grown in a most unprecedented and unforeseen manner, was an illustration of the disadvantage of having no controlling power for making such exhibitions available to the public. He thought there should be a Committee of Inquiry into the subject.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £16,900 (including a Supplementary sum of £6,500), to complete the sum for Learned Societies and Scientific Investigation.
    (10.) £6,631, to complete the sum for the London University.
    (11.) £2,000, Aberystwith College, Wales.
    (12.) £2,100, to complete the sum for the Deep Sea Exploring Expedition (Report).
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could give the Committee any notion when the Report of the Expedition would be finished, and when an end would be put to the charge?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was happy to be able to inform his hon. Friend that the Report of the Expedition was being proceeded with rapidly; but he could not say when it would be completed.
    MR. MAGNIACbelieved it would be five years before the volumes on special subjects would be ready.
    Vote agreed to.
    (13.) £9,680, to complete the sum for the Transit of Venus.
    (14.) £13,532, to complete the sum for Universities, &c. in Scotland.
    (15.) £1,700, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, &c. Scotland.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he was sorry at that hour of the morning to have to speak upon this Vote; but he would only occupy the attention of the Committee for a minute or two. He wished to make an observation with regard to the grant for the National Galleries of England and Scotland. He had already asked a Question with regard to the Scotch National Gallery, his opinion being that if extra payments were made they should be made to the three National Galleries equally. Why, he would ask, should Scotland be left out in the cold? An objection raised by the Secretary to the Treasury was that the authorities in Scotland had a right to accumulate a surplus from year to year. That was, no doubt, true, the grant to the National Gallery of Scotland being on a different footing to the grants to the other countries. There had been a composition since the Union. The Scotch National Gallery, having a right to any surplus which might be accumulated, had disposed of that surplus from time to time, and had built the Royal Institution with it. It was limited as to its disposal of the funds, for, according to the Act of 1847, the money had to be applied in manner specified in a

    1475
    Treasury Minute. Under the existing Treasury Minute, the Scotch National Gallery had no power to spend money in the purchase of pictures. He had no intention of saying anything about that; but he would say that while the English National Gallery received such a large grant, and while there was so much given for the English National Portrait Gallery, Scotland also ought to have a grant for the purchase of pictures. If time had allowed it, he should have moved to reduce the Irish or the English Vote; but the period was so late, and so many Scotch Members had gone to their own country, and he should get such little support if he made that Motion, that he would not adopt that course. However, he thought it was a scandal that such an enormous expenditure should take place upon the English National Gallery, and that nothing should be given to Scotland.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the National Gallery Trust in Scotland rested on a different foundation altogether from that of the English National Gallery. In England the Trustees only received an annual grant, which they could not accumulate, but had to return if they did not use it. In Scotland that was not the case; and they had, in fact, accumulated a great surplus.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he had intended to call attention to this matter; but in view of the work the House still had in hand he thought it would be better not to. But if the question was not raised now, perhaps no notice of it would be taken during the interval between this and the next Session. The grant was not a grant of public money to Scotland; but was really a payment to Scotland of her own money. The payment was made in accordance with an arrangement entered into at the time of the Union. While England received £2,300, Scotland received £2,100, and out of that had to support a School of Art, an Antiquarian Museum, and pay £960 to the Scotch Board of Fisheries, and only some £860 was left for the Arts, and that sum was swallowed up in maintaining the Gallery, so that not 1d. could be spent in the purchase of new works of Art.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, that the Scotch Members only had to put a reasonable grievance before the House to have it redressed. He was sure that hon.
    1476
    Gentlemen from the other side of the Border would experience no lack of support from hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House.
    Vote agreed, to.
    (16.) £380,461, to complete the sum for Public Education, Ireland.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to say a word or two in order to bring to the notice of the Government the fact that certain ladies imprisoned by the Government had been rather harshly treated by the Commissioners; and not only these ladies, but their relatives. He knew one case where a man was arrested on suspicion of having committed a political offence under the Coercion Act. He was a teacher, and his sister and brother were teaching with him. The Commissioners, in consequence of the imprisonment of this brother, deprived both these people of the promotion they had a right to expect. Now that the Coercion Act was about to expire, he would press the Government not to allow the position of these persons to be made worse by the fact of their having been imprisoned under that Act, and certainly not their relatives.
    Vote agreed, to.
    (17.) £1,098, to complete the sum for Teachers' Pension Office, Ireland.
    (18.) £325, to complete the sum for the Endowed School Commissioners, Ireland.
    (19.) £2,439 (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000), to complete the sum for the National Gallery of Ireland.
    (20.) £10,178, to complete the sum for the Queen's Colleges, Ireland.
    (21.) £1,200, to complete the sum for the Royal Irish Academy.

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
    (22.) £92,320, to complete the sum for Diplomatic Services.
    (23.) £138,100, to complete the sum for Consular Services.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, that on this Vote he had conferred with his hon. Friend below him (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He would not, at that hour of

    1477
    the morning, detain the House any length of time; but he would just observe that the status of British Consuls in some foreign countries was not what it ought to be. Our Agents abroad were not the same as foreign Agents with us in regard to the taxes imposed on them, and such like things, which he would not now go into. He hoped the attention of the Government would be directed to the matter.
    Vote agreed to.
    (24.) £3,473, to complete the sum for the Suppression of the Slave Trade.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that the amount spent as a subsidy for the suppression of the Slave Trade in Muscat needed a full investigation, and he would recommend that the question at some future time should be carefully inquired into.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that last year it was proposed that the matter should be considered during the Recess; and he thought that they should have some statement as to whether it had been considered, or, if it had not been taken into consideration, that some reason would be advanced for such neglect. The subsidy was started some years ago quite as a temporary matter, and the Motion with regard to it had only been withdrawn on the understanding that the matter would be carefully considered.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, there had been a Report on the matter; but he would inquire as to the position in which the subject stood.
    Vote agreed to.
    (25.) £6,296, to complete the sum for Tonnage Bounties, &c, and Liberated African Department.
    (26.) £870, to complete the sum for the Suez Canal (British Directors).
    (27.) £20,835, to complete the sum for Colonies, Grants in Aid.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he did not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could answer a question on this matter. Last year there was a question as to continuing Sir Arthur Gordon as West Pacific High Commissioner. There had been a strong opinion expressed that when that gen-
    1478
    tleman ceased to be Governor of Fiji he ought to have ceased to hold the office of High Commissioner, and that the post ought to have been given to the Governor of Fiji, or to the Commander-in - Chief on that station. He (Sir Henry Holland) should like to know whether the matter had been under the consideration of the Colonial Office?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, the whole of this question was under the consideration of the Colonial Office, and was in process of re-arrangement.
    Vote agreed to.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked whether it was intended to take the grant for Cyprus after Class V. or after Class VII.?
    THE CHAIRMAN: After Class VII.
    (28.) £7,145 (including a Supplementary sum of £2,000), to complete the sum for South Africa and St. Helena.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the item of £2,200 was really the extra charge for bringing Cetewayo to this country. ["No, no!"] Yes; he believed he was right this time.
    MR. CROPPERsaid, there was an item of £4,400 for the maintenance of Cetewayo this year.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No; last year.
    MR. CROPPERsaid, that, no doubt, it would have to continue. Whatever the cost was, a great many people would like to know when it would come to an end. There were a large number of people who considered Cetewayo one of the most ill-used of men, and that, of all the cruel wars England had ever waged, none had been worse than that which had led to the deposition of the Zulu King, and the setting up in his place of John Dunn. There could be no doubt that Cetewayo had the sympathy of many people in this country; and he should like to know whether the Government had yet made up their minds what they would do with him? If Zululand was to be governed well, it seemed to him that it should be governed by a man of its own race. ["Hear, hear!"] He would not dispute with the hon. Gentleman opposite who cheered that sentiment as to whether the hon. Member and he (Mr. Cropper) were of the same race; but he was not of

    1479
    the same race as Cetewayo, and should not like to govern Cetewayo's country. Had the Government made up their minds as to what was to be done with the ex-King?
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND(who rose amid cries of "Agreed!" said, he must move to report Progress if he were not allowed to speak on this question. He had strongly opposed the Zulu War, and was of opinion that Cetewayo had been treated very badly; but he by no means thought it right to agree to Cetewayo going back to Zululand, as this country had entered into most solemn promises with the Chiefs; and unless their consent was obtained to his going back, the Government could not, in honour, allow him to do so. They must also get the consent of John Dunn; and if they did not get that consent, the only compromise would be to let Cetewayo have the rest of Zululand. If Cetewayo were restored in that way, he might fall into the hands of the Boers, and he and the other Natives might have a very hard time of it.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that if they did not let Cetewayo go back they might have to annex Zululand, and that would involve a much larger expenditure than had hitherto been incurred. He thought it would be the most reasonable course to let Cetewayo go back.
    MR. CROPPERsaid, there would be no difficulty in making an arrangement with John Dunn, because the whole country would soon be in a condition of the greatest disorder; and, if left as at present, war would before long break out.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) that John Dunn deserved any great consideration, for he seemed to be a person of the very worst class with whom they could have to deal. He was a renegade Englishman, who had renounced all the virtues of civilization; and it was much better that the country should be governed by one whose faults were only those of his country than by an Englishman who had renounced all the virtues of civilization, and adopted all the vices of savage nations. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) that the only courses open were to annex the country, restore Cetewayo, or place it under the authority of John
    1480
    Dunn. The annexation of the country had been repudiated by all parties in that House, although he knew that course was advocated by a great many people in Natal. He did not expect to hear anyone in that House argue in favour of annexation, or advocate placing the country under John Dunn; and, under those circumstances, there seemed to him only one course, and that was to restore Cetewayo. So far as he could gather, it was the wish of the people to have their King restored. He had seen paragraphs in the Durban Correspondence of The Times in favour of John Dunn, and he had also seen a statement that the other day a meeting had been held at which Mr. John Robinson, a leading politician in Natal, had moved a Resolution against the restoration of Cetewayo, and carried it against Mr. Escombe; but, as the Committee knew, there had lately been an election at the wish of the Colonial Office in Natal. Mr. Robinson and Mr. Escombe solicited re-election, Mr. Robinson urging his claim on the ground of his opposition to the restoration of Cetewayo. Mr. Robinson, however, lost his election, while Mr. Escombe was elected. Under these circumstances, he thought it was evident that, though Mr. Robinson might be able to carry with him a meeting, yet, when the people of Natal were appealed to at the poll, they opposed Mr. Robinson and elected Mr. Escombe, who took a more favourable view of Cetewayo. He did not, however, think that that telegram deserved any great attention by the Committee; and, in his opinion, the best solution of all the difficulties would be the restoration of Cetewayo.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he hoped the Government would not unduly delay the settlement of this question, because the country was occupying an undignified position with regard to this captive Chief. He could not understand the visit of Cetewayo to this country, unless there was an intention to restore him to his former position. By the Liberals the Zulu War was almost universally condemned; and he failed to see any outcome where justice would be done, and reasonable expectations satisfied, unless Cetewayo was restored. He was satisfied that this country would suffer in reputation and character in bringing Cetewayo here without some assurance that if he could make good his case and give some undertaking he would be restored.
    MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, the opinion of the Committee seemed to be all running the same way; but, whatever the Government might choose to do, he could conceive nothing more unfortunate to the relations of England with her Colonies than the restoration of Cetewayo.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, all he could do was to repeat his answer that he was not in a position to give any definite information as to the intention of the Government with reference to Cetewayo; but before Parliament adjourned he hoped he should be in a position to give some definite information.
    MR. WARTONprotested against the system adopted that evening of bringing in the Supplementary Votes and tacking them on to the Accounts. He did not object to any Votes; but he did object to this principle, and he hoped in future that Supplementary Votes would be treated as Supplementary Votes.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, what had been done was in accordance with precedent, and that was not the first time this Session that this plan had been adopted. All the Members interested in these Votes were perfectly well aware of what was being done.
    MR. WARTONsaid, very bad things had often been done before, and the reason why this was a bad system was that the Supplementary Votes were not published until some of the earlier Votes had been got through.
    Vote agreed to.
    (29.) £16,300, to complete the sum for Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.

    CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDmoved that Progress be reported, as it was most unusual to go on with further Votes at that time of night.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
    MR. COURTNEYadmitted that it was unusual; but urged that the Committee should go on a little further, promising that if there was any Vote which really gave rise to discussion he would report Progress.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it was very probable that there was no item in these
    1482
    Votes which would involve serious discussion; but it was also probable that hon. Members who were not present might reasonably suppose that such rapid progress would not have been made.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERpointed out that this was a time of the Session when it was to the interest of all parties to bring it to a close; and as there were no disputable matters in these Votes, and as any question could be raised on the Report, or on the Appropriation Bill, he thought the Committee ought to help forward the Business this evening.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that when the late Government expressed a like desire to get on with the Votes they were most steadily opposed.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERasked whether the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) expected to get his Supply to-night? If not, he could go on with Supply early to-morrow.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would be willing to report Progress when this Class was disposed of.
    MR. T. C. BARINGobserved, that if there was nothing objectionable in this Class it could be got through in five minutes at the next Sitting just as well as to-night. When he remembered the opposition by hon. Members now on the Treasury Benches, when the late Government wished to take Supply an hour earlier than this, he felt a strong objection to taking a new Class at 2 o'clock in the morning.
    Question put, and negatived.
    (30.) £208,582, to complete the sum for Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
    (31.) £11,800, to complete the sum for Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.
    (32.) £18,900, to complete the sum for Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Secretary to the Board of Trade, for an answer to a question he had already put. He would point out that one of the disadvantages in taking these Votes so late as this was that there were no Representatives of the Government present. Certain relief was afforded by masters of vessels to seamen abroad; but the Board of Trade, having some doubt as

    1483
    to their statutory power to grant relief, and looking at the difficulty of getting these expenses repaid, had given up these grants altogether. The Public Accounts Committee, however, thought the Board of Trade was not justified in doing that, and the Treasury concurred in that view. He should like to know whether the Board of Trade proposed to yield to the recommendations of the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee, or to adhere to their determination not to give grants, and try to regain the money paid?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Department hoped to regain the money paid, but they had no great expectation of that. They intended to exercise a more rigid supervision over the amounts granted.
    Vote agreed to.
    (33.) £432,500, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, England.
    MR. MAGNIACinquired what decision had been come to with respect to pauper lunatics who had become lunatics while in prison? He presumed this matter had been settled, but he should like to hear what the decision was, because every day increased the evil, and increased the burden on the ratepayers. The transfer from one prison to another had very much increased this burden, and he hoped to have some satisfactory answer.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the case to which the hon. Member referred was that of pauper criminal lunatics, who had become lunatics in prison, being transferred to county asylums.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, they might be pauper lunatics up to a certain point.
    MR. COURTNEYexplained that pauper lunatic criminals whose sentences had expired ceased to be criminals, and were then simply pauper lunatics like any ordinary pauper lunatic. The question of the general expenses had been considered by a Departmental Committee, which had spent a considerable amount of time during two years on the matter. Their Report was made last month; but the Home Secretary had not yet had time to consider their recommendations.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he hoped the matter would not be long delayed, because it was causing great dissatisfaction in the country.
    Vote agreed to.
    (34.) £40,000, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Scotland.
    (35.) £5,000, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Ireland.
    (36.) £8,925, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland.
    (37.) 49,326, to complete the sum for Friendly Societies Deficiency.
    MR. MAGNIACregretted that there were so few Members present, and wished to know what was the capital amount which this sum represented? Speaking in round figures, one Parliamentary Paper put the amount at £1,200,000, while another put it at £2,100,000. It would be satisfactory to know exactly what the capital amount was.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the capital amount on the 20th of November last was rather over £1,258,000.
    Vote agreed to.
    (38.) £1,529, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.
    (39.) £2,808, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL.— [BILL 264.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL.— [BILL 264.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Clause 3 (Pensions and allowances).
    MR. TREVELYANmoved to leave out from "Provided," in page 2, line 35, to the end of the clause, and insert—
    "That no county inspector or sub-inspector appointed before the passing of this Act shall be entitled to receive any pension exceeding the amount which may be granted to him under the scale provided by this Act or the amount which it would have been lawful to grant to him if this Act had not been passed; that every such county inspector or sub-inspector shall, on retirement and if otherwise qualified for a pension, be entitled to elect between such amounts respectively."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HEALYsaid, that, before the Question was put, he would like to say it was a rather remarkable thing that although the Government had had two clear days in which they could have put this Amendment on the Paper, they had not thought proper to do so.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  CITATION AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 267.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)
  CITATION AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 267.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title).
    MR. HEALYmoved to report Progress. This was a Bill concerning which hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had received a large number of complaints and telegrams. It appeared the Scotch people had taken the liberty to send to Irish Members asking them to represent their grievances. The Committee ought certainly to receive from the Lord Advocate some explanation of the clauses which this Bill contained. One of his (Mr. Healy's) correspondents said he was a messenger-at-arms at Edinburgh, that the Government did not give the Law Societies a chance, that the Courts rose before the Bill was printed, and that the lawyers were off to the country without knowing the purposes of the Bill. He did not exactly know what a messenger-at-arms was; but he thought there should be some answer given to the allegations made in reference to the measure.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Healy.)
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he did not often agree with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy); but he cordially agreed with him on this occasion, and if he persisted in his Motion to report Progress he should certainly support him. He (Colonel Alexander) had been waiting night after night in order to make certain representations with regard to the Bill. All Scotch Members had been receiving telegrams respecting
    1486
    the Bill: and, in common decency, the representations made in those telegrams should receive some consideration. The Bill was to come into operation on the 1st of October, and all the future gains of the messengers-at-arms would be entirely gone. It was very objectionable that such Bills as this should be brought in at this time of the Session. Though a small class of men were affected, the interests of those men were just as important as those of larger numbers.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the object of the Bill was to provide a simpler and less expensive method of serving writs of certain kinds issuing from the Civil Courts than the method now in existence. It was believed that it would be very advantageous, particularly in the smaller class of cases. Representations had been made, especially in reference to serving of such writs in the remoter parts of Scotland, that for the purpose of recovering exceedingly small sums—they might only amount to shillings—messengers-at-arms and other officials were required to be sent long distances, and that the cost of service very often amounted to much more than the actual sum involved in the suit. He apprehended that was one of those things which was a real grievance, and which Parliament ought to do its utmost to redress. There had been of late years a series of Acts passed, under which the facilities afforded by the Post Office had been used for serving writs. There had been citations of jurors and various other citations. The Act of 1871, providing for the serving of a certain class of small debt writs, had been entirely satisfactory. So far from no time having been given for considering this Bill, even while it was in the other House, a representation came up from Scotland, not only entirely approving of the Bill, but expressing a hope that the scope of it might be extended, so as to include executions and diligence, as it was called in Scotland. There was no doubt that such a measure of reform as the present would involve a diminution to some extent of the gains of particular classes; but he had never heard that urged as a reason against the introduction of reforms in themselves clearly advantageous. The method of citation proposed was entirely optional, and anyone who wished to employ a messenger-at-arms would still have it in his power

    1487
    to do so. There were other kinds of executions, as distinguished from citations, which this Bill did not interfere with. The officers of the Court could still be employed; but if the law agent preferred to cite the other party to a cause by posting a letter, the option was given him of doing so. As regarded the merits of the Bill, he could hardly suppose there could be any difference of opinion. If there were any objections to it he should be glad to meet them, or to offer any explanations which might be required. He had no desire to proceed with the Bill then, if there was any general wish for a little longer time to consider it; but he might say at once that he had not the least idea of postponing it to another Session.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not think the Bill ought to be pushed forward. It was in itself a dangerous principle to admit, that important documents might be delivered by means of a registered post letter instead of by personal service, and it was too important a Bill to decide upon at the last hours of a long Sitting at the fag-end of a Session. And then, again, there were the claims of the messenger, who might or might not be deserving persons; but the personal service was certainly preferable to the posting of a letter by an obscure solicitor's clerk, who might swear to the posting, and yet, in point of fact, not post the letter at all. If a messenger or an official whose duty it was to serve the notice undertook the service, there was some security that it would be properly done, for he would have the responsibility. But to a dishonest attorney there would be no responsibility in simply posting a letter. Then, as to the Lord Advocate's argument, that this was intended to apply to the poor and more remote districts, he was disposed to think that nothing would be more likely than that the citation would reach a person in the remote Highlands or Islands of Scotland, after the decision had been given against him, and he had no means of redress except by a costly appeal.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, this objection was purely visionary. The Post Office receipt would prove the despatch and receipt of a registered letter. This Bill was merely the extension of a system introduced some years ago by an Act passed by himself, and which had been found to work admirably hitherto; it
    1488
    was only going a little further, and he was quite satisfied it would be an immense benefit to Scotland.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ALLOTMENTS BILL.— [BILL 227.]
  (Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Burt, Mr. Brand, Mr. Bryce.)
  ALLOTMENTS BILL.— [BILL 227.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Amendment proposed,
    In Clause 11, page 4, line 18, after the word "case," to insert the words "as stated by the Trustees, such circumstances to be stated in the certificate."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 19, to leave out the words "such grounds to be stated in the certificate."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he could not claim an intimate knowledge of the Bill, but he understood it made a considerable change in the law; and before the Bill was read a third time he should like to know whether it had the sanction of the Government? If there was no Member of the Government who could speak on it, then the final stage ought to be deferred.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the Bill had been carefully examined, and it was approved by the Government, and it had been fully discussed previously and amended by the Government in Committee. They had no objection at all to it.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    EAST INDIA (HOME EFFECTIVE CHARGES OF TROOPS) [SETTLEMENT OF ARREARS].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to approve the settlement of certain claims by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury upon the Government of India, as set forth in the Minute of the said Commissioners dated the 2nd of July 1878.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.