Commons Sitting of 9 March 1883

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Standing Orders, Mr. Denis O'Conor discharged, Mr. Shaw added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1882–3)—Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE; Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; Class V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES; Class VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES; Class VII.—MISCELLANEOUS; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS; CIVIL SERVICE EXCESSES, 1881–2.
Resolutions [March 8] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—North Eastern Railway (General). *
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—First Reading—Borough Franchise (Ireland) (No. 2) * [115],

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (REFEREES).
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WATS AND MEANS THE CHAIRMAN OF WATS AND MEANS laid upon the Table Rules for the Practice and Procedure of the Referees on Private Bills, under Standing Order 88:—
  Locus Standi.
  1. The Promoters of any Private Bill, who intend to object to the right of Petitioners to be heard against the same, shall give notice of such intention, and of the grounds of their objection, to the Clerks to the Referees and to the Agents for the Petitioners, not later than the eighth day after the day on which the Petition has been deposited in the Private Bill Office; but it shall be competent to the Referees to allow such notices to be given, under special circumstances, although the time above limited may have expired. All notices shall be indorsed with the names of the Petitioners' Agents.
  2. Parties who have given such notice as above, may at any time withdraw the same by giving notice in writing of withdrawal to the Clerks to the Referees, and to the Agents for the Petitioners.
  3. The cases shall be heard in such order as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint, and according to a list prepared under his direction, and kept in the Referees' Office.
  4. When a Bill is called on for consideration, the Agents for the Petitioners against the same shall be required to produce a certificate of appearance from the Private Bill Office, in which shall be stated the names of the Petitioners, their Counsel and Agents.
  5. Not less than one clear day's notice shall be given by the Clerks to the Referees to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, of the days on which the objections to the right of Petitioners to be heard will be severally taken into consideration by the Referees.
  6. All notices required to be given, or deposits to be made, in the Referees' Office, shall be delivered in the said office before five of the clock in the evening of any day on which the House shall sit, and before one of the clock on any day on which the House shall not sit.
  7. Notices and grounds of objections will be deemed to have been sufficiently served upon Agents, if left at the Agent's Office before Six of the clock in the evening of any day, Sundays excepted.
  Committees.
  8. Two clear days at least before the day appointed for the consideration of any Private Bill by a Committee of which a Referee has been appointed a Member, a filled-up Copy of the Bill, as proposed to be submitted to the Committee, shall be deposited by the Agent at the Referees' Office, for the use of such Referee.
  9. Copies of all the Petitions, upon which Opponents of a Bill intend to appear before such Committee, shall also be deposited at the Referees' Office, by the respective Agents for the Opponents, two clear days at least before
  1896
  the day appointed for the consideration of the Bill.
  (Signed) ARTHUR OTWAY,
  Chairman of Ways and Means.
  House of Commons.
  March 1883.

QUESTIONS.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—WAKES
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to a letter in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 6th March, from which it appears that a wake was allowed to be held for two days and nights on the body of a man named Bartholomew Roe, who died in Saint Andrew's parish, Dublin, of a fever of a very malignant type, leaving a widow and eight young children; that the widow was struck down, and died in a few days; that some of the children have taken the disease, and are now inmates of Cork Street Fever Hospital; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made, with a view to preventing similar occurrences in future?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, my attention has been drawn to this case, and I have made inquiry on the subject. The facts are substantially as stated. The dispensary medical doctor, who, I am informed, is a newly appointed and inexperienced officer, cautioned the people against the holding of a wake. Further inquiry as to his action in the matter is being made. Active stops have been taken by the local sanitary authority to prevent any further spread of the disease.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked, whether four other cases of fever had not arisen from this wake, in one of which the person had died?
  [No reply.]

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—MESSRS. O'BRIEN, GILHOOLY, AND HODNETT.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John O'Brien, T. C. Cork, Mr. James Gilhooly, Bantry, and Mr. Hodnett, of Ballydehob, at present undergoing imprisonment in Cork Gaol for words spoken at a public meeting in Bantry, are subject to the treatment

  1897
  prescribed for common criminals; and, if so, whether he will advise that the relaxations allowed in the case of Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., should be extended to those gentlemen? He also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he had received a copy of the following resolution passed by the Cork Town Council that day:—
  "That, having regard to the reported treatment of Mr. John O'Brien, now in prison on a charge under the Crimes Act, we are of opinion that same should he mitigated, and that we would urge on Her Majesty's Government the difficulties which such treatment, in cases like his, create in the way of the restoration of peace, conciliation, and good feeling in the country. Have forwarded a copy to the Chief Secretary?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received, within the last three or four minutes, a telegram from the Mayor of Cork, which, as far as I can gather from what the hon. Member read, is the same as that which he read to the House. The persons mentioned in the Question are treated according to the rules as ordinary prisoners sentenced to imprisonment, only with such relaxations as the medical officer recommends should be made. The Lord Lieutenant asked for my advice on the question; and it is under consideration whether any relaxation in their case should be made.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked, "Whether this Mr. Hodnett was not the father of the young man just arrested for having placed a packet of dynamite addressed to the Lord Lieutenant in the post-office at Ballydehob?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, he had had no time to inquire into the matter. He had merely seen a statement in the newspapers as to the alleged relationship.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—MR. T. HARRINGTON.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that a person named Thomas Harrington, undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in Mullingar Gaol for using words inciting his audience to riot and disorder, was allowed indulgences inconsistent with the strict rules of the prison; whether the same person was afterwards removed to Galway Prison, and was allowed to wear his own clothes on the journey, contrary to prison regulations; whether
  1898
  it is true that the same person was entertained at dinner at Galway while still in custody, and previous to his being lodged in the prison; and, whether, in the event of any persons in the county Westmeath acting on the advice of Mr. Harrington, and being in consequence sentenced to terms of imprisonment, the Government will extend to them the same leniency and comparative immunity from prison discipline which they have granted to the instigator of the crime?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Harrington was convicted of intimidation under the Crimes Act, and sentenced to imprisonment. I have already stated in this House that the Lord Lieutenant instructed the prison authorities that such relaxation of the prison rules might be made in his case as is consistent with the maintenance of prison discipline and as the law will permit. The prisoner was allowed to wear his own clothes when being removed to Galway. The practice, which was relaxed in this case, is to send prisoners in prison dress. I have not the time to obtain a reply to the inquiry I have made as to the alleged entertainment at Galway. I trust that no such cases as the hon. Member supposes in the last paragraph of his Question will arise; but should they do so, they will, no doubt, receive due consideration on their own merits.
  MR. SEXTON: Is there any clause in the Crimes Act making a father responsible for the acts of his son?
  [No reply.]

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—MR. HEALY, M.P.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, considering that the name of the honourable Member for the town of Wexford is on the back of the Land Law (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill, which stands for Second Reading on the 14th instant, the Government intend to prolong his imprisonment beyond that date?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the fact that the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford is on the back of a Bill which stands for second reading on Wednesday does not appear to the Government to afford sufficient cause for shortening the term of imprisonment to which he has been sentenced in default

  1899
  of bail. I may point out that it is open to the hon. Member to give bail at any moment he wishes to attend this House.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—OVERSIZING OF COTTON CLOTH.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is now in a position to give a reply to the memorial of the cotton operatives for a medical inquiry into the system of oversizing of cotton cloth?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; the facts placed before me are sufficient to justify and call for a medical inquiry being held into the effect upon the persons employed on this process.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— SUB-COMMISSIONS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, of the 17 Sub-Commissions under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," 7 are in Ulster and the remaining 10 distributed amongst the other three provinces; viz. 4 in Connaught, 4 in Munster, and 2 in Leinster, there is any special reason for the great partiality shown to Ulster in this respect; if the County of Derry, with an area of 522,315 acres and a population of 164,991, has a Sub-Commission entirely to itself, while the Counties of Clare and Limerick, with an area of 1,508,836 and an aggregate population of 322,089, have but one Sub-Commission to serve for both; whether he is aware that many applications to fix fair rents have been pending in Clare County for over 12 months, and with no immediate prospect of being disposed of; and, whether, if these circumstances are as stated, he is prepared to recommend the appointment of a special Sub-Commission for the County of Clare?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the distribution of Sub-Commissions according to Provinces is correctly stated; but it was made, not according to the area and population of districts, which would be a very fallacious guide, but according to the amount of business to be done. The number of applications to have fair rents fixed, which remained undisposed of when the Circuits were arranged in January were, in Ulster 24,146, and in the other three Provinces combined
  1900
  29,859. The allocation of seven Sub-Commissions to Ulster does not, therefore, appear to show any partiality towards that Province. The number of cases pending in Londonderry, which the hon. Member specially named for comparison, as having a Commission to itself, is 2,369; while the number pending in Clare and Limerick together, which also have only one Commission, is 2,573. It is true that many applications have been pending in Clare for more than 12 months; but there will be three sittings of the Sub-Commission before the middle of next month, and 475 cases are listed for hearing. The Commissioners are not satisfied with the rate of progress in Clare, and hope after the close of the present Circuits, in April, to be able to make arrangements to expedite it.

  THE DANUBIAN CONFERENCE—EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF RUSSIA OVER THE KILIA MOUTH.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that an arrangement has been made with Russia at the Conference now sitting in London, in virtue of which Russia will have the exclusive right of controlling the navigation through the Kilia mouth of the Danube, subject to certain conditions with respect to the levying of tolls, &c. and that a Treaty in this sense is in preparation for the signature of the Powers, thereby cancelling Article 16 of the Treaty of Paris, which remains in force under Article 63 of the Treaty of Berlin, and which provides that all the mouths of the Danube shall be under the control of the European Commission; if so, whether an opportunity will be given of discussing the subject in Parliament before a provision so important to British trade was abrogated with the consent of Her Majesty's Government? He did did not wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government in the conduct of the delicate negotiations then going on, but he thought the House ought to be in possession of the facts.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I quite understand that it is not the intention of my hon. Friend to embarrass Her Majesty's Government. In answer to the hon. Member's Question, I may say that the Conference has not yet finished its sittings, and the Members of it are not yet released from the en-

  1901
  gagement of secrecy as to its proceedings. I hope, however, that Papers will be laid before Parliament in the course of next week.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, the noble Lord had not answered that portion of his Question which referred to an opportunity for discussion by the House before the Treaty was signed.
  [No reply.]

  SCOTLAND—THE CROFTERS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state generally the subjects proposed to be submitted to the Commission about to be appointed to inquire into the alleged grievances of the Crofters, the area over which the proposed inquiry will extend, viz., what counties and islands will be included?
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Whether the Commission to be appointed to investigate the condition of Crofters in the North of Scotland will inquire into the extent to which Deer Forests have in recent years been created, and the effect of such afforesting of land upon the population?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I think my answer will cover both Questions. It is proposed to make the reference to the Commission in general terms. I think I have stated before, that those terms will be an inquiry into the condition of the crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. As to what are the circumstances which affect these conditions, that will be for the Commission to determine. All the circumstances which they think affect these conditions they will properly inquire into. In regard to the localities, the terms will be sufficiently large to embrace all the localities affected by the question, and it will be for the Commissioners to judge what are the places in which inquiries ought to be made.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the proposed Commissioners, or will he, before the Commission is appointed, afford the House an opportunity of learning what those names are?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am sorry to say I cannot do that. The hon. Member must be aware that the constitution of a Commission like this is a very
  1902
  delicate matter. I am engaged, and have been engaged for several days, in endeavouring to ascertain the names of those who would be in a position to serve upon it, and I am not now in the position to state the names of the Commissioners.
  In reply to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was not proposed to specify counties in the Reference to the Commissioners.

  SCOTLAND—DESTITUTION IN THE WESTERN HIGHLANDS—THE SEEDS ADVANCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. D. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he has received, through the Board of Supervision or otherwise, any detailed information as to the destitution in the Western Highlands and Islands; and, whether, having in view the urgency in point of time for discussing the "Seeds Bill" introduced by the honourable Member for Glasgow, he will, in order to facilitate its progress, communicate to the House any information which he may possess, and which bears on this subject?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, a large amount of information has been received unofficially in regard to the destitution in the Western Highlands and Islands; and when the Bill of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) was introduced, I requested the Board of Supervision to obtain such information on the subject as they could within a necessarily limited time. They accordingly sent telegrams, putting certain questions to 23 parishes believed to be chiefly affected by the destitution, and the replies received from those parishes, as forwarded by the Board of Supervision, can be laid before the House for its information.
  MR. D. CAMERONinquired when the Papers could be had containing this information?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR),in reply, said, the Papers could be had immediately.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—DETENTION OF THE "ATALAYA."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What proportion of the expenses connected with the detention of the ship "Atalaya" at Quebec, for alleged infringement of the

  1903
  Foreign Enlistment Act, has been paid by the Canadian Government?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the whole of the admitted damages and costs in the case of the Atalaya have been paid from Imperial funds; that was done in accordance with the directions contained in the despatch under which the ship was detained, and which left no option whatever in the matter.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTRESS IN THE WEST AND NORTH-WEST.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What documents, in the nature of reports of Local Government Board Inspectors, resolutions of Boards of Guardians, communications made to the Irish Executive, and replies by the Irish Executive, and especially by the Irish Local Government Board, dealing with the prevalent distress in certain parts of the West and North-West of Ireland, he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there will be no objection to lay on the Table all resolutions of Boards of Guardians regarding distress which may be specially a "Iced for. The Reports of Local Government Inspectors are deemed confidential, being made for the information of the Board; and it would certainly be extremely inconvenient if, in drawing up those Reports, they anticipated their being called for by the House; but if any special Report is asked for, I will see whether it cannot be presented. I gave a general pledge last night to lay the views of the Local Government Board before the House, and I hope the Papers I shall lay on the Table will do so.
  MR. SEXTONasked, whether, considering the urgency of the question, the right hon. Gentleman would make a compilation of the documents he intended to present, and lay them on the Table as soon as possible, for the information of Members.
  MR. TRVELYAN: I hope to lay some documents of an interesting and important character on the Table before Easter.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. HICKSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the
  1904
  fact that a great number of Members must be absent from the House during the first week after Easter, in consequence of their having to attend at Quarter Sessions, he will give an assurance that the Affirmation Bill shall not be proceeded with until after that date?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I cannot give any other answer than that which was given by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, and repeated by myself, that we will give every Notice before the second reading of this Bill comes on.

  SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL)—CRUELTIES OF THE BOERS.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention had been called, as early as Monday last, to the following passage, page 67, paragraph 49, in the Further Correspondence issued on Wednesday upon affairs in the Transvaal, and vouched for by Mr. Rutherford, secretary to the British Resident to this effect:
  "These four children, Khate, Tapiesu, Pheta, Mentshe, were wounded; four others were killed by the Boers. It is true this was during the war; but they being children, their ages from 9 to 16, and as they were unarmed, and were herding calves only, it was against our laws to kill such or any cowherds if they do not resist capture. The Boers know this rule well;"
  and, whether his attention was called to page 74, of the same Report, Annexure II, headed "list of murders committed by the Boers," detailing the murder of nine old and infirm men and one woman, and testified by the Chief Montsoia and three witnesses; and, if not, why the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies has failed to put the House in possession of information which must have been well known at the Colonial Office? I wish to make a short explanation of the reason why I put the Question. On Monday last statements were made by the Prime Minister to the effect that he had no authentic information respecting the murderous outrages committed by the Boers; while the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies declared that the facts were already in the possession of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord is now entering upon controversial matter. It is impossible for me to hear these

  1905
  statements without answering them. I wish then to know, Sir, if the noble Lord is in Order in making them?
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is in Order in referring to such matters as relate to the Question on the Paper, and are necessary to explain it; but he is not entitled to enter into any controversial matter.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I have no desire to raise any question upon which there is likely to be controversy. I only wish to ascertain whether certain facts which have a bearing upon this Question are correct.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir—[Cries of "Order!"] I am speaking to Order. The facts which the noble Lord began to state were of a highly controversial character; and what I want to ask is, whether it would be agreeable to the House that I should enter into them in replying to the Question of the noble Lord?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a full answer to my Question, and I shall not be deterred from asking it by any reply which he may be pleased to make to it. I wish only to add that at the time the Blue Book was—
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is now referring to a former debate during the present Session, and is clearly out of Order.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I have no desire to refer to any former debate at all. But, perhaps, my Question is already so clear that the House will understand what I mean. I will therefore put the Question to the Prime Minister as it stands on the Paper.
  LORD GEOEGE HAMILTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he was aware on Friday last that there was in the possession of the Government the official Report upon the South-West of the Transvaal by Mr. Rutherford, Secretary to the British Resident, Prætoria, of which the following are extracts (page 56 [Transvaal, in continuation of C. 3419]):—
  "It is just impossible to record in a report, necessarily limited to its special subject, what anyone who will visit those parts of the country will see day by day. All observance, nay, all sense of law, of right, of reason, is being daily increasingly obscured and rejected. To see land, property, cattle, is to lust for and seize them.
  1906
  "I have long since much modified any extreme negrophilist views I may have held in earlier years, hut not believing that the 'final cause' of the existence of Natives in such immense numbers in South Africa is only that they should be wiped out; and believing, on the contrary, that the problem of their being allowed to continue to exist beneficially to others and becoming improved themselves is one that can be solved, I turn with sad repulsion from what I have seen and otherwise know to exist."
  Page 67,
  "The Chief (Mankoroane) then pressed me, just as had been done by Montsiosa and his Council, to give them some information and some hope of intervention on their behalf, pressed hard upon me how unfalteringly they had stood by the English and respected the English laws and line, and 'the Queen's word;"
  and, if it is the intention of the Government to make any determined effort to stop the atrocities and blood-guiltiness of which they now have authentic official information?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with respect to the important and painful details that are communicated in the Questions put by the hon. Members, I may state that these details reached this country during my absence from it, and they were not within my knowledge at the time I spoke on Monday. At the same time, I must observe that these Questions have no connection with the debate on Monday last. My observation in the debate of Monday last, that the information before the House was not authentic information, referred to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). On Monday last, we were debating matters supposed to be connected with the conduct of the Boer Government within Transvaal territory, and falling under these provisions of the Convention which refer to the Transvaal territory. The important citations contained in these two Questions differ, I believe, in all these respects. They relate to the acts of independent persons and to another frontier—the opposite and most distant frontier of that territory—namely, the South-West, instead of, I believe, the North-East, and are transactions purporting to have occurred beyond the Transvaal Frontier, and falling under different conditions and different considerations altogether. I may, perhaps, say that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ashley), in his speech during the debate on the Address, signified distinctly to the House that the Govern-

  1907
  ment were in possession of painful information relating to the atrocities committed in that region. With regard to the Question of the noble Lord, these are matters of very great importance, that are receiving the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government, with the view of a prompt decision as to the course which it might be their duty to take.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Will Her Majesty's Government state the decision when they come to it to the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As I understand the matter, the probability is that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) will be able to make a Motion on this subject on Tuesday, which may afford a convenient opportunity; but if he should not be able to fulfil that intention, it will be quite proper that the Government should state on a very early date—and I hope not later than the day mentioned—substantially the course that they intend to pursue.
  MR. GORSTgave Notice, that he would then move that this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have so long ignored the proceedings of the Transvaal Government in the cruel and atrocious attacks made upon the two chiefs, Mankoroane, and Montsioa; and that this House is of opinion that energetic steps should be taken to secure the strict observance by the Transvaal Government of the Convention of 1881, so that these chiefs may be preserved from the destruction with which they are threatened.

  SEED ADVANCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURgave Notice that, on going into Committee of Supply, he should call the attention of the House to the conduct of the Government with reference to the Seed Advances (Scotland) Bill.
  SIR JOSEPH W. PEASE: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to know, Sir, if the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) can enter upon a discussion in reference to the Seeds question, when a Bill upon that subject is down upon the Paper for a second reading?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the least intention of discussing the merits of the Bill, but, simply, the attitude taken by Her Majesty's Government, and I apprehend that that will be strictly in Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: I can only say, in reply to the Question of the hon. Baronet, that I must defer my answer to it until the case actually arises. It will then be my duly to say whether the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is in Order or not.

  SALE OF POISONS—LEGISLATION— PATENT MEDICINES.
  In reply to Mr. WARTON,
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the further regulation of the sale of poisons, which will include provisions respecting the sale of so-called patent medicines of a poisonous character. The Bill will be introduced in the other House of Parliament.

  THE DANUBIAN CONFERENCE—THE KILIA MOUTH.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Prime Minister, Whether he would give a day for the discussion of the abrogation of the Treaty of 1856 by the Danube Conference?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I cannot answer a Question regarding giving a day for the purpose of considering a matter which the hon. Member assumes to be matter of fact, but which I do not conceive to be matter of fact, and with regard to which, therefore, no occasion has arisen that would form the basis of a discussion.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked, whether there was no alteration proposed at the Conference with regard to the Kilia mouth of the Danube?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is not the question. The hon. Gentleman said that the Treaty of 1856 had been, or was about to be, abrogated. That was what I was not aware of. I cannot give a day for discussing these things. They will come in their order.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether it was the intention of the Government to propose a Vote on Account?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS),in reply, said, that that was a matter as to which the Government would give the usual Notice. A Vote on Account would follow

  1909
  the Supplementary Estimates and the first Army and Navy Votes.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I ought to mention that as far as the Supplemental Estimates are concerned, it is a matter of absolute necessity, in order to meet the provision of the law, that they should be passed by a certain day. If we fail to despatch all the remaining Estimates to-night, I believe, judging from what we conceive to be our duty, it will be our duty to ask the House for a Sitting to-morrow for that purpose. Supposing the case of their not being finished tomorrow, I think a great inconvenience would arise. It would be most imprudent of the Government to suppose that they can take a Wednesday for that purpose, and, therefore, we cannot include Wednesday. Under these circumstances, I say there is very urgent necessity for closing the Supplementary Estimates to-night or to-morrow.
  In reply to Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, as to the probable day on which the House would meet after Easter,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid: I think the noble Lord is under a mistake, and the question of the day on which the House meets after Easter has no bearing whatever on the completion of Supply. The real difficulty which the Government have to consider is the time required after the Estimates are voted for the passage of the Appropriation Bill through the House of Lords.
  In reply to a further Question by Colonel MAKINS, as to the day on which the House would re-assemble,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid: I will endeavour to say on an early day next week; but I cannot give any positive answer on that subject until the Supplementary Estimates are furnished.
  SIR WALTERB BARTTELOTasked, whether, in the case of the Supplementary Estimates being finished to-morrow, the Army Estimates would be taken on Monday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, that is the intention.
  In reply to Questions from Mr. GORST and Mr. W. H. SMITH,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it was the intention of the Government to take the Naval Estimates on Thursday. He could not undertake to say at present
  1910
  what other Business would be taken before Easter.

  EGYPT—LORD DUFFERIN'S DESPATCH.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, When Lord Dufferin's despatch would be laid on the Table.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I stated the other day, that the despatch will be presented as soon as possible after it is returned by Lord Dufferin, and I think that will probably be early next week.

  INDIA—DEATH OF SIR SALAR JUNG.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the Government have received any authentic information as to the report that the death of Sir Salar Jung had not arisen solely from natural causes?
  MR. J. K. CROSS,in reply, said, that no information had been received as to the circumstances of the death of Sir Salar Jung, which would lead them to believe the statements which the noble Lord had indicated to the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  FACTORY AND EDUCATION ACTS (SCOTLAND).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. COCHRAN-PATRICK,in rising to direct attention to the operation of the Factory Acts in Soctland, in so far as they affect Elementary Education in that Country; and to move—
  That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the want of harmony which practically exists "between the Factory and Education Acts in Scotland he remedied by legislation at the earliest opportunity,"
  said: I desire to show that this want of harmony exercises a very injurious effect on the system of education in Scotland. It imposes unnecessary and vexatious duties upon those who are charged with factory superintendence; it imposes additional responsibility on the school boards; it interferes in many cases with the legitimate claims for the supply of labour; and, not unfrequently, it imposes a very

  1911
  great amount of hardship upon those parents of the working classes who have taken the most efficient means for the education of their children. I think, in order clearly to apprehend the condition in which we are in Scotland in this matter, it is necessary to consider, in the first place, the terms of the Acts of Parliament which regulate education and employment in that country. You have, in the first place, the Scotch Education Act of 1872; in the next place, an Amendment Act relating to education in 1878; and, in the third place, the Factory Act of the same year. The clauses of the Act of 1872 are very clear and explicit. The 69th clause provides that all children between the ages of 5 and 13 shall be educated. The 72nd prohibits anyone employing a child under 13 who has not attended school regularly for three years, or until he can read and write, and renders the employer of such a child liable to fine and imprisonment; and the 73rd requires a certificate of ability to read and write and of a knowledge of elementary arithmetic granted by an Inspector of Schools in order to exempt parents and employers from any legal proceedings. The Act of 1872 was considerably modified by the Act passed in 1878, the 5th section of which Act forbids the employment of children under 10, and allows those between 10 and 14 to work only if they have a certificate in the terms of the Act of 1872, unless any such child is employed and is attending school in accordance with the provisions of any Act or Minute of the Scotch Education Department; and the Factory Act of 1878, by the 20th section, prohibits the employment of children under 10; but by the 26th section it allows a child of 13, who has passed a certain Standard of education—which Standard is to be fixed by the Secretary of State—and has made a certain number of previous attendances, to work full time as a young person under the terms of that Act. These are the Acts of Parliament which bear upon the point. But, besides these Acts, there is permission to the Education Department to pass certain regulations, and in accordance with that Act the Scotch Education Department, on the 16th of December, 1878, resolved that the Standard of education allowing the partial exemption of children above 10 from the obligation to attend school should be the 3rd Standard prescribed
  1912
  by the Scotch Education Code, and that the Standard of educational ability to give full time work after 13 should be the 5th Standard. Those are the Acts and Minutes which regulate the question of education and employment. On the question of how far these Acts and Minutes are reduced into practice, we have some facts that are quite certain and undoubted, and others upon which a certain amount of doubt and uncertainty arise. With regard to the former, it is certain that, both under the Factory and the Education Acts, no child below 10 can, under any circumstances whatever, engage in remunerative employment. In the second place, it is certain that no child under 13 can work full time at all, no matter how much he knows; and, in the third place, it is certain that every child over 14 can work full time, no matter how little he knows. Now, besides these cases upon which no dubiety exists, we have two cases in which the same amount of certainty is not quite so clear. We have first, the case of children between 10 and 13 who are permitted to work half-time. Under the Acts to which I have directed the attention of the House, and under the Minutes of the Scotch Education Department, children between the ages of 10 and 13 are allowed to work half-time. Before the month of August, 1879, no Educational Standard was required for half-time work; it was sufficient that they were attending a certified school; but after that date the Minute of the Scotch Education Department came into force, and the 3rd Standard was laid down as that which was required to enable children to work half-time. Then we have the case of children between 13 and 14 years of age. These children can work half-time, under the same regulations as affect the case of children between 10 and 13; and they can work full time as "young persons," in a technical sense, under the Factory Act, in the first place, if they have a certificate of having passed the 5th Standard; or, in the second place, if they have a certificate of "due attendance," as defined by the Scotch Education Code of 1880—namely, that they have made 250 attendances after five years of age, in not more than two schools, in each year for five years, whether consecutive or not. These are the facts which result from the operation of the Acts of Parlia-

  1913
  ment and the Minutes of the Education Department. There is no doubt, I think, that the intention, both of the Acts and the Minutes, was that, for the purpose of half-time employment, the 3rd Standard should be the Standard of educational efficiency in Scotland; but, in point of fact, that regulation is now practically in abeyance, and the difficulty we have to contend with has arisen from the peculiar wording of the 5th clause of the Act of 1870. That clause says—
  "Such a child shall not be employed, unless attending school in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament regulating labour, or of any Minute of the Scotch Education Department."
  I understand that a legal doubt arose in reference to the peculiar phraseology of the latter part of that clause; and I believe the matter was so doubtful, that the opinion of the highest legal authority in Scotland was taken on the point, and that opinion showed such dubiety that no school board felt justified in bringing the case before the Superior Courts to be settled. The matter has rested in that very unsatisfactory state from the time that opinion was given until now. On the particular gravity and importance of this question, and its practical effect upon education, I might adduce a vast amount of testimony which I have been favoured with by persons who take a deep interest in the matter; but I think it will be for the convenience of the House, and will meet my own case, if I lay down simply four statements. The first is found in the 27th page of the Report for 1881 of the Chief Inspector of Factories. The Inspector for the Edinburgh District, there says—
  "Cases frequently arise in my district, of children under 13 years being granted certificates from the School Board, permitting them, as a reward for proficiency, to work full time, sometimes accompanied with a proviso that they shall attend a night school. A child armed with this authority naturally thinks it very hard that the Factory Act interferes and nullifies the advantages he has gained by his own industry and good conduct; the parents are also aggrieved, and the employer is naturally much annoyed, and expresses his disgust at the discrepancy between the two Acts in no measured terms."
  Again, the School Board of Glasgow, in their Report for 1881, says—
  "The is a want of harmony between the Factory Act and the Education Act. Some children who have not the requirements of the Education Act may, and frequently do, leave school about 12, but cannot legally work full
  1914
  time until they are 13; while others who have attained the age of 13 are free under the Education Act, but not having passed Standard 5, nor made the necessary attendances, they are not allowed to work full time until they are 14 years of ago."
  And, in their Report for 1882, they repeat this statement, and add—
  "It is a striking and significant fact that while there were 8,375 children between the ages of 12 and 13 at school in 1881, there are only now 6,438 children. Children under 13 cannot be employed full time in factories and workshops. There is only a limited demand for them in offices, and there is a strong temptation to them to take irregular work, or hang about the streets until they are of proper ago."
  Then I find the School Board of Paisley, who have also great experience on these particular points, giving' an opinion in very much the same terms. They say—
  "We find that the numbers are on the increase, and that out of the 809 under this Act, 266 have not passed the 3rd Standard. These children will, as a rule, be far behind in their education when they leave school, so that we do not wonder that the half-time movement is one which has never commended itself to the public. There are three schools in our town into which half-timers only are admitted, although there are schools under the Government Inspector, where half-timers are likewise admitted. We think that if there was more harmony between the Factory and Education Acts, and if healthy children about 12 years of age, who have passed Standard 5, could be employed to work full time in healthy places, there would not be the same inducement to parents to send their little ones to work on half-time at 10 years old—a custom which is rapidly extending."
  They add that there are 600 children in Paisley, under 13 years of age, who have met the requirements of the Education Act and are not attending school, but who could be much better employed than in hanging about the streets. Therefore, they feel that some alteration must be made now, or very soon by the Government. The only other extract which I shall quote to the House is from the school board with which I am myself connected, and which fairly represents the average of a great number of country school boards. It is a mining, manufacturing, and agricultural district, and this is the opinion of one of our most experienced officials—
  "What is wanted is a definition of the standard of education necessary to enable a child between 10 and 13 years of age to work half-time, which would be recognised both by the factory and education inspector. There is a difficulty also with regard to children between 13 and 14 years of age. The Factory Acts do not allow these to work full time until they have

  1915
  passed the 5th Standard, while school hoards have no right to interfere with children above 13 years of age. The effect of this is, that while these children have to attend school in order to be allowed to work, the school hoard officer has no control over them."
  Now, Sir, I do not think it necessary to take up any more time upon this point, although, if I liked, I might lay similar testimony before the House from almost every part of Scotland; but, under the present circumstances, I do not feel justified in doing more than is absolutely necessary to prove my point. I should like now, very briefly, to bring under the notice of the House one or two only of the very peculiar cases which arise from the practical working of these two Acts. In the first place, Sir, I will point out that the definition of "child" is different under the Education Acts to what it is under the Factory Acts. For the purpose of education, a "child" is a person between the age of 5 and 13. After a child is 13 years of age, the power of the school board ceases by Act of Parliament; and in Scotland, when a child under 13 years of age has passed the 5th Standard, the school board has practically no further control over him; and, therefore, the child ceases to be a "child" for educational purposes. On the other hand, the Factory Act defines a "child" to be a person up to the age of 14 years, and an important distinction of that sort leads to very many difficulties when we come to reduce them to practice. In the case of a child who had passed the 5th Standard, as I have said, the control of the school board over it ceases; but there are very many children who are over 13 years of age, but who have not passed the 5th Standard, nor have made the necessary number of attendances to entitle them to the "due attendance" certificate, and, therefore, if they are allowed to work at all, they are only entitled to work as half-timers, and if they do, they must attend school in order to satisfy the requirements of the Factory Acts. They are, then, in this position, they are attending school without the school board having any control over them. Again, you have children who have passed the 6th Standard before the age of 13. They can only work as half-timers; as half-timers they must attend school; but by the Education Act, with the consent of the school boards and the wish of their parents, they are relieved from attending school when they have
  1916
  passed that Standard. Under the Factory Acts, in order to be able to work, they must attend school, and if they do not, those same parents are liable to fine and imprisonment. There is another case which frequently occurs. A boy has a "due attendance" certificate, and is 13 years of age, and he may work in a factory or workshop under the Act full time, having scarcely any education; but another boy who has passed two subjects in the 5th Standard, and therefore has a respectable amount of elementary knowledge, is not allowed to take employment in a shop or warehouse where his work is practically educational. Then, as often happens, in country districts, where there are no factories or workshops, a child between 13 and 14 who has not passed the 5th Standard, and who has not got a "due attendance" certificate, cannot work half-time because there is no opportunity for doing so; the school boards cannot touch him because he is over 13; he cannot legally get employment otherwise; and, therefore, that child is placed in an enforced state of idleness, at an age of life when it is especially necessary that he should be taught habits of industry. I think it is unnecessary to quote other cases, because those who know the Acts know very well the variety of cases there are that are constantly rising up. I have now laid before the House the proposition which I first laid down, and it would be improper for me, under the circumstances, or under the scope of the Resolution, to do more than indicate the particular direction which legislation might take; but there are two points which, I think, are especially worthy of attention. In the first place, it is very necessary there should be some Standard of educational efficiency, which should be recognized both by the Education Acts and the Factory Acts. I am aware that, in some districts of Scotland, higher Standards might be required than in others—the 4th Standard being recommended in some—but I am not prepared to say what Standard would be the most advisable and necessary for the whole country in the circumstances of the case. My opinion, however, is—and it is based upon facts coming within my own knowledge—that the 3rd Standard would be probably sufficient, and that it would meet all the requirements of the case. But I do

  1917
  not wish to place that before the House in any other shape than merely as my own private opinion; but I am satisfied of this, that whatever Standard of education may he laid down as that without which half-time employment cannot he entered into, it would require to be very carefully guarded, so as, in the first place, not to interfere with those who have already, without that educational requirement, been so far legally, or by the ordinary custom, engaged in half-time occupation. I think also that it might be necessary to follow the example and precedent of the English Act, and in some cases, at any rate, to provide for possibly a temporary or local exemption. I am perfectly aware that the case of exception to Acts of Parliament is one which would be gladly and properly avoided; but when you come to deal with practical and existing circumstances in various localities, I think we must make a choice either between an exception or an evasion; and if you have to take that choice, it is better to have exceptions rather than evasions. Then, Sir, I think also it would be very advisable, in any measure which may be in the future laid before the House, that some means should be taken for bringing the Standards and years somewhat nearer than at present. I have received a copy of an opinion of the School Board of Glasgow on this point, which I believe represents the unanimous judgment of a body very competent to deal with the point. It is in these terms—
  "That the parent of a child of 13 years complete shall, as at present, be free from prosecution under the Education Act; and that, at the same age, the child should he entitled to be employed full time under the Factory and Workshops Act and the Education Act of 1878."
  I think, taking into consideration the great experience which the School Board of Glasgow have had in the work of education among people where this particular point arises—for I believe it has come before them more than in almost any other part of the country—I think that opinion is worthy of consideration, although I will not say that I agree to it to its full extent. I am quite sure, if the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council is able to hold out any encouragement that this matter will receive the attention of the Government at as early an opportunity as pos-
  1918
  sible, and that the experience which the various Departments have had will be brought to bear in bringing forward the measure, it will render much more easy the work of national education in Scotland In conclusion, I have only to thank the House for the kind attention given me in dealing with a subject necessarily dry, and should my Motion be practically agreed to, and should a measure of this kind, in course of time, be brought in, I am confident it would be productive of the greatest benefit to the whole community. The hon. Gentleman then proposed the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE,in seconding the Motion, said, that, in his opinion, his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) had succeeded in showing the want of harmony between the Education Acts and the Factory Acts as now enforced in Scotland. It appeared to him (Mr. Bruce) that the inconvenience resulting from that want of harmony came principally under two heads. The first and most important evil was that half-timers—children of 10 years of age and upwards—were employed in factories, without having previously passed any educational Standard whatever. He believed there was no doubt that was the case, although it was directly in the face of the provisions of the Education Act of 1878, and of the Departmental Minute of that Act. According to the Departmental Minute, no child ought to be employed as a half-timer in a factory or workshop who had not previously passed the 3rd Standard; but, owing to some defect in the wording of the Act, he believed that proposition was not operative, and, as a matter of fact, children were employed long before they had reached even that small educational Standard. He agreed with the hon. Member that the 3rd Standard would be the best to select as the minimum, without reaching which a child should not be allowed to take employment. But, at any rate, whether it was the right Standard or not, he trusted that the Government would be able to see their way to lay down that there should be some educational Standard, up to which every child must come before being employed as a half-timer. The other principal question to look at was the position of children between the ages of 13 and 14. These children were

  1919
  in a somewhat peculiar position. They were no longer compellable under the Education Acts to attend school; but, on the other hand, under the Factory Acts they were not allowed to be employed full time in factories unless in certain cases—namely, when they had got a certain certain certificate of education, or of attendance at school. The consequence of that was, that there wore a number of children who could no longer be obliged to attend school, and, at the same time, were not allowed to take full-time employment in the factories, and who very probably might spend their time not in the most advantageous manner. There was also the case of these children under the age of 13 who had passed the 6th Standard, and who were no longer compellable to attend school. They, too, by the Factory Acts were prevented from taking full-time employment, and they might for a time be left in enforced idleness. Now, he believed it was suggested that, as regarded the difficulty of children between the age of 13 and 14, it might be got over by altering the definition of a child," and defining a "child" to be a person between the age of 13 and 18, instead of between the age of 14 aid 18, as in the Factory Act. It was, however, observed that if that were done, it would remove the stimulus that at present existed, and which encouraged the child to obtain the 5th Standard certificate at the age of 13 in order to be qualified for work. Before sitting down, he would just ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to one other matter of detail. It had been pointed out that the certificates that were necessary for the employment of children were very numerous, and referred to both physical and educational fitness; and he would like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to Section 27 of the Factory Acts, where he would see that a surgeon had to give a certificate of fitness, which should be to the effect that he was satisfied by the production of the certificate of birth and "other sufficient evidence" that the person named in the certificate was of the age specified. He was informed that under cover of these words "other sufficient evidence" a certain amount of laxity existed in granting these certificates, and he thought it was obviously of
  1920
  great importance, both that these certificates should be made as simple as possible, and that they should honestly represent the facts which they purported to certify. He hoped, therefore, the Government would be able to give some encouragement to his hon. Friend, and that he would secure that amendment of these Acts which he had so ably pointed out.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the want of harmony which practically exists between the Factory and Education Acts in Scotland he remedied by legislation at the earliest opportunity,"—(Mr, Cochran-Patrick,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. F. HENDERSONsaid, he was quite sure that all those who were interested in the cause of education in Scotland were very much indebted to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) for having introduced this subject to the House. To the general proposition which he had made, he (Mr. Henderson) did not think any possible objection could be taken. It was exceedingly desirable, and very necessary, that the two great Acts regulating the education and labour of children in Scotland should work together in perfect harmony, and, where-ever it could be shown that defect existed, it was of great importance that it should be remedied as early as possible. What he was particularly interested in was the question of insisting on an educational Standard for the employment of half-timers, and he was sure the House would excuse him if he entered somewhat into detail upon this matter, because the town he had the honour to represent was much more deeply interested in the question of half-timers and their relations than any other town in Scotland. From the nature of the staple industry of Dundee, it admitted of a very large proportion of unskilled child labour being employed. He believed the number of operatives engaged in the jute manufacture represented rather over than under 40,000; and when he mentioned that of those there were not less than 4,500 half-timers, hon. Members

  1921
  would at once perceive the importance of the subject to the constituency he represented. He believed that number represented more than were employed throughout the rest of Scotland. He understood that Glasgow with its varied industries, and with four times the population of Dundee, had less than 1,000 half-timers; and in Paisley there were less than 600; so that the House would at once perceive this was a matter of great importance to Dundee, and therefore any regulations made by any future legislation must be a matter in which Dundee must take a great interest. As early as possible after the passing of the Education Act of 1872, and after providing for the necessary school accommodation that was required, the School Board of Dundee had their attention directed to the question of the half-timers. He was a member of the School Board at that time, and of the sub-committee delegated to inquire into the matter. They were then under the impression, afterwards fully borne out by their investigations, that a very large number of the half-timers were educated at schools over which there was no inspection whatever, and that they were, in reality, getting no education at all. He had heard it often stated within the last few days that there was an impression that the manufacturers of Dundee were neglectful and remiss in their duty in sending the half-timers to school. He was very glad that he now had the opportunity of directly and emphatically denying that allegation, because nothing was more gratifying to the committee than to find that on every hand the employers of these children were anxious to find means to co-operate with the School Board, whereby they might be sure of the education of the half-timers. In consequence of the investigations of the committee, a half-time school was established by the Board in one of the districts of Dundee. That school still existed, and the employers of the neighbourhood most willingly contributed to the expense. He believed it was from the beginning a source of profit, and not of loss to the ratepayers. So successful was the experiment that the School Board had added two more schools, there being now three schools under the management of the School Board inspected by the Government Inspectors, and furnishing education to half-time
  1922
  children. There were also private schools connected with factories, and they found a great many of the employers of half-time children take a pride in the efficiency of their half-time schools. He would give them the Report of the Inspectors of one of the half-time factory schools, and one under the control of the Board. At the inspection of the one under the control of the Board in 1881 the Inspector said—
  "The work all over the school was remarkably well done, and the results are far beyond what could have been expected."
  The note to that by the Chairman of the Board was that the school provided by the Board was a boon to the community. The Report from the half-time factory school, where 250 half-timers attended, was to the effect that the school had been remarkably successful, and in the Report for 1882 the Inspector said there was nothing new to report; all the arrangements were admirable, the teachers worked heartily and effectively, and the results were really astonishing, and much beyond the average of schools. He had read those Reports to the House, to show that in the large majority the education of half-timers was good and successful. Ashe understood the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cochran-Patrick), he did not pin himself to the 3rd Standard, but would allow discretion to be used in that respect, according to the varying circumstances in different localities. The school board officer reported that application of the test of the 3rd Standard disqualified more than one-half of the children now employed in Dundee, and would disqualify 99 per cent of the applicants. He (Mr. Henderson) had no doubt the question would be asked—" What are the causes which contributed to bring about this state of matters in Dundee? "Well, there was one cause which was quite apparent. There were in Dundee at present 2,068 children—and he believed these children were mostly under 10 years of age—because, if they were above that age, they would seek employment as half-timers—2,068 children now being educated in the ordinary day schools, which were not inspected. There were also 1,000 children, engaged as half-timers, being educated at schools which were not inspected; so that they had, in the first instance, 2,000 children growing up to half-time age, getting what might be called the name of edu-

  1923
  cation, and nothing more, at ordinary uninspected schools, to come up and swell the ranks of the ordinary half-timers; and then they had 1,000 half-timers also being educated at those uninspected schools. He believed a large number of those ordinary schools were held in rooms wholly unsuited for the purpose of education; and when the half-timers came in the afternoon, at I or half-past 1 o'clock, the practice was not to put them in the same room, but to turn the ordinary scholars out into the street to play, in order that the half-time children might get such education as was provided for them. So that these schools which were not inspected were one of the greatest difficulties with which the school board had to deal in these matters. They had no power to inspect them. [Mr. MUNDELLA dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but the school board, he knew, had no power to examine those schools, which were really doing a great injury to both classes of scholars. But they relieved the parents from any charge of wilfully neglecting the education of their children. It had been asked—" What has the school board been doing during the 10 years that the Education Act has been in operation, when such a state of things could exist? "He could speak very confidently of what the School Board of Dundee had done during those 10 years. Perhaps no board in Scotland had been constituted so favourably for carrying out the Education Act in its proper spirit as the School Board of Dundee. They had had the advantage of having on the Board the late Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and also, at the same time, the Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland. They had also had the Bishop of Brechin, who was distinguished for his efforts in promoting the social well-being of the people; and they had had the oldest Procurator Fiscal of Scotland, who had been deeply interested in the cause of education, and was one of the contributors of £50,000 for the establishment of a College in Dundee; so that every class of opinion was represented and combined in an object which was to carry out the Act of 1872 according to its spirit, and make it a success. Well, that Board spent about £1,000 a-year in enforcing the compulsory clause of the Act of 1872. Nearly one-fourth
  1924
  of the total fees contributed by the City of Dundee had been expended in enforcing attendance. In addition to that, the members of the Board had voluntarily subscribed to a fund to provide clothing for those children who were not so provided, in order that the parents might have no excuse. When the Act of 1878 was passed, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman and many others thought a great step would be made, and that now no difficulty whatever would arise in enforcing the compulsory clauses. In Dundee, at least, these expectations had not been realized. At the commencement of the Session of 1879 there were 2,534 children on the default register, and the daily attendance was only 63 per cent. In 1880, there were 496 on the default register, and only 61 per cent in daily attendance. In 1881 there were 2,457, and a daily attendance of 65 per cent. In 1882 there were 2,929 on the default registers, and an attendance of only 61 per cent; and he noticed that, in the month of February this year, the officer reported that the daily attendance was still only 61 per cent. In reference to the particular Motion now before them, the School Board of Dundee had passed a resolution, dated last month, declaring that, "instead of advancing the cause of education, such a motion as this would seriously retard it." The short of the matter was that there were thousands of children at present in Dundee, educated in the half-time schools, who probably would not otherwise have got any other education at home; and the imposition of a hard-and-fast educational test would, on the authority he had stated, disqualify one-half at least of those who were at present working half-time, and disqualify 99 per cent of the children who applied when they were 10 years of age for admission as half-timers. They must have some regard to the special and exceptional position of Dundee. With regard to the children who were attending ordinary day schools undergoing inspection, he had his own favourite remedy, which he, of course, did not expect the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to accept. That was to abolish the exaction of fees from the children attending schools, and open the school door to them. But that, he feared, was not to be thought of at present; but, at all events, in any now legislation, they

  1925
  ought to give power to the school board, or to the Government Inspector, to inspect those schools which were not under inspection, not to allow any school to be opened for the purpose of giving elementary education to children which would not be obliged to submit to the inspection of a qualified Inspector. With all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, he was still of opinion that school boards had no power whatever to enter these schools, or to insist upon their receiving the visits of the Inspector; but he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman had had the power all those years, and had not exercised it. There was no doubt, he thought, that the Act of 1878 imposed a duty on the Inspector, to see that every child employed at half-time work should be, for a certain time, at an efficient school; and the same clause provided that the Education Department should declare and publish in the district what they certify to be an efficient elementary school. So far as he was aware, there had been no test applied by the Inspector to see whether the child had been at any school whatever. There had been no effort made, so far as he was aware, to ascertain whether the half-time schools which were not under the Inspector were efficient schools for the purposes of the Act. So that he did not think the Education Department could altogether absolve themselves from all share of the discredit which must attach to such a state of affairs. He readily admitted that some standard of education ought to be imposed as a test on half-time children. He believed it was impossible, in the face of what was being done in the manufacturing districts in England, to contend against such a proposition in Scotland. But what he would impress upon the House was that if the test were applied to Dundee, situated as Dundee was, it must be applied very gradually. As he had shown, many of the children who at present attended, as half-timers were not able to pass any Standard at all; and he would suggest that, for a year after the passing of the Act, the 1st Standard should be the test for the education of these children. In the following year they might raise the Standard to the 2nd; and then after a couple of years they might pass on to insist on the 3rd. Unless they proceeded in some such method, he was perfectly convinced that the passing of
  1926
  the 3rd Standard as an educational test would result not merely in crippling a great industry, which provided sustenance for many thousands of people, who otherwise would have to be supported out of the poor rates, but would enormously increase the difficulties which the school board experienced in enforcing the compulsory clauses of the Education Act; and, at the same time, it would indefinitely prolong the period during which many thousands of poor children were kept in a state of poverty and ignorance, and in many cases, he was afraid, effectually prevent their ever escaping from it.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I will only say a few words on the question before the House, for I know how important it is that Supply should be reached. The subject is, however, of great importance to the welfare of Scotland, and we are much indebted to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) for having introduced it to the attention of the House. The difficulties to which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson) alludes are, no doubt, formidable as regards that town, and have been clearly stated by him. But they are difficulties of the same kind as those which have been surmounted in a frank and manly spirit by all the factory towns in England, especially those of Lancashire and Yorkshire. These towns have adjusted themselves to the educational conditions imposed by this House, no doubt with some considerable inconvenience to themselves in the first instance, but with much ultimate benefit to the general population, and with positive industrial advantage, by disciplining and increasing the productive powers of the children engaged in the factories. The educational condition in itself is reasonable. No child can be employed before 10 years of age as a half-timer, as the object of the Factory Act is to insure that before they enter employment they should pass a Standard which can be readily attained by a child of nine. The purpose of this is very clear. If children came unprepared to the half-time schools at 10 years of age, these schools degenerate into giving the mere elements of education, while their object is to carry on children from Class III. to Class VI. before they reach 13 and become full-timers. The hon. Member for Dundee contends that the town of

  1927
  Dundee, though it makes efforts for the education of its own population, cannot insure that of the Irish population, which comes in an uneducated state to seek for employment in that busy manufacturing town. No doubt that, to a certain extent, is true; and I pointed out that danger to Scotch towns when I addressed the House a few days ago on the need of compulsory education in Ireland. It is quite true that many Irish emigrants are thrown upon our large towns in a deplorable state of ignorance, without having learned to appreciate the benefits of education for their children. The difficulties in dealing with these Irish operatives are great, and have to be overcome. But I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee throws upon the Irish much more responsibility for the result than he is justified in doing. He estimates, as I understand, the Irish population at 50,000—about one-third of the whole population of his town. If anything like this is truth, there must have been a startling change since 1871. In that Census—for, as yet, we have not the result of 1881—there were only 14,200 Irish born inhabitants in Dundee. If they have increased in proportion to the population, there should be 17,000. No doubt, the children born in Dundee of Irish parents give a much greater proportion of the Irish race in Dundee than that number; but for this the town of Dundee is responsible, and ought to provide for their education. As the whole school children represented by 17,000 would be less than 3,000, the actually imported Irish children of school age could scarcely reach 1,000, or, at most, 2,000. Now, there are about 5,000 half-timers in Dundee, three-fourths of whom, we are told, could not be employed if the low education test of Standard III. was shut in their faces, as a gate, before they could enter the factories. If this be true, it is a melancholy fact; but it is one for which the town of Dundee is responsible in the growth and care of its juvenile population. I do not believe, however, that any such numbers would be excluded. Even in 1871 there were 71 per cent of the children of school age in Dundee found in the schools, and the proportion must have much augmented since that time. If the Factory Acts of England and Scotland are assimilated, parents will
  1928
  very quickly learn to give their children that educational pass which is necessary for employment. If children do not pass Standard III. by 10 years of age, how is it possible to expect them to pass Standard V. or VI. by 13, when they may become full-timers? I have treated the question chiefly as limited to Dundee, because that seems to be the only town which exhibits a panic at the proposal to assimilate the law. No town in the Kingdom has been doing more for secondary and higher education than Dundee has in recent years. For primary education it has also made liberal, though not yet sufficient, provision. I am sure that a little reflection will induce the public-spirited citizens of Dundee to accept the educational test for labour which other factory towns have worked out in an energetic and patriotic spirit. The population of that town is, undoubtedly, a difficult one to educate from its mixture of races. But the children who go to the factories are chiefly born in the town itself, and their education will render them more orderly and law-abiding citizens. At all events, Dundee must see by the spirit in which this Resolution has been considered by this House that there are very few Scotch Members who are not ashamed that Scotland is not under as stringent a Factory Law as England, and that they will do their best to assimilate the laws in both countries, and thus procure for the factory population of every part of Scotland those educational blessings and productive advantages which have followed the application of laws regulating the employment of juvenile labour in the manufacturing towns of England.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think the hon. Member for North Ayrshire is to be congratulated on the debate which has resulted from the sensible and admirable Motion which he has put on the Paper. The hon. Member never introduces an educational question to this House without speaking in the most useful and practical spirit; and I must recognize the very good service he has done before to the cause of Scotch education, whenever we have had this question under consideration. The Scotch Act of 1872, no doubt, made no provision whatever for half-timers. The 5th Standard provided for full time by the powers conferred by the Act of 1872 upon the Education Department; but in 1875 the

  1929
  Board of Education in Scotland reported bow important it was that some means should be found of dealing with the question of half-timers. In that Report, which we have had under consideration, I find that the question whether the Education or the Factory Acts were paramount had been frequently under the consideration of the Board; and they had come to the conclusion that in consequence of the indefinite wording of the Act of 1872, the Factory Acts were paramount, and, consequently, that children could enter on half-time labour in Scotland without passing any Standard; but they could not enter on full-time labour under 14 years of age unless they had passed the 5th Standard. They recommended a very strong measure indeed, and one very much beyond what the hon. Member for North Ayrshire has recommended—
  "We respectfully submit, in the interests of all classes of the community, that the Legislature will confer a great benefit on the country by providing that after, say, three years from this date no person under 14 years of age shall be employed either in factories or otherwise, or allowed to earn wages in any form, until they have obtained a certificate that they have passed a satisfactory examination in at least the 5th Standard of the Scotch Code."
  That would, undoubtedly, be a very large step in advance, and one which I think, in the present state of employment in Scotland, would not be practicable. In 1878, in order to meet these difficulties, an amended Act was passed, providing the 4th Standard for half-time employment. In December of the same year the Education Department fixed Standard III. as the Standard of half-timers employed throughout Scotland. I cannot agree with the hon. Member opposite that Section 5 of the Act of 1878 leaves the matter at all in doubt as to whether the Factory or the Education Acts are paramount. I believe the hon. Gentleman opposite and Lord Watson inserted words expressly providing that the Factory Acts should be paramount for the employment of children in all the steam factories which came under the control of the Factory Inspectors; and, consequently, the position in which that left the factory children was something like this—that all the half-time children, except those employed in factories, were required to pass the 3rd Standard; but the children employed in factories might enter upon labour with-
  1930
  out passing any Standard at all. There are in Scotland some 35,000 half-time children. 27,000 of these children are employed in shops, or employed on errands, and must pass the 3rd Standard of the Scotch Education Code; but the 8,394 children employed in the mills of Scotland need pass no Standard at all. In certain places this is very unfair as against other kinds of employment, because it opens a gate whereby children who escape the Education Act will always find employment in the mills when they cannot find employment elsewhere. The number of half-time children in Scotland is, after all, very small compared to what it is in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and other parts of England. The number of children on the register in Scotland in September, 1881, was 544,982, and the whole number of half-timers was only 35,000. The effect of this in Dundee has been related very graphically by the junior Member for that important burgh. He has shown that large numbers of the half-time children in that burgh receive no education whatever, except the education they receive after they enter upon their labour. The result is, that you are passing into the population a very large number of children who are either very imperfectly educated or totally neglected.
  MR. HENDERSON: What I said was, not that there were a large number of children who got no education, but that they got no education worthy of the name. We have 2,000 educated in non-inspected day-schools there. I take it they do not receive a good education.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I take it in the sense that a large number of children receive no education worthy the name before they enter the factory, and then a considerable proportion of these children are not in attendance or inspected when they enter mills and factories, and, as a result, they pass into full-time labourers, and get no education worthy of the name. That is a very deplorable state of things. The hon. Member agreed that some measure should be taken to prevent the continuance of such a state of things; but the hon. Member seemed to think that the school boards had no power whatever under the Education Acts to put an end to these private adventure schools. Well,

  1931
  it is quite true that they cannot put an end to them, but they can enter and inspect them. They can inspect and examine the children in the schools. They can examine the register, and they can make application to the School Department, and declare them non-efficient. My hon. Friend seems to doubt; but if he reads the 30th section of the Act he will find it is the case. Any class of schools can be examined and inspected, and the scholars, too, can be inspected; and you may ascertain whether the school building is suitable, whether the teaching is efficient, whether the registers are properly kept—and, failing this, the school board has power to declare the schools inefficient. I am sorry to say the School Board of Dundee has been too content to allow these private adventure schools to go on in a non-efficient state, and I hope that this will no longer continue. The hon. Member for Fifeshire (Mr. Preston Bruce) pointed out the evils which exist in respect to the children of 13 and 14 years not being under compulsion either to work or attend school. I think that is a great evil. If children of 13 can pass the full-time Standard they ought to be free to go to work. If children of 13 or 14 are not going to work, then they ought to be compelled to attend school. But there is another point to which he referred, which cannot be dealt with under any amendment of the Education Act, and that is the Inspectors' certificates. That is a matter that must be dealt with by the Factory Acts. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member (Mr. Henderson) say, on the conclusion of his speech, that he admitted that some Standard, after all, ought to be set up. Now, I should like to explain what was the position in England and Wales before the Act of 1880. We had a similar state of things in this country to that which now exists in Scotland. There were conflicts of opinion on the Acts between Factory Inspectors and Inspectors of Schools as to which Act was paramount with regard to half-time children. To put an end to that doubt, in 1880 we made the bye-laws paramount. There were the same difficulties to encounter as those referred to by the hon. Member. No doubt, in Liverpool, Manchester, and Salford, and all over the Lancashire and Yorkshire towns, there is a large Irish immigration, and we had to meet the difficulties
  1932
  of children coming from Ireland, not being properly instructed, and not being qualified immediately to enter upon labour. In England the bye-laws are fixed by the school board, or the school attendance committee, with the consent of the Education Department; but they are not fixed by the Education Department itself. If they were, I think we should fix one uniform Standard for every class of labour throughout the country. In nearly all the flourishing towns of England, Standard III. has been thought far enough; in some Standard IV. has been adopted, and I am assured that where Standard IV. has been adopted it has worked admirably. Huddersfield is a case in point. It has Standard IV. for half-timers, and Standard VI. for full-timers, and the Act is carried out with the strictest impartiality. Liverpool, Manchester, and Sal-ford have Standard III. In 1,500 school board districts in England, Standards III. and IV. are Standards for half-timers, and in only 175 districts has Standard II. been adopted—What is the effect of this in England? We hear every day reports from our Inspectors—the most gratifying reports—of having a Standard of education for half-time employment. Here is a typical report of a factory district in England. The town of Stockport had its school board four years ago. Stockport has no board school, and pays the highest fees of any town in England. The 2nd Standard is adopted for half-time, and this is the result. In the last Report, September 29, 1882, they say—
  "We have now 60 half-timers who are still working in Standards I. and II., a considerable proportion of these were working previously to August, 1880, and therefore could not he interfered with."
  That is explained in this way. When we passed the Act of 1880, naturally we did not make it retrospective, so as to include those children who were already at work. We said the children must go on and complete their work. We could not turn out all the children in Dundee. In October, 1874, there were 2,856 children working half-time in the mills of Stockton. Of these, 145 children were under Standard I.; 824 in Standard I.; 661 in Standard II.; 669 in Standard III.; 383 in Standard IV.; 146 in Standard V.; 28 in Standard VI.; and none over that Standard. Now, we come to

  1933
  September, 1882, after having applied the half-time test, and the parents having been educated. Now they must educate them before they bring them to labour, and they must not neglect them afterwards. There were no children under Standard I. in 1882; in Standard I. there were 11; Standard II. there were 49; Standard III. there were 460; Standard IV. there were 691; Standard V. there were 615; and in Standard VI. there were 322, against 28 in 1874. Now, do we want a better illustration of what comes of having a test Standard, which every child shall be required to pass before he enters on the half-time movement? If the parent knows he cannot bring his children to the workshop or factory until they have passed some Standard of education, that parent will begin to educate his children at five years of age. But when the parent knows that there is no test, what is the result? He sends his children to those miserable adventure schools to which my hon. Friend has referred. I have some account of these private adventure schools in Dundee. There are such schools, holding from 40 to 200 children, carried on in kitchens, and taught by persons having no kind of education or qualification for teaching. They are simply schools to evade the Education Act and the Factory Acts. This is only branch of a very important question. A question was brought before us early last Session by an hon. Member in respect to the difficulty of enforcing compulsion. No doubt, the term "gross neglect," which requires to be proved against the parent, is exceedingly ambiguous, loose, and indefinite; and, as a result, the magistrates do not sometimes enforce attendance. We propose to amend those words, and amend that part of the Act. It is quite certain we ought to amend this part of the Act. Having had proof, having tested what can be done in England, having satisfied ourselves what can be done without imposing hardships on the children or employers, we ought to amend the Act so as to put the Scotch Act on all fours with the English Act in that respect. We ought also to amend it in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Fife-shire with respect to children from 13 to 14. Having said this much, I have said everything I can. The Government is fully alive to the spirit of the Resolution
  1934
  which the hon. Member has presented; but if I say to him that I should prefer that we should at once vote that the Speaker leave the Chair in order to get into Committee of Supply, I hope he will not take that as an unfriendly act towards his Resolution. I can promise the hon. Member that at the very earliest opportunity—and I hope it will be this Session—I will endeavour to amend the Scotch Education Acts of 1872 and 1878, both in respect to the defects pointed out by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Fifeshire.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he had met the Motion of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire; and hoped that the hon. Member would now be disposed to withdraw his Motion, and allow the House to get into Committee of Supply.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Ayrshire was one in which they could all agree; but there was something in his speech which he certainly hoped the Education Department would not agree to. It was where the hon. Member referred to boys having passed Standard VI. before they were 13 years of age, and suggested that they might then commence work. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No; we cannot have that.] He sincerely hoped that no permission of the kind would ever be granted.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he sincerely hoped that in any change which would be made in the Factory Acts, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Education Department would take care to provide means by which half-time schools might come to be as much used in Scotland as in England. It appeared to him these were the best means of education, and that opinion was held by many of the most eminent educationalists, especially by the veteran authority, Mr. Chad wick. There was very great reason to believe that children were not benefited by being kept too long at school, and that at half-time schools they could get almost as much and as good education as in full-time schools. From a moral and educational and a physical point of view, there were great advantages in a system under which a child was half the day at industrial work and the other half at school improving his education; and he hoped other manu-

  1935
  facturing towns in Scotland would endeavour to follow the example set by Dundee, and increase these half-time schools.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that before they passed from that subject, he had an appeal to make to his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Collings), with reference to a Notice which stood in his name on the subject of peasant proprietorship. The convenience of the House, and almost the necessity of the case, warranted him in making an appeal that the hon. Member should be satisfied to postpone the discussion he proposed to raise to another day. That course would certainly be of great advantage to the House in enabling them to proceed promptly with the Business of Supply. In Committee of Supply there were various subjects that would be discussed, and which the Government must frankly admit ought to be discussed. It was not because the Government gave the Motion an unkind reception that he made the appeal; but he did it simply with a practical object, which he felt sure the hon. Member would appreciate.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, it was impossible to resist the urgent appeal of the Prime Minister in this matter. He had been very anxious to bring on this Motion, for the reason that there were so many of the labouring classes especially who were most anxious to see his Motion discussed. But he thought he should not be acting for the best, even on their behalf, if he were to bring it on now, as it could not possibly receive the full and fair consideration which it deserved.
  MR.COCHEAN-PATRICKobserved, that, after what had fallen from the Vice President of the Council, he considered he had really gained all he desired by the Resolution. He had asked the attention of the Government to the subject, and they had promised to take an early opportunity of remedying the defect in the law. On that assurance he was willing to withdraw his Amendment if the Government wished. ["No!"]
  Question put, and agreed to.

  LAW AND JUSTICE-DORMANT FUNDS IN CHANCERY.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON,in rising to call attention to the defective manner
    1936
    in which the Law requiring the publication of the lists of Dormant Funds in Chancery is carried out, found grave fault with the manner in which the Chancery Office furnished, or rather failed to furnish, the particulars of sums of money in their possession. The law required lists to be made public every three years, and to be issued in alphabetical order—neither of those directions were attended to. Human ingenuity could hardly have devised a method of publication more adapted to conceal the information which was in the possession of the office than the authorized version of dormant claims put forth by the Paymaster in Chancery. In the meantime, the money of the suitors was being used for purposes from which they derived no benefit. The Court of Chancery did sometimes, in cynical language, decide how some of this money, which did not belong to it, was to be used; for instance, the language used when it handed over £1,000,000 belonging to suitors to be expended on the Palace of Justice—
    "A million of money standing to the account of securities purchased with the surplus of the interest arising from securities carried to the account of moneys placed out for the benefit and better security of the suitors of the Court of Chancery!"
    If it was only mismanagement in high places that had to be complained of, he should not have interested himself in the matter; but the effect of the system of concealment was that it awakened false hopes among numbers of people who thought they might be claimants. The system prepared the ground for gigantic frauds, such as the famous next-of-kin frauds last year in Birmingham. A Society was established under the name of the Law Agency for the Recovery of Sums in Chancery; more than 200 persons were victimized. The fraud was founded on delusions which such publications as the Chancery Paymaster issued helped to keep up. Information was only given to claimants at the Chancery Office through solicitors. Agencies for the assistance of claimants were, consequently, perfectly legitimate in themselves; but it was a serious grievance to the public that funds could only be rescued from the grip of Chancery at enormous cost. Other public offices gave information of the private property in their possession, and endeavoured to discover the owners, by publishing the

    1937
    dates, the amounts, the addresses, and every other particular which was within their knowledge. This was the practice of the Indian Government, the War Office, and the Bank of England. The Chancery Office was the only exception. The Master of the Rolls in Ireland had spoken in no measured terms of this system. He said—"The Government ought to be compelled to publish the accounts." His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had not attempted to improve the system. For three years in succession he had called attention to the subject, and had met with evasive answers. He trusted that both sides of the House would now affirm that they would not allow the standard of public morality in Government Offices to sink below the level of common honesty.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they had had a very amusing speech from his hon. Friend on this subject, which he had also brought forward on the 10th of March last year, and he had not much varied his description on the present occasion. The accounts referred to had to be published every three years, and the last publication had taken place on June 25, 1881; and, therefore, the next publication would be immediately after September 30, 1883. When the debate took place last year, he had to admit that there had, no doubt, been neglect in not publishing those accounts in proper time, and the course the debate took was that he promised then that there should be perfect accuracy, and that every despatch should be made. No publication had taken place since the Motion of last year. It was impossible to give all the details asked; but sufficient details would be given for all practical purposes, and any respectable person making a claim to funds in Chancery would get every facility for establishing his right. Since 1852 one-half of the claims had been made by three firms of solicitors alone, and he expected this was a scheme of certain persons who wanted to know too much, in order to base their claims upon information furnished. He would renew the promise previously made that everything would be done within reasonable prudence to give all the information required.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that he believed the regulations already made afforded such information as the public
    1938
    could fairly demand; and there could be no doubt that a trade was carried on by certain persons in regard to these funds in the Court of Chancery against which some protection should be afforded.
    MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONsaid, he thought the Attorney General had rather evaded the question raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, which was not as to the frequency with which the lists were made out, but rather that, when they were made out, they were useless. At present only experts could understand them; whereas if clear and proper lists were provided much trouble and expense would be saved to suitors, and this should be done, notwithstanding that a readier means of obtaining access to funds would diminish those means which might be devoted to the provision or accommodation of future Law Courts. It was only fair, however, that for the large number of suitors interested in this question more ready means of obtaining information about those funds should be provided.

  THE BRITISH COLONIES—GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERrose to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that, in August last, Mr. Watermeyer, Chief Magistrate of Griqualand East, acting as Commissioner for the Cape Government, formally annexed the Amaxesibe Country, a portion of Pondoland, to the Cape Colony; whether, notwithstanding the protest of Umquikela, the lawful Chief of Pondoland, the annexation of this territory was preceded by the introduction of Cape Colonial Troops; and, whether the hostilities that have now broken out are not the result of these acts of aggression? In putting the Question, the hon. Member explained that Pondoland stood in the same relative position to the Imperial Government as Zululand, and its paramount Chief Umquikela stood in the same position as Cetewayo stood a few years ago. Our first connection with that country was in 1844, when the Governor of the Cape, Sir Peregrine Maitland, made a Treaty with the then paramount Chief of the country on behalf of the Imperial Government. Under that Treaty the Governor undertook to re-

    1939
    cognize the rights of the Chief to certain territory, the boundaries of which were fixed. This Treaty continued in force from 1844 till 1878, when they came to the memorable administration of Sir Bartle Frere in South Africa. Complaint was then made that the Native Chief had failed to observe the conditions of the Treaty by not carrying out the Extradition Clause, and on that pretext the representatives of the High Commissioner took forcible possession of the territory of Pondoland, erected a fort on the coast, and sent Colonial troops there. Now, it might be very desirable that we should have a fort on that part of the coast, and he had no complaint to make of that action if it was done with due consideration to the just rights of the Natives. But what Umquikela, in a protest he had made against these acts of aggression, complained of was that we dealt with an inferior Chief, passing over his rights as superior Chief, although hitherto we had always professedly been on amicable terms with him. The result was, as we now saw, a small Native War going on in that portion of South Africa. He was very much surprised at the course which the Government at the Cape had taken in Pondoland, because it seemed diametrically opposed to that which they wished to take in other quarters of their Borders. He hoped the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would be able to give the House some information on the questions which he had raised.

  WEST INDIES (JAMAICA)—SEIZURE OF THE "FLORENCE."—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that, before the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies answered his hon. Friend, he should like to call attention to a very grave scandal in connection with the administration of their Colonial Empire. In 1877 a ship called the Florence arrived at Jamaica in distress, with a quantity of arms and ammunition on board. She landed her ammunition and proceeded into harbour with the arms on board, when the Governor of the Colony, acting upon the advice of the Attorney General, interfered and refused to allow the re-export of the ammunition, or to permit the vessel to sail with the arms on board, until the captain entered into a bond of £1,000. The words of the
  1940
  Opinion of the Attorney General of Jamaica were—
  "I ought to point out that in the application of the law it must be remembered that it is one for the effectual administration of which the Imperial Government would, as I apprehend, be held responsible."
  When the action of the Governor was reported to the Colonial Office at home, they immediately sought the advice of the Foreign Office; and the latter, not the former, took upon itself the responsibility of approving of the advice of the Attorney General, and the action of the Governor. This, again, showed that by the Government at home the matter was treated as one appertaining to Imperial as distinguished from Colonial interest. An action was brought by the owners of the vessel against the Governor for detaining the vessel and ammunition, and in answer to that action the Governor pleaded that it was an act of State. This plea was, however, overruled by the Courts in Jamaica; and, on the advice of the Colonial Office, the Governor appealed, in order to obtain the decision of the Privy Council on that important question. An appeal made to the Privy Council in 1880 was rejected, and the Governor, by order of the Colonial Office, again tried to settle the claim against him. He failed in his attempt, however; and in 1881 judgment was finally given against him in both actions, the damages and costs amounting altogether to £8,000. Thereupon the Colonial Office directed that application should be made to the Legislative Council of Jamaica, for a Vote for the amount of the damages and costs. The matter having commenced in 1877, it was not until the 27th of August, 1881, that a single word was uttered by the Colonial Office, or by the Government at home, indicating that there was any idea that this sum could be charged on the Revenue of the Colony. The Colony had never been consulted from one end of the proceedings to the other. The Legislative Council of Jamaica, during the whole of those four years, never had any voice in the proceeding, and it was not until it had closed for the first time that the demand was made that the Colony should pay the whole amount. The Legislative Council nominated a Select Committee on the 5th of September, and while the Papers were under the consideration of the Council and of

  1941
  the Select Committee, there came to the Colony a despatch from the Colonial Office, dated the 15th of November, which was not to be found in the printed Papers, but which must be a most extraordinary production. Although, however, the despatch itself had not been printed, there was a sample or specimen of its contents to which he would invite the attention of the House. One despatch contained the following passage:—
  "I am surprised and regret to learn from the first of your despatches under acknowledgment that there is a probability that the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council may object to the Vote; but the official Members must, of course, be required to support it."
  Why did not the Secretary of State for the Colonies, before he wrote that foolish despatch, take counsel with the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor)? In Jamaica one could see the system of government in its crude and naked simplicity, and could ascertain the regard which a Liberal Government had for the judgment of their supporters. The effect of this peremptory despatch was that Mr. Burke, a coloured gentleman of high talents, who filled the post of Crown Solicitor, resigned—
  "Because," he said, "I could not conscientiously vote for the payment of the money out of the Colonial Revenue; "
  and Mr. Mackglashan, the Auditor General, also resigned on the same ground. On the following day the Committee came to the conclusion that the detention was made entirely to protect Imperial interests, and that the Island would in no way derive benefit there from. On the matter being referred to the Legislative Council itself the Report of the Committee was rejected, five official Members voting against it, and four unofficial Members in its favour. On the 9th of December, when he was in a majority of one, the Governor foolishly allowed the matter to be adjourned till the 10th of January. Petitions, numerously and influentially signed, from nearly all the parishes in the Island, were then presented against the proceedings of the Legislative Council, and a Resolution was carried which was equivalent to the rejection of the Vote. There were seven unofficial Members who all voted against the grant, and five official Members who voted in favour of it. But the Go-
  1942
  vernor stifled the further discussion of the matter by refusing to allow any Motion to be put. The Colonial Office next applied to the Treasury to vote one-half of the costs, and it was this moiety which the House would be asked to vote when they had resolved themselves into Committee of Supply. In an application made on the 25th of February, 1882, it was stated that—
  "His Lordship (Lord Kimberley) would therefore propose for the favourable consideration of the Lords Commissioners that half the amount of the costs in question should be met by a grant from Imperial funds; and if they assent to this he will take such steps as will insure payment by the Colonial Legislature of the remaining half of the costs."
  There was an example of Constitutional government. The answer of the Treasury was also a most remarkable document. The fact was that the Government dared not adopt the same course with respect to Canada, Australia, or any large Colony, which they had adopted towards Jamaica. The result of such a policy would be disruption of our Colonial Empire. He would go on with the history of the manner in which the Vote had been obtained to which he had referred. Private letters were sent by the Governor to two gentlemen—Mr. Alexander, Inspector of Immigrants, and Mr. Capper, Inspector of Schools. They were asked to accept seats at the Legislative Council on the express understanding that they would vote in favour of the Government, not only on the question of the Florence, but on all questions which might be submitted to them. Both these gentleman accepted the office offered to them and the conditions imposed. That was the way in which a Liberal Government managed the affairs of our Colonies. In the Council these nominees of the Government were called "creatures"—a term of Party warfare not yet introduced into that House, but warranted by the circumstances of the case. But how did Sir Anthony Musgrave, the Governor, defend the course taken by the Government? He said that at home Members sitting on the Liberal Benches were bound to vote as they were told by the Birmingham Caucus. He would be much interested to know whether the illustration was dictated from the Colonial Office, or was acceptable there, and also how hon. Gentlemen opposite liked it? Mr. Gordon Sewell,

  1943
  a coloured Member of the Council, resigned, and his resignation was accepted. There were in all 20 Members, 10 official and 10 unofficial. But of the unofficial Members one was dead, and one or two others were absent from various causes. Thus the Government was able to carry its proposal. Sir Anthony Musgrave had intimated, as far as he could venture to do so, his concurrence with the views of the non-official Members. But it was to no purpose. The consequence was that all the non-official Members resigned—a course which could hardly be wondered at, and was worthy of commendation. The opinion was expressed on page 94 of the Blue Book by one of the unofficial Members of the Council, that from that time it would be a degradation for unofficial Members to take part in the formal mockery of legislation that would henceforward take place. The question whether this was a Colonial, and not an Imperial, expenditure, was one he did not wish to press upon the House; but he did urge that Her Majesty's Government had no right, and were extremely foolish, to crush every appearance of Constitutional government in Jamaica, in order to screw a miserable £4,000 out of it. That object might have been accomplished without outraging the feelings—not only the feelings of the Colonists, but the feelings of all right-minded and just men. He did not believe that the most arbitrary Government in the world would have been a party to treating the most insignificant country in the way in which a Government which professed to be Liberal, and to regard liberty and to be supported by men who cherished freedom and independence, had treated the unhappy Jamaica Colonists. The language they had used, the letters they had written, the speeches made by the Governor to the Colonial Legislature, had reduced even the appearance of Constitutional government in Jamaica to a perfect mockery and sham. When it was remembered that up to 1869 Jamaica enjoyed a real Constitution, in which the people really had the power of controlling the expenditure of their money, and that the Constitution was surrendered in the alarm of a negro outbreak, on the understanding that another free Constitution should be granted by Order of the Queen in Council—when those facts were remem-
  1944
  bered the House would understand the indignation with which the whole of the people of Jamaica regarded the continuance of this wretched Legislative Council, and their desire for the restoration to them of a Constitution by which those who were in the Council as Representatives of the people might be allowed to vote according to their eon-sciences for what they regarded as right.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, the first thing that struck him was that the hon. and learned Member, in his great anxiety to bring forward a Motion in the discussion of which he could utter a few amusing and telling sentences about the Birmingham Caucus, had shown his entire ignorance of the manner in which the numerous Colonies called Crown Colonies had been administered, were administered, and must be administered for a considerable time to come. The hon. and learned Member talked about the Government having crushed out Constitutional liberty in Jamaica by their action with reference to the ship Florence; but how could they crush out what did not exist? He hoped that some day a Constitution might be restored to Jamaica; but at present it did not exist, having been surrendered in 1869 by the unanimous vote of the Legislature. As he was informed, they did not surrender it on the understanding that another Constitution should be given to them; but on the understanding that it would be for the good of the Island, under the difficult circumstances in which it was placed, that it should accept the position of a Crown Colony, which, he might remind the House, had for its basis the absolute supremacy and predominancy of the official element. In August, 1868, a Circular was issued by the Duke of Buckingham, the then Conservative Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he described what, in the view of the Colonial Office of the day, were the relations between official Members and other Members of Council in Crown Colonies. The West India Islands at that time, following the example of Jamaica, had all surrendered their simulacra of Constitutions, and accepted the position of Crown Colonies. The Duke of Buckingham laid it down that there was one feature in common among the Legislatures of Crown Colonies—that the power of the Crown, if pressed

  1945
  to its extreme limit, was sufficient to overcome every resistance that might be made to it. The reason for vesting this ultimate power in the Crown was that it had been proved that the elective form of Representative Assembly, based upon the model of Elective Assemblies in this country and elsewhere, only brought about confusion, and did not contribute to the benefit of the Colony, and that it was necessary that the Colony should be governed by an Assembly where the Executive Government had a majority. He wished to know what was the use of a majority if it did not exercise its power? The doctrine in fashion on the other side of the House seemed to be that the minority should rule. They had been taunted on the Government side of the House with fidelity to Party. Well, that was not a taunt he could throw out to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends. If the hon. and learned Gentleman ever became a Member of a Cabinet—as he hoped he would some day—and he carried out the doctrine laid down by him that night, he would be a very troublesome Colleague to work with. As to the duty of official Members of Council, it was obvious that when persons accepted Office as Members of an Executive they were distinctly and rightly called upon to vote with the Government of which they were Members. Allusion was made in Lord Kimberley's despatch to a paragraph of the Duke of Buckingham's Circular, to which he had already referred, in which it was said that in the case of a nominee Member of the Legislature who was a salaried servant of the Crown, it would be highly expedient that he should give a general support to the Governor in the Legislature; and that if not disposed to do so on special occasions when the Governor required it he might be allowed to retire from the Legislature, but the Governor would be entitled to object to his continuance in his office or seat. The Earl of Kimberley, in his despatch, called upon officials who, under such circumstances, had refused to support the Governor, to resign their offices, and said that he wished it to be distinctly understood that, in the future, refusal to vote involved the resignation of the offices held. In the Constitution of Jamaica there were five seats which entitled the holders ex officio to be Members of Council; the remain-
  1946
  ing official Members were salaried officers appointed by name, and not by virtue of some office held. The Earl of Kimberley said that the whole of the official Members were bound, in the manner in which all Members of an Executive Government were bound, to support the Government of which they were Members, or otherwise the affairs of Government could not be carried on. That was a principle which existed in numerous Colonies, and which up to this time had occasioned no difficulty. No doubt in Jamaica there was a very strong desire to avoid the payment of this money, and there was a strong belief that by united action they could escape from payment of it. The precedent of the Have had been brought forward; but the fact that there was such a precedent constituted a greater reason why the Governor of the Colony should not sanction a second, which would inevitably be construed in Jamaica and in other Crown Colonies into the accepted doctrine that they were not to share in Imperial expenses. He would point out, however, with regard to the Have precedent, that in that case the Jamaica Legislature voted the money, and then appealed in, misericordiam to the Imperial Exchequer for the money it had disbursed. As regarded the case of the Atalaya, referred to by the hon. and learned Member, that case was not in point at all. The Atalaya was arrested under the Foreign Enlistment Act, which was an Imperial Act. The arrest was made by the direct act of the Governor General, without any intervention on the part of the local authorities. This matter, on the contrary, arose under a local Statute, and the initiative was not taken by the Governor. But although it might be pleasant to deal liberally with the Colony of Jamaica, particularly as her revenues were not so flourishing as they could desire, he submitted that there was a very important principle involved in the question. If the Colonies were to be exempted from any liability on account of mistakes made by their own recognized officials, then the Imperial Government might find themselves exposed to demands on their purse which might be very large. In his opinion, nothing would tend so much to break up the idea of unity which had always existed throughout the Colonial Empire, and was still growing,

  1947
  than the notion that the Colonies were perfectly free from any share in our Imperial risks and responsibilities. When the hon. and learned Member said that they would not have dared to send such instructions to a large Colony, he begged to remind him that in such a case it would be a reductio ad absurdum. It must be borne in mind that Canada very largely provided its own defence; while Jamaica did not contribute one farthing to our military expenditure, although it was guaranteed protection. With regard to the Petitions alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, there could be no doubt that there were some who were anxious to return to a former state of things and possess a more free representation. A Commission of Inquiry was examining into these matters, and he hoped that before long they would be able to grant some sort of a return in a modified form to elective representation. But as long as the Colony remained a Crown one, he maintained that the Earl of Kimberley was right, and acted according to precedent in taking the steps he did. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Legislative Council was not consulted in the different steps and legal proceedings. But did he wish them to possess greater powers than the House of Commons would under similar circumstances? Such steps were left to the Executive. In short, the case came under two heads—first, whether it was right to make the Colony pay some portion of those damages; and, secondly, whether, if so, the means adopted to make it do so were also right. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not venture to say that they were not right as to the first head; and, if that were admitted, the other followed as a matter of course. Otherwise, how was the payment to be made? As to the question with regard to Pondoland which was put to him by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. P. N. Fowler), the Government had no detailed information as to what was going on there beyond that which had been already laid before the House. The Cape Government was a self-governing Colony, and had a right to settle this matter for itself. The present difficulty had arisen from the fact that the Cape Colony took over, in 1878, the Protectorate of a small tribe—namely, the Amaxesibes—living to the northwest of Pondoland. This led to loss and
  1948
  discontent on the part of the Pondos. The matter was submitted to Sir Bartle Frere, then High Commissioner, who seemed to approve of it, and from despatches of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) it appeared that the late Government approved of it also. As to what was going on at present, he might say that the Cape Government found themselves unable to retire from the position they had taken up; and it had been suggested to them that the best solution of the matter would be to send a cheque for £10,000 to the Chief of the Pondos, in order to compensate him for the loss of the territory. He hoped that the Cape Government would shortly be able to make some arrangement of that kind. The Correspondence on the matter was to be found in a Blue Book, and also in a despatch of 1882 from the Earl of Kimberley, in which he said he was glad to find that the Cape Ministers were directing their attention to the subject. They had heard nothing more since then; but he hoped they would soon learn that peace was restored. The Secretary of State would instruct Sir Hercules Robinson, the High Commissioner at the Cape, to offer his mediation if he saw any prospect of its being accepted, or being likely to effect any good.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that, in view of the transformation of Ireland into a Crown Colony, the Irish Members naturally took a great interest in the revelations that had been made. The despatch of the Duke of Buckingham laid down the doctrine that, in a Crown Colony, the power of the Crown, if pressed to its extreme limits, must overbear all opposition; but that suggested the question, in what circumstances should that power be pushed to its extreme limits, and was the case now before the House one in which all opposition ought to be overborne? It was admitted that the detention of the vessel showed a complete want of legal knowledge on the part of the Colonial jurists, and that the inhabitants of the Colony stronglly objected to pay for the blunder But for the impolicy of the Government a compromise might have been satisfactorily arranged; whereas, whatever had

  1949
  been left undone in the way of affronting the feelings of the Colonists of Jamaica, was completed by the extraordinary instructions from the Colonial Office on the 25th of February, when that Department formally gave notice that such steps would be taken as would insure the ratification of the Government proposal by the Legislative Council. In every stage of the proceedings the Government seemed to have taken a sort of delight in affronting the feelings of the Colonists, already excited in reference to the Florence case. If there was any disaffection in Jamaica, he considered that this action of the Colonial Office was calculated to increase it. The Government had acted in the most unfortunate manner all throughout the affair, and without reflecting that the violent enforcement of the rights of the Crown was calculated to weaken the loyalty of the Colonists. He thought the Government recognized that their conduct had had that effect, because their Representative in the House now stated that, in all probability, the pending inquiry would have the result of restoring to Jamaica, in some effective degree, Constitutional government. He therefore regretted very much that, on the eve of our giving up the government of Jamaica as a Crown Colony, the Representatives of the Crown should have seized the opportunity to leave such an unfavourable impression of Crown government on the inhabitants of Jamaica.
  MR. WODEHOUSEsaid, he must contend that not merely one-half, but that the whole of the sum required for the payment of damages in the case of the Florence should be found by the Colony of Jamaica. The facts of the case were very simple. The damages had been incurred by the Governor of Jamaica, acting in his public capacity, to the best of his judgment—or, rather, to be quite accurate, to the best of his proper legal adviser's judgment. The character of the vessel detained was suspicious, and nobody, even in Jamaica, asserted for a moment that the action of the Government was prompted by anything but a desire to vindicate Colonial law, and insure the fulfilment of international obligations. An error of judgment was committed, but committed with absolute bona fides; and, in such circumstances, the damages should be paid out of the public revenues of the Colony in
  1950
  which the transaction took place. But the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council had protested against the payment by the Colony of even a moiety of the damages; and upon what grounds did they rest their protest? They claimed exemption from all liability because the Florence had been detained for the protection of Imperial interests, without any benefit to Jamaica. In other words, they declared that the fulfilment of international obligations by the Empire to which they belonged was no concern of theirs, and of no advantage to them. But that doctrine of Colonial irresponsibility for international obligations should never be accepted or countenanced on this side of the water. The House must remember that international complications might at any time easily arise in their West Indian Dependencies. They lay, as it were, in the shadow of the United States; Cuba was in the midst of them; and near them, on the mainland of Central and South America, were a cluster of States subject to periodical disturbances and revolutions. In those States power and authority passed from hand to hand, and from party to party, in constant fluctuations, and thus the West Indies and the Spanish Main generally swarmed with adventurers and conspirators. These men organized raids and revolutions, and Jamaica might be for them a convenient base of operations. Preparations for their enterprizes—clandestine armaments and so forth—might be good for trade in Jamaica; but they were not at all good for the peace and quiet of the British Empire. And when men holding a responsible position in a Colony, like these Jamaica Councillors, talked of Imperial interests and international obligations as no affair of theirs, it was about time to remind them that, if the several advantages to England and Jamaica of the connection between them were weighed in the balance, it was not England that would be found to be the principal gainer. And they should be reminded that the entire expense of the military protection of the Island was borne by Imperial Revenues. Ceylon—another Crown Colony which, like Jamaica, had been passing through a period of depression—repaid to the Imperial Government every penny of military expenditure there, but Jamaica repaid nothing; and yet this was the Colony

  1951
  which disclaimed all interest in proceedings of a kind that might embroil the foreign relations of England, and possibly involve an issue of Imperial peace or war. It had been said that it was hard to make a Colony pay for the mistakes of Governors and other officers selected and appointed by the Imperial Government; but, if the principle were accepted that British taxpayers ought to pay for all the errors of Colonial Governors, honest errors of judgment in the discharge of difficult duties, we should be carried very far indeed. There was really no hardship upon the Colony. Appointments of Governors and other officers from home were of great advantage to small Colonial communities; and if these officers, like other fallible mortals, sometimes made mistakes, the Colonies must take the rough with the smooth. Much had been said about the position of the official Members of Council, and about the inadequacy of the representative element in the existing Constitution of Jamaica. As to the official Members of Council, if we were to have a Crown Colony at all, it was absolutely necessary that they should vote as required by the Government, or resign their offices. [Lord RANDOUII CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord cheered ironically; but he (Mr. Wodehouse) repeated that, without the enforcement of that condition upon the official Members, the very essence of a Crown Colony would vanish, and the name become a mockery and an illusion. Whether Jamaica should continue to be a Crown Colony pure and simple, or whether it should have a Constitution on a more popular basis, was another question altogether, and it was too large a question to discuss on the present occasion. He would only remind the House that the old House of Assembly in Jamaica, which happily disappeared from the world about 16 years ago, was a scandal and a by-word throughout the West Indies. It was little better than a bear garden of shouting and screaming negroes and mulattoes, with a sprinkling of Jews. He would not longer detain the House; he had only risen to express the strong feeling with which he regarded a repudiation on the part of Jamaica of her legitimate liabilities in this transaction.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was rather sorry the question
  1952
  had not come before a fuller House, because, as brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst), it was an appeal to the House of Commons of the absolutely unrepresented inhabitants of Jamaica from the representatives of the Government. He would therefore entreat the attention of hon. Members to the question, on account of the peculiarly unprotected character of the 600,000 blacks, who formed the bulk of the population of the Island. They were unprotected—desperately unprotected—as was shown by the speech of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), and by the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Wodehouse), in addition to the despatches laid before the House. The Under Secretary of State evidently thought he could make short work of the question; for he devoted less than a quarter of an hour to a very complicated case that was brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend. He said the hon. and learned Gentleman had shown but little knowledge of Colonial matters; but the taunt was very ill-timed, as his hon. and learned Friend was in the Colonies before the Under Secretary of State had commenced his official career. Throughout his entire speech the Under Secretary of State had manifested an utter ignorance of the case. He stated that the arrest of the Florence took place under a local Act, when it did nothing of the kind; and tried to make out that, because it occurred through the action of the collector of Customs, it did not occur through the Government—a proposition he would never have made if there had been more than six hon. Members in the House. The arrest of the Florence was made under a Proclamation issued in 1859 by the then Governor, for the purpose of prohibiting the exportation of arms or ammunition from the Island under the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act. The case of the Florence was on all fours with that of the Atalaya, which was similarly detained, and for whose detention the Imperial Government had to pay damages that were to be voted that night. Yet because, in this ease, it was the wretched Colony of Jamaica, peopled mainly by 600,000 blacks, and not one of the powerful Colonies of Australia, they sought to saddle it with a half.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that if the noble Lord would refer to the first page of the Blue Book, he would find that the Act was a local one.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was aware of the contention of the Jamaica Attorney General, who, when he first pleaded the case before the Courts, urged that it was an Imperial Act. But the moment the Government at home wished to make the Colony pay the whole of the damages, round went the Attorney General, and argued that the Act was a local one. Consequently, the opinion of the Attorney General was worthless.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYpointed out that it was the statement of the Governor.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHUECHILLretorted that the Governor acted on the advice of the Attorney General. He had shown that the present contention of the Government, that the arrest took place for local purposes, was upset by the Minute of the Hon. Constantine Burke, the Crown Solicitor, who quoted the Proclamation under which the act was done. In order to prove to the House the Imperial character of the whole transaction, and how little Colonial interests entered into it at all, he had only to remind them that the Governor acted throughout under the direction of the Foreign Office. What had the Foreign Office to do with purely Colonial matters? When this affair arose, in 1877, the Governor applied to Lord Carnarvon to know what he was to do, and his Lordship immediately applied to the Foreign Office, which gave directions to Lord Carnarvon. The Government thought that they would be successful before the Courts, and that they would not have to pay; but when they were unsuccessful, they tried to make the wretched Colony pay the money. The Governor knew that he was acting in Imperial interests; for, in these Papers, he said over and over again that he concurred in the views of the official Members of the Legislative Council as to their immunity from liability in the matter, who resigned rather than consent to the Vote. There were two points which the House ought to consider—firstly, should the Colony pay? and, secondly, what was the attitude of the Colonial Office towards the Colony? If the contention were
  1954
  correct that the Colony ought to pay, and that this was purely a local matter, on what grounds could the Government demand from the House of Commons £4,000 odd? Compromises were absolutely fatal. Either it was an Imperial matter, in which case we ought to pay all; or it was a Colonial matter, in which case the Colony ought to pay all. There was no escape from that dilemma. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made one or two most amusing remarks. He said, for instance, that the precedent of the Have case ought not to become a precedent. His (Lord Randolph Churchill's) own contention was that that case, which occurred when the present Prime Minister was in Office, in 1868, was an exact precedent for our guidance. In an extraordinary despatch, the Secretary to the Treasury, who evidently considered himself an authority on the subject, laid down the principles which should regulate the intercourse between the Colonies and the Crown. The hon. Gentleman said—
  "My Lords "—namely, Sir Ralph Lingen and himself—"cannot allow the case of the Have to be quoted as a precedent, binding the Imperial Government to take upon itself liabilities of this nature."
  Why not? It was a precedent set by the right hon. Gentleman who was at the present moment Prime Minister. While on the subject of that despatch, he would ask the hon. Gentleman to give the House a few explanations of it. The hon. Gentleman said—
  "My Lords think that it is, primâfacie, the duty of a Colony to hear its share of the international obligations of the Empire."
  He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had no hesitation in saying that it was the principle laid down in that naked form, which brought about the revolt of our American Colonies. The hon. Gentleman then went on to speak of Colonial responsibility and partnership arrangements. Let him give the House his ideas of Colonial responsibility and partnership arrangements as between Jamaica, which was despotically governed, and Great Britain. Then, after stating that he was going to refund one-half, the hon. Gentleman said that was a concession justified by peculiar circumstances, and that Her Majesty's Government held it to be the rule that the obligations of neutrality should

  1955
  be discharged in the territory where the necessity for those obligations existed. "Was Jamaica to be liable for any international engagements that this country might enter into? The Government apparently thought it was the duty of a Colony to bear its share of Imperial engagements. Upon that principle Jamaica ought to bear a share of the cost of the Egyptian Expedition. Would any hon. Member opposite or any Member of the Government get up and say so? In the interests of the Colonies, which possessed no representation, he would ask, did they agree in the doctrine laid down by the laws of the Treasury, that they, the Colonies, were to bear a share of Imperial responsibilities? Sir Anthony Musgrave, in his speech to the Council, stated that the claim made on the Island was not a claim of the Secretary of State, but was based upon a particular principle approved by Parliament. That was not so, and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was perfectly certain that the Government would not dare to write such a letter to Australia, or any of the larger Crown Colonies. There was another point. The Secretary of State had shown great ignorance respecting the Constitution of Jamaica; for he had said that the Island had no Constitution, whereas, in fact, it had a Constitution. What was this Legislative Council, which was to vote automatically at the bidding of the Government? Was it a mere phantom, a simulacrum, and not a consultative Body? Was it to be a check on the Governor, or merely a Body for registering decrees? It was established in order that Jamaica might have a representation; but if it was a Council, such as it was stated to be in the Government despatches, then Jamaica had no representation at all. It stood in the same position as the Legislative Council of India. Would anyone venture to say that it was the duty of the Council of India to vote just as the Governor directed them? There was one other point on which he desired an explanation. What happened when the Governor was cast in damages for £8,000? He went to the Colonial Treasury, and on his own account took, without any authority whatever, £8,000 from the Treasury Chest, and with that sum he paid the damages. Was that one of the new principles of Colonial Government? Did the Lords of the
  1956
  Treasury approve a Colonial Governor, when embarrassed by pecuniary demands, going to the local Treasury and helping himself to money in order to free himself from those demands? Was there any precedent for such a course of conduct? He believed that Sir Charles Darling was dismissed from his office for an analogous act. Some of the remarks made during the debate in the Legislative Council were worth reading. Mr. Henderson, an aged Member of the Council, who refused to vote this money, was very outspoken. He said that if the British Colonial Minister expected to rule Jamaica as with a rod of iron, he made a great mistake, and he went on to speak of the "iron hand" and "thoughtless head" of the British Minister. When this old Member talked of the "iron hand" of Lord Kimberley, he was, of course, only using a metaphor; but when he talked of the "thoughtless head," he was very near the truth. He concluded by professing himself ready to fight to the death for Jamaica's rights and liberties; so that it seemed Jamaica had a "Grand Old Man." He really hoped that the Government would condescend to offer some fuller explanation of their action in that matter than had been given by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies; but if they did not choose to do so, he could not help thinking that the country would conclude that the reason why they made no answer to the strong charges brought against them was that there was no satisfactory answer to make.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that although the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had complained of the brevity of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, he (Mr. Courtney) must follow the example of his hon. Friend in that respect—first, because the House had plenty of work to do to get through the Supplementary Estimates; and next, because the noble Lord, although speaking for nearly an hour, had really added nothing to the able statement of facts and arguments made by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). Personally, he (Mr. Courtney) would defend and endorse every word of the despatches which defined the local responsibilities of the Colony. There were two questions of considerable interest involved in that discussion. The first was the measure and limit of Colonial respon-

  1957
  sibility in observing the duties of neutrality, on which there was a difference of opinion between the noble Lord and himself. The Government had laid down the principle, that primâfacie it was the duty of the Colony to bear its share of responsibility in connection with transactions which took place within its own boundaries; and, further, that the obligations of neutrality should be discharged by the local resources of the territory within which those obligations had arisen. The adoption of the contrary rule would, he maintained, lead to the terrible consequences which had been indicated in the able speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Wodehouse). The noble Lord had suggested that that case was on all fours with that of the American Colonies and the imposition of a duty on tea at Boston; but the two cases were entirely different. They were not forcing upon Jamaica the responsibility for action, or any share of action taken by England; but they placed on Jamaica, as they would place on any other Colony, the primâ facie responsibility for action taken in the Colony itself. The duty of international neutrality within a Colony must be observed and maintained in that Colony. That rested on the simple rule of expediency that those who had the control of their own action should be responsible for the consequences of their own action. There were, he admitted, cases in which it would be manifestly unfair that the whole weight of the responsibility should be thrown upon the Colony; but, on the other hand, it would be a most dangerous principle to lay down that the British taxpayer should pay the entire cost of any infraction of neutrality by any British Colony. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham asked whether they would apply their doctrine to great Colonies like those of Australia, for example? But in Australia the question would never arise. "Whatever was done in a self-governing Colony, the action of the Ministry was brought before the Colonial Parliament and was settled by the Colonial Parliament. But in Jamaica, on the other hand, if the noble Lord's doctrine was to prevail, anything might be done within the Colony that would imperil our relations with friendly Powers, and we were to bear all the consequences. That principle was to be carried all over the world, and
  1958
  the taxpayers at home were to pay every fraction of any sum required to meet the consequences of action taken within the Colony, without the Colony itself being under any responsibility whatever to bear any of the burden! The noble Lord said that the action of Jamaica was taken under an Imperial Statute; but the Governor, writing to Lord Carnarvon, stated that it was taken under a local Statute. The noble Lord was misled by the use of the words "Imperial interests." The interests of the peace of the British Empire were certainly Imperial interests; but the duty of maintaining that peace, by observing the obligations of neutrality, was a local one. Wherever the matter was mentioned in the Blue Books, it was stated that the action was taken under a local Statute. It was, however, suggested that the responsibility rested on us in some degree, because Jamaica was a Crown Colony. Well, it was partly on that ground that the Government recommended the House to pay one-half of these charges. [An hon. MEMBER: It rests on us wholly.] The hon. Member then seemed to hold, because it was a Crown Colony, that the responsibility for the acts of the officers in that Colony was to be borne entirely by the Imperial Government. [An hon. MEMBER: They are appointed from home.] If they rested the responsibility of the Mother Country to pay those charges on the fact that the Governor and other officials of Jamaica were appointed from home, they might as well argue that the whole cost of the government of Jamaica should be borne by England, because there was not a person engaged in the administration of the Colony who did not either directly or indirectly derive his authority from the Home Government. If this case of the Crown Colonies was to be raised at all, it was most unfortunate that it should be raised in this fashion. The duty of the Government at home in regard to Crown Colonies was to select the best persons it could find for discharging the duties to be performed on the spot; and, having done that, the Colony took those gentlemen with all their defects and their merits. The noble Lord dwelt on the pressure put upon the Council; but he (Mr. Courtney) feared that he had confused the official and non-official Members. The latter were free to vote as they

  1959
  pleased; while the former must, like the Members of the Government at home, either vote with the Government or resign. As to the payment of the Governor's expenses, that was approved because it stopped the payment of interest at 6 per cent.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he felt bound to take exception to one remark which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Fnancial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney)—namely, that there was very important Business before the House, and, therefore, his remarks on this subject must be very brief. He could not conceive of a more important matter than the relation of the Country to the Colonies, and he was accordingly entirely at variance with the hon. Gentleman, for there could not be any subject which it was more important to discuss. His hon. Friends were, therefore, justified in bringing forward this Motion and insisting on having it thoroughly discussed. There were two questions involved in this discussion—first, whether the doctrines that the Government followed were right? and, secondly, whether the application of them was right? The doctrine might be right primâ facie, but its application was a totally different matter. It must be remembered that Jamaica not long ago had a Constitution of its own, and after that was taken away for reasons of State—[Mr. COURTNEY: No; surrendered.] He maintained that it was taken away for reasons of State and reduced to the position of a Crown Colony. Under those circumstances, the Government ought to have been very tender in their treatment of the Colony; but, on the contrary, they had replied in this matter in the baldest, crudest, and harshest manner. Moreover, the Statute under which the proceedings were taken was passed under the old Constitution, and, therefore, hardly applied to the existing circumstances. The Government had acted through the advice of the Law Adviser, appointed by the Government of this country; and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) should have thought that, considering the peculiar circumstances of the Colony of Jamaica, whatever the general principles laid down in such cases might be, the proper, the generous, and the right thing to have done would have been to have paid the whole of this money out of the Imperial Treasury, and have
  1960
  accepted the whole of the responsibility. Then, again, after writing to the Government of Jamaica, saying they would pay nothing at all, the Government now came forward and said they would split the difference. He could not conceive a more undignified course to pursue. They should either hold by the principle they laid down in the first instance, throwing the entire responsibility on the Colony and paying nothing at all, or they ought to discharge the entire obligation. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury had compared the matter to the ordinary expenses of the Colony; but there was no analogy whatever between these cases. The Government had taken the worst course they possibly could take by agreeing to pay half the cost, in order to avoid further complications; and the effect of this action of the Government was that the whole of the official Members of the Council had resigned, and a very strong feeling was excited against the Mother Country. The object of the Government ought to be to knit the Colonies to the Mother Country as much as possible; but they had chosen to disregard the inhabitants of Jamaica, and instead of uniting to disunite the Empire.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that, as a supporter of the Government, it was not an agreeable thing to find himself opposed to them; but, on that occasion, he differed entirely from the policy which they had laid down. His personal acquaintance with Jamaica enabled him to judge, better perhaps than any Member of the House, of the feelings of that Colony. For over two centuries Jamaica had enjoyed the privilege of free representative institutions; but in 1866, at the suggestion of Governor Eyre, the House of Assembly, in a moment of panic, gave up its Constitutional rights to the Crown. At that time, however, it asked for a simpler form of Constitutional government; but that request was ignored by the Imperial Government, and Jamaica was placed in the position of a Crown Colony, against the wishes and the protests of the people. The House must not forget that the Island was one of the most ancient of our possessions, for it had received a Charter from Charles II., and had been peopled almost entirely by the English, the Spaniards having for the most part retired from the country soon after its conquest by Cromwell. He quite admitted the general principle that,

  1961
  when a Colony received the benefit of the Imperial connection and protection, it was bound to share in the obligations which that protection necessitated; but this was a case of a Crown Colony, administered directly from Downing Street, called upon to pay for the mistakes of officials in whose appointment it had no voice, and over whom it had no control whatever. A most egregious blunder had been committed by the Attorney General for Jamaica in the matter. It was not a question of £8,000 or so; it involved the far higher principle as to the administration of Crown Colonies generally. It could not, therefore, be regarded as surprising that the inhabitants of Jamaica resented this treatment. They resented it deeply, and certainly never contemplated such usage by this country, when they were persuaded to divest themselves of their long-enjoyed rights of representative government.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that he has a Notice on the Paper upon this subject, and that it is out of Order for him to discuss the subject-matter of that Notice.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON: With all deference to you, Sir, I postponed my Notice, in consequence of an answer which I received from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is mistaken. The Motion still stands upon the Order Book.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON: I shall be very glad, Sir, if you will call my attention to it.
  [Mr. DODDS handed a copy of the Order Book to the hon. and learned Member.]
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he saw that the right hon. Gentleman was correct, and he was glad that he had called his (Mr. Serjeant Simon's) attention to the fact. He gave Notice of the Motion; but he postponed it, and that was the cause of his error. Of course, he would not pursue the matter further. There were questions involved that went beyond the payment of money. Were they going to carry on a system of government in complete antagonism to the feelings of the people of the country? Two of the official Members of the Government had resigned rather than vote for that payment, and we had filled up their places
  1962
  by appointing two subordinates of inferior position, who never would have dreamt of belonging to the Council, on condition that they would vote for the payment. There was no analogy whatever between this transaction and the selection by our Prime Minister of Colleagues who would support his policy. [Interruption.] He appealed to the Liberal Members below the Gangway, as the friends of free institutions, to listen to what he had to say. But there were unofficial Members of the Council not appointed by the Crown.
  MR. SPEAKER: the remarks of the hon. and learned Member are entirely out of Order in discussing the system of government in Jamaica.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he was only about to refer to a fact which was on record in the Blue Books, that the unofficial Members of the Council all resigned their seats rather than Vote for this payment. [Cries of "Order!" and"Name!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: the hon. and learned Gentleman is still discussing the question of the system of government in Jamaica, in reference to which he has placed a Notice upon the Paper. His observations, therefore, are quite out of Order.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, and he was only sorry that he had unintentionally trespassed upon the Rules of the House. He had no desire to do so, and, after the ruling just given by Mr. Speaker, he would say no more upon the subject, except that there was a strong feeling entertained on the part of the people of Jamaica in reference to the payment of this money. He therefore hoped the Government would take into consideration the circumstances of the case, and would not press the Vote.
  MR. SPEAKER: the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to find it impossible to avoid the question of the Crown government of Jamaica, and I really must call upon him to desist.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not sure whether he understood rightly one of the closing sentences of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon), or whether if he understood it rightly, it expressed his hon. and learned Friend's real meaning. His hon. and learned Friend fervently urged Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Vote which they intended to ask the House of Com-

  1963
  mons to concur in; hut the effect of withdrawing that Vote would be to leave the Colony of Jamaica the whole burden, whereas the Government proposed that it should be relieved as far, at least, as the moiety of the sum was concerned, if the Vote were agreed to. The opinion that the Vote should be withdrawn could not be reconciled with other parts of his speech. He would not enter upon a discussion of the very glowing eulogy which his hon. and learned Friend had bestowed upon the Colony of Jamaica in its past history, as a notable and praiseworthy example of free institutions and of the spirit of liberty, because it would be unwise and likewise ungenerous, at a period when the Colony had been deprived of its legislative institutions, that any criticism should be opened upon the principle of those institutions when they were in action. But of one thing he must remind his hon. and learned Friend. He said that an influence from Downing Street deprived the Colony of those institutions; and that while it was the intention of the Legislature that, in surrendering its own powers, some other and simpler form of popular government should be substituted, the will of the Executive Government at home defeated that purpose, and caused the existence of the present state of things. Now his hon. and learned Friend was in material error in his reference to what took place. He (Mr. Gladstone) was a Member of the Cabinet at the time; and he most deeply and profoundly regretted the imperative necessity under which they lay, after the painful and horrible circumstances of the rebellion then existing in Jamaica, of suspending the legislative or representative institution in that Island. But the desire and proposal of the Government were not what his hon. and learned Friend supposed. They felt so much the gravity of the proposal they were making, and the anomalous character of any suggestion to withdraw representative institutions where they had once been given, that they proposed to Parliament that the suspension should take place for a very limited period of time. He would not trust his memory absolutely as to the terms of years; but he thought the proposal was for a suspension of three years. At any rate, he was quite certain of this—that the proposal was for a short term of years in order that the attention of Parliament
  1964
  might then be again called to the subject. It was the unanimous feeling of that House—of every portion of the House—that compelled the Government to exchange this proposal into a permanent suspension of those institutions, and to remove the limit of time which they had introduced into the Act. He did not deny that among the White population of Jamaica a portion—and perhaps a considerable portion—had shown a great deal of dissatisfaction, in consequence of the course that had been pursued in this matter by Her Majesty's Government, and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in admitting that this was a question of very great importance. It was also, in his opinion, a question of very great simplicity; and, notwithstanding the vigour with which the right hon. Gentleman delivered himself against the offence of brevity in the House, and the indignation which he had bestowed so freely on the offences of his (Mr. Gladstone's) hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) in that respect, he should endeavour to pursue the course recommended by his hon. Friend, though under some fear of the displeasure which might be drawn upon him from another quarter. Now, the contention of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) was really this—that because Jamaica was a Crown Colony, or was in the condition of a Crown Colony, the charge ought to have been borne entirely by the people of the United Kingdom. Now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had made an accusation against the Government, which was the very last that he (Mr. Gladstone) should have expected to hear; and, in fact, he was bound to admit that the right hon. Gentleman effectually contradicted it himself in the later portions of his speech. For, in the earlier portions of his speech, he said the head and front of the offence of the Government was that they had applied a principle, to quote his own words, in the baldest, crudest, and harshest manner possible; while, in the later portions of his speech, he proceeded to censure them for having compromised the principle upon which they stood by the arrangement they had adopted of charging only one-half of the charge on the Colony. The question whether a compromise was

  1965
  just or judicious in this matter might be a very serious question. He thought it was a very disputable one; but, at the same time, it was a pretty effectual answer to those who contended that the principle had been applied in the "baldest, crudest, and harshest manner possible." It had been applied, however, in a manner in which the offence was—if it was an offence at all—that there had been an express desire to spare the people of the Colony, even in refusing to place upon the shoulders of the people of that country a burden which, in the opinion of the Government, did not belong to them. The case had been felt to be one of very considerable difficulty. He perfectly understood that there might be differences of opinion about it; but he must confess for his own part that he was more inclined to believe that, if there had been an error at all, it had been in asking the people of England to bear one-half of the charge. In point of fact, more than one-half would be borne by the people of this country, according to the proposal of the Government, because the legal expenses of the appeal in this country had been borne out of the Consolidated Fund. He was quite ready to admit, therefore, that there might be force in the argument of those who said that the Government had no right to impose this charge on the people of the United Kingdom, and who had said that, if the Government had stood upon their principle, and had required the whole charge to be borne by Jamaica, where the acts occurred that brought about the charge, the dissatisfaction in the Colony would not have been greater than it was at this moment. He would not enter into that point; the Government had taken their course, and were bound to abide by it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and those who supported him should consider what was involved in their contention; and in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman, he affirmed that the argument of his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury was strictly correct, and that they could not distinguish in principle between this charge and the other legitimate expenses of government in Jamaica. But the miscarriages of a Government were among the legitimate expenses of a Government, if they were miscarriages of such a nature as were ordinarily incidental to
  1966
  it—that was to say, where everyone acted in good faith, and where there was neither corruption nor incompetency, but only that kind of error in the interpretation of law which would insinuate itself here and there in the proceedings even of the best and the ablest men. Charges arising out of such a case must be considered as among the legitimate exigencies of government. Now, he wanted to know why the people of England should bear a charge for the people of Jamaica because it was a Crown Colony? Hon. Gentlemen opposite replied because the people of Jamaica had no control in the matter, and because they did not appoint the Attorney General. Did they appoint the Governor? Did they appoint any one who held office in the Colony? Had they any control over any act of the Governor? None whatever. They were entirely deprived of Constitutional privileges. Then, if they said this charge ought not to be borne by them on that account, then every charge ought not to be borne by them on the same reasoning—or, in other words, because Jamaica was a Crown Colony, therefore the taxpayers of this country ought to bear the whole charge of the administration of the Island. Now, that was a proposition which, in his opinion, was totally untenable. If the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury said the time had now come when we ought to think of restoring representative institutions in Jamaica, he (Mr. Gladstone) could only say that when the hon. and learned Member made his argument upon that subject, he would find in him (Mr. Gladstone) a willing hearer, and one with every predisposition to adopt his conclusions. But, for the time, they must assume that Parliament was right in saying that, for the benefit of Jamaica itself, it was necessary that these representative institutions should be suspended. If they were rightly suspended, which he must assume to be the case, then the necessary expenses of governing that Colony were still a legitimate charge upon the Colony itself. And although it was very well to come there and talk of pursuing a generous and a high-minded course, what did all that come to? It did not mean making any sacrifice on their own behalf. It did not mean a Parliamentary subscription, or that Members should be invited to

  1967
  subscribe to reduce the charge against the Colony. No; it simply meant that they would make this addition to the vast expenditure of the United Kingdom and lay the burden on the shoulders of their own constituents. Now, that was simply their contention. Let it be judged of by the country and by that House. That contention consisted of these two points—that the argument adverse to the course they had taken of imposing a certain charge on the Colony involved nothing less than the proposition that the people of England were liable for the expenses of the government of Jamaica. That was a proposition which the Government could not admit, because, if they did admit it, they must extend it to every Crown Colony in the Empire, and if they did adopt it, they should be guilty, in their opinion, alike of an absurdity and an injustice.
  MR. SALTsaid, he wished to say that he reserved to himself the right, if any proper occasion arose at any future time, to raise this important question again. In some respects, he believed the Government might have acted rightly; but, after all, this was neither a question for an attack on, nor a defence of, the Government, but one for the House and the country. It was a question of great Imperial policy, which ought to be considered solely in the direction of attaining that which was best, not for the Government or the Opposition, but for the country at large.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1882–3).
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1882–3).

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (1.) Question again proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act lo and 16 Vic. c. 83."
    Whereupon Question again proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray
    1968
    the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    MR. MONKsaid, he rose with considerable reluctance to trespass for a few moments on the attention of the Committee. There was no one more regular than he was in attendance upon Committee of Supply, and he was always anxious to take part in the discussion of the Estimates. But when he and his Friends sitting below the Gangway on that side of the House found hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House taking every occasion to prolong discussion upon the Estimates, and making no secret that their object in discussing each separate item referring to Ireland was not so much to criticize the Estimates as to cast obloquy upon Her Majesty's Government, and especially upon his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, then he confessed that they felt considerable difficulty in taking their proper part in the discussion of the Estimates. At the same time, he thought it was only fair towards the Government that they who had hitherto been silent in discussing the Estimates should warn the Government in a friendly manner that there was a considerable feeling of discontent and dismay in the country at the large increase of the Estimates year after year since the present Government came into Office. Perhaps it would not be out of place for him to allude to the coming Estimates, for he feared very much that they would find there was also an increase for the year 1883–4. He was afraid that the Government would find, when the next General Election took place, that one of the greatest dangers they would have to contend against would be the cry that they had not observed economy with regard to the expenditure in the different Services of the country. In reference to the Vote which was now before the Committee, there was no doubt that a Supplementary Vote of £40,000 for the cost of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland did require more explanation than had been given to the House the other day by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. He

    1969
    thought that the House ought to have laid before it some Paper or explanation as to whom the enormous additional sum of £15,000 in the shape of fees to counsel had been given. He believed that in Ireland, as well as in England, there was a large legal staff which was regularly provided for in the Estimates, and he should like to know to whom these fees went? It was stated, he thought by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that perhaps there might have been an additional 100 cases; but in the event of there having been 100 additional cases for which this additional £15,000 was charged, it would appear that a fee of £150 had been paid in each case to the legal gentlemen employed. "What he wanted to know was whether these fees went to the present staff? At all events, he thought they ought to have some explanation of the matter, because they all knew there was always a tendency of fees to counsel increasing to an enormous extent. He had not risen with any desire to prolong the discussion; but he thought that the Committee was entitled, and especially that the Liberal Members who sat below the Gangway were entitled, to some explanation of the large increase which appeared in the Supplementary Estimates. He had therefore risen to call attention to this matter, and he could assure the Government he did so in the most friendly spirit towards them, because he believed that if they did not check this enormously increasing expenditure, they would have to answer for it before the country before very long.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, there was one item in the Estimate in regard to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had omitted to give the Committee any information. He referred to the item of £15,000 in regard to "Prosecutors, &c." He should like to know what "Prosecutors," and especially "&c," meant? It would be interesting, he thought, to know what that amount included, and whether any portion of the remuneration went to informers and Crown witnesses; and the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman might perhaps throw some light on very important matters, especially the manner in which the services of these persons had been made available in some of the recent prosecutions in Ireland. He invited the
    1970
    attention of the Committee also to the description of evidence that had been resorted to in reference to prosecutions such as those of Mr. Harrington, Mr. Davitt, and Mr. Healy. It was bad enough for a man to have to defend his words in a Criminal Court; but in Ireland a man had sometimes to defend himself against words that belonged not to him but to some police reporter. He thought there was nothing that indicated better the odious character of the system of espionage that was practised against public speakers in Ireland than the fact that, although he believed no Press man had ever been injured in Ireland in the discharge of his duty except by the police, no professional shorthand writer could be got for love or money to undertake this duty. The duty was discharged by policemen who had dabbled a little in Pitman's shorthand. They managed to take down about every third word a man uttered, and then they strung them together with words the man never used at all. The policeman in Mr. Healy's case swore to the report in The Freeman's Journal being a full and exhaustive report of all that the hon. Member said in his speech; but Mr. Healy exhibited in Court a copy of The Leinster Leader, containing a really full report of his speech, which covered three columns in that paper as contrasted with one column and a half of The Freeman's Journal. In Mr. Harrington's case, the police reporter broke down so calamitously that the County Court Judge who confirmed the sentence was actually obliged to base his decision not upon the evidence for the Crown, but upon the evidence of a gentleman who was called for the defence, and who proved that the report of the police reporter was a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end. That was the sort of fair play that the political opponents of the Government received in Ireland just now—a sort of fair play from which he had to some extent suffered himself. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite made some strong references to him (Mr. O'Brien) last night, he could not, of course, on the spur of the moment answer for everything that might have appeared in the newspaper with which he was connected; but that day he had had an opportunity of glancing through a file of the paper, and if the House would bear with him for a moment—although it might be a

    1971
    little irrelevant—he thought he should be able to show, confining himself to mere matters of fact, that the right hon. Gentleman had not been quite as just to him as he expected others to be towards himself. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he (Mr. O'Brien) had held up to execration four persons, three of whom were afterwards killed or murderously assaulted. The inference was one which he disdained to notice further. As to Mr. Burke, the first of the gentlemen mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, as far as he could recollect, and as far as he had been able to search through the files of United Ireland—and, of course, he had not been able to do so very exhaustively—his name was never mentioned in United Ireland until after his death; nor was there the most remote personal allusion to him, unless the paragraph about "rats in the Castle cellars" might be supposed to point to him in particular. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] He heard some murmurs in reference to that article. It had been admitted in that House by the late, and, indeed, he believed by the present, Attorney General for Ireland, that that paragraph was simply a rough comment upon a declaration made in that House by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that "until the Irish Government was re-organized"—he thought he was quoting almost the exact words of the right hon. Gentleman—"there could be no hope of permanent tranquillity in Ireland."
    MR. TREVELYAN: I must interrupt the hon. Member to say that, in the remarks I made in my speech a week ago, I especially omitted that passage.
    Mr. GLADSTONE: If the hon. Gentleman refers to me, will he kindly give me the means of verifying what he means, because I do not admit the words he has quoted?
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, that at that moment he had not time to lay his hands on the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman. He was quoting from a report of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to a question of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy); but he would say nothing further in reference to Mr. Burke. As to the reference to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), he fought him fairly—more fairly than the right hon. Gentleman
    1972
    had fought him. He (Mr. O'Brien) had never struck a foul blow at any man. As to Mr. Field, the only allusion that was ever made to him in United Ireland was in one paragraph, not so much blaming Mr. Field as asking what would have been thought of a Catholic juror who handed down from the jury-box a note to Mr. Michael Davitt, instead of a Protestant juror handing down a note to Mr. Norris Goddard? If that was ferocity, he was at a loss for a term to characterize the frame of mind of the right hon. Gentleman last night. As to the right hon. Gentleman himself, he thought that in a less hasty moment the right hon. Gentleman would admit that any allusion that was ever made to him was a not unkindly one, until, in his speech at Hawick, he threw in his lot once for all with the enemies of Ireland, and until he held up newspapers and speeches of persons who, perhaps, had feelings as well as he had, to execration as part of the machinery of murder—as moral murderers. He was willing to let his countrymen judge, and they were the only judges, as to the description of speaking or writing which came nearest the description of moral murder. So far from his having any personal animosity to the right hon. Gentleman, he was amazed that such an idea should have entered the right hon. Gentleman's head. He had never seen the right hon. Gentleman, to his knowledge, until he saw him a fortnight ago in that House, and the only feeling that he entertained towards him was admiration for him as a literary man, and a sincere hope that he would bring into practice, as a Minister, the principles of freedom that he had so eloquently defended in his books. He was obliged to the House for having permitted him to make this statement. He had only to add that, in the discharge of what he deemed to be his duty to those who sent him there, he should never be irritated into saying—he hoped consciously, at all events—anything unjust to any man; nor would he be intimidated from saying whatever the interests of Ireland, which with him were supreme interests, demanded, not against an individual, for he had no grudge against particular men, but against the system which individuals from time to time administered in Ireland. He turned from that subject now to the case of Mr. Davitt

    1973
    and Mr. Healy. Those gentlemen, he believed it was admitted, had committed no offence that could be brought within the comprehensive scope of the Crimes Act, which was a sort of omnibus Act of all the crimes in the calendar. They had done nothing that any man more modern or more respectable than the Judges of Charles I.'s time would ever have ventured to pronounce an offence. They were punished, not because of anything they said or did themselves, but because, although they had not even heard of it, Policeman Cox was shot in Abbey Street, Dublin, the night before their speeches were delivered in Carlow and Navan, and also because Mr. Field was stabbed in Dublin a few nights after. The Chief Secretary himself—he happened to have that reference—immediately after these occurrences, admitted that the outrages in Dublin were not of an agrarian character. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a Question put to him, said—
    "I must ask hon. Members to consider that it is important to hear in mind a distinction between the general state of Ireland and the special question of violent organized crime in Dublin."
    It was evident, then, that the crimes in Dublin had nothing to do with the speeches in the country, either at Carlow or Navan, and those places ought to have been quite as safe places for making a strongly-worded speech as Leeds or Woodstock. But the Castle officials, with their usual talent for making bad worse, induced the Government to commit in this case the very blunder they committed after the Phoenix Park assassinations. Instead of encouraging people to speak boldly and openly, and as of right to speak what was in their minds, they suppressed open speaking. They confounded the criminal and the politician in the same category, and they very naturally confounded the sympathies of the people as well. Mr. Davitt and Mr. Healy were punished because of crimes with which nobody dared to accuse them of sympathy, as the Irish people were punished because of the assassination of Lord Frederick Cavendish, which they deplored quite as heartily as the English people. This policy might be wise and cunning enough from the point of view of the Castle officials, for it was part of their purpose to keep the two countries at cross purposes and at daggers drawn, for fear it should ever
    1974
    occur to the people of England to try how the people of Ireland would get on at ruling themselves. He did not know whether the eyes of the people of England would ever be opened to the effect of this. People would say to themselves that Mr. Davitt, in his speech at Navan, called attention with desperate emphasis to the distress in Ireland; and a few days afterwards it happened that there was a paragraph in the Queen's Speech which suggested the propriety of considering that distress. Now that Mr. Davitt was in prison, now that all agitation was suppressed, now that the country was supposed to be quiet and tame, and kissing the rod, the only word the Government had for the starving peasants of Ireland was that, for the comfort of British taxpayers, it was necessary to ship them out of the country, no matter when, or how, or where; and that the best plan to get them away was to starve them out. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members might murmur, but he was telling them what would be thought in Ireland, and what he thought. Then, as to Mr. Healy. The farmers of Ulster, who had reason to know something of Mr. Healy, what did the House think would be their reflections, when they said to themselves—"Mr. Healy's speech at St. Mullins was a bold exposure of the defects of the Land Act—defects which these same Northerners pointed out in their conference at Belfast the other day; defects which one of their own Commissioners showed the Government a short time ago, and which would perhaps remain and unsettle the whole question of rent in Ireland if the present mode of fixing it was not amended. Now that Mr. Healy was chained up, where was the proposed amendment of the Land Act, and who was most likely to wring an amendment from the Government? Was it the mild-spoken Gentlemen who spoke in whispers from the Back Benches of the Government, or was it the outspoken author of the Healy Clause, whom the Government thought it politic or right to detain in Richmond Prison during the Session?" Possibly the aberration of the farmers of Ulster would be a rather dear price to pay for the detention of Mr. Healy. Then he (Mr. O'Brien) said that in this, as in every other act of Lord Spencer's Administration—in these prosecutions, for which they were now asked to pay

    1975
    £40,000, they were rejoicing and gratifying those who lived and flourished on the enmity which existed between this country and Ireland, and were laying up for themselves among the people of Ireland a store of bitterness and resentment, the consequences of which he did not care to anticipate. At all events, he believed that it was the duty of the Irish Members, by every means in their power, to oppose this Vote, and all other Votes of money which they believed were spent in fomenting discontent in Ireland and in thwarting the aspirations of the Irish people.
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the hon. Gentleman has made an explanation, and it is upon that part of his speech that I rise to comment. I propose to make a counter explanation in answer to the hon. Member; and I trust, fox the sake of the public time, that no one will think it worth while to carry on that part of the controversy. The statement made by me last night was that the editor of United Ireland had been reckless in not observing the effect of certain articles—in not discontinuing those articles. The hon. Gentleman has challenged me to produce the substance of those articles. I will produce them in the shape of a few short passages.
    MR. O'BRIEN: What I have referred to to-night was the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman last night, that I had held up to execration, and put their lives in danger, four persons in Ireland.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I have not the materials, I admit at once, that will enable me to go into the attacks of United Ireland upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). All I can say is, that when my right hon. Friend was being exposed to the hourly danger of assassination, leaders were constantly appearing in United Ireland taunting him with gross cowardice for surrounding himself with policemen, and sitting armed in his study. That formed a particular class of article which this paper published, and the passages themselves are so numerous that if I were asked to supply the House with the whole of them it would require a copious Blue Book to contain them. I now pass on to the case of Mr. Burke. I did not refer to the celebrated passage about "Castle rats." The first passage I referred to
    1976
    was one which began with "Down with the Bastiles." Then came a most objectionable article in United Ireland, issued on the 4th of May, but bearing the date of May the 6th, under the heading "Disestablishing the Castle," which contained this passage—
    "But the money it spends, and the favours it distributes, and the foul toads who use it as a cistern to knot and gender in, are just the things which make the harmless travesty of Viceroyalty an offence and scorn in the eyes of Irishmen. The money is the wages which the tribe of Castle shopkeepers take for smearing over their shop fronts and their souls with announcements of their shame."
    And, again, the article went on to say—
    "The toads are the gang of alien officials who nestle in the snuggeries of the Castle like so many asps in the bosom of the country. Down with the whole bundle of rottenness and imposture."
    That is a specimen from an article which preceded the death of Mr. Burke; and my statement was that if I had been the writer of that article I should have thought twice before I wrote an article in the same style against any other public man who, at that moment, was the mark of popular depreciation in Ireland. Now, the next person to whom I referred on the occasion was Judge Lawson. Here are some of the passages referring to Judge Lawson—
    "Silence and veneration is demanded by the religion of English rule, and we bow before its sacred symbol—the gallows. Not often, even in the bloodstained records of Ireland, has there been a tragedy more pitiful, more horrible, than that of which Francey Hynes was the victim…A jury presided over by a Judge who from the commencement of the trial to its close did not even attempt to conceal his indecent longing for a conviction. It was not enough that his charge should be a speech for the prosecution. By nod and smile throughout the trial he emphasized each scrap of evidence that seemed to tell against the prisoner: by shrugs and deprecatory gestures he made light of the defence. Such things are good for a Judge to do; they are dangerous for a journalist to mention—a journalist who has but the one poor excuse of truth. Need we speak of the 'terrible' exposure that followed? Judge Lawson, in a tempest of virtuous indignation, decided that jury-packing and jury orgies were subjects too sacred for public comment."
    And then, again—
    "The fabrication of the jury, the indecencies which preceded the verdict, and the even grosser judicial indecency which succeeded it, wrought up public indignation against the whole iniquitous proceedings to an unparalleled pitch. The foulness of the trial, too, set people

    1977
    examining the evidence, the vital point of which was the disconnected ejaculations of an almost speechless man in the throes of death. The result was a perfect agony of belief that a boy in the blossom of youth was being done to death, not only by foul means, but in utter innocence."
    And after that sort of writing, calculated in the highest degree to excite an imaginative people, comes this—
    "So Marwood got his orders, and on Monday morning executed them—with more credit and humanity than functionaries higher up in the hierarchy of Government—by the rope. The poor youth who, at 23, was called out to die for Judge Lawson's dyspepsia and his jurors' headaches, died firmly and tranquilly."
    From first to last there was set forth an absolutely unfounded charge against the jury. The proof that this charge is unfounded I take to be this. When it was the duty of the Irish Government to examine into the charge, they took affidavits from all the jurors, and these affidavits were of a nature, as compared with the affidavits on the other side, to satisfy them. But, having come to that point, it was necessary to go a step further, and they went to the agents of the High Sheriff—the Under Sheriff, the bailiffs, and constables, who represented him—in other word, to the High Sheriff himself—who had to take charge of the jury, and see that they did their duty; and all of these made affidavits that the jury were in no sense under the influence of liquor, and that they did not speak to anyone concerning the trial. That evidence, as I say, comes as far as possible from the High Sheriff himself. With regard to Judge Lawson, I have read enough to show that he was attacked with what I called "ferocity," and we know what happened to Judge Lawson. I have here likewise some remarks about the jury, and will read one from United Ireland of the 7th of October last—
    "The jury was as shamefully concocted, its partizanship was indecent, and the evidence was evidence upon which an English jury would not hang a dog."
    Now, what was the result of all this? There were the jurors in the cases of Walsh and Francey Hynes, some 30 gentlemen walking about the streets of Dublin, not one of whom was in the smallest danger from the assassins who were in the city. But what happened? One of these gentlemen, I say, was specially pointed out by name—I do not
    1978
    say pointed out to the assassins. In an article of the 7th of October, there were certain very strong remarks made about a Mr. Norris Goddard, who is connected with the Emergency Association. The article said—
    "Once the word is passed to 'convict murderers,' a Metropolitan, Protestant, and loyal jury, under the eye of Mr. Norris Goddard, may be trusted to know a murderer when he sees him, without splitting hairs about particulars.…What is even more aggravating than a patent murder machine as a system of government is the Pharisaism which shelters the achievements of Mr. Goddard's pals under the venerable name of tithe by jury (sic,) and decries as a foe to public justice whoever cries out on the imposture."
    In the same paper, on the same date, there also appeared this paragraph—
    "The incident of Mr. Field passing an affectionate billet-doux from the jury-box to Mr. Norris Goddard may be quite as innocent as Mr. Pickwick's 'Chops-and-tomato-sauce' communication to Mrs. Bardell; it only shows that, as a qualification for a Green Street juror, billing and cooing terms with a political partisan like Mr. Goddard is a different thing from the remotest suspicion of relations with a political partizan—say, Mr. Davitt. Why not, indeed, flirt with the chief organizer of the landlord faction in open Court, when one of his subordinate officials was thought good enough to take service on a life-and-death jury before?"
    Well, Sir, in my opinion, it is extremely likely that this passage pointed out Mr. Field. I do not say that it was intended to point out Mr. Field to the assassins; but I do say that the editor of a newspaper which contained articles so very strongly written against the Castle officials, and articles of that peculiar class which it could do no one any good to read, for they are made up of denunciations and not arguments, and which preceded the murder of Mr. Burke, ought to have scrupled before he allowed to appear in that paper articles of the same character against Judge Lawson. And I say he likewise ought to have scrupled to admit articles against Mr. Field; and, further—although I may be personally prejudiced in the matter—I must say I think he ought to have scrupled to admit into his paper articles written against myself. These articles, which I will take this opportunity of referring to just for one moment, appeared directly after my speech at Hawick. There were three leading articles, the second of which, in stating that political crime

    1979
    stood on quite another footing to that of other crime, contained these words—
    "Again, it is notorious that the English system invites crime. The English Government has no business here."
    And, farther on—
    "That is crime for the present in Irishmen which will be quite other when Ireland is mistress of her own fortunes."
    In the next week's paper there comes this passage, which, I think, may be the precursor of many others of the same character which will probably follow. The "Letter from the House of Commons" begins thus—
    "Mr. Trevelyan's speech on the Distress Question last night will probably have made him the most hated man in Ireland. Among Irish Members Mr. Forster begins to appear a man of sense and feeling in comparison. The Castle poison has turned the blood in the Chief Secretary's veins to gall. His speech last night was a Local Government Board Circular in its most insolent style, translated into an oration of studied callousness and bitterness."
    And then it went on to say—
    "Except on the Irish Tory Benches, where Mr. Trevelyan is now the darling of the hour, his speech was received with nothing short of horror."
    To say that my speech was received with horror by the Liberal Party is to make a statement the object of which I cannot even conceive. I am sorry to have had to refer again to this subject, in consequence of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. O'Brien). I do not think any hon. Gentleman desires to hear any more of it; but I am really anxious to show the House and the country on what sort of pabulum the minds of the unfortunate readers of this class of papers are nourished, and, at the same time, I wish to express my deepest sense of the favourable manner in which I have been treated by every other Member in the House, as distinguished from the treatment I have had outside the House from the Editor of United Ireland.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he need not inform the Committee that it was not his intention to trouble them with extracts from articles in the English Press in reference to Leaders of the Irish Party, which would undoubtedly parallel, without the justification, the extracts which had just been read from one of the organs of Irish opinion published in Ireland. He would, however, remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Se-
    1980
    cretary of the fact, which was probably present to his consciousness, but which he strangely omitted in his explanation, that it did not remain with the Editor of United Ireland to single out the action of a certain juror and his relations with a notorious agent of the prosecution against the Irish people. The incident of the friendly exchange of confidence between the juror and Mr. Norris Goddard was related in every daily journal in Dublin, and for days and days before any notice was taken of it in the columns of United Ireland, and it was then already the subject of common conversation and common reprobation from one end of Ireland to the other. That fact was just as well known to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, if he knew anything about affairs in Ireland, as it was to any Member of the Irish Party. He must also beg to correct an impression which was apparently in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman as to the view taken of his recent speech. He had quoted from private letters from the most peaceable, most tranquil, and the most non-political pastors in Ireland, with reference to the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He received last night from a rev. gentleman, whom he never knew to take any part in politics before, a letter in which the name of the Chief Secretary was coupled with the name of a certain Mr. Cromwell, with whom Ireland was too unfortunately familiar. Though he must hold, in common with the Irish Party, the Chief Secretary fully responsible for his speeches and his acts, and the consequences of his policy, he could not close his eyes to one fact, that the present Chief Secretary held a very different position from that held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). He was was aware—and he wished to give the right hon. Gentleman all the benefit of the extenuating circumstance—he was aware the present Chief Secretary was excluded from the Cabinet; he was aware that he was, so to speak, only the instrument, and not actually a Colleague and co-partner, of those who had formed the policy that was now torturing Ireland. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was a Cabinet Minister, and took part in the formation of the policy he carried out.

    1981
    He (Mr. O'Donnell) certainly thought that some share of that obloquy which had fallen not undeservedly upon the Chief Secretary should be borne by the responsible Heads of Her Majesty's Administration who shrank from exposing in the House of Commons to the criticism of the Irish Members the real authors of the Irish policy. Nothing could be more cowardly, nothing less in keeping with Constitutional policy, than that the Government should keep back from their responsible position in the House the men who were carrying out the Government's Irish policy. Earl Spencer was sheltered behind the immunities of the House of Lords, while the Chief Secretary was put forward to act as Envoy of the Cabinet. As the right hon. Gentleman had taken certain functions upon himself he must bear the responsibilities of his choice. They were indisposed to make the only Member of the Irish Government of Ireland who was present—the Chief Secretary'—responsible for all the acts of his Colleagues; still, as he had previously said, he could not condemn too strongly the cowardly and miserable policy which withdrew from the criticisms of the Irish Members the real agents and active authors of the detestable policy of provocation to crime which was now being pursued by Her Majesty's Government in Ireland.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he desired to ask two questions. [Murmurs.] He was sorry hon. Gentlemen opposite could not contribute to the debate anything but inarticulate sounds. After having heard the deliberate quotations of the right hon. Gentleman to prove the charges, the dreadful charges—
    SIR JOSEPH PEASE,rising to Order, asked if the right hon. Gentleman's remarks had anything to do with the Estimates?
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he was simply referring to the quotations which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made to warrant the dreadful charges which the right hon. Gentleman had made against the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). He (Mr. Dawson) contended that the remarks were such as would appear in any English journals under similar circumstances, and would receive no condemnation from the British public, much less form the ground for such
    1982
    terrible charges as those the right hon. Gentleman had brought against the hon. Member for Mallow. [Murmurs.] He wished the hon. Gentlemen who murmured and indulged in inarticulate sounds would rise in their places, and show the cause of the faith that was in them. He challenged the Prime Minister, notwithstanding his powerful expression, to show sufficient reason why the hon. Member for Mallow should be convicted of inciting to murder. He (Mr. Dawson) did not want to say anything about the verdicts that were found in most of the agrarian murder cases in Ireland; but he did desire to say that in England it would have been utterly impossible, no matter how clear the guilt of the prisoner was, to get a verdict in such a case as Hynes's, if the conduct of the jury had been the same. The evening before the conviction, the jury in Hynes's case was given in charge of a sub-officer whom the Judge accepted in place of the High Sheriff. At the hotel the jury played billiards, smoked, and drank in the smoking-room; they moved about the corridors riotously, and some of them walked into the room in which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Brien) happened to be sleeping. They might have walked into a dozen rooms, and had conversed with hundreds of people, for aught the Committee knew. He would be borne out by his legal Friends from Dublin, that recently in Tipperary, whilst the learned Judge had retired, the jury left the box for refreshments, but did not leave the precincts of the Court. The Judge, upon his return into Court, held that the jury by that act of dispersion had themselves abandoned the commission intrusted to them, and he discharged them, and swore a new jury. Apart from the question of the guilt of Hynes, he (Mr. Dawson) maintained that in consequence of their proceedings the night previous to the conviction, the jury found an illegal verdict. Hynes might have been guilty, but, according to law, he was illegally convicted.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONasked the Attorney General for Ireland whether there was any check upon the employment of counsel in Ireland, or upon the fees they received? In England there was an officer appointed by the Treasury to tax the fees; £29,300 appeared to English eyes an enormous sum to be paid in fees, and he was sure the Committee

    1983
    would be gratified to hear that some check was kept upon them in Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Air. PORTER)said, he was glad the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thompson) had given him the opportunity of saying now what he should have said at a later period, in reference to the question of counsel's fees. There was, he thought, some misconception as to what occurred last night, when the question was raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not say last night that the £15,000, which was asked for in the present Vote, under the head of "Counsel's Fees," was asked for exclusively in reference to cases which had come into Court in consequence of the passing of the Crimes Act. He said if the Crimes Act had not been passed, the original Estimate would have been inadequate for the demands of the year. But he pointed out that the Crimes Act had been the cause of a very considerable part of the legal expenses of the year. That was a matter which must be perfectly obvious, when the Committee remembered that there had been, up to the present time, more than 20 exceedingly important murder cases, tried under the Crimes Act, tried in a venue different from that in which they would otherwise have been tried, and tried, under circumstances involving the greatest difficulty, complexity of evidence, and demanding the assistance of the ablest counsel whom the Crown could get. Those cases were quite exceptional, both in their circumstances and in the expense attending upon them. It would be borne in mind that in the year 1881–2 the expenses which were actually incurred under the head of Fees to Counsel were £20,500. The Government now asked for a Vote of £29,000 for the same purpose; that was an increase not of £15,000 but of £9,000. The whole of the increase was not for fees in criminal cases; £2,000 of it was for fees in civil actions, which were brought against the Government and which had to be defended. As to the keeping of a check upon counsel's fees, and the mode in which prosecutions wore conducted, he desired the Committee to understand the matter thoroughly. There were in each county two regular standing counsel, who were instructed by the Crown in every ease. The fees of these counsel
    1984
    were paid to them by the Crown Solicitor, under the supervision of the Attorney General, and also under the check of the supervision of the Treasury. The fees were fixed on an ordinary scale. They were not large, because the average fees for all the counsel engaged in the Assize Courts were 11 guineas in each case. If two counsel were employed in one case, that might seem a considerable amount; but it was not exceedingly startling. There were cases, of course, in which special fees were paid. Those special fees had to be given in particular cases, cases of great difficulty, requiring more than ordinary attention on the part of counsel. Special arrangements were in every case made upon the official responsibility of the Attorney General. The Attorney General for the time being had to give his sanction before any special fee could be paid; and before they gave their assent the Treasury looked, with great care, into the particulars of the case, to ascertain whether they warranted foes to counsel of an exceptional character. He could assure the Committee that there had been on the part of his Predecessor (Mr. W. M.Johnson), and there was, on his own part, the most close inspection of the fees and an anxious desire that there should be observed the strictest economy in the matter. It would, he was sure, be considered very poor and paltry economy, if every care were not taken to secure competent efficiency and to obtain the services of the most competent counsel the Government could command. He was not able to give, with any correctness, the number of the cases heard in Ireland in which counsel appeared. Many cases had not been sent for trial; but he believed he was correct in saying that about 4,000 or 5,000 cases were sent for trial every year, of which about two-thirds went to the Sessions, and about one-third to the Assizes. Those cases were conducted in the way he had described. He endeavoured to show that he and the Treasury had not been able to decide upon a more economical arrangement consistant with efficiency than the present.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had made out a case against himself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated last night

    1985
    that less than 100 cases had come under the Crimes Act, and he had not now denied it. He had also said that £13,000 instead of £15,000 was alone spent on the prosecutions under the Crimes Act. He had not risen in sup-port of the views of hon. Gentlemen on the Irish Benches opposite, but rose strictly from an economical point of view. They ought to know how much of this money had been spent for prosecutions under the Crimes Act, in order that they might arrive at something definite as to the amount of money spent in each case. If they took £10,000, and there were less than 100 cases, that would give something like £100 in each case. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made his case really worse, for there were £15,000 for prosecutors. As he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, those prosecutors were, in point of fact, barristers who were employed by the Government.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. POSTER)said, he had never made any statement to that effect. The expenses of witnesses bound over to prosecute were formerly defrayed by the Grand Juries from the counties; but now they were payable by the State, and these were what appeared in the accounts as "Prosecutors."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there were also £15,000 set down for the prosecuting witnesses, and an item of £10,000 for general law expenses. He did not understand what those were, but he took the figures for fees at £10,000; and even if he put the number at 80 that would mean £125 in each case for counsel. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that a great many of these cases were simply cases in which only 11 guineas were given to counsel. If that wore so, the fees upon the 20 cases of murder must have been something perfectly portentous; and it was upon that ground mainly that he agreed with a great deal of what hon. Gentlemen opposite had said as to the economical aspect of the question.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he desired to ask the Attorney General for Ireland one or two questions with regard to the amount paid to counsel. He wished to know how much the trial of, say Francis Hynes, cost the Crown in the shape of fees to the prosecuting counsel, for solicitors and Crown prosecutors? Could the
    1986
    right hon. and learned Gentleman give any detailed information regarding any one of the trials—the trial, for instance, of the two Walshes, who were sentenced to death, and one of whom was executed, while the other was sent to penal servitude for life? He wished the House to be informed as to the very great unfairness displayed between the way in which the Crown accused and prosecuted prisoners, and the way in which they defended them when paid for the defence under the provisions of the Crimes Act. That Act provided where prisoners were brought from one county to another by a change of venue the Crown were to pay the expenses of the witnesses and the expense of defending the prisoners so removed. A number of prisoners were taken to Dublin from all parts of Ireland accused of murder, and many of them were afterwards found guilty and executed; but they were defended by junior counsel. Why was that? Was it because the Crown refused to pay senior counsel, or because the Crown had bought up, by this lavish system of expenditure, the services of all the valuable senior counsel in the country? He did not care which case the right hon. and learned Gentleman took; he might take the case of the men who were found guilty of the Maamtrasna murder, or of the murder of the Huddys, or the case of Francis Hynes, or either of the Walshes. He should be glad to know how much the prosecution of one of these cases cost the Crown; how much was paid by the Crown for the prosecution, and how much for the defence? He was aware that in the case of Francis Hynes the Crown had been asked for £250 for his defence; but, as far as he knew, they had, up to the present time, refused to grant that amount. Hynes' solicitor was told that the Crown would not provide senior counsel, but that they would give a fee for junior counsel not exceeding £3 or £4. He had informed the Attorney General of that fact nearly two months ago, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman had promised to investigate it; but he (Mr. Parnell) did not yet know the result of the investigation. How much did the prosecution to death of Hynes cost the Crown, and how much did they pay for his defence? If the Crown had paid anything for the defence of Hynes, then the right hon. and learned Gentleman might take some other case

    1987
    In these murder eases prisoners had not been able to obtain the services of senior counsel, because of the formidable array of the ablest legal counsel prosecuting them; and, therefore, they had been defended only by junior counsel. The persons convicted of the Maamtrasna massacre were defended by two junior counsel. The persons convicted of the Huddy murder were also defended by two juniors. He wished for some explanation of these circumstances now that the Committee was asked to pass this swollen Estimate, on the ground that it was necessary for the administration of justice in Ireland that this enormous sum should be spent. He wished to know whether it was true that the Government had spent their money only on one side; and, in consequence, would prisoners have any chance of proving their innocence?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)replied, that he could not state the cost of the Hynes trial, and said he was not one of the counsel engaged in the case, and was not then Attorney General. But with regard to the other prisoners' counsel in murder cases, under the Crimes Act, where a prisoner was unable to procure counsel, his expenses and those of his witnesses wore defrayed by the Crown. In that direction there had never been any complaint; and in addition to that, in every case, whether under the Crimes Act or not, where a man was on trial for murder, it was the practice in Ireland—though he believed it was not in England—not only to assign counsel for the defence of the prisoner, but to provide a fee for such counsel. That was a matter of rule in Ireland in the case where a prisoner was unable to provide counsel for himself. It was obvious that there was no extra expense put upon a prisoner, so far as the fee of his counsel was concerned, by reason of his being removed from one place to another; and as the representatives of the Crown carefully scrutinized all cases in order to ascertain whether the prisoners had means or not, they were satisfied that in most cases the prisoners had not sufficient means to provide counsel. What happened in Hynes's case was this—the first solicitor who appeared for Hynes informed the Crown Solicitor that there was a subscription fund of £100, which would be abundant for Hynes's defence. After-
    1988
    wards, however, the solicitor was changed; and, speaking to Mr. Morphy in reference to the defence, he said—"I suppose you are going to provide counsel." Mr. Morphy replied that he had no power in the matter, as it was for the Judge to assign counsel. No application whatever was made, either to the Castle authorities or to the Attorney General, in reference to the fee for Hynes's defence. Hynes had counsel for his defence, and there never had been any complaint from him or anybody else.
    MR. GIBSONasked whether the Judge assigned counsel?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, no application was made either to himself or to the Judge. As to other cases, although it was unusual and to a certain extent against the fixed rules, two counsel were assigned. Whenever an application was made, and they were not paid in accordance with the ordinary rule, they were paid what the Attorney General thought was a fair and reasonable, but not an extravagant fee. That fee was accepted without any complaint on the part of those who received it, and in each and every one of these cases where two counsel were remunerated, they were the two counsel selected by the prisoner's solicitor without any suggestion from the Attorney General. It did so happen in one set of these cases there were two junior counsel—nominally junior counsel—but both of them were men of very great experience in criminal cases. In the other case, there were two stuff gownsmen engaged; but they were men of the highest eminence, and were just as competent as any man in silk to conduct the defence. Again, in another case, one was a senior and one was a junior in the technical sense of those terms; but in each case the prisoners were provided with the means of having the counsel whom they wished, and the fees for those counsel were provided by the Crown without any complaint.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, this being a matter of figures, it required calm consideration. He did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman had got out of the difficulty in which he had been placed. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) had said the fees were not enormous; but that had led him into a greater

    1989
    dilemma, because that required him to prove where the rest of the £15,000 went to. If only £11 had been paid in some of these cases, something must have been done with the residue; and he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to state the names of the gentlemen who had received these fees. On his own argument, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was committed to the dilemma as to how he got rid of a number of the payments. Could not he state to whom he had paid fees which went beyond all reasonable limits?
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked whether some of this money had not gone to the payment of informers? He wished to know whether the consideration and reward for these informers was not concealed under this Vote?
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry to take up the time of the Committee; but he must submit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not answered the point which he had brought before him. In fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had evaded the question. The question he had brought before the Committee, and to which he had invited the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, was the discrepancy between the cost of prosecuting the prisoners and of defending them. He had asked for some particulars relating to the trial of one of these prisoners either in Dublin or in any other part of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had not given the Committee a single example; he had excused himself on the ground that in regard to Hynes's case he was not the Attorney General. But there had been other cases of a similar character which had happened since he had been appointed Attorney General, and of which he ought to be able to give some details. He had admitted that in almost every case where counsel were employed for the defence of prisoners they had been junior counsel faced by a senior counsel, and, in some cases, by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, as well as by experienced Queen's Counsel, who were receiving heavy fees. There was another point to which he desired to call attention. In the Crimes Act there were two classes of payments provided by the Crown for the purpose of defending prisoners; fees to Queen's Counsel in the 1st
    1990
    section of the Act—that which provided for the trial of cases of murder by a tribunal of Judges without a jury; and fees to counsel for defending prisoners accused of murder, in addition to the cost of defending prisoners where the venue was changed. But the Government had refused, in such cases, to pay the expenses incurred by the solicitors for the defence in inquiring into the case in the locality itself. As he understood the matter, the Government had offered to pay the expenses of the solicitor while present in Dublin, or in the district to which the venue was changed, during the trial; but they refused to pay the expenses incurred by the solicitor in working up the case, and making the best legal inquiries he could in the district. He submitted that it was just as important that the case, for the purpose of defence as for the purpose of prosecution, should be properly inquired into in the locality. The case of the man Corry was an example. He was lately charged before Mr. Justice Harrison and a special jury in Dublin, composed of 11 Protestants and one Catholic, and was acquitted. The Crown evidently believed in the guilt of Corry, because they held him in prison for many months; postponed his trial from time to time, and, finally, brought him before a special jury in the City of Dublin, and selected a jury so carefully that they ordered 46 Catholics to stand aside. He was acquitted, for which he had to thank the fact that Mr. Justice Harrison tried him. He (Mr. Parnell) had the profoundest conviction of the innocence of the prisoner, and, out of a fund he had the control of, he had paid the costs of an investigation into the case by a solicitor. There could be no doubt that the investigation the solicitor had set on foot, the measurements he had been able to take, and so forth, had helped materially to bring about the acquittal of this innocent man, and save English justice in Ireland from the stain of sacrificing innocent life in that country. If this money—£20, he thought it was—had not been advanced, the man's life would most probably have been sacrificed. He submitted, therefore, it was fair that all the reasonable expenses of solicitors for prisoners in these cases should be paid by the State. If a man was not able to pay the expenses of counsel and solicitor while the case was being investigated by

    1991
    a jury, how could he afford to pay for the necessary preliminary investigation which had to be carried on to enable him to establish his innocence? In view of the charge now made upon the national funds in respect of prosecutions, the Government ought in fairness on the other side to give persons—innocent, at any rate, until they were proved guilty—small sums to enable them to acquit themselves, if possible, of the charges brought against them. He hoped the Committee would have some indication from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland as to how he intended to manage this matter for the future, so as to enable pauper prisoners to properly prepare their defence in grave cases of life and death.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was surprised that the Attorney General for Ireland did not seem to think that the question just put to him demanded a specific and categorical answer. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would repeat, for the benefit of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and other Gentlemen interested in this matter, the particular point on which they desired information. Why was it that the Crown thought it necessary to give large and extravagant fees, and to employ an extensive array of senior counsel in prosecutions, and contented themselves with giving small fees to juniors for the purpose of defending prisoners? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had dealt very largely in generalities in this matter. [Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Members were under the impression that he was going to finish one minute sooner in consequence of cries of "Divide!" they were very much mistaken. It was now pretty generally understood that they were to have a Saturday Sitting; and he was willing to remain in that House to any hour until, at any rate, his mind was satisfied, however it might be with hon. Members who kept up such a boisterous interruption this evening. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not allow his mind to be diverted by the several incidents which had occurred from the questions which had been put to him during the discussion on the Motion for a reduction of the Vote. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he had been asked to stand
    1992
    up in his place and say whether he believed that Mr. Harrington had intimidated the farmers of Westmeath who had returned him to Parliament during his imprisonment. He had been asked whether he could defend the treatment Mr. Harrington had received from the Governor of Mullingar Prison. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had also ventured to address an appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say whether, even allowing that the language which had been used by Mr. Healy was too strong for the circumstances of the case—which, however, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not admit—he did not consider the time had come when the hon. Member could be allowed to take his place in the House, and when his constituents could be permitted to have the advantage of his assistance in the discussion of affairs in which they were interested. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not wish, even for the purpose of giving a retort to the hon. Baronet opposite and other boisterous Members, to repeat the views he had already expressed to the House; but again he asked—and he should avail himself of all the usages of the House to obtain an answer—why these bloated fees were given to counsel for the prosecution, whilst such small sums were given to junior counsel for the defence?
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of unduly protracting this discussion, but with the object of reducing it to some practical result. He confessed he differed from his hon. Friends around him in their accusations against the Government of extravagance in the employment of Crown Counsel. His impression was that that part of the case had been satisfactorily met by the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland. The Treasury were too wide awake on both sides of the Channel to allow either the Attorney General for England or the Attorney General for Ireland to indulge in any extravagance in this matter; and from whatever experience he had had of the observation of criminal trials in this country, he could say that, as a rule, these gentlemen were very much underpaid. But the particular point on which he believed his hon. Friends were entitled to information was this—the Attorney General for Ireland had stated that the fees given to counsel employed in the defence of prisoners were fixed fees, and

    1993
    that he (the Atterney-General for Ireland) was unable to interfere in enlarging those fees. This was precisely the point against which, he thought, a protest ought to be made. He did not see why, since it was the primary object of the Crown to investigate cases impartially, counsel employed on one side should be more highly feed than those employed on the other; and he should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was responsible for the fixing of the paltry limit of £3 3s. for the defence of a man accused of a capital offence. This was the gravamen of the charge of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that someone was responsible for fixing the amount of the fees, and that they were not adequate for securing the defence of persons supposed to be implicated in such grave crime. He was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak in such complimentary terms of Mr. Teeling and Mr. Adams; but those terms had not been more complimentary than the gentlemen in question deserved. But was it for those gentlemen to incur the odium of defending prisoners in such cases as those with which they had to deal for such paltry fees? It might be the responsibility lay with the Judge; and if the Attorney General for Ireland was able to wash his hands of that responsibility, at any rate it was to be hoped that he would be able to bring some influence to bear on those whose duty it was to fix the fees to get them to raise them to a reasonable amount.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, hon. Members had misunderstood what he had said. What he had stated was that there was a fixed sum to be paid counsel for defending prisoners, which sum could not be exceeded unless with the special sanction of the Attorney General for Ireland. It was a printed Treasury Rule. The fixed sum was not to be exceeded except in cases of special difficulty and importance, when the Attorney General for Ireland had power to increase the fees. He had increased the fees in cases in which he had considered it reasonable to do so—in cases where the counsel had had important and arduous and difficult tasks to perform for the benefit of the prisoners and the interest of the public. The hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) had assumed
    1994
    that the Crown Counsel received large fees, and the defending counsel small fees; and that he would explain. He had given the average of fees to Crown counsel; and as to the others, although he was not able to state the fees he had given in particular cases—there being no Return made of them—in many instances higher fees than those fixed had been allowed by him, and certified for in the ordinary form. To prevent a misconception in the matter, he must say that they were not dealing in these Votes with what had taken place under the Crimes Act merely, but with the entire of the legal prosecutions in Ireland for the whole year.
    MR. KENNYsaid, that the more they looked at these figures the worse would the attempt of the Government to account for them appear. In all Ireland the number of practising barristers was only some 200.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): 400.
    MR. KENNY: Well, they would say 400. He was speaking of those who lived exclusively by their Profession. The sum demanded was £29,300—almost £30,000—which would give £150 apiece to all the practising barristers in Ireland, supposing the Crown engaged them all. If half of them were employed it would amount to £300, and if only 50 were engaged it would amount to £600, and so on. They were entitled to have from the Attorney General for Ireland some specific figures showing how much the barristers had received, how many had been employed, and how much the right hon. and learned Gentleman had received himself. Before they voted away public money, they were entitled to know how it was spent. He wished to know whether it was true, as the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) had suggested, that a great deal of this money had been spent in suborning witnesses and paying informers?
    MR. DAWSONsaid, that two gentlemen who had been mentioned—Messrs. Teeling and Adams—and who were known very well in that (the Irish Opposition) quarter of the House were, although only juniors, ornaments to the Irish Bar. He (Mr. Dawson) had had some opportunity of knowing that these gentlemen, at any rate, had not received the missing thousands. They had

    1995
    only had a few guineas, and the Irish nation would very naturally ask—"Where did the thousands go to? Into whose individual pocket—to smoothen whose promotion?" While the poor peasantry of Ireland were absolutely starving, it was an outrage on the country to have unaccounted for in this way thousands upon thousands of pounds. In justice to his own high Office the Irish Attorney General was bound to give them the names of those people into whose pockets these thousands had gone. [An hon. MEMBER: The pocket of the Land League.] He (Mr. Dawson) should be glad if the Land League were responsible, and were in a position to account for this money of the Government in a creditable manner. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should show into whose official pockets had gone all the money. If it was undenied it had been spent for scant value—if it was undenied that it had gone into the pockets of those who were not entitled to it, it would make the conduct of officials distrusted and doubted.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he had to complain of the unstatesmanlike manner in which the Government were discussing this Vote; and also of the manifest discourtesy and obstinate silence of the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland, in regard to specific inquiries addressed to them from that (the Irish Opposition) quarter of the House. He would presently refer to these inquiries, and insist, as far as he could, upon having an answer. In the meantime he would state that, after all that had been said about the payment of barristers in Ireland, the question was a very simple one. The fact was that with the multiplication of well-paid officers in Ireland, and the annual inflation of this charge for legal expenses, the Government had accomplished a complete system of the moral debauchment of the Irish Bar. At one time or another the Government got at every man with a fat fee, or a well-paid office. [Ironical cheers.] He supposed that hon. Members who cheered so much had been got at already. It had come to this in Ireland—that whether the number of barristers practising in that country was 200 or 400, it was impossible for anyone in a political case to get a barrister whom he could trust. It reminded him of an election contest he was once en-
    1996
    gaged in at a town in Ireland, where he found that the other candidates had bought up the two attorneys in the place, and there remained not so much as an attorney's clerk available for his instruction. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had pointed out that the expenditure of a small sum of money in making inquiries had resulted in the acquittal of an accused person; and he had asked whether the Government were prepared to promise, or give any similar assurance, that in very grave cases, where the lives of men were in danger, they would provide a small sum of money for the same purpose. And what reply had they obtained from the Government? They had been met with silence—not one word had been spoken. Yet hon. Members who had listened with obvious inattention to the course of the debate, and who interrupted him with cries of "Divide!" must understand that this question would have to be discussed that evening or to-morrow, and of these two occasions hon. Members could take their choice. Who could tell what was covered by the term "prosecutors," or how many bribes wore included under that head? Were the Government prepared to make any declaration of policy upon the cases of his hon. Friends the Members for Westmeath and Wexford. The Government had received from the farmers of Westmeath as stern and severe a rebuff as they had just received from the Government of France in the case of Mr. Byrne. They had accused Mr. Harrington of intimidating the farmers of Westmeath, and upon that charge he was found guilty by the magistrates and sent to gaol. Their blind policy, however, had produced the opposite effect to what might have been expected; the farmers of Westmeath replied to the charge against Mr. Harrington by saying that they were not intimidated, and they returned him as the Representative of the county. But although Mr. Harrington was now lying in gaol in Galway, he was a moral victor over the Government who had imprisoned him. The Prime Minister had repeatedly acknowledged in that House that if there was one Member who could compete with him as the student of agrarian reform, that man was the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). But the Whig Party, he said, had struck

    1997
    a blow against their support in Ulster by seizing on this moment to imprison the most active and effective man that Irishmen ever sent to represent them. He again invited the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to declare whether he would stand narrowly and unintelligently upon the sentence passed by the magistrates upon these Members, or whether, having regard to the question of policy involved in their imprisonment, he would cause them to be released, and so put an end to this disgrace to the Administration in Ireland.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) made a speech yesterday which I confess interested me very much, and in which he took occasion to remark, one after another, upon the cardinal points of our policy in Ireland; and to that speech I should certainly have replied almost as soon as the present discussion came on, were it not that my attention was necessarily diverted by the speech of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). At this stage of the evening I shall not speak at the same length as I otherwise should have done; but I am quite prepared to answer, categorically, the questions which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) have put. The hon. Member for Sligo, repeating the question of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), asks whether the Government will be prepared to bear the expense of some such preliminary inquiry as was made in the case of the man who was tried on the alleged charge of murder and acquitted. The hon. Member, who advanced money in the case in question, must remember that no such custom exists in England, Ireland, or Scotland, as the Crown generally undertaking the defence of persons accused of crimes. The Crown only provides them with an attorney and counsel in capital cases. But in Ireland, in consequence of recent legislation, when the venue is changed, the Crown undertakes the expenses of the criminals during the trial; but further than that I do not see how the Crown can go, for in no part of the United Kingdom does it pay the preliminary expenses incurred by the fact of a person being put on trial. The hon. Members for Sligo and Galway have questioned me with regard to the
    1998
    imprisonment of the hon. Members for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and Westmeath (Mr. Harrington), and have asked whether the Government was prepared to release them. Sir, the policy of the Government with regard to what are ordinarily called prosecutions for speeches in Ireland is very simple and plain, and I will in a few words endeavour to describe what that policy is. The Government are very unwilling to prosecute for speeches, and have shown their unwillingness to allow speeches to pass without prosecution when they did not think it absolutely necessary for the public safety that an opposite course should be taken. It is a curious and significant fact that all the cases in which people have been interfered with for words spoken in Ireland come within an exceedingly short space of time. On the 13th of August there was one isolated prosecution under the Crimes Act, and with that exception all the nine cases in which persons have been brought to account for spoken words occurred between the 22nd of November and the 22nd of December last. I do not assume that what I say is convincing to Gentlemen who have raised this question; but it is right that I should state to the Committee the motives which actuated me. About the time referred to agitation began again in Ireland which the Government regarded as very dangerous. They endeavoured to keep their minds closed against that idea as long as it was possible to do so. But they came to the conclusion that there was a determination to excite and agitate people for purposes which the Government could not possibly admit, and that such agitation would once more take the country out of the influence of law and order, and would reproduce the state of things which existed at this time last year. The Government considered that it was their bounden duty to take such steps as would put a stop to this agitation or bring it within proper bounds, and in consequence of that they engaged in five prosecutions for intimidation under the Prevention of Crimes Act. Among these were the prosecutions of the hon. Member for Wexford and Mr. Harrington. The Government came to the conclusion that there was a primâ facie case against Mr. Harrington; the words used by him amounting, in their judgment, to intimidation, and that of an extremely

    1999
    dangerous kind. After speaking of his inquiries into the condition of the farming class in the district, Mr. Harrington said—
    "And I tell the comfortable farmers of Ireland that if they don't throw themselves into this movement they will have to face a movement which they have never had to face before. The labourers' agitation will be directed against them."
    Those words were considered by the Government to amount to intimidation of a very dangerous kind—dangerous when proceeding from a gentleman who knew very well what the effect of a labourers' agitation directed against the farming class would be. It is easy for persons living in England, where the strongest language only raises a temporary excitement, to think little of words of this kind. But when the fact is considered that these words were spoken in the midst of a society convulsed in the terrible crisis of a political movement, I must say I think they were very dangerous words indeed. But the Government, in such cases, cannot take the words alone so far as the prosecution of a particular person is concerned; although, as far as the decision of the Court is concerned, the actual words must be taken, and those only. When, however, you come to the question whether the Government is to prosecute or not, it must be considered what their collective effect must be. If the Government think the collective effect will be innocent, they will do wisely in not prosecuting; but if they think the collective effect will be dangerous to the public safety, then I think the Government is right to prosecute any person who has uttered words which have brought them within the scope of the law. Upon that principle the Government have acted. I have been asked by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) whether the fact of the unanimous election of Mr. Harrington by the Westmeath farmers was not a proof that he was not guilty of the offence charged against him? I cannot say that that is my opinion. A man may be elected against the will of a great number of individuals; and the most dangerous agitation is that directed by the few against the many. Then with regard to the hon. Member for Wexford (Air. Healy). This case was the same as that of Mr. Harrington so far as related to the reason which induced the Government to take
    2000
    notice of the words used by the hon. Member. Those words were, in our opinion, dangerous; they were spoken on the same platform as a speech attributed to a parish priest, to which the hon. Member for Wexford presumably listened, and at a place where the Government found the very worst and most dangerous were made at any time during the movement. Well, Sir, the hon. Member for Wexford was proceeded against, not, however, under the Prevention of Crimes Act, because, in the opinion of the Government, the speech did not come within the Intimidation Clauses. They proceeded against him under the powers which appeared to them to be suited to the occasion. They applied to have him bound over to keep the peace, and that was precisely what they were anxious to obtain. They wanted the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to promise to keep the peace; but the hon. Gentleman was unwilling to say that he would not go on making speeches of the kind complained of, and so he and Mr. Davitt were committed to gaol. I venture to say that if Mr. Davitt and the hon. Member for Wexford had been allowed to continue making speeches of that nature, with such variety of language as they would have been obliged to use, within a month or two the country would have been in a very dangerous state of excitement. The hon. Member for Wexford was perfectly at liberty to give bail now, if he wished to obtain his release.
    MR. SEXTONasked if that would not amount to a constructive admission that the speech was one inciting to unlawful acts?
    MR.TREVELYAN: I know that is the view of the hon. Gentleman; but, by refusing to give bail, the inference is that he thinks his speech was one he was perfectly justified in making, and one he is ready to make again. The hon. Gentleman, in fact, said so. The Government, however, on the other hand, thought that the speech was an extremely dangerous one in its effects. [Mr. PARNELL: The whole speech?] I alluded to the words which were brought before the notice of the Court. It was said the Government ought to let Mr. Harrington out of prison because he had become a Member of Parliament; and that they ought in the case of Mr. Healy to remove the necessity of his giving bail as a preliminary

    2001
    to his release, because he is a useful Member of Parliament. In so doing, the Government would be doing an injustice to the men who had not the advantage of being Members of Parliament; and I cannot understand the principle on which we would be acting. The Government were extremely sorry that it had to proceed against anyone for what they said publicly. They, however, considered they were bound, in the interests of the public safety, to prosecute these hon. Gentlemen amongst others. The fact of a man being a Member of Parliament is in itself a double reason why he should refrain from using such language as that in question.
    MR. DAWSONasked if the Committee were to conclude that men were to be punished for what other men said? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) was punished in consequence of what Father Delaney had said. The right hon. Gentleman said—"We are not punishing Harrington for the exact words he used, which, indeed, were very wild; but we looked to other things said throughout the country." They punished the hon. Member; but they had not the courage to punish the rev. gentleman whose speech was too bad for the right hon. Gentleman to read. Did the right hon. Gentleman ever hear of Joseph Arch, who had carried on the agricultural labourers' agitation in England? Did he punish Joseph Arch? Did he put him into gaol? Dare he do it?
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that, in reference to the case of Mr. Harrington, he had, perhaps, a peculiar right to say a few words. Mr. Harrington was his Colleague in the representation of Westmeath, and he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) was with his hon. Friend on the platform, and heard the speech in question from beginning to end. It was not for one passage, but for one single word in that speech, that Mr. Harrington had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment; and Mr. Harrington had been imprisoned upon the strength of a forced and Governmental construction put on that one single word. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) challenged a denial of his assertion. It was on the word "agitation" that the whole prosecution against Mr. Harrington turned. Mr. Harrington had said that the whole force of the labourers'
    2002
    agitation would be turned against the farmers if they did not, in a day of distress, try to open some employment for the labourers. It was felt at the time that the labourers of Westmeath, and, indeed, of the country, were in a state of destitution; and Mr. Harrington appealed to the generosity and the good feeling and the gratitude of the farmers to help the labourers in their day of distress. Mr. Harrington said the labourers were founding an agitation some time before, for the redress of their own grievances; but, he added—
    "I took no part in it; I did not join it, because I do not like those class movements. But I tell you that unless you do something for these poor people, to whom you owe so much, the force of this agitation will he turned against you."
    He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) denied it was a threat which Mr. Harrington used; he denied it was intimidation. The speech was not meant as intimidation, and it was not understood as intimidation by anybody except by the two or three policemen who came up and gave evidence to that effect. Why was there no farmer, large or small, no man of any other class, no civilian at all, brought up at the trial to testify either that he felt intimidated, or that he thought it likely other people would be intimidated, by the speech? Not a single person, save two or three policemen, were brought forward to testify to the intimidatory effect of Mr. Harrington's words. The prosecution was a fraud; it was an outrage upon justice; and he was really surprised the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could find it in his heart to stand up in his place in the House of Commons and defend the prosecution and the continued imprisonment of the hon. Gentleman. Every day's imprisonment of Mr. Harrington was an outrage upon justice; every day's imprisonment of the hon. Gentleman tended to create, in the County Westmeath especially, and more or less in other counties, a feeling of hatred for the law under which the hon. Gentleman was imprisoned, and a feeling of discontent at the whole system of administration in Ireland. There was not a man in Westmeath who did not consider the imprisonment of the hon. Gentleman obtained under false pretences. That was his (Mr. T. D. Sullivan's) own belief and conviction. He regarded the prosecution

    2003
    as a fraud and a sham; he regarded it as an outrage on justice; and every day's imprisonment of Mr. Harrington was a shame and scandal to the British Government in Ireland. There was no getting over the fact that the three nomination papers of Mr. Harrington were signed by farmers, and that if three other nomination papers had been desired there were other farmers ready and willing to sign them, and there was no intimidation, there was no pressure put upon the farmers to take that course. They did so of their own free will and desire, and a more effective answer to the prosecution could not possibly be given than the fact that the farmers of Westmeath crowded in to assist in the election of the hon. Gentleman, and that, if any opposition had been attempted, the farmers of Westmeath would have overwhelmed it by their votes. He asked the Chief Secretary not to prolong the imprisonment of Mr. Harrington. Of all the prosecutions under the Crimes Act this of Mr. Harrington was the weakest. There was not a shadow of justification or foundation for it. True, a conviction was obtained; but the people of Ireland knew, and the people of England ought to know by this time, what was the value of a conviction obtained now in Ireland—the value of a conviction obtained before two of the special magistrates who took their law from the Law Advisers of the Castle. The Law Advisers of the Castle sent down one of the counsel—whose fees were included in the Vote they were now asked to pass—the Law Advisers sent down one of these gentlemen to conduct the prosecution of Mr. Harrington, and the two magistrates on the bench dare not dream of disputing the view of the case taken by the Queen's Counsel engaged. Mr. Harrington, in his defence, completely riddled the evidence of the police reporter; he showed that the man was perfectly incompetent; nevertheless, two months' imprisonment was decreed for Mr. Harrington, which he was now undergoing, a portion of which he underwent as a common convict in Mullingar Gaol, and the remainder of which, with some modification, he was suffering in Galway Gaol. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) asked the Chief Secretary not to let the Easter Recess go by without ordering the release of the hon. Gentleman, in order that he might do what he was elected
    2004
    to do—namely, to represent the people of the County Westmeath in the House of Commons.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that before the Vote was taken he desired to point out to the Chief Secretary that it appeared to him that, under the Crimes Act, the Government could, if they wished, pay all the expenses and costs of the person who was placed on his trial. The section of the Act which enabled them to do this was that which provided for the change of venue. It was as follows:—
    "Whore an order is made under this Act directing a change of venue, the proscribed Crown Solicitor, or other prescribed official, under the direction of the Attorney General, shall provide, where necessary, for advancing money for enabling the person to be tried, and the witnesses required for the defence of such person to attend the trial."
    His contention was that the money for enabling a person to be fairly tried should include the costs of the solicitor engaged to prepare the case for the defence. If the Government desired to put a fair interpretation upon the section of the Act he had read—an interpretation which, at the time the question of paying the expenses of the defence of persons taken out of their own counties for trial, was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—he could not understand how they could evade the payment of the costs of the solicitor for the prisoner. The Crown were in a position to send engineers to the localities to take measurements, to make inquiries, to procure witnesses, and to get up their case for the prosecution in the most perfect manner; and he maintained that, according to the terms of the Crimes Act itself, and in fairness and common justice, and in order to carry out the understanding which was arrived at in the House of Commons when the Act was being passed, the expenses of the defence of the prisoners, the venue of whose case had been changed, should be also paid by the Crown. They were asked now to pass a swollen Vote, a Vote swollen to enormous size for the purpose of enabling the Crown to prosecute persons in Ireland. He thought he had shown the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he was mistaken when he said there was no power under the law to pay the costs of the prisoner. The words of the section were—" Where necessary for defence, money for en-

    2005
    abling the prisoner to be tried." That usually would include the solicitor's costs, the taxed bill of costs of the solicitor employed in defending the prisoner. It was utterly impossible for these poor prisoners to pay for their solicitors; and all he asked was that the taxed bill of costs should be paid for them.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had read the text of the Act, and had asked for a reply from the Chief Secretary. His hon. Friend ought to remember that the speech which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) made yesterday against the policy of the Chief Secretary had only just been answered by the Chief Secretary; and that, consequently, he (Mr. Parnell) could not expect his present speech to be answered by the right hon. Gentleman until to-morrow. That was one satisfaction the Irish Members had. They could not be accused of treating the Chief Secretary cruelly, for the right hon. Gentleman was sure to come up smiling 24 hours after time. He observed that the Government did not intend to give any further explanation with regard to the case of Mr. Harrington. For his part, he thought the Irish Members might very well leave the case of Mr. Harrington alone. It seemed to him that the intention of the Government in prosecuting Mr. Harrington was a kindly one towards the National League. Down to the present it was undoubted that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was the leader in a special sense of the tenantry of Ireland. Of course, the hon. Gentleman was in a general sense the National Leader, but in an especial sense he was the leader of the tenantry of Ireland. It was suggested that the case of the agricultural labourers was neglected by the National League; but now, thanks to the Government, the agricultural labourers had been provided with a leader. Mr. Harrington was emphatically the leader of the forthcoming agitation for bettering the condition of the agricultural labourers. Mr. Harrington had been cast into gaol, subjected to every insult, clad in the convict garb, and ordered to perform the basest and meanest duties that it was possible to cast on a convict; and all because he said to the farmers of Westmeath—
    2006
    "You ought to pay a fair day's wage for a fair day's work to these agricultural labourers, who have helped you so much in times gone by."
    Mr. Harrington was the leader, by the direct choice of the Government, of the agricultural labourers of Ireland; and he (Mr. O'Donnell) was certain there was not a day of the hon. Gentleman's imprisonment in a British Bastile in Ireland that would not be amply repaid in an increase of his political and popular influence, and in his chances of success in rooting out and extirpating the curse of foreign domination in Ireland.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 115: Majority 101.—(Div. List, No. 23.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £45,032, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to ask the Government to postpone this and the three other Irish Votes until the Afternoon Sitting to-day, as he believed it was the intention of the Government to take a Saturday's Sitting. It was very late to discuss an important Vote of this kind; but he feared that, as the Vote had been put, the only course he could take was to move to report Progress. He had been in hopes that if the Vote had been postponed by the Government, together with the three other Irish Votes, the Committee might then have gone on with some of the subsequent Votes which would not have required much discussion. He begged to move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman had made a little mistake in thinking that the other Votes would not be much discussed. He had not the slightest objection to stop there till 6 o'clock in the morning, and he

    2007
    should certainly oppose a few of the Votes.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he should decidedly oppose the Vote for the Land Commission, which was the largest Vote in the whole of the Civil Service Estimates, being taken at a quarter past 2 o'clock in the morning. This was a Vote evidently provocative of discussion, and one upon which he should claim his right to speak at a time when his remarks could be reported. He did not wish to press the Government not to take other Votes as to which there was no contention. He was not speaking from an Irish point of view only; but he thought there were probably many Votes in the series as to which there was no contention in any part of the House, and as to which he should not have the slightest objection. He objected, however, to this particular Vote being taken now, and it would be well that some arrangement should be made for it to stand over.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he knew how strong was the dislike which was generally felt by the Committee to a Saturday's Sitting, and he thought it might be more convenient to the House to sit up to a late hour this morning in order to discuss these Votes, than that the House should be put to the inconvenience of sitting again on the Saturday; but if the Committee insisted that this Vote should not be taken at this hour, he did not think it would be possible for the Government to insist upon it. He should therefore be prepared to accede to the application to withdraw this and other Irish Votes upon which a long discussion might take place, and then propose that they might go on with the remaining Votes until they arrived at one upon which there was contention.
    MR. LABOUCHEREwished the Government to postpone two or three of the other Votes also. A good many hon. Gentlemen, he said, had gone away who had wished to express their opinion upon some of these Votes. There were only two or three Votes left, and as there was to be a Morning Sitting today he thought they might as well be postponed.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman had himself just stated that he was ready to sit up to 6 o'clock in the morning. He thought
    2008
    it would be more convenient for the Committee to go on until about the usual hour.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    (2.) £42,122, Public Education.
    (3.) £2,050, British Museum.
    (4.) £130, London University.
    (5.) £600, Deep Sea Exploring Expedition (Report).
    (6.) £63, Sydney and Melbourne International Exhibitions.

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
    (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £31,312, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
    MR. ONSLOWurged the Government to postpone this Vote, as it contained a good deal of contentious matter.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEreplied, that there were peculiar reasons, which he hoped the Committee would accept, for not postponing this Vote. If it were not proceeded with, he himself would be put to very great personal inconvenience, because an important meeting of the Danubian Conference was to be held to-day, at which he was obliged to attend. It would be exceedingly difficult for him to be in the House and at the Conference at the same time; and, looking at the peculiar character of the situation, he hoped the Committee would take the Vote, and allow him to offer any explanation on any of the points involved. He thought there were some points which he had anticipated, and he hoped he might be allowed to offer explanations now.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he should be very sorry to put the noble Lord to any inconvenience; but still he thought that if the Committee had to vote such a large sum of money as this, the personal inconvenience of the noble Lord could be set against the question of the enormous additional sum of money which they now required. He would be glad

    2009
    if the noble Lord would explain how £16,500 in the Vote given could have been spent on telegrams, and he would remind the Committee that they had already voted a large sum in excess for telegrams in another Vote. This was an enormous sum they were asked to pay; and there was also another sum of £9,730 for "Special Missions." He was not aware what "Special Missions" there had been. They had had no particulars whatever, and no explanation had been made to them why Special Missions had been sent. An explanation on these points was due to the House. He did not intend to obstruct this Vote. If it would be inconvenient for the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) to come down to-morrow, hon. Members would not be unreasonable and insist upon his coming, for the simple reason that they themselves would be obliged to be present. He trusted, however, that the noble Lord would enter somewhat into detail as to the enormous sum they were now asked to vote.
    MR. LABOUOHEREsaid, that, no doubt, this £16,000 was a large excess for telegrams, though he supposed it was in connection with Egypt and the East. It was necessary that a large number of telegrams should be sent; therefore, he did not quarrel with the item. But as to this £9,730 for Special Missions, they should have some explanation to show whether or not the charge was legitimate. One item he would have to ask an explanation of was this—"Expenses incurred in Moscow in anticipation of the Czar's Coronation, £320." He supposed this expense was incurred through a house being taken for Her Majesty's Representative when it was expected that the Czar's Coronation would take place last year. This seemed to have been rather a reckless proceeding; and the explanation, no doubt, would be, that when they had to send a Special Mission on an occasion of this sort, they had to take time by the forelock and hire a house. This would lead him to suppose that they were going to send a Special Mission to the Czar's Coronation; and, on these grounds, he would oppose the item. As to these Missions, he knew it was the rule or habit of Her Majesty to send some special Representative—some Nobleman—as a species of glorified
    2010
    beadle to take part in Coronation ceremonies at Foreign Courts; but he saw no reason why the House of Commons should allow it to be done at the expense of the country. In the present case, we had a great Embassy at St. Petersburgh, and there was no reason in the world why our Ambassador there should not represent Her Majesty at the Coronation of the Czar. It was merely the love of spending money, and the love of Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, whoever they might be, of following bad precedents which brought about these Special Missions. To his mind, the inauguration of the President of a Republic was a far nobler thing than the Coronation of an Emperor. ["Oh!"] Well, everyone could enjoy his own opinion—the hon. Alderman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was entitled to take another view of the matter if he chose. The hon. Alderman, if he liked, could go to Russia as the special Representative of the City of London, and, no doubt, would not only be a worthy Representative of the City of London, but a fine Representative of England. So far as he (Mr. Labouchere) was concerned, he objected to these Special Missions. No one could say why they were sent. As he had said, we had an Ambassador at St. Petersburgh; therefore, they wore only sending coals to Newcastle by despatching one or two, or perhaps half-a-dozen, Noblemen as a Mission to the Russian capital. He intended to move the reduction of the Vote, and wished to have a distinct understanding from the noble Lord—first, whether there was to be a Special Mission this year to Russia; and, secondly, whether, if there was to be one, it would not be well for them to have the expense charged beforehand, instead of having it in a subsidiary Estimate as they had last year? The House would then be able to say whether the charge was a proper one or not. Do not let the Government come to them and say—"The thing is done now—you must pay the money." He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £320.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,992, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he saw, in connection with this Vote, that in the Appropriation Accounts just returned to Parliament, last year there was a saving of £1,700, which was explained by the fact that a charge usually attached to the Embassy at Constantinople had lapsed during Lord Dufferin's Special Mission to Egypt. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) wished to know if a diminution corresponding with that of the Vote would take place in the grant for Lord Dufferin?
    MR. DAWSONdesired to be informed whether anything was included in the Vote for the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) and his reported Embassy?
    MR. MONKasked whether this would be the whole of the Vote for Lord Dufferin's Mission, or would there be a Supplementary Vote?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he must apologize to the Committee for taking the Vote at this late hour (2.30 A.M.); but, as he had explained, he had to attend a meeting of the Conference to-day, and it was for the convenience of the Members of the Conference, not for his own convenience, as the hon. Member for Guildford suggested, that he desired to dispose of the matter without being put to the necessity of coming down to the House again. As to the most important point which had been raised—that of the telegrams—he had been permitted the other evening, when the telegrams in the earlier part of the Estimates were in question—that was to say, the telegrams sent by the Foreign Office as distinguished from those sent to the Foreign Office—to make an explanation, because he had felt that the two items really came together. He had satisfied the Committee on that occasion, he thought, that the matter had received very careful attention, and that this great increase—and in this he was supported by his Predecessor in Office—was entirely owing to the condition of affairs in Egypt, and that when the special increase was separated from what might be called the ordinary expense of the Office in the matter of telegrams, it would be found that there was really no increase at all. There was a good deal of discussion on the matter, and, no doubt, it deserved the very close attention of the Committee. He now came
    2012
    to the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—a point on which he had quite anticipated that some questions would be asked. The circumstances as to the change now made were accurately stated by the hon. Member. As the Committee were aware, preparations had been made for the Coronation of the Czar at Moscow; but, for reasons which it was unnecessary to enter into, that Coronation was postponed. Preparations were made by every great European Government which intended to be represented; and, as the hon. Member had said, it was necessary, in the matter of house accommodation, under the circumstances, to take time by the forelock. The sum in the Estimates represented the payment made for the hire of a house, and a fine to the owner for breaking the contract when it was suddenly found that the Coronation was not going to take place. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) could, if necessary, furnish the hon. Member with the exact items. Then he came to the point on which the hon. Member wished for some explanation—namely, as to what it was intended to do in regard to the Coronation which was going to take place this year. It was a fact that there was going to be a Special Mission, and he was in a position to mention a circumstance which he believed would be well received by the Committee, the House, and the country, and that was that the Special Representative of Her Majesty would be His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. He need not remind the Committee that the Duke of Edinburgh was well fitted, personally, to discharge the duties that would devolve upon him, and that, owing to his close relationship with the Imperial Family of Russia, he would be singularly welcome in that country, both to the Imperial Family and to the people. As to the expenses of Lord Dufferin's Mission, it was to be explained that there was a careful set-off against everything which had been allowed to His Excellency for his Special Mission to Egypt. In regard to all those allowances and circumstances which remained the same there had been no special charge whatever. Only those items had been charged in which there had been actually an increase of expense; therefore, on the whole, there had been no increase at all in those matters which

    2013
    were found usually charged under the head of the Mission to Constantinople. He had all the items before him; but he hardly thought the Committee would care to have them. He only thought it right to explain to the Committee that there had not been anything like the smallest attempt at anything like running up a double bill or charge; but that everything had been carefully looked into. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), it was impossible for him to say whether or not any further charge would have to be made in respect of Lord Dufferin's Mission, because the exact duration of the Mission—how long he would remain in Egypt, when he would return to Constantinople, and so on—was a question which would depend on the course of events in Egypt. At this moment it would be rash in him to undertake to say that there would be no further charge; nevertheless, he need not remind the Committee that Lord Dufferin's Mission to Egypt was a temporary one, and that there was no intention of requiring him to remain permanently in the country. Sir Edward Malet was the ordinary Representative of Her Majesty in that country; and he, with Lord Dufferin, had discharged all the duties which had devolved on the Mission, and there was every intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to continue their confidence in him. A question had been put as to the Estimate of last year—whether the amount of saving had been properly accredited?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that, perhaps, he had not been sufficiently clear. What he desired to know was, whether there would be a saving in consequence of Lord Dufferin's Special Mission to Egypt this year, in the same way that there was a saving of £1,747 in connection with the Special Mission of Mr. Goschen to Egypt or Constantinople last year?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he thought he understood the point—whether the saving had been properly accredited? Assuming that he took the question properly, he answered in the affirmative, although the circumstances of the two cases were different. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had not been a member of the Diplomatic Corps, and the whole
    2014
    circumstances of his Mission were matters of special and peculiar arrangement, and a great number of items had to be considered. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was in Constantinople on another Mission at the time the right hon. Member for Ripon was on his; therefore, the circumstances of the cases were fully fixed on his memory. He trusted the explanation he had given would be satisfactory.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the noble Lord had not referred to the matter to which he (Mr. Dawson) had drawn attention—namely, the reported Embassy of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington).
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, it had been repeatedly stated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that he knew nothing of such a Mission as that suggested; therefore, it was unnecessary to touch upon the matter further.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he thought he was justified in bringing forward the question of the telegrams for which £16,500 was charged under this Vote. The item was described as consequent on the state of affairs abroad, and they had passed a somewhat similar Vote for the Foreign Office. In the present item, however, was included a sum in connection with the Legation at China, which was partly repayable out of the Indian Revenues. He had no notion how that was, and he would ask for information as to whether India had been consulted at all in the matter, and whether she had consented to pay anything? He was not sure that the sum was not connected in some way with the opium trade. It appeared to him to be an extra, and he should like to know whether India would some day be told that she must pay some portion of this Vote without being in any way consulted by Her Majesty's Government? That sort of thing had been done before. He really thought that he and others who were interested in this matter had a right to demand some explanation of how it was that India was called upon to pay a portion of this sum.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had on a former occasion given very full information with regard to the sum in the former Vote to which the hon. Member had alluded. He admitted there was a slight error in the words employed, which ought to have been

    2015
    "abroad generally." With regard to the further point raised in connection with the Legation to China, this charge, which had been on the Estimates of the last two or three years, would be renewed for the same period. Hon. Members might be assured that the matter had received the most careful examination.
    MR. LABOUOHEREsaid, he was not in that wild state of excitement which the noble Lord anticipated because the Duke of Edinburgh was going to represent Her Majesty at the Coronation of the Czar. He objected to anyone going, whether Duke or otherwise. They had a Gentleman already at St. Petersburg, who, if he was able to conduct diplomatic business, was equally able to carry out the tom-foolery about to take place. They had refused to give the smallest pittance to the thousands of men who were starving in Ireland; and, at the same time, they were asked to grant an enormous sum for the purpose in question, which amounted to an insulting and wasteful attack on the pockets of the taxpayers of the country. The noble Lord had not replied to one of his questions—were they to have on the Estimates the amount which it was anticipated the journey of the Duke of Edinburgh would cost; or were they to be told that the money must be paid because it had already been expended? There were many Gentlemen who, had they known that the Vote would be taken so late, would have remained to oppose it; and he thought that advantage ought not to be taken of their absence. If, however, the Government thought otherwise, he would like to take the division at once.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, in answer to the hon. Member who had just sat down, he thought it impossible that the Vote for this Mission could appear on the ordinary Estimates of the year, because the circumstances which determined the decision of the Government had only recently been arrived at. The Mission was a matter concerning which an accurate Estimate could not 37et be formed; but he was bound to say that he did not anticipate any greater expenditure of money being incurred by the fact of the Duke of Edinburgh attending the Mission than would be incurred if it had been confided to any other Nobleman. It must be borne in mind
    2016
    that there were peculiar circumstances in connection with the present case. The great importance attaching to the occasion, and the intimate alliance existing between the Royal Families of the two countries, were circumstances in which the Government believed that they were acting in conformity with the feeling of the country, and in conformity with precedent, in sending a Special Mission on the conditions proposed to assist at the approaching ceremony. That being so, he thought that no fitter person could have been chosen than His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he hoped that the proposed Mission would not cause any unnecessary charge to be thrown upon the people of this country. It was true that a relationship existed between the Duke of Edinburgh and the Czar of Russia; but when such relationships existed, those invited, as a rule, were very willing to pay the expense connected either with a wedding or any other ceremony. For his part, he regretted that we should have indulged in this ridiculous expenditure. The noble Lord said that the relationships between this country and Russia were of a very important character; but he was sorry to point out that notwithstanding all this, we did not get on very well with the people of the latter country. There was in England a very great prejudice against Russia, and he was bound to add that there was amongst the people of Russia a great prejudice against us. As a protest against the expenditure, he should be glad to vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked for information with regard to the charge of £75, which appeared on page 37 of the Estimates, as gratuities to two Naval officers employed on the Sfax Commission. He had already asked a question on the subject. As he understood, a large amount of British property was destroyed at Sfax, and a Commission of officers had been appointed by France and Italy to inquire into the circumstances. But he also understood that as soon as the investigation seemed to involve the conduct of the French soldiery, the French Associate closed the Commission, stating that he would not allow any inquiry to be made which reflected

    2017
    on the honour of the French Army. The Investigation Commission was, therefore, no Commission at all; and he now asked whether there was any estimate of British loss; if so, how was it arrived at, and had the French Government consented to pay any indemnity for such loss? He had endeavoured to obtain some information on the subject from the Predecessor of the noble Lord, who, however, was not remarkable for the readiness with which he communicated or volunteered information; and he now asked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he was in a position to furnish the desired information? Of course, if it was inconvenient to reply to the question at the moment, he would defer it till another clay.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he would do his best to answer the question on Notice.
    MR. AKTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the Committee would, in his opinion, do well to obtain information with respect to the Special Mission to assist at the Coronation of the Czar. If he understood the noble Lord, there would afterwards be submitted to the Committee what might be called an Estimate—that was to say, after the Coronation had taken place, and this interesting family gathering had been brought to an end. Now, it seemed to him that to apply the term Estimate to money that had been already spent, and which the Government, without any previous explanation, said must be paid because it had been spent, was to make a strange use of words.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he admitted the inconvenience of Supplementary Estimates, and the remark applied not only to this particular Supplementary Vote, but to all of them generally. It would, no doubt, be desirable that every item of this kind should be brought forward only once in the year. At the same time, he did not think there was any greater objection to the present charge than that which applied to all Supplementary Estimates. As already explained, it was not possible to insert it in the regular Estimates, because the decision of the Government was only arrived at a few days ago.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought the Estimate might be issued in amended form. They had a similar Paper issued when the Government came
    2018
    into Office. Their Predecessors had prepared the Estimates, and the changes made at the time necessitated alterations in the Estimates. On that occasion the Prime Minister caused an amended Estimate to be inserted in the Estimate already issued. That year there was an amended form of a particular Vote, and he could not understand why there could not be an amended form issued as a separate Paper—Class V., Vote 1, Diplomatic Services, which would enable the Committee to come to a decision with regard to that branch of the Service, not in a Supplementary Estimate, but in due course, when the Vote in question came on in the regular Estimates.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 59: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 24.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (8.) £1,750, Consular Services.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not want to raise any objection to the Vote, but merely rose to put a question to the Government as to their intentions regarding subsequent Votes. He wished to ask if the Government would consent to postpone Vote 3, Class VII., and also Vote 3 in the Revenue Department?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, if it was found there was any serious objection to those Votes, the Government would not press them now. Perhaps, however, the hon. Gentleman would raise the point when the Votes were reached.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £1,182, Suppression of the Slave Trade.
    (10.) £3,500, Colonies, Giants in Aid.
    (11.) £6,600, Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.

    CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
    (12.) £4,500, Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
    (13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,060, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge

    2019
    which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1S83, to enable the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to commute, under the provisions of the Act 36 and 37 Vic. c. 57, or otherwise, certain Annuities charged on the Exchequer."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he found that this Vote was—
    "For the commutation of Annuities payable to the Duke of Norfolk; the Lord of the Manor of Taynton; the Minister of the Lutheran Chapel, lately in the Savoy; and the Keeper of St. Swithin's Gate, Winchester; and of a portion of the Annuity due to the heirs of the Luke of Schomberg;"
    a nobleman who had now been dead a very long time. It seemed to him the Committee ought to refuse to grant this money. It had a suspicious appearance of having something to do with perpetual pensions. They would have to oppose the Vote unless they received some satisfactory explanation.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the annuity to the Duke of Norfolk was granted so long back as the time of Henry the Eighth. The Treasury was under an obligation to pay the annuity. The Duke of Norfolk, however, consented to commute it, so that the Treasury were enabled to buy it up and redeem it for a certain number of years. The sum in respect to the Manor of Taynton was very small indeed, only 30s. The allowance to the Minister of the Lutheran Chapel, in the Savoy, was £38, and was granted a long time ago out of the Consolidated Fund. They had been able to redeem the annuity at the rate of 10 years' purchase. The annuity to the Keeper of St. Swithin's Grate, Winchester, was £2 8s. 2d. The case of the Duke of Schomberg was certainly more serious. The annuity originally was £4,000 a-year. £2,616 of this had been redeemed at different times, and of the remainder it was now proposed to redeem £72.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought they could allow the money to the Lord of the Manor of Taynton, to the Minister of the Lutheran Chapel, and to the Keeper of St. Swithin's Gate. He should move, however, that the Vote be reduced by £3,948, which was the amount payable to the Duke of Norfolk, and the heirs of the Duke of Schomberg. He need not enter into any details as to the reasons why he proposed this reduction.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £112, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, to enable the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to commute, under the provisions of the Act 36 and 37 Vic. c. 57, or otherwise, certain Annuities charged on the Exchequer."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee what was the nature of the grant made to the Duke of Norfolk in the Reign of Henry the Eighth, and whether it was a portion of the spoliation of the property of the Church which the present Duke of Norfolk, who belonged to that Church, was still enjoying?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, there were two grants, one of £40, and the other of £20. The first was granted by Henry the Eighth, and the second by Richard the Third.
    Question put.
    The Committee dicided:—Ayes 9; Noes 53: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 25.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
    (14.) £500, Temporary Commissions.
    (15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £450, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was really surprising what the Government thought they could get at this Sitting. This Vote was in respect of arrears of fees duo to the Duke of Norfolk—for 14½ years at £60 a-year. The Prime Minister told them that nothing was put down in these Supplementary Estimates but what was absolutely necessary. The Duke of Norfolk had waited 14½ years; surely he could wait a few days more. If he (Mr. Labouchere) remembered rightly, there was a certain thing called the Statute of Limitations, under which no one could claim a debt above seven years old. He was glad to see the Law Adviser of the Crown present, because, perhaps, that hon. and learned Gentle-

    2021
    man would enlighten his mind as to whether the Duke of Norfolk had got a legal right to this money. Certainly, the noble Duke had not got any moral right to it. He (Mr. Labouehere) intended to take the sense of the Committee, no matter what explanation of the Tote might be given.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORexpressed his surprise that the Financial Secretary had not given some explanation on this matter. Would the hon. Gentleman state whether any of these fees paid on the installation of the Kings of Saxony and of the Netherlands referred to the Garter, and what the fees were to which the Duke was entitled?
    MR. ILLINGWORTHwished to know how it happened that this demand had been in arrear for 14 years? If the Government had had some dispute with the Duke of Norfolk as to his legal or moral right, the Committee might as well strengthen the hands of the Government and clear away this tax upon the public pocket. It was a most melancholy picture that the Committee should be engaged at this time of night in considering a matter of this kind; and he thought they would be acting the part of discreet legislators and guardians of the public purse by adjourning the Committee and re-assembling at 12 o'clock.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, there was no intention to press the next Vote, and explained that these installation fees were not involved in this Vote. These fees were given to Counts or Earls on their installation.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORbegged to repeat his question as to what the creation fees were—what was created, and who was created, and why should the Duke get these fees more than anybody else?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the fees were not paid by any person. On succeeding to his title, the Duke became entitled to the annuity granted to his Predecessor. It represented the old Third Penny, which was given to every Earl on his taking charge of a country.
    MR. LABOUCHEREthought there was no doubt that the Financial Secretary knew what these fees were; but he did not believe anybody else had the vaguest notion, except that the Dukes of Norfolk and the Earls of Surrey had received, since the time of Richard III.,
    2022
    a sum of £60 a-year. He held that those families had received quite enough, and that the fact that they had received this money so long was sufficient reason for putting an end to the payments. These fees were utterly untenable in every sense, and he strongly protested against the doctrine laid down by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who was a good Radical, would have argued that if the country was not legally bound to pay these fees it should not pay them; but, on the contrary, the hon. Gentleman said—"It would be unhandsome not to pay money to the Duke; let us do it. Let us make merry Knights for the sake of the Duke of Norfolk; he has no legal right to this money; but let us give it to him." That was not his idea, and he should maintain his opposition.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, these fees had not been demanded for 14 years, and this was simply a Vote for the arrears. The fees would be demanded henceforth.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHasked the Solicitor General what remedy the Duke of Norfolk would have if this money was not paid?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)replied, that he had not gone deeply into this matter; but he imagined the Duke would have a remedy by a Petition of Right, in the same way as any other person to whom a debt was due from the Crown.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to know when the demand was made for 14 years' arrears, and why the Government, when the Crown was already in negotiations with the Duke of Norfolk for the commutation of other existing annuities, did not seize the opportunity of commuting this annuity?
    MR. COURTNEY: It is the same annuity.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONwished to know whether the Statute of Limitations applied or not?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, it would not apply.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHthought the Committee were not in a position to refuse this Vote, as the figures were manipulated.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member was apparently unaware of the power of the Committee. The Treasury

    2023
    could not pay this amount without the sanction of the Committee.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHthought the extravagant terms on which the commutation had taken place justified the Committee in not paying anything for which they were not fully and legally responsible.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 17: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 26.)

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    (16.) £17,000, Customs Department.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this was a Vote which must provoke lengthened comments, because of an item of £15,200 for retirements and re-organization in the Department. This was so large a question that from selfish motives he must decline to enter into it; but he hoped the Financial Secretary would agree to postpone Vote 3, as, in the absence of the Postmaster General, it was hardly fair to go on with that Vote.
    Vote agreed to.
    (17.) £11,000, Inland Revenue.
    (18.) £14,000, Post Office Packet Service.
    (19.) £87,000, Post Office Telegraphs.

    CIVIL SERVICE EXCESSES, 1881–2.
    (20.) Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £3,706 7s. 2d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services, for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1882, viz.:—

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Board of Trade

    553

    5

    6

    Civil Service Commission

    5

    14

    5

    Fishery Board, Scotland

    20

    6

    10

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland

    222

    17

    0

    Supreme Court of Judicature, Ireland

    1,080

    10

    4

    Dublin Metropolitan Police

    1,551

    16

    0

    CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.

    Suppression of the Slave Trade

    142

    5

    11

    Orange River Territory and St. Helena (Non-Effective Charges)

    129

    5

    8

    CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Pauper Lunatics, Scotland

    0

    5

    6

    Total

    £3,706

    7

    2

    ARMY EXCESSES, 1881–2.
    (21.) Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £44,197 2s. 6.7. be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses of Army Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1882.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [March 8] reported.
  Resolution 1 agreed to.
  Resolution 2.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question as to this Vote, He had put a civil question to the hon. Member about it yesterday, but had failed to obtain a satisfactory answer. He wished to know whether the hon. Member would secure an annual Report to the House, such as that furnished two years ago by the Controller of the Stationery Office? The hon. Member had yesterday made a statement on the subject; but no one had been able to gather from it what he intended to do.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that what he had stated yesterday was that the request was a very reasonable one; but he was unable to pledge himself that an annual Report would be furnished.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 3 agreed to.
  Resolution 4.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that since this Vote was put on the Orders yesterday he had seen the Accounts of the Fishery Board (Scotland), and he found that whereas in 1881 there was a balance of something under £3,000 in hand at the end of the financial year, and of £4,000 at the time this 8 money was supposed to be required,

  2025
  with an increasing balance, they came for an unusually large Vote from the House. It was perfectly incomprehensible how it could be considered justifiable or necessary to call for Supplementary Estimates of large amounts when there was an increasing balance at their bankers.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

  MOTION.

    BOROUGH FRANCHISE (IRELAND)(NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. DAWSON, Bill to amend the Law regarding the Borough Franchise in Ireland, ordered to he Drought in by Mr. DAWSON, Mr. BIGGAR, Mr. LALOR, and Mr. KENNY.
    Bill presented, and the first time. [Bill 115.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock in the morning.