CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.

HC Deb 16 August 1883 vol 283 cc752-877

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £261,103, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Expenses of the Directors of Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies, and of the Convict Establishments under their control.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked the Financial Secretary if it was proposed to go on with the Civil Service Estimates in strict order until they reached the end of Class VII.?

MR. COURTNEY

replied in the affirmative.

MR. HEALY

said, he wished to call attention to the extraordinary high salaries which the English prison officials received as compared with the salaries of their brethren in Ireland. He had made a comparison which he wished to lay before the Committee.

SIR JOHN HAY

rose to Order. He thought it was understood that the Vote for Dover Harbour would be taken first.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the sum required for Dover Harbour was included in the present Vote.

MR. HEALY

said, that the Governors of male prisons in England had an income of £650 a-year, whereas those in Ireland had only £300 a-year, or more than 50 per cent less. Then in England, after five years the salary was raised to £700 a-year; whereas in Ireland it could only he increased by £50 after five years' service, the maximum salary in Ireland being £350. Then, again, another class of Governors in England received £500 a-year, rising to £650; whilst in Ireland the same class only received £200 a-year, rising to £250. There was a third class in England receiving £400 a-year, with an increment until it amounted to £500; whereas in Ireland the same class received only £150 a-year, with no increment at all. A further class in England received £300 a-year, rising to £400; but there was no similar class in Ireland. In Scotland the salaries paid were less than in England, but higher than those paid in Ireland. He did not mean to say that the salaries paid in England and Scotland were too high; but what he contended was that in the Irish prisons the salaries paid were much too small for the labours entailed upon the officers. He knew he should be met by the argument that in Ireland there were fewer convicts than in England. Of course, that was a happy state of things; but the Governors had to give the same consistent attention in the Irish prisons as the Governors in the English prisons, and there was the same mental and physical strain to contend with. If it was the fact that there were fewer convicts in the Irish prisons than in the English prisons, it was not the case that the warders in the Irish prisons had less convicts under their charge than in England. But how were the warders dealt with? He found that a chief warder of an English prison began with £125 a-year, and that his salary rose until it reached £150; whereas the salary of a chief warder in an Irish prison began and ended at £100 a-year. Another class of chief warders in England commenced at £100 a-year, and rose to £125; whereas in Ireland the same class received £85 a-year, without any increment whatever. Assistant warders in England began at £60 a-year, and gradually rose to £65; whereas the unfortunate assistant warders in Ireland began at £45 a-year, and rose to £55 only after a service of some years.

MR. COURTNEY

asked what Estimates the hon. Member was quoting from?

MR. HEALY

replied, that he was quoting from a compilation which he had himself made with some care, and the accuracy of which he could vouch for. He had heard constant complaints, and, owing to the kindness of Her Majesty's Government, he had recently had ample facilities for ascertaining what the salaries of the Irish officials really were. He could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) that the salaries of the Irish assistant warders began at £45 a-year, and rose to £55. He had no doubt the Committee would feel somewhat astonished to find that a warder could support himself and a wife and family respectably on £45 a-year, or about 18s. a week; and he had no doubt they would remember that extraordinary burdens were thrown upon the Irish warders. In many instances the prisoners entrusted to their charge were men whom the Government would not like to slip easily through their fingers. On that account the warders in Ireland were men who had a good deal more responsibility thrown upon them than the same class of men in England. During recent times these unfortunate warders in Ireland had more than 1,000 political convicts under their care; and as the loyalty of a man meant pretty much what he got out of it, he could not see how the Government could expect men to be very loyal on £45 a-year. It was an invidious thing to say, but it was a fact, that an English assistant warder could begin at £60 a-year, and rise to £65; whereas in Ireland, an assistant warder, who had much more responsible duties to perform, could only begin at £45 a-year, and rise to £55, the number of prisoners under his control being invariably the same. He would not trouble the Committee by going through the various other offices; but the inequality in regard to salaries ran through the whole of them; and if the Secretary to the Treasury desired it, he would supply him with the Return he held in his hand in the course of the evening, and which related to chaplains, medical officers, storekeepers, warders, clerks, female warders, lady superintendents, matrons, and, in short, all the officials in Ireland. The whole of them received less pay than the same officers in England. Then, again, owing to the extraordinary burdens cast upon these officials recently there was much greater necessity for confidence being reposed in them than in the case of England; and he intended to raise the question of the non-fulfilment of certain promises made to them during the existence of the Coercion Act. All he wanted to know now was, how it was that Irish officials were so much less paid than English officials? He did not at all contend that English Governors or warders were over-paid; but he thought that Irish officials should be placed upon an equality with them.

MR. COURTNEY

said, regard must be had to the ordinary rates of pay in the neighbourhoods where the people were employed, and to the cost of living. He thought it would be found that the same difference in regard to salaries went through the entire Service, not merely in regard to Ireland, but to Scotland also. He would take, for example, the highest officials of all. The pay and salary of a Judge in the High Court of Ireland was only £3,500 a-year; whereas in the High Court of England it was £5,000. The Judges of the Court of Session in Scotland only received £3,000. In each case, however, they had the same high standing, the same qualifications, and the same duties to perform. It was the same in regard to the pay of the servants of the Post Office. The pay of the Post Office employés in England varied very much from the pay of the same officers both in Scotland and Ireland. The hon. Gentleman complained that certain employés in the present Establishments of Ireland did not receive the same rate of pay as similar employés in England. He (Mr. Courtney) had taken a rapid glance at some of the Votes; and, at page 230, he found that the rates of pay in one of the Convict Establishments for assistant warders began at £70 a-year, and reached as high a figure as the employés in the English Convict Establishments; but those rates of pay included ration allowances. If the hon. Member would look at the Estimate for officers in the Mountjoy Prison, he would find that the second-class warders began at £45 a-year, and received an increment up to £54; the first class began at £55 a-year and went up to £70; a principal warder began at £70 a-year and went up to £80; and a chief warder began at £100 a-year and went up to £120. The hon. Member said they had no increment at all; but if he would look at the bottom of the page he would see that they had an allowance of £15 a-year in lieu of rations. If those allowances were added, it would be found that the rates of pay in Mountjoy Prison were very nearly equal to the rates of pay of the warders in the Convict Establishments in England.

MR. O'KELLY

said, the hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware that there was no very considerable difference between the cost of living in London and in Dublin. On the contrary, it was quite as expensive for a man in the position of a warder to live in Dublin as it was in London; and if anything, the advantage was on the side of the man who lived in London. He thought the question raised by his hon. Friend was a very fair one, and it had not at all been satisfactorily answered by the Secretary to the Treasury.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) had referred only to Mountjoy Prison. He (Mr. Harrington) did not think that the allowance for warders in that prison was the allowance generally received by warders throughout Ireland. In other cases not only was there no allowance made to the warders for rations, but out of the very small and miserable salaries they received they were called upon to pay for extra service, and, among other things, for washing. A prison warder was called upon to pay for every collar and every shirt he were during the time he was in prison, the Prison Boards requiring the warders to pay for everything that was washed for them. The statement which his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) had made with regard to the prison salaries was quite accurate. Like his hon. Friend, he had been afforded a good opportunity by Her Majesty's Government of considering the question, having been imprisoned in Ireland no less than four times. His hon. Friend had quoted accurately the salaries given to the warders; but he had omitted to say that those salaries were still further reduced by the fines imposed upon them by the Governors of the prisons. It was in the power of the Governor of a gaol to fine his warders without consulting the Prison Board; and he knew various instances in which it had been done. Some of these unfortunate men got 18s. per week for their services. They had to enter upon their labours at half-past 5 o'clock in the morning, and they were inside the prison during the whole of the day; and, disagreeable as it was to be there as a prisoner, he was of opinion that the lot of a prisoner was a much more fortunate one than that of the wretched warder, who was engaged the whole day long contemplating the misery and sufferings of his fellow-beings. And the warder, when on duty, had to take his turn every week at the night watch. He had all the affairs of the prison to keep going, and he was required to peg the clock every quarter of an hour in order to show that he had been discharging his duty. If he missed doing so the clock told the tale, and the warder was fined.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman, in comparing the pay of warders in the English Convict Establishments with those in Ireland, would he in Order; but it is not in Order to enter into every detail connected with the Irish Convict Establishments now.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, he did not propose to enter into details of that kind; but only desired to compare the salaries received by the Irish prison officials with those received by their brethren in England. He wanted to show that instead of any allowances being made generally for rations it was quite the other way, and that the salaries of the Irish prison officials were even less than the amount mentioned by his hon. Friend. As, however, the question would be raised when the Irish Estimates came on, he would not trouble the Committee with any further observations.

MR. HEALY

said, the Secretary to the Treasury had given the Irish Members some startling information, to the effect that living in London was dearer than in Dublin. If that were so, how was it that the Secretary to the Treasury had sanctioned an increased grant to Mr. Hamilton, the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, under cover of the increased cost of living in Dublin? That was an important point. The Treasury had given Mr. Hamilton £500 a-year extra on account of the increased cost of living in Dublin; but they wanted to cut down the salaries of these unfortunate warders from £65 a-year in England to £45 in Ireland, because it was so much cheaper to live in Ireland than it was in England. Now, he thought that was extremely unfair. If the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were true in regard to Mountjoy Prison, what had he to say about the Governors who only received £300 a-year, with a maximum of £400; whereas in England the minimum was £350 a-year, and the maximum £650? That was a clear inequality of £250; and if the hon. Gentleman wished to establish his position that living in Dublin was cheaper than in London, why should he give Mr. Hamilton an extra £500 a-year?

MR. HIBBERT

remarked, that there were three classes of Governors in England, and that the whole of them did not receive £300 a-year.

MR. HEALY

said, there were also three classes of Governors in Ireland, and the salary of £400 was the maximum.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the hon. Gentleman was comparing the Governors and warders of ordinary prisons in Ireland with the Governors and warders of convict prisons in England.

MR. HEALY

said, that Mountjoy Prison was a Convict Establishment.

MR. COURTNEY

observed, that when they came to the convict prisons, on page 234, it would be found that the pay was much higher.

MR. HEALY

said, he thought the items on the page referred to by the hon. Gentleman only made the case still worse. The Governors were there classified, and the highest male officer received £650 a-year.

MR. COURTNEY

pointed out that there were four classes.

MR. HEALY

said, the first class received £650 a-year; the next, £500 a-year; the third, £400 a-year; and the last class, £300 a-year, rising to £400; so that the lowest class in England received as much as the highest class in Ireland, notwithstanding the extra duties imposed on the Governors of Irish prisons as compared with the Governors of English prisons. He was glad to see the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in his place, because the right hon. Gentleman was upon the Prisons' Committee now engaged in inquiring into these subjects. He thought that Committee could not have a better Chairman than the right hon. Gentleman; and he hoped when the question of pay came before the Committee that it would be carefully considered.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, the Royal Commission on the Penal Servitude Acts had recommended the inspection of convict prisons by independent gentlemen, magistrates, and others, to he appointed by the Home Secretary. That system had been commenced, and, as far as he knew, it had been found to work very well. He should like to know if it was still continued? He presumed that the Reports were of a confidential character, and that they could not be made public. He should like to know whether the prisons were regularly visited by independent Inspectors; and whether the Home Office was satisfied with the results of the system?

MR. HIBBERT

said, the plan was in operation still, and it had been attended by the most satisfactory results. The Home Secretary had received several Reports from the Visitors, which were of a very satisfactory character. The Government, from what they had heard, were of opinion that it was desirable to continue the system.

MR. O'KELLY

asked if the hon. Gentleman was in a position to say that all the prisons had been visited; and, if so, how often?

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was unable to say whether every prison had been visited, or how often.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper for the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £16,150, which was the amount included in the Vote for the purpose of erecting a prison and providing workshops in connection with the formation of a proposed harbour of refuge at Dover. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that a Committee had been appointed in 1875 to inquire into this subject. He was a Member of that Committee, and he thought that there had been a distinct violation of the promise which had been made to the House by the late Government after the Report of the Committee was presented. In 1873 a similar Vote to the present, but only £10,000 in amount, was brought forward by the Liberal Government in connection with Dover Harbour. It was on the 30th of July that the Vote on Report was brought before the House; and upon that occasion his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) rose in his place and objected to any Vote for these important works being taken at so late a period of the Session. They had now reached the 16th of August, and again they were asked by a Liberal Government, advocates of economy, to vote a sum of more than £16,000 for the like works; and if the Committee passed that Vote they would virtually pledge themselves to go on with works which would ultimately entail an expenditure of more than £1,000,000, as stated, and, in his opinion, of a sum several times larger than £1,000,000. When the hon. Member for Burnley proposed his Resolution in 1873, 61 Members voted in support of the Government, and 60 against. It happened to be his (Sir George Balfour's) first Session in the House, and he was induced by the friends of the Government to support the Vote, under the promise that a full inquiry would subsequently be made. An hon. Friend, who was then Member for Aberdeen, was also induced to support the Government under similar circumstances; and by that means the Government obtained a majority of 1, instead of being left in a minority of 2. The Government on that occasion distinctly promised that they would not proceed with the expenditure involved in the construction of these works until there had been a full inquiry. But that inquiry never was instituted by this Government. Happily for the country, as far as the expenditure of this money was concerned, the Government went out in the January following, and a Conservative Government came in. The Conservative Government were more wise than the Liberal Government, and they took a different course. [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary said "Hear, hear!" but he (Sir George Balfour) was only stating that which he believed to be perfectly correct. A Select Committee was appointed in 1875 for the purpose of investigating the progress of the works at Dover Harbour, and since then the question had conparatively slumbered, so far as related to discussion in that House. In the House of Lords, the present Foreign Minister brought on a discussion in favour of a harbour at Dover, but was answered in a most convincing manner by Lord Beaconsfield, who prominently urged the bare outlay which would have to be incurred in forming an efficient refuge in Dover Bay. He regretted very much that the subject had been postponed until so late in the Session, because many hon. Members were now absent from the House who had intended to oppose the present Vote. For instance, the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) had assured him that he was not only prepared to vote against it, but to speak against it. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley would have taken a similar course; but they and other hon. Members had been worn out by the long Sittings of the House, and had been obliged to leave London, so that it now devolved upon him (Sir George Balfour) alone to make this proposal of rejecting the proposed grant, and virtually thereby of stopping the proposed harbour. He might mention, also, that a promise had been given by the Government to lay all the Papers on the Table of the House in ample time to allow hon. Members to study the subject; but he regretted to say that it was only yesterday the latest Papers were issued, and it was only that morning that he had been able to see them. He had, therefore, been deprived of the opportunity of asking Questions in connection with the subject. It now appeared that the cost of the works at Dover Harbour were to amount to upwards of £1,000,000, and that the charges were increasing so rapidly as to lead to the certainty that, like all estimates of engineers, the amount would gradually swell up to several times the amount of the first estimate, already, by this last Paper, more than 50 per cent in excess of the first amount. He thought that this last estimate alone ought to be sufficient to alarm the country, as it was contrary to all the expectations at first held out. No doubt they would be reminded that great progress was being made with French harbours, and that they ought to make equal progress with the harbour at Dover as the French were with that at Boulogne. He believed the works at Boulogne had already been estimated to cost nearly £1,000,000 more than the first estimate, being now estimated to cost altogether 32,000,000 francs, as against 17,000,000 francs, which was the first Estimate. Indeed, it was said that even that sum would not be sufficient for the complete construction of that harbour. Were Her Majesty's Go- vernment, then, to emulate the expenditure of France at Boulogne in connection with Dover Harbour? If so, then the conditions laid down as to the object to be attained at Dover in respect to its fitness to receive the largest vessels of the Navy entailed the necessity of having such extensive works as to far outdo Boulogne, and necessarily to entail an expenditure several times greater. There had been many plans submitted to the House in connection with Dover Harbour; and though the plan of 1873 contemplated works smaller than those now submitted, yet the then estimate was more than the proposed amount. Nevertheless, the then area and depth of water would have been insufficient for ships of the largest class, as it was only intended to cover an area of 300 acres. He submitted that only two or three ships of war of that large size could possibly visit that harbour with such a small area; and he knew that some of the former plans applied to a much larger area than that which was now contemplated. He held in his hand the nine plans of the harbour of refuge formerly proposed by eminent engineers, as shown in the Return 476, of July 10, 1848; and if hon. Members would refer to that important document they would find that several of the plans provided for a harbour to cover 900 acres, and the works were to cost £4,000,000. All the nine engineers qualified to speak in regard to works of this character proposed a harbour of a very much larger area than that comprised in the present plan. All the former plans included breakwaters, for the safety of the harbour, of a far more extensive profile than the one now planned. The extent of the break waters were given, and also the average cost per yard of constructing them, and that outlay exceeded by £4,000,000 the cost now proposed. Under the details so clearly stated in the plan the Committee were able to calculate for themselves what the present cost would be if works of a like character were now carried out. Since then vessels had increased in size and in draught of water. Consequently, the area and depth of water ought to be greater than formerly. Further, the Government of the former period devoted great attention to the character of the works, and to the outlay; but the Government, in this instance, had alto- gether abstained from giving that opinion; and if it had been intentionally planned, the Committee could not have been left more destitute of information than it was. The name of the Duke of Wellington had been more than once introduced in all discussions about a refuge harbour at Dover, in order to influence the Committee; but there was no proof whatever that the Duke of Wellington ever did attach importance to the formation of this harbour at Dover. On the contrary, there was the evidence of the Duke himself that he preferred various other places to Dover. He considered Dungeness far more suitable for the purpose of forming a harbour, and also the Downs; and, so far from giving any preference to Dover, the Duke of Wellington always opposed the scheme in connection with the harbour there, believing, from a strategical point of view, Dover was not the most suitable place. He would conclude by moving the Amendment he had placed on the Paper for the reduction of the Vote; and he should certainly take a Division upon it, if it were only for the purpose of showing that a few Members still remained in the House who were determined to oppose the commencement of an expenditure which must ultimately involve the outlay of millions of money.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £244,953, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Expenses of the Directors of Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies, and of the Convict Establishments under their control."—(General Sir George Balfour.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was not surprised that his hon. and gallant Friend should have called attention to the subject. No doubt it was a very important subject, and one which had constantly engaged the attention of the House. No doubt there had been various opinions adverse to the proposal; but the engineering objections which had been taken some years ago had not been supported. All the eminent engineers who had experience of the harbour works at Dover were of opinion that there was no practical difficulty in making a harbour there; and the evidence given on the other side was compa- ratively trifling. He wished to point out why it was that the proposal was now before the Committee. The truth was that it was absolutely necessary, from all points of view, that employment should be found for convicts. Everybody knew that discipline depended upon affording occupation. If they locked up the convicts without occupation, or only gave them shot drill, and things of that kind, it would be extremely injurious to prison discipline; while the employment of convicts upon public works would be found highly beneficial; and the effects of recent changes in this particular seemed to be evidenced by the diminution of the number of convicts in proportion to the population, and, notwithstanding the increase of the population, everybody would regard that as a satisfactory result. The works at Portsmouth, Chatham, and elsewhere, on which the convicts had been employed, were now coming to an end; and the Government found themselves in this position—that within three years of the present time they would have 1,000 convicts on their hands, for whom they would have no works in the course of construction upon which to afford occupation for them. It was, therefore, essential to do something; and it was his duty to ask the Committee to consider what the works were upon which they could be most usefully employed. The character of work upon which convict labour could be usefully engaged was very limited. It was impossible to find work of a small character here and there. It was absolutely essential to have a large convict establishment under adequate control and supervision; and to justify the expenditure that would be necessary for making a large establishment, it must be a large work that would take a long time to complete, and it must also be a work calling for skilled labour. That was why the works at Chatham and Portsmouth, and works of that character, had been undertaken. But as those works were approaching completion, the problem was one confined in narrow limits. Hon Members might not be aware of the fact; but he had no hesitation in saying that the attempt to work a model farm at Dartmoor had not been successful. Consequently, harbour works, and harbour works not of a small, but on a large scale, were the only works, in the judg- ment of the Government and the judgment of everyone who had any experience in the matter, upon which convict labour could be usefully employed. That being so, Commissioners were now engaged in inquiring where convict labour could be best utilized. The matter must not be argued as a question of the merits of Dover Harbour; but it must be discussed from this point of view—that they must find work for the convicts, and could they find better work for them? The claims of two harbours had been put forward as deserving of first consideration—namely, the one at Dover, and the other at Filey. Filey, however, was considered to be second in importance to Dover, and he might state why it was that the Government had selected Dover first. In regard to Filey, nothing had yet been begun. Filey was upon the Yorkshire Coast, at a place where there were no fortifications; and there were many reasons for the determination to give preference to Dover, where a harbour had long been wanted into which the largest description of ships could find its way. Everything ready for going on with the works was to be found at Dover The matter had been considered by a Committee of the Cabinet, consisting of the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and they had come to the conclusion that the first works that ought to be undertaken were those at Dover. The estimated cost of one plan was £790,000; but that would only be sufficient for the construction of a harbour which would afford comparatively little accommodation for the ironclads. The recommendation of the Committee of 1875, of which his hon. and gallant Friend was a Member, examined some of the highest authorities who could be found, including the Hydrographer of the Navy, Sir A. Clark, the eminent engineer, and Mr. Druce, the engineer at Dover, who was well acquainted with the whole history of Dover Harbour. All those eminent men were in favour of the present proposal; and therefore they had as high authority in support of it as could be desired. It was estimated, however, that the cost would be, at least, £1,000,000, instead of £790,000, for the larger harbour it was proposed to construct, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Admiralty. In point of fact, the present plan would double the area of the harbour at an increase of only one-third in the cost. He thought that if they were going to make a harbour at all, it would be much better to make a satisfactory one at a cost of £1,000,000 than to make an inferior one at a cost of £790,000. It would have this additional advantage from his own point of view—that it would take a long time to complete, and would, therefore, be more remunerative to the country for the outlay. This was really the harbour recommended in 1844 and 1846—a harbour quite as extensive as that which had been all along proposed. Therefore, they had not only in support of the present proposal the authority of great engineers who recommended the harbour of 1844, but, what was even more important, it was supported by the most eminent engineers of the present day, who based their estimates upon the experience gained of the cost of making the Admiralty Pier at Dover. Estimates were not generally founded on actual experience of similar work upon the same ground; but the estimate given here was an estimate, founded on practical experience, of the cost of doing similar work on the spot by means of convict labour. It was quite evident that they must find work for the convicts, and this was the kind of work on which they could be most conveniently employed. What they were now asked to pay for was only the first instalment of the expense of building a convict prison. Nothing was asked for the harbour itself. The harbour itself would not be commenced for three years, because it would take three years to build the convict prison. It was estimated that the prison would cost £65,000 or £68,000, and it would be built mainly by the convicts themselves. The foundation would be built by contract, and then the convicts would be left to build the rest of the prison themselves. The convicts would be usefully employed during the next three years in erecting the prison. After that the harbour would be commenced, and the work was expected to occupy about 16 years. His object was not to have the work rapidly done, but rather to have it done slowly; because during the whole of the time the convicts would be usefully em- ployed, and his hon. and gallant Friend would have ample opportunity for bringing his great knowledge to bear upon the subject. At all events, during the next three years the Government would not be committed to any definite plan. There would be three years for the purpose of considering, reviewing, and examining the best plan. The Government asked now for £16,150 only for commencing the prison; but he must urge upon the Committee the necessity of commencing the work, or otherwise they would be really driven into a corner. His right hon. Friend and Predecessor (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had more than once pressed upon him the question as to what the Government were going to do with the convicts. The matter was becoming a very serious one; and, under these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would feel that the matter was in their own hands—at any rate, so far as the employment for the next three years was concerned. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee would reject the Amendment and pass the Vote.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) had some cause for complaint, considering that the Papers relating to the works at Dover had only been so recently placed in the hands of Members. He (Sir John Hay) confessed that until that afternoon he had had no opportunity whatever of looking at them, or of ascertaining what the proposal of the Government really was; but, having seen the plans, and heard the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Homo Secretary, he should certainly feel inclined to support the proposal of the Government. He had opposed the former proposal when it was intended to apply a smaller area; but the Papers now produced showed a largely-increased area, which would accommodate ironclads of a much larger draught, and afford a far larger amount of protection for any Fleet which might be stationed there. The importance of the works at Dover was so great that, though he should have been very glad to see the harbour at Filey commenced, he was bound to give the preference to Dover. The works at Dover were of the utmost value for the purpose of communicating with the Continent and for the protection of the Fleet; and that being so, having heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, and believing that in the course of the next three years the area now contemplated, if found to be insufficient, could be increased, he could not support the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. If it were found necessary hereafter to increase the area, he thought there would be very little difficulty in extending it. He hoped the Commission which had been sent down to the North Coast to investigate Peter-head and other places would very soon present their Report; and when the works at Portsmouth and Chatham were completed, he would suggest that it might be possible to consider whether the works at Filey and at Dover might not be proceeded with simultaneously—for instance, the convicts from Portsmouth might be sent to Filey, and those from Chatham to Dover. He should certainly like to see both works in progress; but he could not support his hon. and gallant Friend in the Motion he had made for the reduction of the Vote.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, he was glad to give a cordial support to the proposal of the Government; and he rejoiced to find that they had now begun to take active steps for carrying out those harbour works which had so long been necessary in this country. He should have desired that the works at Filey should not have been postponed for so long a period as that which would be occupied in the construction of the harbour at Dover, because 16 years was a very long time for the fishermen and Mercantile Marine on the North-East Coast of England to wait for works which were absolutely necessary for the preservation of their lives and the security of their property. At the same time, he fully admitted the necessity of the works at Dover. He could not forget the construction by the French of their magnificent harbour at Boulogne, and that they were also entering upon a large expenditure in harbour works at other parts of the Coast—Calais, Dunkirk, Brest, Dieppe, and other places. It was quite time, therefore, that they on this side of the Channel should have regard to that which was certainly necessary for the security of their Mercantile Marine, especially in these days of torpedoes—namely, the construction of harbours of refuge, With regard to Dover, he thought the Government had selected an admirable place for the formation of a convict establishment. He knew the locality well; and he was satisfied that for many reasons it would be extremely advantageous to have the convicts where it was proposed to place them. They would be remote from the town at a point where an ample supply of water could be provided for them from the Castle above them; and they would have easy access from the Castle Hill by means of a small tunnel, which already existed, to the place where the works were to be commenced. He had had an opportunity of examining the Report of the Committee upon these harbour works in 1844; and he was glad the Government did not propose to confine their operations to the plan proposed at a later date, but that they had gone back to the noble scheme which so many eminent engineers and naval men approved of in 1844. Under that plan ample accommodation would be afforded to the Fleet, and there would be 40 feet of water in a considerable portion of the harbour at the lowest tide. Then, again, in regard to the means of construction, there was an ample supply of shingle at Eye, at no great distance from Dover, which could be utilized in forming the concrete for the foundation of the harbour works. With regard to the convict question, he should have been much more satisfied if he could have received a more assuring answer to the Question he had put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant some time ago. He was then informed that the employment of the Irish convicts had been thought of, but that no practical scheme for their employment had yet been adopted. If there was such great advantage to be derived from the employment of convicts as the Home Secretary had set forth, he did not see why they should not utilize convict labour in Ireland at the earliest possible moment. He hoped that this was only the beginning of the extension of convict employment; and he trusted that it would be carried further than it now was, not only in England, but in Ireland and also in Scotland, where a Commission had lately been sitting to inquire into the best site for a harbour of refuge so much wanted on the North-East Coast of Scotland. In that case, when the site was selected, convict labour might also be usefully employed. In conclusion, he could only express his extreme gratification that the Government had determined at once to commence these works.

SIR EDWARD J. REED

said, that, having sat on the Committee of 1875 which inquired into this subject, he felt bound to trouble the Committee with a few words. He was sorry that he had been obliged to separate himself from his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) on the present occasion; but he rejoiced that they had been successful in defeating the scheme then set before the Committee. The ground on which he had endeavoured to defeat that scheme was that he found the Government of that day had proposed to expend nearly £1,000,000 upon a too-contracted and a too-limited harbour. His objection had been not to the construction of a harbour, but to the expenditure of so large a sum of money upon a shallow harbour, instead of expending the money upon a larger and better scheme. The plan of 1875 had the extraordinary characteristic of including a great deal of shallow water, and very little deep water; and he had concluded that the reason for that was a desire to keep the Estimate within the nominal sum of £1,000,000. They were placed in this position—that all the evidence of the military authorities, from the Commander-in-Chief downwards, and the naval authorities, from the First Lord of the Admiralty downwards, went to show that a deep water harbour was necessary; and yet they were called on to approve of a scheme of which nearly four-fifths, if he remembered rightly, consisted of shallow water. The present scheme of the Government included all that he and his friends desired to get in 1875, and even a great deal more; and, therefore, he was at a loss to understand how it happened that his hon. and gallant Friend completely separated himself from anything like an approval of the present proposal. Although he was bound to say that there was some difficulty in considering a scheme in the absence of estimates, and in the present state of the Business of the House, he was not disposed to cavil at it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said that the present Estimate did not commit the House to any particular plan for the harbour itself; and, that being so, he was at a loss to understand why they should withhold their support to the Vote. He asked his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) to remember that in giving approval to this Vote he (Sir Edward J. Reed), at any rate, was not departing from any part of the promises he had considered it his duty to hold out; and he must say that if the scheme submitted in 1875 had, like the present one, comprised more deep water and less shallow water, he should not have opposed it as he did at the time. But, even with regard to shallow water now, he did not forget the fact that dredging in chalk could be more economically conducted now than formerly. He should, therefore, support the Vote.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he had always taken great interest in Dover Harbour; and he had always thought that if the harbour was to be made, it ought not to be made by a Company, but, as far as possible, by the Government, who ought to make a harbour worthy of the nation. Looking at the present scheme in all the circumstances under which it was proposed, he thought it was the best way in which the matter could be dealt with. Nobody would deny that a harbour for the protection of their ships was absolutely necessary; and this consideration would have great weight, not only for ships of war, but also for ships of all kinds, for the trade and commerce of the country. Believing that the scheme the Government had now put forward was one that, if properly and promptly carried out, was calculated to be of great benefit to the country, he should, therefore, cordially support the Vote.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he was strongly in favour of such works as the present for the employment of convict labour; and he thought the observations of the Home Secretary were very just and well-considered in regard to the great question of the employment of convicts. It was a matter of great importance to employ convicts on works that were not of a brutalizing and degrading character, such as much of the work on which convicts had been employed in past years within the walls of the prisons. It was unquestionably the case, where they had men to deal with of the character of these convicts, that they should, as far as possible, provide outdoor employment for them, and nothing could be better suited for their employment than public works in the nature of harbours. He, therefore, trusted that convicts would not only now, but for many years to come, be employed all around the Coast on works of this description. But when he came to the question of expense, he was inclined to think that the reason assigned for dissenting from the proposed reduction was one which told rather in the opposite direction. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) said that this item in the present Vote really did not bind the Committee, or the House, to any definite scheme. That was quite true; but, at the same time, it did not bind the Committee to any definite maximum, and past experience convinced persons who had watched these matters that revised Estimates generally meant enlarged Estimates, and they had no assurance at all what would be the amount of money expended before the works were finished. The expenditure upon the works at Holyhead, Plymouth, and other places had all been largely in excess of the Estimate, and so they unquestionably would in the case of Dover. He, therefore, thought it would be well to ascertain from the Government what the outside expenditure was likely to be in connection with this Vote, because there were other places besides Dover which had a claim upon the Treasury for harbour works—not only Filey and Peterhead, but places elsewhere. The aspect in which the question presented itself to him was that of the unfortunate taxpayer—he did not mean the British taxpayer, but the Irish taxpayer, who was asked to assent to Votes like this year after year, and who saw millions spent on public works in Great Britain, but found the greatest difficulty not only in getting money from the Exchequer for expenditure in Ireland, but even in getting the assent of the Government to the expenditure of its own money. He wished to obtain an assurance from the Government that the same considerations which the Home Secretary said had actuated the Government in respect to Dover Harbour would be allowed to have equal weight on the other side of the Channel. The convict establishment at Spike Island was to be done away with, or had practically been done away with, and convicts were no longer to be employed in that neighbourhood. He, therefore, hoped that similar works would be undertaken in Ireland to those which had been started, or were proposed, for Dover. He would not go into any de-tails upon the question; but, of course, Galway Bay would at once suggest itself to every mind. He hoped that before the Irish Members were asked to vote away the public money they would have some assurance that what was sauce for the English "goose" should be sauce for the Irish "gander." Before he sat down he was anxious to submit one or two financial points for the consideration of the Secretary to the Treasury. In the first place, he noticed a departure from the recognized financial rule in regard to money raised for the service of the Vote. There was an item under the head of repayment of Western Australia for Colonial convicts which amounted to £3,360. That sum was taken in aid of the Vote, and was a complete departure from the system adopted in regard to the Civil Service Estimates ordinarily. No doubt, it was adopted in regard to the Army and Navy Estimates; but it had been adopted only tentatively, and it had been decided not to extend the practice to the Civil Service Estimates. Then, the produce of prison labour was set down at £15,000; but the Financial Secretary knew as well as he did that they would never get £15,000 out of that service, or anything like £10,000. He believed that £10,500 was the highest figure it had ever reached. With regard to this question of prison labour, it would be in the recollection of the Financial Secretary that the Committee of Public Accounts recommended that there should be some consultation between the different Departments as to the mode in which the figures given in connection with this matter should be checked; be cause the Comptroller and Auditor General expressed great dissatisfaction at the materials furnished to him in support of the credits given to different prisons under this head. There were two or three things which called for criticism and remark; but he would simply ask the Financial Secretary how it was, if the Surveyor General of Prisons was to have a maximum of £1,400 a-year, that there was charged for him only £1,000 last year, and only £1,000 this? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be able to explain the matter.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

said, he was one of those who thought that more harbours were required, especially in the Channel, and who were in favour of the construction of harbours whenever they were really necessary. But the attention of Her Majesty's Government seemed to be concentrated upon the improvement of the harbour at Dover, to the exclusion of harbours needed elsewhere. He admitted the great necessity which existed for a harbour of sufficient capacity at Dover, for the reason, amongst others, mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay)—namely, the creation of large harbours on the other side of the Channel; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had told them they might console themselves for voting this portion—£16,150—of the total Estimate of £68,650, because it would be 16 years before the whole sum would be expended. He ventured to think that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had given reasons for a very considerable re-casting of the policy of the Government. Holyhead Harbour took 19 years to construct, when it might have been made useful for shipping in a much shorter period. Why did the Government come down and say it was most essential to give a harbour at Dover, and that, practically, it was the only place they could take in hand, and then say they must take 16 years to complete the work of works, when every practical man knew that it could be done in four? He was not sure that it was desirable to employ convict labour on works at places where there was a large population. The establishment of a convict prison at Dover would probably have the effect of damaging its position as a watering place. However, the Government seemed to think otherwise; but if convicts were to be employed there at all, surely the work should be brought to an end in the shortest possible time, and not be dawdled over for a great number of years. He hoped they would be assured that it was the policy of the Government, whenever they entered upon works of great public utility, to have them finished at the earliest possible time.

MR. FRESHFIELD

said, he did not rise for the purpose of discussing the question whether a harbour should be constructed at Dover, because that had long ago been settled. The Admiralty Pier at Dover had been, and was still, a most effective portion of the works there; it had enabled them to conduct communications with foreign countries, on the whole, very fairly; but there were no means of using one side of that Pier when the wind blew from the East, nor the other side when it blew from the West; consequently, the embarkation of troops could never take place there, and the men had to be sent on board at Sheerness and other places. Vessels had been driven on shore there in an East wind and broken up; and it was, therefore, plain that there was a necessity for the work being taken in hand, and at once. He was sorry his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) was still opposed to these works, and he believed he was the sole objector to the scheme. He was obliged to correct his hon. and gallant Friend with regard to one statement he had made—namely, that the Duke of Wellington never gave an opinion in favour of a harbour at Dover. In reply to Questions put to him before the Royal Commission of 1843, the Duke said, with reference to the construction of a harbour between Portsmouth and the Downs— A harbour between Portsmouth and the Downs is absolutely necessary. In answer to the Question whether the Downs would not do, he said— Dover Roads are a secure place in northerly and easterly winds, but a dangerous place when the wind is from the South-West; and he went on to say that he thought a harbour at Dover not only desirable, but absolutely necessary. Since the time when the Duke of Wellington expressed that opinion, vessels of almost all classes had enormously increased in size, and steamships had correspondingly increased in number. The reasons which formerly existed had now much greater weight, because a harbour was required which would accommodate vessels of great draught of water, and which would serve also as a coaling station, for, as hon. Members would be aware, it was impossible for ships to coal in the Downs. He thought it right to put the hon. and gallant Gentleman right in another respect. He said that the Committee which reported in favour of the scheme were not unanimous. That was quite true; but who was it that opposed it? It was the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) himself. It was true that his hon. and gallant Friend had submitted that a greater depth of water should be given than that proposed; but that was now part of the Government plan. In 1875, owing to the financial considerations which always controlled the Treasury Bench, a smaller harbour was proposed, and the result was a harbour inadequate for the purpose for which it was intended. Since that time the matter had been under consideration again, and it had been resolved to increase the size of the harbour. The present Government, in his opinion, were very much to be congratulated upon having brought this question to a practical point, although he was bound to say that he wished the work could be completed in a shorter period than that mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He did not think the question was entirely one of the employment of convicts; but their employment might be a good thing so far as the reduction of cost was concerned. The original Estimate had been largely reduced by this plan, as also by the employment of concrete instead of stone. He believed that if the late Government had not been so tied down by financial considerations, the work of 1875 might have been nearly completed by this time. He trusted that the 16 years assumed now would prove to be a large over-estimate of the time required to finish the work; because it could not be denied that, with the harbours opposite on the coast of France, it was indispensable that, without unnecessary delay, there should be some place of ambush and refuge for our ironclads, as well as shelter for the ships of commerce that were always passing through the Downs.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, if the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) went to a Division he should certainly vote with him, notwithstanding the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in advocating this Vote, did so on the ground that there were a certain number of convicts for whom it was necessary that some outdoor occupation should be found. That was one of the most formidable declarations he had ever heard, because it was probable that they could have convicts for a considerable time for whom, upon the principle laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it would always be necessary to find employment—that was to say, whether the construction of harbours was desirable and useful or not, work would have to be found, and money would have to be spent in order to employ them. It was a most preposterous declaration for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make. With regard to this particular work, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) congratulating the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the scheme of the Government. He should have thought that the presence of a large number of convicts would have been regarded by the inhabitants of Dover with feelings of anything but satisfaction; however, they were the best judges of their own affairs. He thought they were bound to vote for the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because either the harbour at Dover was desirable or it was not; if it was not, it was of no use to waste the public money upon it; and if it was desirable, then the harbour ought to be made at once, and the work not extended over this long period of 16 years. There was no doubt that the work could be done in two or three years; but the Home Secretary said—"No. We must go on slowly, because these convicts have to be employed." For these reasons, he said the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman should receive the support of the Committee.

MR. MACFARLANE

asked if the Government had really estimated the cost of convict labour as compared with that of free labour? His own impression was that some of the prisons built by convicts had cost much more than they would have done had they been built by free labour. He hoped that point had been taken into consideration; because, however desirable it might be to find employment for convicts, he was quite sure that the tax- payers were not anxious to build at a higher cost than was necessary. He saw nothing to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon in the fact that three years would be required to build barracks, and 16 in which to construct the harbour. It had been admitted ever since 1844 that a harbour was necessary at Dover; and yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman, upwards of 30 years afterwards, said it would not be finished for 19 years.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the Government had been guided in this case by the opinion of men most experienced in such matters; and he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Estimate which had been made showed that the work done by convicts would be much cheaper than by free labour. He did not like to pledge him self to a particular amount; but he had no doubt whatever that a considerable saving would be effected by the employment of convict labour. He pointed out that this proposal would never have been made unless the Government were able, first, to make use of convicts; and, secondly, to do so at a cheap rate, so that the question lay between doing the work in that way, and not doing it at all. He believed hon. Members would perceive a very considerable advantage in spreading the cost of the work over a number of years. There was one point of a financial character which was important in considering this matter. There was already a certain amount of revenue from Dover Harbour; and in the course of the time mentioned, he believed, without pledging himself, because Estimates were sometimes deceptive, that an amount would be received from the harbour not far short of the interest on one-half the cost of the work.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, he was surprised that a work of such great importance as the construction of a harbour at Dover should be extended over a period of 19 years; and he believed, if the question were put to the House, that it would not consent to the work occupying any longer time than was absolutely necessary for finishing it. It was well known that, at the present moment, the ships of their Navy could not find a place where they could lie that was protected from torpedoes—that was to say, a land-locked harbour. There was one point which he desired to raise, and which he trusted would be taken into account before the Estimates of next year were made. The general plan of the works had, he believed, been approved, and it was settled that convicts would be employed. He asked whether the Government would not put the convicts to work first at the east end of the harbour, so that they might not get mixed up with the free labourers on the other side? He believed that plan would be very convenient, inasmuch as the convicts would then be at work close to the barracks. With regard to the time occupied in completing the work, he felt satisfied that when once it had been begun, the country would not be contented to wait for 19 years to see it finished.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

pointed out to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) that the Duke of Wellington had not expressed himself in favour of a harbour at Dover; his evidence was more in favour of a harbour near Dungeness. He contended that the works at Dover would cost nearer £5,000,000 than £1,000,000; and he would remind the Committee that Dover Pier cost £1,000,000, although the original Estimate was £276,000. The Home Secretary had brought forward a number of plans in support of his view; but he (Sir George Balfour) placed little reliance upon them, because it was well known that they could get plans in any number from engineers, so long as there was money to be spent. His view was, that it would be better to spend a large sum of money on the construction of several harbours, so as to provide many refuges along our Coasts, than to spend it all upon one harbour in a corner of the Kingdom. He repeated his opinion with regard to Dover, that it was by no means the most suitable place for the object they had in view; and he would oppose this project at present and in future, although he knew that, when once the Government took up a question and began to work it, it was useless to expect any alteration of the scheme they had set their minds upon. At that late period of the Session, and in that thin House, and as those to whom he had looked for support were not present, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, although he should have felt it his duty, under other circumstances, to divide the Committee as a protest against the Government involving the country in an expenditure of at least £5,000,000.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) £89,381, to complete the sum for the Irish Land Commission.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he had given Notice that he would move to reduce this Vote by £1,000. He did not mean, however, to go to a Division; but he wished to avail himself of the opportunity of making a few observations on the Land Question itself. There were some Gentlemen, altogether apart from the Irish Members, who were interested in the subject, and they had been in hopes a proper opportunity would have been given for discussion. It would be most inconvenient, at that time of the Session, to enter upon a protracted discussion; indeed, it would be almost cruel to attempt to keep the Committee long upon this subject. Hon. Members were aware that the House of Lords last Session appointed a Committee to inquire into the working of the Land Act. The House of Commons became quite hysterical, and passed a Resolution expressing disapproval of the appointment of the Committee. That Committee produced a Report, a most valuable, and interesting, and highly instructive Report to those interested in the question. There were three charges against the Land Commission which could be deduced from the Report of the Lord's Committee. The Committee charged the Irish Land Commission with, in the first place, a certain measure of corruption; in the second place, with incompetency; and, in the third place, with acting capriciously. He thought the first charge—namely, that of corruption, was not borne out by the evidence they had gathered; and he maintained that a Committee, such as that he was referring to, ought not to make wholesale charges against a body of public servants unless they were prepared to substantiate them. It was the easiest thing in the world to make a general denunciation; but it was a very difficult thing to prove it. If the critics of the Irish Land Commission had any distinct charges to make they should give the date, the time, and the circumstance; because if the accusations were to be substantiated, it would be the duty of the Government to censure the Commissioners, and it might be to dismiss them. In the absence of any distinct charge of corruption, it was unfair to a body of public men, who had very onerous duties to discharge, that they should have these reckless accusations made against them. The next accusation against the Land Commissioners was that they were incompetent; and he thought there was better ground for that charge than there was for the first. Although they might not be incompetent men, he believed the Sub-Commissioners had scarcely been competent for the work entrusted to them. There had been too great a preponderance of the legal element; and he was not altogether sure that political considerations had not influenced some of the appointments. Still, they must remember that the Irish Executive were pressed to make the appointments with the greatest possible speed. Both in the interest of the landlord, of the tenant, and of the country generally, it was necessary the work should be done; and, he believed, in their desire to secure expedition, the Executive had, in some instances, failed to get the best men. He could find every reasonable excuse and explanation for some of the appointments not being altogether of a kind they could have wished. The third accusation was the most important, for it was that the Land Commissioners had been capricious in their decisions. He thought that charge was completely made out. Unquestionably, the decisions of the Commissioners had not been uniform. The Commissioners had not been guided by any principle. The want of uniformity was not visible only here and there, but cases could be cited from all parts of the country. He had had numerous letters, both from landlords and tenants, giving information of most contradictory cases. A piece of land of a certain value, and with certain facilities of situation, was valued by one set of Commissioners at a given price; while another piece of land of the same quality, and held under identically the same conditions, was valued at a very different price. In one instance, the reductions made in the rents were from 6 to 10 per cent. and in other instances 20, or above 20 per cent. It was impossible for such a want of uniformity to exist and not create discontent. The landlord whose rents had been largely reduced felt aggrieved, and the tenant whose rent had been least reduced felt equally aggrieved. This dissatisfaction was widespread and deep, and would in time drive Parliament to fresh legislation. This capriciousness arose because the Commissioners had no definite principle on which to go in valuing land. The Government refused to define a fair rout when the Land Act was being passed. They said it could not be done. There was as much difficulty in settling what a fair rent was as in settling what was agency under the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. Parliament relegated the work to the Chief Commissioners. The Chief Commissioners could not possibly do the work themselves, and they had been obliged to relegate it to Sub-Commissioners. The consequence was—to use the expressive language of Professor Baldwin—that some 90 men had been let loose on the property of the tenantry of Ireland without anything to guide them. He (Mr. Cowen) had no hesitation in saying that anyone who had studied the subject would admit that serious injustice had been done to both sides. He did not say that rents had been reduced too much or too little; but that on account of the want of a principle to guide the Commissioners great inequality existed, and, consequently, dissatisfaction. When Parliament refused to fix a fair rent, but relegated the task to a Commission, that desperate body—the Land League—hit upon a plan by which the omission might be supplied. When the Land Bill became law, his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) wrote a textbook for the Irish tenants, showing them the way in which they could best avail themselves of its privileges. Recognizing the difficulty of the situation, the promoters of the League called a Convention, and resolved to get up a series of test cases. They authorized their agents throughout the country to collect information. This information was sifted and arranged by land valuers and by lawyers, and cases illustrative of the varied condition of the country were to be submitted to the Chief Commissioners for their decision. The decision of the Commissioners was to be accepted as a guide, and the other tenants were to make bargains with their landlords in accordance with these leading cases. That was a fair, wise, and reasonable proposal. The Government refused to allow it to be put in force. They discredited the motives of the members of the Land League, and overturned their organization in the effort they were making to apply the Act. In consequence, the Commissioners never had these chief cases submitted to them, and the recent confusion and discontent were the result. That was not his opinion; but it was the opinion of the Land Commissioners themselves. Let the Committee listen to and consider the remarkable extract he was now going to read. The Lords' Report was felt to be so damaging to the Commissioners that Mr. Justice O'Hagan and his Colleagues had gone out of their way to answer the Report of the Peers. This was a most unusual circumstance. He did not suppose that a case of the kind had ever occurred in the country before of a Judicial Body answering a Committee of Parliament. But it had been done. The Report of the Lords' Committee contained the following clause—which was only a condensed expression of what he (Mr. Cowen) bad just been saying— The Committee cannot but look with great regret upon the course adopted in settling judicial rents under the Act. This duty, the most important, and at the same time the most difficult to be discharged under the Act, was, in the first instance, assigned by Parliament to the three Commissioners named in the Act, whose names and standing were stated to be a sufficient guarantee that the duty would be effectively and impartially discharged. The Commissioners, however, proceeded to delegate the whole of this duty to the Sub-Commissioners appointed under the Act, who now number 85. And they made this delegation without having themselves heard any of the cases in the first instance, in the course of which hearing they might have enunciated some general principles to be followed, or established some precedents to serve as examples. The Commissioners made the following answer to this clause:— If they had been so asked, they would have stated as follows:—When the Land Commissioners, after having, in a space of less than two months, completed the task of framing Rules and forming and organizing their staff, were approaching their practical work in the month of October, 1881, it was announced publicly by the leading members of the Land League that they would select certain cases, which they termed test cases, and bring them into Court, in order to ascertain practically in what manner the Statute would be carried into effect. Being selected as test cases, it was to be presumed that they would present some features the decisions upon which might govern many others. The Commissioners, therefore, resolved to sit and hear them in person. But before the opportunity arose, the Land League was declared illegal; and the intention of bringing for ward the test cases in question was abandoned. The cases first coming into Court had no special character. They were ordinary cases, small in area and value. There never probably was a more complete vindication of a body of politicians by a Judicial Court than the vindication of the Land League by the Land Commissioners. The English people did not follow public matters consecutively. They forgot one week what took place the week before. The mass of Englishmen had a dim idea that the Land League was a most reprehensible organization, and nothing that even the Irish Land Commissioners could say would alter that opinion. When the League announced its determination to select these test cases, the Prime Minister went down to Leeds and made a most mischievous speech to an applauding audience—denouncing the conduct of the Irish Members, and intimating in a significant manner that the resources of civilization were not yet exhausted. Immediately following this speech the Chief Secretary for Ireland hurried over from Dublin. A Cabinet Council was suddenly summoned, and he returned with authority to issue warrants wholesale. His hon. Friends the Members for Cork and Roscommon, Mr. Dillon, and several hundred other Irishmen were sent to gaol. In the course of a short time 1,000 men were imprisoned in this way without trial; and all the machinery that the League had organized for getting up the test cases—which the Commissioners now say would have been of such service to them—was rudely broken up. And what had followed? As soon as the leading members of the League were incarcerated, popular indignation arose, and there was no one to guide it. From agitation the people drifted into conspiracy, and from conspiracy to crime. They had the terrible and melancholy records of the last two years to look back upon as the consequence of the hasty and unjustifiable exercise of authority on the part of the Government which had led to the breaking up of the League and the wholesale arrest of its members. If the project of the League had gone forward, if the test cases had been submitted to the Commissioners, the course of the Land Act would have been much smoother, its cost much less, and its results vastly superior to what they had been. He did not know how far it was possible for any action that the Government could take, or that the Land Commissioners could take, to remedy the inequality and uncertainty; but of this he was quite sure—that the fact of that want of uniformity existing was the strongest possible reason for an alteration of the Land Act. He did not propose to enter into that discussion now; but, so far as the Land Commissioners were concerned, there was one point in regard to which he thought they were open to strong censure—they had not in any way encouraged the carrying out of the Purchase Clauses; they had given no stimulus to those clauses; and he thought the Committee could find a reason for that in the words of Mr. Litton, who might be taken to fairly represent the feelings of the Government on this subject, and who was a typical Representative of the Irish Liberals. Mr. Litton had declared that to encourage the establishment of a peasant proprietary would be largely to promote the movement for the Repeal of the Union. Mr. Litton thought that if they established an independent peasantry in Ireland they would get political power that would be used in the direction of separation. He (Mr. Cowen) thought it would have a very opposite tendency; but, still, Mr. Litton had given expression to the opinion quoted, and the consequence was that this section of the Land Act, to which all parties looked forward most hopefully, had least opportunity of being carried into operation. He did not know how far the Government could use their influence with the Land Commissioners to stimulate the operation of the Purchase Clauses; but he maintained that they ought to do something to effect that which the Irish people had very greatly at heart. The Land Act itself was a new departure in the social legislation of this country, and its justification was only to be tested by its success. Now, had it been successful? Probably, it was too soon to pronounce a decided opinion; but certainly it had not come up to the anticipations of its promoters. It had dis- appointed all parties, opponents as well as supporters. The Government said it would lead to a better payment of rent. He believed rent was being paid better; but whether that was a consequence of the Land Act or of better times he could not say. The Government said they believed the Land Act would increase the price of land; but that, certainly, had not been the case, because land was now practically unsaleable, and its value was very seriously depreciated. The Land League proposed to buy the land at 21 or 22 years' purchase; but now an owner could not get more than 13 or 14 years' purchase. A few years ago the sale of land in the Landed Estates Court amounted to about £1,000,000 a-year; but he did not suppose it now amounted to more than £100,000. In respect, therefore, to the sale of land the Act had not been successful. It had led to better payment of rent; but it had not led to an increased value of land in Ireland. Another defect of the Act he would name. It had not reached the very class it was most desirable to help. It had benefited the comparatively well-to-do peasantry; but it had in no way served the starving cottiers of the West and South. If legislation had to reach them, it would have to be of another kind. The Land Act was said to be a new departure in legislation. The Prime Minister asserted that its justification would be its success, and that success would lead to the establishment of social contentment and political repose. Would anybody undertake to say that there was social contentment in Ireland at the present time, or that there was political repose? The Irish people were living under the very hardest Coercion Laws that were known in Europe. They were kept down on all sides by a ruthless and unbending military and police administration. If the Land Act had produced the contentment that was expected from it, the Government ought to be able to abandon these repressive laws. If they could do that and place the Irish people in the same position as the English, giving them equal liberty, then they might say the Act had been successful. But as they could not, or would not, or dare not do this, they certainly had no grounds for any such contention. Having said that, however, he had no wish to join in that general con- demnation that had been indulged in by the Lords' Committee in the Report to which he referred. He believed that in the very urgent and very pressing circumstances the Land Commissioners had striven honestly and fairly to do their duty; and, although they had not realized all that was expected of them, yet they had accomplished certain good, and he hoped that in a comparatively short time they would be able to see good rents fixed.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, he did not propose to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) into details; but having regard to the general tenour of his speech he could not imagine stronger condemnation of the Land Act being uttered. It was not his intention to go into the merits of the Vote, or of the remarkable document which was issued by the Land Commissioners in defence of their conduct in answer to the charges brought against them by the Lords' Committee. He considered that the action of Her Majesty's Government in proposing at that period of the Session Votes to which they knew there was not only very serious objection, but to which Notice of opposition on various points had been given, was not only reprehensible in the extreme, but an endeavour to evade that discussion which it was right and proper ought to take place upon such matters in the House of Commons. He was not now going to discuss the details of the failure of the Act, or the salaries of the officers which they were now asked to vote; but he protested against the attempt on the part of the Government to burke all inquiry into this matter. The Government had tried to throw discredit upon all statements made as to the conduct and action of the administrators of the Act, showing, apparently, that they were determined to see nothing but good in what he could only call their misshapen offspring. The 16th of August could not be considered a proper time for taking a Vote of this description; but, aided by their alliance with those to whom they had been lately throwing fresh sops in return for vituperation and insult, the Government hoped in the last few days of the Session to hurry this Vote through Parliament without any serious opposition. That was not the time for entering into a full discussion of a question of such magnitude; and he should content himself by simply entering his protest against the action of the Government on this occasion. He thought those who were of the same opinion would best consult their own dignity if they raised no further discussion upon these Votes.

MR. LEA

regretted that this question had been raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). It would have been better, in his opinion, if the subject had been left over until next Session, when it was to be brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). He (Mr. Lea), however, did not like to hear the Land Commissioners abused without saying a word in their defence. The hon. Member for Newcastle had said there was great inequality in the decisions arrived at by the Sub-Commissioners. No doubt there was a certain amount of inequality; but it was impossible that the decisions of the Commissioners should agree in every respect. There was considerable difficulty with regard to giving effect to the Act as to the Purchase Clauses. In the first place, he did not know how they were to arrive at the basis for purchase unless they had the fair rent paid. As far as his experience of Irish tenants went, what they desired most was that they should have some reduction of the rent. Many of them had submitted to high rents; but they now wanted the benefit which was to be derived from the decrease of the rent. The hon. Member for Newcastle had said that the Land Act had not been so successful. Well, it had not been as successful as was hoped; but it was an early day to condemn an Act which had only recently been set to work. It certainly had not increased the value of land; but to bring about that result would, of course, be a matter of time. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), in referring to the state of Ireland, undoubtedly admitted that the Land Act had been a considerable benefit to the country in producing the present state of tranquillity. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Member for Newcastle should have admitted that the Act had been of considerable benefit in that respect. In regard to this Vote, there was a question which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant might well be expected to answer—namely, whether or not he intended to reduce the number of Sub-Commissioners? Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the state of business required that they should be continued for another year or two? There were a certain number of Sub-Commissioners whose time expired this year. They were appointed annually, he believed; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought the state of business would allow the number to be reduced this year, or whether it would be necessary to continue the present number? Perhaps by-and-bye the right hon. Gentleman would be able to answer that question.

MR. BULWER

said, he did not wish to prolong the discussion. He only regretted that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) was not present, as, knowing the hon. Member's impartiality, he (Mr. Bulwer) would have preferred to make the few observations he was about to make in his presence. He did not concur in what had fallen from the hon. Member as to the charge of corruption against the Sub-Commissioners. The Committee of the House of Lords had attached no such charge to those officials; but that they had charged them with not having properly performed their duties was perfectly true. He (Mr. Bulwer) would hardly call their action "corruption," though he did not feel satisfied with it; and what he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Newcastle was this. The hon. Member had told them, rightly enough, that they could get a great deal by violent conduct from this country, and he referred to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) having "taken off his coat" in this matter; but the hon. Member had forgotten one fact. He (Mr. Bulwer) was not there to defend the Government; but when the hon. Member for Newcastle was abusing the Government for their shortcomings, he had forgotten the motive which induced the hon. Member for the City of Cork to take off his coat. That motive was not to have fair rents fixed. He had an ulterior object, which the hon. Member for Newcastle, even if he had not forgotten it, at any rate had not mentioned, and which most people recognized as a justification for the Government for disturbing the action of the Land League. The hon. Member had said that the Commissioners did not set to work to reduce rents, and that they, possibly, were actuated by a spirit of fairness. Well, he did not wish to bring any accusations against them at all; but if they thought their mission was to reduce rents, if his memory served him aright, they had some justification for that opinion. No one could have forgotten the celebrated occasion upon which a Government candidate claimed the support of a constituency in the North of Ireland mainly on the ground that, if he was returned to Parliament, rents would be lowered. The Sub-Commissioners, if they had reduced rents more than they ought to have done, had, therefore, some sort of warrant for their action. He should have expected from a man of the fairness of the hon. Member for Newcastle a speech such as he had delivered. They all knew that the hon. Member had great sympathy with people who took extreme views, so long as they did not violate the law. He (Mr. Bulwer) could not say he had the same sympathy with those people; but the hon. Member had forgotten that those who advocated these extreme views had violated the law. As regarded the Commissioners, he would only add that if they required a defence they would hardly be satisfied with that offered by the hon. Member for Newcastle. The hon. Member had damned everybody all round with faint praise, except the Government, to whom he had given no praise at all.

COLONEL COLTHURST

wished to say a word as to one point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). The hon. Member had attributed the failure of the Purchase Clauses to the action or the non-action of the Chief Commissioners, and also to an opinion which had been expressed by Mr. Litton, and this was a most unfortunate impression to allow to go abroad. Well, to his (Colonel Colthurst's) mind the failure of the Land Commissioners to do their duty had not at all affected the Purchase Clauses. The reason of the failure was this—and although the hon. Member had referred to it at the end of his speech he had not given it as the reason—that land was at present practically unsaleable in Ireland. It was not to be expected that people would put land in the market at the present moment unless under pressure of the most dire necessity. Another point was the necessity of quickening the appeals. Until some means were devised for enabling appeals to be decided more rapidly by the Chief Commissioners, it was hopeless to expect any action from the Purchase Clauses, for the quicker the work of the Sub-Commissioners—and he was happy to say it was being done quicker and quicker every day—the greater was the block in the Appeal Court; and until they got a judicial rent fixed over the greater part of Ireland, they would not have the Purchase Clauses working. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would bear that in mind. It was not the first time he (Colonel Colthurst) had brought it under his notice. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say, on the part of the Government, that they had taken some steps to enable the Chief Commissioners to dispose more rapidly of the appeals.

MR. HEALY

said, he hoped that some statement would be given as to the progress made in fixing fair rents. The last Return which had been presented to the House only went down to May; and it was not a fair thing that they should discuss the Vote without showing how far rents had been fixed up to the present time. Furthermore, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could give them some statement as to the total amount of reduction which had been effected? He found, on looking at this Vote as compared with the Vote of last year, that there was a considerable inflation. The Vote was £157,581, which was an enormous sum, and an increase of £70,000 over the Estimate of last year. It was a most extraordinary increase in the expenses of the working of the Land Commission, and one which could not be looked upon save with horror. The total amount of reduction in rent made annually did not amount to the working expenses of the Commission. Of course, the answer was that the total working expenses would come to an end some time or another, and that the reduction made in the rents would last for 15 years; but his contention was that, as long as the Act was worked in the way in which it was worked year after year, they would have to meet the present amount of expenditure, and that, therefore, the expenditure would be greatly disproportionate to the amount of the reduction awarded to the unfortunate tenantry. To his mind, it would be far better for the Government to make to the landlords a present of the capitalized expenses of the Commission—capitalized value of this £150,000 a-year—and to devote it to the reduction of the existing rentals, than to put the unfortunate tenants to the necessity and trouble of law suits, with the accompanying bickerings, and heart-burning, and expenses of surveys, plans, and witnesses, which would swallow up the reduction of rents for some years. Ingenuity could not have devised a more unhappy expedient than the fair rent scheme of the Land Act as a panacea for the misfortunes of the tenants. The more he contemplated the Fair Pent Clauses of the Land Act, the more he was amazed that anybody could have proposed them as a panacea for the evils the country was suffering under. What happened under them? Take the case of a man whose valuation was £20, and who had to pay £30 a-year rent. That man wanted to get a fair rent fixed. He had, in the first place, to get an engineer, surveyor, or valuer, or whatever they might call him, to prepare plans, and specifications, and maps, and so on, at a cost, perhaps, at the least, of £4. Then he went to an attorney, and perhaps had to travel a long way before he could obtain the services of one, losing both time and money. He would have to pay the attorney a few sovereigns more. Then, perhaps, some point of law arose. The attorney refused to be responsible, and the man had to employ a barrister, so that frequently the cost of getting a fair rent fixed would amount to from £8 to £10. How much would his reduction amount to? If his rent was £30, probably he would get it reduced to £28, so that for several years the total amount of his reduction would be swallowed up in his expenses. There then was another point. The hon. Member for Newcastle had referred to the capricious action of the Land Commissioners; and he (Mr. Healy) thoroughly endorsed his statement in that respect. They found that during the period the "No Rent" Manifesto was in force the reductions given were 24 or 25 per cent; and according as the temper of the people was excited, and there was agitation in the country, they found the maximum of reduction, and that thus when the country was quiet and the Prevention of Crime Act had been passed they found the percentage of reduction reduced to 24, 23, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, and as low as 15 percent. Capriciousness of the grossest character was apparent. Moreover, he declared that such a proceeding justified the charge made against the Commissioners of corruption. They said that a corrupt Court was a Court influenced by motives other than the abstract questions of law which came before it. In that sense of the word, therefore, he thought the Land Commission Court was a corrupt Court. His contention was that it was a corrupt Court when it showed itself to be influenced by the clamour of landlords on the one side, or the complaints of tenants on the other; and there was the strongest evidence to show that, according as the House of Lords put pressure on in the shape of a debate, or a Motion, or a Committee of Inquiry, as the groans of the landlords went up, so did the backs of the Land Commission weaken, and their reductions decrease. He thought, therefore, hon. Members were justified in saying that the Land Commission Court was a corrupt Court. That it was a capricious Court had been fully established by the reductions which bad been given. He thought the Government were greatly to blame in this matter. Then the House of Lords, for two years, had a Committee sitting upon the Act, and were summoning Sub-Commissioners by the dozen, several of the Land Commissioners, and leading men belonging to the landlord classes. He thought the Government were to blame in not conducting a counter-inquiry from the tenants' point of view, so as to restore the balance and create a counterpoise in the minds of the Land Commissioners. He could not conceive what the Government intended, by the small Motion they had carried in this House, to show that it was injurious to the interests of the Land Act that the House of Lords should institute an inquiry into the operation of the measure, if now they could refrain from holding a counter-inquiry into the grievances of the tenants. It remained on record that the Government had permitted an inquiry into the grievances of the landlords, while they had not promoted or allowed a counter-inquiry into the grievances of the tenants. The result of what had taken place was this—that the complaints made by the tenants of Ireland, and the injury they declared they had suffered, through their representatives, owing to the corrupt conduct of the Land Commissioners, were unknown to the House and to the country, and were closed up in the minds of these unfortunate men, who had not even the newspapers to resort to, so many of them being illiterate; whereas the grievances of the landlords had been published to the world, not only through the Press, but through the influential medium of a Report from the other House. If the Government meant fairly by the Irish tenantry, they should have given them the same facilities, in the shape of an inquiry in this House—they should have given them a tenants' inquiry, as the House of Lords' Committee was a landlords' Committee. They had not done so; and, therefore, he charged upon the Government a desire to cushion the inquiry into the grievances of the tenants; whereas "another place" was taking the greatest care of the interests of the landlords. They would have, by-and-bye, a statement as to these fair rents, and also as to the annual increase in the reduction. Another point he would like to draw attention to was the extraordinary difference which occurred in the different Provinces in the fixing of fair rents. Far be it from him, as an Ulster Member, to complain of the inequalities, as far as they improved the condition of the Northern Province; but he could not help commenting on the fact that, according to last month's Reports, there were 1,700 cases of judicial rents fixed in the Province of Ulster; whereas, when they went to Connaught and Munster, there were only 300 in the one, and 500 in the other. He was aware that there had been many more cases sent in from Ulster than from any other of the four Provinces; but, surely, the Government ought to be as desirous of settling the rents in the other Provinces as in Ulster. He did not wish to have a single Land Commissioner in Ulster moved; but he did desire that there should be as many Land Commissioners sent to the other Provinces as were sent to Ulster. If he turned to Leinster, what did he find? Why, that a Commission which had been operating in various other places, after hearing cases in the Midland Counties, and having had tenant farmers withdraw from cases in consequence of the evidence of men like Professor Baldwin in favour of men like Colonel King-Harman, was removed to Kildare, Dublin, Wicklow, Louth, &c.; and he wished to know why that Commission alone should he called upon to operate over those areas? He thought it unfair and invidious to say that a Commission of the character which was distrusted in a portion of the Island should he sent to those places. He would like to call attention to what he thought was a growing evil in the case of this Land Commission. In his opinion, the inquiries before it were degenerating into a complete farce. The evidence of the landlord and tenant was duly heard; but, practically, the Commissioners paid no attention whatever to it. The tenant got up, his valuer was sworn, and handed in plans and specifications of the improvements, drains, and reclamations he had made; but all that did not matter a snuff to the Commissioners. They took no more notice of the tenant's evidence, or that of his valuator, than if they were talking Sanscrit. It would be much better, rather than this farce should be gone through time after time, if the tenant should send in his claim and evidence on affidavit, and that the statement of the landlord should be taken in the same way. Evidence of this kind would be quite as valuable to the Commissioners, seeing the manner in which they treated evidence, as that taken under the present system. No attention was paid to evidence; the desire of the Commissioners being to get through the matter as quickly as possible in a hap-hazard way. He would put it to the Government to abolish the inquiry in open Court altogether, and let the whole matter be conducted by affidavit. He had spoken with many tenant farmers, particularly with farmers from the loyal Province—from the County Tyrone. He had had a letter from one who might be taken as a representative farmer on the subject. This farmer said he had been put to great inconvenience in getting a detailed statement as to how much land he had reclaimed in the past, what the cost had been, how many fences he had put up, and how many drains he had constructed, and in the decision given this statement had been wholly ignored. The decision given had apparently taken no note as to whether the man had been a hard worker and a reclaimer of land, or whether he had never occupied himself in works of this kind at all. That corresponded with the Report of the House of Lords' Committee. That Report stated that the man who had made improvements very frequently had not his rent decreased at all; whereas the man who had never done anything on his holding to improve it, seemingly for his own wrong-doing and waste, had had his rent reduced. That opinion prevailed all over the country—namely, that the tenants did not get any return or allowance for their improvements. The hon. Member for Newcastle had pointed out that the Land Commissioners had taken the extraordinary course of answering the House of Lords in a Minute which they issued, through the medium of a letter to the Chief Secretary. The obsequiousness of the Commissioners to the House of Lords was very extraordinary; but when any person in the humble position of a Representative like himself—a Member of the House of Commons—attempted to put any Question whatsoever, they rode off on the high horse and vanished in the cerulean distance. He had put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman as to the fixing of a fair rent; a Question exactly the same as the Lords had put over and over again. He had had to put that Question three times over, and he had to indulge in what those Gentlemen called vituperative language, before he could get any answer. The result was the strongest justification of the vituperation. If he found that vituperation had had such a magnetic effect upon the Government, and if other people found that vituperation was effective, whereas no amount of mild Questions produced any result, they might expect vituperation to become much more general than it had been in the past. He would put the Committee in possession of the facts of the case. The case to which he had referred was that in which a sub-tenant, named Driscoll, had rented from a middleman named Hall the half of a holding. Hall paid £10 10s. for the whole of the holding, and for the half he charged £12. An application for a reduction of rent was made; but they had confirmed the rent, dismissing the application, and the ground on which they did that was that Driscoll had acted unreasonably, because he took the land from Hall on condition that he was to give it up when wanted, and that he refused to give it up. He (Mr. Healy) had put a Question on the case, and had got an answer that the Land Commissioners did not think it in accordance with their judicial position to give reasons for their decisions. But he indulged in so-called vituperative language, he was proud to say, and he extracted a defence from the Land Commissioners, which defence the House had heard from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. They said that 14 years ago Driscoll took the land from Hall, on condition that he was to give it up when wanted; and the Land Commissioners held that in refusing to give it up he had acted unreasonably, and that he should be held to his bargain. They gave that opinion without having heard any evidence as to the character of the land, and without having called the landlord—that was to say, the middleman, Hall, although they called his wife. The husband was in Court at the time; but no attempt was made to call him, and they did not hear the sub-tenant as to value. They heard him upon no question whatever, save the legal question of taking the holding; and then, because they considered him unreasonable in refusing possession of the holding, they fixed the rent he had to pay at 30s. more for half the land than the middleman himself had to pay to Lord Bantry for the whole of it. What was the unreasonableness? They said the land was taken for a temporary purpose; but he would leave the Committee to judge of that, when he said that that temporary purpose lasted for 14 years. If the conditions had only remained in force a fortnight, no doubt the agreement as to the temporary purpose would have been valid; but in this case they remained in existence for 14 years. He held the land to make a living out of it, and it was considered by the Land Commissioners unreasonable conduct to hold the land as the Act allowed him to hold it. What was unreasonable in his conduct? Previous to the passing of the Land Act every yearly tenancy was held subject to notice to quit. Driscoll had received two or three notices; but the writ of ejectment was not carried out; and, therefore, it appeared to him that this man, even in the opinion of the Land Com- missioners, was really the tenant, because he had not taken the land for temporary purposes, and, the notice to quit having been issued, the landlord did not proceed to turn him out of the land. The question was this—the man having had the land, ought the Commissioners to have sent a valuer or not? They considered that his conduct was unreasonable; but he had paid his rent so punctually that he was unable to get from the middleman the benefit of the Arrears Act; whereas the middleman could get the benefit of it, and actually had his own arrears to Lord Bantry wiped off under the Act, although, in point of fact, he was getting from Driscoll 30s. a-year more rent than he was himself paying to Lord Bantry. This, too, although it was proved by the middleman's wife that she made out of the hay alone in one year £11. And then the unfortunate sub-tenant, who had to pay 30s. a-year more than Hall paid for twice as much land, could not get the benefit of the Land Act, because he took the land 14 years ago for a temporary purpose, forsooth! Was not that decision in the very teeth of the Land Act, which said that not even against the middleman, but against the head landlord, a man should be able to retain land which he took as a tenant? What was the defence of the Land Commission? He would not complain if the Land Commissioners had acknowledged that they had made a mistake in this case, and had said that they did not send a valuer because of the pressure of business, or something else, and that they had got into a hole and very much regretted what they had done. But they had assumed a kind of infallibility—that everything done was done properly; that all the parties were heard; and that the decision was a fair one; that Driscoll's conduct was unreasonable; and that to ask a Question in Parliament in review of their decision was not proper. The Commissioners ought to have come with bated breath and whispering humbleness and made an apology for their action; and he had brought this matter forward, not for the sake of a particular case, but because he believed it was of a piece with the action of the Commissioners in very many cases. It was very seldom that a tenant was able to get into the hands of a Member of Parliament a complete statement of his case, so that it might be placed before the House in a compendious form; and, therefore, how many cases must there have been of hardship of a similar hind owing to the action of the Commissioners? He had put the matter forward, and, instead of being met with a courteous answer, he was told that he had indulged in vituperation. He thought the Chief Secretary would do well to wash his hands of the Commissioners, and to say that he did not stand here as their defender, and to throw up the sponge in their defence, for there could be no defence for their action in this matter. The Chief Secretary had argued in defence that the rent had remained unaltered for a considerable time, and, therefore, that showed the fairness of it. Why, would it not remain unaltered when there was notice to quit? It was no defence to say that the rent had been paid, and had remained unaltered for a considerable time, when, if there had been any default, the tenant would have been ejected, and turned on the world.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) had issued two or three challenges of a practical nature, and before he sat down he would certainly gratify the hon. Member's curiosity. He must at once protest against some of the language the hon. Member had used—most abusive in tone, violent and immoderate. The hon. Member said the conduct of the Land Commissioners was corrupt and capricious; and the reason he gave was, that they were so susceptible to pressure, both from landlords and tenants, that they varied very much in the nature of their decisions in obedience to that pressure; and he understood him to say that the tendency of their action had been to give less and less to the tenants. Upon that point it could not be expected that a private Member should have very exact statistics; and there was no doubt that during the first six months of the existence of the Land Commissioners very large reductions were given; but it could not be said that the general tendency had been that which the hon. Member believed. Very large reductions were given from the first sittings of the Commissioners up to January 28, 1882, averaging 23.6 per cent; but since then there had been a remarkable uniformity. The first set of dates was from January 28 to April 15, and the reduc- tions were, on an average, 20.5; from April 15 to May 31, 21.5 percent; in June, 20.4 percent; in July, 19.7 per cent; in August, which included a very small number of cases, the average was 18.2 per cent. The average for the whole of the year 1882 was 20.5 per cent. After August came the Vacation; and in September, October, November, and December of last year the average for all Ireland was 19.4 per cent. Then, in January, 1883, the average was 20.1 per cent; in February, 19.99; and in March, 20.6 per cent. or a point higher than it had ever reached since the beginning of 1882. He thought these Returns showed a very remarkable uniformity.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would compare the January in one year with the January in the next year?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he had not got the exact figures for January, 1882, but he had figures from the commencement up to January, 1882; and since the first three or four months of the sittings of the Commission there had been an almost absolute uniformity, so that it could hardly be said that there was any sign of the decisions of the Commissioners having been affected by pressure.

MR. PARNELL

asked if the right hon. Gentleman could give the averages since March, 1883?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he had not got the averages; but he had a Return of the reductions down to April, 1883. The hon. Member for Monaghan had referred to the great and marked increase in the Vote for the Land Commission. The increase was very great indeed—£157,000, as against £92,000. That was a very large increase; but any person interested in economy must see that the increase was explicable. The increase was in salaries, allowances, and travelling expenses. The extra salaries for Assistant Commissioners amounted to £38,000 a-year, and their travelling expenses amounted to a very large part of the increase—namely, to £25,000 a-year. What was the cause of the increase? It was that in the autumn of last year the Government, under pressure—and very proper and legitimate pressure—from the House of Commons, and from no one more than from the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), feeling that the Sub-Commissioners were working much too slowly, tried to quicken their action by the appointment of valuers. That advice, which had been recommended to them by legitimate advisers of the Government, thoroughly disappointed their expectations. After the appointment of one valuer to each Commission the average of cases disposed of, which had been 76 per day, only rose to 77 per day. The Government felt that at that rate the tenants would be kept in a state of suspense which would be cruel; and that from the point of view of what the tenants expected the Act to effect it would be almost a failure; and they determined not to stick at any expense of public money to bring about a different result. The cause of the slow working of the Commissioners was that the legal Commissioners were kept idle for several days in the week through the two lay Commissioners being out valuing; and the Government decided to double the number of lay Commissioners, so that the work might go on pretty much all the week. The effect of that step was at once observable. Almost immediately after the appointment of the new Assistant Commissioners the decisions rose to 116 per day; and after a while, by increase which was perfectly explicable, they rose to 137 per day. The result of this was that the present aspect of the question was satisfactory; and although hon. Members would not allow that, he thought they would allow that it was satisfactory as compared with the apprehensions expressed during the debates on the proceedings of the Land Commission in the autumn of last year. A few months ago fresh applications were coming in very rapidly, and the cases were being decided comparatively slowly. That condition of things was now changed. From the last Return, July 31, which had been presented to both Houses of Parliament, it appeared that there had been altogether 98,034 applications for the fixing of fair rents up to June 30. In July 580 new applications came in, making a total of 98,614. The fair rents fixed in July were 3,912; applications dismissed and struck out, 1,377; and applications withdrawn, 589. The total number of cases disposed of was thus 5,800; and up to July 31 there had been 61,354 cases disposed of out of 98,614. That gave reason for hoping that in the course of seven working months the whole of the arrears would be wiped off, so far as the Sub-Commissioners were concerned. 47,266 agreements fixing fair rents had been come to, of which 2,382 were made in July, these making 109,000 cases settled by agreement and by the Land Commission. With regard to the gross reductions of rent, the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had made a very melancholy statement about the comparison between the amount of rental reduced and the gross amount of money spent on the Land Court. Up to the time of the last Return about £195,000 had been spent. What had been the gross direct reductions in consequence of the action of the Land Act? Up to April 30 last the reductions made by the Land Commission amounted to £147,000, and the reductions by agreement amounted to £117,000—total £264,000; and he calculated roughly that since that date reductions amounting to £80,000 at least had been made. So that the total reductions by the direct action of the Courts must by this time amount to something like £345,000 or £350,000. Then as to this comparison between the expenditure on the Land Commission and the reductions made, it must be remembered that some of the reductions would last 15 years, while this very large expenditure was clearly only a temporary expenditure. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea) had asked for some definite statement as to the proposals of the Government with regard to a reduction of the expenditure on the Land Commission. He would say, generally, that that was not the first thing in the mind of the Government. The first consideration was that the Courts of First Instance should have settled these cases over the whole of Ireland as soon as possible; and in order to get that done they would look, first, to reductions of rent, and, secondly, to economy. But all the Land Commissioners at this moment had commissions running up to the end of the year; and it was quite clear that if seven or eight months were to wipe off the arrears, there would after that be a great and very sensible reduction in the expenditure. He could say no more than that the reduction would be such as would make the Vote very different from what it was this year. As to the work of the Commission, of course, however much hon. Members might differ from the Government as to the amount of the direct effect of the Commission, they would allow that there had been a great deal of indirect effect. There could, he thought, be no doubt that the reductions of rent all over Ireland—spontaneous reductions which, in some cases, extended over the whole of the estates of great landowners—had been considerably extended by the assistance of the Land Courts, so that those reductions, whether large or small, might be put down to the credit of the Land Commission. He did not say there were not other things occurring in Ireland to bring about this result. No questions had been asked about the operation of the Arrears Act, which was now approaching its termination. One cause, by the way, of the increased expenditure this year had been the increased charge for the staff required to work that Act, and which cost he was happy to say would soon come to a finish. Up to the last Return he had received, £710,000 had actually been paid up out of a total of £840,000, and he supposed that by the end of this month the payments would have come pretty nearly to an end.

MR. PARNELL

asked if the right hon. Gentleman could state the amount of arrears wiped off under the Arrears Act, exclusive of the year's rent paid by tenants?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he could not do so; but he would endeavour to get the amount.

COLONEL COLTHURST

asked for information as to the appeals?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the number of appeals lodged in July was 846, making the total 9,996; whereas the number that were heard and withdrawn in the month of July amounted to only 221. That would engage the attention of the Government. There were Legislative difficulties to a very great extent; but he should consider that if by next Session he could not tell a better story to defend himself than he could now he had failed in his duty. He thought it could not be denied that there never was a Parliamentary Committee before which had been engaged in inquiring into the decisions of the Judicial Body, and into every report, well or ill- founded, which might have been made in regard to those decisions. Of course, there was a very great difference between answering charges made against a decision on a special occasion and wholesale and sweeping charges as to the principle upon which a large number of decisions were given, especially when those decisions were such as entirely to destroy, if accepted by the country, the authority on which they were made. He hardly thought the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had been sufficiently generous in the criticism he had made upon the Land Commission. The hon. Member, when finding fault with the Commissioners for the manner in which they had answered the charges made by the Committee of the House of Lords, had not taken into account the natural sense of injured pride and self-respect which would be felt by Judges who had intended to discharge their duties conscientiously under extreme difficulties, and who had been placed in a situation nobody else had ever been placed in before. He felt that the charges brought against them were based upon inferior and ex parte evidence—upon evidence which had only been hoard on one side; and the Court which made the charges came to their decision so quickly, that no evidence could be given on the other side. There were most serious accusations made against the Commissioners. He had no wish to enter into a general debate upon the matters at issue between the Lords' Committee and the Land Commission; but he would quote one or two charges as instances of the grave reasons the Land Commission had for not consenting to lie under the imputations cast upon them, which they would have done practically if they had appeared to acquiesce in the charges made by the Lords' Committee. Here was one instance. In their Report the Lords' Committee said that— Little or no difference appeared to have been made, whether the rent was an old rent which had been paid for a number of years, or whether it was a modern rent. The Lords' Committee quoted the evidence, and placed a part of it on the body of their Report, which was the only part probably that nine persons out of ten would think of reading. The witness on whose evidence that allegation was based said— I think the principle is to give a reduction varying from 25 to 40 per cent. He had just been reading to the Committee the reductions which had been made since January, 1880, and the Committee would remember that those reductions all over Ireland averaged 20 per cent; yet the House of Lords' Committee gravely came forward and endorsed, to a great extent, a charge that the principle upon which the Land Commission was in the habit of acting was to give a reduction varying from 25 to 40 per cent. Then, again, the Lords' Committee charged the Land Commission with about as grave a dereliction of duty as any Judges could possibly commit, for they said that the Commissioners had before them a considerable amount of evidence from which there was much reason to conclude that some of the Sub-Commissioners had adopted, in fixing rents, the simple mathematical process of adding two, three, or four various estimates together, and dividing the value of such estimates by the whole number. They did not say whether this charge was just or not; but the Lords' Committee said— This proceeding, if really followed, is one that involves a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Sub-Commissioners, and is unjust to the landlord and tenant. A more dangerous and formidable manner of mating an accusation by implication he had never heard. All he could say was, that if the House of Lords, in olden days, had settled their appeal cases, and distributed landed estates, in such a manner and upon such evidence as they had adopted here, they would have formed a very different Appeal Body from that they had the credit of being. He could not conceive an attempt more calculated to injure the reputation of public men; and, after all, the reputation of public men was as valuable as any amount of real property. He could not, therefore, understand the reason why the Lords' Committee had attempted to throw away the reputation of public men—for it really amounted to a charge of corruption—upon such miserable evidence as that laid before them. The Assistant Commissioners repudiated the charge as untrue in regard to themselves, and stated that they believed it to be untrue of the Sub-Commissioners. On what evidence was the charge based? It was on the evidence of Professor Baldwin. Professor Baldwin himself was charged by another witness with the same conduct; and yet so indifferent were the Lords' Committee to get at the truth of the matter, that when they had Professor Baldwin before them making these charges against other people, they did not appear to have questioned him as to whether he had used the same method himself. Professor Baldwin appeared to have been present upon one occasion in a County Court when a decision was being given, and he said that he came to the conclusion, on the whole, that this was the method adopted by the Commissioners. The charge made by the Lords' Committee had been referred to all the Sub-Commissioners, and he had received from all of those gentlemen a most indignant denial. He must say he thought the Land Commissioners were quite right in placing their denial before the public; and although the course they had adopted, he was ready to allow, was one which was actually unprecedented, it was the only remedy they could take against a great wrong, as unprecedented as any proceeding that had ever been entered into. The Lords' Committee stated that a strong impression prevailed in the country that where the Commissioners did not reduce rents to the point at which they had been reduced by some of the Sub-Commissioners, if they had thereby become unpopular and had been removed to other districts, the changes thus made would have led to still greater reductions. The Lords' Committee went on say that such a feeling was highly unfortunate, and it was much to be regretted that there should have been anything to give rise to it. Now, before the Lords' Committee placed that record on paper, they ought to have examined into the question whether there was any ground for it. It was met by the Commissioners by a flat denial; and, having during 14 or 15 months had the honour of watching Irish affairs in that House, he had come to the conclusion that that sort of pressure had never been used, and that the only pressure which had ever been used with success was the pressure of some Gentlemen generally considered to represent the landlords, who complained not that the reductions had been too large, but that there were gentlemen on the Sub-Commission who had certain antecedents and certain connections which did not fit them to discharge the duties in the particular county in which they were placed. But he could not recall a single instance in which a responsible Member of that House had made a representation that the rents were either reduced too much or reduced too little, and that the assertion was listened to by the Commissioners. He would not go through the charges made, or insinuated, by the Committee of the House of Lords, and a number of charges which were flatly denied, and denied with evidence, by the Commissioners. In some cases the charges brought by the Lords' Committee showed the most singular ignorance of the details of the procedure of the Commissioners. The witnesses the House of Lords had before them appeared to him to have been most unhappily chosen for the purpose; and in regard to the drafting of the Report itself, it was just that sort of Report which he could not imagine any body of men attacked by it sitting down quietly under. If the House of Lords had framed such a Report in regard to any of the officials of the High Court of Justice in London, he was satisfied that very few months would have been allowed to pass before the Judges would have repudiated it and made a reply to it. He thought he had now referred to every point which had been raised in the course of the debate.

MR. HEALY

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not referred to the case of Driscoll and Hall.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he did not think he could go into that matter, and he did not think that it was for a Land Commissioner to enter into a question of that kind. He rather thought if he had had the drafting of their letter that he should have left out the first half of it, and he would not have raised a point which he knew the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) would have been quite acute enough to lay hold of. It would not be right that he should follow the example of the Commissioners, so far as his own time and reputation were concerned, in discussing any one of the 50,000 or 60,000 decisions of the Sub-Commissioners, or of the 2,000 or 3,000 decisions of the Land Commissioners. He was perfectly convinced that if he were to do so, before a month or two had elapsed he would only succeed in ruining his reputation, and of satisfying the country that he was not only a very incompetent lawyer, but an exceedingly audacious and self-sufficient speaker. He fully admitted that he was neither able nor qualified to discuss the decisions of the Commissioners. With regard to the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, to which reference had been made over and over again, he did not think there was any desire on the part of the House, or of hon. Members who had already spoken, to enter into the question why the Purchase Clauses had not been made greater use of. That was a matter which would afford material for a long debate, and would take considerable time to settle. The reasons which he could give might at the proper time be adduced; but they would not be the same as those which had been given that evening. There was one point, however—as to the price at which laud sold—in regard to which the comparatively small experience of the Land Commissioners had, he must say, been rather favourable. Whenever a large sale was proposed the papers were sent to the Treasury, and the Treasury were good enough to communicate them to the Irish Office, to ask its advice as to whether so large a transaction should be entered into; and he had noticed that there had been several large transactions at a very good figure. He had one lying before him then, in which an estate of 231 acres, the rent of which was £344, liable to deduction for quit rent, and so forth, amounting altogether to about £17, so that the rent might be called £325. The purchase money agreed to be paid for that property was £6,300, or as nearly as possible 20 years' purchase, and 20 years' purchase, as a rule, was the price paid in several instances. In point of fact, 19 years' purchase, and something more, was the average in a large number of cases.

MR. PARNELL

asked if that was after judicial rents had been fixed?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he did not know; but 19.8 years had been the average number of years' purchase in the case of holdings of the total value of about £188,000 dealt with by the Land Commissioners. He had now gone through all the points which had been raised, and he thought he had shown that the increase in the salaries and expenditure of the Land Commissioners could be thoroughly accounted for even by those who might not agree with the decisions given by the different Courts and in the work done by the Commission. That work had been very considerable; and he must say that, in his opinion, a great deal of the expenditure had been not unworthily incurred.

MR. GIBSON

said, no one could overestimate the importance of the Vote which was now under discussion in the Committee; but it was obvious that on the 16th of August, and during the last few days of the Session indeed, it was absurd and ridiculous to attempt to discuss with anything like fairness a Vote of this magnitude and importance. One had only to glance at the Committee at the present moment to see that it was foolish to say that they were now discussing the great issue which had been raised in connection with Irish affairs. He ventured to think that it would be impossible at that moment to discuss properly this most important subject, raising such important issues. He would not say how many Members there were in the Committee at that moment. He would forbear from calling the attention of the Speaker to that matter in a more marked manner, as it might cause the prompt adjournment of the House; but he might indicate that there was a very limited and sparse attendance on the Benches of both sides of the House. Even on those Benches on which patience, perseverance, and patriotism were claimed to linger, there were only three Members to be found, all told. He made that remark, not in disparagement of hon. Members, but to show that the House was not in vigorous Session at the present moment, and that hon. Members could not be expected to take any active part in the discussion of the subject. His right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had had his attention drawn to this matter in the proceedings of the Land Commission for a considerable time; but, recognizing the logic of facts within the last 10 days, his right hon. Friend had given Notice that early next Session he would call in review the proceedings of the Commissioners, and subject them to the criticism of the House at a time when they could be independently and calmly discussed—when all the arguments on both sides could be fully reported and weighed and con- sidered by the House and the country. He ventured to think that his right hon. Friend was right, and that it would be absurd for Jam, or for any other Member of the House, to expect that any proper criticism at this time could be formulated, weighed, or listened to in a way that could secure practical or proper consideration. The submission of this Vote for the Land Commission at this moment was to bring it forward at a period when debate was impossible and discussion was obviously out of place. That being the case, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant should himself have volunteered an attack upon the Lords' Committee.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he had only done so in answer to the arguments which had been adduced.

MR. GIBSON

said, that, no doubt, the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were made in answer to other speeches. However, it was quite evident that the answer had been formulated in order to make a deliberate attack upon the proceedings of the Lords' Committee. He ventured to say that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was far more intended and suited for dealing with criticism which might be urged next Session, and which had been already urged by the Press, than any attempt to give a reply to the precise question presented in the debate on the present occasion. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had used some language towards the Lords' Committee, and the witnesses summoned before that Committee, which, if it were reported to-morrow in the morning newspapers, would be found to go far beyond the limits of sound and calm criticism. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reference to the Lords' Committee, had made use of this extraordinary expression—"That they appeared to be indifferent to getting at the truth of the matter." He could not imagine that a graver charge could be made by a Minister—a responsible Minister—of the Crown against the Committee, who were discharging responsible duties with a conscientious desire to perform their duty under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman also said in reference to the witnesses that they were "extraordinarily inferior." What was the meaning of that? The right hon. Gentleman was a master of English, and was a man of considerable eminence in literature; but in this case the collocation of words was remarkable, and he questioned whether, in a calm literary effort, the right hon. Gentleman would repeat the phrase "extraordinarily inferior," which he had used in the House that night. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he said that the witnesses were "extraordinarily inferior?" The right hon. Gentleman did not venture to tell the Committee what he did mean, but he was referring to the Sub-Commissioners who were examined before the Lords' Committee; and if that was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman of the Sub-Commissioners, when they were examined before the Lords' Committee, he would like to know what opinion the right hon. Gentleman would expect hon. Members on that side of the House to have in regard to those Sub-Commissioners, many of whom had been appointed against their protest by the right hon. Gentleman's own Government? But the remarkable criticism of the right hon. Gentleman did not rest there. Having said that some of the witnesses were "extraordinarily inferior," he proceeded to say, with judicial calmness, that their evidence was "miserable." This was no paraphrase; he was saying the actual words of the right hon. Gentleman, and that was the way in which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant voluntered criticism at a time when criticism should be smoothed down, in order to let hon. Members get home to their families. Could anyone conceive, or imagine, observations more calculated to excite debate, and to lead to angry and contentious feeling? He (Mr. Gibson) would, however, forbear. He could not forget that this was the 16th of August. The Chief Secretary mentioned, in the course of his observations, only one name—the familiar name of Baldwin. Now, he was surprised that the Chief Secretary did not try to grapple with that evidence. He certainly did not praise it; he, unquestionably, rather appeared to condemn it; but he (Mr. Gibson) would pass from the right hon. Gentleman's description of the matter with this observation—that, from the beginning to the end of his speech, he forbore to criticize, to condemn, or to praise the evidence of the one solitary individual he named as having, in fact, been examined before the Lords' Committee. He (Mr. Gibson) had never had the honour of seeing Professor Baldwin, and he had not the pleasure of his acquaintance; but he had heard very often about him, and he had read some of his productions, and some things connected with him. He was, therefore, prepared to believe that Professor Baldwin was a man of great experience, of great knowledge, and of considerable ability. He had read the evidence which Professor Baldwin had given on the present occasion, and he was, therefore, disposed to believe that Professor Baldwin was a man who would not speak lightly, and who, when he had given evidence, was entitled to have that evidence considered calmly, with intelligence, and with a desire to get at the truth. He was sorry that upon this occasion the Chief Secretary had gone into the constitution of the Lords' Committee. That was a wide question, it was an important question, requiring full consideration; and at this period of the Session, in the present state of the House, it was impossible that it could receive full and ample discussion. When the matter was brought before Parliament early next Session, he trusted that it would be considered fully and fearlessly; and he was satisfied that his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminister (Mr. W. H. Smith), who was in charge of the question, and who was a man of moderate views, and a man of great temperateness of expression, would present his opinions to the House in a way which, if they did not command consent, would, at all events, command a respectful hearing. He (Mr. Gibson) would, therefore, forbear from going further into the question until that time arrived. But he begged leave to say that if the Government had criticism to make in connection with the Lords' Committee they were themselves to blame. They deliberately refrained from appointing any person upon that Committee, or from taking any active part in the examination of the evidence before it; and, therefore, it was idle, and almost absurd, for them to presume to suggest criticism which mainly depended on their own abstension from the performance of their distinct public duties. The Memorandum issued by the Land Commission was an attempt to re- ply to the Report of the Lords' Committee, and it had been rightly indicated by the right hon. Gentleman as being absolutely exceptional, and wholly unprecedented. For himself, he had no desire, in the slightest degree, to blame the Commissioners for having issued the Memorandum, which they considered necessary to place them rightly before the public in reference to the Performance of their public duties. He always endeavoured, as far as he could, to be fair to every person, and particularly to those who were charged with the administration of difficult and responsible duties. The objection he had to the introduction of this topic to-night was that it might possibly be alleged that the question had been discussed in consequence of the attack which the right hon. Gentleman referred to. Any such suggestion was quite out of place. The right hon. Gentleman had given a most meagre description of it; and he (Mr. Gibson) declined, at the fag end of the Session, in the presence of a limited number of Members, to discuss either the Memorandum of the Commissioners, or the Report of the Lords' Committee, reserving to himself the right of discussing them fully and completely hereafter. There was, however, one point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman which he must refer to. The Commissioners had made constant statements, both in that House and elsewhere, that the old rents in Ireland were not intended to be interfered with, and that under the Act of 1881 it was only exceptionally high rents that would be dealt with, and that the older properties upon which the rents had not been raised for many years would not be touched or interfered with. Notwithstanding those statements of non-interference with the old rents which had been paid for many long years, and even for generations, it was obvious that under their administration of the Land Act these rents had been constantly interfered with, and that some of the oldest standing rents on ancient properties in Ireland had been reduced just as much as the rack rents upon other properties. That was a broad charge, and he thought that the way in which the Commissioners met it would not carry assent with it when their arguments came to be weighed. The right hon. Gentleman, without going into the mat- ter at all, suggested that the Commissioners had not been afraid to grapple with the question. No doubt, it might be said that they had not been afraid to express their feeling in regard to the charge; but he at once arraigned the way in which they had met it. It was a matter familiar to everyone acquainted with the administration of the Irish Land Act that upon property after property in some of the best-managed estates in Ireland, where the same rent had been paid for generations, and for more than a century, the old rents had been reduced, notwithstanding that all the Commissioners said that when the question came before them primâ facie, it must be assumed that these old rents were just, and ought not to be changed. When and where had they indicated to the Sub-Commissioners in Ireland that if old rents had been paid for generations and centuries, it was to be assumed that they were right rents and reasonable rents—rents that were not lightly to be reduced? He failed to see, and he had a tolerable acquaintance with the administration of the Irish Land Act, where that instruction to the Sub-Commissioners had been given; and he ventured to think that whenever the matter was discussed, that would be found to be a circumstance which must challenge criticism, and in regard to which he did not think it would be found that criticism was on the side of the Land Commissioners. He declined to enter into the question in any detail at the present moment. The charges made most frequently against the Land Commissioners, notwithstanding the Memorandum of excuses and vindication they had published in defence of the charges made against their conduct in the House and elsewhere, were mainly two—that they had allowed the administration of this Code to proceed without laying down a single principle to guide those who were to regulate and control its administration; and, secondly, that they had so managed the administration of appeals as to minimize the exercise of the rights of those who were dissatisfied with the decisions of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman had passed by this point lightly. In fact, the only substantial part of his speech was an attempt to attack the Lords' Committee, and the evidence given before that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had confined him- self to attack rather than defence—a wise enough principle when what was to be defended was somewhat difficult. What the right hon. Gentleman had said in reference to the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act he wished that he (Mr. Gibson) himself could believe. The Purchase Clauses of the Land Act were, he was convinced, undoubtedly intended by the Government to have a bonâ fide reasonable and substantial operation; and when they modified the clauses of the Act of 1870, and the later Act of 1881, by giving further facilities to the tenants for the purchase of their holdings, he believed it was honestly intended by the Prime Minister and the Government that these new Purchase Clauses should have a wider operation than the old Purchase Clauses. He admitted that; but, as a matter of fact, as an incontrovertible fact which could not be denied, the Purchase Clauses had had, he would not say no operation, but a very trivial operation, and an operation absolutely incomparable with the operation of the Tenure Clauses of the Land Act of 1881. He wished he could believe what the right hon. Gentleman had described, in such roseate hues, as to the number of purchases of land in Ireland, and the price land was saleable at. He would be glad to think that in many parts of Ireland land was saleable, and saleable at the moderate figure of 20 years' purchase; but, unfortunately, that was not the rule, nor anything like the rule, for the land had become absolutely unsaleable, and it could only be sold at prices considerably under what they were before the Act passed. He should be glad to learn that he was wrong in this view; but, unfortunately, all the facts within his knowledge tended to convince him that he was right; and he believed the Committee would do him the justice to say that he had never taken pleasure in drawing gloomy conclusions with regard to the effect of the Act. There was a Bill before the House which awaited its Committee stage to-morrow, the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Bill, which did propose to amend the Purchase Clauses of the Act of 1881 to some extent, and which would give some further facilities for the purchase, and possibly some relief from the great evil of unsaleability of, land in Ireland. He would prefer to look to that Bill becoming law for relief; and it might be that Her Majesty's Government would see their way to some Amendments which would give the measure a wider scope and a more beneficent operation. He was, however, not very sanguine of seeing any great extension of the Purchase Clauses as presented by the Government in this Bill; but he hoped when they discussed next Session the administration of the Land Act, it would be borne in mind by the House that this Session they had affirmed, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), that it was desirable to give increased facilities for the purchase of land in Ireland by occupying tenants; and he trusted that an effort would be made to render the clauses in question what they were not now—a reality.

MR. PARNELL

said, the Court of the Land Commission had now been working for something very close on two years, and it had been possible for the Government, and all parties interested in the success of the Land Act of 1881, to discern in what respect that Act had failed in carrying out the hopes of Parliament, and in what particulars it was reasonably open to amendment. Therefore, he regretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in his able statement, had not announced whether the Government had any intention with regard to the amendment of that Act, and that it did not touch upon points in which time and experience had proved it to be notoriously deficient. Neither did the right hon. Gentleman announce that the Government intended to introduce, in the next Session of Parliament, some measure dealing with those deficiencies of the Act; as, undoubtedly, as the days went by it became more and more abundantly evident that unless Parliament was warned by the experience of the past and legislated in time to remove the admitted deficiencies of the enactment, he believed they would have before many years passed another agitation, and a greater agitation, owing to the discontent caused by the rents which were now being fixed under the Land Act of 1881. Now, the right hon. Gentlemen, he thought, had proved, by the figures he gave to the committee, that the Act, so far from remedying in a great majority of cases the admitted grievances of Irish tenants, had up to the present moment failed to do so; and that so far as those grievances needed remedy, they had been remedied most slightly and most inefficiently. The law in Ireland for oppressing the population and the great masses of the people had been administered quickly and sternly; but the Land Act of last Session, as plainly proved by the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, had been administered tardily, slowly, and inefficiently. The right hon. Gentleman had shown, after two years' working of this Act, that only 61,000 decisions had been given for the fixing of fair rents, and that only 47,000 settlements had been arrived at out of Court, and had been registered in Court as fixing the judicial rents—that was to say, out of a total of 500,000 tenants, who were subject to the operation of the Land Act, only a little over 100,000 cases, after working two years at high pressure, and with a staff which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate would be after a time reduced, only one out of five—and he was not now making a reduction for those tenants subject to leases, who were out of the operation of the Act—only one in five had been decided upon by the Land Commission; and that further, with respect to a very considerable proportion of those decisions, they had yet to go before the Court of Appeal constituted by the Act. The Act itself had hopelessly broken down, and all the parties to the litigation connected with the Act in Ireland would be obliged to look forward many years before they could hope to see the termination of that litigation. Now, what did that mean? It meant that while Parliament in 1881, two years ago, promised to every tenant coming under the provisions of the Act that a fair rent should be fixed, nearly four out of five of those tenants were still obliged to pay the old rack rents. He and his hon. Friends had recommended, in the course of debate that Session, that the law should be altered, so far at least as to fix the payment of the judicial rent from the date of application to the Court; or that, even if the tenant were compelled to pay the rent meanwhile, until the Court were able to reach the case or, in other words, for the next 10 years—and, according to the rate at which decisions had been given up to the present moment, it would take 10 years until the 500,000 cases in Ireland would be settled—that at least the good faith of Parliament should be demonstrated to the Irish tenants by making it clear that, when this fair rent had once been fixed, if it were proved that the tenant had been paying more than a fair rent, he should receive back the amount paid in excess. Little or no notice had been taken of that proposal; but when they looked at the fact that, according to the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman that night, and according to the Returns of the Land Commissioners, in nine cases out of ten—and he believed in a larger proportion—the Judges, who had been appoined by Parliament to decide what the fair rent should be, had decided that the tenant was paying more than a fair rent, he said they had a claim at least for this partial act of justice from the House of Commons to the tenants supposed to be benefited by the Land Act of 1881. Let them look at the cost of those 61,000 contested cases—cases which had actually come into Court and been decided upon by the Land Commission after the tenant had been obliged to pay his valuer to make a valuation and survey of his farm—after the landlord had paid his valuer for doing the same thing, and incurred a similar expense for solicitors who had to be feed far beyond the scale allowed by the Commissioners, and in some cases for counsel engaged in the proceedings. He certainly thought the Government ought carefully to look into this question of the delay in working out the provisions of the Land Act, and the vast cost which it had entailed on all parties to the suits, a cost, according to the best judges and most careful estimates, considerably in excess of the amount of reductions allowed up to the present moment by the Land Courts after two years' working. Had the one simple provision suggested by Irish Members been adopted with regard to the date of fixing judical rents, they knew well that it would have operated to quicken, in a most extraordinary manner, the settlements out of Court which the right hon. Gentleman, on several occasions, had alluded to as being the only hope of the Act ever being brought into satisfactory opera- tion. It was, he said, a monstrous injustice that the tenants, owing to the imperfections of the Act, should be compelled to pay the old rents, and be practically placed outside and debarred from the protection which Parliament was supposed to have given them. It was useless to expect that the Irish people would believe that Parliament had done as much justice as it could for them, when the old state of things, as had been proved by the 61,000 decisions requiring tenants to pay rack rents, and in many cases exhorbitant rack rents, was allowed still to exist under the operation of the Act. He had also hoped for some statement from the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the failure of the Court to carry out the section of the Act of 1881 dealing with the subject of leases. Everyone recollected the discussions which took place on that section, when certain provisions were adopted by the Government which it was hoped by the Government would result in the annulling of a considerable number of leases, and in the bringing of the tenants under the Act. According to the Report of the Commissioners those sections had completely broken down; out of several thousand applications by tenants to annul leases the Land Court had only been able to entertain a very few hundreds. He had not the figures at hand; but he believed only in one case out of ten had the sections of the Act with regard to the breaking of leases proved operative. Certainly he thought, with regard to this point, it would be well for the Government to consider whether something could not be done early next Session in respect of the working of those clauses—a provision made which would give some amount of protection, and some measure of justice, to the important class of leaseholders in Ireland constituting, as they did, the best portion of the Irish tenantry, who found themselves partially shut out from the benefits of the Act of 1881. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had alluded to the paragraph contained in the Report of the Commissioners regarding the question of test cases. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that the Land Commissioners had signally justified the action of Irish Members in the autumn of 1881, shortly before the suppression of the Land League and the summary arrests which took place of several hun- dreds of persons during that winter in Ireland. He had never had an opportunity of referring to this matter before; first, because he was not in a position to take part in the discussions which occurred immediately after the arrests; secondly, because the matter had not presented itself prominently before the hon. Member brought it up in his speech; and, further, on the principle of letting bygones be bygones, he should not have alluded to the matter now had it not been brought up by the Commissioners themselves in their Report. But he wished to explain what they intended to adopt in reference to this matter of test cases. They intended to have chosen from any estates of a certain size in Ireland a certain number of cases which, from the circumstances of the holdings, would have been recognized by the tenants on each of those estates as test cases, and as a standard of what the Land Commissioners were likely to do in their cases if they went into Court. They would have materially lightened the labours of the Land Commission, and it would have had a most important effect in bringing about settlements out of Court. What had happened, however, was just the reverse. In many cases the tenants of whole estates had gone into Court; whereas, if half-a-dozen test cases had been selected, it would not have been necessary for the tenants to go to the expense of feeing their solicitors, and incurring the other preliminary outlays necessary to be made before their cases could go into Court. It would have been possible on such estates for the tenants, if judiciously advised, to have selected, say, half-a-dozen or a dozen cases which would have served as models and examples of what the Commissioners would be likely to do in the other cases; and if that course could have been pursued, he firmly believed that, in all probability, instead of having only 110,000 cases settled after two years' working of the Land Act throughout the whole of Ireland, at least 50 per cent of the tenants would have had their judicial rents fixed, and that the decisions of the Courts would have been far more satisfactory than they had proved to be. However that might have been, it was no use to go back to these things; and he repeated that he should never have alluded to the subject at all had it not been, first, for the paragraph contained in the Report of the Commissioners, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle had referred; and, secondly, but for the speech which the hon. Member had made that evening. The Land Question was so far from being settled that there was in the morning papers a report of a meeting of delegates from three of the richest and most important counties in Ireland—speaking from an agricultural point of view—Limerick, Tipperary, and Clare. At that meeting 500 delegates assembled from different parts of those counties; resolutions were passed denouncing the judicial rents which had been fixed in those districts as being rack rents, and pointing out that the clauses of the Act giving the tenant the benefit of his improvements in fixing the rent were being habitually disregarded, and that rents were being fixed in every case on the tenant's improvements. It would be well if the Government were to look to these things in Ireland, and to legislate in time before reproach was cast upon them, in truth and justice through the action of the Land Commission, that they had not seen that this Irish Land Question was a pressing question till it was forced upon them by the necessities of the position, or by the violence, if they preferred the term, of the agitation in Ireland, and by the impossibility of collecting the old rack rents which had been demanded of the tenants.

CAPTAIN ALYMER

said, he thought the course which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had adopted towards the Committee of the House of Lords was most unprecedented, and deserved a very strong protest indeed. The right hon. Gentleman had gone out of his way, on a discussion of a Motion for the reduction of this Vote, to make a strong personal attack upon the Lords' Committee. Amongst other things, the right hon. Gentleman said that the reduction in rents was only 20 per cent, instead of 35 or 40 per cent as stated by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton); but there, he thought, the right hon. Gentleman was in error. If the right hon. Gentleman took the cases in which I reductions were made, he would find they amounted to at least 25 per cent; but even if the Report of the Committee was not correct, it went far to show that the Land Act of 1881 had entirely failed. He agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), but from another point of view, that that Act had hopelessly broken down; and he also agreed with him that the sooner the Government turned their attention to the re-modelling of the Act the better. The tardiness with which the decisions were given, the number of appeals that could not possibly be heard for years, the difficulties which the Commissioners themselves had put in the way of anyone getting an early trial—all these things were accumulating day by day, and it was necessary that something should be devised that would provide a way out of the difficulty that existed.

MR. KENNY

said, he had not the advantage of hearing the speech of the Chief Secretary; but he understood the right hon. Gentleman had not denied the allegations made by a number of speakers. Many gentlemen were examined before the Lords' Committee, and one of those gentlemen, whose opinion was valued most highly upon all agricultural questions, was Professor Baldwin. Surely the Committee would not treat Professor Baldwin as an inferior person.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he did not remember that he used the epithet the hon. Member had put into his mouth; but, certainly, the word "inferior" would not apply to Professor Baldwin.

MR. KENNY

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had corrected himself; and he thought the Committee would be glad to find the Chief Secretary did not include Professor Baldwin in the category of inferior persons. He did not wish to go into detail; but Professor Baldwin had given evidence upon a point which should be brought up on a Vote of this kind, that point being the arrangement of the Circuits. He had not the evidence of Professor Baldwin with him, and therefore he was unable to refer the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the exact place in which the evidence on this point appeared; but he remembered that Professor Baldwin distinctly stated, in his evidence before the Lords' Committee, that he had found himself three times in the same place, entirely owing to the mis-arrangement of the Circuits by the officials in Dublin. The Circuits were arranged very badly, and this was the cause, in a great measure, of the delay which occurred. The Secretary to the Commissioners, or the Chief Commissioners themselves, arranged the Circuits. They put down the cases to be heard, and in nearly every instance they put down twice as many cases as were actually heard. The result was that all the tenants whose cases were listed attended the Court; but at least half of them had to go away, without having their eases decided upon. They were greatly disappointed; but what was worse still, they had to continue paying rack rents until such time as the Commissioners could fix their judicial rents. The time they lost in waiting in the Court was very considerable; and at this time of the year, when agricultural operations required most attention, their time was very valuable to them. The remedy for this state of things which Professor Baldwin suggested was that the Sub-Commissioners should be entrusted with the duty of arranging the Circuits and fixing the sittings of the Courts, and that they should also be able to decide upon the number of cases which should be listed for hearing, with the view of preventing an undue number of cases being placed on the list, with the result that a great number of tenants were obliged to attend the Court when there was not the slightest chance of their cases being reached. Allusion was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) to what he called the indiscriminate levelling down of rents, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman added that no distinction whatever was made between the estates on which low rents were paid and those on which high rents were exacted. He (Mr. Kenny) failed to call to mind—and he was acquainted with a great many estates—any of those very old proprietors upon whose estates the rents were exceedingly low; and he failed to call to mind any of those old proprietors whose tenants had unhesitatingly and without murmer paid their rents for a great number of years. As a matter of fact, a great many of the tenants had been forced to pay their rents simply because they had no tribunal to rearrange their rents, so that the old proprietors deserved very little credit for the so-called consideration they had extended to their tenants. He found that, in a great many instances, old proprietors had been quite as exacting in regard to their rents as the new proprietors. He admitted that, as a body, the new proprietors were more conspicuous for their rack renting than the old proprietors were. At the same time, he did not think there was any reasonable ground for the complaint that the old proprietors had been more harshly treated than the new proprietors. He knew that the barristers and solicitors who appeared before a certain County Court Judge took good care to mention the class of landlord whoso cases were in Court; because the Judge in question had the reputation of viewing with particular favour and leniency the cases of the class of old proprietors, to which he himself belonged, while he had a decided antipathy to the new proprietors. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had alluded to the tardiness with which appeal cases were heard. He (Mr. Kenny) was not surprised that great tardiness was displayed by the Chief Commissioners in hearing appeals. At the present time there were between 9,000 and 10,000 appeal cases waiting for hearing; and he thought he was correct in saying that at the rate of progress which the Chief Commissioners were making these cases would not be disposed of until six or seven years from now. One of the causes of this delay arose from a recent decision of the Chief Commissioners. The Chief Commissioners had placed a very extraordinary construction upon one of the clauses of the Land Act, a construction which arose probably from their interpretation of a clause of the Arrears Act which was enacted 12 months after the Land Act, and which was supposed to affect the 47th clause of the Land Act. The 47th clause of the Land Act provided that the three Commissioners should hear appeals; but when, from sickness or other cause, one Commissioner was unable to attend the Court, the other two Chief Commissioners could hear appeals, one of whom should be a Judicial Commissioner. Now, the 22nd clause of the Arrears Act provided for the appointment of an additional Chief Commissioner, whose name was specified in the clause. There was a further provision in this clause that in any case where it was competent for the three Commis- sioners to hear appeals before the passing of the Arrears Act it should also be competent for three Chief Commissioners to hear the same cases after the passing of the Arrears Act; the Arrears Act, therefore, really made no change in the powers of the Chief Commissioners to hear appeal cases, or in alteration of the numbers beyond that specified in the Land Act of 1881. The Chief Commissioners had only recently decided that it was a matter of grave doubt whether two Chief Commissioners ought to hear appeal cases sitting by themselves. Now, he (Mr. Kenny) failed to see—and if the Attorney General for Ireland were present he would put the case plainly before him—that the 22nd clause of the Arrears Act in any way interfered with the operation of the 47th clause of the Land Act; in fact, he considered a great wrong was inflicted on the tenantry of Ireland when it was declared by the Chief Commissioners that it was improper for two of their number to hear appeals. Now, what would be the consequence of that declaration? It would be that it would be necessary for three Commissioners at least to attend appeal cases throughout the Provinces. There were four Chief Commissioners; but there was no attempt to deny that the fourth Commissioner never went outside of Dublin; as a matter of fact, he believed Lord Monck's state of health would not permit of his travelling; and, therefore, he had not been outside of Dublin on the business of the Land Commission. He did not offer any objection to the appointment of Lord Monck; he believed the noble Lord was competent to sit in the Chief Commissioners' Court in Dublin; but he did object to its being placed in the power of any one of the Chief Commissioners, by either deciding to go on his holidays, or by sickness, to prevent appeals being heard, and to compel the postponement of the Court of Appeal in any places where the Chief Commissioners might have decided upon hearing appeals. At the present moment one of the Chief Commissioners was on his holidays, and when he came back one of the others would take his holidays; and the result would be that while this constant ringing of the changes by the Chief Commissioners was going on, the hearing of appeals would be very greatly delayed. He considered it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to call the attention of the Chief Commissioners to the very extraordinary decision they had arrived at in regard to the hearing of appeals. It must be remembered that while in Ireland there now stood for hearing 9,000 or 10,000 appeal cases, and the delay of hearing the cases continued, the landlords continued to demand the old rents; and where they succeeded in getting, as they did in a great many instances, the old rack rents, it was a shame for the Government not to interfere and to recommend to the Chief Commissioners the desirability of their re-consideration of the very extraordinary interpretation they had placed upon the Act of Parliament, an interpretation which was entirely contrary to common sense. He thought that any reasonable man would come to the conclusion with him that the interpretation of the 47th clause of the Land Act and the 22nd clause of the Arrears Act was not only unfair and unjust, but it was calculated to beget a feeling of resentment and discontent in Ireland, which was not an advantageous feeling at the present time. The Land Act of itself had been a complete failure; it had failed to satisfy the requirements of either landlord or tenant; so that these extraordinary and fantastical constructions of the Act by the Chief Commissioners ought to be avoided as much as possible. If he found that the Chief Secretary did not turn his attention to this matter he would, next Session, bring the matter forward in the shape of a Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whose opinions on subjects of this kind were very valuable, and who, he was confident, would not approve of the decision of the Chief Commissioners in this instance. He impressed upon Her Majesty's Government the desirability of their facilitating the hearing of appeals, which would tend to cause landlords and tenants to come to terms, and thus stop that litigation which was distracting the country, and resulting in loss to the people.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he had discussed the Land Act with a good many farmers, and they could not deny that the principles of the Act were very good and sound, and that they were an invaluable boon to the tenantry of Ireland if they could only be put in operation. He did not wish to undervalue for one moment the difficulties the Go- vernment had at the time they passed the Act. Possibly, they were not able to do more at the time; but what he wished to impress upon them now was the absolute necessity of bringing in, not later than next year, an Act to amend the Act in its relation to leases. It was strictly unfair that a judicial rent should not operate from the date the application to the Court was made. If the Government would bring in an Act next year to amend the Land Act of 1881, so that the rent fixed should be a judicial rent from the date of the application, they would do more to prevent discontent than they could do by any other single measure. As an impartial observer, his firm conviction was that until something was done to amend the Act in the directions he had indicated, the Land Act would not be a complete success.

MR. BARRY

said, he had not had the advantage of hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and, therefore, he was not aware whether the right hon. Gentleman had given any undertaking to amend the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act. In the earlier part of the discussion he listened with pleasure to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). He agreed with that speech, except in the part where the hon. Gentleman found fault with the Sub-Commissioners for the feeble results of the Purchase Clauses. There was very little fault to be found with the Sub-Commissioners on that head. The fault really laid in the very defective machinery provided by the Act. When the Land Bill was in Committee he submitted an Amendment with the view of increasing the amount of the purchase money, and extending the time for the repayment from 35 years to 52 years; but the Government would not accept it. He then ventured to predict that within one or two years there would be an utter break down of the Purchase Clauses as they stood in the Act; and he thought that by the facts which had been submitted to the Committee that night his prediction had been amply verified. His object in rising now was to impress on the Government the necessity of devoting their attention to an amendment of the Purchase Clauses, because, without amendment, they would simply be a dead letter. Anybody who was anxious for a final settlement of the Irish Land Question must see that the Purchase Clauses would be a large element in contributing to that settlement. He trusted that during the Recess the Government would give their attention to this subject, and that early next Session they would do something which would increase the scope of the Purchase Clauses.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, that the figures which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had presented to the Committee were very fallacious. The right hon. Gentleman showed them that the number of cases decided by the Land Commission had increased very largely of late, and he expressed the hope that they would very soon get rid of the arrears of work in the Land Courts. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was a great acceleration of work in the summer months, because the landlords were anxious in those months to co-operate with the tenants and the Sub-Commissioners in getting rid of the work. The landlords desired to have the holdings examined when they looked pleasant and in good condition. He did not wish to dwell upon that fact at any length; but it was well cognizance should be taken of it. Naturally, it was the object of the landlords to retard the settlement of cases as much as possible; and during the winter months especially they did everything in their power to stay the progress of the work of the Sub-Commissioners. He was sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland resume his seat without giving the Committee some assurance that he would endeavour to use his influence with the Sub-Commissioners, who, upon the clearest testimony of his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), and upon other unimpeachable testimony, repeatedly visited holdings in company with the landlords and the landlords' agents. That was a state of facts which the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else who was anxious that the people of Ireland should have confidence in the Land Act, should endeavour to use his influence to put an end to as soon as possible. The people of Ireland were particularly jealous in matters of this kind; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that his countrymen would have no confidence in the decisions of any Commissioners who visited the holdings in the company of the landlord or the agent. At present this practice on the part of the Sub-Commissioners was doing a great deal to break down the confidence of the people in the Land Act.

MR. O'KELLY

wished to emphasize the point which had just been raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Harrington). He had occasion that day to call attention to a case occurring in the county of Leitrim, the Sub-Commissioners availing themselves of the use of the carriages of a landlord, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was obliged to admit the facts. Perhaps, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, the fact that the Sub-Commissioners were driven from farm to farm by a landlord might not influence them to any great extent in the decisions they gave; but that was not his (Mr. O'Kelly's) opinion, or the opinion of the people of the country. It would be impossible to convince the mass of the Irish tenants that a man who was hand and dove with a landlord and his agents would do justice when he came to try a case brought before him. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had been, he thought, a little severe on the Sub-Commissioners with reference to the failure of the Purchase Clauses. He (Mr. O'Kelly) did not think the failure of the Purchase Clauses was to be ascribed to the conduct of the Sub-Commissioners, nor did he quite agree with some of his hon. Friends as to the cause of the failure of those clauses. The failure would always continue until a radical reform had taken place, and the people were resolved not to purchase their own improvements. Under the law as it stood at present, if a farmer desired to buy his farm he would not only be obliged to buy the landlord's interest in the farm, but also the improvements which he himself had made. Until that blot, which was one of the greatest blots on the Land Act, had been removed by the re-introduction of the "Healy Clause," there would never be any large operation of the Purchase Clauses. He hoped the Government would address themselves to that aspect of the question, for, in his view, that was the main point of the whole discussion.

MR. DALY

said, the Prime Minister expressed the opinion, when the Land Act was passing through the Committee, that a great many cases would be decided out of Court; but the mere fact of the judicial rent not dating from the time the originating notice was taken out, a landlord had a direct interest in not coming to terms with his tenant. He knew a large landlord to whom the tenant gave notice that he was going to have a judicial rent fixed. The landlord came to him and said—"Let us not go into Court, but you appoint a valuer, and I will appoint another, and then we will decide upon an umpire." If the Chief Secretary desired it, he would supply him with all the data. As a matter of fact, the tenant, who was a hardworking and industrious man in the estimation of his landlord, had been for years and years living by what was termed in Ireland "the skin of his teeth," for he had paid a rental of £72 a-year. When his case came to be arbitrated upon the rent was reduced to £46, and the landlord accepted it. That was a case that at once illustrated the injustice in the initiation of the Land Act of not permitting fair rents to date from the time the originating notice was taken out. The tenant in question was on the verge of insolvency, and by the re-arrangement he had just been saved from such a position. As the Land Act now stood a premium was given to the landlord to withhold, as far as possible, justice to his tenants. While recognizing that the Land Act had conferred a great benefit upon Ireland, he believed that a great mistake was made in its initiation by not making the fair rents date from the time the tenant gave in his notice that he would require a judicial rent fixed.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £781,345, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland.

MR. PARNELL

said, he merely wished to say that he intended to take a Division against this Vote. The Irish Members had placed their position in regard to this Vote so fully before the House on former occasions that he did not intend to go over again the ground which they had traversed on those occasions. Suffice it to say that as long as the Government, if not in the letter, in the spirit, violated the Mutiny Act by employing soldiers as policemen, there would always be found a body of Irish Members, increasing from year to year, to protest against the Vote.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, the Vote was alluded to at Question-time to-day, and the reason queries relating to it were put upon the Paper was because during the last few days some Returns bearing upon the Constabulary, moved for by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), were laid on the Table, and were now in manuscript, not having yet been published. These Returns were very extraordinary. The Committee might not be aware of the manner in which charges were made for extra constabulary in Ireland. There was a rule that when the Lord Lieutenant thought extra constables were necessary he ordered him into the county, to be paid for by the particular district, if it was a particular district for which they were required, and if not to be paid for by the whole of the county. He would not cite cases in which particular districts had had to pay for these constables, as it would be unnecessary for his argument. He would merely take cases in which the country at large had to pay. From the Return produced at the request of the hon. Member for Queen's County they found that the present Estimate was not an Estimate to keep up the force at its full strength, but a much less sum—an additional charge being made for extra men. As a matter of fact, before they had their full complement they began charging the county with extra men. This was not, perhaps, a national grievance; but still it was a matter of which he had a right to complain. If anyone else but the Government did such a thing some very hard words might be applied to the transaction—it might, for instance, be called swindling. He had desired to have some words introduced into the Police Bill to prevent the Government from charging in this way under the Peace Preservation Act—that was to say, to prevent them charging for extra police until the full complement was made up. The Committee on that occasion was inclined to support him; but a statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the then Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) which induced him to withdraw his proposal. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was that the charge would not be made for extra police unless in the case of casualties by illness, death, or retirement. That was the right hon. Gentleman's statement as reported in Hansard, and he had heard several speeches to the same effect. Surely the term "casualties" would not include the case of a man who was relieved from active duty for a day or two; and yet the Return to which he had alluded showed that the casualties in many instances amounted to 8 or 9 per cent of the force. In the ordinary course of events, casualties would be filled up in a short space of time, the men being charged for a week or two, and the percentage, at the outside, would not amount to more than 1 or 2. He was aware that the law was as stated by the late Attorney General; and here he would point out that a rather curious thing had happened during the passage of the Coercion Act. In the Bill, as originally drawn, there was no restriction; but in Committee it was proposed to amend the measure to the effect he had stated. On Report another Amendment was introduced, dealing with death, illness, or leave of absence. It might be said, why did he not protest against this at the time? But the fact was, that a large proportion of the Irish Members were silent, no longer being able to take part in the debates—a large number of them had retired. He remained in the House with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and they had endeavoured to amend the Bill as well as they could. The Chairman, on four or five occasions, when Divisions were challenged, told them to stand up; they did so, and sometimes there were three or four, sometimes six or seven, the result being that they could not go to a Division. The hon. Member for Cavan was in his place, and he, no doubt, would support this statement. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] After one or two additional struggles to amend the Bill, they were obliged to give way—it was useless to protest. On Report an Amendment was introduced which did not for a moment bear out the promise of the late Attorney General in Committee, as anybody who read Hansard's Debates would see, for the effect of introducing amongst the casualties leave of absence enabled the authorities to swell up these casualties to any extent they chose. He (Colonel Nolan) maintained that it was utterly unjust to allow that state of things to exist. They knew from the Returns that the list of casualties was very unfairly worked up, and that counties had to pay more than they ought. The Irish Members would have to demand Returns showing the leave of absence of every constable when he had obtained it, and why, seeing that while he had it the county had in each case to pay from £40 to £50 a-year. The Irish Members were placed in an awkward position, and would be obliged to insist upon this Return. He would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to look very carefully into this matter of leave of absence, and to show, as nearly as possible, the casualties by death and sickness; because he maintained that it was most unfair to charge such a county as Galway, for instance, with 8 or 9 per cent of casualties. He would not go into the question of particular districts; but, at the same time, he must say he thought it exceedingly unfair that the whole county should be charged in a future case with these extra police. Such a charge did a great deal of harm. County cess was swelled by this charge to 4s. or 5s. in the pound; people were swindled in this way; and, such being the case, it was the bounden duty of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to give them some promise that he would look into it, and see that the charge for casualties, when they exceeded an ordinary sum, were reduced.

MR. O'KELLY

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to give them an assurance that they in the counties would not be compelled to pay for men who existed merely on paper. The counties were charged with a number of men who rendered no service whatever. It was most dishonest to make such a charge, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give it his attention and endeavour to put an end to the system.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he most certainly would look into the question. He thought that when they considered the circumstances of any disciplined and organized force they had to take into view all the defects and drawbacks which existed amongst human beings. One county was accredited with 280 men; but from that number the services of men who were ill, or absent from any cause, had to be deducted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) had called his attention to the casualties in the district with which he was connected (Galway); and certainly; looking to the manner in which it compared with other counties, the matter was one which required inquiring into. Before next Session he would see that the lines of the Act were followed, and that they imposed no greater burden upon the counties than they were absolutely obliged to do by law. He understood that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) intended to take a Division upon the Vote, in order to make a protest against the Constabulary Force in Ireland; and, if that were so, he hoped the Committee would allow it to be taken at once.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would look into this matter he would find that the late Attorney General had used the expression that the casualties which occurred would be filled up in a week or two. If the right hon. Gentleman would see that that statement was adhered to, the casualties might be reduced by a large percentage.

MR. HEALY

said, that as he had twice given way at the request of the Government in regard to the Wexford riot, to which he had wished to draw the attention of the House, hon. Members would excuse him if he took this opportunity of going into the matter. Yesterday the subject was being inquired into, and it was going on also to-day. The conduct of the police in their attack upon the people whilst waiting outside the office of the Mayor of Wexford for the result of the poll at the recent Wexford Election, was not under investigation, the police having prosecuted the people to screen their own conduct. He was in the midst of the riot, and the police were nothing more or less than a mob with rifles in their hands—a mob of men who were no more fit to be trusted with rifles than were a lot of lunatics. But he would give a short statement of what had occurred. He would preface his observations with this —that the Resident Magistrate who was in charge of the town appeared to have acted with the greatest good sense and with the greatest discretion, as far as he was concerned, throughout. He (Mr. Healy) had no fault to find with that official; but he had the strongest condemnation to pronounce upon the subordinate under his control, who had acted with the greatest barbarity, and passion, and want of caution—in fact, his want of caution was such as no words could adequately describe. He was referring to a man who, on several occasions already, had been in conflict with the people—namely, Sub-Inspector Cameron. At Youghal, some years ago, he very nearly brought about a similar riot. He distinguished himself also while stationed at Gort, in County Galway. In the latter place, in consequence of a dispute as to a right of way, in which some Catholic nuns were concerned, and in which his conduct was not all that it ought to have been, he was obliged after a short time to leave the place. He was removed to Galway, and the present Archbishop, Dr. McEvilly, complained of his conduct in placing spies in church to attend the administrations of the Catholic religion, and to take notes of the sermons delivered from the pulpit. Owing to the representations of the Archbishop, Sub-Inspector Cameron was removed from Galway. This, then, was the man who was sent down to Wexford. He (Mr. Healy) must say, knowing the town of Wexford well, that had the former Sub-Inspector been in charge on the occasion of the election not the smallest bloodshed or riot would have occurred. The former Sub-Inspector was a man who knew the people thoroughly well—who knew their quiet, peaceful, qualities. The town was one in which not a single "suspect" had been arrested under the Coercion Act—it was also situated in one of the most peaceful and prosperous counties in the whole of Ireland. From one year's end to another there was scarcely any contest between the people and Her Majesty's Government. The Sub-Inspector to whom he referred was removed, he was grieved to say, and this Sub-Inspector Cameron sent down in his place. Were this man in the position of an ordinary sub-constable he would have been dismissed long ago, because not only was his general character bad, but his moral character was of the very worst kind. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members seemed to take exception to that statement; but he was prepared to substantiate the remark he made. His statement was that if Sub-Inspector Cameron had been an ordinary sub-constable he would have been dismissed from the Force long ago, because there was a most inhuman Rule in force amongst the Royal Irish Constabulary, than which nothing had ever been heard of more calculated to shock the feelings of right-thinking people. He would be obliged to read the Code to the Committee. It was one of the Rules of the Royal Irish Constabulary which, no doubt, the Chief Secretary would defend, although probably he would do so reluctantly— Code 848—Morality. No man can be allowed to marry a woman with whom he has had criminal intercourse; and should it he found even in the case where a man has married with leave such intercourse has taken place between him and his wife previous to marriage, such person shall he dismissed. That was the Code under which the Royal Irish Constabulary was worked; and the Government had chosen this Sub-Inspector for the purpose of making him an exception out of the whole body of the Constabulary. The Code had not been put in force in the case of this Sub-Inspector, possibly because he had insulted the nuns at Gort, and had been driven from Galway at the instance of the Archbishop. If the Chief Secretary required any further particulars with regard to the moral character of Sub-Inspector Cameron, he (Mr. Healy) would be glad to give them to him. He would venture to say that Sub-Inspector Cameron could not contradict a single word he had stated. The Code he had quoted was a disgraceful one. It was shameful to the Constabulary, and to those gentlemen who framed it; but when it was in force it was certainly very unjust that it should only be put in force against sub-constables, and should not be put in force against a Sub-Inspector, who had insulted nuns, and had been driven from towns by Archbishops. Well, to come to the so-called riot at Wexford. The people were standing quietly in front of the Mayor's office at 5 o'clock waiting for the result of the poll. It was provided by the Ballot Act that the poll should be declared publicly; therefore, the people were waiting in their Constitutional right for the declaration of the poll. He (Mr. Healy) was passing through the town at the time, and saw about 40 policemen, with rifles in their hands, driving through the crowd with The O'Conor Don in their midst. Their function was to conduct The O'Conor Don to the Mayor's office. There was no reason in the world why they should have gone through the crowd; but through some mistake on the part of the Sub-Inspector, he supposed, they did so—they went right through the crowd. Some hooting took place, no doubt, but no more than he had heard at many elections in English towns. He (Mr. Healy) had requested the people to cease hooting; but the crowd of policemen having seen The O'Conor Don safely into the Mayor's office turned back, and whilst he (Mr. Healy) was endeavouring to obtain order, before a single rude word had been spoken to the police, and certainly before a single blow had been struck, or a stone thrown, the Constabulary commenced hustling the people, and shoving them with their bâtons and the muzzles of their rifles. He (Mr. Healy) had only been saved by a local sergeant from being seriously crushed. Indeed, a person who was with him had had his leg badly injured. Almost in a shorter time than it took him to tell the story, the whole crowd was being attacked by the police. Having seen The O'Conor Don into the office of the Mayor, instead of returning quietly whence they came, as they might have done, the police sallied forth amongst the people, and began to bully and strike them. Sub-Inspector Cameron, without waiting for orders from his superior, the Resident Magistrate, drew his sword, and without reading the Riot Act, and without a word of warning, gave the order for the men to charge. He (Mr. Healy) quite admitted that when the police commenced, to use a Cockneyism, "chevying" the people, the mob commenced to retaliate. When they found themselves in the grip of the police, they began to throw stones, and there was a general mêlée; but the origination of the riot was not with the people. He would read the words of a reporter, a Scotchman, who had written him a letter on this subject—the reporter of a Dublin daily paper. Every one of the papers except The Dublin Express, which gave the police account of it—even if they took The Irish Times, which was a Conservative paper—was practically against the police. This reporter did not wish him to give his name; but he (Mr. Healy) had already had the honour of showing this letter to the Chief Secretary, but, he was sorry to say, without having obtained satisfaction. Well, this reporter said— Late on Tuesday night I was passing through the bar-room of the Ship Hotel in Wexford, when I saw the Head Constable and three or four of his men there. They had drinks round"— and this was a Constabulary offence— at the expense, seemingly, of the Head Constable. As these men were on duty with their rifles, I think it worth mentioning to you, as showing the state of discipline amongst the men, who had a few hours before committed such a murderous and unprovoked attack upon the people. This Scotch Tory reporter was in the midst of the mob, and he referred to the police attack as "murderous and unprovoked." Nothing was more unpalatable to Irish Members than to have to meet Gentlemen like the Chief Secretary, who took all their instructions from the Irish Police, and who regarded the words of Irish Members like himself as of no account against the words of a policeman. It was a very humiliating thing to be brought into contact with an Official like the Chief Secretary when one's word or credit was concerned. The Chief Secretary was found, in his official capacity, to believe the word of his Sub-Inspectors, or his policemen, against the word of any Irish Representative in that House. He felt so strongly as to this Wexford riot, that he had considered it his duty, as the late Representative of these unfortunate people who were bludgeoned on this occasion, to lay the facts before the right hon. Gentleman. He had done so, and he regretted to say be had not received the slightest satisfaction beyond this—he had asked the right hon. Gentleman for an inquiry, and the right hon. Gentleman had told him that there would be one before the magistrates. The magistrates were, of course, the right hon. Gentleman's own creatures. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would take note of this—that simply because the Mayor of the town, who was presiding on the Bench, desired to ask a question of one of the witnesses, he was told by one of the right hon. Gentleman's paid officials, Mr. Macmahon, a Crown solicitor, that his conduct was indecent. Now, he (Mr. Healy) would put it to any English Member, what would be thought in an English town, if some paid official of the Crown, who drew his salary from the taxpayers, ventured to tell the Mayor—say the Mayor of Birmingham, as he saw the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his place—supposing that official was told by the head of the Watch Committee that his conduct in venturing to ask a question of a witness was indecent, how long would such an official hold his place? And yet the Chief Secretary would hear the conduct of his officials so described, and if he could not defend it, he would gloss it over, because it was the practice of Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, when they heard charges against their officials, not to take notice of them; but when they heard a lot of the merest fribble-frabble on the other side, to take it up and make much of it. He should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman on that point. What was the fact? Why, the fact was that the police prosecuted in Wexford every person they had bludgeoned or stabbed. They found them prosecuting every man who could give evidence against them. When the unfortunate people brought an action against the police, the magistrates dismissed them; and in order to prevent witnesses from being called to give evidence against the police, there were included in a common indictment all people who had been witnesses of the barbarity of the police. In the same way, at a town in County Clare, everyone who witnessed the action of the constables was arrested; and it was the same again at Ballyragget, where men who were getting up evidence in regard to a certain case were put in gaol. Nothing like an impartial inquiry was made by the Chief Secretary, and that was what he complained of. He would be content if the right hon. Gentleman would take the evidence of the reporters of the three Tory anti-popular Dublin papers—The Dublin Evening Mail, The Dublin Express, and The Irish Times. If the Chief Secretary would take that, and hold an inquiry, he would be con- tent to abide by the result; but the right hon. Gentleman had no intention of doing anything of the kind. But when an English riot took place, an opposite course was pursued; there was the amplest inquiry and investigation. But when they who represented the people of Ireland brought forward these cases, they found that the word of the humblest policeman was preferred to theirs by the Chief Secretary. If he said the constables were murderers, he might be accused of bias and prejudice; but in this case the reporter of The Dublin Evening Mail described the conduct of the police as murderous, and yet he could get no satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman. The town of Wexford was one of the quietest towns in Ireland, and there was not a single "suspect" arrested there during the "Buckshot" reign of terror. In the whole county there were, practically, no outrages; and it was, in fact, one of the most prosperous and peaceable counties in Ireland. He supposed the next thing would be that these unfortunate men would be summarily dealt with, or be sent forward for trial. If the latter course was adopted, what would happen? When the Winter Assizes came on, and bail cases were brought forward, the Crown would make terms with these men, and tell them that if they pleaded guilty they would let them out on their own recognizances; and so they would get the men to plead guilty, and yet not bring them to trial. That was what occurred in the town of Miltown Malbay. Wexford, which was previously a quiet town, would now have remembrances of the conduct of the police, which was justified by the Irish Executive, and the people would realize that they might have their heads broken, and their bodies stabbed, but would get no reparation or compensation.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, he wished to call attention to a similar case of which he was a witness. In July, last year, he attended a meeting at a town in Kerry, and when the people were assembled, the Resident Magistrate rushed into the middle of the crowd, which was perfectly peaceable and orderly, accompanied by about 18 policemen, and without any previous intimation whatever called upon the people to separate. This was before the Prevention of Crime Act was passed, and the magistrate had not the extraordinary power which he now wielded, and at that time his interference with a meeting which was perfectly orderly was grossly illegal. He was at the moment addressing the meeting, and when this occurred he left the window from which he had been speaking and asked the Resident Magistrate why he interfered, and what was his objection to the meeting being held? The reply of the Magistrate was that he would not be catechized by him. He then asked whether the objection was to the meeting being held in the street, as, if that was so, he would remove it to another place? The Magistrate said he had better remove the meeting, and he called upon the people to leave the town. They did so, and re-assembled in a field, and when the meeting was again going on, Captain Massey, followed by a body of drunken policemen, with rifles in their hands, rushed from the town, and without a word broke in upon the meeting and beat the people with their bâtons. And not only that, but two of the policemen drew their revolvers, and fired into the crowd, though fortunately without hitting anyone. [A laugh.] The reason was that the men were too drunk to find their marks. They went to remove him from the place where he had been addressing the meeting; but he refused to leave until they brought the superior officer to tell him by what right he had interfered with the meeting. The officer, however, refused to come, and they arrested him (Mr. Harrington), and took him to a common lock-up, where they kept him all the night. In the morning they found themselves in a disagreeable fix, for they did not know what charge to make. After reflection, they charged him with riot; and when the charge came to be tried, what did the Executive Government in Ireland do? They refused to have the charge tried by the local magistrates in the district, and brought into the county—when the Prevention of Crime Act was not in force—two Resident Magistrates, who had never been in the county before, and who were entirely unknown to the magistrates there; and the result was that when they went on the first day to take their seats, the local magistrates refused to sit with them, The inquiry proceeded for some days, and at the close those two magistrates, who had gone there to save the police and the Resident Magistrate, alone returned the case for trial, and re- turned him for trial with others. At the conclusion of the inquiry he challenged the magistrates to bring him or any of the persons to trial, and stated that the disclosures as to the conduct of the police would be so disgraceful that they would not attempt to have the case tried before a Superior Court. The case was to have been heard at the Tralee Assizes, but it was struck out. The object of the Officers of the Crown in doing that was to screen the police, who had acted illegally. The police were so intoxicated on that occasion that they actually beat the officers who were in charge of the soldiers. It was proved that they pursued the officers and beat them with their bâtons. When an Irish policeman made a statement it was accepted by the Chief Secretary as unquestionable; but the Government in that way fell into a great many mistakes. Some time ago he asked a Question respecting the interference by a policeman with a constituent of his in Westmeath, and what was the answer he received? He would repeat the answer, to show how these men were screened, and how the conduct of the police was justified by the Chief Secretary. On the 10th of May he asked if the Chief Secretary's attention had been called to a paragraph in The Westmeath Examiner, which stated that a head-constable had made his way into the house of a man named Gibney, and questioned him as to his knowledge of the murder of Mrs. Smythe; that although they said they did not suspect him they told him they were aware that he knew all about the murder; and on his saying he knew nothing about it they called him a ruffian and a puppy, and said the day would come when he would be glad to give information, but would not then get the opportunity? The reply of the Chief Secretary was that he had seen the paragraph, and had made inquires, and he found that the statement was garbled and strained, and that the allegations against the police were without foundation. He asked if the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiry of the man who had made the statement? There were two sides to every question; but the right hon. Gentleman refused to hold any communication with the man who had made the allegation against the police. Desiring to have correct information upon the occurrence, he had ob- tained a sworn affidavit from the man who had made the allegation, and this he would read. It was as follows:— Petty Sessions District of Collinstown, County of Westmeath. I. James Gibney, of Kilpatrick, do solemnly and sincerely declare, That I am a farmer living at Kilpatrick, that on the 1st day of May, 1883, I was at my house, and two constables—namely, Constables Lynch and Tilson, came to my door and asked for me. I went out, and Constable Lynch said to me that I should have known all about the murder of Mrs. Smythe, when he himself knew it. I made reply that I knew nothing at all about it, and then Constable Tilson, who was standing by at the time, said to me, with his clenched fist to my face, that I was a ruffian and a puppy, and that the day would come when I would strive to tell it, and would not be let to do so like the rest of them. Then when they were leaving, Constable Lynch made reply, saying, 'that I can tell you that you spent your day with the murderer.' Appended to that declaration was a note for the parish priest, saying he had never known a more sober, honest, and peaceable young man than Gibney; and yet, in the face of these facts, the Chief Secretary refused to make any further inquiry. He took it, as a matter of course, that the police were never wrong. A policeman could bludgeon people in Ireland; and when he made a statement it was treated as perfectly infallible. It happened that, time after time, the information which Irish Members elicited in reference to these things, was information which everyone in the district knew to be absolutely incorrect.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, that with regard to the main substance of the speech of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), it was plain that the Committee would not expect him to say anything, and he rather thought the hon. Member himself did not expect him to say anything. In substance, the hon. Member's speech was an inquiry into the nature of the occurrences at Wexford; but at this very moment those occurrences were the subject of judicial inquiry; and whatever view the hon. Member might take of the House of Commons as a platform for discussing matters of this kind, which were now before a Court of Law, it was clear that he himself could not make that use of his position in this House. This matter was now before the Court of Inquiry, which was the only Court of Inquiry that could come to a right decision upon it. The hon. Member had said he had had a private interview with him, and regretted having spoken out on that occasion, because he did not regard the word of Irish Members. To begin with, the hon. Member had no reason to regret having spoken, because every word he said was at a private interview, and was regarded by him as private and no harm was done by his having given his view of this matter. But it was not for him to compare the impression of these events on the mind of the hon. Member with the impression on the police. It was not for him to question whether or not he could take the opinion of the reporters of the three Conservative papers. It was clear that in a matter in which grave charges were brought forward on either side—the charges by the hon. Member amounting almost to intended murder by the police, and, on the other side, charges of almost murderous rioting by certain citizens of Wexford—reporters were not a proper tribunal. The only tribunals that could try such charges were the tribunals of the country; and, although the hon. Member might have his own suspicions of those tribunals, it was absolutely impossible for him to substitute any other body for them. Therefore, he would not enter into the question of the Wexford riot, except to say that the reports he had received did not at all bear out the view taken by the hon. Member of that occurrence; but he was quite aware that the discrepancies between the hon Member and those who had reported to the Executive were the sort of discrepancies which naturally occurred between the observations of people who took a very different view of the case. But it was absolutely impossible for him to pass over, without notice, one or two observations of a personal nature made by the hon. Member. When very strong things were said in that House he very much doubted whether the proper answer to them was strength of language in proportion to that which had been used on the other side. There were certain things so grave that it was absolutely impossible to use language strong enough to express one's feelings about what had been said, without at the same time violating the dignity of that House, while producing no good effect; and, therefore, the language he should use would be of the most moderate description. The officer who was in charge of the military at Wexford was Sub-Inspector Cameron. That officer took with him a force which he supposed it was his duty to take, and his conduct was at this moment practically before a Judicial Tribunal; but the bon. Member had made certain charges respecting that officer's antecedents, and on that point he was absolutely bound to say, taking the question of the Wexford riot apart, that the Government were perfectly satisfied that Sub-Inspector Cameron was a zealous and a judicious and an honourable officer. The hon. Member made two charges against him—one relating to a difference he had with the Bishop, into which he would not enter now, for it was a very long story, and it would take the House a very long time to go into it. When it was examined, that case was a very small matter really; but he must remind the hon. Member that it was very possible—though he did not think that in this case Cameron was rude to the Bishop—to say very rude things to a very great Bishop and, at the same time, preserve the confidence of the people. The hon. Member said Sub-Inspector Cameron came down with brutal force, and behaved in a very arbitrary manner to some ladies who were members of a religious body. In 1871 the Rev. Mr. Shannon complained of Sub-Inspector Cameron for having arbitrarily interfered in a dispute as to a right of way between a Dr. Melville and some nuns. The nuns claimed the right to pass over a yard belonging to Dr. Melville, and they broke down a barrier. Sub-Inspector Cameron and some of his men took their station near the place of dispute, with the object of being in the locality; and while they were there a mounted orderly brought to Sub-Inspector Cameron a message from the Resident Magistrate. The charge which the Rev. Mr. Shannon made against the Sub-Inspector was that he and one of his men went into the passage in dispute for the purpose of intimidating the nuns. This matter was investigated by an officer, and the result was that Sub-Inspector Cameron was completely exonerated as having done nothing more than his duty. That decision did not satisfy the Rev. Mr. Shannon, and he, in strong terms, demanded a further investigation; but the Government saw no reason for complying with that decision. [Mr. HEALY: Was the inquiry public?] The inquiry was not public; but the charge was a very light one; and if in 18 years there were only two charges of about this gravity brought against an officer, he thought his antecedents might be said to be very clear. But he could not pass by so lightly another observation of the hon. Member. He could not imagine what idea the hon. Member had of his position in the House of Commons, and of the privileges of Parliament; but this was what had happened. The hon. Member had repeated a statement from which everybody could draw only one conclusion. He brought a horrible charge against Mrs. Cameron, stating that she had lived with her husband before they were married. That was the gist of what the hon. Member said. He had heard nothing of this matter, and he had no reason to suppose it was true; but, even if it was true, he contended that it ought never to have been stated in that House. He did not think that in regard to such charges against men and against women—and he drew no distinction between the two, because he thought that a man's honour and sensitive feelings in these things were just as much to be respected as a woman's—the House of Commons ought to be made a place for references of this kind, unless such references were absolutely necessary in order to obtain a right judgment on public affairs. He thought the hon. Member should consider what an awful precedent he was setting. It would be bad enough if the House took to raking up all sorts of stories, true or in part true, about Members of the House; but what a terrible thing it would be if they took to raking up stories about people who had not seats in that House! They would make the Public Service so intolerable that they would not be able to get men to serve their country, except such men as were indifferent as to their character. He felt certain that in making these charges the hon. Member had not reflected on the great possibilities for evil of which he was setting an example. He did not think it necessary to comment further upon the matter.

MR. HEALY

said, his point with regard to Sub-Inspector Cameron was that, because of the favour with which he was treated by superior officers, conduct was overlooked in him which in the meanest petty officer would be visited with dismissal. Here was this brutal and shameful Rule 848 existing. Whose shame was it that that Rule existed? What did it exist for? To be put in force, or not to be put in force? The Chief Secretary was responsible for it, and here in his place he defended it. The Rule was either to be put in force, or it was not. If there were Sub-Inspectors in Ireland unduly favoured, that must be because they had shown themselves venomous and malignant opponents of the popular Party in the country; and yet Irish Members were to be condemned for having exposed the conduct of Sub-Inspector Cameron; and, after he had attempted to smash the heads and stab the hearts of the people, they were expected to have great tenderness and respect for him. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not seen, as he had seen in Wexford, the blood of his best friends staining the ground for simply exercising their civil functions. But the character of Sub-Inspector Cameron, who ruled the constituency and had control over the lives and happiness of the broad-winners in Wexford, was everything to the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Healy) wanted to know whether this Code was in operation or not? If it were, let it be put in force against Sub-Inspector Cameron. He maintained that on account of his antagonism to the popular Party this man had been placed in a position of responsibility that he had no business to occupy, and that his fault had been overlooked; and be asked how long he was to remain in charge of a mob of armed men ready at any time to make an onslaught upon the people with rifles and fixed bayonets? From the expressions which reached his ears when these things were being told, he verily believed that when anything of this kind happened in Ireland it gave satisfaction to every Englishman in that House. There was no pity for the unfortunate men who got bread and water and the plank-bed in prison; but for Sub-Inspector Cameron, the pure and noble officer, there was the greatest sympathy shown when his character was ripped up in that House. The right hon. Gentleman had heard of the stings which wounded honour felt being healed by certain things; this was a good opportunity to promote the officer in ques- tion, say, to the office of Chief Spy at Dublin Castle.

MR. O'KELLY

said, be could understand the position taken up by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if this was an isolated case of attack, and was the subject of inquiry before a Court. But the Wexford incident was but the general outcome of the conduct of the police, who, whenever they had an opportunity of attacking the people, pursued exactly the same course; and in this, as far his experience went, they were always sustained by the Government. They could never get anything like an independent inquiry into the conduct of the police; when an appeal was made in that House for justice they were always told that the matter was sub judice. But before whom? The Government selected men who were part of the Force to which the accused person belonged, men who were moved by esprit de corps; and these held a sort of inquiry into the conduct of the individual, the result of which was communicated to the Government, who came to a decision upon the matter, and they know well what those decisions usually were. A case of this kind had occurred within his own experience in Ulster, where the police, under a Sub-Inspector, attacked and broke up a peaceable meeting at which there was not even the beginning of a riot—not a stone was thrown, nor a blow struck. Hearing a good deal of the possibility of obtaining justice in this matter, be proceeded against the Sub-Inspector civilly; he knew it was of no use to proceed criminally, because the futility of the remedy had been proved in that House. What was the conduct of the Government on the occasion? Instead of allowing the question to be tried fairly as a civil action between man and man, they threw the whole weight of their influence on the side of the defendant; employed Mr. Anderson, Crown Solicitor of Dublin, and practically instituted a Crown prosecution against himself. He believed at one time that he was in danger of being arrested for high treason for having brought, or rather tried to bring, this man to justice—in fact, counts of high treason were alleged against him by the Government. The Judges deliberately postponed their decision in this action at law until a decision had been arrived at in the English Courts in the case of the Salvation Army, who claimed the protection of the police in their right to hold public meetings, which protection had boon refused by the police; but the matter having come before the Courts, the right to demand protection was affirmed. What was the action of the Irish Courts? Before the judgment of the English Court could be registered, which would have otherwise been a guide to them, they immediately assembled in all haste, and decided against the very right which two or three days before had been affirmed by the English Court. Therefore, he said, they had no remedy, either criminal or civil, against the police. When they brought the police before a Criminal Court the Government packed the jury; and if they appealed to a Civil Court they did practically the same thing, and something more—they threw the whole weight of their influence upon the side of the defence. For these reasons he felt it his duty to oppose the Vote as a protest against the conduct of the Government.

MR. BULWER

remarked, that, some years ago, Lord Palmerston had congratulated the House of Commons upon being "an Assemblage of Gentlemen;" but their experience of the last few weeks had cast some doubt how far that assertion was applicable to the present time. He ventured to offer, on behalf of Members of the House, a most earnest and indignant protest against the language they had been listening to that night. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had considered it decent, and consistent with his position as a Member of the House of Commons, to hold up to reprobation in that House the private character of a public servant in his absence, and without Notice, knowing that the language he used, although privileged there, would go throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, including that portion of it which he misrepresented.

MR. HARRINGTON

rose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether it was in Order for one hon. Member to say that another hon. Member misrepresented his country?

MR. BULWER

said, as the hon. Member objected to that term, he would say that portion also which he "represented." But, after all, what did the accusation made against this man amount to, even if it were true? Simply to this—that, having wronged a woman, he had afterwards made her the only reparation in his power by making her an honest woman. As against the man it was no very serious accusation, but as affecting the woman it was abominable. But this it was which the hon. Member thought fit to bring before an Assembly of Gentlemen, and to hold up to the reprobation not only of that House, but of the whole of Ireland. He (Mr. Bulwer) had been in hope that even stronger language would have come from the Treasury Bench than that which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had made use of, condemning the course taken by the hon. Member. He would like to know whether the hon. Member told the Committee this story on his own knowledge, or was he making the statement upon what some malignant fellow had told him? But, supposing the statement was true, what business had the hon. Member to bring it forward, affecting, as it did, the character of a married woman, in an Assembly of Gentlemen, when he knew there was no one present to defend the individual of whom he made it? [Mr. HEALY: Are you a friend of the Code?] Whether he was in favour of the Code or not had nothing to do with the statement made by the hon. Gentleman with regard to Sub-Inspector Cameron and his wife, which was a cowardly and uncalled-for attack.

MR. BARRY

said, it was the invariable rule of the Government officials in that House, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland, to ignore the statements of Irish Members upon affairs in Ireland, and to accept unreservedly the statements of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Police. Now, with regard to Sub-Inspector Cameron. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), whose veracity had never been impugned either in or out of that House, had described the action of the police at Wexford as unprovoked and brutal, and constituting a murderous outrage upon the people; he had backed up his statement with the testimony of three independent witnesses, who could not be suspected of leaning, in the slightest degree, to the side of the people; and yet the only answer which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire- land gave was that the case was sub judice. The right hon. Gentleman placed no value at all on the statement of the hon. Member for Monaghan, and he was prepared to receive the testimony of an Irish constable. The right hon. Gentleman, in his conscience, knew that there was no chance of the truth of this matter being brought out before the Tribunal to which the case had been submitted; he knew the character of that Tribunal, and he knew that the character of Sub-Inspector Cameron would be screened by it; and yet, in the face of that knowledge, he did not hesitate to question the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Barry) knew Wexford well, and he had seen 30,000 people gathered in that town during the most excited period of the Land League agitation; and he could say that he had never witnessed there the slightest approach to a breach of the peace, or heard a rude word spoken. On the occasion he was referring to he had gone round the town with an English gentleman at 9 o'clock in the evening, and that gentleman, speaking of the orderly conduct of the people, said he could "hardly believe the evidence of his senses." It was extraordinary that during the Land League agitation there had never occurred in Wexford the slightest conflict between the police and the people; but on the first occasion when Sub-Inspector Cameron was in charge of the police the town became the scene of bloodshed. For his own part, he was certain that the Government would screen the conduct of this person. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant must expect that when unjustifiable attacks were made on the people by the police, the former would turn round upon those who attacked them. He was glad they had done so at Wexford; and, in view of the hopelessness of getting satisfaction from the Government as to what was done, his advice to the people was that whenever an unjustifiable attack was made upon them, to snatch the weapons out of the hands of the Constabulary and crack their heads with them.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 20: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 294.)

Vote agreed to.

(4.) £88,689, to complete the sum for Prisons, Ireland.

MR. PARNELL

said, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to a new Rule made by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the powers conferred by the Act of 1877. In that Act it was provided that a clear distinction should be made between the treatment of prisoners awaiting trial, and not convicted of any crime, and those who had been convicted of crime; and special directions were given by the Lord Lieutenant to the Prison Board in Ireland to draw up Rules for the purpose of carrying out the spirit of that section of the Act to which he was referring. He believed Rules were drawn up under that section by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and by the Prison Board in Ireland, giving certain privileges or guarantees to untried prisoners. Amongst these privileges and rights to the prisoner was that of receiving visits, one visit a-day from a relative, in the presence, of course, of a prison warder. Several other privileges were given; but a few months, he thought two months ago, the Prisons Board in Ireland took upon themselves, evidently by direction of the Lord Lieutenant, to make a new Rule which practically abrogated the rights and privileges conferred upon untried prisoners, and which practically repealed a section of the Act in question. Under this new Rule the prison authorities were, practically speaking, able to prevent a prisoner from availing himself of any of the privileges which the Act of 1877 granted. The new Rule had been more especially used in the direction of denying visits to prisoners awaiting trial. It had constantly happened that certain prisoners awaiting trial in Ireland had been kept to solitary confinement for months and months together. He wished to direct the attention particularly of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to this matter, because that right hon. Gentleman was distinguished for his desire, during the passing of the present Act, to ensure by Statute that there should be a distinction between tried and untried prisoners, and that there should be those privileges, of which untried prisoners had been deprived by the Lord Lieutenant, beyond yea and nay, and as part of the law of the land. The terms of that most extraordinary special Rule, made by the Prisons Board on the 7th of May, 1883, and approved by the Lord Lieutenant on the same day, provided that the Visiting Committee or the Governor might suspend or withdraw permission granted by the section in any case when they or he considered it necessary to do so for the purposes of the security, good order, and government of the prison and prisoners therein, or to prevent the tampering with evidence, or to thwart plans of escape. He denied that the Visiting Committee had power to withdraw the provisions of the Statute of 1877 from untried prisoners; and he denied that it was contemplated by the Statute, which fenced the powers of the Governor round with safeguards and checks, that the Governor should have power, by his own motion, to suspend any one of these Rules for the vague considerations and pretences specified in the clauses. The real reason why this Rule was granted was not for the purpose of the security of the good order of the prison and prisoners therein, or to prevent the tampering with evidence, or to thwart plans of escape, but for the purpose of enabling the most infamous system of mouchardism, which had ever disgraced any Administration in Ireland, to be carried on. The Government were successful, to a certain extent, or rather they supposed they were successful, by the violation of the Statute of 1877, in detecting the Phænix Park assassins; but he maintained that if they had expected, even in a ten-fold degree, by the violation of the Act of Parliament, to have brought about the conviction of these prisoners, they would not have been justified in breaking the law, and of setting a bad example to the people. Least of all were they justified in proceeding, in the wholesale manner in which they had proceeded, in depriving the prisoners of the privileges extended to them by the last Parliament after full consideration—privileges and guarantees which were granted with the full consent of both political Parties, including the then Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The Government had not shown the slightest reason, pretext, or excuse for their conduct. He was waiting with curiosity to hear what defence could be set up for the Lord Lieutenant. That question of the treatment of untried prisoners was one which the Irish Members would closely watch. He knew well how easy it was to convert the imprisonment of prisoners awaiting trial into a system of slow torture. That was what was being done at the present time. Men were being driven out of their minds and converted into lunatics under the system adopted by the Government. It was horrible to think that at the present time men were being slowly driven mad by the system of solitary confinement which was pursued, and the postponement of men's trials from one Assize to another. If the Government thought themselves justified in claiming that the violation of the law helped them to bring about the conviction of the Phœnix Park assassins, they had certainly failed in all the conspiracy cases which had followed the Phœnix Park murders. The Mayo, the King's County cases, had broken down, and the Government were simply detaining persons in prison, under the infamous system he had described, for the purpose of fishing for evidence which they could not legitimately obtain.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, that, as on many other important occasions of the Executive, the reason which permitted this particular action was very simple. It was very often the case that when a very strong measure had to be taken the defence of that measure was also strong, and, being strong, was easy to state. In January of this year the Irish Government found itself face to face with a position which he supposed was quite unprecedented in these Islands. The City of Dublin for 12 months before had been at the mercy of an invisible gang of murderers. On that subject there was no difference of opinion in any way. Whether the men who were executed were the murderers some people doubted, or professed to doubt; but that there was a powerful gang of murderers who dominated the streets of Dublin there could be no doubt. During the first few months of last year there were in Dublin—in the comparatively small population of Dublin—four homicides, three of which were most undoubtedly known at the time to be connected with secret societies, and the fourth of which was then suspected, and had since been ascertained, to have been so con- nected. A society so strongly organized, and that required such terrible punishment to keep it in order, was quite certain to attempt dreadful things, and at the same time it was known to exercise such terrorism in all quarters that the detection of individual members of it was rendered next to impossible. At length, by a series of contingencies, to which he now need not further refer, but the most important of which, perhaps, was a murderous assault upon Mr. Field, and the almost chance identification of one of the persons engaged in that assault, the Government were able to lay their hands upon that gang. But when the members of the gang were arrested and were put in prison, one thing was quite certain—that with the fact of their being incarcerated the terrorism did not cease. Witnesses and people who had the means of being witnesses would not dare to give evidence with such terrible examples before them of men being shot and stabbed in Dublin in the early months of last year for being supposed to have given evidence. The Government had evidence in its hands before then that members, or that one member, at any rate, of that very gang, while in prison for a minor offence had conveyed to another member a letter directing the murder of a particular person. Both the persons to whom he referred had been convicted of connection with the Phœnix Park murders. Besides that, the Government were actuated by this knowledge—the knowledge of the certainty that if these desperate villians were able to communicate with persons outside they would contrive to terrify all those private citizens of. Dublin who were willing to give evidence against them, and if they did not succeed in terrifying them would get them assassinated. It was no libel to say all this when they recollected what happened—namely, that a private citizen, whose only fault was that he came, under compulsion, to serve as a juror, and being a juror gave the verdict which his conscience obliged him to give, was attacked by men whose intention was to murder him, and was only saved by his own remarkable presence of mind and an extraordinarily exceptional strength of constitution. If the Government did not know whether or not they had got the whole gang they strongly suspected that several were still at large, and they thought it absolutely necessary to prevent communication between the prisoners and the outside—first of all, for the purpose of securing the honest evidence which would come forward if there was no terrorism; and, secondly, for the still more important purpose of securing the lives of citizens outside the prison. Under these circumstances, the Government took the very strong step of suspending the permission to receive visitors. The law was not perfectly clear upon the point—that he admitted. Following the advice of several persons much more competent than himself, with whom he had conferred on the subject, he was inclined to think that the Statute bore the construction they put upon it; but he would allow that it was only in the interests of public safety, in a most exceptional state of things, that they would have been justified in altering the Rule. Accordingly, when there seemed to be some prospect of some alteration of the Rule being required he advised the Lord Lieutenant, and the noble Earl readily agreed with him, that they should at once proceed to secure the safety of witnesses, and alter the Rule, and lay it openly upon the Table of the House, securing Parliamentary and Statutory sanction to the course they felt it their duty to take. He was perfectly aware of the interest which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) took in matters relating to prisoners, both tried and untried, and that he insisted upon the due performance by the State of its duties towards these people. Any ordinary warmth, in fact even greater warmth than the hon. Member had shown, he should not be unwilling to excuse, if he might use the word—nay, he might also say he should be inclined to feel a certain sympathy with; but there were some words which the hon. Member had used which he could not allow to pass unnoticed. The hon. Member, referring to the policy of the Government in regard to the Prison Rules, had spoken of that "most infamous system of mouchardism which had ever occurred." Well he (Mr. Trevelyan) did not believe there was a single Member in the House who, whatever he thought of the methods by which it was done, believed that any one of the men who was excuted for the Phœnix Park murders was not guilty. The system which was adopted of bringing these murderers to justice was perfectly allowable. In the face of day every man of those who was tried had the evidence of independent citizens to corroborate the evidence of informers to convict him; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) utterly denied that the Government, with regard to these trials, had done anything that it need be ashamed of. He did not hesitate to say that in the exceptional state of things of a society like "The Invincibles" being rampant in the City, the Government had acted perfectly legitimately.

MR. PARNELL

said, that in his remarks he had referred to what had been going on, and what was still going on, in every gaol in Ireland where prisoners were awaiting trial.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he knew what view the hon. Member, and those who acted with him, took as to the system under which crime had been detected in Ireland; but he repudiated the epithets the hon. Member had used, and contended that the course the Government had adopted was perfectly justified. One of the methods they had adopted in the prosecution of their efforts to detect crime was that of preventing prisoners, under exceptional circumstances, from seeing and communicating with people from outside. He perfectly agreed that it was right, in a matter of this kind, that the action of the Executive should be closely watched; but he did not hesitate to say that in the exceptional state of things which had existed, and which had never occurred before in Ireland, of a society like "The Invincibles" being rampant in the country—a society he did not hestitate to say worse than that secret society, which had existed in Pennsylvania—the Government had a perfectly legitimate right to take every care that the terrorism should not be continued after the prisoners were in custody.

MR. PARNELL

said, the right hon. Gentleman actually defended himself and the Irish Government for having made a Rule on the 7th of May, 1883, on the ground that the Rule was necessary in January in order to detect the Phœnix Park assassins, who were actually executed before the Rule was made at all. He really must ask the right hon. Gentleman to examine this question seriously. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman reminded him very much of the action of a horse dealer of whom he once heard, who, when he was asked how old the horse he was endeavouring to sell was, and whether he would allow the would be purchaser to look at its mouth, brought that purchaser round and showed him what a splendid tail the animal had. The right hon. Gentleman showed them how well the Rule was adapted to the discovery of the Phœnix Park assassins, when the assassins were detected without the Rule at all. There were examples of prisoners awaiting trial in cases which the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned, all of them being deprived of the privileges granted to them under the Act of 1877. The law-said— Whereas it is expedient that a clear difference should he made between the treatment of prisoners unconvicted of crime, and in law presumably innocent, during the period of their detention in prison for safe custody only, and the treatment of persons convicted of crime. According to this there were to be special Rules regulating the confinement of persons unconvicted of crime, so as to make the law as little as possible oppressive. The Act said— Therefore be it enacted that the Secretary of State shall make, and may from time to time repeal, alter, or add special Rules with respect to the communication between a prisoner, his solicitor, and friends, so as to secure to such prisoner as unrestricted a private communication between him, his solicitor, or friends, as may he possible, having regard only to the necessity of preventing any tampering with evidence, and any plans for escape, or other like considerations. It was the Rules made under the provision of that section that the right hon. Gentleman allowed any Governor of an Irish prison to abrogate and disregard. The right hon. Gentleman admitted his (Mr. Parnell's) whole case. There was nothing in the Statute referring to the detection of crime; and, therefore, this was a new system introduced by the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Spencer. The privilege given to untried prisoners had been struck off from the list of Rules, and he (Mr. Parnell) and the Irish Members were bound to protest against it. The right hon. Gentleman said the Rules were necessary for the detection of the Phœnix Park assassins. Well, was it still necessary to keep the present Rules in existence for the purpose of these or any other crimes in Ireland? If not, it was to be hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to announce that he would at once consult with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland as to the advisability of repealing this most objectionable system.

MR. HEALY

said, that anything more farcical than the visits these unfortunate untried prisoners got now could not be imagined. If the Committee would imagine a door, perforated something like the outer door of the House leading into the Lobby, with a grating in front of it with the view going through a little box two feet long, with a warder at each end of it, the grating being so close that they could hardly pass a needle through it, they would have some idea of the aperture through which an untried prisoner communicated with his friends. As he had said, there was a warder waiting at each end for every word that was said. A prisoner could not see the person with whom he was conversing, or if he could see anything all that could meet his gaze would be the tip of his friend's nose, and it required the greatest effort to make oneself heard; they had to screech through two squares of metal grating. He was astonished that even an Irish Secretary should display such an amount of ignorance upon a subject of this kind as had been exhibited by the right hon. Gentleman. How an unfortunate man could be supposed to transfer plans and materials of conspiracy through a grating, into which they could not insert a needle, with two warders watching his actions, was more than he could imagine. The right hon. Gentleman might have been told that this sort of thing was the case; but he ought to know perfectly well that such statements were only for the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman knew, in his own mind, that it was very easy to deceive hon. Members like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge; but he should not attempt to make "the worse appear the better reason," and muddle people of sense; he could not fool the Irish Members in this matter; he could deceive hon. Gentlemen behind him, but not the Irish Members. He was quite sure that the whole subject of prison visits was a difficult one, and that there were abuses in many cases. He had seen prisoners visited by a class of per- sons who should scarcely be allowed to visit them; but it was one thing to keep out such a class of persons as those, and quite another to refuse to allow the prisoners to be visited by their fathers, their mothers, their wives, or their children. This was a matter which really placed the prisoners at the mercy of the Governor. The Rule ought not to be of general application; it should not apply to the presence of members of the prisoner's own family. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not contend that a man's wife or his little children were parties to these dreadful murders. It was one thing to make the Rule applicable to outside parties, and quite another to use it in this way. The Mayo prisoners had been put into gaol, and papers addressed to them which contained certain facts had had those facts cut out. Who did that, he would ask, and why was it done? Did the right hon. Gentleman defend it, or say it was necessary for the prevention of crime? He wanted an answer to that question from the right hon. Gentleman. A paper sent to those prisoners, and simply containing a letter from one of them in self-defence, was prevented from reaching the other prisoners. Had the right hon. Gentleman any explanation of that fact to offer?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, in reference to that question he had no information whatever. He had no control over the prison authorities. [Mr. HEALY: Who has?] As to the legality of what had taken place he could express no opinion. The authority and the responsibility rested with the Governor of the prison, under Rules which he administered under the superintendence of the Prisons Board. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) supposed the Governor had a warrant for what he did, and acted under authority. Beyond that he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had no knowledge whatever of the matter. With regard to the suggestion made as to the treatment of the prisoners and the visits of persons from outside, he would say that the prisoners had always been allowed to hold unrestricted communication with their legal advisers at all times.

MR. HEALY

It was absolutely stopped for some days. They would allow no one to visit.

MR. PARNELL

Under this Rule has the Governor power, of his own option, to keep people out?

MR. O'KELLY

IS there anybody over the Prisons Board?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

I am not aware of the circumstances of the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Monaghan.

MR. HEALY

Of course not.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, it was impossible for him to keep up the discussion if he was to be continually interrupted. His right hon. Friend had already stated that what had been done under the new Rule would have been perfectly legal under the Rule as it stood before; and the point of this would be clearly seen if a comparison of the two Rules was made. However, it had been thought right to put the matter at rest, and therefore the new Rule had been provided to prevent any appearance of the straining of the law. The restriction of the Rule should not be applied except in cases of absolute necessity. It was only applicable in very exceptional cases, and for reasons which were very strong indeed, and anything done under these Rules must be within the provisions of the Act of Parliament; and one of those provisions, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), was with respect to communications between the prisoner and his solicitor, under which regard was only to be had in imposing restrictions to the necessity of preventing any tampering with letters, or plans of escape, &c.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, this was a case in which his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) could confidently call for the support of the Committee generally, upon all sides of the House, against the action of the Irish authorities, and if there was one Member who ought to be called upon more than any other it was the Home Secretary. He (Mr. O'Connor) always found himself in a very great difficulty when he rose to criticize the action of the Administration in Ireland, because the Chief Secretary for Ireland always got up, and—no doubt, unintentionally—confused in the mind of the House two very distinct issues. It was one thing to uphold, or to defend, or to exonerate, crime, and it was quite another thing to criticize the administration of an Executive in regard to their action towards persons who were accused or suspected of crime; and the Irish Members were just as much in their right in criticizing the action of the Executive, even in dealing with atrocious crime, as Englishmen would be in criticizing the action of Russia in dealing with the case even of the Nihilists. Not one word had ever escaped from him in that House, or elsewhere, in palliation or extenuation of crime; but no horror at the crime would permit him to keep silence in that House when he thought the Executive were employing means which were against the Statute Law of the land, and against the manners and customs of civilized nations. His charge against the Government was—first, that they had broken the law; and, secondly, that they had employed, and were employing, a system with regard to persons accused of crime which amounted to what was practically torture. With regard to the charge of breaking the law, he would read to the Committee again—he was sorry to have to trouble them with it, but this was really a most important and serious matter—he would read the distinct language of the Act of Parliament which the late Home Secretary got passed through this House with the sanction of every Party— Whereas it is expedient that a clear difference should he made between the treatment of persons unconvicted of crime, and in law presumably innocent, during the period of their detention in prison for safe custody only, and the treatment of persons convicted of crime, and so on. As he had said before in discussing this section of the Act, here was an extraordinary instance of what was practically the Preamble to an Act of Parliament introduced and wedged in in the 39th clause; and, therefore, he had a right to argue that the distinctness of this difference of treatment was laid down in the most solemn manner—in a manner the solemnity of which had no precedent in any other Act. What did the Act go on to say?— Therefore be it enacted that the Secretary of State shall make, and, when made, may from time to time repeal, alter, or add special Rules with respect to communications between a prisoner, his solicitor, and friends, so as to secure at such trial as unrestricted and private communication between them as may be possible, having regard only to the necessity of preventing any tampering with evidence, and any plans for escape, or such like consideration. In other words, that section was a mandatory enabling section—a direct command to the prison authorities that they should make provision for the purpose, not of destroying, but of ensuring and facilitating the access between the prisoner and his friends. He said it was an enabling section; but this Rule of the Lord Lieutenant's was a disabling Rule— In pursuance of the General Prisons (Ireland) Act (1877), the General Prisons Board hereby order that the Rule shall he added to as follows:—Provided always, that the Visiting Committee or Governor may suspend and withdraw the permission hereby granted in any case when he or they consider it necessary so to do, for the purpose of maintaining good order, or for the purpose of preventing tampering with evidence," &c. In other words, that Order took away from the prisoners a privilege which the Act of Parliament conferred upon them. He took it for granted that the views of the Home Secretary were somewhat the same as those of the Irish authorities. He did not wish to say anything unpleasant; but he would recall this fact to the mind of the Committee—that when there were in this country a number of prisoners in custody charged with an offence even more atrocious than the Phœnix Park murders, and the Home Secretary was asked whether he would carry out the law as laid down by the Statute, and whether the prisoners would be allowed to have that unrestricted access with their legal advisers and their friends which the Statute conferred on them, the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied that they would have it in such manner as he thought right. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imply that he intended to suspend for a time the privileges of the prisoners in view of the public safety. But what happened? Within one or two days—such was the pressure which the unanimous opinion of this country, as expressed in the newspapers, brought upon him—he had to give back those privileges of which he had intended for a time to deprive them. If illegality were justifiable in any case it was in that, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to deal with a conspiracy, the atrocity and wideness of which were almost beyond anything in the world— certainly beyond anything that the Phœnix Park murderers did. But the Home Secretary was not permitted by public opinion to do what he intended, even when the lives of thousands of citizens were placed, as he supposed, in jeopardy. What excuse, then, had the Government for resorting to similar illegalities when dealing with a far less formidable danger? The Chief Secretary for Ireland gave as his reason for breaking the law that it was necessary to prevent the prisoners from having communication with people outside which might be used for purposes of assassination. He (Mr. O'Connor) would not express any doubt whatever that that was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion; but he would tell the Committee what was the opinion held in Ireland on the action of the Government. It was that the Government were not afraid of these men communicating with persons outside; but they wanted to keep them in solitary confinement, so that they might be induced, by the horrors of such imprisonment, to turn informers. He would not comment on an unfortunate necessity; but it was the unfortunate necessity of Governments to have to employ informers for the purpose of tracing out atrocious crimes, and bringing atrocious criminals to justice. But the public opinion of this country would not permit, and the public opinion of no civilized country in the world would permit, the Government to use the horrors of solitary confinement on unconvicted prisoners—no Government could be permitted to use torture for the purpose of bringing its prisoners to be informers. This was his charge against the Government, and this was a matter which did not have reference to things that were past and gone—to men like the Phœnix Park murderers, who, as the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had said, were in their graves—it related to prisoners who were now in prison in Ireland, and who, before their trial, were being treated illegally, and deprived of visits which the Act of Parliament intended to confer upon them. They were being tortured in that way in the hope, on the part of the Government, that they would turn informers, and give evidence which might be true or false. What he wanted from the Government, and what he hoped the Committee would support him in demanding, was a pledge that these pri- vileges should be restored to the prisoners. There should be no more of this torture upon the unfortunate prisoners, who ought to be allowed to have those visits from their friends which the Act of Parliament intended.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought it right that he should say a few words, as he had been referred to in the course of the discussion. The view he had taken, and which he had acted upon, and for which he held himself responsible in respect of this matter, was this—he need not say that he entirely approved of the principle of the clause that, as a general rule, untried prisoners should be placed upon a generous footing; but he could not assent to the proposition laid down by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) as to the effect of this clause. He had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the clause gave to all untried prisoners, under all circumstances whatever, a right to visits from their solicitor and from their friends—that that was a right which was given to them by statute, and one which no one had a right, under any circumstances, to take from them.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he had no wish to deny that there was a right to surround these visits with safeguards, and to carry out certain precautions. But he maintained that the prisoners had a right to these visits under all circumstances.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that was a proposition from which he entirely differed, and anyone who read the clause could not doubt how the matter really lay. The clause laid it down that Rules were to be made with respect to communications, so as to secure to the prisoner— As unrestricted communication between him and his solicitor and friends as may he possible, having regard only to the necessity of preventing any tampering with evidence, and any plans for escape, or other like consideration. Those words, he maintained, covered the whole of this matter, and the responsibility rested with those who were responsible for the safe custody of prisoners in respect of Preventing any tampering with evidence, or any plans for escape, or other like consideration. He would give an illustration which he thought was a fair one. He had reason to know, and in fact he might say that he did know, that the explosion at Clerkenwell was brought about by a communication which took place through a visit of this description. If the hon. Member's proposition was correct, then those who were responsible for the safe custody of the prisoners who were in Clerkenwell Gaol had no right and no power to prevent such communications. He maintained that to hold such a proposition as that was to say that the Statute was totally inconsistent with the public safety. [Mr. PARNELL: Then repeal the section."] He did not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who passed the Bill, would differ from him in that view. There was a special Rule with reference to communications with prisoners. It was, in his opinion, a proper view of the section that, as a general rule, communications were to be permitted; but it was obvious that those who were responsible for the safe custody of the prisoners must, upon their responsibility, judge how far these communications could be permitted at all, and in what manner they could be carried on consistently with that safe custody. That was the view he had acted upon; and, certainly, until he was corrected either by that House, or by the law, he should hold to that opinion. It must be proved, for instance, that it was within the knowledge of the Secretary of State or of the Lord Lieutenant.

MR. PARNELL

It is the Governor who has the right to suspend the Rule?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that the hon. Member for Galway was entirely mistaken when he represented that he (Sir William Harcourt) had first taken a particular course, and then had afterwards altered it. He had never altered it at all. The reason why, in the first instance, restrictions were placed upon the visits paid to the men connected with the nitro-glycerine conspiracy was because there was a difficulty at first in appointing a legal adviser. There was some misunderstanding about the matter; and until that was settled, and a regular legal adviser was appointed, he (Sir William Harcourt) did not feel justified in allowing unrestricted communication to take place. But as soon as he had satisfied himself of the regularity of the appointment of the legal adviser those communications were permitted. He, therefore, begged to assure the hon. Member for Galway that the idea that he had taken some course or other under the Statute, and was afterwards driven from it by the pressure of public opinion, was an en tire misapprehension. It would be impossible to secure public safety without all these precautions. Of course, particular instances must arise in which exceptions must be made; but how often that could be done must rest upon the responsibility of those who had to carry out the law. Of course, if the Governor, or the Secretary of State, or the Lord Lieutenant had reason to think that, in the case of any particular prisoner, there was a danger of tampering with the evidence——

MR. PARNELL

There is a warder listening.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Or a danger of planning some desperate means of escape, it was contrary to common sense to suppose that any special Rule which had been laid on the Table of Parliament was to preclude the Secretary of State or the Governor from taking those measures which would be instantly required. [Cheers.] He was very glad to hear that hon. Members took that view of the matter. The person immediately responsible must, of course, be the Governor of the gaol. He was the man who must have the best means of judging of the circumstances and necessities which arose in each particular case; but, of course, the Governor only acted under the authority of those who were placed over him. He (Sir William Harcourt) hoped that he had now satisfied the Committee as to the view he took of the principles of this clause, and as to the manner in which he had acted upon it. His view had always been perfectly clear, and his action upon it had been quite consistent. He had never attempted to do what the hon. Member had suggested was an illegality; but in a particular case, where he thought it unsafe to give the general liberty which was usually given, and which ought usually to be given, to untried prisoners, he had had regard to the powers conferred by the section, which powers gave him the right, and imposed on him the duty, of compelling the observance of certain restrictions wherever they might be found to be necessary.

MR. PARNELL

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary did not make the statement with which he had now favoured the Committee in reply to the Question which he (Mr. Parnell) put to him some months ago, in reference to these untried prisoners. He (Mr. Parnell) asked him distinctly on that occasion whether he would permit those prisoners to see their legal advisers, as the law required, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman refused to say that he would. He (Mr. Parnell) repeated the Question several timesover; but he failed to get any other reply from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which clearly indicated that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in his mind an intention, so far as he had then gone, of refusing to allow the prisoners to see their legal adviser, except in the presence of the prison warders. But that course was departed from the very next day, in consequence, as he (Mr. Parnell) believed at the time, of representations that were made to the Home Office by the United States Consul or Minister.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Let me correct the hon. Gentleman on that point, though it is very immaterial. No such representations or communications, either directly or indirectly, were made.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was given to understand that representations were made to the American Government in favour of these prisoners, and with the view of obtaining for them treatment under the same regulations as those which would affect an English prisoner; and he was justified in inferring that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did act upon representations from them. But, at all events, the rights which were suspended were restored to the prisoners on the very day following the Question which he (Mr. Parnell) put to the Home Secretary. As to the particular point now before the Committee, he denied that the view of the law which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given was correct; and he maintained that the words of the Statute incontestibly proved the position he had taken up. The Statute required the Home Secretary to make Rules with respect to certain matters relating to visits to prisons, and so forth. He had to make Rules with respect to communications between a prisoner, his solicitor, and his friends; but there was no power given to make a Rule under which the Governor of a prison might suspend any one of the Rules made. But that was what had practically been done in this case. If they had proceeded in a different way, and altered any of the Rules under the Statute, that would have been a different thing. If the Chairman of the Prisons Board, going over the Rules under the Act of 1877, had come upon anyone of them which, as it stood, he thought was not framed so as to prevent any tampering with evidence, or to prevent any plans for escape, then he could imagine that the Chairman would have been entitled to re frame the Rule, and would have so made it that prisoners, while having the right of receiving visits, would not be able to tamper with evidence, or make plans for escape, or other like consideration. But the right of a prisoner to receive visits was conferred by Statute; therefore, he contended that having made the Rules by Statute the Government were not entitled to pass one sweeping Rule giving power to any Governor of a prison to suspend in the case of any prisoner not only the Rules already made by the Chairman under the powers of the Statute, but actually the provisions of the Statute itself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had just stated that he thought it should be in the power of the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant to give directions with regard to any particular prisoner; but that was not what had been done in this case. A wholesale Rule had been made giving power to the Governor of a prison or the Justices to do this. Governors of prisons, receiving salaries in many cases of £120 a-year, and unpaid Justices were very different officials from the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary; and he submitted that he had made a case for the remission and reconstruction of this Rule. He wished to ask whether it was intended to have this Rule as a permanent addition to the Prison Rules in Ireland; and, if not, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to express some hope that before Parliament met again and came to discuss this Vote this Rule would have been annulled and lost its force; and that, in the meanwhile, he would be able to say that the Rule should not be put in force in respect to any prisoner except by the special direction of himself or the Lord Lieutenant.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he was bound to observe that the Government were immensely impressed with the necessity for this Rule in most serious cases; but on the only occasion, except that of the Phœnix Park murders, when it was brought to his own knowledge that this Rule, or the policy which this Rule represented, was being put in force, he interfered, and recommended the Government to stop it. He could assure the hon. Member that the use to which this Rule was put should be most narrowly watched. There were only extremely exceptional circumstances under which it ought to be put into force; and those circumstances existed in Dublin in January, and might very well exist again in Dublin. But those circumstances would be very exceptional. As to the question whether this power, in the last resort, could be placed in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, he would carefully examine that. The debate had convinced him of the necessity of acting with extreme caution in putting the Rule in force, and of the danger of leaving it in the hands of the Governors, or even the Prisons Board; and if any means existed for placing it in the hands of the higher authorities that should be done. But the debate had not convinced him that the necessity for the Rule did not exist.

MR. DAWSON

said, he could not see how, with the conditions which his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) had described—gratings and warders between prisoners and their visitors—prisoners could tamper with evidence, or make plans for escape.

DR. COMMINS

said, there was another matter in connection with this subject which had not been touched upon, and upon which he should like to have the opinion of the Chief Secretary. Whether it was legal or not, there was no doubt that the facilities for intercourse between untried prisoners and their friends or legal advisers had been very much restricted. From the point of view of the Chief Secretary, no doubt it was proper to restrict these facilities under certain circumstances; but he would ask whether, while intercourse between prisoners and their friends and advisers had been restricted, the police officers in charge of prisoners had not had unlimited access at all times to these prisoners for the purpose, as one of them had very naively said the other day, of trying whether any one of them could assist the prosecution? That was, he thought, a still more objectionable course than the restriction of intercourse. He did not object to all legitimate means being employed to put down crime; but to incarcerate under suspicion men who might be perfectly innocent, and then to place such restrictions upon them as to practically forbid all intercourse with friends, and then to subject them in their cells at all hours to visits by the police for the purpose of pumping and worrying them, and so manufacturing informers, was a process deserving the most serious condemnation. He should like to ask the Chief Secretary whether these visits by the police were not allowed and facilitated in proportion as the visits of friends were restricted?

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he hoped the Committee would bear in mind the absolute truth of the description which had been given of the arrangements for these visits to prisoners. He had seen these arrangements himself, and he could assure the Committee that it was simply impossible for anything to pass between a prisoner and his visitors except words. It was impossible for a letter, or document, or article of any sort, to be transmitted from one to the other. Nothing could pass but words, and warders were there to listen to words; and if those words contained any plan, or project, or intimation, warning was at once given to the Government. That would defeat the idea of any plan or project of escape, or any illegality whatever; for with a warder on each side the effect of any such intimation of a plan would be to give the Government warning that such a scheme was on foot. What was the use of pretending to this Committee that the deprivation of these visits was necessary to prevent plans of escape or illegalities. The plain truth of this matter was that the visits were forbidden for the purpose of torture. Why not go back to the thumb-screw?

MR. HARRINGTON

said, that, the attention of the Committee having been drawn to the arrangements with regard to visits, he wished to bring to their notice the treatment of tried and convicted prisoners in gaol. He did not hope, at that time of the Session, and at that hour, to get the Committee to take any very practical steps towards improving, to some extent, the condition of convicted prisoners, and to make it possible for the Government to do something towards their moral improvement while in prison, instead of devoting all its energy, and time, and money, to punishing and torturing them; but he wished to draw attention to the treatment of tried and convicted prisoners, and particularly in respect to the length of time they were kept on the plank bed. He regarded it as one of the greatest scandals of their prison system, and as one of the greatest disgraces to their civilization, that an unfortunate man, convicted of some small offence, should be subjected to the very same punishment—because, practically, it was the same—as a man who was convicted of some heinous offence—that for a month he had to lie on a plank bed with no protection between him and the plank. Under the Rules of the Prisons Board, every prisoner who was convicted of any offence was bound to lie on a plank bed for the first month of his imprisonment; so that the prisoner who was guilty of a serious offence, and had committed a grave crime against society, had only to suffer the same term on the plank bed as the man who was guilty of some small offence. If those who had framed the Prison Rules properly understood the subject to which they had devoted their attention, or had attempted to devote their attention, they would have known that if that punishment was to be deterrent and to improve a criminal, it should be resorted to at different periods of the imprisonment, so that the man guilty of a great offence should be punished more than the man who was guilty of a lighter offence. How did the system work at the present time? In Ireland men were arrested on very small pretexts, and he had particular reason to know that, for when the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to make an example of some formidable man in Ireland he was selected for the honour. During the first month of imprisonment a man got two hours a-day out of his cell; and for the rest of the day, unless he had the good fortune to be a hard labour prisoner, and had to break stones, he was confined in a small cell 10 feet by 5 feet, and, without any means of getting exercise, he was engaged sitting down picking oakum, or chopping wood. He could get no exercise that would enable him to sleep at night upon his plank bed. During his own imprisonment the Governor of the prison wanted to impose upon him a rule which was not imposed in any other prison in Ireland. He did not wish to shock the Committee with the details now, or to recur to the subject, more than to say that when the matter came to be inquired into the Inspector of the Prisons Board found that he had been right, and that the Governor had been acting illegally. He wished to show what was the description of men to whom the Chief Secretary would entrust the working of these Rules. The Governor of that prison wanted to impose on him a menial duty, which no prisoner was bound by the Prison Rules to discharge, and to impose on him the performance of that duty in a public place where everybody in the prison would see him, and where all the Governor's visitors in his drawing room could inspect the performance of that duty. When he refused to comply with that order, he said it was no duty which a man was bound to perform, and asked the Governor to inflict some punishment. The Governor replied that it was no case of punishment; but he would compel him to do it, and he locked him for six days in a cell of 10 feet by 5 feet. During the whole of those six days he was not allowed out of the cell, and every night he had to sleep on a plank bed. What was a plank bed? He did not suppose that many hon. Members knew, when they were discussing this question, what this punishment was. A plank bed was three narrow deal boards nailed together, which stood up against the wall in the day, and at night were laid on the floor. He supposed the medical advisers of the Prisons Board recommended that, in order to facilitate the circulation of the blood, this bed should have a slant; and, consequently, it was four inches from the floor at the feet and eight inches at the head. With no mattress and no proper cover, and with his day clothes locked outside the door, the prisoner had to lie on that bed throughout the night. Such scant covering as he had was only about a yard wide, and it was impossible for him to roll it round himself, and so protect himself from the cold. This was the sort of torture which was inflicted. If a man was imprisoned for a week or a fortnight he had this plank bed all the time; but if a man had committed a serious crime against society, and was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, he suffered this severity for the first month only; but after that the prison authorities improved his food and gave him a mattress, he was then comparatively a gentleman, and had charge of the other prisoners, simply because he had had the good fortune to commit a grave offence. In this Vote there was an Estimate of £490 for prisoners' bedding; but he found that the uniforms of the warders cost just double that amount. One suit of clothes to each of the warders, who were as 1 to 30 or 1 to 25 of the prisoners, cost twice as much as the entire amount of bedding, planks being very cheap. It was a disgrace and a scandal to civilization that such a state of things should be tolerated. It was a scandal that power should be given to Governors of prisons to punish men in that way without any appeal. In his case he was able to combat the Governor; but he would take the case of a less intelligent man. The Governor could do absolutely what he liked to him. What did the Governor do in his case? When he raised this dispute with him, although the Inspector decided that the Governor was wrong, and restored him to the exercise of which he had been deprived, and he was, by direction of the Lord Lieutenant, removed to another prison, the Governor deprived him of the marks to which he was entitled for industry while in prison. What was the effect of that? He remained six additional nights beyond the month on the plank bed. He would not trouble the Committee with further observations on this subject; but he thought it was a matter which the Committee ought to consider; and the more they studied it, and the more they looked at home to their own prison system, the less likely they would be to condemn foreign systems, whether under King Bomba or any body else.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he wished to ask a question with regard to the treatment of a man who had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment, under the Prevention of Crime Act, for a very slight offence. He was sent to Mullingar Gaol on the 7th May, and was afterwards removed to Queen's County; and when, on the 10th of August, when he was entitled to receive visitors, a gentleman went to see him, he was not allowed to see the prisoner, on the ground that the time had not expired. Unquestionably he had not been in that gaol long enough; but he had spent more than three months in Mullingar Gaol. He had put the matter before the Chief Secretary, and he wished to know whether he had obtained any information with regard to it; and, if so, what was the character of it?

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he had overlooked the hon. Gentleman's letter; but he would look up the case very carefully and make inquiry.

MR. HARRINGTON

asked the Chief Secretary to consider whether it would not be advisable to make some such provision as would enable a prisoner, who was not allowed to write a letter or see his friends for three months, to at least have the consolation of knowing that if he were ill the Governor of the gaol would communicate with his friends; or, on the other hand, if his friends were ill or dying, he should be informed. An unfortunate man convicted of an offence could not receive a single visit or letter, or hear a single word from the world outside during the first three months, and then he might receive a visitor, and again be without a word from outside for another three months. He thought that was a state of things to which the Chief Secretary or the Home Secretary might turn attention. It was not at all inconsistent with the punishment of crime that this should be done; nor did he think it would in any way make a gaol more desirable.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that though the provisions referred to by the hon. Members might appear severe they were based on the prison discipline of England; and he had no doubt that in Ireland they were also the result of very careful consideration by Commissions and Committees. No matter had been more carefully considered; and the result had been that in the case of short sentences, and in the early period, the severity of treatment was the greatest; while where the sentences were long, simply because they were long, and were, consequently, more oppressive through their very length, the treatment was less severe. The result of experience was that that was the best way of dealing with prisoners. With regard to the suggestion as to prisoners being ill, it must be remembered that every prisoner had the right to present a Petition, in England to the Secretary of State, and in Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary.

MR. HARRINGTON

asked whether there was any such provision printed in the Rules where a prisoner could see it?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

replied, that there was such a provision. Every prisoner had the right to present a Petition. If a prisoner's friends could not visit him, he (Sir William Harcourt) would take good care they were communicated with with reference to his condition of life. The hon. Member must be perfectly aware that if the condition of life was endangering life the prisoner was invariably released from gaol. Nothing could be more erroneous than the impression that a prisoner suffering from ill-health was not treated with every consideration.

MR. HARRINGTON

pointed out that it was not set forth in the Prison Rules that a prisoner had the power of presenting a Petition. He (Mr. Harrington) had been a prisoner; he had studied the Rules; and he did not find amongst them any such Rule as the one the right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of. He knew that prisoners believed that they had not the power of presenting a petition in case of sickness; and he had never heard of a case where a prisoner's friends had been communicated with in case of his illness. He (Mr. Harrington) had made one omission with regard to the exceptional severity of the punishment of a prisoner during the first term of imprisonment. Not only was a prisoner required to lie upon a plank bed, but the food he was given was scarcely sufficient to sustain nature. In the Irish prisons the dietary was simply shameful; in English prisons there was an improved dietary. In Ireland the prisoner received, in the morning, 5 ozs. of bread, with half-a-pint of cocoa—untastable cocoa. For dinner he was given 5 ozs. of bread, and nothing else, except on three days a week, when he was given half-a-pint of soup. For supper he got 5 ozs. of bread and half-a-pint of cocoa. The cocoa was sweetened with molasses, and contained no milk. A prisoner, therefore, had to live on 15 ozs. of brown bread a-day and a little cocoa, and that was his programme for the whole of the first month of his imprisonment. It was only during the second month of his imprisonment that he received 3 ozs. of meat in the week. The dietary at breakfast and supper was slightly improved; and, therefore, an habitual prisoner preferred to be committed for a couple of months—in fact, a premium was held out to him to commit a serious offence.

Vote agreed to.