Commons Sitting of 10 March 1882

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1881–2—Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE—£7,772, County Court Officers, &c, Motion withdrawn; Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART—£636, Royal University, Ireland; NAVY ESTIMATES—£50,000, Army Department (Conveyance of Troops).
Postponed Resolution [March 3] further considered and agreed to.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Glasgow Corporation Gas (Railways, &c.)*; London and South Western Spring Water*; London Southern Tramways*; Metropolis Management, Building, and Floods Prevention Acts (Amendment).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Turnpike Roads (South Wales)* [101].
Second Reading—Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* [92]: Roads Provisional Order (Edinburgh)* [93].
Considered as amended—Boiler Explosions* [4,100].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT, BUILDING, AND FLOODS PREVENTION ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he thought it would be convenient to the House, and to those hon. Members who took an interest in this Bill, that he should shortly state the course which, on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he pro-

    583
    posed to take in regard to it. A great number of hon. Members took an interest in it, and a few local Bodies were opposed to it. He therefore wished to state that if the House agreed to read the Bill a second time, he proposed in Committee to withdraw all the clauses except Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. Clause 11 related to the better regulation of theatres; Clauses 12, 13, and 14 dealt with the prevention of floods. Clause 18, which dealt with timber stacks, and Clause 19, which related to the cubical contents of buildings, had been much objected to, and it was not intended to proceed with them at all. He wished the House to understand that that step was only taken because the officers of the House had said that it was not proper for a Private Bill to deal with matters which had previously been dealt with by Public Bills. Therefore, these clauses would be withdrawn; but should the House accord him that which he now asked—the second reading of the Bill—he proposed, at a convenient opportunity, to bring in a Public Bill, embodying, with the exception of Clauses 18 and 19, the clauses now withdrawn. Under these circumstances, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Sir James M'Garel-Hogg,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QESTIONS.

    PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. TOMAN.
    MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the police are authorised (in proclaimed districts or otherwise) to search the persons of individuals for copies of the "No Rent" manifesto; upon what authority they so searched Mr. Michael Toman, of Hilltown, county Down, as he was going from his own house on the night of the 1st ultimo; and, whether, as this gentleman has now been committed for trial, without bail, for Laving been found possessed of copies of the manifesto, it is the fact that
    584
    he is kept in solitary confinement in Down Gaol for eighteen hours out of the twenty-four?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that it was true that Mr. Michael Toman had been committed for trial; but while legal proceedings were pending in the case it was impossible for him to make any reply on the subject.
    MR. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could not give any information as the solitary confinement of the accused, and as to the authority on which the persons of individuals were searched for copies of the "no rent" manifesto?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that with regard to confinement the accused was in exactly the same position as persons generally were who were in prison awaiting their trial.

    SPAIN—IMPRISONMENT OF MR. J. C. YOUNG.
    DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether any decision has as yet been come to by Government as to the claim of Mr. Jas. C. Young, for compensation from the Spanish Government in respect of his having been imprisoned in Fernando Po, for two years and and nine months, while awaiting the confirmation of a sentence pronounced in a local court condemning him to a fine (which was at once paid) or a few months imprisonment?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have represented this case to the Spanish Government, with a view to some compensation being awarded to Mr. Young for the sufferings he has endured owing to the defects of the administration of justice in Fernando Po. The reply of the Spanish Government to these representations has not yet been received; and Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid has been instructed to again call their attention to the hardship of the case, and strongly to commend the application of Mr. Young to their favourable consideration.

    HIGHWAY RATES—LEGISLATION.
    MR. HICKSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is now prepared to inform the House what steps he intends to take, in accordance with his statement of 12th August

    585
    1881, to place the owners of small tenements in the same position as regards highway rates as they now are as regards poor rates, and in which they were as regards highway rates before the repeal of the Act 13 and 14 Vic. c. 99, by the Act 38 and 39 Vic. c. 66?
    MR. DODSON: I had hoped to be able to deal with the question of the making and the collection of rates generally during the present Session; but, looking at the state of the Business before the House, I doubt whether I shall be able to do so. But if I should find later on that I cannot carry the larger object into effect, I shall not object to introduce a shorter Bill for the purpose mentioned in the Question.

    ARMY (INDIA)—MILITARY DRAFTS.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, now that all regiments are double battalion, it might not be arranged that boys in training for musicians and tailors should be taught in the battalion at home, till they are of mature age, instead of being sent prematurely to India?
    MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that the Duke of Cambridge consulted the Medical Director General on this subject some months ago, and that he advised, and I decided, that boys might safely go to India, if of proper age and medically fit. The objection to sending men under 20 to perform, in the climate of India, the ordinary duty of privates does not apply to boys employed as musicians or tailors, whose duties are much lighter, and it would be most inconvenient to dispense with them in India. The subject is, however, one of which I will not lose sight.

    PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—LETTERS TO MR. PARNELL AND MR. DILLON.
    MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed in the public Press a report of a speech delivered on Monday last, by Mr. W. B. Smith, one of the Vice Presidents of the Birmingham Reform League, in which that gentleman charged the Government with endeavouring to prevent the nomi-
    586
    nation of Mr. John Dillon for the Parliamentary representation of Birmingham at the next General Election, and in which Mr. Smith stated that he had written to Mr. Dillon, and had received no reply; and, further, that he had written to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, inquiring if such letters as that which he had addressed to Mr. Dillon were prohibited, and, also, whether he would be permitted to visit Mr. Dillon, and had received no answer to either question; and, whether he has any statement to make in reference to the charges of Mr. Smith?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had not seen any report on the matter in the public Press; but he was informed that there had been one letter, and one only, addressed to Mr. Dillon, and also one addressed to Mr. Parnell; that the letters referred to a proposed demonstration at Birmingham on their release; and that the Governor of the Prison did stop the delivery of those letters. Mr. Smith wrote to the Governor requesting to be informed if the letter had been received. The Governor did not reply, as he considered he was not bound to do more than inform the prisoners that letters addressed to them had been detained. With regard to Mr. Smith visiting either Mr. Dillon or Mr. Parnell, of course he could do so in accordance with the rules of the prison. He must say, in explanation of the course taken by the Governor, that a rule had to be laid down that there should be no political correspondence and no political conversation with the prisoners at Kilmainham.

    PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— CHARGE OF POSTING UP A NOTICE.
    DR. COMMINSasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he has seen a paragraph in the "Times" of Wednesday, stating that
    "A young man named Carroll, servant to a Roman Catholic clergyman at Coachford, has been committed for trial on the charge of posting up a notice, calling on the farmers to attend at the farm of a suspect named O'Leary and till his land;"
    and, whether such statement is true; and, if so, under what statute has this man been so charged and committed?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in

    587
    reply, said he had not seen the paragraph in The Times; but in consequence of the Question he had made inquiries, and found that Carroll had been arrested under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875.

    PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—CASE OF MR. W. F. MOLONEY.
    MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was a fact that Mr. W. F. Moloney has been imprisoned under the Coercion Act, in Dundalk Gaol, since last November; whether application was made for his removal to Kilmainham, so that he might have reasonable facilities for carrying on his business, and was refused; and, whether his detention in Dundalk is essential for his safe custody, or is simply intended as punishment?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that Mr. Moloney was arrested on the 25th of November, and since his confinement in Dundalk Gaol application had been made for his transfer to Kilmainham; but it had been refused, the Irish Government feeling that it could not be acceded to consistently with the public interest.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the last part of his Question.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it had been found necessary to select the prison to which "suspects" were sent. That had become necessary from the fact that, with all the precautions which could be taken, correspondence to some extent had been kept up by some of the prisoners in some directions on the very matters for which they had been arrested. The Government must use their discretion with a view to prevent that; and it was in order to prevent it that Mr. Moloney was sent to Dundalk Gaol.
    MR. LEAMYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that communications of the kind which he said came out of prison came from Kilmainham only, and from no other prison?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I did not say that. I only said I believed they did come out of Kilmainham.

    PRISONS (IRELAND)—ARMAGH GAOL.
    MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
    588
    Ireland, Whether, in view of the prevalence of smallpox of a very virulent type in the district of Armagh, he will order the removal of the suspects from Armagh Gaol?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that a medical officer had been sent to inquire whether the prevalence of smallpox rendered the removal of prisoners under the Protection of Person and Property Act from Armagh Gaol necessary. Following upon that medical officer's Report, an order had been issued to the effect that no person from the county of Armagh be admitted into the prison until further orders, this precaution being all that was deemed necessary.

    LAW AND JUSTICE—THE FOUR ASSIZES.
    MR. HICKSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he has now come to a decision as to the way in which he will deal with the present waste of judicial power, and the great inconvenience caused to jurors and others by the present system of holding four Assizes?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, the Question, strictly speaking, referred to a matter which was not under his jurisdiction; but he might say that there was no prospect whatever of any alteration being made in the system introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) for holding four Assizes in the year, in order that no person should be left untried for more than three months. But it was under the careful consideration of the Government how far arrangements could be made that would relieve the Judicial Bench and others from some of the burdens consequent on attending at these four Assizes.

    THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—RICHMOND PARK.
    MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the complaints as to the condition of Richmond Park; whether it is the fact that the Park is in many parts covered with ant-hills and mole-heaps, and, in consequence of its being insufficiently drained, the turf has in many places become full of small bogs, especially in those parts

    589
    frequented by riders; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the Park put into a proper state; and, whether it is the fact that the proprietors of the private road in the Clarence Lane leading to Roehampton Gate has erected a barrier close outside that gate, and has fastened this barrier with a lock, to which only the proprietor's tenants are allowed to have a key; and whether, in that case, he will consider the propriety of closing altogether Roehampton Gate until such time as the public in general are allowed to use it?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: With respect to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, he has correctly stated the facts of the case. The owner of the private road leading to Roehampton Gate has for many years past barred the access of horses and vehicles to it by a gate. So long as this is the case Roehampton Gate cannot be used by the general public. The Gate is not under my jurisdiction; but I will consult with the Ranger as to the expediency of closing it entirely, so long as the owner of the laud prevents access to it. With respect to the first part of his Question. I have received no complaints of the condition of Richmond Park. The Park is, I am informed, thoroughly drained. Owing to the exceptionally open weather, there have been more mole hills than usual, and the ground is much cut by riders; but in the drier weather this is being now remedied.

    THE KINGDOM OF SERVIA—RECOGNITION OF KING MILAN.
    MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has recognised the Kingdom of Servia; and, if not, whether it proposes to do so at an early date?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Minister at Belgrade has been instructed to convey the congratulations of Her Majesty's Government to King Milan on his assumption of the Royal title.

    TUNIS—THE CAPTURE OF SFAX
    MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why the inquiry into losses suffered by British subjects on the occasion of the capture of Sfax was broken off?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The proceedings of the Sfax Commission were brought to a close by the French Chairman, on the ground that the British Commissioners had recalled a witness who had been already examined, and whose second deposition differed from that previously given. The Italian Government were also represented on the Commission.
    MR. O'DONNELL: Do I understand that the inquiry is terminated?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The inquiry in the form of a Commission is terminated; but there is correspondence going on with regard to the claims.
    MR. O'DONNELLgave Notice that he would call attention to the matter on going into Committee of Supply.

    SOUTH AFRICA—BASUTOLAND.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that the Cape Government is authorised to pay its levies against the Basuto people on confiscated lands and cattle; and, whether, considering such licence has tended to prolong the war as long as land and cattle remained to confiscate, he will authorise such payments?
    MR. COURTNEY: Basutoland is an integral part of the Cape Colony, which possesses responsible Government, and it is for the Cape Parliament to provide the means of paying Cape levies. The hon. Member, perhaps, means to ask whether Her Majesty will be advised to exercise her prerogative by vetoing any Bill that may be passed by the Cape Parliament confiscating in any degree, and under whatever circumstances it may be passed, any lands held by any Basutos. The hon. Member will see, by referring to the Blue Book issued this week, that the Government can give no such pledge.

    SOUTH AFRICA (NATAL)—INDABEZIMBI.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the British Resident at Pretoria has brought under the notice of the Transvaal Government the circumstances of an outrage committed in August last, by a party of Boers, on the person and property of a Kaffir named Indabezimbi, who was at that time re-

    591
    siding in Natal; and, whether any steps have been taken by the authorities of the Transvaal, either to institute a judicial inquiry into the matter, or to surrender the offenders to the Government of Natal?
    MR. COURTNEY: On the 13th of October the British Resident reported that, according to promise, the Government had caused an investigation to be made at Utrecht, and informed him that the result was somewhat to invalidate the statement of Indabezimbi; but that the documents connected with the investigation at Utrecht would speedily be forwarded to him, with a view to correspondence through him with the Natal Government. No further communication has been received. It must be observed that, in the absence of any extradition Convention, a judicial inquiry in this case is practically impossible, the outrage, whatever it was, having been committed in Natal, and the offenders being in the Transvaal. Her Majesty's Government are taking active steps to re-establish a system of extradition in pursuance of Article 29 of the Convention. The despatches on this subject will be given to Parliament when the Correspondence is completed.

    REMOVAL OF THE ELEPHANT "JUMBO."
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the evidence of the secretary and the other officials of the Royal Zoological Gardens, in regard to the uncertain temper of the elephant "Jumbo," and also to the statement that this (alleged) fierce and dangerous animal is to be removed to the United States on the 19th instant upon one of a line of steamers which usually carries emigrants; and, whether he will take steps to secure emigrants taking berths upon the steamer, on which a passage for "Jumbo" has been secured, from the danger which it is stated by the secretary and other officials of the Royal Zoological Gardens they may incur; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Charter incorporating the Royal Zoological Gardens?
    MR. GILLasked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that an elephant which had been brought over from India by the Prince of Wales, and which
    592
    afterwards died in the Zoological Gardens, Dublin, had killed two or three men on his passage over?
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Of course, the Board of Trade cannot possibly have any control over what my hon. Friend calls the "uncertain temper of the elephant Jumbo." But the Surveyors of the Board have been instructed to be present at the embarkation of the animal, and to take every care that no danger to the ship or passengers results from its presence on board. They are specially charged to see that the cage in which the animal is placed is sufficiently strong to prevent it getting adrift; and, above all, that the elephant shall not be able to step on to the light awning deck from his own cage. They have further been instructed to take care that the presence of the animal does not interfere with the ventilation of the ship, and the health, comfort, or safety of the passengers. As to the Question about the Zoological Society's Charter, I must ask for Notice of it.

    PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. MAHONEY.
    MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Mahoney, clerk of the Castlecomer Union, who was arrested under the Coercion Act, held his appointment under the same law as that under which Dr. Kenny held office in the North Dublin Union; whether upon Mr. Mahoney's arrest the Local Government Board immediately issued a sealed order dismissing him, as was done in Dr. Kenny's case; if not, will he state upon what principle the Local Government Board dismissed Dr. Kenny by sealed order; and, whether it is the fact that upon Mr. Mahoney's release he was at once allowed to resume his position by the Castlecomer Board, without any such application as the Dublin guardians are asked to make to the Local Government Board?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that Mr. Mahoney held his appointment under the same law as Dr. Kenny; but the Local Government Board, on the application of Mr. Mahoney, forbore taking action in his case for some time. On quitting the prison he resumed his duties.
    MR. HEALYinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay on the Table the Correspondence which had taken place on the subject?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERasked for Notice of the Question.

    PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. N. J. BARRETT.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether Mr. N. J. Barrett, a regularly appointed postal official (July 1875), who has been arrested at Loughrea under the Coercion Act, will be allowed to resume his post upon release, or will receive an equivalent appointment?
    MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that the position held by Mr. Barrett in the Loughrea Post Office had been filled up; and, under the circumstances, he could not be restored to the service of the Post Office.

    PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. LYNE.
    MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether police protection was withdrawn from John Lyne, Ardnatrush, Bantry, county Cork, and whether Mr. Lyne himself was arrested by the police; and, if he would state why police protection was withdrawn?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that personal police protection was withdrawn from Mr. Lyne at his own request. There was no foundation for the statement that he had been arrested by the police. On one occasion last autumn the Constabulary thought it prudent to shelter him for the night in the barracks, for which he expressed his thanks.

    POST OFFICE—THE "IRISH WORLD" NEWSPAPER.
    MR. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that, at various times since December last, the "Irish World" newspaper has been stopped in the Dublin General Post Office; if so, by whose instructions, and upon what grounds, this was done; whether the Department will compen-
    594
    sate subscribers for the copies seized; whether any advice was sent to the addressees as to how their property had been disposed of; whether, during the same period, the "Irish World" was allowed to be delivered as usual through English Post Offices; and, if so, why a distinction was made; if it is correct that, under Article 6 of the Postal Convention, signed at Paris in June 1878, Great Britain binds herself to pay an indemnity of 50 francs to the sender of certain registered articles, including newspapers, "sauf le cas de force majeure;" whether the senders of undelivered registered packets of the "Irish World" will be entitled to receive the indemnity; and, whether any representations have been made by the Government of the United States as to the seizure of American newspapers in Irish Post Offices?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that as this was a political matter he might be allowed to answer the Question. It was true that The Irish World newspaper since December had been stopped in the Dublin General Post Office by the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, who deemed it necessary for the good government of Ireland that that step should be taken. That was the only answer he could make to the first four Questions. If the action of the Irish Government were disputed in a Court of Law, it must be defended. With regard to the last Question, whether any representations had been made by the Government of the United States, he had to say that no representation, as far as he was aware, had been made by that Government. An inquiry had, in the course of business, been made of the Post Office; and the reply given by the Post Office was that the paper had been stopped by direction of the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that no answer had been given as to an engagement to pay 50 francs to the sender of certain registered articles, including newspapers, "sauf le cas de force majeure."
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: That is a legal Question, to which I am not able to give an answer.
    MR. HEALY: Notice has been given for a week.
    MR. LEWISasked under what Act of Parliament the Lord Lieutenant had proceeded?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: That is a legal Question, and Notice ought to be given of it in proper form.
    MR. REDMONDasked whether the papers had been destroyed in the Post Office?
    [No reply was given to the Question.]

    PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARREST OF MR. JOHN RORKE.
    MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. John Rorke of Dublin has been arrested under the Coercion Act, and of what crime he is suspected?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: It is the case that Mr. Rorke has been arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act; and I believe the ground is that he is reasonably suspected of intimidation to prevent the payment of rent.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was so unsatisfactory that he felt it his duty to make a few remarks upon it, and with that view he would conclude with a Motion. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that Mr. Rorke had been arrested because he was reasonably suspected of intimidating persons not to pay rent; but the real reason he was arrested was because he was reasonably suspected of being the partner of Mr. Patrick Egan, the Treasurer of the Irish Land League. Mr. Rorke had never taken any part in politics—he had never made a speech in the whole course of his life—but he had business relations with Mr. Patrick Egan. Accordingly a heavy fine, in the shape of imprisonment, was to be imposed upon Mr. Rorke for his business connection with that unfortunate individual, the Treasurer of the Irish Land League. The right hon. Gentleman, in his recent speech at Tullamore, stated that the only people he had put into prison were broken-down men and reckless boys. Was Mr. Rorke either a broken-down man or a reckless boy? His commercial standing in the City of Dublin was superior to that of the right hon. Gentleman at Bradford. ["Oh!"] At all events, his name on the back of a bill would have much more potency than that of a certain official at Dublin Castle, whose signature was only valuable when attached to a warrant. Be-
    596
    cause Mr. Rorke had the misfortune to be connected with Mr. Egan he was put in gaol. And to what gaol was he sent? Not to Kilmainham, where he would have an opportunity of conducting his business, according to the promises of the right hon. Gentleman; but he was sent down to Naas, 40 or 50 miles from the place where he could conduct his business. The Chief Secretary had stated that he would release the prisoners when outrages were discontinued. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that the arrest of men like Mr. Rorke were only calculated to increase outrages. At the same time, such was the feeling of nationality that had been created in Ireland—such a feeling of solidity amongst the tenant farmers—that, were it not for the personal ruin the Chief Secretary wished to inflict, he would regard the Coercion Act in Ireland as a blessing rather than a curse. That would be his opinion, if he could merely view the matter apart from the personal destruction which he knew the right hon. Gentleman was desirous to bring upon individuals. The 800 men. who were now in prison must be released some day; and when they did regain their liberty it would be seen that the Government, by their coercive policy, had only created so many drill-sergeants and picquets in the army of agitation. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
    MR. SEXTON, in seconding the Motion, said, he believed the arrest of Mr. Rorke to be one of the meanest the Government had yet made. He had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of that gentleman. He never was a politician. He never concerned himself, to any extent, in public life; and he (Mr. Sexton) was personally aware of the fact that during last year, owing to the representations of his friends, he had rigorously abstained altogether from politics. Mr. Rorke knew well, from the moment the Coercion Act came into force, that he was placed in a position of danger. He knew that the fact of his partnership with Mr. Egan would expose him to the attentions of the right hon. Gentleman. His friends advised him not to give the right hon. Gentleman any pretext for arresting him; and he had scrupulously abstained from anything of the kind, because he knew that one day he would be made the victim of

    597
    the right hon. Gentleman's spleen. What was the crime of Mr. Rorke? They were told by the right hon. Gentleman that it was endeavouring to intimidate persons from the payment of rent. That was an accusation which no man. who had the slightest knowledge of Rorke could credit for a moment. He was a man. of courage and honour, willing to extend to other men the rights he claimed for himself; and if there was one man on Irish soil to-day, in gaol or out of it, who would be ashamed to practice intimidation, it was John Rorke. The moral murder inflicted under this Act was illustrated by the impunity with which a charge like this could be made up. The real charge against Mr. Rorke was that he was a partner in the commercial firm of Egan and Rorke in Dublin. The Government knew that Mr. Patrick Egan was one of their most dangerous enemies. They knew that he was the enemy of social and political tyranny in Ireland; they knew that he had devoted very rare abilities to the service of the people; and they knew the energy and skill he had brought to bear on the interests of the people; but the warrant of the Chief Secretary did not run in Paris—and therefore, to enable them to withdraw Mr. Egan from the service of the cause of the people, they had had recourse to the mean expedient of seizing on his partner, an innocent man, not at all engaged in politics, and who had studiously avoided doing anything to commit himself. The Government had done this with no other hope, and for no other reason, than that of dislocating the commercial business of Mr. Egan. The arrest of Mr. Rorke was particularly mean at the present time, when Mr. Egan's name was mentioned in connection with the representation of Meath. They had been informed by lawyers in the House that Mr. Egan was legally entitled to sit as Member of Parliament for Meath. Whether that was so or not, they knew that the Bishop and people of Meath would be very glad tomorrow to elect Mr. Patrick Egan to represent their county. Yet the Government, which had resorted to extreme and extraordinary measures to allow one of the Members for Northampton to take his seat, now arrested an honest, decent Irishman, incapable of crime, incapable of criminal thought, for the
    598
    purpose of embarrassing another patriotic Irishman who was beyond their reach, hoping, by the dislocation of his business, to prevent Mr. Patrick Egan from again presenting himself before the electors of Meath. Such were the means to which the Irish Coercion Act was turned; such were the intents with which it was being employed. The right hon. Gentleman, in his recent extraordinary tour through Ireland, which procured for him a round of cheers when he returned to that House, told the crowd of people, whom he took by surprise in the streets of Tullamore, that outrages were committed, not exactly as his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had quoted, but by broken-down men and by violent and reckless boys. Did Mr. Rorke belong to either of these two categories? Was he a violent and reckless boy? He had long since reached the years of maturity, which had taught him prudence; and he was one of the last men in the world likely to lay himself open to the charge the right hon. Gentleman had made against him. Was he a "broken-down man?" The House had heard the comparison drawn by the hon. Member for Wexford between this "broken-down man" and the Chief Secretary, from the aspect of that commercial life to which they both belonged. He told the House that Mr. Rorke, so far from being a broken-down man, was one of the most substantial and respected traders in the City of Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman told the people of Tullomore that if outrages ceased or became fewer, the "suspects" would be let out; but he immediately followed up that speech in which he, for reasons of his own, gave hopes to the hearts of some poor people in Ireland, leading them to suppose that some of the "suspects" would be released by imprisoning a man who could not be supposed to have any connection with outrages. He should not comment now on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, beyond remarking that it was exceedingly easy for a man who had thrown into gaol every person that could answer him, who had put his fingers upon the throat of the country and a gag into its mouth, to appear at a hotel window, surrounded by his bailiffs and detectives, and to deliver to a crowd of people assembled in the market place a speech beginning with a dull jest, proceeding with a mean threat,

    599
    and finishing up, in true English fashion, with a good round text of Scripture. It was exceedingly easy for the right hon. Gentleman to do these things, because he well knew that any man in that crowd who dared to say a syllable while he was delivering his studied eloquence would find himself, after a day or two, in Kilmainham or some other gaol. It had come to a sad time with Irish politics when no respectability, no prudence, no self-respect, could save a man from arrest; and when the politics of the country, and the direction of its interests, were confided to the care of a man who was capable of such a contemptible piece of comic acting as that seen the other day in the streets of Tullamore.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Healy.)
    MR. GRAYremarked, that he had had a somewhat intimate acquaintance with Mr. Rorke, and he was perfectly convinced that Mr. Rorke had done nothing whatever to deserve arrest. Still, he could not say that the news of his arrest had caused him any great surprise. It was now two or three months since he had a conversation with Mr. Rorke, and on that occasion he (Mr. Gray) remarked to him—"The probability is the Chief Secretary will arrest you." Mr. Rorke said—"I have done nothing whatever. I have been exceedingly careful. I never attended any meeting; I have taken no part in any of the meetings of the Land League." "Well," he (Mr. Gray) said—"You are Mr. Egan's partner, and you will be arrested; they will try to punish Egan through you." He replied—"I know how serious it would be if both of us should be away from business, and on that account I have been careful to give the Chief Secretary no excuse for arresting me." It turned out, however, that his (Mr. Gray's) anticipations were correct. Messrs. Egan and Rorke carried on in Dublin a very large business, requiring personal attention and supervision. Mr. Egan, of course, had taken a very active part in political affairs; and, according to the manner in which the Coercion Act was being administered, his arrest, perhaps, would be a matter about which there could not be a great complaint. But to arrest Mr. Rorke simply because he was Mr.
    600
    Egan's partner was a step which was not calculated, using the words of the Resolution passed last night, "to promote good government in Ireland." It was calculated to do the very reverse. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had taken care to counteract any good which his personal inspection of parts of Ireland might have been likely to produce by the coup which he accomplished when leaving the country. Really the present course of government in Ireland was calculated to drive into despair men of moderate opinions, and men who, like himself, had always been anxious to keep within the spirit of every moral and legal obligation, and to press as strongly as possible what he considered morally right upon the people. He would take the liberty of very humbly and respectfully repeating the warning to the right hon. Gentleman which was given some time ago in a leading article of The Times, to the effect that a Government that was feared might continue to exist; but that the Government which was at once hated and despised must soon come to an end.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have only one remark to make. I doubt very much whether the hon. Members—even hon. Members opposite—really believe that Mr. Rorke was arrested simply because he was Mr. Egan's partner. [Mr. BIGGAR: Yes, we do.] Lest those in Ireland who may read the speeches that have been just now made should be led to believe that there is any truth in the assertion, I rise simply for the purpose of stating most distinctly that the fact that Mr. Rorke was Mr. Egan's partner had nothing to do with his arrest.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he had not the honour and pleasure of knowing Mr. Rorke; but he should say that, from what he had heard from his hon. Friends around him, he believed that he was arrested mainly, if not altogether, because he was Mr. Egan's partner. Mr. Rorke had lately taken no part in politics, and had done nothing to justify his arrest, which appeared to be in keeping with the rest of the Government policy in Ireland. The Ministry had introduced a system in Ireland of government by accusation, by calumny, by bringing vague charges against persons which could not be proved, but which they asserted justified them in looking them up

    601
    in Kilmainham Gaol. In this case especially he should like to appeal from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Head of the Government himself. Did the Prime Minister, with all his honourable antecedents, with all his instincts in favour of liberty and fair government, approve of a transaction of this character; and was the arrest of men like Mr. Rorke consistent with the honourable and open government of the country? Up to the time of his arrest Mr. Rorke had not been much of a politician; but he should like to know whether he had not by this time been converted into a very strong politician indeed? Such treatment made not merely politicians, but conspirators.
    MR. O'DONNELLagreed with those who believed Mr. Rorke to have been all his life a quiet politician—a most earnest Nationalist; no doubt, as strong in his opinion as any man in the House, but a quiet business man. Some time ago he had a conversation with Mr. Rorke of the same nature as that narrated by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). He (Mr. O'Donnell) expressed his fear that Mr. Rorke would be arrested because he was Mr. Egan's partner; but to this Mr. Rorke replied that, bad as the English were, they were not so bad as that. It seemed, however, that Mr. Rorke had been mistaken. [Mr. SEXTON: Hear, hear!] It was not, however, the work of the Englishmen; it was the work of these anti-Irish under-strappers in Ireland, who did the dirty work of the Government at Dublin. He was absolutely certain that Mr. Rorke had not taken any part in politics lately; because the argument would commend itself to the House, that if one partner in a large commercial firm like that of Egan and Rorke was avowedly playing a dangerous game, the other would be particularly careful to keep himself clear of politics for the sake of their business. He had it upon the best authority that Mr. Rorke had strictly confined himself to his business. He was a respectable Dublin merchant and trader, enjoying the respect of all classes of the community, a man who never said an injurious word of anyone, even though he might be opposed to him in politics, or any other matter of opinion. But Mr. Rorke had been arrested purely, and entirely, and conclusively because he was Mr. Egan's partner. This was a
    602
    case which, went on all fours with the miserable way in which Dr. Kenny was arrested, with the additional punishment put upon him by depriving him of his office as medical officer. Mr. Rorke had been taken up for the purpose of disarranging and destroying the commercial business of the firm of Messrs. Egan and Rorke. The Chief Secretary had, no doubt, believed the information on which he had acted; but he asked the Chief Secretary to communicate that information, not to the House, not to the public, but to choose from the Front Opposition Bench three or four of the Leaders of the Conservative Party—men who had no sympathy with intimidation or Irish nationality—and to communicate to them the information upon which he had acted, and if those Leaders agreed that there was any reasonable ground whatever for the arrest of Mr. Rorke, he would apologize for having called into question the accuracy of the information of the right hon. Gentleman. But he assured the Chief Secretary such information was always at hand when wanted, especially at a time when Circulars were flying about the country. Then informers could always be found to give any kind of evidence. The Chief Secretary had doubtless received information. In connection with Dublin Castle there was always an abundant supply of auxiliaries, ready at a moment's notice to give Judas Iscariot evidence for the thirtieth part of the thirty pieces of silver. That was the system of government which reigned in Ireland at the present day; but he would not hold the Chief Secretary entirely responsible for this. The man who was responsible for the Chief Secretary himself was the right hon. Gentleman sitting on his left-hand side (Mr. Gladstone). It was the policy of the Premier that was the cause of everything that was taking place in Ireland. The Chief Secretary and the Premier, he was sure, would refuse that test; but they, knowing, as they did, Mr. Rorke, knowing, as they did, that the arrangement was that Mr. Rorke attended purely to the commercial business of the firm, while Mr. Egan devoted himself exclusively to attending to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government—knowing these circumstances, knowing the general repute in which Mr. Rorke stood, knowing the absolute

    603
    worthlessness of the evidence upon which the Chief Secretary proceeded, they charged the Government to any kind of test they chose, and they were perfectly certain that they would prove to the satisfaction of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), and to the satisfaction of the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for the University of Dublin, that there was not one rag of evidence against Mr. Rorke—that the only object of punishing Mr. Rorke was to ruin the business of Mr. Egan, and that the arrest of Mr. Rorke was one of the most foul and cowardly outrages that had been perpetrated, and that had disgraced the whole administration of the right hon. Gentleman in Ireland. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was very sorry, for his part, to see that there was any apparent complaint made upon the Irish Benches of the action of the Chief Secretary in addressing the crowd gathered outside his hotel window in Tullamore. He sincerely wished that the Chief Secretary would do much more of that sort of thing. He wished that, instead of acting on the information of the Iscariots of Dublin Castle, he would go round and see the country for himself. He was sure there were hundreds of parish priests throughout the country, like Father M'Alroy, of Tullamore, prepared to guarantee the Chief Secretary a quiet hearing. If he went round to the parish priests and consulted them, and visited the convent schools, and said a few nice things to the children, and afterwards addressed a crowd outside his hotel window, he might have a few rough interruptions; but, on the whole, the people would decidedly like him in his new character of the friend of the fatherless and the lover of liberty. He sincerely hoped the Chief Secretary would pay a visit to Dungarvan next, and if he addressed a crowd from the window of his friend Mr. Flynn's hotel, he would get as good an audience, and go away after having done as little to procure support for the policy of the Liberal Government as he did in Tullamore.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he could hardly gather from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they really wished to accomplish the object they professed to have in view—to obtain the release of Mr. Rorke, or simply to vent their spleen on the Chief
    604
    Secretary for Ireland. He felt deeply humiliated, as did the House and thousands of people in this country, at repeated arrests of this kind. He confessed he did not know where it was going to end; but he was sure the Chief Secretary intended to make himself thoroughly acquainted with, and responsible for, every arrest that was made under this Act. He was sure, also, that of the 500 persons who were now suffering in prisons in Ireland there were many perfectly innocent. It was impossible that it could be otherwise; but he wanted to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite did they really wish to have a better state of things brought about, and were their speeches likely to accomplish the objects they had in view? Take the speech of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). What could be more coarse, more insulting, more absolutely without a shadow of foundation, than his insinuations against the commercial credit of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There was not a name that stood higher in England in that respect. Why should the hon. Member make his insulting and stupid comparison between the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his business capacity, and the names of those gentlemen who had been arrested? Was that likely to assist them? Then the hon. Member for Sligo turned into ridicule the well-intentioned efforts of the Chief Secretary to come in contact with the people of Ireland. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) knew just as much about the people of Ireland as did the hon. Member for Sligo; and he knew very well that on receiving the observations of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, they returned to their native character of love of fair play and politeness. He believed the Chief Secretary could have gone, from the very first day of his visit, into any large town or amongst any community in Ireland in perfect safety; and if he had let it be known he wished to speak to the people, he would have been received, as he was where he made his recent address, with fair play and courtesy, and even with sympathy. Well, then, why did the hon. Member for Sligo turn this matter into a matter of ribald jest? Then the hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. O'Donnell)—he understood the first part of his remarks as expressive of sympathy with the object of the

    605
    visit of the Chief Secretary to Ireland; but the latter part of his observations cut off all such hope. But he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) wanted to appeal to the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), who was the Leader of the Party opposite. Why did he not exert his authority, and relieve the country from that terrible incubus—the "no rent" manifesto? Did he believe in it? [Cheers from the Irish Members.] He gathered from those cheers that he did.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Under the circumstances, most certainly I do.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Well, if the hon. Member approves of it, all I can say is that it explains something that has long been a mystery, and that is the difference between the man who wrote the historical works of which the hon. Gentleman is the author and the speeches and political actions which have lately distinguished him.
    MR. CALLAN: I rise to Order. Is the hon. Gentleman in Order in referring to every subject that crops up in his mind?
    MR. SPEAKER: When a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the House is made, I am at a loss to state what subject cannot be discussed. What has happened this evening shows how necessary it is that the House should restrain the abuse of the right of moving the adjournment of the House.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYcould not help saying that when arbitrary arrests were made, no doubt with the best intentions on the part of the Government, there ought not to be a desire manifested by the House to prevent the question, being brought forward and discussed. Most undoubtedly the "no rent" manifesto, which was now being circulated in Ireland, was the cause of half the crime and wickedness that they had to deplore.
    MR. HEALY: No, no!
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, there was hardly a Bishop or parish priest in Ireland who did not say the same thing.
    MR. HEALY: They do not say so.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that some of the most important Bishops in Ireland, including Archbishop Croke, publicly denounced the manifesto.
    MR. SEXTON: What did Dr. Nulty say?
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not say all the Bishops had spoken;
    606
    and if the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) would not obey the voice of anything but the united Episcopate he must be rather a difficult son of the Church to deal with. He was convinced that the hon. Members did not desire to see this Coercion Act modified; but they wished to see it put into operation in its most loathsome and offensive forms. They wished to see it empowered to arrest a great many more persons than it did now. If it did their object was likely to be accomplished. But such conduct was traitorous to the Irish cause, and cruel to the Irish people. Hon. Members were safe enough in their places in the House, and they knew it. There was the hon. Member for Sligo, (Mr. Sexton) who was released on the grounds of ill-health. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to address himself to the Chair, and not to hon. Members opposite.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: The hon. Member for Sligo was released on the ground of ill-health, and he felt very much distressed on account of the hon. Member's condition; but he was happy to say that the hon. Member appeared to him to have improved. If the hon. Member were to go back to Ireland and address his constituents they would see whether he had the courage of his opinions sufficient to give the same advice there that he gave in that House. He could see no end to the discontent of the Irish people so long as hon. Members did not address themselves to the objects of the Act with the ordinary common sense, which should be dictated by a desire to achieve that which they asked for, and not merely to irritate those who had the administration of the Act.
    MR. REDMONDremarked, that on all occasions of this kind insinuations which were most offensive, and statements which were most unfounded, against the Irish Members at that side of the House invariably came from hon. Members representing Irish constituencies on the other side of the House, Gentlemen who owed their position in Irish politics to the fact that they advocated extreme National and Home Rule views at one period of their political existence, and who now took a very different course in acting as the despised tail of one of the political Parties of this country. He should not be led by the offensive remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) into anything in

    607
    the shape of recrimination; but he could not help remarking that it was unworthy of any Member of that House to cast the imputations which he had attempted to cast upon his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He accused his hon. Friend of doing in that House what he dared not do in Ireland, when he knew that his hon. Friend had actually suffered the penalty in prison of the advice which he had the courage to give to the people of Ireland. The hon. Member challenged his hon. Friend to go back to Ireland now, and give the people the same advice which he gave in that House. He (Mr. Redmond) challenged the hon. Member to go back to Galway and to make to his constituents the same statement on Irish politics which he was willing to make to a hostile Assembly at this side of the Channel. The hon. Member had no more the courage of his convictions in meeting his constituents than those Members whom he wrongfully charged with not having the courage to ''Walk into the parlour of the spider," in the shape of the Chief Secretary. He protested against the insinuation which was continually in the mouth of Members of the Government to Members on that side of the House—that the Irish Members had not the courage of their convictions. He spoke on behalf of men whom he knew, who gave the same advice publicly in Ireland that they gave in that House; and he spoke on his own behalf, and asserted that in his own county every man, woman, and child knew what his views were. He might remark that he was not the candidate of a Caucus. He was not a Representative whose connection with Ireland began when he entered Parliament, or whose connection with Ireland would close when he ceased to represent an Irish constituency. He represented a county where his family had been known for generations, and where his words, young man though he was, were listened to with respect. In that constituency he had given the same advice to the people which he was not afraid or ashamed to give in the House, and that advice had been identical with the statement just now made by his hon. Friend and Leader the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy)—namely, that when Ireland had been deprived of her Constitutional liberties, and when her leaders had been unjustly
    608
    imprisoned, the "no rent" manifesto was not only a justifiable, but a necessary policy. He agreed with the hon. Member for Galway, by their action on this occasion, they would not succeed in obtaining the release of Mr. Rorke. That was not their object. They had too much respect for Mr. Rorke to come in formâ pauperis to the House, and beg his release, unjustly though he was suffering imprisonment; but their object was to expose the manner in which the Coercion Act was being administered. Their object was to show that it was carried out with direct malice and with a deliberate intention of striking, in the meanest way, at the private business and the private character of the men who had been imprisoned. They had the strongest evidence of that in the fact that Mr. Rorke, whose business was in Dublin, had not been sent to Kilmainham, where he would be able to manage his commercial affairs, to some extent, but had been sent to Naas, 50 miles off, where it would be impossible for him to take any part in the conduct of his business. He was glad that this Motion had been made for quite another reason. An answer had been given to a Question of his on a kindred subject that evening, which was of such a character that a few minutes after it had been given he felt a certain kind of remorse that he had not risen and at once taken the course which his hon. Friend had taken, with reference to Mr. Rorke. His Question had reference to a matter of the gravest importance, which involved the utmost hardship and injustice to one of the leading merchants of Dublin, Mr. Moloney, who was at present in Dundalk Prison, and who had been there since last November, was a partner in one of the largest wholesale business establishments in Dublin. After being arrested he was sent to Dundalk, where it would be impossible for him to take any part in the conduct of his business. His partners, one of whom was a brother of the hon. Member for Cavan and a magistrate of the City of Dublin (Mr. M'Cabe Fay)—a gentleman who had no sympathy with his political opinions, and had never been associated in any way with the Land League—went to Dublin Castle without Mr. Moloney's knowledge, and, he dared say, without his approval, and represented to the Chief Secretary, or to his represen-

    609
    tative, that the removal of Mr. Moloney to Dundalk was entailing grave pecuniary loss upon his firm; and that in Kilmainham, where he would be able to take some part in the management of the business of the firm, his safe custody would be perfectly secured. The application for his removal was refused, and the firm in consequence has suffered seriously by his absence. Here, again, they had another instance of the contemptible petty feeling which ruled the Government in these matters. He could tell the reason why Mr. Moloney had been removed to Dundalk. His wife was a member of the Ladies' Land League. She resided in Dublin. The Government in this contemptible manner desired to punish her by keeping her husband in Dundalk, where he was almost out of the reach of his relatives, who might desire to see him frequently. As had already been pointed out, the Chief Secretary for Ireland suppressed freedom of discussion and freedom of speech in Ireland, and arrested every man who might be regarded as a leader of the people, and, having done so, he himself addressed a crowd of people from a hotel window at Tullamore; and on the subject he (Mr. Redmond) had been greatly inclined to put a question as to whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to say what proportion of policemen and detectives there were to every one of the inhabitants of Tullamore in the small crowd?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: To the best of my belief, not one.
    MR. REDMONDsaid, he should be exceedingly glad if that statement were correct; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was better informed on that point than he usually was on other matters in regard to which he derived his information from the detectives. He should like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman, in going to Tullamore, had taken a course which it would have been better for him to have taken long ago. Let the right hon. Gentleman go to other places in Ireland in the same manner—and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would be safe from injury or insult in doing so—and he would find that he and his Colleagues in the Cabinet, by their conduct in regard to Irish affairs, had encouraged that condemnation towards the Government which existed in the hearts and minds of nine-
    610
    tenths of the people. He was glad that that Motion had been brought before the Government for the purpose of exposing the manner in which these arrests had been made, and trusted that it would be pressed to a division; and he sincerely hoped that when matters of that kind came forward in future they would not have a repetition by the Chief Secretary of the insinuations against the Irish Members that they had not the courage of their convictions. He hoped the Motion would be pressed to a division.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he could not allow one remark made by the hon. Member who had just sat down to pass without a few words of comment. Tullamore was the capital of the county which he represented; and he believed that any crowd which could be assembled in that town would hold opposite views to those of the Chief Secretary, especially with reference to coercion in Ireland; but, at the same time, that they would express them in the most legitimate manner. In no part of Ireland were the people more actuated by that spirit of fairness which he wished to see manifested by men in high position in Ireland; and if the right hon. Gentleman came amongst them to express his own honest convictions, he believed they would be prepared to give him, as they had given him, a courteous and fair hearing. While differing from the course taken by the Government on the Coercion Act, he tendered his best thanks to the Chief Secretary for the bold and courageous manner in which he placed before the people of Tullamore the naked truth with respect to the gross and outrageous atrocities which had been committed in Clare and in other parts of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman won their sympathies by a recital of the acts of violence which had been committed in the County Clare; and he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was also there to express his regret that hon. Members opposite, who came from Ireland, on the many occasions they had for addressing their constituents, entirely omitted to use similar strong language in repudiating and expressing their abhorence of the outrages committed in Ireland; deeds which, under whatever Government—Whig or Tory or Ultra-National—must result in disgrace to that country.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he would not have joined in this debate but for the closing

    611
    statement of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. In reply to it, he would point out that during the Recess there were in Ireland only three or four public meetings which were attended by Members of Parliament. His hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond), and he himself on those occasions strongly condemned outrages, and a report of that condemnation was reported in the newspapers on only one occasion. He never stood upon a platform from which he did not hear outrage condemned. The fact was that the condemnation of outrages from Land League platforms became so much a part of every man's speech that the newspapers, in reporting those speeches, altogether omitted the part. [Laughter.] If hon. Members who laughed would wait, they would see there was nothing so very extraordinary in that statement. London papers, in reporting speeches delivered in that House, endeavoured only to give as much of a speech as could make pretence to some originality; they would not constantly report arguments which had been over and over again repeated. Perhaps hon. Members would now see that his explanation was not absurd. He repeated, that he never stood on a platform where he did not hear outrages condemned. In the County Tyrone he constantly, during the election, condemned outrages, and on the next day the paper did not contain any report of his speech. But hon. Members might like to know that a Government reporter was present; and any hon. Member who doubted his words could move for a Return of the shorthand-writer's report, and test the truth of his statement. The Land League meetings, furthermore, were generally attended by clergymen. Would anyone say that the Irish priest had not, over and over again, denounced outrages? If the Irish Members persistently denounced outrages, they would not be believed. [Mr. WAETON: Hear, hear!] It would be saying their denunciation was like "Don't nail his ears to the pump." So that, whatever course they adopted, a hostile construction was put upon their words and acts. With respect to Mr. Rorke, he only made his acquaintance a few months ago. He could not speak for anything Mr. Rorke did before the suppression of the Land
    612
    League. But since that time he was aware Mr. Rorke had done nothing. The charge made against him in the warrant was absolutely false. Similar charges had been brought against other men. Though they might contest these charges, they could not deny the persons attended Land League meetings, and perhaps spoke at them. But with regard to Mr. Rorke, he knew of his own knowledge that that gentleman was not connected with the Land League since its suppression; and he could hardly suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was only now suspecting him of some intimidation committed four or five months ago. Was it fair that a man arrested on mere suspicion of a certain offence should be sent down to Naas Gaol, and thus prevented from affording any assistance in the carrying on of his business? He might have been kept as securely in Dublin. If it were not fair, had not the Chief Secretary broken the pledge he gave to Parliament that the Coercion Act would not be used for the purpose of punishment? He did not suppose there was any use appealing to hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House. [Mr. HEALY: Hear!] Nevertheless, it was their duty to point out how the Chief Secretary's pledges had been broken. Whether he was administering the Coercion Act as a means of punishment or not, its administration amounted to punishment which should not be meted.
    DR. COMMINSconsidered that the insinuations thrown out against certain of the Irish Members were as entirely undeserved as they were unworthy of those who made them. He did not know that ever he attended a Land League meeting in the ordinary sense of the word; but during the Recess he had been present at meetings held in every part of the county he represented (Roscommon). Ever since this question of outrages came up he did not think he had ever stood on a platform without using the strongest language in denunciation of the outrages, and pointing out that those who committed outrages were the real friends of coercion and the Government policy, and were not the friends of the policy which would render the people contented and happy. But this advice given to the people was studiously left out of the reports in the newspapers which formed the usual source of infor-

    613
    mation of the Chief Secretary, as it would not have been agreeable to English readers and to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose delight it was to level insinuations which were cowardly in the extreme against Members of that House. He appealed to the reports of his speeches by the Government shorthand writers, who, by the way, acted in the most insolent manner, elbowing their way on to the platforms by shoving others aside, and doing their best, by their conduct and language, to provoke occurrences which would suit the purposes of their reports. He appealed to their reports; and if they did their duty faithfully it would be found that he had done his best to prevent outrages occurring or recurring. But while he and his hon. Friends around him had done that, he missed any such address by the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) amongst his constituents, or by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). To whom did the reproaches levelled by those hon. Gentlemen against other Members most apply? Did they not most apply to themselves? Either those two hon. Gentlemen were utterly destitute of influence among their constituents, or, if they had influence, they were cowards, who dared not go among their constituents to deliver their speeches. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is bound to withdraw that expression applied to a Member of this House.
    DR. COMMINS: I said "if."
    MR. SPEAKER: I must distinctly call on the hon. Member to withdraw that expression, and apologize to the House for using it.
    DR. COMMINS: I withdraw the expression, Mr. Speaker.
    MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman, distinctly to withdraw the expression?
    DR. COMMINSsaid, he had already withdrawn it. [An hon. MEMBER: Apologize.] He was afraid he had been misunderstood. What he said was that if they had the courage of their convictions they would have delivered among their constituents the speeches which they actually addressed to the House of Commons. In short, he put the case hypothetically. He did not wish, however, to soften the withdrawal of anything that had been deemed ob-
    614
    jectionable. Nothing could have been found in the speeches of Mr. Rorke that would have justified his arrest. Why had Mr. O'Kelly, his Colleague in the representation of Roscommon, been arrested? He had never said anything objectionable in his speeches, except one pardonable slip, far less culpable than he (Dr. Commins) had just been reprimanded for. No one could have been more moderate in his tone or sensible in his remarks. He never attended a meeting but his voice was heard against outrage and in support of law and order—meaning by law and order not despotism and disorder. Undoubtedly, his hon. Friend was preparing test cases for the Land Court; but that, he believed, was not now considered a sufficient ground for arresting anybody. Why, then, was not his hon. Colleague released? Poor Law Guardians, traders, editors, and proprietors of newspapers had been arrested in the county of Roscommon, and, like the editor of The Roscommon Messenger, regarding whose offence he was completely in the dark, they were sent to distant prisons from which they could not manage their business. In this respect the cases of Mr. Rorke and Mr. Moloney were not peculiar; because he believed that it would be found in almost every case where such a proceeding must effect a man's commercial ruin, the course of sending them to distant prisons had been adopted. These were matters which the Irish Members would like to have explained; but no explanation was ever given. As one who desired to see the reign of disorder cease—and he believed disorder was not all on one side—desiring also to see the suspicion dissipated that the Coercion Act was being used, not so much for the suppression of crime as for the suppression, of political association and agitation, he asked some explanation from the Government of the subjects he had noticed. He was not sorry the Chief Secretary had gone to Tullamore. Wherever he had gone he would have experienced the same immunity from obstruction and insult. He (Dr. Commins) promised that every Member of the Government who visited Ireland would experience the same courtesy, even though they spoke to the people in a way calculated to rouse angry passions, as he must say the Chief Secretary did at Tullamore.

    615
    He himself, in all his travelling through Ireland, had only been insulted twice—once by a soldier, and another time by a policeman. He was glad that this question had been introduced, and he hoped the Government would consider the expression of opinion from Members on that side of the House as the expression of opinion of people outside.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he would not have interfered, particularly in a case of this kind, but for the avowal of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. M'Carthy) with reference to the "no rent" manifesto. No Member until that night, with the exception of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), had avowed his approval of that document in the House. [Mr. HEALY: They have.] Well, the hon. Member for Wexford might have done; but he much regretted that the hon. Member for Longford should have spoken in the way he had done. His hon. Friend below him (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had said that the Bishops in Ireland had denounced it, and the statement was received with incredulity. He (Colonel Colthurst) challenged them to mention any Bishop, or any but an infinitesimal number of priests, who had not denounced it. The Archbishop of Cashel (Dr. Croke), who went as far as anybody in his defence of the Land League, said it was immoral, wicked, and cowardly, and for that he had been denounced in The Irish World in much the same language as was used in that House towards the Chief Secretary. In an editorial letter in The Irish World on the 18th of December, the statement was made that "his name would be handed down to the execration of the Irish race for ever." That was simply because he had denounced the "no rent" manifesto. He challenged hon. Members opposite to give them the name of one Bishop who had even tolerated the "no rent" manifesto. He knew a mean and dishonest use had been made of an opinion expressed by Dr. Nulty, Bishop of Meath, and had been put in an abominable document issued from Paris, and signed by Patrick Egan, and retained there in spite of the reclamation of Dr. Nulty. He was sure his hon. Friend the Member for Longford would not have given the endorsement he did to the manifesto, if he had been fully acquainted with the facts of the case.
    616
    In the County Kerry an unforunate man was visited by a party of "Moonlight" marauders a few nights ago. He was put on his knees, and when he said he had paid his rent, but had got 34 per cent reduction, the men rejoined that they "id not care a d—what reduction he got; he should pay no rent while Parnell and Dillon were in prison." They then shot him, so that he was badly wounded. He was sure his hon. Friend would not tolerate, even by connivance, such action as that. He said distinctly that the "no rent" policy could never have succeeded except by means of the terrorism of Captain Moonlight." He was glad to say that his constituents, the people of the County of Cork, were not responsible for these outrages; but that the signatories of the "no rent" manifesto were morally responsible. He would go further, and say that every member of the Executive of the Land League who had signed the "no rent" manifesto, or who, even not signing it, had not disowned it, was morally responsible for every outrage which had taken place. He had received the day before a letter from one of the most respected Bishops in the South of Ireland, and in regard to the Land Question he said—
    "On the whole, the prospect is more cheering than it was a short time since. I have learned from my priests that in a large number of parishes in their diocese the farmers and the landlords are amicably arranging their differences; but these unfortunate outrages—thank God! we have but few of them—are terrifying well-disposed men from paying their rents."
    He had letters from America saying that the "no rent" manifesto was killing the agitation there. If it did, perhaps its authors might be forgiven some of the misery and some of the crime they had caused.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he was one of those Members who, with entire personal respect for the Chief Secretary, were inclined to regard him as a Member of a Cabinet of divided counsels. They might respect the Chief Secretary personally; but they mistrusted his Government. He did not think he was the only Member who believed the Government had misused the Coercion Act. Their policy had been no better than a policy of imbecility. One day they were too lenient, and another too severe. No respect was due to them beyond that due to people who had good

    617
    intentions, and they knew where good; intentions paved the way to. Why were the hon. Members for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) and Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) arrested? At the time of their arrest they were not more guilty than they were months before; but many people properly believed that the reason why they were arrested was because they had replied—and effectively replied—to the speech of the Prime Minister at Leeds. There were many people who believed—and he confessed he was one of them—that those Gentlemen, who truly represented a large portion of the population of Ireland, were arrested for the cause he had mentioned, and not for the reasons stated in the warrants. In regard to the particular case now before the House, he did not think the Chief Secretary for Ireland appreciated the gravity of the charge that was brought against the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman were to say that he personally knew about this case—that, of his own knowledge, he knew that Mr. Rorke had been doing that which justified his arrest—he (Mr. Mac Iver) should believe him; but he distinctly thought that if the right hon. Gentleman had a good case, he should now get up in his place and take the House into his confidence.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have no right to speak again; but, after the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I must say this—that in no case have I satisfied myself more completely that there existed such reasonable suspicion as rendered an arrest necessary. But the hon. Member is, of course, aware that, in accordance with the conclusion come to after a long debate last Session, it is impossible for the Government to publish the grounds for the arrest.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that at a meeting of his constituents, which he attended, he denounced outrages, and warned them that force was no remedy. At that meeting he also spoke in very contemptuous terms of the Chief Secretary, and reminded the farmers that, whether in power or out of power, he had never lost an opportunity of voting for coercion, and that when in power he had voted oftener for it. He need scarcely refer to the clinical lecture delivered by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who appeared not
    618
    to have forgotten his early habits. He believed that the last time he addressed his constituents, he was accompanied to the platform by Mr. Michael Davitt.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not go to a meeting with Mr. Davitt; but Mr. Davitt, unexpectedly to him, attended one meeting where he spoke.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was not aware of the order of the procession, as to whether he followed Davitt or Davitt followed him. He remembered, however, when the hon. Member followed Mr. Butt and kicked out of the traces. He (Mr. Callan) happened to know both Mr. Egan and Mr. Rorke, and as far as he was personally concerned he could not believe that Mr. Rorke was guilty in any respect. The last time he knew Mr. Rorke to take part in politics was on behalf of a then supporter of the Government. The only occasion on which he knew of Mr. Rorke taking part in politics within the last three years was upon the occasion of the election for the City of Dublin, when he assisted in returning the two hon. Members who represented the City, and were supporters of Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Michael M'Donnell, of the County Louth, who, at the request of the Sub-Inspector, interfered with the tenantry of Mr. Tipping, a "Boycotted" landlord, with the view of getting them to pay their rent, wrote to Mr. Tipping that he would get his rent if he allowed a reduction of 15 per cent. Mr. Tipping sent the letter to the Chief Secretary, stating that he was "Boycotted," and within 24 hours Mr. M'Donnell was arrested under the Coercion Act. He was sent to Naas Prison, 100 miles away, and the result was that he and his family were ruined. In like manner the Chief Secretary was now doing all he could to ruin the firm of Rorke and Egan. Why was he sent to Naas, and not confined in Kilmainham? Was it not done deliberately and maliciously to destroy his business? If it was any comfort to the Chief Secretary, he had the satisfaction of knowing that he had ruined many young families in Ireland; but the time was coming when the Irish electors would teach the Government in English constituencies, and teach certain Irish Members in theirs, a lesson. There would be retribution for coercion.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANpointed out that while fair play had been shown to the Chief Secretary in his recent visit to Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman himself had displayed no fair play whatever. He could not see any fair play in descanting upon the merits of the Land Act—and he did not deny that there were merits in the Land Act—when those who could criticize the Land Act, and whose view of the matter differed somewhat from that of Her Majesty's Ministers, were locked up in prison. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to show fair play, let him bring down with him to Tullamore, or anywhere else in Ireland, Mr. Parnell or Mr. Dillon, and tell the people to judge between their arguments on both sides. Let him take with him the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton), and they would also allow him to bring with him to argue his side of the question the two Irish Law Officers, and as many right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench as he chose. As to Mr. Rorke, he was a man who avoided politics, and devoted himself to his business. He scrupulously tried to avoid bringing himself within the scope of the reasonable suspicion of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in Dublin Castle. He called such an arrest as this a stab in the back. If a man committed a garotte robbery, he was punished with the lash, and the political garroting of which the Chief Secretary was guilty was deserving of the same kind of punishment. He hoped the political garroters would soon receive the punishment they deserved, and he could wish with Shakespeare that he could
    "Put in every honest hand a whip
    To lash the rascals naked through the world."
    He regretted to say that the worst actions of Her Majesty's Ministers were backed up and encouraged by Irish Members on the other side of the House; and he was ashamed to hear, as recently as last night, words that would create throughout Ireland a feeling of indignation. He was sorry that one of the two Members for Tipperary, who was allowed by the Government to sit and vote in the House, should give utterance to sentiments that were an outrage upon the feelings of the people of Ireland.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order in referring to a past debate of the present Session.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he would refrain from doing so; but he must say that when a Member stood up to make excuses for coercion, he libelled and outraged the feelings of the Irish people. When any man rose to fasten the chains and fast bolt the prison-door upon the high-minded John Dillon, the real and true Member for Tipperary, such action would not be forgotten by the people of Ireland, or, least of all, by the brave and patriotic people of Tipperary. The Government had been warned, again and again, that these arrests would do no service to the cause of good government in Ireland; that they would not prevent outrages in Ireland; and he declared that if the people now in prison were let out, they would have fewer outrages and fewer crimes, though they might have a more lively and pervading agitation in the country. If that were done, he was perfectly certain they should have a repudiation and condemnation from these gentlemen of everything in the way of crime and outrage, and anything that would bring shame upon a good cause. Instead of doing good, the Government were going deeper into this mistake. What was the result? Return after Return laid upon the Table of the House showed that, instead of producing the effects desired, the tendency was in the other direction, and he saw no hope for peace or prosperity until a different course was resolved upon by the Government—until they were prepared to open the prison-doors and prepared to fight their opponents openly upon Irish platforms and the benches of the House of Commons. Until the Government did that, he saw no chance of a restoration of peace and order in Ireland.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) read them a lecture on the "no rent" manifesto with regard to the opinion of ecclesiastics upon the subject. He was not prepared himself to enter into the ecclesiastical part of the subject; but with regard to the question whether or not outrages arose from the "no rent" manifesto, or whether that manifesto was justified by the facts at the time of its issue, he clearly could not agree with the hon. and gallant

    621
    Gentleman. It was not issued until the Government had made it impossible for the Land League to assist the tenant farmers of Ireland of small means in having their cases properly laid before the Court. He was clearly of opinion that the manifesto had nothing to do with outrages, as the Government obtained the Coercion Act six months before the issue of the manifesto on a statement of alleged outrages. The senior Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) said that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had acted boldly and courageously in addressing the people at Tullamore. He did not see what courage there was shown by a cock crowing on his own homestead, and the right hon. Gentleman took care to be surrounded by police spies, by bailiffs, and by people who were probably less reputable. Besides, he had the opportunity of putting in prison anyone who disagreed with him. He did not agree with the hon. Baronet as to the good effect of that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct, for he believed it had entirely broken down. Some hon. Members on the other side of the House and the Irish people were exceedingly fond of fair play—he thought they were; but fair play was not exercised by the Government in Ireland. In one of his speeches the right hon. Gentleman denounced outrages, as he had a perfect right to do; but he blew his own trumpet loudly about his charity, and that sort of thing; whilst, at the same time, he was assisting those landlords who had been charging impossible rents to exterminate their unfortunate tenants. He had talked about what he had done in Ireland 30 years ago during the Famine. Some people like to see misery and suffering; and he strongly suspected that as to the motive that had actuated the right hon. Gentleman in going to Ireland at the time it was to gratify his love of personal suffering.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is attributing unworthy motives to the right hon. Gentleman. The motives attributed by the hon. Member are atrocious. I must distinctly call upon him to withdraw that observation.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would at once withdraw it. He would be very sorry to say anything un-Parliamentary—it was not his wish to do. He denied
    622
    the truth of the assertion made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell Henry) with regard to the state of health of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) at the time of his arrest; and he thought the hon. Member for Galway should withdraw what he had said respecting that hon. Gentleman, as it was notorious that he was in a frightful state of debility, and perfectly incapable of moving from place to place when released from Kilmainham. He believed the Government ought to turn over a new leaf, and not put any more persons in prison under the Coercion Act unless there was some case made out against them; and he thought, also, they should redeem the pledges they made when that Act was passed, and when a person was arrested they should allow him to carry on his ordinary occupation, which was impossible in the case of Mr. Rorke, he having been taken to Naas instead of Kilmainham Gaol. In conclusion, he expressed his conviction of the futility of appealing to the sense of fair play of the Government, for he believed that, politically speaking, it was the most untrustworthy Government that it was his fortune to remember.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY, in reply to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), said, he did not deny that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been very ill—on the contrary, he firmly believed that at one time he was very ill, and he was very sorry for it—but what he said was that the hon. Member was now in excellent health, and he complained that the hon. Member was employing his health in giving atrocious advice to the Irish people. He challenged the hon. Member to go and give that advice in Ireland which would ensure what he thought would be a very great blessing—namely, his being prevented from continuing to give the "no rent" advice which was the cause of all the outrages.
    MR. GILLcorroborated what had been said by the hon. Member for Cavan respecting his hon. Friend's (Mr. Sexton's) state of health, and said, even though he looked strong now, he was not so, and it was very much against the advise of his friends and medical advisers that he was in that House at all. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not believe there was a Member, even amongst those on that side of the House, who

    623
    realty thought that Mr. Rorke was arrested simply for being Mr. Egan's partner. Nearly all of them had said they did believe it, and he believed it too. That, no doubt, was the real ground of the arrest; but there were plenty of hirelings in Dublin Castle who would furnish the right hon. Gentleman with some more convenient reason. He should like know what had become of the pledge given by the Government when the Coercion Act was passed, that every case of arrest would be investigated, for he could not suppose, if that promise had been kept, that 700 or 800 of the most respectable men in Ireland would now be in prison? He denied that the Irish Members had neglected to condemn outrages, and expressed a wish to divide the House as a protest against the tyrannical conduct of the Government.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 147: Majority 131.—(Div. List, No. 43.)

    SOUTH AFRICA—BASUTOLAND AND THE TRANSVAAL.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any reply has been sent by Her Majesty's Government to the telegram on the subject of Basutoland, which was received on the 15th February, from the Cape Government; and, if so, whether he can state its terms; and, when any official information will be published as to the events that have occurred in the Transvaal and Natal since June last?
    MR. COURTNEY: No reply was sent to the telegram received on the 15th of February, as none appeared necessary, the telegram of the 9th of February from the Secretary of State having sufficiently explained the views of Her Majesty's Government. Papers relating to Natal and Zululand and to the Transvaal will be distributed next week.

    CUSTOMS—THE NEW WAREHOUSING SCHEME.
    MR. SCHREIBER (for Colonel MAKINS)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in introducing the new warehousing scheme for the Customs Establishment, the Government in-
    624
    tend so to amalgamate the Clerical and Outdoor Departments as to prejudice the officers of the latter Department, by placing such Custom's clerks in a superior position to such officers, although younger and of shorter standing in service; and, if such scheme be carried out, if it will greatly reduce the present prospects of promotion of the class of examining officers and gaugers; whether it is intended to offer terms of retirement to the officers now composing the Outdoor Department; and, when the proposed scheme is to come into operation?
    MR. RITCHIEhad given Notice of his intention to ask on Monday next, Whether it is the intention of the Treasury to appoint the clerks rendered unnecessary by the changes in the Customs warehousing system to the posts of examining and other superior officers in the new Outdoor Establishment of the Customs; and, if so, whether this is not contrary to the provisions of the Treasury Minute of the 25th April 1864, which conferred upon the subordinate officers of the Outdoor Department the sole right of appointment of all offices of the Outdoor Department not above the rank of examining officer; and, whether the Playfair scheme, in reference to duty, pay, &c. was intended to apply to members of the Outdoor Department as well as to the clerical staff?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I will answer the Question which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets has put down for Monday at the same time as that of the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex. I can only repeat what I have already stated—namely, that, speaking generally, the prospects of present members of the Customs Outdoor Department will not suffer by the changes proposed in the warehousing system. There is, therefore, nothing in the circumstances of the case to justify the offer of special terms of retirement to the outdoor officers. The new scheme will be brought into operation as soon as possible; but I cannot at present name the precise date. The Minute of 1864, referred to by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, related to vacancies in the ordinary course, and cannot reasonably be held to apply to new appointments arising out of an organic change in the Department. The Play fair scheme does not apply to

    625
    the Outdoor Department; and so far as the salaries of the transferred clerks are affected by it, it could only be as matter of personal allowance to prevent individuals from suffering by the change. I must now respectfully ask hon. Members not to press me further at present with Questions upon this subject. I have repeatedly stated that it is our desire to introduce these changes so as to prejudice as little as possible the interests of anyone concerned. It will be impossible for the Executive Government to discharge its duty whenever administrative changes have to be made in the public interests if, before its measures are completed, it is called upon to answer for the effect of those changes on every individual interest.

    ATTEMPT UPON THE LIFE OF HER MAJESTY.

      HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDEESS.
      THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord KENSINGTON)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—
      "My Lords and Gentlemen,
      "I receive with heartfelt satisfaction the loyal and dutiful Address from My two Souses of Parliament.
      " I am thankful to the Almighty whose merciful care has protected Me and My beloved Child from danger.
      "In My sincere desire to promote the welfare of My people, I am comforted and supported by the continued assurance of your attachment to My Person and My Throne."

    ARMY—THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR RECRUITING.
    MR. CHILDERS: I promised yesterday, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Alexander) whom I do not now see in his place, to state when the Inspector General's Report on Recruiting would be circulated. My first duty was to see that instructions should be given that it should be laid on the Table at the earliest possible moment. The Report has been revised and printed, but there were a good many mistakes in it; and I find that it would be impossible to have it circulated before Monday evening or Tuesday morning.

    NAVY—THE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY—CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD.
    SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether he will state to the House the changes that are contemplated in the Board of Admiralty or in the Office of the Admiralty?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is the case that, in view of the great and increasing bearing of mechanical science upon the construction and arming of our ships, Lord Northbrook and his Colleagues have determined to call into their council scientific assistance from both inside and outside the Navy. The Controller (Admiral Brandreth), who has done so well at Chatham, has been invited to join the Board; and a new office has been created, with a salary attached to it of £2,000 a-year, to be held by a practical man of science, who shall unite special mechanical and engineering knowledge to wide administrative experience. Such a man has been found in Mr. George Rendel, whose qualifications for the post cannot well be described within the limits of an answer to a Question, but I will venture to think are undisputed either in scientific or naval circles. In order to enable our Successors to have the advantage, if they choose, of Mr. Rendel's services, the new Lordship of the Admiralty cannot be held by anyone who has a seat in Parliament. On the retirement of Vice Admiral Hall, who has for 10 years held the post of Naval Secretary, it is proposed to revert to the old arrangement, which is, that besides the Parliamentary Secretary there should be one Permanent Secretary, who may be either a naval officer or a civilian. On Admiral Hall's retirement it is intended to appoint to the post of Secretary Mr. Hamilton, the present Accountant General, who is generally recognized as one of the most distinguished ornaments of the Civil Service.

    SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—REPORTED DEFEAT OF THE BOERS.
    MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which he had given private Notice—namely, Whether, in regard to the battles now going on on the Western Frontier of the Transvaal, he was yet

    627
    satisfied that the attacks on the Chief Montsioa were by the Boers, and not by the Natives; whether any communication had been received on the subject of the attacks from the Transvaal Government, or the British Resident in the Transvaal; and what steps the Government proposed to take to protect that Chief from the vengeance of the Boers?
    MR. COURTNEY: We have no intelligence beyond what has been received from Reuter's agency, and we can, therefore, say nothing authoritatively as to the composition of the attacking or defending Forces. We still believe that it was a Native force with a Boer contingent, rather than a Boer force with a Native contingent, that attacked Montsioa. What has happened appears to be a sequel to the events of the 20th and 21st of January. On hearing of them a telegram was sent on the 11th of February to Mr. Hudson, through Sir Hercules Robinson, to urge the Transvaal Government to take effectual steps to maintain the neutrality of Transvaal territory, and to prevent their burghers from encroaching on Native territory beyond the Frontier; and we have learnt that before the receipt of this the Commandant General had been despatched to the Frontier with a small police force to enforce the proclamation of neutrality the Government had previously issued.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he should like to know whether there was any truth in the statement to the effect that a large commando was being raised in the Transvaal territory for the purpose of taking some revenge upon these Natives?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had explained that the Government had no intelligence beyond what had appeared in the papers; and, therefore, they were not in a position to say whether there was any truth in it.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: May I suggest that the Government should ask for information?

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

    LAW AND JUSTICE—DORMANT FUNDS IN CHANCERY.—RESOLUTION.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONrose to call attention to the Dormant Funds in Chancery, and to the unsatisfactory form in which the list of causes, to the credit of which unclaimed money belonging to the suitors is standing, is issued; and to move—
    "That future lists be strictly alphabetically arranged, with cross-references to the subtitles, together with the names and last-known addresses of the persons originally entitled, the date of the last decree or order, and the amount unclaimed."
    The hon. Gentleman said, that an abuse existed which might be readily and easily removed. The magnitude of the question was apparent when it was considered that £90,000,000 passed through the hands of the Paymaster in Chancery every year; £40,000,000 last year were borrowed from the Office to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry through his financial operations, and the New Palace of Justice had been built out of the money in the hands of the Paymaster in Chancery. Of this huge sum total an increasing proportion was yearly becoming dormant. It was to this portion his Motion referred. The suitors had some claim to consideration, not only with regard to the method in which the accounts were kept, but also with regard to the information which was afforded them. The letter and the spirit of Acts of Parliament were in favour of publicity, which, indeed, was called for by common honesty. Publicity was prescribed by an Act passed in 1725 to the end that the improper application of the suitors' money might be prevented. The year before that Act was passed Lord Chancellor Macclesfield was fined £30,000, and the Masters in Chancery £100,000, for applying to their own use the Suitors' Fund. The Government of to-day applied the Dormant Funds to their own use, and there was no one to prosecute them. In 1872 Orders having the validity of an Act of Parliament were passed to the effect that lists should be published every three years, and in alphabetical order. They had not been published every three years, nor were they in alphabetical order. The heading used was not such as to in-

    629
    dicate to the general public the character of the information to be given, and the names mentioned would often fail to arrest the attention of persons interested in the absence of explanatory cross-references. The list was nothing but a misleading publication—a hindrance rather than an assistance to claimants. A list such as he asked for was published by the War Office, the India Office, and the Governments of the Colonies, some of which were replete with suggestive details, and would furnish useful models for our Chancery officials. The result of publishing insufficient lists was that encouragement was given to a system of levying black mail. Persons made it their business to ascertain who were entitled to moneys in the Paymaster's Office, and then offered the information to them on condition that they received a share of the money. He knew of a case in which a claimant had to pay 25 per cent. The usual answer to these complaints was that unfounded claims had to be guarded against; but it was equally the duty of the War Office, the India Office, and the Colonial Governments to protect themselves against unfounded claims, and they did it without making a secret of information that ought to be published. What would be thought of a Member of that House if he found in the Library a pocket-book containing bank notes, with the name of the owner written on the first page, and said nothing about it for fear an un-founded claim should be made? In respect of these funds the Government were trustees, with duties to the public, and they were bound to give all the information they could. The true owners existed, but the knowledge of their rights was withheld from them. The knowledge was kept back by the Office which held and utilized the money, and in such a case concealment of truth was an equal crime to a falsehood. A stereotyped official reply he knew would be given, whichever Party was in power; but he appealed to independent Members to unite in endeavouring to sweep away the cobwebs of officialism, which had already clung too long round a time-honoured Department of the State. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
    MR. FINDLATER, in seconding the Motion, urged that the index offered to
    630
    the public to examine in regard to those funds ought to be framed in a much better manner than was the case at present. Since 1872 the publication of those lists, which were to have been triennial, had been made only twice; and he asked why had no further lists been published? He highly approved of the form of index in relation to those funds which was suggested by his hon. Friend who had made that Motion, and which, if adopted, would enable persons to ascertain whether they were interested in that fund or not. The present system tended to confuse searchers. The officials whose duty it was to prepare the lists might think they now were sufficient; but the public were not satisfied, and the interests of the public ought to be first considered in the matter. Grave scandals sometimes occurred in consequence of the non-publication of that information. His attention was called early last year to a report of the case of Williams v. White, tried before the present Master of the Rolls in Ireland, from which it appeared that a clerk in the Accountant General's Office in the Court of Chancery in Ireland had communicated, it was supposed innocently, to a solicitor in Dublin the fact that a derelict fund of £8,000 was remaining unclaimed in the Court. The consequence was that that solicitor, having looked at the file of the proceedings, communicated with the parties interested, and made a bargain with them that if he told them of that particular fund, he should get one-third of the £8,000. The Master of the Rolls strongly animadverted on the matter, expressing a hope that that would be the last occasion on which, either casually or by design, such a communication would be made, and also a hope that steps would be taken to compel publication of accounts of derelict funds in the Accountant General's Office. He said that this must be done by legislation, because the Judges had no power in the matter. In Ireland, as was usual in matters of that kind, no steps had been taken for the publication of any information with regard to these funds. He believed that considerable reforms had taken place in the Accountant General's Office, but none in this respect. When such scandals as that which he pointed out occurred, something should be done to prevent the

    631
    injury which occurred to persons from the non-publication, of this information.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "future lists or the Dormant Funds in Chancery be strictly alphabetically arranged, with cross-reference a to the sub-titles, together with the names and last-known addresses of the persons originally entitled, the date of the last decree or order, and the amount unclaimed,"—(Mr. Stanley Leighton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the hon. Member who had brought forward that subject was not quite correct as to the amount of the funds dealt with by that Motion. He had spoken of very large funds in Chancery, standing to the credit of suits now in existence. That was correct; but the Dormant Fund was only about a hundredth part of the amount referred to by the hon. Member. Still, it was sufficiently substantial to deserve the consideration of the House. The fact was that these dormant funds were remanets of sums which were dealt with by the suits. There were nearly 3,000 very small amounts for the most part, and after a lapse of time they were not thought sufficiently important for persons to make out a claim to them because they were so small. By the regulations of the Office, information was granted to anyone if an application was made by a solicitor; and as soon as the solicitor communicated to the Paymaster that any person thought he had grounds for making a claim to the fund, every information was afforded. The names in the list were not alphabetical, except with respect to the initial letter; but this was a mere matter of directions to the printer, and it was well worthy of consideration whether an alteration should not be made. As to the periods of publication and the allegation that there had not been a publication for three years, that was a matter which ought to be attended to, and the attention of the Paymaster should be called to the necessity of a more regular publication. The hon. Member asked that the names and addresses of the last-
    632
    known owners of the funds should be published; but that was an impossibility. It would involve a degree of labour and trouble as to small amounts which the Paymaster could not undertake; and, moreover, if done, it would produce but slight practical result. He was quite sure that in this country, however poor a man might be, he would find a solicitor to make application for him. In all the claims paid since 1852, one-half had been paid to three firms of solicitors, and, of course, everyone knew what that meant. As the list at present stood, it was impossible for the inquiring gentleman who traded on these funds to take up the list and ascertain the amount standing in the name of any person. The only desire on the part of the officials of the Paymaster's Office was to protect the property of the public; and they believed that, while the information given was sufficient for anyone who had a just claim on these funds, it prevented the reprehensible traffic to which he had referred. At present the Government saw no reason why the present system should not in the main be maintained.
    MR. SALTsaid, it was desirable that these matters should be occasionally brought before public notice, as discussion would probably lead to some improvements in regard to them. It was not easy to hit off exactly the right point between giving too much and too little publicity and information. But he did not think the public had much to complain of if it was made perfectly clear that, upon the application of any respectable solicitor, all the information needful would be given. He thought it would be well if the lists were published annually instead of triennially, and also that the Rules and Orders made under the Chancery Funds Act of 1872 should be placed before the House. He thought that the thanks of the House were due to his hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire for bringing the subject forward; but he hoped that he would be content with the assurance and promises given by the Attorney General, and that he would not find it necessary to go to a division.
    MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would proceed to a division. The Attorney General had endeavoured to minimize the question

    633
    by stating that the funds were about a hundredth part of what the hon. Member for North Shropshire supposed. But whether the funds were £100,000,000, £10,000,000, or £10,000, the public ought to have information about them. The funds did not always consist, as had been stated by the Attorney General, of mere remanets. He knew a case in which, owing to some difficulty in taking out probate, upwards of £10,000 had been paid into the Suitors' Fund, where it totally escaped notice for nearly 20 years, without earning any interest whatever for those entitled to the money. The interest, which amounted to a considerable sum, was applied to the building of the Law Courts. When a private person applied all information was refused, except when he applied through a solicitor. It was rather hard that those who had only small sums in the funds should be refused all information unless they employed a solicitor. The result was that some of those interested in the fund never received their money. The fund, instead of decreasing, as it ought to do, was increasing; and, therefore, steps should be taken to secure a quicker distribution than could take place under the present system.
    DR. LYONSregarded it as satisfactory that it was the intention of the authorities to reduce this list to alphabetical order; but there was another part of it not so satisfactory in which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General seemed to recognize the absolute necessity that the public required the intervention of a solicitor. That would be imposing a difficulty and adding an expense on the members of the public who might have, or supposed they had, claims to be satisfied on inquiry. He thought it would be quite possible, with due protection of the interests of the fund, to arrange a plan by which some officer should be specially told off, who, on payment of a moderate fee, should give information to all members of the public applying in regard to these funds. Many of the claimants were in very indigent circumstances, but bonâ fide claimants would be willing to pay a small fee by which the expenses of maintaining such an officer would be provided for. This small fee would have the effect of excluding curious inquirers. It would also be sufficient to pay for the services of one officer, who in time would
    634
    be able to discriminate between the curious and the honest inquirer. This system existed in several Public Offices in England, and it existed with great advantage to the public in many Offices in Ireland. In the year 1850 the amount of this unclaimed fund was £562,039, and it now amounted to considerably more. There was another matter somewhat allied to this, which he desired to notice, and that was the unclaimed dividends and stocks in the Government Funds, concerning which no notice was ever given to the public. Some interest was felt on the subject in Ireland. It would be unfair to expect an answer from the Attorney General on the subject now; but he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the subject some consideration.
    MR. GRAYsaid, the speech of the Attorney General had convinced him of the necessity that really existed for the reforms advocated by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. No doubt, those connected with the present system, which was of very little advantage in assisting persons to discover derelict funds to which they might be entitled, were interested in its maintenance. That was only human nature, because their emoluments were derived from the obscurity that surrounded the present system. Publicity would interfere with the monopoly enjoyed by the three officials who at present endeavoured to trace out the persons entitled to those derelict funds. He supported the suggestion that the Government should cause the list to be published in dictionary form with a cross under. In the present form of the list no one could obtain any information who had not consulted it with a precise knowledge of the nature of his claim. The interest on the funds, which amounted to over £500,000, would pay the cost of indexing and of publication. He could not understand how it was that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not willing to agree with the Motion of the hon. Member. For his own part, believing that if carried it would be attended with beneficial results, he should support the hon. Member if he proceeded to a division.
    MR. H. T. DAVENPORTsaid, it appeared to him to be no objection to the Motion that, by giving greater publicity, they would encourage a large number of applications. The effect would be that

    635
    the persons interested would be able to decide at once whether it was worth their while to proceed with the inquiry or not. He hoped the hon. Member would proceed to a division; and, if he did so, he should certainly vote with him.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that the hon. and learned Attorney General stated that he (Mr. Leighton) had brought a charge of concealment against the Government. He had not done so; but he certainly did bring such a charge against the particular Office which was under the control of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order in again addressing the House.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 28: Majority 19.—(Div. List, No. 44.)
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    ACQUISITION AND CONTROL OF IRISH RAILWAYS.

      OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. BLENNERHASSETT, who had given Notice of the following Resolution, but was unable by the Forms of the House to move it—namely,
      "That this House, while expressing no opinion on the subject of State ownership, or State management of Railways in other parts of the Empire, is of opinion that it is desirable that the Railways of Ireland should be acquired on equitable terms by the State with a view to their management being conducted in the interests of the public. This measure to be carried out in such a way as not to involve any loss to the finances of the Empire,"
      said, that a great many eminent authorities had declared in favour of the proposal which he wished to lay before the House. It would be in the recollection of some hon. Members that a declaration was signed some years ago by 72 Peers and 90 Irish Members of Parliament in favour of the acquisition by the State of the railways in Ireland. The Members for the North of Ireland were, in particular, strongly in favour of the proposition. Evidence had also been given to the same effect before the Committee on Railways now sitting, although the question was not directly within the scope of that Committee's labours. Mr. Isaac Banks, a well-known railway authority, had said that it was
      636
      most desirable to bring the railways under one control, and that control would be best exercised by the State. He said the whole mercantile community of Dublin were in favour of that view. Mr. Joseph Pim and Mr. Middleton, gentlemen well known in connection with that subject, expressed similar opinions. The present was a very opportune time for the consideration of this question, for anything which would improve the condition of that country could not fail to be of great importance. Hon. Members would remember how Mr. Tuke, in his pamphlet, spoke of the want of enterprize, and the misdirected energies, and the want of development of natural resources as the cause of Ireland's misery and troubles. Of all this the railway system afforded a striking instance. That system gave the minimum of convenience at the maximum of charge. The defects in that system were—first, that the rates were high; secondly, that the speed was slow; thirdly, that the trains were few; fourthly, that the remuneration of the Directors was small. The latest Returns, which were up to the 1st of January, 1881, stated that there were 2,370 miles of railway in Ireland, and of these 1,802 miles consisted of single lines only—only 568 miles being double. In England and Scotland almost all the railways had double lines. The Irish railways were owned by 40 Companies, though some of the smaller Companies were worked by the larger. The number of Companies actually working lines was 23. In 1880 the total receipts were £2,695,000, and the expenditure £1,455,000. Thus the cost of management was 54 per cent of the gross receipts. The total capital was £33,741,000, of which £9,000,000 were debentures. There were 270 directors of these lines, 37 secretaries, 20 actuaries, 36 solicitors, 40 auditors, and 30 engineers—all different persons. While the receipts of all the Irish railways amounted to only £2,695,000, in England the receipts of the Great Western Railway alone were £7,284,000, and of the London and North-Western £9,827,000. Again, while the proportion of working expenses was 51 per cent in England, Wales, and Scotland, in Ireland the proportion was 54 per cent. Scotland had a population of 3,700,000, and the population of Ireland was 5,150,000; yet in the year 1880 the traffic returns of the Scotch lines were

      637
      £7,000,000, and of the Irish lines £2,500,000. In the same year 46,000,000 passengers and over 31,000,000 tons of goods were carried by the Scotch railways, and only 17,000,000 passengers and 3,500,000 tons of goods by the Irish railways. He did not ignore the fact that there was much more manufacturing industry in Scotland than in Ireland; but still, considering the relative populations of the two countries, these figures were very disproportionate, and he believed the disproportion was in great part due to the high fares, the bad accommodation, and the slow trains on the Irish railways. With regard to rates and fares, he might mention that the average third-class fare for 100 miles was 3s. 4d. in Belgium, 4s. in Italy, and 6s. 6d. in Prussia; whereas in Ireland, which was an extremely poor country, it was 8s. 4d. As regards goods traffic, there was abundant evidence to show that many of the most important industrial enterprizes of Ireland were stifled by the high charges and bad arrangements of the railways. These universally acknowledged evils in the railway system of Ireland were inherent in that system as it existed at present. The railways of that country had been constructed on no regular design, but grew up piecemeal. The result was that the lines were managed on different and often conflicting principles. A Memorial from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to the Committee now sitting upstairs stated that preferential rates were in many cases granted to particular towns and districts, and also, there was reason to believe, to individuals, firms, and Companies. The through rates were not based on any definite principle, but appeared to be regulated almost entirely by the extent to which competition existed. These facts all showed the great dissatisfaction in the public mind with regard to the present management of the Irish railways, and afforded, he hoped, good ground for his statement that this was a matter in which the Government might well be called upon to interfere. Of course, the principal question he should have to answer was, "How can the existing evils be removed?" In the first place, they could not be removed by the enforcement of more stringent regulations by the Railway Commissioners. Such regulations might, indeed, be to a certain
      638
      extent useful; but they could never touch the root of the evil. What was really wanted was unity of management conducted in a liberal and an intelligent spirit, and with a view to promoting the public interest as far as was consistent with the avoidance of loss. Voluntary amalgamation of the Railway Companies, even if it were possible, would not produce that result. The amalgamation could only be effected by the acquisition of the railways by the State; and he submitted, as an incontrovertible proposition, that the proposal he was laying before the House was the only way by which the faults of the Irish railway system could be effectually dealt with and removed. Was the acquisition of the railways by the State feasible and practicable, and would it be in accordance with right and sound principles? If Ireland were to derive any considerable benefit from the purchase of the railways by the State, it was clear that the property must be acquired at a fair price. He did not propose that the State should at once buy up all the railways in Ireland; but he believed if fair terms of purchase were offered to the Railway Companies that most of the Companies would accept those terms at once, and that the other Companies would soon accept them also. There might, perhaps, be a temporary loss; but it probably would be very small and of short duration. He had framed his Motion in such a way as to indicate his desire that the losses should fall on exclusively Irish resources, and he felt convinced that public opinion in Ireland would sustain that proposition. But financial considerations were not the only ones involved. Very grave and serious questions arose with regard to the purchase of Irish railways. In the first place, he wished to guard most carefully against the idea that the purchase of the Irish railways would involve also the purchase of English railways. On that point the Prime Minister had said that he did not think that the adoption of a principle as regarded Ireland would render necessary the application of the same principle to the remainder of the United Kingdom. When the circumstances were so different, the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not consider that the adoption of the principle in the case of Ireland would compromise the judgment of Parliament with respect to England or

      639
      Scotland. As to the advantages which would be gained by the acquisition by the State of the Irish railways, there would, in the first place, be a simple and uniform management, which would render a low tariff possible. On the question of the reduction of tariff, he was anxious to avoid any exaggeration or enlargement. It would be most unfortunate if the people of Ireland were to expect as a consequence of the purchase of the railways by the State, that there would be an extravagant reduction of tariffs. At the same time, a gentleman of great experience as a Railway Director, the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing), in 1873 said that if a reduction of railway tariffs by one-half were made, although the step would be attended with some temporary loss, yet it would soon be recouped. That was a significant statement coming from a Gentleman of such experience and practical knowledge as the hon. Member. No doubt, there would be difficulties to contend with at first. The railway system of Ireland had been so bad and so inconvenient that the people had not been in the habit of using the railways as was the custom in countries where they were more expeditious and cheaper. In his opinion, the centralization of the system of railway management in Ireland would lead to many advantages. Attention would be paid to the questions of making narrow-gauge railways to develop the agricultural districts, and of laying down steam tramways to work along the common roads if there were a centralized management. But there was a great principle which lay at the foundation of this proposal, and that was that the State management of railways was necessarily undertaken upon different principles to those which regulated private control. The duty of Railway Directors was simply to obtain the largest dividends at the smallest possible cost; whereas the principle of State management was to give the greatest possible amount of convenience to the public consistent with the avoidance of loss. They were not without experience to guide them in this matter. The system of State management of railways had been adopted in nearly every country in Europe, this country being the exception to the rule. It might be said that there was a political objection to this proposal, and that it was not
      640
      advisable for the Government to undertake the management of the railways. The acquisition of the railways by the State did not necessarily involve their direct management by the Government. The management of the railways could be placed by the Government under the control of capable and experienced men, without being made a Government Department. It would be intolerable that every complaint with regard to the management of railways should be made a subject of agitation or of complaint in that House. The doctrine that individual interests, if left alone and merely regulated by competition, would work better and conduce more to organized action than if Government intervened, was perfectly sound and true as regarded all ordinary transactions. But nothing could be more unfortunate than that the notion should prevail that the principle that the State ought not to undertake any trade or business capable of being managed by individuals was without limitation. Many industrial undertakings of the highest importance to the community, and giving a just return to capital, could not be regulated by competition. The most practical question was, how those undertakings to which the principle of competition did not apply could be best managed for the public good? Canals, harbours, natural navigation, water supply, the Post Office, telegraphs, and railways were instances of this. In many of those instances the principle of competition was not, in the long run, beneficial, or even possible. There was no kind of industrial undertaking to which that remark applied more entirely than to railways. The late Mr. John Stuart Mill said that when a Government conceded a private monopoly of railways it was much the same as leaving an individual or an association to levy a tax on the malt produced in or the cotton imported into a country. He (Mr. Blennerhassett) maintained that it never was the intention of the Parliament of this country that Railway Companies should enjoy this monopoly. The original intention was that Railway Companies should not enjoy a monopoly, even on their own lines; but that they should charge tolls to individuals using their own rolling stock to run over the Companies' lines. That had been found impracticable, and the result had been that the whole traffic had gone into the hands

      641
      of Joint Stock monopolists. At present the Government carried on many industrial undertakings. The management of the Post Office, the banking and insurance businesses in connection with it, and the work of the telegraphs were in the hands of the Government. Irish railways had not grown beyond manageable limits. The proposition to buy Irish railways was simply to buy, not a first-rate English, but a second or third-rate English line. Then there was another point—namely, public opinion. The opinion of the people of England had not been expressed in favour of a purchase by the State of English railways in the same way as the people of Ireland had expressed their opinion in favour of a State purchase of the Irish railways. They knew that if the people of Ireland had the opportunity of themselves dealing with this question, they would make a public purchase of the Irish railways by means of a parochial guarantee. He ventured to submit this to the consideration of the House—that in asking this step to be taken he was only asking the House of Commons to do that for Ireland which Ireland, if it had the power of local self-government, would cheerfully do for itself. Was it necessary for the public good, for the proper management of these undertakings, that they should be managed by the State? If it was not necessary, then, he said, it was not desirable. It was entirely on the plea of urgency and necessity that he rested his case. He urged it on the plea of urgency and necessity, because he believed the circumstances of Ireland required that the State should undertake the management of these railways. Some years ago the Prime Minister said that no been could be conferred on Ireland so comprehensive in its application, so impartial, so free from all suspicion of undue favour to any particular class, so much in conformity with the wishes of the community, so far-reaching in its influence on all conditions and classes of men, as a better development of the railway system of Ireland. He (Mr. Blennerhassett) proposed by his Motion that that system should be better developed. He urged upon the House this sound, practical solution of those difficulties which prevailed in Ireland.
      MR. GRAYsaid, the hon. Member had gone so fully into the question that
      642
      there was little left for him to say. He thought that one of the first points which deserved the attention of the English Members who looked at the subject dispassionately—and they had, after all, to depend in a matter like this on the votes of English Members—was the consideration, what would Ireland do if left to herself? Now, by every method by which public opinion made itself felt, quite irrespective of any political consideration, Ireland had indicated that if she had her own way she would acquire her railways as every other European country, with the exception of England, had done. There was no comparison between the cases of the acquisition of the Irish and that of the English railways. The acquisition of the English railways, on account of its magnitude, would be beset with very formidable difficulties, which did not arise in connection with the Irish railways at all. It was manifestly impossible to have free competition in railways. It was tried for a few years, and it was found that the results were most disastrous. He thought that every monopoly of such a nature as the railways should be in the hands of the State, and that the opinion of the Government generally, as was manifest by their so long ago having acquired the postal service, and having followed it up by the acquisition of the postal telegraphs. Now, the case of the railways was very much analogous. With regard to the question of finance, the Resolution dealt with it in very general terms. Irish Members did not come at all in the condition of beggars asking something from the State. As the hon. Member suggested, whatever expenses were to be borne would be borne by Ireland herself. The proposition they put forward now was that there should be no burden put upon the Imperial Exchequer in connection with this subject. Therefore, they could not be taunted with constantly wanting to have a pull at the public purse. If they wanted to have a pull at the public purse, it was to have a pull at their own public purse, and he thought they had a perfect right to have a pull at that whenever they pleased. There never was an occasion upon which there was such a consensus of opinion as the occasion of the Memorial to which the hon. Member had referred. His recollection was that there was practically unanimity on this subject. He would not go in

      643
      detail into the advantages this scheme would produce, because he felt convinced that no person could oppose the Motion on the ground that State purchase of the railways would be to the public disadvantage. The amalgamation of the numerous Boards now existing would be a great public advantage. The immediate saving in salaries would represent nothing compared with the absence of the jealous interference with each other which at present existed and was inevitable, but which would be obviated by working the system upon a comprehensive plan. The financial result, however, could not be despised in the case of a poor country like Ireland, the development of which, in its most backward parts, was being impeded under the present variety of systems. Though it might be suggested that the present was an inopportune time for this Motion, when State assistance might be better directed towards the land system, he could not recognize any force in the objection, because this had always been a pressing question. The matter was very opportune, because, owing to the depression of the last few years, the purchase could have been effected on very favourable terms, and shareholders would gladly transfer their present security, which was of fluctuating value, into State railway stock. The purchase could be effected without any of that extravagance and Stock Exchange jobbery which marked the purchase of the telegraphs; and the only solid objection that he could see to the scheme would come from Irish Members sitting on that side of the House. They might say with much force that, in the present condition of the Irish Administration, it was undesirable that so large an extra amount of patronage should be given into the hands of the Government; and it might be said, he feared truly, that such patronage would be used to some extent—indirectly, perhaps—but certainly for political purposes; in other words, to exclude those who held opinions contrary to the present Administration. He thought all Government patronage was so used in Ireland. That was a serious objection now when political opinion ran so high in Ireland. Nevertheless, he would be prepared to submit to this for the sake of the solid practical advantages that would accrue to the country from having the railways under the control of one
      644
      body, believing that soon the administration of the railways, together with the administration of other purely local matters, would be given to some body really representative of Irish opinion, and free from the political bias which was, unfortunately, inseparable from all Irish affairs. A further argument was found in the fact that, in every other country except England, the State had some control over the railways, and that such control was gradually increasing. England might be capable of working its present system, but Ireland was not.
      MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, on the part of the Government, said, that this question had been brought fully before the House in 1872, when a Bill introduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kerry was rejected on the second reading. In 1874 the hon. Member again brought the subject forward, and not only was his Resolution rejected by a large majority, but a Resolution was passed stating—
      "That the purchase of the Irish Railways by the State would be financially inexpedient, would unduly enlarge the patronage of the Government, and seriously increase the pressure of Business in Parliament."
      He really thought the hon. Member took too sanguine a view, and that a little sober examination into details, and the manner in which his proposed transfer would work, might really very much change the view he took. Now, the only reason he (Mr. Ashley) could possibly see why Ireland should be made an exception to the rest of the country was because the interests involved were small. All the complaints mentioned by the hon. Member in connection with the administration of Irish railways were re-echoed, not only in connection with railways in the United Kingdom, but in other parts of the world also. The complaint about the carriage of fish, for example, was one that came before the Committee at present sitting on Railway Rates quite as strong from Scotland as from Ireland. From Scotland and from England the complaint was that the railways would not adjust their rates so as to enable fish to be brought to the great centres of consumption. Then there was the complaint that goods from Dublin to the interior of Ireland cost the same as from Birmingham to the interior of Ireland. This was the same question of preferential rates for goods in through

      645
      traffic, as compared with traffic from the sea-board, which had been heard ad nauseam from other parts of the United Kingdom. They should not, therefore, approach this question with the belief that Irish railways were worse managed than English railways. He did not believe they were. In some districts where there was not much competition, he believed that the charges for passenger traffic were somewhat higher; but, as a rule, considering the difficulties under which they had been undertaken and constructed, there could be no valid complaint as to their being worse conducted than English railways. That being so, what was to be held out to them as the prospect before them if they changed the management, and handed the railways over to the State? He perfectly agreed that unity of management was of the greatest importance, and they must work to that end as much as they could. But he would point out that great advances had been made already in that direction, many separate Companies having disappeared, and the number of Railway Directors in Ireland having been reduced by amalgamations from 450 in 1867 to 230 at the present time, which was still, he admitted, too many. There was not likely to be any great increase of traffic in Ireland for a long time; but when they were told that a few years ago there was a strong feeling in the country on this subject, and that this feeling had died away, a good deal, he believed, of that was greatly owing to the improved condition and income of the railways through the amalgamations which had taken place, and owing to the action of the Railway Commission of 1873, which went to Ireland, having very much satisfied the more thinking portion of the Irish railway world and the Irish people that their railways were improving, and did not need the drastic remedy they might have required 15 or 16 years ago. The hon. Member for Kerry was of opinion that everything should be done to encourage enterprize and the display of energy among the Irish people; but surely the best way of accomplishing that purpose was not by the exercise of State control. A statement of the Prime Minister had been quoted to the effect that a better development of railways in Ireland would be of the greatest benefit to that country. It had not, however, been
      646
      shown that Parliament would improve the present system by placing it under Government management. In countries where that principle had been adopted comparatively little extension took place. There was no doubt whatever that in foreign countries you were carried cheaper, and your goods were also carried cheaper, than in England; but, on the other hand, the extreme development of competition, due to private enterprize, had given a more rapid and excellent service. It was more expensive; but the people of this country had the best of the bargain, because there was a constant flow of enterprize in England, which they would not have were the Government the owner of the lines. He did not see how a Railway Board was to be constituted which would not be a Department for which the Government would be responsible, and for the conduct of which they would be held accountable, or else it would be a Board over which Parliament would have no control whatever. He would point out, once for all, to those hon. Members who were continually talking about Continental management of railways being by the Government, how completely dissimilar the conditions of England and Ireland were from foreign countries. They must not forget that the railways here were always exposed at every point to competition by sea. They might call railway management in this country a monopoly as much as they liked; but the railway managers were always checked by the presence of water carriage, and their rates would always have to be adjusted accordingly. In the case of the Post Office and the Telegraph the Government had an absolute monopoly; and the railway system and the conduct of general traffic could not be made a monopoly in the same sense and to the same extent. Further, for letters and telegrams the charges were uniform, irrespective of distance, so that any proposed reduction of charge had to be dealt with simply as an Imperial question; but, as they could not have such uniform charges for railway traffic, the Government would be perpetually exposed to claims for variations of rates on a variety of grounds, from which claims they were effectually protected in the case of the Post Office by the adoption of uniform rates. The various rates which now existed were many millions in number. The evils

      647
      of State ownership would be that there would be public pressure for the general reduction of rates, possibly down to cost price of working, or even less, which might become a political pressure on the eve of a General Election; and, apart from that, all who had influence would use it to obtain special and local reductions, and the Government would be exposed to imputations of favouritism from all disappointed applicants. At present the Companies who were acknowledged traders could protect themselves; the Directors had to discharge the duty to the shareholders; they could point to their Acts of Parliament, and they were entitled to say to their customers—"Do not contract with us if you do not wish for our services." But the plea of public policy would, in the case of State management, open the door to all sorts of reasons which had nothing whatever to do with the question of the service rendered. This would lead to constant discussions in the House, which had no time to spare for them. The difficulties of patronage were less serious, although they deserved consideration. If these were to be avoided by leasing the lines to Companies who were to compete, as it was epigrammatically put, for the field, though not in the field, the Government would be tempted to work up to rack rents; while, if the areas were small, the competing Companies would fight over the traffic, controlled only as now by the Law Courts, and if they were large the competition would be reduced, and the business would become a monopoly, so that they would still be exposed to many of the evils now complained of. It was said Ireland was to be divided into three districts, with three bodies of management. If so, there would be just the same inducements to divert traffic that existed now, and the last state of the country might not be better than the first. The only way of controlling the Companies would be by clauses in the leases, which could be enforced only in the Law Courts, and the Government would have to go into Court, if necessary. This could be done now; bodies of traders could take the Companies before the Commissioners to enforce the provisions of the Traffic Act and to protect the public. He did not see how the public were to be benefited by the change, while the public would lose one guarantee which they now
      648
      possessed, in the hostage which a Company must have as a security for good behaviour in the shape of the capital invested in their undertakings. Then, as to the allegations about the reduction of rates and fares which would ensue, the fact was, that Railway Companies were in this country virtually the lessees of Parliament. The conditions of lease were a maximum of rates and fares, within which they could go up and down as they pleased. If the Government reserved to itself the right to interfere at any moment, and on any occasion, with the rates and fares of their lessees they would get nobody to take leases. The hon. Member abandoned the idea of complete control and management by the Government. He preferred the system of leasing. That system would bring about none of the advantages in view, because such mixed control had been found everywhere, as in India, bad. The Belgian Government had found the inconvenience of giving way in the matter of special rates and contracts so great that in 1862 they had been compelled to abandon the system, and to revert to that of having a fixed rate, and making no change for anybody. But the commercial prosperity and enterprize of this country would greatly suffer if it was deprived of the elasticity which a system of special or exceptional rates under proper control afforded. There were many considerations which would have to be taken into view before the Government ought to bind itself to adopt any plan similar to the one proposed. He believed, however, that amalgamation was advancing in Ireland, and would advance still more, and that the railways were paying better than they did in years gone by. He did not say within the last 12 months, because the number of tourists and others who used the railway had been reduced by the exciting and disastrous events in that country. Still, the Railway Companies were so prospering that he did not believe they would be willing sellers to the Government. Some, no doubt, would be glad enough to be bought up; but the proposal of the hon. Member to purchase so many of them as were willing to sell meant securing all the bad bargains for the Government and not obtaining any of the good ones. The scheme at first sight seemed a very good one, and hon. Members opposite favoured

      649
      it perhaps without much practical acquaintance with the subject, in which ease discontent with existing arrangements was apt to induce a desire for change. But he doubted the real advantage of the change. This question had been very carefully considered by the Duke of Devonshire's Commission, who, without any prejudice in the matter, came to the conclusion that, in the matter of railway ownership by the State, there was nothing in Ireland which ought to be treated in an exceptional manner. He certainly himself had approached the matter rather with a prejudice in favour of buying up the railways. It would be a good thing, perhaps, in a political, but not in a pecuniary or commercial point of view. He could not believe that the Irish railways or the Irish people would benefit very much by it. He believed that the Irish railways, under the influence of amalgamation and of good management, could obtain all the advantages that were hoped for from State management. But it was a fetish and superstition in Ireland that everything ought to be done by the State rather than by private enterprize.
      MR. CROPPERsaid, he thought that the many advantages resulting from individual management, as opposed to a general management of all railways by the State, ought to be carefully weighed. Some years ago a proposition was laid before the Prime Minister for acquiring the various railway systems in this country, by which not only were the public to be benefited, but a large revenue acquired by the State. Now, increased railway returns could only be gained, either by running trains slower, and therefore cheaper, by running fewer, or by the smaller amount of interest which would be paid on the capital borrowed. Experience, however, showed them that the larger railways could borrow at nearly the same rate as the State, and slower and less frequent trains would certainly be no benefit to the public in general. An amalgamation of railway systems did not present the same advantage as that of telegraphs, each railway being, in fact, a separate, unconnected system, whereas the postal service was not. Besides, if the railways were handed over to the State, greatly increased patronage would result. There was already outcry
      650
      enough about the disposal of the patronage of the Irish Post Office, and he had no desire to see that outcry augmented, or to run the risk of having political appointments made. There were now in Ireland 270 Directors of the various private Companies. For his own part, he wished the number were greater, and that more gentlemen in Ireland took part in public affairs. As the railway system of Ireland developed, it might very probably be subject to that local government which, it was hoped, would soon be established; but, at the present time, he doubted whether the proposed change would be advantageous.
      COLONEL COLTHURSTremarked, that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade had made no mention of the Commission that sat in the years 1867–8, with Instructions to inquire upon what terms the railways in Ireland could be acquired. That fact showed that there was then some definite intention on the part of the Government to consider the subject with a view to some practical proposal. The Commission, after ascertaining the system adopted in Belgium, came to the conclusion that precisely the same fares might be charged in Ireland without any substantial loss, and calculated that in 12 years enough money would be earned to recoup the State for its outlay. Many parts of Ireland, and particularly the city and county of Cork, suffered from the present state of things; and he was sorry, therefore, that the proposal had not been more favourably considered by his hon. Friend.
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the Secretary to the Board of Trade had very fairly stated the practical objections to the proposal; but had rather kept in the background the attractiveness of the scheme from a financial and administrative point of view. Financial considerations, as it seemed to him, were all in its favour, and the circumstances of the country lent themselves to its administrative convenience. If he was not mistaken, the result of the Treasury Commission of the year 1867 was to show that a return of 4 per cent might be expected from the purchase of Irish railways on a large scale. The political objections to it, however, were very strong, and the experience they had of the growing tendency to bring forward in that House

      651
      every question touching local interests strengthened the objection.
      MR. MACIVERsaid, that the subject which was now under consideration naturally suggested some comparison with the scheme which was adopted some years ago of the purchase of the telegraphs by the State.
      MR. SPRAKERsaid, the hon. Member was out of Order. He must confine himself to the subject before the House. There was no Amendment at present before the House.
      MR. MACIVERsaid, he was sorry if he was not in Order. He had intended to keep within the lines of the Motion. He wanted to point out, if he was in Order, that the justification for the purchase of telegraphs by the State was this—that whereas the Telegraph Companies formerly conducted their business as private speculations and for private benefit, that business was now conducted in the interest of the whole of the people. That was what he wished to propose to the House—that the railways in Ireland should be conducted for the general benefit of the people of Ireland. He ventured to think that the Secretary to the Board of Trade was not quite correct in his assumption. It was in no way an answer to assume that the railways in Ireland, if purchased by the State, must necessarily be managed by a great political Department in London. They might be managed in Ireland itself, in somewhat the same way as the Inland Revenue Department was managed. It was said the rail-ways in England were not a parallel case to those in Ireland. Why could not English railways be purchased? Because the day for doing it had passed. If it had been possible to purchase the English railways 20 years ago, they might have been acquired on the same equitable terms as the French Government were acquiring the French railways. What might have been done for England 20 years ago might be done now for Ireland. If there was to be any prosperity for Ireland some strong Government—not the present—could not too soon take a statesmanlike view of the question, and acquire on equitable terms the management of Irish railways. He heartily supported the Motion.
      MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he was sorry that the Secretary to the Board of Trade had not given a more
      652
      favourable answer to the Motion. He could not be surprised, however, that in the incessant pressure of Irish affairs the Government should be indisposed to take up further burdens in connection with that country. He hoped that matters would, before long, become more quiet, so that the question might be considered more thoroughly. The Secretary to the Board of Trade had pointed to amalgamation as the true remedy. But that remedy would only enure to the benefit of the shareholders, and would do no good to the general public. The present state of things was anomalous in the extreme. Bread-stuffs could be sent from New York to Londonderry at less cost than they could be sent from Londonderry into the wild districts of the county Donegal. Again, flax could be sent from the interior of Belgium to Dunkirk, thence to Goole, from Goole across England to Liverpool, and thence to Newry at 18 s. per ton; whereas the cost of forwarding the same article from Sligo to Newry varied from 30 s. to 35 s. per ton. These were facts that justified the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry. The undertaking would be by no means a great one; not so great, e.g., as the purchase of a second-class railway in England.
      MR. LEAsaid, he thought that the discussion which had taken place had been extremely satisfactory. In some cases the rates in Ireland were no less than six times as high as those charged in Belgium. It was simply absurd that the price of the transit of goods should be six times as great as it was in this country. If the money that was wasted in repeated applications to Parliament had been saved, those prices would be reduced proportionately. The late Mr. Graves, a former Member for Liverpool, who was skilled in those matters, had said that 25 per cent would be saved by a unity of management. He ridiculed the objection raised on the score of patronage. There was no abuse of patronage either in the Dockyards or in the Post Office. He thought that the purchase of the railways in the manner proposed must be or advantage to Ireland.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it must not be supposed, if this question was allowed to stand by, that it had never had sufficient consideration from the Government. That was not the case. This was

      653
      a question about which, nearly 20 years ago, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer under the Government of Lord Palmerston, he felt a very lively interest and an extreme desire that some mode could be found to acquire Irish railways for the purpose of the State, if certain objections could be got over. A Commission of very great importance, referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Ashley), was appointed at that time, of which the Duke of Devonshire was the head, and the present Lord Derby was really the vice-head. It was a very laborious Commission, composed of very able men; and they came, advisedly and deliberately, to an adverse Report on the subject of the acquisition of the Irish railways. That was a very important fact, and when some further inquiry had been made, and when the matter was brought to the view of Parliament by the very general consent of parties, a decision was given—which he had no doubt was a very reluctant decision—which was an extremely authoritative decision. An immense majority of the House, not composed by any means exclusively of the followers of the Government of that day, did declare, and in very strong terms, against the acquisition of the railways by the State. But he had no desire that this question should be allowed to pass by. He would only say one word more; that was, however, that he held it to be absolutely out of the question that in this country the railways should be taken and managed by the State. He would not enter into the details of the objections. Patronage was one of the objections. In competency on the part of the State to address itself to a business so exceedingly subtle and manifold as the the conduct of railway traffic, especially goods traffic, was another point; and the additional pressure to be brought on the Government in Parliament through the gratuitous assumption of those vast responsibilities was another great objection. He believed himself that in those, to name no others, would be found topics of the most commanding and comprehensive character against any idea of the assumption of the management of railways by the State. If railways were ever to be acquired by the State, it must be by first overcoming a difficulty in another direction which had not yet been overcome.
      654
      Undoubtedly he thought, in the abstract, it would be a very good ideal system if it were possible for the State to be the proprietor of the permanent and fixed works of the railways, and to commit to Commercial Companies the ownership of the rolling stock and the management of the business. That would have very great advantages; because it would be much more easy to find capital adequate to a system of that kind than it was to find capitals which, as commercial capitals, were so extremely heavy, in consequence of enormous investments in public works. He was sorry to say that all experience in this country went against the practicability of the leasing of the railways. It had been tried once or twice, but it had never taken root. Where it had been tried it had not succeeded. He did not say it was impossible. He believed there might be great advantages if it could be put on a footing in which the respective interests of the lesson and the lessee would be adequately provided for and defended. But no progress had been made in this direction as yet. It had been found impracticable to solve that problem, and until that problem was solved he was convinced that an obstacle stood in the way of the present Motion. It was with great regret, because he owned his desire, especially for Ireland, stood in that direction; but he could not see his way through obstacles of such a serious character. If it were possible by human ingenuity—and human ingenuity could do many things, and sometimes achieved at a later period what had not been accomplished at an earlier period—to devise a good system of leases, then, undoubtedly, the mere financial operation in Ireland would be within reasonable compass. He did not say he thought the State ought to look at the matter as at a speculation, whether it would be a good speculation or otherwise; but though he did not recommend it on that ground, he quite admitted that within a reasonable compass, and in a matter recommended by strong considerations of public policy, it might easily be faced. But it was idle to shut their eyes to the real difficulties of the case; and those would best serve the public interest in the matter who should be able to procure and suggest in a practical shape any means for the avoidance and diminution of those objections and difficulties.
      DR. KINNEARbelieved he was only expressing the general opinion entertained in Ireland when he said that the House should take up that matter seriously, and deal with it in a practical manner.
      MR. CALLANsaid, he thought there was no real hope of the amelioration of the Irish railway system until it was embraced in a scheme of what the Prime Minister called local government, but of what the people of Ireland called Home Rule, for that country.
      MR. BIGGARobserved that, although great objections had been taken by hon. Members to the present system, the arguments, on the whole, were very much against the proposed acquisition of the Irish railways by the State. He concurred very much with what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) as to the irregularity in the railway charges at particular places. Where there was no competition between different railways, or between the railways and other modes of conveyance, the public were likely to have to pay far higher rates than would otherwise be imposed; and he could not well see how that and similar evils were to be remedied, unless the State were to establish a more stringent supervision over the rates charged by Railway Companies than that which had heretofore existed. It had been said that public opinion in Ireland was in favour of the State acquiring the railways; but he did not believe that anything really deserving to be called general public opinion on the subject had ever yet been evoked or formed in that country. Whatever might be the opinion in Ireland if the arguments on both sides were placed before the public, there was nothing at present to warrant a change so enormous as the one now proposed would be. Nor did he think the time at all opportune. It was extremely inopportune. The Irish Land Question was in a very unsettled state, and it now filled the public mind, and was of far greater importance than anything connected with the railways could possibly be. As to the success of the Irish railways, the shares of three of the principal lines were now above par; and, of course, the small lines opened in districts where there could be but little traffic were unprofitable, as would be the case in any country. He thought
      656
      that things should be allowed to go on as they were until a better case had been made out. The people of Ireland very much preferred to have the management of their own affairs in their own hands rather than to let the State interfere with them, directly or indirectly.

      SUPERINTENDENT OF ROADS, SOUTH WALES.—OBSERVATIONS.
      VISCOUNT EMLYN, who had the following Notice on the Paper:—To call attention to the action of the Local Government Board in the matter of the appointment of the General Superintendent of Roads in South Wales; and to move—
      "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that adequate time should be given to the Authorities concerned to take steps for the efficient discharge of his duties, before the termination of the present arrangement,"
      said, that he did not object at all to the legislation proposed, but only to the manner in which it was to be carried out. The duties of the officer in question were important and very extensive. He had to examine, inspect, and manage the affairs of all the turnpike roads in South Wales, to supervise the execution of all improvements and works upon them, and to superintend and control all the overseers and officers of the district County Boards in all the counties of South Wales. In addition, he had to examine, audit, and check the whole of the accounts of these County Boards, to prepare a general statement of their expenditure and revenue, and an estimate of the probable expense of all proposed improvements, alterations, and works. It was true that about 1876 the real reason for the payment of this officer's salary by the State came to an end, and representations were made to the then President of the Local Government Board that he should not continue the salary of this officer. That position of the subject remained unchanged until the present Government came into Office in 1880. If the Government disapproved of the existing arrangement, it was their duty to declare their opinion to that effect on their coming into Office, and to provide a better system; but they did nothing, though the question was raised. It was again raised last year; but until January of the present year the authorities in South Wales heard nothing of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman.

      657
      At that period, however, an intimation was conveyed to them to the effect that the Government intended to legislate on the subject, and asking their advice. Now, he did not complain of the proposal to legislate on the subject, but only maintained that it was desirable that adequate time should be given to the authorities concerned, to enable them to provide for the efficient discharge of the duties of the General Superintendent of Roads before the termination of the present arrangements. All he asked was that the President of the Local Government Board should bring in his promised Bill as soon as possible, so that the House might have an opportunity of duly discussing it; and he objected strongly to any Bill dealing with this important subject being hastily scrambled through. He wished to know also to what extent the Government proposed to aid the maintenance of main roads in South Wales?
      MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would be able to see his way to comply with the very moderate request of the noble Lord the Member for Carmarthenshire (Viscount Emlyn), especially after having gone in the other direction and paid this gentleman's salary for a considerable period after the term for which he was originally appointed had expired. After having done so much to get these roads properly looked after, it seemed to him a pity that they should go back and take this officer away before provision was made for replacing him. As a monetary question it was a very small matter indeed. It was simply a question of three months' salary, and if the House of Commons objected to pay it, rather than get rid of the services of the Superintendent of Roads, why he (Mr. Davies) would pay it himself. He did not imagine, however, that any difficulty could arise on that head; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would see his way to comply with the request of the noble Lord.
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought his noble Friend had some cause to complain of the way in which South Wales had been treated in the matter of this gentleman's salary. The holder of the office of Superintendent of the South Wales Roads was appointed
      658
      in the year 1875, and at that time there were many thousands of pounds to be looked after which had been raised previously to pay off the debt on the South Wales turnpike roads. He believed that some of the debt, although only a very small portion, was still unpaid. The gentleman who then retired had been in receipt of a large salary—something like £1,200 a-year—and it was arranged that the incoming Superintendent should receive a much smaller sum, with the knowledge that his duties, as far as the State was concerned, would rapidly come to an end. But when the debt was paid off the Statute requiring this appointment to be maintained was neither repealed nor altered, nor could it be without requiring that elaborate machinery should be set up in its place; and, as his noble Friend had stated, until Parliament had time to provide a substitute for the existing machinery under which an admirable system of road management had prevailed for so long a period in South Wales it was only reasonable to leave this gentleman in the receipt of this small salary of £400 per annum, and to keep together the system of local government for road purposes by which these six counties in South Wales were bound together. Another objection to any interference with the existing circumstances was that the system which prevailed in South Wales was really a model system for the rest of the country. He did not mean to say that the whole of the country should be pledged to the details of the South Wales system; but there could be no doubt that it was an excellent system, giving great satisfaction, and it would be a great pity to disturb it. He hoped that his right hon. Friend's Bill, when they came to see it, would not disturb that system, but would require that a Superintendent of the South Wales Roads should be retained and paid at the joint expense of the six counties. Whatever his noble Friend's wishes might be as to these six counties having a voice in the matter, and then going their own way as to the payment of any portion of the salary, he must say that a far better plan would be to keep the system together as a whole for a year or two until the whole question of road management for England and Wales could be brought under one system. That being his view, he should certainly be sorry to see the pre-

      659
      sent system spoilt; and it would be a thousand pities if, before general legislation was decided upon, the office of Superintendent of the whole of these six counties should be got rid of. The small salary of £300 or £400 a-year could be of very little importance. His noble Friend's contention was that only a small portion of the salary would be required for the coming year, and that the counties would have to put their hands in their pockets for the rest. By all means let them do so; but he should very much deprecate a permissive system which would enable four or five out of six counties to escape from the guarantee which, under the original Act, required one system for the whole of these counties.
      MR. DUCKHAMsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Carmarthenshire (Viscount Emlyn) was quite correct in stating that he had expressed great dissatisfaction with the present system, owing to its cost; and it was quite true that the proposal to relieve the State of this payment had been made by him. He had certainly made a Motion for the removal of the Superintendent of Roads in South Wales, and he was not a little surprised to hear so much complaint made of the course taken by the President of the Local Government Board in carrying out the removal of that officer so many years after the period for which the original appointment was made had expired. He had made a short calculation, and he found that the National Exchequer had paid for the inspection of roads in South Wales something like £41,000. It must also be remembered that in Wales the road authorities had still the benefit of turnpike gates. The Government were now asked to continue for an uncertain time to pay the cost of inspecting the roads out of the National Exchequer, and that when the grants which had been promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer towards the expense of maintaining the main roads of England were provided they should come in for a full share of them. Surely the noble Lord forgot the important fact that the road authorities in Wales still had the benefit of turnpike gates on their roads, while in England they had to maintain their roads from the rates. They had also to pay the salary of the same individual for the inspection of the
      660
      main roads; in his county—the county just over the Border—they had all these expenses to bear from the rates; and if the services of this gentleman were so valuable to the six counties of South Wales, he did not see why they objected to put their hands in their pockets to continue to pay him for the discharge of the duties which they considered to be so very necessary out of the rates of the six counties, and save the Imperial Exchequer £844 per annum. He was surprised that such an application should be made; but he felt that it was one which the Local Government Board would find it impossible to entertain.
      MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had taken part on two or three occasions in Committee of Supply in the discussion of this charge upon the Exchequer; and certainly he had a general impression that on more than one occasion a promise had been made by the Government that the Exchequer should be relieved from it. The duties of the office for which this gentleman was originally appointed had now been completed for several years, and on several occasions the Government promised to get rid of the salary. It therefore excited his astonishment to find that the noble Lord, who must be aware of the pledge having been given, should now come before the House with something like a lamentation that the Government had succeeded at length in carrying out their pledge. He did not wonder at the noble Lord, or any Member of the House who found out how difficult it was to get any Government to effect any real economy; he did not wonder that the noble Lord should feel surprise that the Government had actually carried out the intention they had so long expressed. He must say that he thought the request made by the noble Lord to the Local Government Board was one which they ought not for a moment to comply with. Surely, during the period which must elapse before a general measure dealing with County Government could be passed, the county authorities in South Wales ought to be able to make any temporary arrangement that might be necessary for insuring the efficient inspection of the roads. He had not the slightest doubt they would do so; and if the Government disregarded the appeal of the noble Lord the counties

      661
      would still continue to pay the salary of this gentleman until general legislation was completed. If this course were not taken, he did not know how long the Superintendent's salary might not remain a burden upon the Imperial Exchequer. It would be far better that the expenditure should now stop, and proper measures be taken by the local authorities in South Wales to secure the efficient inspection of their roads.
      MR. DODSON: I can only repeat substantially what I said yesterday in reply to a question put by the noble Lord. I do not think that this is a matter that need be discussed at any length. It is quite true that a discussion took place in Committee of Supply last year, and that I then made the statement which the noble Lord has referred to. The Local Government Board have adopted the course which I then pointed out as possible, and have put an end to the payment by the public generally of the expense of maintaining this officer, who has been employed for the benefit of these particular counties. There is no need to remind the House—for I have no doubt it was explained by the noble Lord before I entered the House—how it came about that so exceptional an officer was appointed. It was mainly because the Government had advanced money for the extinction of the debt upon the roads in South Wales, and an officer was appointed and paid by the Government to watch over the administration of the money, and to see that the debt on the tolls was not increased, so as to impair the Government security for their loan. In 1874 the Superintendent who had been appointed by the Government died. At that time the debt had been nearly paid off; and when the present Superintendent was appointed, it was expressly explained that his appointment would not be a permanent one. The debt was entirely paid off in 1876; and the appointment ought to have been put an end to when the debt was paid off. But it lingered on from one year to another. Attention was called to it the year before last by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham), and again last year, and I stated that I should have taken last year the course which I have taken this, had it not been that the House of Lords had a Committee sitting on the general subject of highways; and
      662
      I deferred acting in the matter until it was seen whether their Report would have any material bearing on the subject. In the meantime it was found that we should not be able to legislate on the subject of highways at large; and we gave notice of the termination, with the current year, of the payment of this officer. With regard to what the noble Lord has said as to the inconvenience to which the counties will be put, and the impossibility of carrying on the management of the roads, it does not appear likely that serious inconvenience can arise to the counties from the termination of the arrangement. The Act specially provides that the annual meetings of the County Roads Boards shall be held in the months of January and February, and that at those meetings the Superintendent must submit estimates of the expenditure of the year, and of the materials required. The estimate of deficiencies on the tolls are required to be made good out of the county rates, and a statement of accounts has to be furnished. That is the main part of the work of the Superintendent, and for the current year it has already been completed. Therefore, in going out of office the Superintendent is leaving behind him the substantial portion of the work of the year already completed. I have made inquiries in order to ascertain whether there is anything immediately to be done after the annual road meetings in January and February; and I have been informed that practically there is very little or nothing to be done by the Superintendent for some time to come. Therefore, I am of opinion that no material inconvenience will fall on the County Boards, even if there should be an interregnum pending legislation. I have consulted the different Road Boards of each county in order to ascertain what their wishes are; and, having ascertained their wishes, I am prepared to bring in a Bill in conformity with them. The Bill which the Government propose to bring in will give them the power, either singly or in combination, as they may prefer, to appoint an officer to carry out the duties necessary for the administration of the roads. It will be a very short and a very simple Bill. The noble Lord seems to think that it will be a Bill requiring a great deal of discussion.
      VISCOUNT EMLYN: I did not say so.
      MR. DODSON: No, the noble Lord did not say so; but he talked about a Bill being hurriedly scrambled through the House, as if he imagined it would require considerable discussion.
      VISCOUNT EMLYN: I said it would probably be hurried rapidly through both Houses at the end of the Session.
      MR. DODSON: The noble Lord certainly implied that proper time would not be afforded for the consideration of it. Now, I think that when the Bill is introduced, it will be found to be so simple that it will not occupy any length of time in discussion. I can only say that if it can be proved to us that any material inconvenience will result to the counties from any delay during the short interval which will elapse, pending legislation, the Government will endeavour to assist any arrangements to enable the duties to be carried out. The noble Lord talks, by the way, of the arrangement being for my convenience, or that of the Government. That is not so. The introduction of the Bill is for the convenience of the counties, and that being so, I trust the noble Lord will use his best endeavours to expedite its passing.
      EARL PERCYsaid, he thought the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board answered itself. The whole proceeding certainly appeared to be' an extraordinary one for doing away with the salary of a public officer before the formulation of any scheme to supply the want. The excuse of the right hon. Gentleman was that the interregnum would be short, because he was about to introduce a Bill which would not take long in its passage through the House. If that were really the case, it formed a very good ground for not attempting to stop or interfere with the salary of the Superintendent until the Bill passed. But the real fact, as the right hon. Gentleman knew very well, was that these little Bills, which were considered to be so easy to pass through the House, were often impeded, and did not pass for several Sessions. Little Bills often fell through because they were little Bills. The Government did not care to force them on, and in that case a slight interregnum, which was the only justification the right hon. Gentleman could
      664
      give for the course he now proposed to take, often proved fatal; and if any accident happened to the Bill in this instance, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own confession, great inconvenience would be occasioned. If the right hon. Gentleman apprehended any danger or difficulty, it would be better to adopt the advice of the noble Lord and continue the salary of this officer.

    RELIGIOUS DISSENSIONS (GIBRALTAR)—DR. CANILLA.

      OBSERVATIONS.
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFwished to make an appeal to the Government on a subject of some urgency. He was, therefore, glad to see the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, as he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman would be able to answer the question he wished to put. The question had reference to a serious occurrence which had just taken place in Gibraltar. It appeared that on Thursday, the 2nd of March, in consequence of a Proclamation of the Governor of Gibraltar, acts of great violence were committed by the Governor against the inhabitants of that fortress, in pursuance of arbitrary instructions from Her Majesty's Government arbitrarily carried out by the Governor. He had just received a communication which stated that in pursuance of instructions received from Her Majesty's Government, the Governor had caused a notice to be inserted in The Gazette, warning persons against interfering in any way with the Vicar Apostolic or any of the clergy on pain of fine and imprisonment provided for such cases by law. This was a Government notice issued after a correspondence between the inhabitants and the Governor in consequence of Doctor Gonzalo Canilla, Vicar Apostolic, whose appointment was exceedingly distasteful to the people, being forced upon the Roman Catholic inhabitants by illegal means. And what had been the result? They might be reading of Warsaw or any other place where despotic government was exercised to the fullest extent. Even Ireland at the present moment appeared to be in a better position than Gibraltar. It appeared that the most respectful remonstrances were addressed by the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Gibraltar, in consequence of their objection to the

      665
      intrusion of a Vicar Apostolic who was distasteful to the population, and who had been nominated, as they believed in an illegal manner. The letter he had received stated that on Thursday, the 2nd instant, the open space in front of the Church of St. Mary the Crowned was blockaded by troops. Meld pieces were held in readiness, and the entire garrison was under arms, and the town was virtually in a state of siege without proclamation. This array of military power was brought into play against a loyal, peaceful, and aggrieved population, who had hitherto always been faithful to the laws of their country. The Catholics, when they were led to believe that Dr. Canilla was to be installed by force of arms, entered the Church of St. Mary the Crowned and barred the doors. The troops entered the court-yard, and the military and police, acting under orders from the highest authorities, broke open the doors, forced an entrance into the church, and forcibly expelled all the Catholics who were inside, arresting many of them. Subsequently the police magistrate summarily passed sentence on all the prisoners, condemning some of them to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, without the option of a fine. He wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether this report of these violent proceedings and arbitrary sentences was correct, and whether Her Majesty's Government intended to inquire into the circumstances, and to see how far it was possible for citizens in the fortress of Gibraltar, irritated by the conduct of the authorities, acting in contravention of any legal decree, and on the mere ipse dixit of the Governor, in pursuance of instructions from the Colonial Office, to be kept in prison with hard labour upon the mere sentence of a police magistrate, the legality of which seemed to be altogether doubtful? He had no wish to stand between the Government and Supply; but, in his opinion, this grievance was so urgent that he deemed it his duty to bring it at once to the knowledge of the House, and unless he got a satisfactory answer from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies he should renew the question on Monday.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was extremely sorry the hon. Member for Portsmouth had not been in possession
      666
      of further information before making the statement which he had just brought before the notice of the House. It was only the other day that he told the hon. Member exactly what had been telegraphed by the Governor of Gibraltar with respect to the occurrence of Thursday, the 2nd of March. He was not aware that any fresh communication had been forwarded; but certainly up to that evening no further intelligence had been received. The hon. Member had read to the House a very highly-coloured statement which had been sent from Gibraltar, and which terminated with the allegation that certain persons had been committed to prison by the police magistrates for offences of which he (Mr. Courtney) knew nothing whatever. The exact state of things, so far as their information went, was very simple, and had been clearly explained last week. Dr. Canilla had been appointed Vicar Apostolic of Gibraltar. There was no dispute whatever as to that circumstance. Then there was no dispute about the fact that there was at Gibraltar the Church of St. Mary the Crowned, which belonged to the Crown.
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that fact was not stated in the decree of the Governor.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, whether that was so or not, the fact was not disputed even by those persons who objected to the appointment of Dr. Canilla as Vicar Apostolic of Gibraltar. His former answer went to show that the appointment was objected to by some persons, and that a notice was issued in The Gazette warning all persons that whoever interfered with any ecclesiastic going to church for the purpose of performing the sacred functions of the Roman Catholic religion would do so at his peril. The hon. Member stated to the House that in consequence of its being known that Dr. Canilla would go to the church on the Thursday in question a considerable crowd entered the church at the time of early Mass and then barricaded the door; that when Dr. Canilla proceeded later to celebrate High Mass the doors were broken open, and that some persons were forcibly expelled, and others arrested. Upon that last point he (Mr. Courtney) said he had no information whatever. The hon. Member himself did not pretend to know the truth of the matter; nevertheless, he

      667
      came forward to arraign the Government because a police magistrate, in certain proceedings which came before him at Gibraltar, under circumstances of which they knew nothing, had sentenced certain persons to imprisonment. For these reasons it was impossible that the matter could be advantageously proceeded with on that occasion; and he trusted if the hon. Member again brought it forward he would do so at a time when they were in possession of all the facts.
      MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Member for Portsmouth should come forward on that occasion in his present character, because he had always been accustomed to regard him as identified with the cause which united authority with religion. As far as could be gathered, the hon. Member now objected to religion being united with authority on the occasion in question. However, his (Mr. O'Donnell's) small cavils must disappear at finding the author of Vaticanism so warmly engaged in supporting the Pope.

    STATE OF IRELAND—POLICE PROTECTION FOR CARETAKERS.

      OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. GORSTsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), he wished to call the attention of the House to the serious outrages which had been committed at Thurles, in Tipperary, in consequence of the withdrawal of the protection of the police from caretakers placed upon that farm by the Property Defence Association in Ireland. In the earlier part of the Session, on the 17th of February, his hon. Friend had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant respecting the intention which the Government were supposed to have of removing police protection from the caretakers of farms. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, not only assured the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire that there was no such intention, but boasted that the measures which the Government were about to take would be more likely to conduce to the peace of the country than the measures which had previously obtained. The right hon. Gentleman said they
      668
      had organized a system of police patrolling that would afford a much more effectual means of carrying out the object they had in view—namely, the preservation of law and order. He also said the Government must trust, to some extent, to the ability of persons attacked to protect themselves. But that was not all. On the 21st of February this matter again became the subject of a conversation in the House, in which several hon. Members took part, and in the course of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant again assured the House that there was no reason for alarm, and that the new mode of having the police patrol whenever it was wanted would very much conduce to the safety of the caretakers. That being the position of affairs, he would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what had since taken place. It appeared that on the 7th of March an attack had been made upon a dwelling-house on a "Boycotted" farm within four miles of Thurles. The house was in the care of some men employed by the Emergency Committee. A correspondent of The Times stated that a short time ago Mr. W. Biron was obliged to evict the tenants from seven farms for non-payment of rent; he appealed to the Emergency Committee for caretakers, and four men were promptly sent down. Police protection was applied for owing to the disturbed state of the country; but as the new regulations had come into force it was refused. The caretakers then found it necessary for their own protection to live together in one of the farm buildings. On Monday morning they observed a crowd of about 700 men approaching one of the farm-houses of which they had charge, and in a few minutes the house was in a blaze. The four caretakers sallied forth, and the head caretaker had great difficulty in restraining his men from firing on the crowd. No police, it appeared, were in the vicinity, and the incendiaries, having effected their object, departed. The caretakers stated that during the week they had been stationed at Kilrush they had only once seen a policeman, and that was when he came to bring them their arms' licences. So much, it was said, for the efficiency of the system of police patrols upon which so much was

      669
      staked. There were only 10 constables stationed at Thurles, a number quite insufficient for the duties they had to perform. Now, if that account was correct or accurate, it was quite obvious that the plan which the right hon. Gentleman assured the House would be so much more effective than the former system of police protection had, in the first instance in which it had been tried, completely broken down. He thought the House was entitled to some assurance from the Government with reference to the system of police patrols beyond that which the right hon. Gentleman had given on the previous occasions referred to; and also some explanation as to why the police patrol appeared in this particular case to have been so lamentably insufficient for the purpose which it was intended to perform. He would also like to call the attention of the House and of the right hon. Gentleman to another rather serious matter connected with the position of affairs in Ireland. A great many English Members had been re-assured at the commencement of the Session, when they heard from Her Majesty's Government that after all, notwithstanding the disturbed condition of some parts of the country, the state of Ireland generally had to some extent improved. Although, of course, they knew that the Government had strong motives for making the best of the state of things which existed, and although they anticipated that a couleur de rose view of matters was likely to be laid before the House, yet the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman were so positive and so continually reiterated that some hon. Members were brought to believe that an improvement had, to a certain extent, taken place with regard to the state of affairs in Ireland. Many people, and he confessed he was one of them, thought they had a right to distrust assurances given by the Government, and when such assurances were given they were in the habit—acquired in the course of Parliamentary experience—of looking to some independent testimony by which they could be corroborated, and they never felt quite comfortable until the official statement was confirmed. As a consequence of this, he looked to some authority which was sure to be impartial for information as to the position of affairs in Ireland. He referred to the Charges of the Judges who went on
      670
      Circuit in Ireland, and a most sad and lamentable picture they presented, some parts of which he would offer to the consideration of the House. He found that in North Tipperary Lord Justice Fitzgibbon said that the duties of the Grand Jury on the occasion would be confined to the investigation of four distinct cases. If the business to be disposed of could be regarded as a sufficient indication of the condition of the country, it would appear to be one of almost unknown peace—one of unparalleled social security; but, unfortunately, the Returns which the County Inspector had laid before him presented a very different picture. He had no means, he said, of estimating the state of the country; but he found in the County Inspector's Return that there were 159 offences at these Assizes, as against 75 for the same period last year, and he concluded by saying that the Return contained a variety of offences, all of which indicated the bad state of the country. So that, although the Calendar at North Tipperary was so low that the country appeared in a state of unparalleled social security, as a matter of fact there were more than double the number of bad and serious crimes committed in the district than had been committed during the same period of last year, at a time when, it should be remembered, there was no Coercion Act and no "remedial measure." But that was not the principal case, because when he looked at the state of Limerick, where Judge Barry, last Tuesday, opened the Commission for the County of Clare, he found the learned Judge regretting the spirit of lawlessness and crime which was manifesting itself, and saying that the number of offences had been more than doubled during the past few months, as compared with the same period last year, and that the offenders were not made amenable. With the exception of two or three, all the crimes were of an agrarian character; and the murder of the farmer, Moroney, he denounced as a crime disgracing any country professing civilization. But this was not all. There was another part of Ireland—the county of Louth—which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) praised some days ago on account of its freedom from anything in the nature of agrarian crime. But Mr. Justice Lawson, in addressing

      671
      the Grand Jury there, said he found, on looking over the Report, that there was a considerable increase, as might naturally be expected, in the number of a certain class of offences committed with a view to prevent people paying their rents. He did not quite understand why an increase in the number of offences was naturally to be expected; on the contrary, he should have thought that after the passing of the Land Act the number would naturally be expected to decrease. But, however that might be, there was the same story from Louth as from the other places referred to. No persons, said the learned Judge, had been made amenable for those offences; and, therefore, the business to go before the Grand Jury would be disposed of in a very short time. But he (Mr. Gorst) thought the Charge of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, in Westmeath, even more remarkable. He told the Grand Jury that their duties on the occasion would be very light indeed. There were but two small cases to go before them. But it would be a mistake to allow it to go abroad that the existence of two small cases gave any index whatever to the state of the country. It was a remarkable feature, however, in considering what was the state of the country. The Report of the County Inspector gave a perfect view of the county since the last Summer Assizes; and the list was by no means a gratifying one. As contrasted with the corresponding period of 1881, it was exactly double—or, rather, not exactly, because the total number of cases reported for the corresponding period of last year was 44, and they were dealing with 86, so that they were nearly double in number, and they were certainly not at all of a less character. The list commenced with the crime of murder. It was a case they all knew well—the murder of a young woman, the daughter of Mrs. Crohan, of Crohanmonan. He could only characterize it as one of the most audacious murders ever carried out. Next on the list they had no less than 25 cases of threatening to murder; and, on looking into those, it was found that they were no sham offences, but real threatening notices—threatening to murder. Then there were three cases of firing at the person, and 16 of assembling with arms, seizure of arms, and so forth; and in addition to the 25 notices threatening
      672
      to murder there were 28 cases of the ordinary threatening letters. Then there were three cases, well established, of firing into dwelling-houses, and carrying out of the previous threatening notices that had been served upon the parties. The learned Judge went on to say that, without dealing with the case of murder, all those cases, so far as he could judge from the Report, had one tendency and one direction—that was, to try to prevent parties by intimidation from meeting their engagements to pay their rents. The enumeration of these cases was in itself enough to show that the condition of Westmeath was not satisfactory—nay, more, in the period with which they were dealing, it had been and was in a most unsatisfactory condition. He thought it would be wrong to let it go to the public, without calling attention to these facts, that there were but two cases to be disposed of by the Grand Jury. That, the learned Judge believed, was one of the most remarkable features of the case—it was a feature that led him almost to despair of the future of the country. When he mentioned that there were 86 defined indictable offences, against 44 in the corresponding period of last year, reported to the Constabulary and capable of being proved, it was remarkable that in only two small cases—one of cattle stealing, and another for a petty larceny—had anyone been made amenable; in other words, there was no evidence available by the authorities to establish the guilt of any of those parties. When they looked from the Charges of the learned Judges to the cases which were heard before them, they found that in almost every instance there was an acquittal. He would call the attention of the House to one or two of these cases. At the Assizes at Carrick-on-Shannon, a man named Arthur Donnelly was put on trial as being one of a party of ruffians who, some time ago, broke at night into the house in which an aged herdsman and his grandson lived, and, dragging the old man, Michael Keegan, out of bed, put the muzzle of a rifle into his mouth, made him swear he would cease from herding a "Boycotted" farm, and then struck him on the head with the butt of a gun, and dragged him over some live coals which they scattered from the hearth upon the floor, setting fire to his shirt. Both Keegan and his grandson

      673
      identified the prisoner Donnelly as one of the party. At the same Assizes John Feely was indicted for stabbing and maliciously injuring a horse, the property of Michael M'Cafferty, on the 22nd of last September. The prosecutor swore he kept post horses for hire, and that the prisoner had been in his service as post-boy on the 21st of September. On that day the prisoner was drunk, and witness refused to allow him to drive. The prisoner said he would be revenged, and on that night the stable of the prosecutor was entered, and a long gash inflicted on the horse's quarter. The police immediately searched the prisoner's house, and found a knife stained with blood beside his bed, and found footprints corresponding to the boots of the prisoner near the stable. The prosecutor was unpopular in the neighbourhood and had quarrels. The jury acquitted the prisoner. James M'Tiernan and Edward Stewart were indicted for posting on a telegraph post at Blackrock, in this country, the following notice:—
      "Take notice, that any person who pays one penny rent to Mrs. O'Burne will get the death of Lord Leitrim, and no further notice shall be given; and £ 10 reward will be given to any person who gives information of those who pays one shilling rent to Mrs. O'Burne."
      The prisoners were seen by a police patrol passing the telegraph pole, on which there were no notices. The police turning back shortly afterwards found the notice up, and the prisoners in the neighbourhood, who were arrested. The prisoners were acquitted and discharged. Thomas Reynolds and Patrick Reynolds were indicted for an assault on Robert Hyland, on the 19th of January last. On that day the prosecutor was seen at the house of the rent-warner on Sir Morgan Crofton's estate, and afterwards paying his rent to the agent in Mohill. On his return home that night he was beaten by three men. Two of whom he identified. The defence was that the identification was a mistake as the night was dark. The jury acquitted the prisoners. But here was, perhaps, the most remarkable case. It occurred at the Longford Assizes, and was the trial of Andrew M'Cormack for the attempted murder of William Lawler, a postman, on October the 12th, 1881. Lawler was returning from Ardagh to Edgeworths-town on the day named, when he met the prisoner in company with another
      674
      man. They threw him down, and, after a struggle, the prisoner fired several shots at him. They left him for dead on the roadside; but he crawled to two houses, and sought admission, but in vain. He then crept into a stable. Hearing a car go past he called for help, but was either unheard or unheeded. He then tried to make his way to Edge-worthstown, when he was met by some constables who had come in search of him. Twenty-two bullet marks were found on his body. His recovery was despaired of. Six bullets were extracted from his body, and three still remained in it. He positively identified M'Cormack, whom he had known for four or five years. At 9.30 P.M. the jury came into Court, and, having stated the improbability of their being able to agree to a verdict, were discharged. The prisoner remained in custody. These were real pictures of the state of Ireland drawn, not by any interested person, not by a political opponent of the right hon. Gentleman, but from the Charges of learned Judges and from the published accounts of the trials. Twice as many crimes were committed now as were committed before the remedial legislation of the Government. The country was in such a condition that, according to a learned Judge, it was a disgrace to civilization. The attempts to administer the law were breaking down in almost every case. Although prisoners were known to have committed most atrocious crimes, and the most convincing testimony had been given against them, they were acquitted or juries failed to agree. That was the state of the country, not as depicted by the assurances they received from the Treasury Bench, but as depicted by a source on which, he thought, they were entitled to place every reliance. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government must not be surprised if, shortly, some of the Members of the House who represented English constituencies, and who had hitherto taken no part in the discussion which had gone on in the House about the state of Ireland, thought it their duty to intervene. Last Session Parliament passed three measures which were extremely distasteful to almost everyone, both in the House and the country—namely, two Coercion Bills, by which personal liberty in Ireland was suspended, and the Land Act, which

      675
      reversed all one's preconceived ideas of political economy and of sound principle with regard to the rights of property. These measures were accepted on the assurance of the Government that they would restore Ireland to a state of, at all events, comparative tranquillity, and to a condition in which it would not be a disgrace to civilization. It appeared that the sacrifices then made were made entirely in vain, and as if, notwithstanding the suspension of personal liberty and the enacting of remedial measures, the state of Ireland now was worse than it was a year ago. If the evidence of the further progress of the Assizes and of the list of outrages which would be placed on the Table should show that the assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of the Session were not borne out, and that Ireland was not improving, but was growing worse, then it would be the duty of the Members of that House to call to account Her Majesty's Government, and to express the opinion—at all events, a section of the House—that the time had come when the House and the country could no longer have any confidence in the management of Ireland by Her Majesty's Government.
      MR. W. E. FORSTER: I will first reply to a Question put by the hon. and learned Member as to a recently reported outrage. Notice has been given of Questions for Monday, and I have written to ask for information beyond what I have to-day received by telegram. From the telegrams I have received the published accounts seem to be full of exaggerations and inaccuracies. I am told that there was not a mob of 700 persons present, and that no house in charge of caretakers was destroyed. The system of patrolling in the district was sufficient and efficient. The hon. and learned Member has quoted from the Charges of the Judges. No doubt it is distressing to read these Charges; but they only show to the hon. and learned Member that the country is in the state I knew it to be in. He seems to suppose that I had given the House to understand that the state of the country was very different from what he now discovers it to be. Well, I am in the recollection of the House, and I think I can challenge contradiction, when I say that in no debate have I ever said that the state of Ireland is such as we can look on with pleasure,
      676
      or anything but great anxiety. I have said that there were signs of improvement. I still maintain that there are signs of improvement; but that there is great cause for anxiety. There is not a single fact which has been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman which has not occupied my attention day and night for weeks. I am perfectly aware of what is going on in Ireland; but the question is—what can best be done to put a stop to it? There are, as I have said, signs of improvement; I repeat what I said on the Address. There were fewer outrages reported in December and January, especially in January, than there were in the corresponding period 12 months ago; but the chief sign of improvement is this—there has been a strike against rent, and certain persons have instigated the non-payment of rent, and, willingly or unwillingly, by doing so, have instigated the commission of outrages, one of the chief causes of outrage being that instigation. The landlords for a long time took no steps to recover their rents; they have, however, been taking steps to recover them within the last few weeks. We expected—everyone expected—that there would have been a considerable increase of outrage; but the step the landlords have taken has not been followed by such an increase as was feared. From the Reports which have reached me through my Office, and from what I myself heard when recently in Ireland, the actual state of things, I may say, without taking any couleur-de-rose estimate of it, is to this extent encouraging—that in most of the districts all over Ireland we find that rents are beginning to be paid much more than they were. There appears to be some abatement of the lawless and desperate resistance to the payment of rent. No doubt we have a desperate contest still to carry on. The hon. and learned Member says he and his hon. Friends will call the Government to account, and will suggest their own method of bringing about a satisfactory state of affairs in Ireland. He says they will be obliged to move a Vote of Censure on the Government for their action. I am quite ready to meet such, a Vote; and if the hon. and learned Member could, out of the resources of his knowledge and ability, suggest a better method of governing Ireland than that pursued by the Government, T should be glad to yield to

      677
      him, and leave him to deal with the situation. There is one remark I should like to make, and it is this. I warned the House, in the debate on the Address, against being too much encouraged by the results of the trials at the Winter Assizes. These trials were conducted under rather favourable conditions, with less exposure to intimidation, so far as jurors were concerned, than was usually the case at the Spring Assizes, and I am afraid that my warning may turn out to be justified. But it is too soon yet to form any real judgment on the matter, as the Spring Assizes have only just begun. The hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to one most terrible case of outrage—the case of the postman who was almost riddled to pieces by bullets in County Longford, and who has survived his fearful wounds in a manner truly wonderful. I can only say that one of the local officials connected with the inquiry stated that he very much feared that if 500 men could give evidence of having seen the man shot the jury would not have convicted. They have not convicted; they have disagreed. The prisoner will have to be tried again. I do not think I can say anything more about that case. If the hon. and learned Member has any charge to bring against the Government, let him bring it specifically—for not using every effort that can be used for putting a stop to lawlessness in Ireland, for instance. It is not for me to lecture him, or suggest to him his duty; but if he really thinks he can help the cause of law and order in Ireland, let him consult with those who are interested in the preservation of law and order, or bring a specific charge against the Government, and not make such speeches as that to which we have just listened.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I must take exception to the last expression that fell from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster). I do not understand what right the right hon. Gentleman has to lecture my hon. and learned Friend for the speech he has made. My hon. and learned Friend has given to the House what seemed to me a very dry, but, at the same time, a very faithful statement of facts, so far as he could learn them, and they met with a, suitable appreciation. Why the right hon. Gentleman supposes that the hon. and learned Member laid himself open to a lecture I
      678
      cannot tell. I should have thought he had done good service in making this statement to the House, because the House wants to know, as far as possible, the exact truth with regard to these matters. I will not say a word about the assault on the caretakers, because the right hon. Gentleman has stated that he will be prepared with further information on Monday, when a Question is to be put to him on that subject, and I do not think it would be right to press that matter any further at the present moment. But with regard to the outrages and the Charges of the Judges at the Spring Assizes, there are one or two observations that ought to be made. I quite feel that the Government are, and always must be, anxious to cling to any sign of improvement they can possibly see in the state of Ireland; but I am afraid that more than once they have clung to straws, which have sunk under their hands. Everyone must remember the speech of the Prime Minister during the Recess, in which he mentioned two circumstances, which he then held forth to the country as signs of improvement. He dilated upon them at great length, and one of those signs of improvement was that the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had taken a perfectly different line of action from that of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The speech was hardly out of his mouth, and had hardly reached the ears of the hon. Member for Tipperary, when he entirely repudiated what the Prime Minister had attributed to him; and within a short time he was in gaol. That was one sign of improvement. In the same speech there was another sign of improvement, which was also dilated upon at great length. That was that the Corporation of the City of Dublin, although only by the casting vote of the Lord Mayor, had rejected a proposal to confer the freedom of the city upon the hon. Members for Cork and Tipperary. The Prime Minister dwelt upon that at great length as a sign of improvement; but only a short time passed before the Corporation of the City of Dublin, by a considerable majority, passed this very vote, conferring the freedom of the city upon those two Members of this House. That sign of improvement also passed away; and, therefore, although always very anxious to hear of good signs of improvement,

      679
      we a little bit distrust signs held out from time to time, because such signs as these show that they have not always a solid foundation. In the Queen's Speech we also have signs of improvement mentioned, and the Prime Minister spoke at considerable length upon them in the debate upon the Address. One sign of improvement was the payment of rent, which was supposed to be increasing. I say nothing about that now, because no facts have been brought forward, although I have no doubt we shall hear more on the subject when facts are brought forward. But the one point upon which the Prime Minister rested his case very strongly was that justice was going to be administered again. That was a point he repeated over and over again, and laid much stress upon. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) pointed out, with great care and caution, that too much value must not be attached to the Winter Assizes, because they were held under peculiar circumstances. I quite admit that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that that was so; but, still, that was one of the signs of improvement upon which so much stress was laid, and I shall be anxious to see the results of the Spring Assizes, to learn if there was any sound ground for that sign of improvement. As far as these Assizes have gone—I do not say it is far, for they have only just begun—I am afraid that sign of improvement has no solid foundation. If so, it is one of the most lamentable things this House could have to contemplate, that the administration of justice in Ireland, in spite of all that has been done, is rendered absolutely impossible. Now, I want to say that I hope my right hon. Friend will not refuse to lay on the Table the Charges of the learned Judges at these Assizes.
      MR. W. E. FORSTER: I should be glad to do so, if it was in my power; but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Charges are not given in such a form that they can be presented.
      SIR R. ASSHRTON CROSS: I think these Charges might be laid on the Table, and I hope before long an order may be made for reports of them to be produced. I have no doubt the Charges were formal documents, or that they were taken down; and that there will not be much difficulty in getting them. Then I hope that as soon as possible
      680
      after the Assizes we may have laid on the Table a Return of all these crimes which are reported by the police, showing the cases that are prosecuted, and the acquittals. When the right hon. Gentleman states that these Charges of the Judges are not a surprise to him, I think that statement must be a surprise to the House, because it is very startling to hear that in Westmeath you have 86 serious agrarian crimes against 44 last year, and that in the county of Louth, and also, I think, in the county of Clare, there have been very nearly, if not quite, double the number of crimes in the previous year. But if the right hon. Gentleman was aware of that, it is difficult to conceive how he can hold out as a sign of improvement the fact that, with the help of the Government in collecting them, there has been some increased payment of rents. However. I do not want to say more on that at the present moment. I think my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) has done good service in laying these facts before the House, and I only regret that he was not able to do so when there were more Members present. We shall have the Judges' Charges laid on the Table in some form, I hope, together with the Returns of the crimes, and then the House will judge for itself whether my hon. and learned Friend is right or not.
      SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the increasing disorder and abominal outrages in Ireland must make everybody's blood run cold; and it was quite evident that the plans adopted by the Government to remedy this desperate state of things had done no good whatever. It was quite evident that Ireland was going from bad to worse, and that the process by which it was at present governed was not to the credit of this country. The process which he thought would be most advisable would be to recall the Lord Lieutenant, and do away with the method of government at Dublin Castle, and place Ireland in the hands of Sir Thomas Steele, who was Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, and was quite capable of governing Ireland and reducing it to order. He would contrast the condition of Ireland with the condition of another island, very much nearer than Ireland. What was the process by which the Isle of Man was governed? [Several IRISH MEMBERS: Homo Rule."] The Government of the Isle of Man was a credit to this country. The Im-

      681
      perial Government was supreme in that Island, all matters being conducted by the Home Office in this country; and so good government was produced; but until good government was effected in Ireland—under the superintendence of the Commander-in-Chief, instead of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, the condition of that country would still be a discredit. He did not know what system of local government could be adopted in Ireland; but the present system was detestable and abominable, and the sooner it was swept away the better. That was the feeling of a great many people in Scotland, that the condition of Ireland was discreditable to this country, and that until order was restored by handing Ireland over to the military authorities, there would be no peace or prosperity in the country.
      MR. CALLANobserved, that the Chief Secretary had some difficulty as to laying the Judges' Charges on the Table; but he knew that the former practice on Circuit was that the Crown Solicitor obtained special shorthand reports of the Judges' Charges, which were written out and forwarded to Dublin Castle, and placed on record. Had that practice been done away with for economical reasons? The cost was only a guinea, and he thought the present Government might indulge in the expense of a guinea or two to obtain shorthand reports of the Judges' Charges at the Assizes. But he believed that, as a matter of fact, every Judge's Charge in Ireland was at present specially reported and sent to Dublin Castle within 24 hours of its delivery. It would be easy for the Chief Secretary to obtain copies of these Charges; and he was quite certain that Mr. Justice Fitzgerald would be most happy to correct his Charge and forward it to the Chief Secretary, so that it might be laid on the Table. The right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) had spoken of Louth and Clare as having double the previous number of crimes. He (Mr. Callan) entirely repudiated that connection between Louth and Clare. The county of Clare had become celebrated by acts of violence and outrages; but, according to the authority of a Resident Magistrate, Louth was one of the quietest spots in Europe. That gentleman had been 10 years in Louth, and during that time there had not been a
      682
      single outrage on persons. Nevertheless, Louth had been proclaimed under the Coercion and Arms Acts by the Chief Secretary—perhaps as an incentive to outrage; certainly not to put down outrage where no outrages took place. | With regard to the Judges' Charges, j he would ask the Chief Secretary to inquire at Dublin Castle whether there was not a report of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald's Charge. If not, could not a copy of the report in The Freeman's Journal be sent to Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, and, after corrections, be laid on the Table within a week?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had gone on the largest Circuit in Ireland for 26 3'ears. and he had never heard of the Judges' Charges being specially reported. He had been a Law Adviser to the Crown for a good many years, and he had not heard of the practice; and his sanction, as Attorney General, would be required for a short hand report of any Charge, and that sanction had not been asked for. With respect to the question of obtaining these Judges' Charges, the Government had no control over the Judges, and, therefore, could not get their Charges as a matter of practice. Of course, they would try to obtain the Charges, and the Judges would, no doubt, do their best to help the Government; but they could only be obtained in that way.
      MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, it seemed to him that English Gentlemen never tired of quoting instances of Irish atrocities; but he was amazed that they did not say something about, or appear to be moved in the slightest degree by, English atrocities. He would undertake to say that every day in the week they could, if they chose, pick up from the English papers as long and serious a list of crimes and outrages as was supplied to them every day by the industrious gentlemen who made it their business to collect these stories of crime and outrage in Ireland. It was said that people's blood must run cold on reading of the cruelties and atrocities in Ireland; but what blood would not run cold at the horrors and cruelties and atrocities in England every day, committed on women and children, the most helpless members of the community, and on dumb animals? The House had heard of the mutilations committed in Ireland; but all over London at this moment

      683
      there was placarded a list of cruelties in London in one month, amounting to several hundreds. But these were allowed to pass unheeded, and the eyes of these great moralists were turned to the crimes in Ireland. What did they expect? Did they want to make saints of all the Irish people? If they did, they were going the wrong way about it. Their rule never had tended in that direction, and never would. With regard to the outrages now occurring in Ireland, he declared his belief that they were very largely due to the Coercion Act. He believed that the half-informed men who performed those disgraceful deeds felt, in their unenlightened minds, some sort of justification for their acts in the fact that hundreds of their countrymen were arrested and thrown into gaol without right or reason. He believed that the arrest of Mr. Rorke, of which they hoard to-day, was a vindictive and most reprehensible proceeding; and he was inclined to believe that the effect of this act of the Government, when the act was reported through the length and breadth of Ireland, would be to intensify the feelings in many minds out of which sprung a good deal of the crime now being committed in that country. Such acts exasperated the minds of the people; they exasperated the minds of educated men; they exasperated the minds of intelligent men; they exasperated the minds of virtuous men. What effect must they have upon the minds of men who were not well disposed, upon men who were, as he had already 3aid, half-informed and unenlightened, and who had a natural tendency to crime and cruelty? He repeated that he believed, sincerely and honestly, that those unjustifiable and cruel arrests were the cause of a good deal of the cruelty and outrage now prevailing; and he believed it would have a wholesome effect towards the pacification of Ireland, and towards a diminution of crime in that country, if the prison doors were thrown open, and the men who were incarcerated upon so-called reasonable suspicion were allowed at large to advise their countrymen. They would advise and direct the people to engage in an open and fearless agitation; but, at the same time, they would advise their countrymen to abstain from those disreputable and criminal acts which disgraced the country; they would advise them to abstain from crime and out-
      684
      rage, which did not servo the Land League movement, which did not serve any good purpose, which did not serve the cause the poor Irish people had at heart, but which only afforded occasion for sham moralists to orate against the crimes of a country which upon the whole score of morality compared most favourably with England.
      Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1881–2.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1881–2.

      CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,772, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, 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. LEAMYsaid, before this Vote was passed, he would like to hear something from the Chief Secretary in explanation of it. He found there was a sum of £3,130 for the salaries of 15 extra magistrates, extra remuneration of six special magistrates, and salaries of six clerks. He was anxious to know what was the amount of the remuneration paid to each of those special magistrates and clerks, and who they were? There was also a further sum of £3,712 for subsistence, allowance for six special magistrates and their clerks. It was desirable they should know what was the actual sum which each of the special magistrates received, not only by way of extra remuneration, but by way of ordinary pay; what was the sum they received for travelling expenses and subsistence? It was proper, too, that they should be told what were the instructions which the special magistrates received.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he would have preferred his hon. Friend to move to report Progress, on the ground that an important question was involved in the Vote—namely, the appointment of Major Bond, who had been proved in. his own native town to be a perjurer. The appointment of Major Bond was so serious a matter that they desired to show the British public, as well as the Irish public,

      685
      the character of the man whom the Chief Secretary used as his instrument in his coercive policy; and at that late hour of the night they ought not to be expected to proceed with the Vote. Personally, he had no objection to the Government taking any non-contentious Votes; but Irish Members ought not to be expected, at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, to enter into a matter affecting the Irish people so closely as the remuneration of the magistrates whom the Chief Secretary had appointed to carry out his hateful policy of coercion.
      MR. CALLANsaid, it would be to the convenience of the Committee if the Vote were postponed. It was well the English and Irish people should be made acquainted with the circumstances attending the appointment of Major Bond, because underlying that appointment was the system under which the Chief Secretary governed Ireland. The Vote had once before been postponed to admit of the presence of the Chief Secretary, and to take a matter of such general interest after half-past 1 o'clock in the morning was a mere sham. Not a single Gentleman on the Conservative side of the House was now present; but opposite they had a complete phalanx of the Radical Party prepared to support the Chief Secretary in his coercive policy. They also saw that some Members of the Caucus had come down to defend the appointment of Major Bond. It would be well to at once take whatever non-contentious Votes there were, and not enter upon this one, which would involve a long and embittered wrangle. They could not discuss the appointment of Major Bond at a time when their proceedings could not be published. They intended to impugn the capacity of Major Bond, to impugn his honesty, straightforwardness, independence, and fairness; and unless the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary wished to gag them, to put the clôdture upon them by a side wind, he would not take the Vote on the present occasion.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERreminded hon. Gentlemen that on the subject of the appointment of Major Bond there was a Motion on going into Committee of Supply on the Paper, and, in all probability, it could be taken at an early hour. He had every wish to have the appointment discussed, and he should very much prefer what he had to say on
      686
      the matter should be said when it could be published throughout the country. It was, however, important to get the Supplementary Estimates finished in the course of the week, and therefore he trusted they would be allowed to proceed. He would explain how the matter stood with regard to Major Bond, and, unless there were other matters——
      MR. HEALY: Yes, there is Mr. Clifford Lloyd.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the appointment of Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been discussed so often that there was not very much more to be said about him. If hon. Members were so strongly of opinion that the Vote could not be conveniently taken now he would postpone it.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

      CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
      (1.) £636, Royal University of Ireland.

    NAVY ESTIMATES.
    (2.) £50,000, Army Department (Conveyance of Troops).
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if this was an Army or a Navy Vote, and if there was any item called "the charge for coal?" Perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty could say whether the Government was aware what amount of coal there was in the different ports and Navy Yards of the country. Some years ago it was discovered that £6,000 worth of coals, at Portsmouth, had been overlooked for a very long time; and it was very possible that the taking of stock with regard to coal in England was not altogether complete yet. With regard to coal, again, he believed that sundry complaints had been made to the Admiralty as to some very questionable transactions in the shape of the issue of coals to private purchasers in Gibraltar, and some other places. Possibly the hon. Gentleman would tell them what the Government had done in the matter.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the Services for which money was asked were entirely connected with the Army. There undoubtedly did exist an abuse at Gibraltar with regard to the sale of coals to private persons. He thought the system would not be found so objectionable if the sales had

    687
    been made directly to the merchant ships; but they were conducted through a middleman. The matter was only brought to the knowledge of the Admiralty within the last few months, and very strict orders had been issued to stop the sales. He had a communication on the subject only two days ago, and he had not the least suspicion that the abuse was existing, nor did he think it was at all probable that there were any large stocks of coal overlooked in any of their establishments. The stock of coal for the year had been kept extremely low, and in those parts of the world where coal depreciated patent fuel was being used.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked who the middleman was through whom the sales of coals were made at Gibraltar, and whether he was connected with any other Government contract?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he might observe that the question had nothing to do with the Vote. The coal which the Vote referred to was entirely used in two transports, which made a voyage from the Cape to Bombay. Perhaps the word "abuse" was too strong a word to use in respect to what had transpired at Gibraltar. He had no reason to believe there was anything surreptitious; it was only the system that was bad. The name of the middleman, or coal agent, he did not remember at present; but he would ascertain his name, and he would also inform the hon. Member whether there was anything which called for reprehension.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

    SUPPLY.—REPORT.
    Postponed Resolution [3rd March] further considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. HEALYsaid, there were several points in which the Government promised explanation on Report. For instance, the Attorney General for Ireland promised to look into the matter of the advertisements of the Land Commission. He (Mr. Healy) and his hon. Friends had pointed out that those advertisements were published in The Scotsman,
    688
    the Dublin General Advertiser, which was owned by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and in the London Times, so that if the people of Ireland wanted to know anything about the relation between landlord and tenant they must refer to those papers. The Attorney General for Ireland undertook to look into the matter and have things remedied. It was shown by the Irish Members that there were such papers as The Freeman's Journal, that were largely read by the people; and it was to such papers that the advertisements of the Land Commission should be given, and not to papers like The Scotsman and London Times. Furthermore, there was the question of Mr. Barrett, the chief evictor of Lord Kenmare, who had been appointed valuator under the Land Act. It had been denied that he had been so appointed; but on looking the matter up he found it distinctly stated in the Report of the proceedings of the Judicial Sub-Commissioners that in the case of Mr. Bence Jones, Mr. John Barrett was appointed by the Sub-Commissioners as valuator. It was said they had not got the interest of the Land Act at heart; but he would ask the Attorney General if it was desirable that evictors like John Barrett, who, from their well-known propensities, were odious in the eyes of the people, should be appointed valuators under the Land Act? He desired to know if Mr. Barrett had been permanently appointed, or had been simply appointed in the case of Mr. Bence Jones's tenantry. Then, again, in regard to the appointment of the Solicitor to the Land Commission, it was stated in the papers the other day that Mr. Fitzgerald had been appointed. It was a remarkable thing that Judge Fitzgerald was one of the chief instruments of the Government in Ireland, and, as first member of the Privy Council, he always took a prominent part whenever any measure of coercion was to be put in force. That learned Judge decided what cases were to be tried, and then went down to the Assizes to make a series of special Charges to the Grand Juries, in accordance with a pre-arranged line of action decided upon by the Privy Council. He had now received his reward in an appointment for his son—a briefless barrister, whom nobody had ever heard of and while the son had received an im-

    689
    portant appointment on the one hand, Judge Fitzgerald's nephew, on the other hand, had been appointed to the solicitor-ship of the Land Commission. He (Mr. Healy) wished to know if that was true? If it was, it was a remarkable fact; and it was a matter upon which they ought to have some explanation. Then, again, there was the question of maps. He had pointed out the other day an absurd rule laid down in the originating notice, which was based upon the assumption that every Irish tenant had a copy of the Ordnance Survey map in his house or library. It was ridiculous to suppose that an Irish tenant with a 10 acre farm had a library of any kind in which to place the maps of the Ordnance Survey. The originating notice required the character of the holding to be stated in accordance with the definition on the Ordnance map. The tenant was to describe the name of the farm and the locality, and he was not to give the names by which the holding was known to the people of the locality, but the names which appeared on the Ordnance map. In many cases English - Irish names were employed, and in others Irish-English names, a splendid mess being made of the whole thing. It was an extraordinary requirement that a humble peasant should be called upon to obtain a copy of the Ordnance Survey map, and describe his holding in accordance with that map. There were many other points upon which he might ask for information; but he would content himself with these four at present—namely, what course had been taken in regard to the advertisements of voluntary agreements; next, as to the appointment of the Solicitor to the Land Court; next, as to the Ordnance Survey map; and, lastly, as to the appointment of John Barrett as a valuer?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it was not required that every tenant should possess an Ordnance map; but it was thought that he would have no difficulty in obtaining access to one. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) would now give a very short answer and explanation to all the points which had been raised by the hon. Member. In the first place, in regard to the newspapers, it was a fact that the advertisements of voluntary agreements were inserted in the three papers mentioned—the Dublin
    690
    General Advertiser, the London Times, and the Edinburgh Scotsman. It was required under the Act that the agreements made out of Court, and which were of a very elaborate nature, should remain for two or three months—he forgot which—before they became binding. The House would easily see the nature of one of these advertisements from the document he held in his hand. Now, it happened that a very large amount of Scotch and English money was invested on mortgage in Ireland through the Insurance Companies; and as all these agreements related to the arrangements between landlord and tenant, it was necessary to inform the mortgagee who lent the money, and resided out of the country, what the nature of the agreements entered into was, so that they might be apprised of what was going on. Accordingly the Land Commissioners selected The Times in England, The Scotsman in Scotland, and The General Advertiser in Dublin. The reason why the last-named paper was selected was that it was generally employed by the public Courts as the medium for advertising. The Landed Estates Court advertised in The General Advertiser, the Public Works Department advertised all their loans and applications for loans in that paper. The General Advertiser circulated 36,000 copies all over Ireland; it was delivered gratuitously in Dublin and the suburbs, it was filed in the Public Offices, and it was posted free to almost every town in Ireland. By that means it possessed a very large circulation in Ireland. If one of these advertisements were inserted in all the Dublin newspapers, it would entail a very considerable expense. He was informed that the cost would have been £287 for the present month alone for a single insertion in the Dublin papers. The cost, therefore, was so great that the Land Commissioners thought it would be much more economical to insert the advertisements in the papers which had been mentioned. In reference to this matter, it had been stated that an hon. Member of that House—the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron)—was the owner of The Scotsman and the owner of The General Advertiser. [An hon. MEMBER: Not The Scotsman, but The Glasgow Mail.] The imputation conveyed was that it was a bribe to the hon. Member for Glasgow for his sup-

    691
    port to the Government. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) entirely disclaimed any such object, and he was told that the interest of the hon. Member in the Dublin General Advertiser was very small indeed. As to the next question—the employment of Mr. Barrett as a Government valuer—what he had stated at the time the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) called attention to the matter was that Barrett was not one of the valuers appointed by the Court; that was, that he was certainly not a permanent valuer. The fact turned out to be as he had stated it. Barrett, however, had on one occasion been appointed, under the provisions of the Act, as an independent valuer; but that was a matter over which the Commissioners had no control. He was appointed under one of the sections of the Act to determine a question relating to a holding in regard to which the Sub-Commissioners were empowered to employ an independent valuer. As regarded this particular case, he was informed that the Sub-Commissioners appointed Barrett to make the valuation of some property at a considerable distance from his own residence. The appointment was made with the approbation both of the landlord and of the tenant. The result was satisfactory to the tenant, and was not complained of either by the Court or by the landlord. That was the only occasion on which Barrett was employed, and he had never been appointed a valuer by the Commissioners. Their valuers were Mr. Gray, Mr. Boll, and he believed there was a third gentleman named Russell. In regard to Mr. Fitzgerald, he happened to be personally acquainted with that gentleman. Mr. Fitzgerald was an intimate friend of his; he had known him from the time he was called to the Bar. He had received previous information from Mr. Fitzgerald that he was most unwilling to take the appointment, and that it required pressure to induce him to do so.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: In the first instance he did refuse it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary corroborated him, and bore testimony to the fact that, in the first instance, Mr. Fitzgerald refused the appointment. With regard to the appointment of Solicitor to the Land Court, he
    692
    understood that the Commissioners were most anxious to complete the appointment; but it had not yet been decided who was to be the lucky man. The Government left all the responsibility to the Commissioners themselves, who were certainly the best judges. With reference to the Ordnance Survey maps, he had ascertained that it was necessary for the purposes of the Appeal Court to have the holdings described in accordance with the Ordnance maps. The valuers employed by the Commissioners were then able to go down and value the property. It was not correct that the originating notice required the maps of the Ordnance Survey to be used; but the Rules provided that the farms should, as near as possible, be described in accordance with those maps.
    MR. HEALYasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would object to read the notice?
    THE ATTOENEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had not got the Rule with him; but the words he had taken down were these—" May be in the form." Those were words extracted from the Rule. It was not an imperative obligation; but the Rule provided that the description might be in the form of the description given in the Ordnance map. He thought these wore all the points the hon. Gentleman had mentioned. It was the Commissioners themselves, and not the Government, who selected the papers in which the advertisements were to be inserted, and he had already mentioned the reasons which actuated them. He had also given the names of the valuers immediately connected with the Commission. The only other point it was necessary he should answer was this:—On a previous occasion he undertook to lay before the House a statement in reference to the examination of the clerks who had been appointed in the office of the Land Commission. He found that he was correct in stating that the clerks, with nine exceptions, were required to satisfy the Civil Service Commissioners in regard to their qualifications. Among the officers who were excepted were the secretary, the accountant, the chief agent for land sales, the assistant agents for land sales, registrars of sales, the valuer, and the solicitor. Special certificates were required by the Land Commission from the Civil Service Com-

    693
    missioners, in reference to some of the appointments. He had further undertaken to ascertain whether the forms supplied to the valuers were sufficient to enable them to make a proper valuation. He held one of them in his hand, and he found it was of a very exhaustive character. It specified, among other things, the county, the name of the landlord, whether the land was town land or not, the area, the name of the tenant, the rateable value, the actual rent, the situation of the holding, its elevation and aspect, the number of fences, the character of the soil, the nature of the improvements, and various other matters that affected the holding. In order to fill up that form it would be necessary for the valuer to make a very extensive examination of the property. The name of Mr. Murphy had been mentioned as a valuer. He believed that Mr. Murphy would have been appointed if he had chosen to put his name forward. He would not trouble the House further. He thought he had answered the material questions put to him, and he had taken the greatest pains to obtain all the information that was necessary.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had listened with attention and interest to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland in explanation of the course adopted by the Commission of advertising in The Times and The Scotsman the voluntary agreements which were entered into by the tenants in Ireland, and he had come to the conclusion that his statement would have been in every respect eminently satisfactory had Irish Members not been in a position to read between the lines.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he should have stated that the course which was at present adopted by the Commissioners was that of inserting a brief advertisement in the Dublin morning papers, announcing that a longer advertisement with regard to these voluntary agreements would be found in The General Advertiser. The same notice appeared with reference to the advertisements in The Scotsman and The Times.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was quite unable to agree with the Attorney General for Ireland that it was necessary or desirable that English and Scotch mort-
    694
    gagees should be informed of the voluntary agreements made in Ireland by means of advertisements in English and Scotch papers. That statement formed the sole excuse which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had offered for the course adopted by the Commission with regard to the advertisements in The Times and The Scotsman; and it was a very remarkable one, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a man of large experience, and would know perfectly well that not one penny of Scotch money was lent in Ireland, except through agents in Dublin. No Scotch mortgagee of land in Ireland would think of reading The Scotsman for the purpose of getting information with regard to these voluntary agreements. He would unquestionably refer to his Dublin agent, who read the Dublin morning papers; and, under these circumstances, he (Mr. Callan) contended there was no necessity whatever for advertising in The Scotsman. The objection taken by his hon. Friends was not against individual newspapers, but against the corruption of the Press. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the advertisements inserted in Irish papers by the Board of Works. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether or not it was a fact that in this matter the Board of Works were controlled entirely by the Department which he represented? Was it not the case, that since the meeting of Parliament the Treasury had sent directions to the Irish Board of Works as to the papers in which their advertisements were to be inserted? The opinion in Ireland was that the Board of Works were not allowed to use" their own judgment in this matter, and that they simply sent advertisements as they were directed by the Treasury Department in London. If such instructions were sent to Ireland, surely the noble Lord would be aware of the fact, and would be able to make a statement to the House; but if it had been concealed from him, he (Mr. Callan) could do no more than characterize the proceeding as most improper, and he was quite certain that the noble Lord would investigate a system which allowed under - officials in his Department to direct the Board of Works to advertise only in certain newspapers. Would the noble Lord like to assume the responsi-

    695
    bility of directing in what newspapers the advertisements were to appear? The long advertisements were inserted only in The General Advertiser, which was not read by the people of Ireland, and had a very limited circulation; and he repeated that the statement in Ireland was that they were published in that paper in consequence of peremptory instructions received from the Treasury in London, the Department which issued them having no discretion whatever in the matter. The question he had to put to the noble Lord was this—did he, or his Department in London, control the Board of Works in Ireland in the matter of advertisements?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was obliged to point out to the hon. Member for Louth that his question with regard to the advertisements of the Board of Works in Ireland had nothing whatever to do with the Vote before the House.
    MR. CALLANregretted that the noble Lord had not felt himself in a position to reply to his question. He should not have alluded to the Board of Works in Ireland, had not the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland done so in the course of his reply to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he should like to know whether the system at present in operation with regard to those official advertisements in Ireland was to be persevered in? He had listened to the explanations offered to the House; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given no intimation as to whether the existing arrangement would be continued or altered. He (Mr. Sullivan) regarded the system as most objectionable, and contended that it should be changed. The Attorney General for Ireland had stated that The General Advertiser, in which the notices of voluntary agreements appeared in Dublin, had a most extensive circulation throughout Ireland. Without any reflection upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he was bound to say that he did not at all believe in the accuracy of that representation. The publication in question had, according to his information, a very limited circulation. It was gratuitously distributed to a few persons in the city of Dublin, and on the following Monday a messenger was sent round to
    696
    their houses, and was supposed to get back the copies, which were then to be sent into the country. No doubt some of the copies were returned; but the idea that they were sufficient for the purpose of distribution throughout the length and breadth of Ireland was, in his opinion, altogether a mistake. For these reasons he found it impossible to accept as accurate the statement of the Attorney General with regard to the circulation of the paper. But it appeared from the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a short advertisement referring to the longer announcement in The General Advertiser was inserted in The Freeman's Journal. Now, the latter newspaper had unquestionably the widest and most extensive circulation of any in Ireland; it was sent out from the office every morning in bales, containing thousands of copies, that were delivered in all parts of the country. Every man in Dublin read The Freeman's Journal, no matter whether or not he agreed with the political principles which it advocated. And it was in this paper that the Attorney General said that a brief advertisement was inserted, referring the people to the long advertisement in The General Advertiser. In his opinion the practice should be reversed. For his own part, he considered that the daily papers in Dublin, of every class of politics, were entitled fairly to share in the matter of these advertisements; and he was at a loss to understand why a publication of so limited a circulation as The General Advertiser should be made, as it were, the pet out of all the other newspapers published in the country. The present arrangement was artificial and. unsatisfactory, and he thought he had shown good reasons why it should not be allowed to continue. The placing of these advertisements was evidently a matter of favour, obtained in some way which Irish Members did not understand. But coming to the common sense and just view of the case, having regard to the question of what newspaper was most read, and which would consequently offer to the people the most full information, he said that The General Advertiser was not the paper, and that The Freeman's Journal was. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that English and Scotch mortgagees and Insurance Offices were largely interested

    697
    in the matter of the voluntary agreements, and it was, therefore, desirable that notices with respect to them should appear in The Times and The Scotsman. The statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman went a long way to prove that landlordism in Ireland was a hollow sham, for they were now told that Irish landlords, who, it was said, spent their money in Ireland and did so much good there in other ways, really had to hand over most of their rents to English and Scotch mortgagees and Insurance Companies. That was one of the considerations which pressed on the minds of Irish Members when they contended that neither Ireland nor the tenantry of Ireland could be on any foundation of prosperity until this system of sham landlordism was broken up, and its place supplied by the reality of a peasant proprietory.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORpointed out that in the case of Army advertisements the military authorities thought there was good reason for advertising in a large number of the Irish newspapers whenever they had any information to communicate with regard to military affairs in Ireland. He found by an Army Circular which he held in his hand that there were no less than 27 Irish newspapers which were recognized by the Department as proper channels for the dissemination of information in respect of contracts in connection with the Military Service in Ireland. He could not understand why the Irish Land Commission, having its head office in Dublin, should not make their announcements in these 27 Irish newspapers. He was quite certain that it would be better for them to advertise in all the papers which circulated amongst the agricultural population of Ireland than it would be to advertise in The Scotsman.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he could not see that it was any advantage to Scotch mortgagees to have information with regard to these voluntary agreements after they were executed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he understood, gave as the reason for advertising in a Scotch paper that the announcements were made for the purpose of inviting the attention of Scotch mortgagees to the fact that agreements had been entered into for a reduction of rent. He (Mr. Leamy) thought it would be proper that mortgagees in England and
    698
    Scotland should receive information with respect to such agreements, provided it was of any use to them to be so informed. He could quite understand that it would be of use to the mortgagee to discover by means of an advertisement that a voluntary agreement was about to be made between the landlord and tenant for the purpose of fixing the rent of a farm, if the mortgagee were entitled to go into Court, either personally or by his solicitor, and ask the Court not to allow the agreement to be carried into effect. But he was not aware that the Land Act contained any provision whatever for protecting the interest of mortgagees in this respect, although he thought it only reasonable that the mortgagee should be allowed to go into Court. What, then, became of the mortgagee's interest in the matter, seeing that it was settled on the application of the tenant? The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the arrangement with regard to advertisements was settled by one of the Rules which, however, had not yet been laid upon the Table of the House. He should certainly be glad to know what advantage the mortgagee derived from the advertisements in question. As they were not inserted for the purpose of enabling the mortgagee to contest the arrangement in any way, but only to give notice of the fact that the rent had been reduced, he hardly supposed that the mortgagee would derive much satisfaction from the announcement. Nor did he suppose that an advertisement in The General Advertiser was likely to serve even the purpose for which it was intended, because, according to the information received, that paper was first distributed in Dublin, and afterwards sent amongst the people in Ireland. How, then, was it to reach the mortgagees in Scotland?
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Member to address himself to the Chair, and not to a particular Member of the House-
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he was about to point out that under the arrangement which had been condemned by his hon. Friends every mortgagee in Scotland had an opportunity of knowing at least something about the agreements entered into between the landlord and tenant; but there was no advantage whatever to the mortgagee in reading an adver-

    699
    tisement in The Scotsman to the effect that the matter was set forth in The General Advertiser. The announcement was practically worthless to him.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought Irish Members were justified in asking for some further assurance in the matter of the advertisements. For his own part, he was not in favour of Scotch money lenders, who, he thought, were quite able to take care of themselves, and, therefore, stood in no need of special announcements with regard to agreements between Irish landlords and tenants. On the other hand, he considered that the Irish farmers, and the class financially connected with them, had the right to expect that the announcement of matters which so much concerned their interest should appear in those Irish journals which were generally read. He was very well acquainted with The General Advertiser. It was a paper that was circulated gratuitously amongst the official and legal classes; it was also sent to some of the principal merchants and a few of the gentry in Ireland. But the Irish farmers knew as much about it as they did of The Scotsman. But, even if they saw the short advertisement in The Freeman's Journal, it was not fair to ask these very often illiterate men to go or write to Dublin for the purpose of obtaining a particular paper. Irish Members, in a matter of this kind, relating to the administration of the Land Act, were justified in claiming that all information which it was necessary and desirable for the people of Ireland to possess should appear in the journals that were most accessible to them. It was surely not unreasonable to ask that the Commissioners should place that information before the people in the easiest possible way. The method now pursued was both unreasonable and objectionable; and in order to afford an opportunity to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say what steps would be taken to alter it he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was certain that the sole object of the Commissioners had been to give information to the parties interested in Ireland and
    700
    elsewhere, and to give that information fully. They had come to the conclusion that the best way of carrying out the plan, so far as Ireland was concerned, was to insert the advertisements in The General Advertiser. It was quite true that The Freeman's Journal had a large circulation; but he thought that there would be a great deal of complaint, and perhaps justifiable complaint, from persons who read the other papers in Dublin if the advertisement appeared in The Freeman's Journal only. The Commissioners, after consideration, had decided to advertise in a thorough business paper, which had been used for Government announcements formerly. It had been said that the Commissioners first began by advertising in three newspapers—The Times, The Scotsman, and the Dublin General Advertiser; but the expense was found to be so great that they ceased to advertise in The Times and The Scotsman, putting these two papers in the position of the ordinary journals. Notice was given that on a certain day The General Advertiser alone would contain the advertisement. The amount saved by not advertising generally in the newspapers would be shown when it was said that the cost of advertising in The Times and The Scotsman amounted to £3,000 a-year. If the advertisements were put into 27 county newspapers the cost would necessarily be very great. The object of the Commissioners had been to give the necessary information, and to give it fully and economically. He did not think their discretion in the matter should be interfered with.
    MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand the hon. Member for Sligo to move the adjournment of the debate?
    MR. SEXTON: I do move it.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to second the Motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to second the Motion, having exhausted his right to speak.
    MR. BIGGARsaid he would second the Motion. He had had some experience of local towns in Ireland, and he could assure the House that The General Advertiser was not read in them at all. An hon. Gentleman who sat near him informed him that the ordinary custom was for the paper to be brought in at the hall door on Saturday, for it to lay on the table until Monday morning, and

    701
    then be taken away without being read. So far as he was concerned, he never got a copy of the paper sent to him. He did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would intentionally misstate any fact; but the allegation that the paper was distributed freely was not correct. On the other hand, they knew that The Freeman's Journal was read by every class in every part of Ireland; there was not even a village in any section of the country that did not receive one or more copies. He did not suppose that anybody wished to make a fight on this occasion in the interest of The Freeman's Journal; but it was only proper that the House should be made aware of the medium through which information could be sent to the tenant farmers of Ireland. It was all nonsense to say that information could be conveyed to the farmers through The General Advertiser. The Sub - Commissioners might be able to get through the 70,000 cases entered for hearing in three or four years. Some people were sanguine enough to think that they would; but other people, on the other hand, said that it would take 15 years. But even if they did get through, all these cases it would still leave out five-sixths of all the tenant farmers; and if the Government really wished to make the Land Act worth anything at all they should bring it within the reach, of all these people—popularize it. It did not, however, seem to be the wish of the Government to do this, or they would give the tenant farmers all the information in their power. For the first year of the operation of their Act they should try to popularize it, and endeavour to make the benefits which were to be derived, or were supposed to be derived, from it as generally known as possible. They should have given these advertisements to the papers that were read by the farming class. The Government should not be so absurd as to publish important advertisements in papers that no one ever read, and which were, therefore, so much waste paper. There was another point to which he wished to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary—a matter to which he had directed his notice some time ago—namely, the appointment, as a Sub-Commissioner, of a Mr. Bomford in the County Cavan, He (Mr. Biggar) had never
    702
    attacked this gentleman, who was really placed in a very invidious position. Mr. Bomford was placed in this position—ho was put in a county where he had near relatives, where he had been an agent, and where his decisions, even supposing they were perfectly honest, were liable to be misunderstood. It seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that, under the circumstances of the case, Mr. Bomford's decisions would be suspected by some people of being partial. It was only fair to Mr. Bomford, to Mr. Bomford's relations, and to the tenant farmers of Cavan, that this gentleman should be moved to some other district. This was a reasonable suggestion, and he did not think the Government should throw any obstacle in the way of its being carried out.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was afraid, whatever might be said to the contrary, that the general opinion was that in Ireland the operation with regard to the placing of these advertisements was a "Boycotting" operation. He did not, however, think it was worth the while of the Irish Party to make a fight on the matter. The Irish papers, even the least influential of them, could do extremely well without the support of Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps the conduct of the Government on this matter might be regarded as a trial of Land League principles; and it was not the first time Her Majesty's Government had borrowed from that organization. They had taken this piece of "Boycotting" out of the book of certain Land League Societies in the West of Ireland.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had misunderstood him with regard to Army advertisements. The Government did not advertise in the 27 papers on the list at one time; but when they had to advertise, say in the Cork district, they would put their advertisement in the Cork newspaper, and when they were advertising in the Enniskillen district they would patronize the Fermanagh journals. The Land Commissioners should do the same as to the property upon which they had to adjudicate. The long advertisements were expensive; but those that were inserted in The Scotsman, The Times, and The General Advertiser were precisely those that were most heavily charged for by newspaper proprietors. What he would

    703
    suggest was that instead of having these long advertisements, which were practically a waste of money, a number of small advertisements should be inserted in the newspapers circulating in the districts interested. In this way economy would be secured, and information would be better disseminated than at present.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had merely repeated to the House words which had come to him from Dublin: therefore, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was acquainted with the real merits of the case. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that it was immaterial whether the advertisements were inserted or not. He took great interest in the working of the Land Act, and should like to see what agreements were being made between the landlords and tenants. How was he to know these things? Was he to write to The General Advertiser in Dublin, and get a copy of that paper sent back by post, in order to see what arrangements were being made? He read three Dublin papers—The Freeman's Journal, The Irish Times, and The Express. He did not care a button which papers got the advertisements; but he could quite understand that if one were singled out for them the others would be jealous. He should think that the advertisements should be inserted in papers that were read, and not in journals like The General Advertiser, which was so uninteresting that the bulk of the people who received it never opened it. He would suggest that the Attorney General for Ireland should communicate with the Commissioners in Dublin, and ascertain the general feeling as to whether the general public could be best supplied with information through The General Advertiser or through any other newspapers. He hoped the Government would not let the matter rest where it was, but that they would communicate with the Commissioners to see whether some arrangement more satisfactory than the present could not be adopted.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that the question of advertising rested solely with the Commissioners; but he would take care that what had taken place in the House would be brought before them. They would be made ac-
    704
    quainted with the strong feeling which had been expressed by hon. Members.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persevere with his Motion to divide the House for the reason that it might make people believe that he was fighting in the interest of particular journals, and that, he (Mr. Gray) was sure, was not what the hon. Gentleman wished to do. The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish), who was in his place, was aware that, so far as the Treasury were concerned, Government advertisements were given for political reasons. There was a list of newspapers to which the advertisements were to be sent drawn up, and this list was altered without hesitation; in fact, the whole thing was a matter of political corruption. He trusted the noble Lord would give attention to the matter, for at present the system adopted seemed very much like the misappropriation of public money. He (Mr. Gray) wished to know whether the Government would take measures to get the statements made in the Courts at the first sittings by the Land Commissioners printed and circulated amongst hon. Members? The statements, or judgments, had been published—not officially; but semi-officially, because they had been sent out by the official reporters to the Court. A difficulty had been raised in the way of placing important judgments of the Land Commissioners on the Table of the House. It was said that there was no copy of them kept by the Commissioners; but that difficulty could be easily got over if the Government wished to get over it. Very nearly every Irish newspaper had given verbatim reports of the judgments; and if these judgments themselves could not be procured the Government might print and circulate the reports.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not see why the Government should cut a report from a newspaper, print, and circulate it. They could not pledge themselves to the accuracy of such things, because those hon. Members who were interested in the matter would probably have read the accounts of the judgments which appeared in the newspapers. It would be establishing an extraordinary precedent if they were to lay on the Table of the House an extract from a newspaper for the correctness of which they could not vouch.
    MR. GRAYasked, whether he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was no way in which the judgments in question could be laid on the Table, printed, and circulated?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood the hon. Member to say he had seen the report of the judgments in the newspapers. No doubt, other hon. Members who were interested in the matter had done the same. With regard to Mr. Bomford, to whom the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had referred, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken, and that Mr. Bomford really had no connection with the county named. He (Mr. Forster) was anxious, and the Commissioners were also anxious, that no Sub-Commissioner should be employed in a county in which he was in any way interested. He hoped this anxiety would operate in the minds of the Commissioners when they proceeded to re-cast the districts.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, his sole desire in making the Motion was to secure that the public money spent in advertisements should not be thrown away. The fullness and cordiality of the explanation which had been given by the Government gave him the hope that their assurance was something more than formal; therefore, he begged to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEAsaid, he would give Notice that he would, on another occasion, take the liberty of doing what he had intended doing to-night—namely, show that the statement made last night by the hon. Member for the City of Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) with regard to one of the Sub-Commissioners, Mr. M. Cunningham, was founded on an inaccuracy.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, he wished to enter his protest against the manner in which these advertisements had been given away. He did not think there was much English money lent on land in Ireland, although there was a good deal lent to Corporations; still he did not object to the advertisements being given to The Times. He did not object to their going to The Scotsman, because there was, no doubt, a great deal of Scotch money lent on Irish land; but he did object to these advertisements being given to the Dublin General Advertiser, which was not a newspaper at all, and did not con-
    706
    tain a single line of news. The General Advertiser was never used by people advertising goods, nobody ever bought it, and it was scarcely ever read. With regard to Land Court procedure, he should like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the acreage was taken from the Ordnance, which had all the roads in a county in it? He wished to know whether the farmers were charged for half the roads of the counties?
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution agreed to.

    TURNPIKE ROADS (SOUTH WALES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill to further amend the Law relating to Turnpike Roads in South Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON and Mr. HIBBERT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 101.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock till Monday next.