POOR LAW (ENGLAND & WALES)—ROMAN CATHOLICS IN WORKHOUSES— RIGHT OF ATTENDING MASS OUTDOORS.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he wished to bring under the notice of the House a great grievance, under which the Catholics in the workhouses of this 582 country suffered. By the 25 & 26 Vict., c. 43, s. 21, where no religious service was provided in the workhouse, every inmate might, subject to regulations, go to his own proper place of worship. That statutory right had been recognized by the Local Government Board, and Orders in accordance with it had been issued, and letters of instruction had been sent to different parts of the country, as occasion required, securing to Catholic inmates the right to go to Mass. In a case—the circumstances of which were very well known to the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), as it occurred in Chelsea, the district he represented in that House—the facts and arguments had been thoroughly thrashed out in the Court of Queen's Bench, and a decision had been come to, which had been enforced by the Local Government Board. In connection with that parish he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had obtained a copy of the Order under which this section of the 25 & 26 of the Queen was put in force. He had had occasion repeatedly to represent to the Local Government Board that the Catholic inmates of a particular workhouse in Sheffield were very unfairly and cruelly treated in respect of their religious convictions. The inmates were obliged—or, at any rate, were, until a very recent date—to attend the Protestant Service. The unfortunate Catholic inmates were neither allowed to have Mass celebrated inside the workhouse, nor—although there was a Catholic Church not far away—to attend Divine Service in their parish church. Well, after the recognition by Parliament of the reasonable claims of the Catholics to be allowed to attend Mass on Sundays, and on what Catholics called holidays of obligation, and after the Orders of the Local Government Board itself, making detailed arrangements for carrying out the provisions of that enactment, it was rather extraordinary to find a Liberal Government neglecting to give that security to Catholics which a Conservative Government—generally rather more opposed, or, at least, generally supposed to be rather more opposed, to Catholic tendencies than a Liberal Government—had never neglected to afford. This was a question which concerned the Irish Catholics throughout this country—and if the right hon. Baronet the President of 583 the Local Government Board would consult his own constituency, he would find that there was no question of the franchise, or even of coercion in Ireland, which more closely affected or so deeply moved them than this question of the treatment of the poor. In order to secure their religious rights they would not be influenced by any mere political consideration at the next Election. He knew for a fact that a very large number of Irish electors, who voted for Liberal candidates at the last General Election, were prepared to put as a test question to candidates at the next Election, whether they were prepared to protect the religious rights of the inmates of the Union workhouses in this country? So far as he was concerned, he should be glad to see such a question as that evaded at the General Election. He thought all questions connected with religion were as well kept out of such issues; but he knew the feeling he had described was rising. In Sheffield, at the next Election, this matter was sure to be made an election cry. But, apart from all that aspect of the case, why on earth should these unfortunate people, simply because they happened to be immured within the walls of a workhouse, be deprived of such consolation as attendance at the religious services of their Church afforded? If the people misbehaved themselves when they went to attend Mass, the Local Government Board, under the Orders at present drawn up, had ample security for sufficiently dealing with them. There was power reserved to the Guardians to rescind the exercise of the right, if it were abused. There were some provisions in the Local Government Board's Orders for treating the inmates who became "disorderly;" and if the offences were persisted in, the inmates could be treated as "refractory," under which description they could be taken before the magistrates, and treated as justice might require. There was no reason at all why these unfortunate people should not be allowed to go to church. They were practically lost without it—without that salutary influence without which they little hoped to be happy, and to fight the battle of life decently again. There was in what he had stated a substantial grievance; and in connection with it the Irish Members, he thought, had some right to expect some clear promise from 584 the Representatives of the Local Government Board.

MR. GEORGE RUSSELL
said, his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had asked him to reply, as this was more under his Department. Two or three circumstances had arisen which had called, and rightly called, for the interference of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) on behalf of his fellow-religionists. In one of the cases which bad arisen, the Government had been able fully to meet the hon. Gentleman's views; and if they could not meet his views altogether in this matter, it had not been for want of trying to do so. His right hon. Friend was of opinion—and he (Mr. George Russell) certainly concurred in his view—that the legal claim of the inmates of workhouses to attend Divine Service outside the workhouses, when there were no means of having it inside, was indisputable. That was the view the Department had presented to the Unions. He had not been aware that the hon. Member intended raising this question; therefore, he was speaking from memory; but his impression was that this view had been already presented by the Department to the Guardians of Sheffield, and, as they had experienced on previous occasions, they had had some difficulty in bringing those Guardians to their way of thinking in the matter. The hon. Gentleman had said something about this being a question of difference between the present Administration and the late one. If he (Mr. George Russell) might be allowed to correct the hon. Member, he should rather say it was a difference between one Board of Guardians and another. The Guardians of Chelsea had been able to put a stop to the grievance. The Guardians of Oldham had done the same; but there had been great difficulty in bringing the Guardians of Sheffield to entertain and act on those views of religious equality which the Government entertained and were prepared to act on. He would not go further into the subject than to say that he had already—since the hon. Member had spoken to him on the subject—written a letter to the Office, which would be seen and read tomorrow, and his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would address a further and a stronger representation to the Guardians of Sheffield on the case which 585 the hon. Member had brought before the House. He hoped that before very long the co-religionists of the hon. Member would have no reason to complain of being deprived of the power of exercising those religious observances which they had every right to exercise.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he had not a copy of the Bill before him; but he supposed that on this clause they could raise the question they had been discussing in the House a short time since. He would not go into the merits of the case fully; but he thought a satisfactory conclusion would be arrived at if the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would make a little plainer and definite the undertaking which he understood the noble Marquess meant to give. He understood that the promise was that an inquiry should be made into the evidence, if the matter was brought before the Government in a formal manner——

THE CHAIRMAN
It seems to me the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) is referring to a question which has just been discussed; but it is not the Question before the Committee. The Question before the Committee with regard to this clause is the "power of the Treasury to borrow." I do not think that has anything to do with the question he wishes to raise.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
rose to a point of Order. He had a suspicion that he might not be quite in Order when he rose just now. But he wished to ask, was there not a clause in the Appropriation Bill dealing with the Irish Votes, or would the question arise on the Schedules?

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must not understand me as expressing any opinion as to what may be raised on the matter; but in the Schedules, no doubt, there is a reference to Irish Votes.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, after that statement, he had to ask, could the Committee, if Clause 3 were passed, discuss 586 the Schedules, and would it be necessary to put them? In the second paragraph of Clause 3 it was provided that the substance of the Schedules should be taken to be part of the Act, as if they were in the body of the Act. If that clause passed, would it be competent for the Committee to discuss the different items in the Schedules?

§ MR. BIGGAR
rose to speak on the point of Order——

THE CHAIRMAN
The question raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) refers to something in Clause 3. Let us proceed in the proper way—we are dealing with Clause 2.

MR. O'BRIEN
said, as a matter of information, he asked, if the Committee were discussing whether the Treasury should have power to borrow, could hon. Members proceed to give reasons why the Government did not deserve to have any power of the kind?

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he had asked for an explanation in reference to the clause.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
said, he objected to the power this clause would confer on Her Majesty's Government, which was very much employed in connection with the administration of justice; and he would therefore move, as an Amendment to the clause, the omission of £56,106,172.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member will not be able to move that Amendment now, for the Question before the Committee is that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he should like to have an answer to his question, for it was a ruling that would guide their course. The question was, whether, if this clause were passed, the Chairman would rule that the second paragraph of the clause passed the Schedules; or whether it would be competent to hon. Members to move reductions in the different items in the Schedules?

THE CHAIRMAN
I think it will be better, before deciding upon what may be said upon the Schedules, to come to the Schedule itself. As I have already intimated, in the Schedules there is a reference to Irish Votes.

§ MR. CALLAN
As you have decided, it will be competent for me to move the 587 omission of the Vote under the head of Civil Service for Ireland——

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! We have not yet come to the Schedules. When we come to the Schedule, I will express my opinion. I have intimated to the hon. Member that in the Schedules there is a distinct reference to Irish Votes.

§ MR. CALLAN
On Clause 3, I propose to move a reduction, as I am not certain that I may not be precluded from raising a discussion on Schedule B, Class III. At some inconvenience, I will raise the discussion now, and I hope I may be excused if I raise a discussion that would be more pertinent to the Schedules. I wish to move the omission of approval of the Law Charges and of the Vote for the Lord Lieutenant's salary. If it will be competent for me to raise the question on the Schedule——

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! I shall not depart from the Rules of the House to please the hon. Member. The hon. Member will have to conform his observations to the Rules of the House, which he is not doing if he persists now. I have intimated very plainly there is a reference to Irish Votes in the Schedule; but I will not now state what my ruling on any point raised on the Schedule may be.

§ MR. KENNY
Is it competent, or not, for any hon. Member to discuss any subject that would arise under any head in the Schedules to the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN
Yes. In my opinion, matters referred to in the Schedules would be legitimate subjects of discussion.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
Do you, Sir, in putting the Question, include all parts of Schedule B, or do you put the parts separately?

THE CHAIRMAN
The whole, undoubtedly.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
Then I am in Order in moving in Part 10, page 19, No. 21, the omission of the item £90,066, on account of the salaries and expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland. That will be in Order, will it not?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
May I ask, would the hon. Member be in Order in discussing the policy of that Vote now? Will he be in Order in making a Motion for a reduction, as it has already been voted in Parliament?

THE CHAIRMAN
I have stated to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) that he would be in Order in discussing any question contained in the Schedules; but it would not be in Order to move to omit an item in the Schedule, as it has been already voted in Supply by the House.

§ MR. GRAY
On the point of Order, would not an hon. Member be in Order in moving the omission of any one item on account of its having been voted by Parliament? Would he not be in Order in moving the omission of all the items, for is that not the Question you put when you say "that this Clause or this Schedule stand part of the Bill?" Cannot a Member vote "Aye" or "No" to that? Can we, then, strike out the whole, and not strike out part?

THE CHAIRMAN
To the question put to me, the answer is itself involved in the Question I put to the Committee?

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, bethought he was justified in raising the question now, for he found in the Schedule several Irish Votes on which the subject could be legitimately raised; and he thought the matter might be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) was willing, as he understood, to give a pledge that the Government would order an inquiry into the case with the new evidence now existing; but, as a first condition, it should be something more than a newspaper report; that it should be the evidence brought by a respectable authority of the Catholic Church; secondly, that the reception of the evidence, if evidence there be, should be, on formal representation made to the Government; on these conditions the inquiry should be granted. He would call to the mind of the noble Marquess a fact with which, perhaps, he was not familiar. About a week or a fortnight ago, they brought a case before the Committee of a man convicted on false evidence, as they thought, and they brought their reasons for so thinking before the Prime Minister. Without entering into the merits of the case, the Prime Minister 589 entered into a pledge that a strict inquiry by experts should be ordered. If the noble Marquess would go so far as that, it would be satisfactory to all parties.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
repeated the words he had used. If the Archbishop of Tuam would formally bring the matter under the consideration of the Government, he (the Marquess of Hartington) would undertake to say that it should have the best consideration of the Irish Government. He refrained from absolutely promising that an inquiry should be instituted, for it was premature to say what would be the statement vouched for by the Archbishop of Tuam, or any other person who might make representations to the Irish Government. All he had ventured to say on the case as presented to him—all he could say was, he would promise that the Irish Government should take any representation made to them into consideration; and if the facts appeared to be as they had been alleged to be that night, then an inquiry should be made.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
said, they wished the inquiry to extend further than the statements which had appeared in the newspaper. The noble Marquess was not present, and did not hear all the facts laid before the House. Particular reference had been made to two depositions made two days before the execution by the two men found guilty with Myles Joyce, and who were actually executed on the same gallows with him. When, on a previous occasion, he (Mr. Harrington) raised the subject, and pointed out the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant, who had these depositions before him, the Chief Secretary for Ireland declined to accede to the request that these documents should be laid on the Table of the House. The facts brought forward that night he looked upon only as corroborating the statements previously made, a remarkable corroboration of the statements made, and the suspicions engendered in the feelings of the Irish people in reference to the execution. He should like the noble Marquess to say whether, as a most essential part of the inquiry, the most easy way of re-assuring the people, the Government would lay on the Table of the House the depositions of the two men executed with Myles Joyce, which, if the evidence he had was correct, and he had no doubt of his informant, dis- 590 tinctly and clearly stated that Myles Joyce had no hand in, or cognizance of, the murders; that these two men were guilty, but Myles Joyce was innocent. It was upon this he (Mr. Harrington) founded his statement, not upon the recent statement of the two informers, though, of course, he took the latter as strong corroboration of the statement. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had refused to make these depositions public; but now any inquiry made would be inadequate and insufficient, if it did not include the production of those two depositions, now in the hands of the Irish Government, and which would either vindicate the Irish Government, and show that they had acted with strict justice, or they would justify the feeling entertained as to the unfortunate circumstances attending the execution.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he would advise his hon. Friends to accept frankly the promise given by the noble Marquess. They had reason to complain that that concession had not been made fairly and frankly at first, and then they might have been in bed two hours ago. It only showed the effect of a little pressure upon an unwilling Government. The noble Marquess had given a pledge that, on the Government receiving from the Archbishop of Tuam that statement which had been read in the House, an inquiry would be ordered. He supposed the inquiry would be in the same spirit as that promised by the Prime Minister in another case, precluding no point in relation to the subject; and one of the most important points was the production of those depositions as a natural sequence to the statement to be laid before the Government by the Archbishop of Tuam. As to the charges, so far as they personally affected George Bolton, of course, they would also come in as a secondary object. He supposed that would come within the Departmental inquiry he understood the Lord Lieutenant was going to order into the conduct of the "rats" in the Castle.

MR. O'BRIEN
said, of course the depositions would be a vital part of any such inquiry. He believed the last declaration of the noble Marquess was satisfactory, and as much as, under the circumstances, could be expected. He joined with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) in regretting that the declaration was not made two or three 591 hours before, and delayed until some Members had lost their temper, and all had lost a considerable share of their night's rest. It was another added to the thousand illustrations the English Ministry got that concessions to the Irish people ought not to be delayed to the last moment, as they so often were, until the concession lost all graciousness.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
It is impossible that I should pledge myself, or the Irish Government, to the exact nature and scope of the inquiry. From the statements of the hon. Member (Mr. Harrington) I gather now that certain documents should be produced which have been refused by the Irish Government. I cannot tell under what circumstances they were refused; and it is impossible that I could deal with a matter of this kind now, and state the exact nature and scope of the inquiry. What I have undertaken is that the matter shall be brought before the Government.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
said, the only ground of the refusal was, that it was not usual to produce documents of this kind. He would not have pressed the matter so strongly if he had believed there were circumstances connected with them which would embarrass the Government; but the only ground of refusal alleged by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was that it was not usual to produce them; and he, therefore, declined to do so. That was an answer which could not satisfy the Irish people.

POOR LAW (ENGLAND & WALES)—ROMAN CATHOLICS IN WORKHOUSES— RIGHT OF ATTENDING MASS OUTDOORS.—OBSERVATIONS.