Commons Sitting of 21 July 1884

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 29 to 36.
Resolutions [July 18] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Building Societies Acts Amendment* [301].
Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 8)* [283]; Indian Marine* [291].
Committee — Report—Trusts (Scotland) [279]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [278].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance* [294], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878 (Districts)* [284], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to an increase in the grants to Irish Industrial Schools; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the great need of an establishment of the kind in West Clare, where extensive and suitable buildings, recently unofficially inspected by the authorities, have been built by the Sisters of Mercy of Kilrush?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Government, I regret to say, cannot at present increase the number of Industrial Schools. I shall be obliged to give the same answer in a great many cases, I will not say more deserving, but, in some cases at least, as fully deserving. I regret that I cannot see any prospect of making an exception in this case.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) — STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE AT BRIGHTON.
  MR. WARTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Mr. Charles Gilbert Heathcote has been appointed Stipendiary Magistrate for Brighton; whether that learned gentleman has ever had any business at the bar; whether he is the brother of Mr. J. M. Heathcote, Chairman of the Liberal Committee at Brighton at the elections of 1880 and 1884; and, whether he possesses any special qualification for the appointment?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have no personal acquaintance with Mr. Heathcote. In making appointments of this kind I always consult those whom I think are the best fitted, of their per-

  1723
  sonal knowledge, to give information as to the qualifications and professional ability of candidates. The testimonial on which I appointed Mr. Heathcote was a letter from the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer), who wrote to me to say that he had known Mr. Heathcote for many years as a member of his Circuit, and could speak of him with confidence as a man of great ability, considerable legal attainments, tact, and good temper, and a thoroughly accomplished gentleman. Mr. Heathcote was also a distinguished University man. He took a first-class in the Classical Tripos, and was a Scholar of Trinity, and a Fellow of Emmanuel. I have not inquired into the political opinions of Mr. Heathcote's brother. Indeed, my own personal observations show me that brothers do not always hold the same political opinions; and I should think it extremely hard if the political views of one brother were held to be an obstacle to the appointment of another. That is my answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope my statement will make him feel some regret that, for Party purposes, he has, without foundation, made this attack.
  MR. WARTON: It is not for Party purposes; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my second Question.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have since made inquiries; and I find that the statement in the Question as to Mr. Heathcote's brother having taken part in the last election at Brighton is entirely without foundation. The brother left Brighton last March.
  MR. WARTON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the second part of my Question.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is a Question which the hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to ask, and which I decline to answer.

  EGYPT—EXPENSES—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any Supplementary Estimate or Vote of Credit will be presented to the House, before the Prorogation, to defray the cost of any expedition that may be necessary for the relief of General Gordon and the defence of Egypt?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate on the subject; and I would ask the noble Lord to postpone his Question for a few days, until a decision is arrived at. If it should become necessary to have a Supplementary Estimate at all, there will be an explanatory statement on the part of the Government.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would repeat his Question on Thursday.

  EGYPT—TORTURE, &c. IN EGYPTIAN PRISONS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What English official is at present responsible for the prevention of torture and other atrocities in the Egyptian prisons; whether any compensation will be made to native Egyptians who have been imprisoned and tortured contrary to the Code; and, what is the present total number of persons in Egyptian prisons, specifying those who have been tried and those who are awaiting trial?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Dr. Crookshank is the English official who, under the general direction of the Minister of the Interior, is responsible for the working of the Egyptian prison system. Her Majesty's Government are unaware that any Egyptians have been imprisoned and tortured contrary to the Code. I cannot state the exact number of persons at present in Egyptian prisons. The internal administration of Egypt is not carried on by the Home Government.

  NAVY (HEALTH) REPORT, 1883—OPERATION OF THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS IN PROTECTED PORTS.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether care will be taken to remove from the Statistics in the Navy Report for 1883, the error by which, in the ports subjected to the Contagious Diseases Acts, 4,000 boys were reckoned as men, so that the average of venereal disease was greatly lowered in favour of the subjected ports; whether he is aware that, though partial correction has been made of the error since the publication of the Report for 1882, yet the misleading summary of the

  1725
  figures is retained, without correction, on pp. 72 and 76, and is referred to in support of the commendation of the Acts contained in the "Introductory Letter;" and, who is responsible for the error, and for the long resistance offered from its first insertion, when it was pointed out by Dr. Nevins to the Department?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In answer to the first Question of my hon. and learned Friend, I have to say that the tables to which he takes exception cannot appear at all in the Navy (Health) Report for 1883, because, owing to the changes made during that year in the administration of the Contagious Diseases Acts, the materials for them no longer exist. With regard to the further Questions, I must point out that there has been no error in the matter. What the Admiralty undertook to omit was the last page of the Report containing a direct comparison of percentages of venereal disease in five protected and five unprotected ports; but in the letter in which this omission was promised, written on the 5th of May, 1883, Dr. Nevins was informed that—
  "My Lords propose to omit this comparison altogether, but to retain the statistics with regard to the ports in question, for they may be useful as showing the fluctuation of disease in different years among similar bodies of men."
  No dissatisfaction was expressed with this arrangement, and the summaries to which my hon. and learned Friend alludes form part of the statistics which it was thus intimated would be retained. The year 1882, however, is necessarily the last for which, even in this modified form, these tables can be prepared.

  EGYPT—LOSS OF LIFE IN WAR.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will supply the House with information showing the loss of life in Egypt, and showing the details set forth in a Motion for a Return in to-day's Paper?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: If the hon. Member likes to move for the mortality in the British forces since the occupation of Egypt a Return shall be prepared; but as regards mortality among the natives, I can only refer him to replies made by the Prime Minister on the 15th of May and myself on the 24th of March to the effect that we have
  1726
  no data from which to compile such a Return.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONdesired to know whether the noble Marquess meant that General Graham and Admiral Hewitt had not given approximate estimates of the losses among the native troops at El Teb and Tamasi?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: They have given some estimate of what they were informed was the loss of life; but they have given no Return of the number actually killed. Indeed, it was not in their power to do so.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked whether the noble Marquess would object to add to the Return the estimates which Admiral Hewitt, General Graham, and others had made in regard to the slaughter of the Egyptians?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes; I should object to give a Return which is really based upon no accurate information.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—VOLUNTEER HOSPITAL CORPS.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for War, When the regulations for the embodiment of a Volunteer Hospital Corps will be promulgated?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: This scheme is not yet sufficiently advanced for the issue of Regulations; but it will be fully considered when the Estimates for next year are prepared.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE CONSTABULARY DEPOT, PHŒNIX PARK.
  MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a vacancy has occurred, or is about to occur, in the office of Adjutant in the Constabulary depôt, Phœnix Park; and, whether, as the commandant of the depôt is invariably a Protestant, and the majority of the recruits and constables there are Catholics, a Catholic will now be appointed according to the usual rule?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Inspector General informs me that a vacancy in the office of adjutant in the Constabulary depôt, Phœnix Park, has not occurred, but that he has heard unofficially that the present adjutant has expressed an intention shortly to retire. There is no

  1727
  rule as to the religious profession of the holder of this office, nor is it intended to make one. It is the desire of the Inspector General, in the event of a vacancy occurring, to appoint the most eligible officer without reference to religion.

  INLAND REVENUE OFFICERS—PROMOTION.
  MR. DEASYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that, owing to the ambiguous wording of the last paragraph, on page 6, of the Instructions supplied to Officers of Inland Revenue regarding promotion to a Division, many Ride Officers have been misled as to its meaning, and consequently, through no fault of their own, have had their promotion deferred; whether the Board of Inland Revenue have received numerous complaints from such Officers; whether steps will be taken to alter the wording of the said paragraph, so as to make its meaning clear; and, whether Officers, who have been deceived by those Instructions, will now be accorded those places on the official list to which they would otherwise be entitled?
  MR. COURTNEY: The wording of this Instruction has been the same for at least 25 years; its meaning is well understood; and very few complaints have been received from officers professing to have misunderstood it. There does not appear to be any necessity to consider the question.
  MR. DEASY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the paragraph referred to runs as follows:—
  "After one year from the date of his appointment to a Ride, an officer may apply for promotion to a Division;"
  and the interpretation put upon those words is that unless the officer applies at the end of 12 months exactly he will lose his place on the list, and his juniors in the Service will then obtain promotion before him? But the meaning attached to it by many officers is that they are entitled to promotion by seniority as heretofore; but that in this case a petition must be sent in on application made after 12 months.
  MR. COURTNEY: I am not aware that any such interpretation has been put upon it, and do not think there is any foundation for that statement.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) — ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—BALTINGLASS UNION.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the conduct of Mr. Dagg, clerk of the Baltinglass Union, was impugned by the popular candidate at the late election; whether, on investigation by an officer of the Local Government Board, Mr. Dagg was found only to have committed errors of judgment; whether these errors resulted in the return of the Conservative candidate; whether the Conservative majority of the Board of Guardians have since recommended an increase of Mr. Dagg's salary; whether a numerously signed petition on the part of the ratepayers has been sent to the Local Government Board protesting against the proposed increase; and, what action the Board intend to take in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A fortnight ago I informed the hon. Member that the candidate declared elected was found on inquiry to have received a majority of valid votes, and I stated that the errors of judgment on the part of the Returning Officer did not affect the result of the election. The Board of Guardians have recommended an increase in the salary of the clerk of the Union, and petitions have been signed adverse to the proposal. The Local Government Board have not yet decided whether they will sanction the increase.
  MR. HEALYasked whether, after so many clerks had been reprimanded through these elections, the Government would not take some action in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In one case the Returning Officer was removed and another substituted.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether, the increase of salary in this case had not been recommended by a partizan Board to show their approval of the Returning Officer's conduct in this case?
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had read the Report of the inquiry, and saw that the Returning Officer threatened an action for libel against the defeated candidate for moving for an investigation?
  MR. TREVELYANwas understood to say that he had not read the evidence at the inquiry.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE POSTMASTER AT KILMORE, CO. ROSCOMMON.
  MR. DEASYasked the Postmaster General, Whether any vacancy has arisen, or is about to arise, in the office of postmaster at the village of Kilmore, county Roscommon; and, whether, in the event of such vacancy arising, care will be taken that the post office is retained in the village?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, that no vacancy had arisen regarding the post office referred to. When a vacancy arose care would be taken to have the office placed in a convenient situation.

  EGYPT—THE MUTINY AT ASSIOUT.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will inform the House what measures Her Majesty's Government intend recommending the Government of the Khedive to adopt for the purpose of punishing and making an example of the Turkish troops who recently mutinied at Assiout?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The discipline and internal economy of the Egyptian Army are matters resting with the local authorities; and Her Majesty's Government do not propose to send any orders from home on the present incident.

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM—CREW OF THE "NISERO"—MAINTENANCE OF THE FAMILIES.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will be good enough to inform the House what sum has been awarded and paid by the Government towards the maintenance of the impoverished widows, wives, and children of the captive crew of the Nisero?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: A list of 25 names was sent in to Lord Granville, prepared, I believe, by Messrs. Pinckney, the owners of the vessel, and an application was made for £500 on their behalf. Of this list, however, 11 persons, including eight foreigners, had no relative who could be traced; on behalf of one no application was understood to be made; and three others were described as not being dependent on
  1730
  their relatives among the captured crew. On behalf of the remaining 10 persons, who mostly come from Liverpool, Lord Granville has suggested to the Lords of the Treasury that a sum of £300 should be awarded, and that this amount should be intrusted for distribution to the Committee for the fund now being raised at the Mansion House with the kind consent of the Lord Mayor.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—FORGERY OF THE WILL OF THE LATE MR. JAMES WHALLEY — CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CHARLES THOMAS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in the interests of justice, it is intended to take criminal proceedings against Charles Thomas, who, in an action tried in the Queen's Bench Division, High Court of Justice, last November, was declared to have been a party to, or privy to, the forgery of the will of the late Mr. James Whalley, of Leominster?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that he had communicated with the Director of Public Prosecutions, and found that he was making inquiries into this case. The matter required great caution in taking action upon it; for if proceedings were taken, it would lead to a very long and expensive trial. The matter would be most fully considered.

  INDIA—THE CHOLERA—THE SALT TAX.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether experiments conducted each on a considerable scale by Mr. F. C. Brown in Malabar for fifteen years, 1822 to 1837, by Dr. Bedman, Madras Army, in Hoashungabad in 1857, during a violent cholera epidemic, by the Deputy Commissioner, Khundnea, Central Provinces, in 1863, and in a number of gaols in India since these dates, have established the value of salt as a preventive; and, whether therefore, Government will endeavour to reduce the salt tax in India from its present rate of over 1,000 per cent. on the prime cost of the article?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I am aware of the circumstances referred to in the Question of the hon. Member; but I understand that the highest medical opinion of the present day does not support the idea

  1731
  that salt has any specific influence on cholera, though an insufficiency of salt certainly renders persons more liable to epidemic disease. I have already informed the hon. Member that a further reduction of the Salt Tax is not at present practicable.

  THE LUNACY COMMISSIONERS—THE REPORT.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners just laid upon the Table, Whether, with regard to App. E. p. 330, which is a Return for County and Borough Asylums of the average weekly cost of maintenance, &c., he will ask the Commissioners for a statement of the annual cost as well; whether his attention has been called to the incomplete Return of Expenditure in Lunatic Hospitals, App. F.; whether the omission of the expenditure of the Manchester Royal Lunatic Hospital will be supplied; and, if he will be good enough to cause at least an approximate Return of the Cost of Lunatics in Poor Houses to be given, and show in concrete form the total number of lunatics of all classes maintained from public sources, and the cost of maintenance?
  MR. HIBBERT: The total annual cost of all English lunatic asylums appears in the copies of the abstracts of asylum accounts transmitted to the Lunacy Commissioners under the Act 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, s. 58, and are annually laid on the Table of the House after careful examination and correction; but hitherto have never been ordered to be printed. These abstracts will be laid upon the Table in the course of a few days, and will be accessible to Members in the Library. As regards the omission in Appendix F, it must be understood that the information contained in that Appendix is given by the courtesy of the superintendents of the hospitals, and there is no power to compel them to send it. The Medical Superintendent of the Manchester Royal Lunatic Hospital has, in regard to his Return, had four letters addressed to him on the subject without effect. As regards the cost of lunatics in workhouses, no separate accounts are kept by Boards of Guardians of such costs; and it would not be possible for the Local Government Board to furnish such a Return.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—THE BARBAVILLA CONSPIRACY CASE.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Cole, the informer, examined in the recent Barbavilla conspiracy case, has been pardoned; has the Government in this case departed from the usual practice of requiring an informer to leave the Country; have the Executive received a Memorial from the Catholic clergymen of the district in which Cole resided, stating their opinion that it would be dangerous to the public peace that he should come to reside in that locality; whether it is the fact that he has come to reside there; and, will he state whether the district or the county is to be charged for the extra police kept for his protection?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that it was hardly correct to state that Cole had been pardoned, because he was not convicted, and it was not usual to give pardon to unconvicted prisoners. It was not intended to proceed against him. It was a fact that he had returned to Westmeath. He was anxious to go back as he had a valuable property there, which it was not possible to dispose of at present; and as he had a large family dependent on him, it was felt that it would be unjust to compel him to leave the country. A Memorial had been received as stated; but it was not considered that his presence would be dangerous to the peace of the locality. The police, who were protecting him, were not charged on the district. They were part of the county force.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) — PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that, under the Public Health Act, should a visitation of cholera occur in Dublin, it is uncertain whether the duty of taking extraordinary precautions will be vested in the Corporation or in the Boards of Guardians; whether he is aware that, under the Act of last Session, the Local Government Board is given power to decide this question; whether he is aware that, until such a decision is made, no adequate precautions can be taken by either sanitary authority; and, whe-

  1733
  ther, in view of the fact that adequate precautions, in the way of extraordinary measures for the abatement of nuisances, for the provision of extra hospital accommodation, and for thorough and effective scavenging, whitewashing, &c. must necessarily take a long period to carry out when, as in Dublin, thousands of tenement houses have to be dealt with, he can hold out any hope that the Irish Local Government Board will take action at a time when action may be really effective?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board are in communication with the Corporation of Dublin in regard to measures to be taken should a visitation of cholera occur in Dublin, and unless the Corporation make any well-founded objections they are willing to empower that body to carry into execution any regulations which may be made under the 149th section of the Public Health Act for the prevention of the spread of infectious disease in Dublin. On hearing from the Corporation, the Local Government Board will furnish them with a copy of a draft order which has been prepared, and which will show them the duties which will be imposed on them in the event of the 149th section being put in force. The first point to be aimed at is, however, to prevent the introduction of cholera into the country. With that view careful orders were framed last year, and with the concurrence of the Admiralty and the Commissioners of Customs, the duty was imposed on the Coastguard and Customs officers to inspect, and, if necessary, detain ships arriving in which there had been any disease. These orders are still in force, and the Admiralty and Commissioners of Customs have been urged by the Irish Government to impress upon their officers the necessity at the present time for the exercise of great caution in carrying out the duties imposed on them by this order. A copy of the order was sent last week to each Port Sanitary Authority, with a circular calling their attention to its provisions, and requesting that the medical officers of health appointed under it should have their attention again directed to their duties. As regards Dublin, the Local Government Board Inspector reports that the medical officers have been put on the alert, that the Coastguards and Customs have been communicated with
  1734
  by the Sanitary Authority, and that the floating intercepting hospital is ready and fully equipped with every requirement, and may be occupied at any moment in the event of a case of cholera coming into harbour. As regards portable hospitals, the Local Government Board have invited plans and estimates from a large firm in Dublin, and are making inquiries as to the cost and other particulars respecting the portable hospitals kept in stock by a London firm.
  MR. GRAY: When was the Corporation communicated with?
  MR. TREVELYAN: On Saturday. The Port Sanitary Authority was communicated with on Thursday.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the recent report on the threatened outbreak of cholera, in which the College of Physicians in Ireland state, inter alia, that—
  "The College are of opinion that the existing Port Hospital Ship, except as a temporary measure, is an inadequate and unsuitable provision against a possible invasion of cholera through the Port. They think that an isolated intercepting hospital, containing at least twenty beds, should be prepared within a convenient distance of the river, to which patients suffering from suspicious diarrhæa, cholerine (cholera nostras), or cholera, on board vessels arriving in the Port, should be instantly removed. Abundant air space, free ventilation, an efficient system of warming, and sanitary appliances of the most approved kind, should be provided in the intercepting hospital. These measures have proved successful elsewhere;"
  whether he is aware that, 1883, the Corporation of Dublin, being advised by the highest medical authorities, desired to erect an hospital hut in a convenient situation on the Pigeon House Road, at the entrance to the Port of Dublin, and that a site for that purpose was granted by the Earl of Pembroke; whether he is aware that the Military authorities resisted this proposal, notwithstanding the declaration of the Medical Officer of Health, the Medical Officer of the North Dublin Union, the Medical Officer of the City Prisons, the City Analyst, and the authorities of the Local Government Board, that no danger would be incurred by the erection of the hut in the place in question; whether, in view of a probable visitation of cholera, he, as President of the Local Government Board, is

  1735
  satisfied to permit the Military authorities to interfere with the provision by the responsible sanitary authorities of the city of adequate safeguards against the importation of cholera into the Metropolis of Ireland; and, what action he intends to take in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am aware of the views expressed in a Memorandum prepared last year by the College of Physicians in Ireland in respect to hospital accommodation, and which, I believe, they have repeated within the last few days. The difficulty as to a site for a proposed hospital at the entrance to the Port of Dublin occurred 11 years ago. The Correspondence is already before the House, having been published in full in the Report of the Local Government Board in 1874. The difficulty in procuring a site under such circumstances within the district of a Sanitary Authority, should they recur, will be met by the Cholera Hospitals Bill now before the House in the event of its becoming law.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, GREETHILL, CO. GALWAY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter, of which the following is a copy, which was sent by Mr. Thomas J. Crowe, agent to Mr. Acheson S. Ffrench, a landlord in the county Galway, to Mr. John O'Brien, a tenant of a holding on the estate of Mr. Ffrench:—
  "Monivea Estate Office,
  "16 March, 1884.
  "John O'Brien.
  "Dear Sir,—I am directed by Acheson S. Ffrench, Esq., Monivea Castle, to tell you to vote for Mr. Laurence Smith, as guardian for Greethill, and you will also give notice to all our tenants to vote for Mr. Smith, and try and keep down the rates in that quarter of the estate. You are now called on to see that all our tenants and yourself will vote for Laurence Smith, Esq., as Mr. Ffrench wishes to have him elected, and will take no excuse.
  "Yr. friend
  "THOS. J. CROWE.
  "I would be sorry if you put Mr. Ffrench against you. So do your best among our tenants to have Mr. Smith elected, and do all you can for him;"
  and, what steps will be taken in regard to the writing and sending of this letter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I understand that Mr. Crowe admits that he wrote the letter quoted. The letter is certainly a strong one. But I have already more than once stated, and with respect to cases occurring on both sides, that the Government are not prepared to put the Intimidation Clauses of the Crimes Act into force in such matters. I think, however, that as Mr. Ffrench is, as I understand, in the Commission of the Peace, this case ought to be submitted to the Lord Chancellor with a view to his Lordship considering whether Mr. Ffrench ought to be asked if Mr. Crowe's letter was written by his direction, as it purports to have been.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MR. J. G. FITZGERALD, DISTRICT INSPECTOR.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. J. G. Fitzgerald, late District Inspector of National Schools in Ireland, addressed certain Letters to the secretaries of the Commissioners of National Education on the 8th, 24th, and 28th of May 1882; whether those Letters were an appeal to nineteen of the Commissioners from the conduct and action of the senior secretary, Dr. Newell, one of the paid Commissioners; and, if so, what were the decisions of the Commissioners appealed to at their first subsequent consideration of the Letters referred to; whether the senior secretary and the paid Commissioner attended at those meetings, and took part in the proceedings; and, whether he will cause those Letters, or else authenticated Copies of them, to be laid upon the Table of the House during the present Session of Parliament?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In January, 1879, Mr. Fitzgerald was dismissed by the Commissioners of National Education from the office of District Inspector of National Schools, in consequence of his having endeavoured to obtain payment from the Commissioners of an expenditure not incurred in the Public Service, and of the grave misstatements and contradictions by which he endeavoured to sustain this improper claim. This decision of the Board was, on successive appeals from Mr. Fitzgerald, reconsidered by the Commissioners, who, on the 20th May, 1879, made a final order declining to accede to his applica-

  1737
  tion for a new inquiry. Three years later, in 1882, but not on the precise dates specified in the Question, Mr. Fitzgerald addressed a printed statement and various letters to the Secretaries, appealing for a reconsideration of his case. This appeal was, after careful consideration, adversely decided upon by the Commissioners on the 7th November, 1882. The Resident Commissioner and the Senior Secretary were not present on that occasion—the former on account of illness, the latter because it was not his turn for duty. I do not think any public advantage would result from laying the Papers on the Table, or that it would be proper to do so. The Commissioners inform me that they contain very scurrilous and unfounded statements with respect to officials connected with their Department.

  EMIGRATION (IRELAND)—THE TUKE AND GASKELL COMMITTEE.
  MR. KENNYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any of Her Majesty's ships are employed on the West Coast of Ireland for the purpose of conveying emigrants, under the direction of the Tuke and Gaskell Committee, from the islands and different parts of the mainland to the points at which the Transatlantic steamers wait; whether this service is afforded to the Tuke and Gaskell Committee free of cost; and, whether the object is to get the emigrants out of the Country without attracting public notice?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Four of Her Majesty's vessels, stationed on the West Coast of Ireland, have been occasionally employed in assisting the embarkation of emigrants in connection with the scheme of Mr. Tuke's Committee. If any expense was incurred, it was so slight that it is not intended to make any charge. The object of giving this assistance was to aid in a philanthropic undertaking for the benefit of the more destitute districts in the West of Ireland; and had there existed a desire to get the emigrants out of the country without attracting public notice, I can imagine nothing more likely to defeat that intention than the open employment of Her Majesty's vessels in the work. It is not proposed further to employ any vessels of the Navy on such duties during this season.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  MR. GRAYasked the Postmaster General, If it is true that an inequality exists as to the footing upon which the postal and telegraph branches of the Dublin Post Office are placed, the former ranking as a "Metropolitan," and the latter as a "Provincial" establishment; why such an inequality of rank exists; and, will he take steps to have the two branches placed in the same rank?
  MR. FAWCETT: Although the Dublin Office is sometimes called "Metropolitan" and sometimes "Provincial," there is no such difference in the classification of the two branches of the Office as that implied in the Question of the hon. Member.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—THE CHOLERA—IMPORTATION OF RAGS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether there is any truth in the statement contained in The Daily News of the 18th instant, that a cargo of rags from Marseilles to Goole, forbidden by the sanitary authorities to be landed at that port, have been landed near Hull?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, a Goole newspaper correspondent stated that the announcement that the steamer Baron Hambro had arrived at Hull with rags from Marseilles for Goole caused much excitement, Goole having suffered terribly from previous epidemics of cholera. The authorities in London promptly warned Goole, and steps were taken by the local authorities to prevent the landing of the rags. It was further stated that the rags had been landed near Hull. The Board, as soon as they were aware that the rags in question were on their way to the port of Hull, issued an order conferring powers on the Hull Port Sanitary Authority for the purpose of taking the necessary precautions in the event of its being proposed to land the rags at Hull. The Board telegraphed to Hull on Saturday inquiring whether the rags had in fact been landed. It was stated in a letter received on Saturday from the Town Clerk that the medical officer of health considered it impossible to disinfect the rags, assuming that they required disinfection, and that they must either be destroyed or sent back to Marseilles.

  1739
  The consignee alleges that the rags are woollen, and partly new tailors' cuttings, and that they were baled and on board the steamer before there was a case of cholera at Marseilles in a form which can be called an epidemic in the town. He had just received a telegram which stated that if the consignee declined to take back the rags they would be destroyed.
  MR. MONKasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider the advisability of issuing a General Order prohibiting the importation of rags from any French port whatsoever?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that it had been ascertained that rags had conveyed small-pox and other infectious diseases; but all inquiries had hitherto failed to discover that cholera had ever been conveyed by rags. Although he had issued a General Order against importation from Marseilles and Toulon—which he had taken upon himself, not supported by medical authority — he should not feel justified in applying that Order to French ports generally. French rags, as a rule, were clean, and the greater portion came from Dieppe, and were supposed to be Northern rags. Out of a total annual importation of 19,000 tons into this country, between 12,000 and 13,000 tons were French rags. Under these circumstances he did not think he would be justified in prohibiting the whole importation.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES)—TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If it is the case that applications are received by the Department of Education from Members of Parliament in favour of persons whose claims for a pension is under the consideration of the Department; and, whether such applications result in any benefit to the persons on whose behalf they are made?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the Code laid down that "applications for a pension will be received only from the managers" of a school or Training College, and he thought it would be well if the correspondence on the subject was also limited to them. It was true, however, that Members of Parliament had written to him in favour of pensions for particular teachers; but such recommendations, unless based on personal know-
  1740
  ledge of the work or circumstances of a teacher, were of no value. The pensions were awarded exclusively on the merits of each case; and he believed that in no single instance had a recommendation from a Member of Parliament or any other person been allowed to affect improperly the award of a pension.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—THE TUBBERCURRY PRISONERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Having regard to the undertaking given as to the case of the Tubbercurry prisoners, what is now the intention of the Crown with respect to their trial?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): It was the full intention of the Crown to proceed with this trial at the present Assizes; but in consequence of its being sworn that advertisements had been circulated through the county and amongst the jurors and published in the local newspapers, making certain statements in respect of the trial calculated to affect it, the Judge postponed the trial; but the Crown is still anxious for and will take steps to secure a speedy trial.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Why was not the case against Fitzgerald proceeded with; he was not connected with the locality?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The same circumstances governed all the cases.
  MR. SEXTONgave Notice that he would call attention to the matter on the Vote for the Law Charges in Ireland.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — SCHOOL ATTENDANCE—MEDICAL CERTIFICATES.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, in view of the hardships arising in those cases where School Boards require a medical certificate before they excuse a sick child from school attendance, and where the parents are unable from poverty to pay for such certificate, he will advise School Boards that they ought either to dispense with such condition or else provide the certificate at their own charge?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that whenever the Department received any in-

  1741
  quiry or complaint relating to such cases as that to which the Question referred, they intimated to the local authorities that, in their opinion, the cost of the certificate should be defrayed by them. Of late they had had no complaints whatever on the subject.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ORANGE PROCESSION, GLENARM, CO. ANTRIM.
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph which appeared in The Belfast News Letter of the 14th July, describing the conduct of the police at Glenarm (county Antrim), on the 12th July, in pulling down an Orange arch; and, under whose orders the police were acting when they destroyed the arch alluded to in the newspaper paragraph?
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the Catholics were not a majority in the place referred to; whether, in order to insult the Catholics, the Orangemen hung the arch on the house of the parish priest?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, he had not seen the newspaper report referred to; but he had ascertained that the arch was put up against the wishes of the persons to whose houses it was attached, and that on a former occasion a serious disturbance arose in consequence of an arch having been erected in the same place. The District Inspector and a magistrate whom he consulted feared that a riot would occur if the opposite party interfered with it, and the police were therefore directed to take it down, which they did quietly and without causing any local excitement.
  MR. SEXTON: Was it a fact that the arch was suspended at the house of the parish priest?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not know.
  MR. SEXTON: Well, I know.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMISSION OF THE PEACE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many of the fifty gentlemen publicly recommended this year to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, for appointment to the Commission of the Peace in Irish counties, were approved of by the Lieu-
  1742
  tenants of their respective counties, and how many of them have been actually appointed to the Commission?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, the Question was asked under the impression that only 50 recommendations of names had been made by the public to the Lord Chancellor since the beginning of the year. A great many more than 50 of such recommendations had been made, of which a good number still remained for consideration. Fifty was the number of gentlemen whose names had been brought under such recommendations to the notice of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenants of Counties and who had been appointed magistrates; 46 of these were approved of by the Lord Lieutenants, and the remaining four were placed on the Commission without such approval.

  SCOTLAND—LEAD MINERS IN THE ISLE OF ISLAY—THE TRUCK ACT.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been called to an application made in March last by Mr. R. Chappel of Islay, to the Procurator Fiscal at Inverary, to put in force the Truck Act for the protection of certain lead miners in the Island of Islay, and the reply of the Procurator Fiscal thereto; whether the following extract from the Fiscal's letter of the 11th of March has been brought under his notice—
  "I find that, although the Act applies to an iron or coal miner, it does not appear to apply to a lead miner. I am therefore unable to do anything in the matter;"
  and, if this is a true exposition of the Law, if Her Majesty's Government will take steps to have the Law amended?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): It is the case that the Truck Act 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 37, does not apply to miners in lead mines. The Commissioners appointed in 1871 to inquire into the working of the Truck Act reported in favour of lead mines being included within the scope of the Act; but this has not yet been done. I shall inquire into the particulars of the case referred to in this Question, with a view to considering as to legislation.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA—COST OF ANNUAL CHANGE OF LOCATION.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is

  1743
  now in possession of the information respecting the periods and cost of the annual migration of the Government of India from Calcutta to Simla, which on the 1st of May last he promised to ask for from the Government of India; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, a Return showing the annual dates since the transfer of the Government of India to the Crown in 1858, of the migration of the Government of India at Calcutta to Simla, and the dates of its return to Calcutta, and the extra annual cost upon the taxpayers of India in consequence of this annual migration of Government?
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, no reply had yet been received from the Government of India to the despatch sent to them after the hon. and learned Member asked his Question on the 1st of May. The Return would take some time to prepare, as the accounts of former years were not compiled in the manner now adopted.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—TRIAL OF THE KILCROSS RIOTERS.
  MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that forty-one prisoners charged at the Clonmel Assizes in July 1881 with having been engaged in a riot at Kilcross, county Tipperary, on the 6th of May previous, were, owing to the disagreement of the jury, sent to the following winter assizes at Kilkenny; whether the judge at Clonmel granted an application for costs made by counsel for the prisoners on account of the adjournment of the trials; whether only eleven prisoners received any costs; and, whether Mr. George Bolton, Crown Solicitor, received the costs for the remaining thirty prisoners; and, if not, could he explain the reason?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The prisoners were charged at the Clonmel Summer Assizes of 1881 with a riot, and the jury disagreed. The trial was then postponed to the next Assizes, and the presiding Judge directed that "the traversers should be paid the costs they would be put to by the postponement." The accused were subsequently tried at the Winter Assizes of 1881 and convicted. No application was made at the Winter Assizes in respect of the costs awarded; but costs were afterwards fur-
  1744
  nished and taxed to £46 10 s. 8d., which was paid. In October, 1882, a claim was made for the travelling and hotel expenses of 11 of the parties, which was taxed at £19 5s. and paid. A claim is now made on behalf of 21 others, and, if it is presented on the same scale as that paid, it may be considered. No sum in respect of these costs has ever been received by Mr. Bolton. If a claim be admitted, it will be paid.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government gave, as one of their principal reasons for not attempting the rescue of General Gordon in the Spring, that it was impossible for British troops to endure the heat of Southern Egypt in the hot season; whether British troops are now quartered at Assouan under canvas; whether the health of those gallant men is seriously imperilled by their being exposed, under canvas, to the scorching sun and excessive heat of Southern Egypt at this season; and, whether the maintenance of British troops at Assouan adds greatly to the expenses?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In general terms the climate was given as one of the principal reasons for not sending the troops asked for by General Gordon; but this referred to troops actively engaged in a campaign. I am not aware that the troops at Assouan are quartered under canvas. The latest information I possess points to their being either hutted or in process of being hutted. Some increase of expense is no doubt caused by troops being stationed at Assouan; but I cannot say what it is.

  EGYPT (ARMY OF OCCUPATION)—DRUNKENNESS.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state the result of his inquiries as to the punishments inflicted on British soldiers for drunkenness at Alexandria?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not yet received the Report on the subject which I called for from the General Officer Commanding in Egypt; but the Judge Advocate General has supplied me with the following information:—

  1745
  "From January 1 to June 30, 1884, 33 prisoners have been tried by district courts martial in Egypt for the offence of drunkenness. Of these district courts martial, one was held at Alexandria and eight at Ramleh, a suburb of Alexandria. It should be, however, noticed that in 22 cases out of the total of 33 the men were tried for other offences in addition to the crime of drunkenness. The punishments awarded have been, in the cases of non-commissioned officers, 'reduction' to an inferior grade or to the ranks, and in the cases of private soldiers have varied from one year's imprisonment with hard labour to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour, in addition to fines. Of course, the heavier punishments were only awarded where the offence of drunkenness was aggravated by other and graver crimes."

  PUBLIC HEALTH—STATE OF THE THAMES.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the President of the Local Government Board, If it is the intention of the Government to wait till the arrival of the cholera before they take any vigorous steps to purify the Upper and the Lower Thames, which is now in a state of semi-putrefaction, and which threatens, with the gravest danger, all who live in proximity to it?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: With respect to the Lower Thames, in reply to a Question which was addressed to me by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) on the 14th instant, I referred to the action which was being taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works as to the sewage discharged at Barking and Crossness, and, as the hon. Member is aware, a Royal Commission are inquiring as to the alleged pollution of the river in connection with these outfalls. The Home Secretary asks me to say that he has addressed a letter to the Metropolitan Board on the subject and is waiting for an answer. By the Upper Thames, I presume the hon. Member means the part of the river on which Richmond and other places included in the Lower Thames Valley main sewerage district abut, and, as regards that part, I regret to say that at present I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member for Finsbury on Friday last.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that a full and complete answer would be delivered to-morrow to the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, as experience had shown that the sewage was dis-
  1746
  charged at a point too high to be all swept out by a single tide, he would not consider the propriety of discharging it a considerable number of miles further down?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the hon. Gentleman's Question assumed that that was the duty of the Government and not of the local authorities. This was one of the main questions under consideration at present by the Royal Commission.

  INDIA (NATIVE STATES)—NIZAM OF HYDERABAD.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government are yet in possession of the Report of Major General Glasfurd, Settlement Commissioner of the Government of the Nizam of Hyderabad, relating to the cruelties practised in collecting the revenue, and the long detention of untried prisoners in gaol, which was communicated to the Viceroy of India on February 4th 1884; what has been the result of the communications addressed to the Government of India on the subject of this Report, as promised on May 8th; and, whether he will lay a Copy of this Report upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: By the courtesy of General Glasfurd, who is at present in this country, I have received the Report about which the hon. and learned Member asks. The Report was made by General Glasfurd while serving as Settlement Commissioner of the Hyderabad State to the Nizam's Government, and not to the Government of India. The document, therefore, is not one which the Secretary of State can present.
  MR. GORSTasked whether the Report had not been communicated by General Glasfurd to the Viceroy of India?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The document was given privately to the Viceroy when he was at Hyderabad; but I should like to have it officially submitted to the India Office in a more formal manner before producing it.
  MR. GORSTgave Notice that he would call attention in the Indian Budget to the want of information on this document.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary whether he would not com-

  1747
  municate with the Government of India on the subject?
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, he had already done so, but had not yet received a reply.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON — DR. SCHWEIN-FURTH'S REPORT.
  MR. CHAPLIN (for Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT)asked, Whether the Government have received any confirmation of the following statements with regard to General Gordon, recently published in The Pall Mall Gazette, by Dr. Schweinfurth, the great African traveller:—
  "Berlin, Thursday. — You forget Gordon, whose fate in a few weeks will be fulfilled. It is the eleventh hour; under parties' disputes your noblest citizen's cry for help is suffocated; horrors related of sufferings in Khartoum unexampled; hopelessly abandoned, defence of his house against increasing numbers is desperate;"
  and, whether the intelligence given by so-called pilgrims at Suakin as to the fall of Berber contradicts previous statements of pilgrims as to its safety?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; no confirmation has reached Her Majesty's Government of the statements telegraphed by Dr. Schweinfurth, who has himself informed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin that the news was derived second-hand from Nubians recently arrived at Cairo, who had been cross-examined by a friend there. The statements of pilgrims as to the safety of Berber have from time to time been contradictory; and I informed the House on several occasions that the information of whatever kind obtained from this source must be received with caution. I may add that Mr. Egerton telegraphed from Cairo yesterday that Nubar Pasha had handed to him the following translation of a letter purported to have been received by the Mudir of Dongola from General Gordon:—
  "Khartoum and Senaar are well defended (en bonne défense). Tell the bearer where and how many are the reinforcements. There are 8,000 men at Khartoum. The Nile is rising considerably."
  In giving this telegram to the House, I think it necessary to add that its contents ought, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, to be received with caution; but in the opinion of Nubar Pasha, with which Mr. Egerton concurs,
  1748
  the letter of General Gordon is genuine. The Mudir has been instructed to forward the original to Cairo. Mr. Egerton also telegraphs that further information received from Major Chermside confirms the report that assistance had been asked from Berber of Osman Digna, apparently against General Gordon, of whose movements the rebels were afraid.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: May I ask my noble Friend whether the statement which also appears in the newspapers this morning is believed to be correct—namely, that the Mudir of Dongola had stated that he kept the messenger in order to take back a reply to Khartoum?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Mudir of Dongola apparently does wish for a reply to be sent.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: In what language is the letter from General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In French, I believe; at least it was transmitted in that language to Mr. Egerton.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE NEW POST OFFICE AT MULLINGAR.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Postmaster General, What is the reason of the delay in commencing the erection of the new post office at Mullingar?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, that some unforeseen difficulties had arisen with regard to the acquisition of a site for the post office at Mullingar; but he hoped that these difficulties would be overcome; and, if no further difficulty occurred, the new buildings would be commenced within a month.

  IRELAND—FREE FORCE OF THE CITY OF CORK — DISTRIBUTION UNDER 20 AND 21 VICT. CHAPTERS 17 AND 3.
  MR. PARNELLasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If he can inform the House under what Statute, and section thereof, a redistribution of the free force alloted to the city of Cork can be made once only in every quinquennial period; and, whether it is compulsory upon the Lord Lieutenant to adopt this period as the period for redistribution?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The distribution of the free force at present in existence for the City of Cork and other

  1749
  cities and counties is under an Order of Council made the 27th July, 1882. The Statute is 20 & 21 Vict. caps. 17 and 3. There can be no redistribution before the 27th July, 1887, as under that Statute it can only be made every five years.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—EXTRA POLICE (CORK).
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, In reference to his statement that there are nine men of the extra constabulary force, the moiety of whose cost is not charged against the Cork Corporation as they do not perform effective duty, whether there are also two men employed as port enumerators, two as ship inspectors, two under the Contagious Diseases Act, and seven undergoing training in Dublin, or altogether thirteen constables who cannot be considered as performing effective duty in connection with the ordinary police duties of the City; and, whether the Corporation will be relieved from the moiety of the cost of these thirteen men?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, that the Report which he had received stated that, in addition to the nine detectives referred to, one man was employed as quarterly enumerator, and three were employed as Shipping Inspectors under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. One was temporarily employed assisting these three. Two were employed under the Contagious Diseases Act, and there were, at the time that the correspondence began between the local authorities in Cork and the Irish Government, seven detectives, against which there were recruits at the depôt. As regarded the Shipping Inspectors, the Act expressly stated that the police should execute and enforce under this Act every Order of the Privy Council, so that Cork could not claim any exemption. As regarded the men in training at the depôt, it should be clearly understood that the required number of Constabulary which must be maintained free of expense to the localities was apportioned between the several counties and cities, and that a certain portion of the number must necessarily consist of recruits in training. No county or city could claim to have the full number of men always present and on duty. Never-
  1750
  theless, it was the practice, from the first settlement with regard to Cork police, to deduct all vacancies there, whether on account of the recruits at the depôt or from other causes. That was an exceptional arrangement in regard to Cork, which afforded a fair equivalent to the City for the necessary employment of the quarterly enumerator and of the Inspectors under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. Accordingly, when the seven vacancies were deducted, the number of men charged for would be 23. The Government proposed carefully to consider the recommendation of the Cork Corporation on this subject; and he thought he might fairly say that the number of police would be reduced to 170, in which case, the extra men charged for would be 20, of which only one-half would be paid by the City.

  METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT—THE NEW HOTEL, NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether he is aware that the two top stories of the new monster hotel at the corner of Northumberland Avenue and the Embankment are apparently built of wood; and, whether this is in accordance with the Metropolitan Building Bye-Laws?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL HOGG: I beg to inform the hon. Member that the building in question is constructed in accordance with the Metropolitan Building Act. There is nothing in the Act to prevent two or more stories in the roof being built of wood, provided such stories are covered externally with incombustible materials. If such a system of building is objectionable it is a defect in the Act, and it would require another Act of Parliament to effect an alteration.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE CROSSMAGLEN PRISONERS IN CHATHAM.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Under what circumstances did Major Blair, R.M. county Armagh, obtain a pass to visit the Crossmaglen prisoners in Chatham; was he authorised by the Government to see them; did he make any Report afterwards to the Home Office; and, who paid his expenses?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that Major Blair, being oil a holiday, was passing through London, and being desirous to see the convicts, he applied for the usual order in such cases, and it was granted. He went down to Chatham for the purpose; but it turned out that the particular prisoner he went to see was not one of those who had been removed from Ireland. However, other prisoners who had been removed from Ireland expressed a wish to see Major Blair, and he saw one of them, who stated that he desired to be sent back to an Irish prison. No report was made by Major Blair to the Home Office. The removal of Irish prisoners to Chatham was a temporary measure rendered necessary by some want of accommodation in Irish prisons. Measures were, however, being taken to supply the necessary accommodation.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he was much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courteous reply.

  PARLIAMENT—CASUAL CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES.
  MR. WARTON: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the statement he made in the House upon the 27th of October, 1882, in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), in regard to the appointment of Casual Chairman of Committees, the time has not come for him to state if and when he intends to submit for the consideration of the House proposals for regulating their appointment? Within a recent period no less than three "Casual Chairmen" have taken the Chair.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I wish, further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, having regard to the opinion which he frequently expressed during the Procedure debates that the Chairman of Ways and Means was not a Member of the Government, but an independent Officer of the House, he thinks it desirable that any Member of the Government should take the Chair in Committee of the Whole House except by the vote of the House on the Question being put?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Let me first deal with the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). I admit that there is a certain amount of presumption in
  1752
  favour of the exclusion of Members of the Government from the Chair in Committees; but I think that those who are acquainted with the course of Business, especially when the House is very thin towards the close of the Sitting, and upon Bills of secondary consequence, would know that it would not be easy at all times to find any person sufficiently acquainted with the Forms of the House to be able to discharge the duties of Chairman except some Member of the Government. I, therefore, do not think it desirable to make any positive Rule of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend, excluding Members of the Government, although, to a certain extent, I agree with my hon. Friend. We all deeply lament the severe domestic affliction which has deprived us of the services of the Chairman of Ways and Means, for some little time at least. I have no doubt that he will make those sacrifices which, unfortunately, have to be exacted from the Officers of this House, and even sometimes from the Members of this House, in painful circumstances; but we cannot expect him to take the Chair for some little time, and his absence must be provided for. With regard to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), it is quite true that I referred to this subject in October, 1882, and in conformity with the opinion then given, in the spring of 1883 I put upon the Notice Paper a plan which had been a good deal considered with the aid of the authorities—a plan or regular system for supplying the Chair in the absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means; but, unhappily, one or two Gentleman gave Notice of Amendment to that plan, and it was impossible, on account of the pressure of Business, to find time for their discussion. On that account I removed the Notice, after a certain time, and I have not renewed it. At the same time, I shall be very glad to renew it, if there is a prospect of the adoption of some scheme without any large expenditure of the time of the House in discussing it. So much for the general subject. As regards the immediate necessity, I think it can be provided against, for there is nothing urgent in the case. The right hon. Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), the First Commissioner of

  1753
  Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), and the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), have all kindly offered their assistance during the present week, so there is no immediate pressure. But as regards the general subject, I think it desirable that we should have a fixed system, and possibly I may receive encouragement to renew the Notice to which I have referred.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)—THE REFORM DEMONSTRATION—ACCESS TO THE HOUSE.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of Members generally, I wish to put to you a Question in regard to the Order passed by the House of Commons, which, refers to the free access of Members of this House. That Order was passed on the 5th of February last, and it runs as follows:—
  "Ordered that the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the sitting of Parliament; and that there be no annoyance therein and thereabouts; and also that the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid."
  I wish to ask you, Sir, if I am not right in supposing that this Order remains valid up to the close of the present Session?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Order is a Sessional Order, and is no doubt in force. Under the circumstances, I shall instruct the Serjeant-at-Arms to convey to the Commissioners of Police notice of what has occurred; and I regret that Members should have been incommoded by the exceptional circumstances of this day in approaching the House.
  MR. CHAPLIN: That being so, I will venture to put a Question to the Home Secretary; and, perhaps, the House will allow me, in explanation of what I have to say, to mention that I had occasion, not long ago, to be at St. Stephen's Chambers, and when I endeavoured to reach the House of Commons by the ordinary route across the road, I found so much obstruction that I did not attempt to proceed further. Fortunately, there is an underground passage, and
  1754
  having been defeated in my attempt to reach the House by one way, I was able to reach it by another. But I think the House will agree with me that it is not by underground passages that admission to this House ought to be obtained. I wish to ask the Home Secretary, whether it is with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, directly or indirectly, that this Sessional Order of the House of Commons has been violated and set at nought as it has been to-day?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; it certainly is not with the sanction of the Government that the Sessional Order has been violated. Nor, in my opinion, as far as I have seen, has it been violated. The Order was given to the Police on Friday, and it has been substantially carried out, that the approaches to the House by Parliament Street, King Street, and Storey's Gate, were to be kept clear, that there was to be a line of police down the centre of Parliament Street to keep the approaches open for Members' carriages, and that there was to be another along the pavement on the right-hand side coming down. It was my duty to come down from the Home Office to the House at 4 o'clock, and I observed that two-thirds of Whitehall was then perfectly clear, and that any number of carriages could have driven down it. No doubt, there was some difficulty in getting down Parliament Street, owing to its narrowness; but there was a perfectly clear roadway kept down King Street and George Street. Therefore, substantially, I believe the orders given to the Police under the Standing Order have, under considerable difficulty, been well and properly carried out. I may add that I should be doing extremely wrong if I did not bear testimony to the extraordinary good humour and good sense of crowds of people in the streets. I am sorry that I was not present on Friday when the Lord Mayor put a Question with regard to the instructions given to the Police; but I would appeal to his recollection whether there has not been far greater disturbance of the traffic on the occasion of the Lord Mayor's Show? Difficulties occasionally occur even on occasions very unlike the present. All I can say is, that more orderly or better conducted people than I have seen today, I have never seen. With regard to access to the Houses of Parliament,

  1755
  although some Members may have experienced temporary inconvenience, there has been nothing serious to complain of as to any obstruction hon. Members have been subjected to in reaching the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I do not rise for the purpose of following the right hon. Gentleman in his expression of opinion as regards the conduct of the concourse of people he succeeded in bringing up to London to-day; but I would only ask, whether he is of opinion that the arrangements made by the Commissioners of Police under his authority have been such as were calculated to promote the general convenience of the public, and why the route of Parliament Street, Pall Mall, Piccadilly, and so forth, has been chosen, instead of other routes, which I need hardly indicate?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Pray indicate.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: As the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) asks me to indicate them, I may say such routes as Birdcage Walk, portions of the Parks, Constitution Hill, and so forth, where there need be no disturbance or dislocation of the general traffic of the Metropolis, and no inconvenience to those engaged in commerce. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will account for the fact that this was not done.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I can account for it easily. I had nothing to do with selecting the route of the procession. I have no power and no right to interfere in the matter, or to dictate what route should be followed. The processionists could go along any street they thought fit. It was not for me to say that they should go down one street rather than another; and, therefore, as to the arrangements in regard to the route of the procession, I had no power to interfere with them. My duty was to see, if these processions took place, that peace and order should be maintained, and with the smallest possible inconvenience to the general traffic. Those were the orders I gave to the Commissioners of Police; and I took all the pains I could to consult with them as to the best method of carrying the orders into effect. It is unavoidable that a long procession passing down a street should cause some interruption of traffic where
  1756
  it crosses; but I was in hopes that the procession would have passed in two hours. I may remind the House that when the troops, a short time ago, came back from Egypt, the whole or most of these streets were stopped up for six hours. This only shows that when processions of this kind take place, there must be inconvenience to a certain extent. The business of my Office, and the business of the Police, is to mitigate these inconveniences as far as possible. As far as I know, and have been able to observe, the arrangements of the Police have been excellent. I have received a telegram, dated 4.19 P.M., from the Chief Commissioner, who says—"Head of the procession just arriving in Hyde Park. Great crowd. All very orderly." I have stated what my duty was in the matter. As far as I can tell, the Police have succeeded admirably in performing their duty.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says he had nothing to do with the route, and that the arrangements were managed by the Commissioners of Police. But they had certainly to consult the Secretary of State as to properly carrying out those arrangements. Does the Secretary of State say that he was not responsible for the route?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOUT: I consider that neither I nor the Police were responsible for the route. If I had undertaken to direct the procession, there might be some foundation for the statement that I am responsible.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Do I understand that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Commissioners of Police have any power to direct through what streets the procession should pass?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Certainly.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Then may I ask the right hon. Gentleman under what power I could be stopped in crossing St. James's Street?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman would not have been stopped unless his presence had been thought inconsistent with the preservation of public order.
  MR. REPTON: I know that several Members were unable to get along Pall Mall. No previous Home Secretary ever created so much confusion in the thoroughfare within my experience.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am very sorry that the hon. Member should have experienced any inconvenience.
  MR. REPTON: I experienced no inconvenience personally.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: When the hon. Member speaks of no Home Secretary having produced such confusion in Pall Mall, I may remind him of a Home Secretary who, in 1866, produced far greater confusion.
  MR. REPTON: What I said was, that no Home Secretary had ever made such arrangements. The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented me.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Am I to understand from the Home Secretary that, in face of the Sessional Order which I have read to the House, he is still of opinion that no obstruction has been committed? I told him, and I repeat it, that I found considerable obstruction in coming to the House of Commons; and I have a right to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether, in future, when Her Majesty's Government desire to promote a Liberal agitation, he will undertake to carry out the Resolution of the House of Commons?
  No answer having been returned,
  MR. CHAPLINsaid: I beg to give Notice that, in consequence of the gross neglect of duty on the part of the Home Secretary, I shall put a further Question on Thursday on this subject; and if his answers are no more satisfactory, I shall take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the matter.
  MR. SPEAKER: I could not allow a Question to be put in those terms.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I beg to give Notice that, on the Vote for the Metropolitan Police, I shall call attention to the serious public inconvenience which has been the result of the arrangements made by the Government for the furtherance of a Party demonstration, got up, as it is generally believed, at their own instance, and that I shall move a reduction of the Vote.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  Mr. BRYCE,In reply to Mr. BRYCE,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Medical Act Amendment Bill cannot possibly be taken this week; but during the
  1758
  week the Government will consider what course they can take with regard to it.
  MR. GRAY: Discharge the Order.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I beg to give Notice that, on Thursday next, I shall ask my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House, and especially the friends of General Gordon, any information which can remove or lessen their anxiety as to his present position? I put this Question for Thursday, because it will give time to my noble Friend to communicate by telegraph with the authorities in Egypt, taking into account the very conflicting rumours, especially that received to-day, and as to the credibility of which information may be obtained. I shall also ask these two Questions—first, whether the rewards which the Government offered for information with regard to General Gordon are now in force, or whether they lapsed in the month of June; and, secondly, whether any information can be given as to the probable fall of the River Nile at Khartoum in the middle of September? Such a fall, I am informed, would make the sending of relief to General Gordon, or giving him any means of escape by the river, much more difficult than it is at present.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—THE ROYAL ACADEMY—THE CHANTREY BEQUEST.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, Whether he has received any information from the Royal Academy with reference to the Chantrey Bequest?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am awaiting a communication from the Royal Academy on the subject; but the communication will take some little time to prepare, and I do not expect to receive it yet.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE ZULU VOTE.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the Prime Minister, When the Zulu Vote would be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Viewing the moderate progress made with Supply, and the necessity of adhering to the order of the Votes, I have little hope that we shall be able to take the Zulu

  1759
  Vote during the present week. I hope, however, to be able on Monday to fix a day for the consideration of this Vote, and whatever day it is taken it will be put down as the first Vote for the evening.
  MR. GUT DAWNAYsaid, he had received a communication from the Prime Minister's Secretary to the effect that the Vote would probably be moved early this week. Next Monday would be inconvenient to him, as he had to address a political meeting in Yorkshire on that day, and on Tuesday he had to preside at an agricultural meeting.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not know the precise terms of his Secretary's reply; but he would endeavour to see whether the hon. Member's convenience could be consulted.

  INDIA—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  Mr. R. N. FOWLER (Lord Mayor),In answer to Mr. R. N. FOWLER (Lord Mayor),
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Indian Budget could not be taken until Supply was entirely or nearly closed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £17,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that before this Vote was passed, he wished to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any answer had yet been made by the Treasury to the representations of the Comptroller and Auditor General, dated the 22nd of March in the present year, in reference to the Secret Service Vote? He also wished to know whether it was intended that the £10,000 which had been added to this Vote should come out of the Consolidated Fund? The last paragraph of the Comptroller and Auditor General's letter was in these words—
    1760
    "I will take this opportunity of calling your Lordships' attention to the sum of £10,000 chargeable on the Consolidated Fund, on the authority of the Act 1st Victoria, chap. 2, section 15, for Secret Service, but at present debited to the account of the Consolidated Fund on the simple receipt of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. I have to state as Controller and Auditor General that there should be, in this case as in the case of all votes of money, a certificate of the actual expenditure within the year, and the surrender of any unexpended balance, in accordance with the declaration required under the Act."
    He might mention that until 1882 there was absolutely no audit at all of the Secret Service money; but at that time an Act was passed requiring certain certificates and affidavits to be made by the Secretary of State with regard to the issue of money from the Treasury on account of Secret Service. In 1875 there was an Act passed, under which the Commissioners of Audit, who were the authorities, were empowered to investigate certain appropriations of public money, including Secret Service money; but the enactment under which the Comptroller and Auditor General now investigated the expenditure of voted Supply repealed that Act, and certainly there did not appear to be any satisfactory requirement under which the Comptroller could claim to make a thorough investigation into the distribution of Secret Service money. But the Comptroller and Auditor General was bound as a matter of duty, before reporting to the House, to investigate, as far as he could, the appropriation of this and all other moneys. Before the Public Accounts Committee the other day the official representative of the Comptroller and Auditor General was obliged to admit, in reply to certain queries addressed to him, that there was absolutely no audit whatever of this sum of £10,000 drawn from the Consolidated Fund for Secret Service money, and, in consequence, a letter he had read was addressed to the Treasury. The month went by, and no reply was made by the Treasury; but it was represented to the Committee that it was necessary the Treasury should put themselves in communication with the various Secretaries of State and the other high officials concerned in the distribution of the money. The Public Accounts Committee were assured, however, by the representative of the Treasury, that every despatch would be used to secure an answer to the letter before the last

    1761
    meeting of the Committee on Public Accounts. The last meeting had been held, and no reply from the Treasury was forthcoming. Therefore the Public Accounts Committee were not in a position to deal with the subject, as, perhaps, it ought to have been dealt with. Unless the Secretary to the Treasury was able to give some information as to what the Government intended to do with regard to this sum of £10,000 drawn from the Consolidated Fund, as this was the last occasion on which it could come before the House this year, it would be passed over without any satisfactory explanation, either to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee, or the House itself. He would like to know whether the Treasury had decided to fall in with the suggestion of the Comptroller and Auditor General with regard to the auditing of this particular sum?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, this was a matter of considerable importance and delicacy; and he was afraid that it was impossible for him to deal with it at the present time. The letter was sent from the Audit Office to the Treasury on the 22nd of March; and as it raised a question which had not been considered before, and one that involved an important consideration, the Treasury deemed it necessary to consult the Law Officers of the Crown on the subjects mentioned in the letter. Accordingly a case was prepared and submitted to the Law Officers. That occasioned some delay; but at the beginning of the present month they had received the opinion of the Law Officers. That opinion had been transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the matter was now under his consideration. He did not think it desirable to enter now into any statement as to what that opinion was, as the matter was now before the Comptroller and Auditor General; and he was unable to say whether that Gentleman would accept it or be disposed to controvert it. Of course if the Comptroller accepted it the Correspondence would be given next year; but if he controverted it, it might be necessary to enter into further correspondence, and to consult the Law Officers of the Crown again. The Treasury had consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, had received their opinion, and had sent it to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    1762
    The hon. Gentleman would see, therefore, that the question was not lost sight of, but was practically alive; and he might rest assured that it would not be passed over by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had every ground for placing reliance in the Comptroller and Auditor General; but he did not place any reliance upon the desire of the Treasury to have the matter settled in the way the Comptroller and Auditor General wished. His experience was that the Treasury did not always act in accordance with the view of the financial officer of the House. The Secret Service Vote was one which required very serious consideration. There was an increase this year of £10,000. Last year the Vote amounted to £23,000, and this year it was £33,000; but even £33,000, as the Committee would gather from the observations already made, did not represent the whole sum, seeing that £10,000 had been drawn from the Consolidated Fund. There was a peculiarity attached to this Vote, and it was this—that there was a distinction between the Vote and the amount drawn from the Consolidated Fund. The Foreign Office drew, not from the Consolidated Fund at all, but from Vote entirely; the Vote was issued by the Secretary to the Treasury, who distributed it, as he distributed other amounts from the Consolidated Fund, to the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, the Home Office, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Foreign Office, however, drew exclusively from the amount voted in Supply. The balance which was left was distributed among the different Secretaries of State; but the amount drawn from the Consolidated Fund was entirely given either to the Secretary of State, or the Chief Secretary, or Under Secretary for Ireland. They drew to the credit of the Treasury, the Treasury itself never touching one farthing of the Secret Service money. This £10,000, which was to a very great extent drawn upon for expenses other than Foreign Secret Service money, and which was spent entirely within England, and as he believed mostly within Ireland, was not audited at all; and when application was made by the Comptroller and Auditor General that provision should be made for the audit of this sum, he did not find

    1763
    that the Treasury were at all anxious to fall in with that view. Therefore it seemed to him to be only fair that the Committee should know what were the exceptional circumstances, or what were the general features of the situation, which justified the Government in asking for an increase of £10,000 in this Vote. There was nothing in the state of Ireland, there was nothing surely in the state of England or Scotland, which could require that a sum of £10,000, over and above the sum which had been found more than sufficient in past years for the Service, should be asked for at the hands of the House. There was in Ireland a suspicion that a very large proportion of this Secret Service money was spent in that country. He fancied that to the use of this Secret Service money many of the discoveries with regard to the dynamite outrages in England might be indirectly traced. It was believed that if there was no prospect of obtaining the rewards furnished by the Government from the Secret Service Fund for the discovery of dynamite contrivances, it would not be to the interest of individuals to place dynamite in such a position that it might afterwards be discovered, and so enable them to secure the reward which their honest industry would not be able to procure for them. In the same way in Ireland it was believed that many of the outrages and offences, and many of the scares which had been witnessed during the last 12 months, were due to the fact that there were unscrupulous men at the beck and call of the Government, who were looking for rewards out of this fund, in return for services of a very questionable character which made it the interest of individuals to foment disorder and to mislead poor innocent dupes whom they afterwards made their victims. He could not, of course, expect the Government to give a detailed statement as to the distribution of the money. The Vote was limited some years to £23,000, of which £15,000 went to the Foreign Office, mid about £8,000 was distributed between the Colonial Office, the Home Office, and the Office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. This increase of £10,000 raised that sum of £8,000 to £18,000, and with £10,000 from the Consolidated Fund which the Foreign Office did not touch at all, they found no less than £23,000, used, within
    1764
    the United Kingdom for Secret Service purposes. It was perfectly incredible that the requirements of a respectable and honest administration could be such as to necessitate a Vote of that kind, and he did not believe the hon. Gentleman would find anywhere that such circumstances existed. At any rate, if they did, they ought to be indicated.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that no one more than he disliked Votes for Secret Service; but unfortunately it was an accompaniment, and an inevitable accompaniment, of the existence of secret societies. The laws of this country were not adapted, or rather were not applied, so as to check the existence of secret societies. It thence became inevitable that the Government should meet the action of the secret societies in some degree with their own instruments. Every relaxation of the law, which had permitted the existence of secret societies, had, in his opinion, increased the necessity for having recourse to secret means—to Secret Service money—by the Government; and he, for one, though he deprecated the system, would do nothing to render its operation invalid. It was an evil. At the same time, it was, under the circumstances, a necessary evil, as it had produced some good results, or rather mitigations of evil. For these reasons he would do nothing which would have the effect of disclosing the details of the administration of this Secret Service money, and thus render its application ineffectual.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was of opinion that the criticism of this Vote in previous years had not been without effect. At that time it was understood that the £23,000 voted by the House of Commons was mainly devoted to the purposes of the Foreign Office; and he regretted that in the application of the Secret Service money by the Foreign Department there was no reason to suppose for one moment that there had been any advantages commensurate with the use of money in that way. He congratulated himself, therefore, that the criticism of the Vote in previous years had not been without good effect, because, by degrees, they had succeeded not only in diminishing the gross amount of the Vote by several thousand pounds, but of that gross Vote several thousand pounds had remained unexpended in each year, and the total amount actually

    1765
    spent had fallen to £13,000. Certain objectionable charges had also been dropped; and he was of opinion that if the use of Secret Service money at all were justifiable, the actual amount expended each year should appear in the Votes. He ventured to hope that the time was not far distant when, as far as Secret Services were concerned, the Vote would be reduced to very small proportions indeed. He was sorry to find that within the last year or two the expenditure, which had been gradually diminishing, and which had fallen to a very small sum, had been materially increased. This year, not only did it reach the sum of £23,000 formerly voted, but they were also to expect a further charge of £10,000. He could not doubt that this very great change in the charge for Secret Services was not in any way due to the purposes for which they formerly voted the money. He admitted that when they looked over the events which had occurred in the last few years that the Government had been placed in circumstances of grave difficulty and great responsibility. They had had to fight with enemies of society who were taking steps of a most diabolical character, destroying property, and sacrificing innocent lives. This system had been going on to such an extent that he could not doubt the Government had been driven to make use of the Secret Service money with a view, if possible, of destroying the secret conspiracies which existed against the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects. He dismissed the question of Ireland. He did not suppose for a moment that this large expenditure was in any way in consequence of any antagonism to the Parliamentary Party who sat upon the Benches opposite; but he presumed that it was largely due to the present state of things with regard to the dynamite outrages. Therefore, however reluctant he might be to support this Vote, and he disliked it as much as any man in that House, when he found the Government compelled by the peculiar circumstances of the case, to come down to the House and ask for the Vote, he did not feel that he was in a position to refuse to accede to their request.
    MR. J. LOWTHERremarked, that, with regard to this Vote, he could not say he approached it from the same point of view as the hon. Gentleman
    1766
    who had just sat down, because he had always been of opinion that when the Government of the day came to Parliament, on their responsibility, and stated that a Vote of this kind was necessary, as long as the amount was within reasonable limits, Parliament was bound to accept their assurance without any lengthened discussion. He must admit that the times were somewhat exceptional; and, if rumour was not incorrect, Her Majesty's Government had additional reason for drawing upon this or some similar fund, seeing that even that very afternoon results had been attained which might or might not account for the subtle increase of the Vote. At all events, there was only a very poor look out if they were to rely upon those who had been invited by circular to contribute, according to their means, to the furtherance of the objects which he had thought that humble individual the British taxpayer was in his generosity about to defray. He did not think that such expenditure should be included in this Vote; and, therefore, he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it were intended to bring in a small Supplementary Estimate in order to meet the expenditure? On the present occasion he would accept the assurance of Her Majesty's Government that the amount was not included in the present Vote; and he thought the Committee would do well to accept that general assurance of the Government that the Vote, even in its augmented form, was necessary for the Public Service, and to place, for once, that amount of confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not quite understand from the Financial Secretary why they should not entrust the Public Accounts Committee with the same authority for examining the expenditure of the £10,000 drawn from the Consolidated Fund as they did for investigating the expenditure of the remaining £23,000. He understood the Public Accounts Committee simply to desire information, in order to know what the actual sum spent was, and whether the remainder was repaid into the Exchequer. That was all that the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) asked, and it was a very reasonable demand to make.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, what he understood the hon. Member to ask was

    1767
    that there should be vouchers submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General for the payment of the two sums of £23,000 and £10,000. It was because such vouchers had not been given that the Correspondence had arisen between the Treasury and the Comptroller and Auditor General, the point being whether legal vouchers should not be required for the expenditure. The hon. Member for Queen's County had also raised a question as to the increase in the Vote this year by the sum of £10,000. Now, he (Mr. Courtney) regarded the Vote with the same suspicion as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate); but it would be impossible to go into the circumstances which rendered an increase in the Vote necessary; and it seemed to him that a sufficient explanation was to be found in the peculiar circumstances of the times and in the events of last year. The secret and dangerous action of certain individuals to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had referred was not imaginary; and he was afraid it was only to be met by the use of Secret Service money. Of course, there was the danger that in administering the Secret Service Fund some evils might be created in the attempt to get rid of others; but it was impossible for them to shut their eyes to what had happened in the last 12 months. The danger was a real one, and must be dealt with; and he thought the Government were justified in asking for the confidence of the Committee in support of the Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Gentleman had accurately, to a certain extent, indicated what his line of thought was in putting his question; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman altogether saw its full roach. With regard to the sum of £23,000, most of which was issued to the Foreign Office, the system adopted was this—the Foreign Secretary gave to the Treasury a receipt for a certain sum of money—say £15,000. Of that £15,000, certain sums might be sent to our Ministers abroad—Consuls and others—for information and other kinds of service, on account of which it would be necessary to pay the individuals who furnished it. The discharge of those officials abroad was not sent to the Treasury, but was sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General as vouchers for the payment of the sums
    1768
    which the Secretary of State, by reason of his advances, had drawn. The Foreign Minister was required to go to the Court of Exchequer, or to one of the Judges in the High Court, and make an affidavit that he had actually expended, in secret services, the sums which had been advanced to him. So much for the Foreign Office portion of the Vote; but in regard to the other Secretaries of State, or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, there was no such system. A certain sum of money—say £10,000—was given to the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the purposes of this Secret Service; and there was no declaration required to be made to a Judge, and no certificate forwarded to the Comptroller and Auditor General, showing that the special agents employed had actually expended the money, or that it had been absolutely disbursed for the precise purposes for which it was advanced to the Chief Secretary. Then, again, there was no statement in regard to the appropriation of the £10,000 drawn from the Consolidated Fund. The Treasury, or the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, might have in his possession an accumulation from year to year of very large sums of money. With regard to the Votes advanced to the Foreign Minister, there was an account every year showing how much he claimed to be discharged from, by reason of his advances, to subordinate Ministers, and the balance, whatever it was, was handed back to the Exchequer; but with regard to the £10,000 drawn from the Consolidated Fund, there was no such system; and there might have been an accumulation going on in the hands of heads of Departments of enormous sums in connection with the Secret Service money. Now, he knew that that was not an imaginary difficulty. It would be in the recollection of many Members of the House that in the year 1872 the Foreign Office, when called upon to make a surrender of unexpended balances, had to acknowledge that they had £19,000 unexpended from previous Votes, although it had been mentioned that the Foreign Office had never more than one half-year's supply, or £7,500, in hand. But when they were pressed to surrender their balances, they handed over the sum of £19,000. In the same way, there was nothing to

    1769
    prevent the Chief Secretary, or the Under Secretary for Ireland, from accumulating a very large sum of money, which he might afterwards use, practically, as he pleased for corrupt or illegitimate purposes. He did not believe that the present Chief Secretary for Ireland did misuse his power in that way; but there had been men connected with the Irish Government who would not object to do so, and there had been men, even in very high offices, who had been capable of doing most questionable things with the public money. For instance, they had had a man named French until recently at the head of the Criminal Detective Department of Dublin Castle, and the whole police arrangements had been practically under his control. There was no reason for doubting that that man had had the distribution of a very considerable proportion of the public money, and especially of the Secret Service money, at his disposal. Well, it had been discovered that French was absolutely unfit to be intrusted with anything of the kind, and there was no reason to suppose that his was a solitary case. Under these circumstances, it could not be a matter of surprise that the Irish Members regarded with some suspicion the increase of this Vote, which augmented so materially the power of the Castle Government in Ireland, to enter upon dark and dubious courses. He could not recall to memory what the amount repaid into the Exchequer the year before last in connection with this Vote was; but there was a certain sum. [General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: £1,000.] He found that the Government, not content with the £23,000 they received last year, when the circumstances were much more unsatisfactory than they were at present, were proposing now to take £10,000 more. Some months ago the British Commander in the Red Sea issued a Proclamation, offering a reward of £1,000 to anybody who would bring in Osman Digna, dead or alive. Of course, the Proclamation was at once repudiated when the House learnt of its existence. But the Proclamation was issued, and if it had been acted upon the reward would have been paid out of the Secret Service money. There was nothing to prevent the Secret Service money from being appropriated for such a purpose. The War Office did not
    1770
    draw any Secret Service money at all; but there were certain things which occurred two years ago, in regard to which an attempt was made to charge them against the Staff contingencies included in the first Vote of the Army Estimates. The Comptroller and Auditor General objected, and the Public Accounts Committee supported him. The sum was accordingly disallowed; but it was thrown upon the Secret Service Fund. In the same way, the reward for the assassination and bringing in of the dead body of Osman Digna could not have been charged against the Army Estimates; but it would, undoubtedly have been paid out of the Secret Service Fund. Now, what assurance had the House that, if a reward for services, which would not bear investigation, or even avowal, was made by military or naval officers, that such reward would not be charged against the Secret Service Fund, even although the House itself would have disallowed it if it could have known of it. As the House repudiated the Proclamation in the case of Osman Digna, it would unquestionably have objected to the payment of the reward. The reward, therefore, could not have been paid out of any Vote for military services; but it could have been paid, in spite of the objection of the House, or of the officials of the House, out of the Secret Service money. That being the nature of the fund, it did, he thought, call for some clear explanation on the part of the Government whether any exceptional circumstances existed, either at home or abroad, to justify, not this particular sum, but any increase in the Secret Service money at all.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that the sum of £10,000 appeared in a Supplementary Estimate last year.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDbegged the Committee to observe that if any payment had to be made under the Proclamation about Osman Digna, which, however, was not possible, as the Proclamation had been promptly withdrawn, it would be a public payment, and would be paid out of some special Vote for Egyptian expenses, and not out of the Secret Service Fund. That point, therefore, in the hon. Member's (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) speech failed. So did another point which he made, and which

    1771
    turned upon the character of Mr. French, who, it was assumed, might have been entrusted with expenditure of Secret Service money. The character of Mr. French, or of any other agent of the Government, had no bearing upon the question now before the Committee which was whether the Comptroller and Auditor General should have any further audit, and in what way, of the expenditure under this Vote; what documents or certificates he was entitled to require to satisfy the terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act? Now, so long as the Service under this Vote was to be secret, it was clear that the Comptroller and Auditor General could only look to the Heads of the Departments. He could not inquire into the questions of how the money had been spent, and by what Government officers. This would be to destroy, to a certain extent, the secrecy of the Service. It was immaterial, then, as regarded him, whether the Government officers acted rightly or wrongly, or what was their character? It was for the Head of the Department to see to this. The Comptroller and Auditor General could only look to the Heads of the Departments. He (Sir Henry Holland) would not discuss the question what vouchers should satisfy the Comptroller and Auditor General, and satisfy the terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had informed them that the Law Officers had reported upon the point, and that their Report had been submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General. He ventured to hope that the Law Officers had reported that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be satisfied by a certificate from the Head of each Department as to the exact amount of Secret Service money spent in the year by the Department; and if such a certificate would not satisfy the terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act, he thought that Act should be amended.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he found it difficult to agree with the argument of the hon. Baronet—that what the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) called attention to—namely, the character of the agents employed in the distribution of this Secret Service money—was not germane to the question they were discussing—namely, whether there was no Department which ought
    1772
    to have control over the expenditure. He thought the character of the men entrusted with the distribution of the money in Ireland, who employed the agents, and who had complete control over the expenditure of the money, were among the first elements for the consideration of the House, when they came to discuss the question whether there ought to be some control over the expenditure. He failed to see any weight in the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury—that there was anything in the circumstances of the times which demanded an enormous increase in this Vote as compared with the same Vote last year.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman was labouring under a misapprehension. The Vote now was exactly the same as the sums granted last year. It was necessary last year to grant an additional sum of £10,000.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he thought the Committee were entitled to have some definite information from the hon. Gentleman as to what proportion of the money had been expended, or was likely to be expended, for Secret Services in Ireland. He always observed that when-over this matter came up for discussion the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant disappeared from the House, lest he should be asked anything about the distribution of this fund. At the commencement of the Session, when the Supplementary Vote was asked for, he (Mr. Harrington) drew attention to the conduct of Mr. French, who was now in gaol; and he had pointed out that that man had the distribution of the Secret Service money in his own hands. He had further hinted at the purposes for which it was being applied—not for the purpose of preserving law and order, but for the propagation and carrying out of crime. He had also pointed out how the detectives, under the control of French, were used by him in an endeavour to shield himself from justice. It had now been established on the clearest evidence, in a Court of Law in Dublin, that French himself was in the habit of writing to his friends, who were participators in his crime, sending messages to the detectives under him to observe the actions of those who were employed to spy upon his movements, in an endeavour to bring him to justice. It was unnecessary to ask what

    1773
    the funds were with which French and his fellow-detectives had been working. Could it be believed that they were carrying on their operations out of their own private resources? Every man of common sense in Ireland, who knew anything of this case, was aware that the head of the Secret Criminal Detective Department in Ireland employed these men for his own purposes, that he paid them out of the Secret Service money, and that he devoted it to the remuneration of his own agents and participators in his crimes—those who were endeavouring to shield him from that justice which was so speedily to overtake him. When the matter was discussed at the commencement of the year the Chief Secretary was absent; and, of course, the Secretary to the Treasury was unable to give any information upon the subject. And now again that the matter was brought on for discussion the Chief Secretary was absent, and the Financial Secretary was in precisely the same position in regard to Irish matters as he was on the former occasion. He (Mr. Harrington) thought the Irish Members were entitled to know, in general terms at all events, how much of this fund would be, or had been, expended in Ireland? Who was responsible for it? Was it the Lord Lieutenant, or the Chief Secretary, or this man French? On those subjects they were clearly entitled to information, considering the monstrous disclosures which had recently been made in regard to the conduct of the officers employed in Dublin Castle. At the same time, he was not surprised at the reluctance manifested by the Chief Secretary in coming into the House to take part in the discussion.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that when the Government of the day came down to the House and said that a certain sum of money was necessary for Secret Service, it was the duty of the House to support the Government, and vote the money. It was evident that the Government of the country could not be carried on without the employment of a certain amount of Secret Service money. What he did complain of was that no explanation of the Vote was given. They were asked to vote the same sum as last year, because a Supplementary sum of £10,000 was asked for last year as well as this. He
    1774
    thought there ought to have been a Memorandum to inform the House that there had been a Supplementary Vote of £10,000, and a similar Supplementary Vote last year. That would have been a business-like way of putting the matter, and would have enabled the House to see what the Vote really was. The Government were not doing justice to themselves in concealing the matter; and it appeared from the Vote itself that they were asking for £23,000, whereas, as a matter of fact, they were asking for £33,000. There was only one other observation he desired to make, and it had reference to the inconvenience which had resulted from abolishing the old Court of Exchequer. In olden times there was a definite character attached to the Court of Exchequer, of which Court the Chancellor of the Exchequer was just as much a member as any of the old Barons. One of the evils and inconveniences of spreading over a large number of Judges all the duties connected with the different Courts of Justice, including the Exchequer, was that there was no one left now to review this expenditure year by year.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid that it was altogether out of his province to enter into the question of the apportionment of the duties of the Exchequer Court as a separate and distinct Court; but in reference to the objection made by the hon. and learned Member that the Vote did not contain any reference to the Supplementary sum of £10,000, the explanation was that it was not voted when the Memorandum for the Estimates was drawn up. It was voted in the spring, and had, therefore, to be inserted as a Supplementary sum. It was impossible to include it in the Memorandum, which had already been drawn up.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he hoped that when the Chief Secretary appeared in the House by-and-bye he would have an opportunity, upon some other Vote, of affording some explanation in regard to the points raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington), as to the conduct of the Irish administration. The Secretary to the Treasury had spoken of a Supplementary Estimate of £10,000, and had given an explanation of it; but he had not stated whether, if Osman Digna had been assassinated in consequence of

    1775
    the Proclamation of the General commanding the Army in Egypt, and if the House had refused to vote the sum promised as a reward, the Arab murderers would have been paid out of the Secret Service Fund. So far as he was concerned, he should vote against the Vote altogether.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to answer this question—whether there was any repayment into the Exchequer of Secret Service money drawn from the Consolidated Fund for expenditure in any single year, just as there was a repayment of money voted in Supply and unexpended? Was there a repayment in this case, or was there a constant accumulation of unexpended balances, such as took place in the Foreign Office some time ago?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the question was one which he was not in a position to answer.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought he could answer the question. He found from the last audited accounts that in 1882 a sum of £4,800 was surrendered. He was unable to say what was the case in 1883 and 1884, as the audited accounts had not yet been given. The points raised by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) were important ones; and he would advise the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to call the hon. Member before that Committee and examine him.
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND: He is a Member himself.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought that was the proper place for the hon. Member to consider the question. It was impossible to find out from the Estimates how the money was applied, and it was palpably impossible for any Minister in that House to give an explanation.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had not asked for an explanation as to the way in which the money was expended.
    MR. HARRINGTONthought the questions he had put to the Government were not unfair. He was anxious to learn from the Chief Secretary whether the man French was intrusted with the distribution of this Secret Service money in Ireland, and if he had satisfied the Chief Secretary as to the manner in
    1776
    which the fund had been distributed? That was information he was entitled to ask from the Chief Secretary; and he thought that, if the right hon. Gentleman had been in his place, he would have found it extremely difficult to refuse to give it to the Committee.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 19: Majority 98.—(Div. List., No. 170.)
    (2.) £4,810, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and other Offices, Scotland.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £12,829, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he should like to hear something about the work that had been done by the Scotch Fishery Board during the past year. How soon would their Report be presented? It was awaited with much interest in Scotland.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he could corroborate the statement of his hon. and gallant Friend, that the Report of the Fishery Board was looked forward to with great interest in Scotland; and he thought there was no reason whatever why the Report for last year should not be before the House. It was of the utmost importance to the large number of persons engaged in the sea fisheries that they should know the details of the working of the Board during previous years. He knew perfectly well that the Report might be presented earlier, if the Government would only give an order that it should be so presented. Six months ought to be ample time for the preparation of the Report, and he hoped that in another year the Secretary of State would see that it was presented earlier.
    MR. DUFFsaid, the question of the utility of the Board had been raised last year, and he had then ventured to say that, when the new Board got into working order, it would be found efficient and doing useful work. He thought, when hon. Members saw the Report which had already been com-

    1777
    pleted, and which would be laid upon the Table in the course of a very few days, they would admit that his prophecy had not been falsified. He would not attempt to detain the Committee by telling them of the work which had been done by the Board. Perhaps the most important work which they had undertaken was that in connection with scientific investigations in regard to sea-fishing and the artificial propagation of fish. Experiments had been carried out by a Committee, of which Professor Ewart was the head. The survey in regard to the artificial breeding of herrings had been highly satisfactory. He hoped, in the course of the coming autumn, some more results would be obtained, and that the Board would be able to commit to the sea several millions of fertilized herring eggs. A large number were thrown out last year, and it was believed that the herring, like the salmon, would revisit the places where they were reared. That was a very interesting fact to ascertain, because it was well known that the herrings, after visiting a particular place for a number of years, sometimes disappeared altogether for another series of years. If it was discovered that those which were bred artificially came back again, the same as cod fish had been proved do in the waters of the United States, he thought the experiments now being conducted would be extremely useful, and that a most important work would have been done. Another important work was the inspection and protection of the mussel beds. Everyone knew that this was a most important question to the fishermen of Scotland. It had been recently stated by one of his own constituents in evidence given before the Railway Committee that each individual fisherman in the Buckie district required two tons of mussels each year for bait. By the inspection of mussel beds, and by the arrangements which they hoped to make with the Board of Trade, the Fishery Board trusted they would be able to make these beds very much more productive than they had hitherto been, and, if they could do so, it would be a very useful work. The Board had also turned their attention to the statistics of cured and fresh fish. He might mention to the Committee that the total quantity of fish taken off the coast of Scotland annually amounted in value to
    1778
    £3,286,000, and, as the whole quantity taken off the coast of the United Kingdom amounted in value to £7,300,000, the Scotch take amounted to three-sevenths of the entire value. The Board had also given attention to the telegraph system in connection with the fisheries. The extensions which had been sanctioned were to Castle Bay, Barra; St. Margaret's Hope, St. Mary's, Orkney; and Reawick and Vaila Sound, Shetland. By the 1st of August this year these extensions would be in operation; and the Treasury would, no doubt, be happy to consider any further extensions which could properly be recommended to the favourable consideration of the Post Office and the Treasury. There had been some difficulty in raising the guarantees. One-third had to come from the district, two-thirds were guaranteed by the Fishery Board, and the Treasury had contributed a sum of £500, the payment of which was to be spread over two years. When the extensions were complete they would be of enormous value to the fisheries.
    MR. RAMSAYremarked, that his hon. Friend had not explained why the Report of the Fishery Board, about the excellence of which he had not the slightest doubt, knowing as he did several Members of the Board in whose hands the work was entrusted—why their Report had not yet been delivered? He thought the Committee ought to have evidence of the work done by the Board before they were asked to pass a Vote for the maintenance of the Board. He would direct the attention of his hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Williamson) to the desirability of having the Report hereafter placed before the Committee at an earlier date, so that the Members of the House might be able to form an estimate of the value of the work done without being required merely to take it on trust.
    MR. WILLIAMSON,as a member of the Fishery Board, wished to confirm the statement of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff), who had explained the objects and efforts of the Board. He could only corroborate the remarks of his hon. Friend that the Board were working satisfactorily and beneficially for the promotion of the fisheries of Scotland. By so doing they were increasing the food supply of the people, and were, consequently, adding to the

    1779
    national wealth; and as to the Report itself, the delay had arisen because the statistics which it was desirable to embody in it could scarcely be got before May. The collection of statistics about branding in all the different places upon the coast involved a good deal of work, and there were other statistics which really could not be got in in time to incorporate them in the Report, if it was to be laid upon the Table when Parliament met, or early in the Session. Last year the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) insisted that all the members of the Board should sign the Report, and, he believed, a fortnight was wasted in sending the Report from one member to another for revision and signature. He believed that the Report had actually been laid upon the Table of the House, and that it would be distributed in the course of a few days. He had no intention of critizing the present Estimates, because he thought it would be unbecoming in him to do so; but he certainly hoped that an intelligent House of Commons would insist before many years were over upon quadrupling the amount voted for this service, and in so doing he was satisfied they would do a valuable work. He was glad to see that the labours of the Board received sympathy from Members of the House. The members of the Board themselves were most regular in their attendance at the Board meetings, and the scientific members particularly took a deep interest in its aims and objects. He hoped, before many years were over, to see good fruit produced by the labours of the Board. At the same time, he must confess that the Treasury were very hard task-masters, and he should like to see them a little more liberal towards the Board than as yet they had shown a disposition to be. He hoped the House would encourage the Treasury in being more liberal. There was only one other point—the Board possessed a very useful shorthand clerk—Mr. Mack; but he was only employed from week to week. He was of great value to the Board, and he (Mr. Williamson) hoped the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff) would be able to promise that his services should be permanent instead of from week to week. That was only a small matter, but it might afford an indication of some of the diffi-
    1780
    culties the Board had to contend with. He would only repeat his hope that the Treasury would be a little more liberal than they had hitherto been inclined to be.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURremarked that if all the good words which had been uttered by the Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Duff), and the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Williamson) were justified, they must have a most wonderful Fishery Board in Scotland; and if the appeal of his hon. Friend met with anything like a response, the House of Commons ought to place at the disposal of the Board a much larger amount of money for harbours and for experiments. But, though he (General Sir George Balfour) had no doubt the Fishery Board were anxious to do good work, he did not think they had yet arrived at such a state of perfection as justified full confidence. He had not forgotten their wasteful expenditure upon harbours in the past. They had expended a sum of £250,000 on harbours, and, with the exception of Anstruther, they were all of them dry at low water. Even in regard to Anstruther itself he believed that £40,000 was required to complete it.
    MR. WILLIAMSON: No.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had this fact in evidence, given before the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation; and if his hon. Friend would excuse him he was not prepared to take the contradiction his hon. Friend gave.
    MR. WILLIAMSON: I only wish to point out that this is a new Board.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the present Board had been in existence for two or three years. He was willing to take the word of his hon. Friend that good work was being done; but there was one point upon which he wished to ask for information. His hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duff) had given an account of what was being done with regard to the fishery inquiries; but he said nothing as to what was being done as to the brand money. This year there was a charge for money to be applied in aid of scientific investigations; but he did not altogether approve of the uncontrolled expenditure of money in making inquiries into the habits of fishes. If he could obtain some further information on these heads from the

    1781
    Lord of the Treasury he would be content to give the Board a trial for another year.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)asked whether the Scotch Fisheries Bill, which had been introduced in "another place," was to be proceeded with?
    MR. DUFF: No, Sir.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON,referring to the guarantees in connection with the extension of the Telegraph Service, remarked that it was altogether a new thing. He had been under the impression that the Postal Service and the Telegraph Service were carried out by the Post Office, and that no guarantee had hitherto been given to the Post Office by the localities. He wished to know under what Act of Parliament the guarantee was given?
    MR. DUFFsaid, the Government had recommended that the surplus derived from the herring brand should be employed as a guarantee. In that way two-thirds of the amount required was guaranteed. The inhabitants of the district provided one-third, and the Treasury gave £500 for two years. The matter had been very carefully considered both by the Treasury and the Postmaster General, and everything possible had been done to meet the views of those who were most interested in the matter. In regard to the employment of Mr. Mack, he was a gentleman who was in the service of the Fishery Board Department; and there had been a certain amount of correspondence, both with the Treasury and the Civil Service Commissioners, in regard to Mr. Mack. No doubt, this gentleman was very useful to the Fishery Board; but he had not been able to comply with the requirements of the Civil Service Commissioners, and the Fishery Board had been desired to make renewed representations in order to get over the difficulty. They had told the Treasury that the services of Mr. Mack were very useful to them; but they had not put the case before the Treasury as strongly as his hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Williamson) had now put it. He was informed that Mr. Mack, as a shorthand writer, was extremely useful to the Board in going round with them to take shorthand notes of the different inquiries they made. If a further representation were made to the Treasury he would endeavour to get over
    1782
    the difficulty, and to appoint Mr. Mack permanently. Of course, he was not in a position to give a definite promise; but he believed that if the matter were placed before the Treasury the demand now made would be conceded. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) wanted to know what was now being done in regard to further harbour accommodation. There were at present two harbours in the course of construction—one upon each coast. The complaint against the Fishery Board to which reference had been made arose from the fact that the Board had, in reality, expended money upon scientific investigations before they had received authority to do so. He had no desire to say anything deprecatory of the Fishery Board, who were doing exceedingly good work; and it must be remembered that with the exception of the Chairman the members of the Board were giving their services gratuitously. They had, however, committed an irregularity in spending money before they had authority to do so; but strong representations had been made to the Treasury by the Home Office, and it was hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would authorize the payment of the money. With regard to the Report of the Board, it was not usually delivered before the 14th or 20th of July. This year the Report contained a great deal more matter than had ever been the case before, and hence there had been a delay in presenting it. He quite admitted that it was desirable that the Report should be in the hands of Members before the Vote came on for discussion, and he would endeavour in future to see that that was done.
    MR. MOLLOYasked what services were performed by the gun-boat and cutter employed in connection with the Scotch fisheries?
    MR. DUFFsaid, that there were two vessels employed—namely, the Vigilant cutter, and the Jackal, an Admiralty boat. He believed there had been complaints of the condition of these vessels, and an officer of the Admiralty was now investigating them, and would shortly report. Two vessels were employed under the Fishery Board, and another was sometimes employed by the Admiralty for the preservation of order, and to

    1783
    secure the fishermen from the depredations of foreign boats.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he did not see why the Scotch fisheries should have the benefit of these gun-boats more than those of Ireland.
    MR. DUFF: There is only one gunboat.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, there was a cutter in addition; but he did not find that the Irish fisheries were afforded any such protection at all. It appeared to him that the Scotch fisheries had always been favoured to a greater extent than those of Ireland, and he was unable to understand why this favouritism should be displayed. He would not enter into the question of the herring brand, which was another favour conferred upon Scotland; but he thought the fisheries they had in Ireland required exactly the same protection as those in Scotland. They were now asked to vote for this protection for the Scotch fisheries the sum of £2,430, while not a single penny was asked for Ireland. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,430.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,399, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."—(Mr. Molloy.)
    MR. DUFFsaid, be thought the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension in imagining that the Irish fisheries received no protection from Her Majesty's vessels, because he knew that gun-boats had been despatched from the flag ship at Queenstown to look after the fisheries. The fact that he had himself, when serving in the Navy, been despatched on that service, gave him good reason for knowing that the Irish fisheries were not altogether neglected. In regard to the general question, however, there was not so much reason for protection in the case of the Irish fisheries, because there were not so many foreign vessels on the coast of Ireland as there were upon the Scotch coast. He had not the slightest doubt that if the necessity arose the Admiralty would at once despatch a Government tender for the purpose of protecting the Irish fisheries.
    MR. MOLLOYmaintained that the Irish fisheries did require protection, and the question had been brought before the Treasury a short time ago. The Treasury said they would look into the matter, and see whether they could afford this protection to the Irish fisheries. The hon. Member contended that the Irish fisheries were protected, and supported his contention by the fact that when he was in the Navy he had himself been sent out for their protection. That was what he (Mr. Molloy) complained of. There was a continuous service in Scotland; and while the Scotch fisheries had been favoured from the beginning, it was not until an emergency arose that protection was afforded to the Irish fisheries. As to the promise made by the Treasury that they would look into the matter, they were all accustomed to the promises of the hon. Gentleman who represented the Treasury in that House. He was the best promiser in the world, but the very worst performer. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Molloy) would certainly persist in his Motion, in order to draw attention to the injustice and inequality with which the Irish fisheries were treated.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that in the Committee on Harbour Accommodation, whore the subject of the Irish fisheries had been fully gone into, there was no complaint made of want of protection to the Irish fisheries. The hon. Members for Waterford (Mr. Blake) and Galway (Colonel Nolan) were Members of that Committee; and they would be fully able to confirm that statement.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that if he read the accounts which appeared in the Estimates accurately, the fees received from the herring brand amounted to £7,850, whereas the cost was only £5,415, leaving a surplus of nearly £2,500. He thought the surplus ought to be applied to the benefit of the Scotch fisheries; and he would respectfully make a suggestion to that effect to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff), who was not only a Minister, but also a Scotchman. When it was found absolutely necessary to extend telegraphic communication in Scotland for the convenience of the fisheries, he did not see how the fees received from the herring brand could be more profitably applied. He was quite as

    1785
    anxious to see the Irish fisheries protected as the Scotch; and if it was necessary he thought that gun-boats ought to be placed at their disposal. At the same time, the fact that gun-boats might be necessary for the protection of the Irish fisheries was no reason why they should cut down the Scotch Vote.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, it appeared from the Report on the Irish fisheries that no serious complaints had been made in respect of depredations committed by French vessels, although occasionally there was some inconvenience felt by their coming within the three miles' limit.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he could quite believe that the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) had never heard anything about the Irish fisheries; and he suspected that very few Members of the House had heard much in regard to them. The hon. and gallant Member said that although he had sat on the Committee which dealt with the question of harbours, he had never heard any complaint of misconduct on the part of foreign boats which rendered the protection of a Government cutter necessary. That was quite natural enough, because the Committee on Harbours were not concerned in questions of fishery police.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: We did inquire, as a matter of fact, into that very question.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that harbours formed one question, and police another. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would consult the Reports of the Irish Inspector of Fisheries for any year during the last 10 years, he would find that repeated and urgent complaints had been made over and over again by that gentleman of the want of a cutter on the West Coast of Ireland; and it had constantly been pointed out that whereas the Scotch fisheries were protected in this way, and a separate Vote taken for them, no provision of that kind was made for Ireland. When, last year, the question was brought before the Government, the Secretary to the Treasury said he had no doubt that if the necessity arose the Admiralty would provide for the protection of the fisheries. But what was the fact? Foreign boats were constantly going in and fishing in the Irish waters within the prohibited limits, and their trespasses in that way
    1786
    were the cause of frequent quarrels and disturbance. The fishermen, naturally, were an orderly and peaceful class of men—as peaceful and orderly as any that could be found in the whole of Europe; but they constantly found themselves engaged in quarrels and disputes which would never arise but for the depredations of foreign fishermen. He was perfectly prepared to admit that in the North Sea more protection was required than on the West Coast of Ireland; but there was protection required even on the West Coast of Ireland, and they had a right to demand it. But, as a matter of fact, there was nobody on the Treasury Bench who cared a fig for Ireland. The only Irishman who was a Member of the Government was the Solicitor General for Ireland; but he simply sat there as a Law Officer of the Crown, and concerned himself with legal questions only. With that exception, from one end of the Treasury Bench to the other there was no Member who had the least sympathy for Ireland. On the other hand, there were several Scotch Representatives in the Government, such as the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duff), who was a distinct acquisition to the Government ranks. Scotland, therefore, had a decided advantage over Ireland. He did not suppose there was any Member of that House who had used more genuine and urgent efforts for ameliorating the condition of the Irish fisheries than the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), who formerly filled the office of Irish Fishery Inspector; and he thought the hon. Member would be able fully to endorse all that he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had said, because it was principally from the information of his hon. Friend that he had made these allegations. He hoped that the arrangements made were working satisfactorily; and he would ask his hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) not to divide the Committee on his Motion for the reduction of the Vote, because he believed that the protection afforded in the case of the Scotch fisheries was of great service to an industrious and deserving class of men, who, he considered, were entitled to as much as they could get from Her Majesty's Government.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was hardly cor-

    1787
    rect in his statement that French fishermen constantly came to fish in Irish waters, although undoubtedly there had been some cases of trespass within the three-miles limit. The Report of the Commissioners who sat to inquire into the whole question of the Irish fisheries expressly stated with regard to this very question that no serious complaints had been made of depredations committed by French fishermen in Irish waters, although there was some inconvenience felt in certain localities by reason of their trespassing within a distance of three miles from the shore.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and would content himself for the present with the discussion which the Motion for the reduction of the Vote had given rise to.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. DUFFsaid, he was bound to mention that the amount called in question by the hon. Member was that which had been recommended by the Committee on which he (Mr. Duff) had sat. The Fishery Board of Scotland had been appointed for various purposes, and a considerable staff was required for the purpose of getting through the large amount of work that had to be done. He could assure hon. Members that the Treasury were very anxious to promote the interests of those engaged in the Irish fisheries. There were two ordinary vessels for the service of the Scotch fisheries, and besides them, when anything special was required, there were gun-boats; and he had no doubt that if a representation were made that a gunboat was required to protect the Irish fisheries, the Admiralty would grant the request. He repeated that a gunboat was not employed on the coast of Scotland except in special circumstances.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (4.) £4,454, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, Scotland.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he would ask the Lord Advocate on this Vote to state how many visits the Commissioners in Lunacy made to the asylums in Scotland during the year, and also to say how many public and private lunatic asylums there were in Scotland. He and his
    1788
    hon. Friends had no wish to diminish the amount of the Vote, the money taken under which appeared to be well expended; he rose simply for the purpose of ascertaining, if possible, the number of asylums, and how many visits were made annually by the Commissioners and their deputies.
    MR. WARTONasked whether it was possible, under the Lunacy Laws in Scotland, for the keeper of a private lunatic asylum to send two doctors to the house of an individual for the purpose of examining him as to alleged lunacy, not separately and independently, but concurrently—the one doctor coming into the room and the other running out—and then upon the certificate of those doctors to convey the alleged lunatic to his own asylum, where he would charge £500 a-year for his maintenance?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he had not the Report of the Commissioners with him, and he was, therefore, unable to answer the inquiry of the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy). There were certain private lunatic asylums in Scotland. [Mr. MOLLOY: How many?] There were six, and they were under a regular system of inspection and supervision. With regard to the question of law raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) as to what might be done by the keeper of a private lunatic asylum in the case of alleged lunatics, he was bound to say that he was not completely familiar with the law of lunacy in England, and could not, therefore, make any comparison in this respect between the two countries, which were under different statutes.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, as a member of a Scotch District Lunacy Board, he would do his best to answer the question of the hon. Member for King's County as to the visits paid by the Commissioners to the lunatic asylums in Scotland. He was unable to state the exact number of visits made by the Commissioners and their deputies in the course of a year; but he could state, for the information of the Committee, that every public and private asylum in Scotland was subject to the supervision of the Board of Lunacy, and had to be visited by one of the Commissioners. There were two Commissioners only; but they had their assistants, who visited each pauper and private lunatic at least once in the course

    1789
    of the year. He felt that if the hon. Member for King's County were acquainted with the duties discharged by the Lunacy Commissioners, he would acknowledge that the work they had to do had been done well; and he believed that there was not a single instance to be found in which that remark did not apply. The senior Commissioner was a man of the greatest ability and fitness for his office; he had been 20 years in the service, and had been appointed under the Lunacy Act, Scotland, which was passed 30 years ago; and, so far as the question of his salary was concerned, he did not think that there was a single instance to be found of a man who occupied so responsible a position receiving so little remuneration either in England or Scotland.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he was not in the slightest degree objecting to the salaries to the Commissioners. He was not, however, perfectly satisfied when the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) told the Committee that Scotch Lunacy Commissioners visited pauper lunatics only once a-year. That, however, was not what a large number of hon. Members objected to. It was to this practice—that the Commissioners sent notice to the officers of the asylums that they intended to make their visit on a certain day; everything being done, as a matter of fact, to make the visit as rosy as possible. The Commissioners went round the asylum, asked the principals who accompanied them if there were any complaints; and, in short, went through a sort of examination which was nothing but a farce. ["No, no!"] He repeated that a visit of the kind he had described, once a-year, was a perfect farce. Did the hon. Member who disputed that statement mean to say that such visits by the Commissioners, with an interval of 12 months between them, constituted a sufficient inspection and supervision of the lunatic asylums of the country? The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had not been able to give the Committee any information at all on the subject of the Lunacy Law in Scotland, which was somewhat surprising; but the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs had distinctly told them that one visit a-year was paid to each pauper lunatic in Scotland by the Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners. The hon. Member at first said there were two visits a-year, and then
    1790
    he corrected himself and said there was only one. Therefore, he (Mr. Molloy) still maintained that the examination of lunatics in the Three Kingdoms by the Commissioners was a complete farce. But, if Scotch Representatives were satisfied that pauper lunatics in Scotland should be visited only once a-year, he, at any rate, doubted whether it was a good thing that the visit should take place under the circumstances he had described. He believed that, as a rule, the public asylums in the country were well conducted; but with regard to private asylums, he believed he should be borne out by hon. Members when he said that inspection of those asylums was quite worthless as it was at present conducted. It was obvious that the owners of private asylums had an interest in keeping patients as long as possible; and hon. Members would see that if the number of cures effected in them were compared with the number of cures in the public asylums, there was a large balance in favour of the latter institutions. He did not wish to move the reduction of the Vote, because the matter he had referred to was, in this particular instance, one for the consideration of Scotch Members; but he trusted that every hon. Member who compared the number of cures under the two systems would join with him in his endeavour to put an end to the infamous system—in many cases—under which the keepers of private lunatic asylums were enabled to make money out of the unfortunate individuals entrusted to them, without attempting to effect their cure.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, his statement was that the lunatics were visited at least once in the year. Pauper lunatics of all classes were under the supervision of the Board of Lunacy, Scotland, and their assistants, who visited the asylums. The Commissioners went round to see the patients once a-year. That he knew. He was not prepared to say that the visits were not more numerous. The hon. Member assumed that the visits were made after intimation had been given that the Commissioners were coming.
    MR. MOLLOY: It is so stated in the Reports.
    MR. RAMSAY: It was not so stated in the Scotch Reports.
    MR. MOLLOY: It is stated in respect of private asylums that intimation was given by some person that on such or

    1791
    such a day the Commissioners would come and make their examination. It was upon that information that my statement was made.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, his information was such that he was convinced that some misapprehension existed with regard to the facts. But could the hon. Member point to a single case of the bad treatment of any pauper lunatic under the present system in Scotland? He was quite sure that no such case was to be found in which the Commissioners would not speedily bring the whole matter to light. He maintained that in this matter, with regard to Scotland, there was no ground for complaint.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs used the expression "at least once a-year" in connection with the visits to Scotch lunatics, as if that number of visits constituted, in the minds of the Commissioners, a sufficient guarantee for the good treatment of the unfortunate persons who were confined as lunatics. His own opinion was, however, that four visits in the course of a year, conducted on the strictest principles, would not be too many for the requirements of the case.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought there were few Votes in the whole of the Estimates which could be viewed with so much satisfaction as the Vote for the Scotch Lunacy Commissioners. The Scotch Lunacy Commissioners probably held the first place amongst the lunacy officials of all Europe. The system adopted by the Commissioners in Scotland was worthy of all admiration in England, and it commanded public approval in every other country. He did not know that the lunacy administration in Ireland or in England could at all compare with the intelligent, and successfully operative system adopted in Scotland. The way in which lunatics were treated in Scotland was quite different from that in which they had been for so many years treated in other countries. The Commissioners had there adopted without any reserve what was called the open-door-system, where it was possible to do so; they had always insisted on congenial occupation being found for all the inmates of lunatic asylums, and they had shown their intelligence by extending that provision not only to the male, but also to the female occupants. With regard to pauper lunatics in the poor-
    1792
    houses, the Scotch Commissioners had done much more to ameliorate their condition than had been done by the corresponding officers in England or Ireland, because in Scotland the pauper lunatics were carefully classified and separated from the other inmates, and special provision was made so that the premises in which they were located should be suitably equipped for their accommodation. He did not find that that was done in England, and as for Ireland he was sorry to say that he had himself seen a number of lunatics in a workhouse with a number of little children playing about in the room without any guard, either for the children or for the lunatics, being present; they were, in fact, absolutely neglected, none of the windows of the room being barred, or other provisions made for their security. Well, nothing of that kind could occur in Scotland; but he thought the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) must be under some mistake with regard to the visits made by the Commissioners. There was a stated number of visits made by the Commissioners, besides those made by the deputed Commissioners, not only to paupers in lunatic asylums, but also to persons in private buildings. Thus, he pointed out that the deputed Commissioners alone in one year made no less than 932 visits. On that ground, therefore, he did not see that any complaint could justly be made with regard to the conduct or administration of the Lunacy Commissioners in Scotland; on the contrary, he believed them to be worthy of every commendation for the way in which they discharged their duties. But with regard to this and the previous Vote he thought hon. Members were fairly entitled to complain that, whereas the Scotch people were allowed adequate means for conducting the system in operation in Scotland satisfactorily and successfully, they in Ireland were restricted to a very much smaller sum, and the consequence was that not only Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, but other institutions which came under the arrangements of the Commissioners in that country, were practically starved. Moreover, the Inspectors in Ireland were not able to do the work which was done by the Commissioners in Scotland by reason of the very small pittance which they received. That, however, was no ground for the reduction of the Vote for the Scotch Lunacy Commissioners, and

    1793
    he trusted that it would now be allowed to be taken.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) £4,277, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
    (6.) £23,518, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Health, Scotland.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,429, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, as he understood that the main discussion on Irish questions was not to be raised on this Vote, yet as it had been the custom of Members on those Benches to make their protests against the principle which it involved, he proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of £5,000, which represented the salary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He should not trouble the Committee by going into any details; but, simply as a continuance of the protests which hon. Members from Ireland felt it their duty to make against the system of Viceroyalty in Ireland, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum named.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £429, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Molloy.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 67: Majority 54. — (Div. List, No. 171.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, why a charge for a telegraphist appeared
    1794
    in this Estimate, and what was the work performed? He also wished to know if messages received by the Irish Telegraph Department was transmitted to the Lord Lieutenant by private telegram; and, if so, whether the Government would give the reason for this measure?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) put an alternative before them. A telegraphist at the Viceregal Lodge was a recent appointment. It was found last year that the work of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was so severe—incomparably more severe than that of any preceding Viceroy—that it became absolutely necessary to have someone in constant attendance at the Telegraph Office. He could assure the Committee that there was no money charged in the Estimates which represented more constant labour than this charge, which he was satisfied could not possibly be dispensed with.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was all very well as far as it went; but why was not the item charged under the Post Office Vote? He was quite unable to conceive why it should fall under the Vote for the Household expenses of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and why it should form a charge at all upon the Irish Estimates.
    MR. TREVELYANexplained that the telegraph worked between the Castle and the Lodge, and that the charge could not be included under the Post Office Vote, which he might say represented practically the mercantile side of the telegraph system, from which the present work was entirely distinct.
    MR. HEALYasked whether they were to understand that, wherever a private telegraph clerk was required, the cost of his salary was to be charged to the Department for which the work was done? He would be glad to know why the expense appeared under the Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the charge was entered in the Estimates in a perfectly regular way. The officer in question was located at the Lodge working the telegraph which connected the Lodge with the Castle. His services were not available by the public, nor was he connected with the general

    1795
    organization of the Post Office. He could see no reason why the charge should not be placed under the present Vote. It was precisely the same as if there was a telegraph working between the Clothing Department, for instance, and the War Office. In that case the salary of the telegraphist engaged on the work would be charged to the War Department, and not to the Post Office. In precisely the same way the charge for a telegraphist, in the present instance, to work the telegraph at the Viceregal Lodge was placed to the account of the expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had a question to put to the Secretary to the Treasury on this particular subject. Was it not a fact that military telegraphists were employed in the War Office and the Clothing Department for the purpose of communicating between the two?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was not in a position to answer the question of the hon. Member for Galway. He had simply stated what was a general principle. No doubt there were exceptions to the rule as to the work of telegraphists; but the present was purely a local and domestic service, and, as such, he said it was properly charged to the Vote now before the Committee.
    MR. BARRYsaid, that Mr. Boyle, the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in addition to that Office, held a position as Inspector under the Local Government Board, which increased his salary by the sum of £900 a-year. It seemed to him that it was impossible for the gentleman in question to discharge the dual Office in a satisfactory manner, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether this was to be a permanent arrangement?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, it would, perhaps, be well if the hon. Member for Wexford County were to apply to the English Local Government Board for more accurate information on this subject than he could give as to the manner in which the duties of the Department had to be discharged. The arrangement with regard to Mr. Boyle was one which was very well known in the Public Service—namely, that a person holding an important Office under the Crown very frequently preferred to take as his
    1796
    Secretary not one of his own personal friends or acquaintances, but a gentleman of experience, who had been tried in the service of the public. As a rule, the pay of a Secretary was not generally sufficient to tempt those gentlemen away from the Office which they already held; and it was in consequence of a recognized custom of the Civil Service that the salary of the Office which they held should be added to that of the Secretary-ship. The duties of Private Secretaries were very much the heaviest of all the duties in the Civil Service, except those of the responsible officers who were at the head of the superior Departments. He could assure the Committee that the arrangement with regard to the two salaries was perfectly regular. For instance, if he (Mr. Trevelyan) were Secretary to the Admiralty, instead of taking a private friend for his Secretary, and giving him a salary, he might select the very best clerk in the Department for his purpose. He said that the emoluments of the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, added to his salary as Inspector of the Local Government Board, did not more than compensate Mr. Boyle for the increased and arduous duties which he had to perform. In conclusion, he might add that the salary in this case was by no means too large, as compared with that of other Private Secretaries; and, at the same time, he would refer the hon. Member for Wexford County to the Local Government Board for any information he might desire as to Mr. Boyle's position with regard to that Department.
    MR. BARRYsaid, he thought the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was in the highest degree unsatisfactory; because it appeared to him, from the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that, in order to obtain a satisfactory Private Secretary, it was necessary to give him a dual position, on the ground that the ordinary salary of a Private Secretary was insufficient to tempt a man with the requisite ability and qualifications to take upon himself the duties of Secretary-ship, He contended that it was impossible for any man satisfactorily to discharge the duties of two Offices, and that if Mr. Boyle gave full satisfaction to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, it could only be given at the expense of his

    1797
    duties as Inspector to the Local Government Board. With regard to the expenditure in this particular case, he wished to state that he entertained the strongest possible objection to those dual appointments which figured so frequently in the Civil Service Estimates; and, therefore, as a protest against a system, he should feel it his duty, if the Chairman did not rule him out of Order, to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £829, the amount of the salary of the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would not be in Order in moving the reduction of the Vote on a separate item; but he would be in Order in moving it as a reduction of the whole sum.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Barry.)
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was only fair to Mr. Boyle to say that £300 a-year, referred to by the hon. Member for Carlow, had been absolutely requisite in order to carry out the work of Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He was prepared to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite on a Division; but he was bound to point out that, if the theory of the hon. Member for Wexford County was carried out, there would be great difficulty in obtaining suitable men for this branch of the Public Service, which, he ventured to say, required, perhaps, longer training than any other profession in the world.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he understood, from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the salary of the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had been fixed at a certain sum in order to secure the services of a competent person, and that it was incumbent that a salary should also be paid for duties which were not performed in order to increase the former salary, which, it appeared, was insufficient. Mr. Boyle received for duties which he did not perform a salary of £900. It was for the Government to consider whether Mr. Boyle's services as Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant were worth £1,729
    1798
    per annum to the State; but the contention of his hon. Friends and himself was that an official ought not to be paid for work which he did not do, in order to compensate him for being underpaid for work which he did do. He did not think his hon. Friend wanted to make any attack upon the present holder of the Office of Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The contention of his hon. Friend—and he was sure the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would agree with him as a matter of principle — was that public money ought to be paid for services performed, and not for services which were not performed; and that the accounts should be kept in such a manner that the fact that Mr. Boyle received altogether £1,729 for his salary as Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant should be perfectly clear, so as to enable the House to judge as to whether he was over-remunerated or otherwise. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) would be able to give an assurance that, before another year had elapsed, this matter of account should be so arranged that the salaries charged for these officials should represent the real sums of money they received. That was the only contention of hon. Gentlemen on those Benches, and he thought it was one which the right hon. Gentleman should find no difficulty in agreeing to.
    MR. KENNYsaid, there were several items in this Estimate with regard to which he desired to receive some information. First, with regard to the Office of Arms, for which there was a charge of £1,085, besides incidental expenses amounting to £34. He was bound to confess that, until he looked into the Estimates for it, he did not know what the Office of Arms was. He did not suppose that anyone had a very clear idea of the matter; but it was, at least, obvious that it was an anomalous Office, and one which ought to be abolished. The Office was nothing else than a sinecure, and, as such, the sooner it was got rid of the better. There was also another item further down on the page, upon which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would, perhaps, be able to afford the Committee some information. He referred to the item of £1,563, composed of various amounts, for Queen's Plates in Ireland. He thought it would be very interesting

    1799
    to know how many horses ran for these plates. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could inform the Committee whether these races were simply a farce, or whether they were real races, supported for the purpose of encouraging and improving the breed of horses in Ireland? The hon. Gentleman ought to be in a position to say whether the money was, or was not, actually devoted to the latter purpose. For his own part, he doubted whether this £1,563 was given for any such purpose as that of encouraging the breeding of horses in Ireland; and he should certainly like to hear what was the opinion of the hon. Gentleman on that question, because the hon. Gentleman was always ready to consider the best means of disposing of anomalies like this.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked for information with regard to the Office of Athlone Pursuivant of Arms, for which there was a charge, in lieu of official fees, of £30? He had been lately in Athlone, but he certainly had not met or heard of the Athlone Pursuivant; and he should like to know what were the functions of this officer, and what his position in the town might be? He would like particularly to learn what was his position with regard to the National Party? Of course, if he were a strong Nationalist, he should be inclined to support this officer; but if he were one of the supporters of the dominant Party in Ireland, he should strongly recommend his removal. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to enlighten him with reference to the Office of Athlone Pursuivant of Arms.
    COLONEL O'BEIRNEsaid, the present system of distributing the money given for Queen's Plates was unfair, inasmuch as the principal part of it went to one stable. A more equitable distribution was certainly necessary.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that probably the whole of the money received by Mr. Boyle had not yet been stated to the Committee, because it was a fact that nearly all the Inspectors of the Local Government Board had allowances which in some cases amounted to £800 a-year. Other Inspectors were paid a guinea a night for their expenses. He should be glad to know what amount Mr. Boyle received in this way from the Office of the Local Government Board.
    MR. COURTNEYpointed out that the question of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport should be addressed to the Representative of the Local Government Board. With respect to the charge for Queen's Plates to which the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had called attention, he might say that that matter had been commented upon for many years. It was a subject easily talked about; but it was difficult to see that any better arrangement could be made. If he had his way, he would leave the item out of the Estimates altogether. With regard to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy), he pointed out that it was erroneous to suppose that the functions of the Athlone Pursuivant of Arms were confined to the town of Athlone. Persons discharging offices of this kind very often received names which had no connection with the places associated with them, even if they happened to reside there. The Office of Ulster King of Arms was an instance in point. His functions extended to the whole of Ireland; and the Office corresponded to that of the English Garter King of Arms. The Athlone Pursuivant of Arms was the assistant of the Ulster King of Arms, and he was engaged in gratifying those persons who wished for armorial bearings by issuing the usual certificate.
    MR. BARRYsaid, he did not propose to trouble the Committee to divide on his Amendment for the reduction of the Vote. He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Motion before the Committee. In doing so, however, he felt bound to express his regret that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had not seen his way to give an assurance that this dual appointment would be dealt with in a satisfactory manner next year. The question was one which concerned the Local Government Board in England, rather than the Irish Estimates; and he trusted that next year, when the Vote for that Department was before the Committee, that the subject would be thoroughly investigated.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £30,154, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

    1801
    necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and. London, and Subordinate Departments."
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he had given Notice of Motion to omit the item of the salary of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant from this Vote. As this matter involved a question of cruel wrong to himself, and in view of the proceedings that were then going on in Dublin, he should try to confine his observations, as far as possible, to a bare statement of the facts concerning the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in his administration in Ireland. Those facts, he believed, would speak for themselves to any unprejudiced mind. On the 25th of August last, there appeared in United Ireland, a newspaper of which he was editor, an article in which the following sentence occurred:—
    "If the House of Commons wants to make Rules to stop such Questions as Mr. Healy's, it is open to it to devote its valuable time to the attempt; but it will not do so until the life and adventures, and what is called the private character, of various Crown employés in Ireland, from Corry Connellan to County Inspector and Detective Director James Ellis French, are fully laid bare to the universe."
    He asked the Committee to bear in mind that it was admitted to have been that sentence which caused inquiries with reference to French to be instituted at Dublin Castle. That was the first and only reference that was made to French, directly, or, so far as he knew, indirectly, until after inquiries were instituted by Colonel Bruce at the Castle, and until after French was told that he need not return to duty. He thought that that much would be admitted, and that it would be admitted also that upon the sentence of the article in question no cause of action accrued to French—certainly, no libel action in reference to a charge which had not been made could have been founded upon it. That was the best legal opinion he had been able to get; but it did not require a lawyer to say that the mere coupling of a man's name with Corry Connellan's name was not libellous, unless they were to assume that his guilt was proved. Now, he asked whether this fact was admitted, that upon the appearance of that article inquiries were made by Colonel Bruce, Inspector General of Constabulary? The Government were
    1802
    saddled with the knowledge that charges were impending over French in Parliament; and either they set Colonel Bruce inquiring, or he, upon his own responsibility, instituted inquiries. Upon the strength of those inquiries, French was told early in September that he need not return to duty—practically he was suspended from duty. Could any amount of sophistry, or friendliness of the House for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan), or prejudice against him (Mr. O'Brien), get rid of the responsibility of the Government for not prosecuting those inquiries of Colonel Bruce, or for dropping them the moment they found him and his paper — United Ireland—entangled in an action for libel. Upon the 16th of September French was told that he need not return to duty; but up to that time he had no valid action against United Ireland. They had said nothing libellous; but they had said enough to set Colonel Bruce inquiring. Colonel Bruce knew very well the meaning of the reference to French's Life and Adventures. There was not an officer or man in the Irish Constabulary Force amongst whom stories of this man's infamous conduct had not been for years the subject of common gossip, if Colonel Bruce had prosecuted his inquiries in this matter in the same spirit in which he prosecuted his inquiries into the Invincible conspiracy, he would have found ample evidence without going outside the ranks of the Constabulary. Was it possible such things could have been done on right, left, and centre, in Dublin, and that the police could not get an inkling of it? The Chief Secretary's statement was that the Inspector General (Colonel Bruce), on his own responsibility, and without consultation, instituted an informal inquiry, at which it was decided that nothing had transpired to establish a primâ facie case for investigation. He (Mr. O'Brien) denounced that decision as absolutely incredible by the light of subsequent disclosures, and by the light of what was going on in Dublin at this moment. Why was the inquiry instituted by Colonel Bruce wrapped up in mystery, and the holding of it concealed from the Irish Members? Why were they not told what steps Colonel Bruce was taking to find out the truth of the charges? The statement was made in the House, and it had never been con-

    1803
    tradicted, that the very first person Colonel Bruce applied to was a Constabulary officer, whose name he need not mention, though he knew it well, and that that officer put Colonel Bruce on the track of dozens of cases of the most shameful misconduct. If Colonel Bruce had no evidence before him, why did he tell French immediately afterwards that he need not return to duty—practically suspend him? Remember, up to this time, the real libel in United Ireland had not appeared—it did not appear for a month afterwards; and yet here they had the Government saddled with the knowledge that the scandal was on foot, they had the Inspector General himself making inquiries, and they had the man suspended from duty on the strength of the inquiries; they had the Inspector General furnished with clues as to the charges; they had a man lying under the charge of a terrible felony, a charge which the Government could easily have established, but which they knew it was almost impossible for anyone except the Government to establish—here they had the Government leaving the onus of proving such a terrible charge upon a private individual. He asked the Committee if that was fair play? He asked why the inquiries were dropped? Why did Colonel Bruce abdicate his functions as a police officer; and why did he—for this was what it came to—compound a horrible felony? Colonel Bruce was the only official who, it could be positively stated, instituted inquiries. He (Mr. O'Brien) would tell the Committee why the inquiries were dropped. About a month after French's suspension, erroneous information reached United Ireland that he had quitted the country, taking with him Secret Service money, and upon the 13th of October they stated that. That was a mistake—it was the only mistake they had made in the whole course of these proceedings. French had not left the country; but the moment they had fallen into that blunder and rendered themselves really liable to an action for libel under circumstances which, perhaps, led Colonel Bruce to think that their informers were at fault, and that they were only groping in the dark throughout the whole business, French was let loose upon United Ireland. Instead of Colonel Bruce following up his own inquiries as to the guilt or innocence
    1804
    of French, he practically granted the man immunity from his crimes. He asked any fair man what other inference could be drawn from the facts—namely, the non-libellous article on the 25th of August, leading to the inquiry at the Castle on the 1st of September; French suspended on the 6th; nothing further done, and no article in United Ireland until the 13th of October, or rather the 11th, for the paper, although dated the 13th, was published on the 11th; and on the 12th of October this man made to pounce down upon United Ireland. He mentioned these facts to show that he did not court these proceedings. It was only when the Government, or those over whom they were the responsible heads, either with a full knowledge of the facts, or else with an ignorance of them, which was culpable, threw the cruel task upon him that he endeavoured to discharge the duty which the Government was neglecting. If their object was, what he was afraid it was, to crush him, they had not succeeded. If conscience had not made a coward of the unfortunate man French, and if he had pressed his action immediately, it was possible he (Mr. O'Brien) might have failed in his proofs, not because he was without abundant proof of what he had alleged, but because at the time a number of his informants were officers in the Royal Irish Constabulary, many of them perfectly innocent parties to the transactions, and having a thousand motives for denying the truth, because the Constabulary Code absolutely forbade them to give information to outsiders. Here was the attitude of the Government to this man for over seven months. They knew what the charge against him was—they inquired into it; they suspended him; they knew if they inquired further, and in earnest, they would come upon most horrible disclosures, and with the knowledge and in the belief that he (Mr. O'Brien) must almost inevitably fail where they could easily have succeeded, they stood neutral. It was something far worse than neutrality, as he would proceed to show the House. Shortly after the action was instituted he moved to remit it to the County Court, on the ground that it was a sham action, and an affidavit was put in in reply by the plaintiff, James Ellis French. In that affidavit he practically swore that nothing whatever had occurred to damage his position in the po-

    1805
    lice force. The affidavit was sworn upon the 27th of October, he having been told upon the 6th of September that he need not return to duty. This was what the man said—
    "I say that my action is neither sham nor vexatious, and I intend, at the earliest moment, to bring it for trial before a jury."
    That statement did not need comment. French further swore—
    "It is false to state that I have been dismissed from, or obliged to resign, or been suspended from the appointment of director of the Detective Department of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in consequence of misconduct or otherwise, and I still hold my said appointment."
    He (Mr. O'Brien) asked the Committee whether, it being admitted that this man was told in September that he need not return to duty, what he swore was not colourable, if not real perjury? The affidavit was published in Dublin in October, and it was never contradicted by the Government. On the contrary, the man who had so sworn was allowed to retire to the country upon sick leave, and receive his full pay from the Government just as though nothing at all had occurred; but while, however, he was supposed to be laid up, he was actively employed in hunting his (Mr. O'Brien's) witnesses, and in trying to induce them to hold their tongues. There was another important fact in the case. It was sworn in the late trial in Dublin, both by the witness upon his (Mr. O'Brien's) side, who was certainly not a friendly witness, and by a witness who was examined for Cornwall—Captain Kirwan—that, at the time French was supposed to be sick, he was sending letters to his accomplices, telling them to stand firm. In one letter he told the young man Taylor, "to go to the Castle and put Cottingham and Irwin on Brown." Cottingham and Irwin were two head constables of the detective police in the pay of the public, and Brown was the detective Meiklejohn, who was engaged at the time in unravelling this horrible crime. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) stated, when this question was raised the other night, that there was no proof that these head constables were engaged in baffling the investigation. But he (Mr. O'Brien) maintained that, on the contrary, the letter of the Deputy Inspector General to his solicitors, when
    1806
    they complained of the conduct of these detectives, admitted, to all intents and puposes, that the men were engaged in French's service, and that their accounts of their own transactions were false. This was the account given by the Deputy Inspector General—
    "The Inspector General was not aware of any action having been taken by the head constables referred to in reference to Mr. French. Since receiving your letter he has caused inquiries to be made from Head Constables Cottingham and Irwin, and has learned that, in consequence of a communication made to Head Constable Cottingham by Mr. French"—
    it was sworn in evidence at the late trial that the communication was made, not by French, but by his accomplice Taylor—
    "that some suspicious looking persons had been looking for him; they made inquiries at Mr. French's lodgings, and also at a house opposite, whether such was the fact, and ascertained that some men had been making inquiries. The head constables did ask at both houses what description of persons were inquiring for Mr. French; but did not ask to have them pointed out. The head constables made their inquiries solely with a view to the personal safety of Mr. French, and not for the purpose of aiding him in any way in the pending action."
    He (Mr. O'Brien) denounced that as a patent, and transparent, and even fraudulent pretence on the part of the authorities. They pretended they did not know who Brown was, or what his business was. Everybody else knew who Brown was, and what was meant by the expression "put Cottingham and Irwin on Brown." United Ireland had evidence, and were ready to produce it, that the men were engaged again and again in watching the offices of their solicitors, and in dogging and in intimidating—perhaps he ought not to say intimidating, but in getting at and influencing the persons who were suspected of giving evidence to the defendants in the action. This was how the resources of the Crown were employed to baffle United Ireland, and to this day the Government had refused any public inquiry into the conduct of the two head constables, or into the conduct of Colonel Bruce in countenancing their conduct. Now, he asked any fair-minded man what was the object, or what, at all events, could have been the effect of the attitude of the Government during the seven months that this wretched man was dragging this sham action along in the Courts, unless it was to embarrass

    1807
    the defendants, and to make a most difficult task almost impossible? They had never yet been told why French was eventually dismissed. The pretence originally was that he was dismissed because he was in delicate health—because he was unfit for duty. If that was true, it was a most cruel and savage thing on the part of the Government, because at the very crisis of the man's action, and at a time when, according to them, he was broken down in health, they, by dismissing him, practically condemned him in public estimation. That was a palpably transparent false pretence. He would not now go into the character of the certificates that were got from three doctors as to this unfortunate man's state of health; but simply point out that the effect of the report of the three doctors was that they were of opinion that French was suffering from cerebral softening and mental disease, and that his infirmity of mind and body was likely to be permanent. Up to a few weeks ago, French was represented to the House and to the public as being upon his deathbed. How did the Government treat the man who was supposed to be on his deathbed? Last week a policeman went down in the middle of the night, arrested him, and brought him a long journey into Cork, and another long journey by train to Dublin; and this was the description of French which was given in The Freeman's Journal—
    "French for several minutes walked up and down the platform with his hands in his pockets, maintaining a very nonchalant air. He appears to be free from the malady he was certified some time ago to be labouring under. He conversed freely with those about him, and when the time came for the starting of the train he took his seat with Detective Simmonds."
    He was brought up to Dublin, examined the same evening, and kept in Kilmainham Prison, bail being refused. He (Mr. O'Brien) submitted to the House that all along this man had been used as a kind of stalking-horse against him and United Ireland; and it was simply because this man had not the nerve and pluck to brazen the thing out, as Cornwall afterwards did, that he was dismissed. In the very last speech made on the subject from the Treasury Bench a sort of hope was held out that even yet French might recover in time to bring another action against United Ireland. But he would pass from that case entirely, and
    1808
    ask the House to consider what was the action of the Government in Cornwall's case, even after the lesson they had learnt from French's case. So far from having anything like personal malice against the unfortunate man, he did not even know the name of the Secretary to the General Post Office until their inquiries about French disclosed that he was one of the members of this club. He (Mr. O'Brien) never made the slightest allusion to his name in public, so long as there was the slightest possibility of French going on with his action. It was only when French's case was dismissed, and the Government were persistently closing their eyes to his guilt, and treating him, as they had treated him all along, as a hardly-used, and honourable, and meritorious public official—it was only when he found that such was the conduct of the Government; that justice would be baffled; that these men would be still permitted to spread their leprosy all over society in Dublin, and that he would be denounced as a libeller of innocent and meritorious public officials, that he determined, at all hazards, to bring the thing once for all to an issue, and let the public know, whatever the consequence to himself, the true state of the case. He did not ask whether the Government gave him any help in establishing Cornwall's case; he only asked whether they gave him fair play; did they even refrain from prejudicing the fair trial of the action? When this man was proved to be one of those who were breeding the foul leprosy in Dublin, he (Mr. O'Brien) was denounced as a libeller of innocent and meritorious public officials. On the 17th of June, when his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) brought the conduct of the officials under the notice of the House, both the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) and himself (Mr. O'Brien) refrained from going into the evidence on the ground that the action was just pending. How was their forbearance reciprocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan)? He was sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman made a speech such as could only, almost, have been made by an advocate out of Cornwall's brief—in fact, the speech suggested precisely the line of action adopted by Cornwall's counsel

    1809
    afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "He could very well guess whence this evidence came, because there had been in Dublin for some time past a man of the name of Meiklejohn, who was formerly in the English Detective Force, but who was dismissed from that Force, put upon his trial—a criminal trial—for levying 'blackmail,' and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, the circumstances of the case being such that it was generally believed it was extremely fortunate for Meiklejohn that two years was the outside punishment that could be given."—(3 Hansard, [289] 695.)
    MR. TREVELYAN: Read on further, and see that the evidence I referred to was about myself.
    MR. HEALY: Public officials, you said.
    MR. O'BRIENadmitted that immediately previously the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) had been referring to a statement that it was at a private interview between himself and French that French had been goaded to bring the action; and no doubt the language he (Mr. O'Brien) quoted followed the right hon. Gentleman's denial of the truth of the statement. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
    "The House might imagine the terrible danger which Irish officials ran when a man of this sort was in Dublin trumping up cases against them. How could any Irish official be free from the most horrible charges when a man of his character was in Dublin spying about to the right and left?"—(Ibid.)
    He (Mr. O'Brien) admitted that the right hon. Gentleman's statement in denunciation of Meiklejohn applied to the assertion that he had had a personal interview with French, and that the right hon. Gentleman was only defending himself. But defending himself against what? Meiklejohn had never said that the right hon. Gentleman had had an interview with French. On the contrary, both the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) and himself (Mr. O'Brien) distinctly stated that the allegation was the allegation of French himself to a friend of his. If it was untrue it simply proved that French himself lied, and nothing more. He (Mr. O'Brien) had all along complained that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) had left them groping in the dark as to his own part in these transactions, and that they had been obliged to fall back upon secondary evidence. But it was perfectly unimportant whe-
    1810
    ther it was the right hon. Gentleman himself, or the Under Secretary, or Colonel Bruce, who goaded French to bring his action. It was useless for him, by a miserable bye-issue of that sort, to make an excuse for the vehement dramatic attack he had made in the House on the character of a man engaged in a most difficult task—a man whose every investigation was carried on responsibly, and under the direct personal supervision of a respectable firm of solicitors in Dublin. What were the Members of the House who heard them, the jurors in Ireland who were to try the case, to think? They must have inferred from the language of the right hon. Gentleman, conveyed to them with terrible impressiveness, and delivered amid the cheers of his friends, that these charges were, in the opinion of the Government, the malicious, trumped up, and concocted accusations of an infamous man who had been a detective. Could anything possibly have been more calculated to embarrass or prejudice the chances of fair play or of a fair trial? He would ask what was more calculated to prejudice the chance of a fair trial than to suggest that the witnesses on whom he depended had nothing to fear from the Government, even if they fled the country, or refused to give evidence? What was more calculated to throw the whole weight of the Crown against him and in favour of Mr. Cornwall's case? He was sorry to be obliged to say that from the beginning to the end he traced in the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman—for he could not distinguish between him and the Lord Lieutenant, but he and Earl Spencer must divide the responsibility between them—in the conduct of the Irish administration from beginning to end he traced a most disgraceful policy. Not only did they throw upon him the responsibility of endeavouring to obtain the vindication of justice in the case of the most horrible of crimes—crimes which struck at the very life of society—but he charged the right hon. Gentleman from beginning to end with doing all he could to embarrass him and his friends, and to render their difficult task, if possible, still more difficult, even if not impossible. Well, the Government and their advisers had signally failed, and he thanked God that justice had triumphed. All he would add was

    1811
    that after speeches like those of the right hon. Gentleman the proofs might have easily broken down, and the witnesses might have saved themselves the shame of the foul admissions they had made in Court when they knew that they had nothing to fear from the Government. However, after all, justice had been vindicated, and he must say it had been vindicated in spite of all the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in Ireland could do. He did not think he need say more on the subject, and after what had occurred in Dublin he thought the right hon. Gentleman might have saved them the trouble of discussing the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, depended on the Votes in the House to carry him through, and he had little regard for public opinion in Ireland. All he (Mr. O'Brien) could say was, that he did not envy the right hon. Gentleman, when he found himself compelled to resort to such means; and he merely took the action he did for the purpose of showing the means which had been taken, in case after case, for the last two years, in Ireland, to ruin and degrade political opponents. He would say no more on the subject; but he would leave the case to the judgment of the Irish people, for there was no use in leaving it to the judgment of the House. He begged leave to move that the item for the salary of the Chief Secretary be disallowed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £4,425, for the Salary of the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. O'Brien.)
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I waited for a few moments after the hon. Gentleman sat down, because I was anxious that everything that could be said on the subject before I spoke should be said, in order that it might be unnecessary that more should be said after I sat down, and that I might be able to answer all that was to be said on the subject. The occasion is sufficiently serious when the very unusual course is taken of moving the rejection of the salary of an official who, it is not pretended, has not earned it by hard work. I know very well the serious and ingenious character
    1812
    of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), and I know that when the hon. Member moves the rejection of the salary of the Chief Secretary, he does so because he thinks the charges made against me are sufficiently grave to warrant that course, and he does not conceal that opinion, because he used a sentence which, although it was put in a veiled manner, had only one meaning—namely, that I should not even have appeared at this Table to meet the charges he makes against me. Now, the charges made have been already discussed, in great detail, in a debate which took place in this House some five or six weeks ago. The hon. Member now states his case in broad outline; but he has only entered into detail on one or two points in which I propose to follow him. I, too, will state the action of the Irish Government in the broadest outline, and will only enter into detail where the hon. Member has done so. We have to deal with a question now which is not one, in one sense, before Parliament. It is a matter for Parliament only, in so far as the Government have been wanting in their duty, as a Government, in the matter. We are not arguing now whether these men, who are all of them in the hands of justice, are, or are not, guilty; but we have to argue whether the Government, in dealing with these matters, have proceeded on right lines, or whether they have so far departed from the customs of a Government as to call for the severe censure involved in the refusal to pay his salary to a Member of the Government. Well, Sir, what is the case now before the Committee? The case is one of a most terrible nature; but which yet from time to time appears to shock society. From time to time someone is accused, and sometimes accused, unfortunately, only too truly, of one of these terrible crimes from which human nature, in itself, under certain circumstances, prone to all manner of evil, happily revolts. When one of these cases occurs, the course that is pursued by the Government, who may be the superiors of any unfortunate man who is accused of such a crime, is a course dictated, not only by administrative propriety, but by the impulses of human nature. The first idea is to disbelieve that any such horror can exist, and to say to the person charged that he must clear himself of the charge, or that he

    1813
    must resign his office. It is allowable that there are charges of a certain kind which may be, with safety, neglected. If there is a general allegation of breach of trust or forgery against some well-known public official, and words are simply used, and no evidence given in its support, I can very well conceive that such an accusation would almost pass without notice in the mass of newspapers which are published; but it is a very different matter when a charge of this very grave nature is made and stated with the particularity that this charge is. The first article written in United Ireland, coupling French's name with the name it was coupled with, could only give one idea, in the minds of those who read it, of the meaning of the person who wrote it.
    MR. HEALY: Was that Corry Connellan's name?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Yes; I know the hon. Member's point. I know that the hon. Member may say that to couple Corry Connellan with French, or French and Corry Connellan, is condemnatory of either.
    MR. PARNELL: Or of the Government.
    MR. TREVELYAN: In discussing this matter, I would rather not bring more people into the business than is necessary. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) himself will admit—for the hon. Member is a courageous man, and will not deny that it was his meaning in that first article—that French had, in his opinion, been convicted of these abominable crimes. Now, before saying what I consider the duty of the Government to be, I will state—and if I criticize the action of the hon. Member it is only in self-defence—I will state what I consider the duty was of the hon. Member himself. I think the duty of any citizen, who had evidence of a criminal charge against any person, was to bring that evidence before the authorities, and to see that the person should be prosecuted. That I conceive to have been the hon. Member's absolute duty; and if the hon. Member took another view of his duty, and, instead of prosecuting that person, he states that he was guilty of certain odious crimes, the superiors of the person implicated could only say to the person accused—"Bring an action against the man who has broght forward this
    1814
    charge, or else resign your office." Colonel Bruce, I believe, acting on his own authority—as a matter of fact, this not being a very pleasant subject, and knowing it was in the hands of others—I, myself, did nothing more, till pretty far on in this year, than ask what was doing, and I heard generally that Mr. French had an action pending to test the question of his guilt or innocence—Colonel Bruce, as I have said, did hold an informal inquiry.
    MR. HEALY: What was the date of that inquiry?
    MR. TREVELYAN: It was about the 5th or 6th of September. The evidence taken at that inquiry was laid before the Attorney General, now the Master of the Rolls; and the Attorney General stated that nothing had transpired to establish primâ facie proof of French's guilt.
    MR. GIBSON: When was that opinion given?
    MR. TREVELYAN: Whether or not it was given in the month of September I am unable to say. But the evidence, when examined by a legal mind, was clearly insufficient to proceed upon. Then Mr. French was told that he must proceed with his action. Delays occurred the nature of which I entered into in a previous debate, and delays which I still believe were due to the manner in which the action was conducted by the legal gentleman who acted for the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). There was nothing in the action that implied that there was a bad case; but the legal delays were due to that side, and it was not until after Christmas—in fact, it was not until March, when Mr. French fell into bad health, that a certificate was sent to the Irish Government as a ground for his not proceeding with the action.
    MR. HEALY: Why did you give French sick leave in September if he did not fall ill until March?
    MR. TREVELYAN: He got sick leave I think on the 6th of August; but that sick leave did not imply that he was not in a position to continue his action. The first serious medical certificate was on the 21st February. On the 4th of April French's solicitor wrote that French's condition was such that he was unable further to instruct his solicitor, and on the 18th of April three doctors gave the medical certificate, which has been more than once read in

    1815
    this House. That medical certificate was very strong, and the Government had no choice but to retire Mr. French from the Service, which they accordingly did. On the 4th of June Mr. French dropped his action. The hon. Member says—"But you dismissed him after all; you dismissed him on a medical certificate;" and he says it was a cruel and a mean thing to dismiss him at such a time, and compromise him in the face of the action pending, and he adds that it was done on palpably false pretences. Now, Sir, after that medical certificate any public authority would at once have informed a public servant that he must leave the Service. There was no other alternative. The certificate was as follows:—
    "We, the undersigned (three medical men of the highest character) having been appointed by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to examine and certify for His Excellency's information our opinion as to the present state of health of County Inspector James Ellis French, beg to report that, having this day visited that officer, we are of opinion that he is suffering from mental disease, softening of the brain, and great nervous debility, with impaired bodily and mental health, and from this infirmity of mind and body he is incapable of discharging the duties of his situation, and that such infirmity is likely to be permanent."
    MR. HEALY: What was the date of the certificate?
    MR. TREVELYAN: The 18th of February. That was a certificate on which any body of Commissioners or the Head of any Department would have dismissed a public servant, whatever duties he might have to perform. But it was not the case that this certificate, or any certificate that could exist, would have prevented him from being prosecuted on that grave charge. If he was the greatest lunatic imaginable a man so charged could be arrested until it was ascertained that his mental state was such that he could not be punished for any crime he might have committed. The hon. Member then went on with the case of Cornwall, which, to all intents and purposes in principle, is the same as that of French, though the ultimate issue, as far as the one is concerned, is different, owing to the different method of proceeding which he himself pursued. When this charge was brought against Mr. Cornwall the Postmaster General, acting in concert with me, and advising with me, determined at once to inform Cornwall that he must bring his
    1816
    action, or that he must resign the Service; but as a matter of fact, anticipating, no doubt, that that would be the view taken by his superiors, Mr. Cornwall came to the same determination upon the subject before he received the communication of the Postmaster General. I utterly deny that it is possible to establish, either in principle or in detail, any charge against the Government for their proceedings in the case of Mr. Cornwall; and I can only say that I think it is extremely hard that people whose only desire is to serve the public to the best of their ability should have their names mixed up in public debates with these odious crimes. [A laugh.] I am sorry to hear an hon. Member laugh, or to think that hon. Members on that side of the House imagine that this is a matter for laughter.
    MR. HARRINGTON: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to me I think it is eminently a subject for laughter.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I do not agree with the hon. Member. I think it was very hard that Members of the Government should have their names mixed up with these odious crimes, because some person employed under them in the thousand and one Departments of the Public Service had been accused or even eventually found guilty of such a crime, horrible as it may be, but nothing different in its nature from crimes of fraud and murder. It would be a remarkable thing if, because a clerk in a London Government Department were to be guilty of murder or fraud, his official superiors should be mixed up in the matter in debates in this House. The hon. Member maintains that I am, in some sense, to blame for having prejudged the case of Mr. Cornwall in this House. He says that he and his Friends refrained from going into the evidence on the first occasion they brought the question before the House, while they say that I went into the evidence on Cornwall; and then the hon. Member read a passage from my speech in which I referred to Meiklejohn, the detective, and said it was a very serious matter that such a man should be going about Dublin trumping up charges against public officials. Now, I never referred to the evidence on Mr. Cornwall at all. That passage, as the hon. Member himself said, half-an-hour ago, referred absolutely and solely to a most disagree-

    1817
    able story that was told about me in this House.
    MR. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that I admitted his language had reference immediately to the statement concerning himself; but that I said it had a fatal influence on the whole of the evidence in this case?
    MR. TREVELYAN: This is not a Court of Law. This is the House of Commons, and I am a Minister in the House of Commons; and when a private Member of the House of Commons gets up, and speaking, I allow, in perfect good faith, tells a story about me which I am bound to say I regard as excessively disagreeable—that I had two interviews with French; that I personally took a part in the matter; that I pressed him to bring his action, and told him he should have public money to support him—as I never was in a room with Mr. French, never spoke to him, have had nothing to do with this question, as, in fact, there is not a single word of truth in this story, I was very anxious to take hold of it, as the very first inaccuracy connected with this matter which had been stated with regard to me, because I knew what might happen if a man like Meiklejohn was going about Dublin making these statements. I was not thinking about Cornwall at all. I was thinking about myself; and I want in this matter to speak candidly. My name had been mentioned by the hon. Member—
    MR. O'BRIEN: No; not in this House.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I am trying to speak in all fairness. My name had been mentioned by the hon. Member at the Table. It was mentioned in a way as between one person and another, about which there may be a different impression; but, at any rate, it was mentioned in connection with the names of certain people who were charged with odious crimes; and the hon. Member spoke as if he meant that I had shielded these people. I am bound to say that since I have been in Ireland I have had such an enormous number of untrue and brutal things said of me, both in the Press and in speeches—and here, again, I accuse no one—that I thought the same people who said these cruel, cutting, and brutal things might go a little further, and might state a false fact
    1818
    against me. It was with that idea, and with no other, without any reference to the Cornwall trial or the Bolton trial, but in pure self-defence, being, as I believed myself to be, a man standing in very great danger, that I determined to state before the House at the very first what sort of a man it was who was getting up evidence in Dublin. I have now really gone through the whole of the case of the hon. Member. The hon. Member, I presume, would wish the Government, upon the first breath of suspicion or innuendo in a newspaper, at once to pursue any public servant against whom such innuendo is directed. If, instead of innuendo, we had evidence put into our hands, we should have pursued these people, whether they were public servants or not; and, now that the matter has got into a further and more advanced stage, we have shown ourselves perfectly ready to follow up criminally anyone against whom a criminal suspicion or criminal charge is pending. I am quite certain that if this had not happened in Ireland, and if it had not happened with reference to an odious charge of this nature, hon. Members would have felt that the Government had taken the ordinary course, the right course, and the only course which a Government could take; and it is only because public opinion is in play between the Government and a certain part of the Irish community that this matter has attained, as far as the Government are concerned, the proportions which it has attained in the hon. Member's speech.
    MR. HEALYsaid he was sure the Committee must understand that in bringing a case of this kind forward the Irish Members did not impugn the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary only. He was only one cog in the wheel. They impugned the entire Executive Government in Ireland. They impugned Earl Spencer, the Lord Lieutenant, just as much as they impugned the right hon. Gentleman; and, perhaps, if they had to apportion the blame, they might be less inclined to attack the Chief Secretary than to attack those who were in a superior position in Ireland. But they were placed in front of the right hon. Gentleman, who was there as the mouthpiece of Lord Spencer; and, therefore, they were obliged to address the discussion visibly to him, and in re-

    1819
    ference to his salary. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, by putting forward a whole series of dates and occasions, attempted to make out a case for himself; and, perhaps, he had done so in the minds of his supporters. It must be remembered that the subject had already been debated once before, and there must be something of repetition in the way in which the case was put to the House. He would, however, put this position at the outset before the Committee. Suppose the charge, instead of being the charge it was, had been one of murder, made by a landlord's paper—supposing that The Daily Express had stated that the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had killed the Chief Secretary in the Phœnix Park, did the Committee think the Government would have made no further answer, and would have allowed that assertion to rest there; that they would have allowed his hon. Friend to clear himself by means of trial by way of an action for libel? That was the position but, instead of being a private gentleman, the man impugned was a public official of the Government, and that public official the head director of criminal investigations in Ireland.
    MR. HARRINGTON: The man who arrested the suspects?
    MR. HEALY: Yes; the man who arrested the suspects, and who was one of the chief men in connection with the Phœnix Park case. The right hon. Gentleman asked them to intrust their information, and hand over their proofs, to the man himself, who was accused of these crimes. He wished to put the case in all fairness. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House to imagine for a moment that, knowing the character of the chief detective investigator of Dublin, Mr. James Ellis French, they were prepared to hand over their information and witnesses to James Ellis French, or to James Ellis French and George Bolton. That was the position of the Government. He was amazed that the Chief Secretary should make a statement of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman told them that when this charge was made in United Ireland in August last it was investigated by Colonel Bruce, and that the evidence taken was laid before the then Attorney General, the present Master of the Rolls, who did not hold it to be conclu-
    1820
    sive. And why? This evidence had a damning effect against the Government. The Government telegraphed to Sub-Inspector Maguire, and asked him if his brother, who at that time was a cadet in the Constabulary Service, had certain attempts made upon him by French. The answer was that he had. Sub-Inspector Maguire's brother, however, was dead. Therefore this was a mean and flimsy pretence. They were instructed that there was no legal evidence, because the man who could give it directly was dead. He would put it to the House, was that the way in which a charge of this kind should be met by the Chief Secretary? Was it the way in which, dealing with the excited state of public feeling in Ireland—in dealing with a newspaper which had behind it the love of millions of men, and the hatred of the British Government, they ought to meet a charge like this against the head and chief investigator of the Criminal Department—a man who had been bounded up in promotion 20 steps at a time by Earl Spencer for the valuable services he had rendered to the Government? The Government had no answer. They knew the charge was correct. They could not deny it. Dead men told no tales. Sub-Inspector Maguire's brother could not be resurrected; but among the employés of Dublin Castle there were other men to whom the Government could have applied. They could have applied to Mr. Mallon, the present Head of the Detective Department at Dublin Castle, either as to Cornwall or French; and he should like to have the opinion of John Mallon, who discovered the Phœnix Park murderers, upon either Cornwall or French. The Government had not chosen to do that. The right hon. Gentleman said it was French's duty either to leave the Service or to clear himself by an action. That was all very well, and so it might be if it were some charge made in an English Office of some stuff being a yard too short; but here they were dealing with the head of the crimes discovery department in Ireland, and they were dealing with an Irish Member of Parliament and the editor of one of the most powerful and popular journals in the country. The people of Ireland believed, in spite of the statements of the Government, that the rea-

    1821
    son they did not regard the Sub-Inspector's evidence as sufficient was that, having failed to ruin his hon. Friend by their imprisonment and their fines—having failed to ruin him by having him indicted before a packed jury in Green Street, they wished to resort to the foul and tainted machinery of French's libel action, in order to roll him up in filth, from which he could never be extricated. That was the impression which the people of Ireland would hold on this subject. Well, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had managed his dates to a very nice advantage, and he was willing that the statements should go before the country until an interpellation of his (Mr. Healy's) had cut him short, that it was in March that James Ellis French got his sick leave. He (Mr. Healy) had said, if he got his sick leave in August, what did he want it for in March? Did the right hon. Gentleman deal with that point at all? No; he passed on without referring to the circumstance that French swore in his affidavit that he was still in the Public Service. They knew it as a matter of fact that he had either been dismissed or suspended; but French swore—and these were French's words—in paragraph 6 of the affidavit—
    "It is false to state that I have been dismissed from, or obliged to resign, or been suspended from the appointment I hold in connection with the Royal Irish Constabulary in Ireland, in consequence of misconduct or otherwise."
    An hon. MEMBER: What is the date?
    MR. HEALY: The 27th of October. He charged the Government with this. On the 27th of October they knew that French was committing perjury.
    MR. TREVELYAN: No, no!
    MR. HEALY: Well, what was French swearing? He was swearing that he had not been dismissed, or suspended, or obliged to resign. That was stated in the public Court, and printed in the newspapers, the real fact being that six weeks before that date he had been suspended. The Irish Executive knew that French was committing perjury, and they made themselves the allies of his perjury—that was what it came to. The Chief Secretary must have known that perjury was being committed. Did he not know it? Did
    1822
    he not know what was going on? Was it not his business to know what was going on? Until April or May the Irish Members had never been able to wring from the right hon. Gentleman a statement that French had ever been dismissed or suspended; but he told them now that the man had been suspended weeks and months ago. He had allowed a false impression to go abroad in the country, and had the knowledge that French was using a false affidavit to prejudice the case of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), without interfering in the slightest degree in the matter.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I never heard of the affidavit until to-day.
    MR. HEALY: Aye, that was the way the right hon. Gentleman got out of it. "Thou can'st not say I did it." Who was responsible? Was it Lord Spencer? Did the Lord Lieutenant know it? Did Mr. Fanning know it? Did Colonel Bruce know it? Who knew of it? At least, his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was obliged to know it, and it was sufficient to enable his action to be dismissed. Someone in the Irish Executive must have known about this—perhaps the Solicitor General. But whoever knew it, or did not know it, the fact was that it was used against his hon. Friend, and had been published in every single newspaper in Dublin. This affidavit was published in every newspaper in Dublin, sworn to by every newspaper in Dublin; and it was an extraordinary, though a very convenient thing, no doubt, for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to come forward now, on the 21st of July, and say that he never heard a word about it. He (Mr. Healy) would leave that portion of the case to the appreciation of the Irish public. He came now to this—they had it sworn to that two constables in Her Majesty's Service, named Cottingham and Irwin, were engaged in detective duty against the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) and his solicitors and friends—they had it that these two men were, by the orders of James Ellis French, who, though suspended, still had considerable influence over the conduct and work of the detectives of Dublin, stationed opposite Chance and Miley's office. French, from his lurking place near Blarney, was

    1823
    directing these men to watch the offices of the solicitors to the hon. Member for Mallow in order to destroy the evidence in favour of the hon. Member. The Government not only tolerated that, but when they were asked to grant an inquiry into the matter they denied that anything of the kind was occurring, and stated that these detectives were only employed for the protection of French. How they could be said to be protecting French by watching the offices of the solicitors of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) he (Mr. Healy) was unable to say. Did Irish Members get an inquiry? No; it was refused. If the Government had been really serious, and anxious to clear themselves from the mire which appeared to give the Chief Secretary so much concern, and which he now repudiated at the Treasury Table, and against which he protested, and obtained the cheers of the House in so doing, he (Mr. Healy) should have thought they would have rejoiced at the opportunity of having the whole case inquired into, in order to find out whether these men—Cottingham and Irwin—were really granted by the Constabulary authorities to Mr. French in order to protect him as much as possible from the charges made against him by United Ireland. An inquiry was asked for, but an inquiry was refused on the mere verbal denial of Cottingham and Irwin against the allegations on the other side. Very well; he then came to the doctor's certificate. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would, he thought, make an admirable skater. He had that peculiar faculty of being able to glide over very thin ice where dangerous pitfalls were lurking—a faculty which, in the past, had proved extremely valuable to him. The right hon. Gentleman told them that in August Mr. French was told to go on sick leave. In March again he was told to go on sick leave; but on the 1st of April the right hon. Gentleman read out—he (Mr. Healy) was going to call it a testimonial, but certainly it was a document very valuable to James Ellis French, in the shape of a medical certificate. This document was about the most complete of its kind which had ever been given to anybody. It covered seven points, and he would ask the attention of the Committee to those points. The document said—
    1824
    "We"—Drs. Eames, Curtis, and Gordon—"having been appointed by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to inquire into the condition of the said James Ellis French, do certify as follows."
    Who were these Drs. Eames, Curtis, and Gordon? Why, one of them—and if the statement was incorrect the right hon. Gentleman would sot him right—was surgeon or medical attendant to the Royal Irish Constabulary. Was that not so? Was not Gordon a Constabulary officer? The silence of the Chief Secretary gave consent. Another of these persons was engaged in Cork as the chief medical officer to a lunatic asylum, and the third was a gentleman with reference to whom he should make no remark. These gentlemen gave a medical certificate, acting under the directions of the Lord Lieutenant; and this is what they said—
    "We are of opinion that he is suffering from (1) mental disease; (2) softening of the brain; (3) great and serious debility; (4) impaired bodily health, and with this infirmity of mind and body (6) he is incapable of discharging the duties of his situation; (7) and such infirmity is likely to be permanent."
    To-day the right hon. Gentleman had very few remarks to make on that document; but last month, when he had stated that James Ellis French had been allowed to continue in Her Majesty's Service for over six months after these charges had been brought against him, though French's action against the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was a bogus action, and one which he had no intention of continuing or going on with, this was the document triumphantly flashed in their faces. Where was the triumph or the flourishing to-day? It would have been there—the triumph would have been as fresh as ever, but that the Government had now found it convenient to indict James Ellis French. Early in June this document was issued as an answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), and read in defiant tones by the right hon. Gentleman, who said—"You want to know why this meritorious officer had not brought this action. Here is the answer. Here is a document furnished to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant; could anything be more complete? Upon seven points this man is proved to be unequal to go on with the action." Yes; it was extremely complete—it was a little too complete. He (Mr. Healy)

    1825
    would venture to say that if that document was complete in the eye of the Government as a reason for preventing James Ellis French from proceeding against the hon. Member for Mallow, it was a good and sufficient reason for the Government not proceeding against James Ellis French. Were they to be told that the man who was to be indicted next month in Dublin was a jibbering idiot? Were they to be told that a Crimes Act Jury of the City of Dublin were to be asked to pronounce a verdict on a man suffering from—
    "Mental disease, softening of the brain, great and serious debility, impaired bodily health, and with this infirmity of mind and body he was incapable of discharging the duties of his situation, and such infirmity was likely to be permanent?"
    Would the Government have any case to go before the jury? Did they mean to tell him (Mr. Healy) for a moment that James Ellis French was not at the present moment in that rude health in which he had been described to be by the reporter of The Freeman's Journal? If he had not been, no matter how great a criminal he was, would they have had the courage to indict him? Would they produce him in the dock on a stretcher, with the precaution of having Dr. Eames feeling his pulse, and Drs. Curtis and Gordon inspecting his tongue and examining his breathing? No; they would produce him, as they produced him before O. J. O'Donel, the Divisional Magistrate, as erect as a rush, as a rational man, able to take part in the trial, and as capable of attending to his business now as he was able to make good bargains in selling heifers when he ought to have been bringing his action. He should like to ask the Government, who were so admirably served in passing over the weak points in a case, if they had got any report from Dr. Carte, the very efficient doctor in Kilmainham Gaol? Had Dr. Carte been asked his opinion of French, and, if not, why not? No; he had not, because, if they had one medical officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary certifying that a person guilty of a crime was wrong in his head, it might be an encouragement to another medical officer under the Government, supposing the case were submitted to him, to certify that prisoners were not in their right senses in other cases—there would be no guarantee that
    1826
    the medical officer would not certify loss of reason in a number of other cases. This was a matter directly impugning the certificate of one medical officer. Was Dr. Carte aware that French was now lying in confinement? Had they sent the opinions of Drs. Eames, Curtis, and Gordon to Dr. Carte? Was he aware of the admirable bill of health procured for him? No; he was not aware of it. They had not got any report from Dr. Carte, because it would be extremely inconvenient for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Of course, an evasion of this kind would not be pursued in another Department under Heaven, except one connected with the Irish Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had got up at the Treasury Table to make a touching vindication. The right hon. Gentleman needed no vindication in the sense that anyone supposed for a moment that he could have the slightest sympathy with scoundrels like these; but there was such a thing as a little want of keenness where one's opponents were concerned, and a little overplus of charity where one's friends were concerned. It was a very convenient thing for Earl Spencer, who was unable to crush United Ireland, to send James Ellis French where it must have been extremely convenient for the Government, who could not put down an hated opponent by any other means that they had in their armoury to employ against him, to endeavour to carry out their object by a vindication of this kind which had failed. The Government, he knew, had failed, and when they were debating in this House this matter on the last occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had completely thrown over James Ellis French, taking his stand on Cornwall. When the right hon. Gentleman got a little backward in the course of the debate—when Cornwall was found out—he took his stand on Bolton, and assured the House that here was another excellent public servant who had only become bankrupt for some £80,000 or £90,000; who merely forged his wife's name to some deeds; and who was merely keeping a lot of other women whilst he was supposed to be a peaceful and respectable-looking Christian; and the right hon. Gentleman I hoped Mr. Bolton would go on with his

    1827
    action. Let them contrast the action of the Postmaster General, according to his (Mr. Trevelyan's) own account to-day, with regard to Cornwall, with the action he himself had taken in the case of French. Out of his own mouth the right hon. Gentleman stood convicted. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Postmaster General had informed Cornwall, immediately he heard of the case, that he must either bring an action against those who charged him with crime, or quit the Public Service; but what was the action of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant? He had stated in the House that he did not know French, and had never seen him in his life, and knew nothing about the case. He had also said that he had never been in the same room with French, and that he thought it much too severe a charge, therefore, to have it said that he had incited French to go on with his action. The right hon. Gentleman was almost moved to tears when it was suggested that he had urged French to go on with his action, and yet he now stated that the Postmaster General had promptly held out the alternative to Cornwall of bringing an action or resignation. The libel against Cornwall was published one week, and in the next week the writ was issued; the libel against French was published in the month of August; but French did not proceed with his action until the month of April, and had no notion of doing so. No doubt, French served his writs; but he made no practical endeavour to bring on his case. He had allowed three Terms to slip by without making any attempt to bring forward the action. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant thought it a heinous crime to be charged with having told French to bring his action; but, at the same time, he bragged that the Postmaster General had told Cornwall to bring his action at once. He (Mr. Healy) must admire either the Chief Secretary or the Postmaster General in this matter. Their conduct was as wide as the poles, and if he were asked to pay a tribute of admiration to one or the other, he should unhesitatingly record it for the Postmaster General, who insisted on action being taken at once. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had not taken that
    1828
    course, but had allowed months and months to slip away. The first article upon which inquiries were founded was simply in these terms—
    "If the House of Commons wants to make Rules to stop such Questions as Mr. Healy's, it is open to it to devote its valuable time to the attempt. But it will not do so until the lives and adventures of certain Crown employés, such as James Ellis French, are laid bare to the universe."
    The Chief Secretary had stated a moment ago that no one could have his name coupled with that of Corry Connellan without great offence. If that was so, why did the Government ask the House to give Corry Connellan a pension? If the Chief Secretary's name could not be coupled with that of Corry Connellan, why did they propose to vote him £346 16 s. 4d. as a pension? He (Mr. Healy) commended that aspect of the case to the Secretary to the Treasury. Let the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) remember that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was of opinion that it was a heinous offence to couple the name of Corry Connellan with his—that Corry Connellan's name could scarcely be coupled with that of a Christian without an horrible imputation. With what face, therefore, could the Government ask them to go into the Lobby to vote for Corry Connellan's pension? He trusted that sentence in the speech of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would be remembered. Now, he came to the last point in the case of the Government, and it was the position the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant took up with regard to his own speech. The right hon. Gentleman had said that his words were used in regard to the trumping up of charges with regard to himself, and not with regard to others. Well, he (Mr. Healy) would read the extract and leave the Committee to judge. The right hon. Gentleman said—"He could well guess whence this evidence came"—this evidence, mind — not evidence against the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, but evidence against James Ellis French and Cornwall.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member will recollect that I rose to interrupt the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) on this point. The hon. Member for Mallow acknowledged that these words referred to the story in regard to myself.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the words were so reported in the Dublin journals two or three days before the trial, and it was for a jury of the City of Dublin, to whom the words were directed, to draw their own inference from them. The right hon. Gentleman might have used them in a different sense to what some supposed, and he (Mr. Healy) accepted his disclaimer. But these words were capable of two interpretations. They were not only employed and had their value in this House, but they had another value when read by the jurors of the City of Dublin who decided the case between Cornwall and O'Brien. The jury was composed of six Roman Catholics, five Orangemen, and three Freemasons. Cornwall was a man who was high up in the Order of Freemasonry, and there were three of that body on the jury which tried the case, besides four or five Orangemen, or men with Orange sympathies; and these words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had to be construed, not merely by experts in Parliamentary vocabularies in this House, but by plain common-sense men in the jury-box, and, therefore, he (Mr. Healy) said he thought these words at least were used with extreme skill. The Chief Secretary further said—
    "He could very well guess whence this evidence came, because there had been in Dublin for some time past a man of the name of Meiklejohn,"—
    [A laugh]—the laugh came from the right hon. Gentleman's own side—
    "who was formerly in the English Detective Force"—
    and he (Mr. Healy) rather thought the Home Secretary would wish this man was there still—
    "who was dismissed from that Force, put upon his trial—a criminal trial—for levying 'blackmail,' and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, the circumstances of the case, being such that it was generally believed it was extremely fortunate for Meiklejohn that two years was the outside punishment that could be given. [Ministerial cheers.]"
    Where were the Ministerial cheers now? ["Hear, hear!"] He heard the vibrant basso of the Home Secretary; but he observed that the note was solus—Home Secretary obligato. The Chief Secretary went on to say—
    "The House might imagine the terrible danger which Irish officials ran when a man of this sort was in Dublin trumping up cases against them."—(3 Hansard, [289] 695.)
    Aye, the Committee might imagine the
    1830
    terrible danger men ran when Patrick Delaney, murderers, highwaymen, and such like, were being used to give evidence against respectable men, and when the Home Secretary sent over his detective Littlechild to say that "Healy was the worst of the gang!" Why did the right hon. Gentleman not cheer that statement? Meiklejohn got his two years of hard labour. He (Mr. Healy) did not know what the womb of time might have in store for Littlechild; but, at all events, he would say that if there was such terrible danger to public officials in the action of a man named Meiklejohn, employed by a private individual, and that private individual a man against whom the whole force of the Government were arrayed, what was their case when the Government, with the whole Detective Force of the Empire at its back, swept up every prison in the Kingdom to produce murderers, highwaymen, thieves, and assassins, to give testimony against innocent men? Aye, it was a terrible thing, indeed, when a Home Secretary or a Chief Secretary to a Lord Lieutenant could be accused; but was their flesh and blood more valuable than that of Irishmen. Were they made of fire-clay? Did not Irishmen feel accusations as bitterly as they did? Did they go about the Lobbies stating that "the starch would soon be out of the boys?" Her Majesty's Government, who were so extremely sensitive when the reputations of their officials were the subject of attack, could, however, be very unscrupulous when it became their interest to attack anyone. That being so, they must expect from Irish Members the same amount of mercy as Irish Members and their friends had received, or were likely to meet with, at their hands. Did the right hon. Gentleman now say that these were trumped-up charges? Why did he not come down now with a flourish in attacking Meiklejohn; why was his statement that evening not garnished with any of those flowers of fancy which were sprinkled over his former speech? The right hon. Gentleman had to-night been extremely technical in his defence. He had relied solely on dates — upon this date and upon that date—upon the date at which Colonel Bruce instituted an inquiry, and upon the date at which the doctor gave his certificate with regard to the state of

    1831
    French's health; and then he laid down what had happened since. All that was highly satisfactory indeed; but when the right hon. Gentleman thought he could influence a Dublin jury, the House was told about trumped-up cases, and charges made against persons like Mr. Cornwall by such a man as Meiklejohn. All those things had been trotted out for the information of the Dublin jury, and the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, whom he was glad to see in his place, had not been above giving Mr. Cornwall the benefit of an excellent character. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General said he was a man who had been 40 years in the service of the Post Office; that he had known Mr. Cornwall personally, and that it was a most astonishing thing that charges of this kind should have been made against him. Further, the right hon. Gentleman said that the first intimation which had reached him on the subject came from Mr. Cornwall himself, who enclosed a written statement of the charges made against him in a registered letter. But he (Mr. Healy) would point out that there was nothing very clever in that proceeding on the part of Mr. Cornwall, because the charges sooner or later must have reached the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General without his assistance. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland made his defence rest solely on the case of French and Cornwall, who, he said, had been arrested and would be tried in due course. But he felt sure the same old practice would be resorted to in these cases. There would be the same certificates of character, and so forth, pleasantly dropped into the newspapers a day or two before the Dublin jury had to decide on the cases. No doubt, Her Majesty's Government considered all that extremely tactical, to say the least of it. And now they were told that the Government were making inquiries; but for his part he had just about as much faith in the Government now as he had six months ago. He believed that, if by any possibility it could be done, Cornwall would be got off, and French would be got off, and if it were possible they would be pensioned like Corry Connellan, and that it would be said there was no necessity for taking proceedings against the officials who were directly charged
    1832
    by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). He challenged the Government to deny that they were now manipulating the evidence with the view, if possible, that charges might be made against others of so preposterous a character that the charges made against Cornwall and French would not be believed by the jury. The Irish Government, at the present moment in Dublin Castle, as they knew from information sent over here, were not merely relying on the evidence put forward in the Four Courts, that had been picked up from the "corner boys" in the streets; but they had mixed up A B and C D with Cornwall and French, in order that the public might confound them together. Therefore, he said, he trusted the Government to-day as much as he trusted them six months ago. This was a matter in which, on the one hand, stood an unprotected man, without any of those helps which the Government, wielding the Executive authority and using the public money, could employ. That man was Mr. O'Brien; but aided by a solicitor of extraordinary ability, and by a detective, undeterred by the attacks made upon him by the Chief Secretary, he had succeeded in wringing from a jury, a large proportion of whom were Orangemen, who hated and who would like to see him hanged if possible—he had succeeded in wringing from that jury a verdict completely establishing the case he had brought against this man, which amounted to a conclusive proof of the charge made. But the Government, when these charges were first made, had had their detectives; they had the public money at their disposal, although it would not have cost them a single farthing to turn upon these criminals the inquiries of their detectives; they had succeeded in unearthing murders committed years ago, the work of secret societies—they had discovered the Phœnix Park murderers months after the act was done, and at the present moment they were going to hang one of their own policemen for a murder committed four years ago—and yet Irish Members were to be told that the Government found it impossible, with all the means and information at their disposal, to have brought men like French and Cornwall to justice. He said the reason why they did not do so was that the will was not there; their heart was not in

    1833
    the business; their will was by every means in their power to crush his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow, who—although for that purpose they were willing to descend to the use of the basest instruments—he firmly believed, would yet live to give them a great deal more trouble than he had yet succeeded in doing.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he thought that hon. Members who had listened to the statements of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland that evening must have done so with a great deal of surprise. He did not think that, among the many lame and impotent efforts which the right hon. Gentleman had made to justify the action of the Executive in Ireland, he had ever made a more lame and impotent defence than that which he had addressed to the Committee that night. He would like to see the right hon. Gentleman in Ireland, where the circumstances of this case were known, and where all shades of opinion were agreed as to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman and his adminisstration—he would like to see him stand up before an audience in Dublin, and give in his defence the lame and flimsy pretext which he had put forward that evening in justification of his conduct. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his statement, said it was the duty of the hon. Member for Mallow, when he had evidence of such a character as he possessed against an official in Ireland, to have handed that evidence over to the authorities in Ireland. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were, that it was the duty of a citizen, when he had evidence of crime against another citizen, to hand the evidence over to the authorities; but the reply to the right hon. Gentleman's argument was, that it was not against a private citizen that his hon. Friend had evidence, but against an official of the Government, and one in such a position, that had he done so, that official could have so moved the Administration that in 24 hours he would have had the hon. Member for Mallow in gaol. Why, this was a man on whom the whole system of criminal prosecution in Ireland rested. He was the adviser of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), by whom so many innocent persons were cast into prison in Ireland; and he repeated, that if the hon. Mem-
    1834
    ber for Mallow had given this information in regard to this man's conduct, in 24 hours he would have been lodged in gaol, and the defence of French would have been undertaken by the right hon. Gentleman. The conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this case was just of a piece with his conduct in other cases brought forward by Irish Members in that House. The rising of an hon. Member from the Benches occupied by the Irish Party, who made a charge against an Irish official, was always the signal to the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and to deny what was said. The occupants of the Treasury Bench, and those behind the right hon. Gentleman, appeared to lull themselves into the belief that all was secure, and that all was coleur de rose with the Administration in Ireland; that nothing went wrong; and when he listened to the contradiction given to statements made by hon. Members on those Benches, and the cheers which greeted the right hon. Gentleman's denials, he asked the right hon. Gentleman how those statements of his, and those cheers, now appeared to him, when judged by the transactions which his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow had brought to light in Dublin? The right hon. Gentleman had turned rather sharply upon him, a few minutes ago, because he had laughed when he (Mr. Trevelyan) was winning in the very artful manner in which he always endeavoured to win the sympathy of the House on account of his name having been associated with these charges. He (Mr. Harrington) certainly had the audacity to laugh then, because the right hon. Gentleman was defending himself from allegations which no one had made against him. Every time that the right hon. Gentleman's conduct was questioned in that House, he by some artful dodge—["Order, order!"] The statement was perfectly in Order; and if hon. Members only looked at the matter with impartial minds, they would find that, under the circumstances he had described, the right hon. Gentleman had the happy knack of appealing to the sympathies of hon. Members behind him. He and his hon. Friends did not care whether the right hon. Gentleman had or had not the sympathies of his supporters; but they cared very much that the malpractices in question should be brought to light, and if he had the

    1835
    sympathy of those hon. Gentlemen, it would not shield him from the odium which must attach to the present system of administration in Ireland. What was the grievance laid before the Committee that evening by the right hon. Gentleman? It was that his name had indirectly been associated with those infamous charges brought forward against French and Cornwall; and the right hon. Gentleman put it to the Committee, in the most dramatic manner, to consider what a position it was for him to occupy that his name should be indirectly associated with those infamous proceedings. But if the right hon. Gentleman had a grievance on that head, what was the grievance of his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow? He was compelled to have his name associated with the case. The right hon. Gentleman, although he drew a large salary as Chief Secretary, yet shrank from having his name associated with the circumstances, and he threw upon the hon. Member for Mallow the necessity for bringing forward the facts, and risking his own life and worldly means in so doing. Let the right hon. Gentleman explain as he liked, and as often as he wished, to the Committee the words which he used when this question was last under discussion; but he (Mr. Harrington) did not think any impartial Member of that House could put any other interpretation on those words, than that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the evidence, and not to any charge made against himself of having at an interview with French insisted that he should bring an action. The right hon. Gentleman had himself stated, in justification of the Postmaster General, that when his attention was drawn to the infamous charges made against Cornwall, the right hon. Gentleman immediately ordered him to bring his action. He (Mr. Harrington) wished to be allowed to say that no allegation was made on those Benches, either by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) or by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), that the right hon. Gentleman had any communication with French. It was stated explicitly that the allegation rested on a letter which French had written to a friend; and the right hon. Gentleman wished the Committee to believe that it was with regard to that alone that he used those extraordinary words, which
    1836
    were to the effect that as there had been in Dublin for weeks past a man named Meiklejohn, formerly in the English Detective Force, who had been put on his trial for levying black-mail, who was put in gaol, and with respect to whom it was generally believed that it was extremely lucky for him that he received only a sentence of two years' imprisonment—from which circumstance, the right hon. Gentleman said, the House would judge the extreme risk which Irish officials ran. He would put it to the Committee whether that was not said in defence of the whole of the officials of Dublin Castle? The words of the right hon. Gentleman were—
    "The House may imagine the terrible danger which Irish officials run by men of this sort in Ireland trumping up cases against them."
    No allegation had been made in that House that there had been any attempt to trump up a case against the right hon. Gentleman; no one had hinted such a thing; and yet the right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to believe, and he appealed to public opinion outside the House, that the words he had used in that connection were used in reference to an alleged interview with French, and that they were not used for the purpose of prejudicing the trial in which the character of the hon. Member for Mallow was at stake. Now, surely the right hon. Gentleman could not wish the Committee to believe that any charge was made against him with respect to an interview with French? The right hon. Gentleman had himself disproved that by showing that he had been travelling on the Continent. That, surely, should have been sufficient; but the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to say there was anything in the nature of a horrible charge, or a suspicion, or a hint of it, made against him, and, that being so, did he still want the House to believe that the imputation that he cast upon Detective Meiklejohn—those insidious words which were damaging to the case of the hon. Member for Mallow—was made with regard to the error that had been made with respect to his alleged interview with French? His hon. Friend the Member for Mallow had admitted that those words were used by the right hon. Gentleman immediately after the interview with French had been referred to. But everyone who saw the right hon. Gentleman appeal to the Com-

    1837
    mittee generally, and particularly to hon. Members on the Benches behind him, must have derived the impression that the words were used without any reference to that flimsy charge, and that they were used with reference to the officials in Dublin Castle, and with the intention of shielding the individuals charged by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow. The right hon. Gentleman had to-night repeated a statement which he made when this matter was under discussion on a former occasion in that House; he stated that the cause of delay up to a certain period in the bringing of an action by French against the hon. Member for Mallow was attributable to the defendant in the case. Now, he (Mr. Harrington) was utterly at a loss to know upon what grounds the right hon. Gentleman based that part of his case. The facts were quite different from what he understood them to be, and if he would go over the dates, he would find that French, or his counsel did not apply to the Court for time until the last day when it was necessary to do so, in order to prevent their motion being defeated. Every move that could be taken to cause delay they had availed themselves of. He would contrast the right hon. Gentleman's statement with the sworn statement of his detective in Dublin Police Court. The latter was asked in cross-examination whether Mr. French had not done all in his power to bring his action to a speedy hearing; to which the detective replied, on his oath, in the negative. He said, on the contrary, that he had done everything to cause delay. His hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had referred to the medical certificate given in the case. He (Mr. Harrington) thought that if ever there was a certificate which might very well have excited the suspicion of the authorities by the very fulness of its statement, that medical certificate was the one given in the case of French. It was a very old maxim, "that he who endeavours to prove too much proved nothing at all;" and if ever there was a medical certificate which endeavoured to prove too much, it was the medical certificate in question. Every time the subject had been referred to in that House, every time the Government were asked whether they were proceeding to investigate the case against French, the right hon. Gen-
    1838
    tleman had put forward this medical certificate. Over and over again the right hon. Gentleman had asked in that House if it was possible to proceed against French in the face of that certificate? But, to-night, the right hon. Gentleman said it was no bar whatever to the Government taking proceedings against French. The hon. Member for Mallow had stated that so early as the month of September, Colonel Bruce held an inquiry in Dublin Castle as to certain imputations made in United Ireland against Inspector French. His hon. Friend said there was no one who read that statement, however well acquainted with the history of the charges against Connellan, who would believe that a substantial action for libel could be founded upon it. True, there was a threat of inquiring into and publishing the private life of Inspector French and other officials of Dublin Castle; but did anyone believe that if you inquired into the private life of a person, you must necessarily inquire with regard to one particular class of crime, and no other? Why, one might inquire with regard to any class of crime. How did it follow, because a statement was made that his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow would make inquiries into the private life of officials, that necessarily this charge was made? Now, granting, for the sake of argument, that that insinuation was conveyed; if that was the charge against French, how did the Government reconcile the conduct of Colonel Bruce in making inquiry at the time, with their own inactivity ever since? The right hon. Gentleman asserted that the Government had no direct evidence; but if they had no direct evidence, they had the means of obtaining it, and they had knowledge which pointed out to them the direction they should take. How had it been competent for his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow to amass such a quantity of evidence? And if his hon. Friend had been able to do so, with the assistance of one detective only, and with the assistance of an able firm of solicitors, how easy it would have been for the Irish Government to have brought home to French this charge which they were now going to prove by the evidence which the hon. Member for Mallow had supplied. At the commencement of his observations the right hon. Gentleman had appealed, as he

    1839
    always appealed, to the sympathy of those who supported him in that House, as to whether it was fair to bring forward a Motion of this kind in the case of an official, against whom it was not alleged that he had not earned his salary? But hon. Members on those Benches made no allegation against the right hon. Gentleman as to his position being a sinecure. They readily admitted that he had quite enough to do in his Office, and that, probably, few Chief Secretaries to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had had more to do. But they said that much of the work which he had to do was of his own making, and that he approached every discussion upon the administration of Irish affairs with the presumption that everyone who spoke from those Benches spoke untruly. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he approached such discussions in a different spirit, many of the difficulties which lay in his way would disappear. It was a matter of surprise that the right hon. Gentleman, and English Members in general, ever appeared to be disinclined to give to a discussion on Irish affairs that attention which they demanded for their own. Day after day the newspapers in Dublin furnished evidence that men of all shades of political opinion—men holding political opinions as opposite as the poles—had come forward to testify to the unequal struggle in which his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow had been engaged—that struggle in which he had incurred so much risk, and by which he had almost brought himself to the verge of ruin, in vindication of the cause of justice and morality. The complaint of the Irish Members was not alone that the case had not been taken up by the Government, but that at every stage of the proceedings, from the beginning to the end, even down to to-night, in the House of Commons, the effort of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had been to throw as many difficulties as possible in the way of his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien).
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This has been a long debate, and there has been a great deal of violent—I do not like to call it abusive—language employed towards my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Irish Government. ["Oh, oh!" from Irish Members.]
    1840
    Well, Gentlemen have different opinions on the subject. I am not going into that. I ask what is the charge brought against the Irish Government?—that is, putting aside the abuse, I come to the substance of the charge. Is the charge that Lord Spencer and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, knowing, or believing, or suspecting that these men were guilty of this abominable offence, deliberately endeavoured to screen them? ["Hear, hear!" from the Irish Members.] Very well, that is your charge; then I venture to say—
    MR. O'BRIEN: We charge them with either knowing it, or wilfully keeping themselves ignorant of it.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Oh, that is the charge; then I venture to say that there is no honest man in the Three Kingdoms of the Queen who will believe it for a moment.
    MR. HARRINGTON: They are as honest as you.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is a sufficient answer to the charge.
    MR. HARRINGTON: They are as honest as you.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I disdain to answer such a charge. But it may be, short of that, charged against them that they failed to take such measures as they ought to have taken, in proper vigilance, in defence of the authority of the Public Service. Now, that is a charge which deserves an answer—the other does not merit one. This second charge is one that I will discuss. What ought they to have done—how was this thing started? It was started, not by direct charges, but by veiled insinuations, to which everybody could attach but one meaning, in a strong Party paper—insinuations against the officials of the Government. This paper is one which is in the habit of using very strong language against the officials of the Government. Well, Sir, I repeat what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) has said, that the natural instinct of every man—putting officials out of the question—when a charge of this kind is made against anyone, whether he knows him or does not know him, is to disbelieve it, unless some very strong proof brought to bear on the matter makes it impossible for him to disbelieve it. Supposing a man of my acquaintance—or not of my acquaintance, for the matter of that—was charged with this

    1841
    abominable offence. Unfortunately, one has known cases in which such charges have been brought, sometimes falsely and sometimes on good grounds—I put officials out of the question altogether—what is the course of conduct that any man would take, either as a private individual or as a public administrator? I take it as a public individual. I have known cases in the course of my professional life where men have come and said—"Charges cruelly false have been insinuated against me; they have not been brought forward in such a manner that I can deal with; the man who has insinuated the charges has not brought the charges openly. What am I to do?" My answer has always been—"Bring an action." ["Hear, hear!" from the Irish Members.] Yes; hon. Members cheer; but do they not say that when these men in Ireland were told by the Government to bring their actions, it was for the purpose of crushing the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien)?
    MR. HARRINGTON: The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant considers it a vile imputation upon him to say that he incited French to bring his action. He says he had nothing to do with it.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Irish Government called upon these men to bring their actions, as every man would do, whether acting in a public or private capacity. I venture to say that the circumstance must be extremely rare in which any man would be guilty of other than the most cowardly action who makes a charge of this kind, unless he is in possession of evidence to prove it. Very well; if a man is in possession of evidence to prove a charge of this kind, what is it his duty to do? I do not believe this crime is a common one in England; but in this country, if a man is in possession of evidence bearing upon such a thing, he proceeds against the offender in the Queen's name. What is the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite? Why, that they had evidence to prove a charge of this nature, but that the Irish Government would not prosecute. They say—"The evidence we have, we have a right to withhold." If hon. Members opposite would not trust that evidence to the Government, they might have sworn an information themselves; but they did not do that. They made these
    1842
    charges, but did not produce the evidence. They said—"We cannot give the Government any assistance in this prosecution." I say that placed the Irish Government in a position in which they took the only course they could take. Whether a man be attacked in society or in a newspaper by a charge of this kind, I say it is impossible to consort with him unless he brings an action. That is the course the Government took. As to Cornwall, there is no statement that there was any loss of time, that I know of, although all I know about this case is what I have heard in the course of these debates. Cornwall brought an action even before the order was given. As to the charge against French, no doubt there was an interval between the charge and the bringing of the action, and a long interval. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has said, and it has not been disputed, that with regard to the earlier part of that interval, it was the delay of the defendant and not of the plaintiff; but, with reference to the latter part, it was unquestionable that the delay was in consequence of the action of the plaintiff's friends. What was the cause of that delay? The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), in his dramatic manner, has commented on the certificate of the medical gentlemen. But why was Lord Spencer or my right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) to distrust this certificate? I do not know what the theory of the hon. Member for Monaghan is. Does he insinuate that this is a false certificate? What is his charge?
    MR. HEALY: That the Court and the Government would not allow an examination of French by an independent doctor.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What does he call an independent doctor? Who are these medical gentlemen? One of them, no doubt, was not to be believed because he was a surgeon attached to the Royal Irish Constabulary. Of course, hon. Members opposite do not believe him. But then one of these gentlemen was Superintendent of the Cork Asylum, and the third was a surgeon of the Cork General Hospital. Is it charged against Lord Spencer and my right hon. Friend that they suborned these doctors? Or is it charged against these doctors, that they, by their own motion, gave a false

    1843
    certificate? It is possible that French himself deceived the doctors; and if he did so, how were Lord Spencer and my right hon. Friend, who have so much business to occupy their time, to know that such was the case? If it was not a false certificate, what becomes of the charge of delay as to French? The Government took the only course they could take to call on the people, against whom their accusers were not prepared to produce the evidence they possessed, to bring actions. Looking at this case quite impartially, I am thinking what would happen in my own Department if an official were charged in this way. I should, first of all, call on the persons who had accused him to furnish the evidence; and if they refused—a refusal was given in this case—I should say—"My good man, I cannot allow an imputation of that kind to rest on anyone in my Department. You must bring an action at once against your accuser." If anyone furnished me with evidence which I could receive, I would proceed, of course, with the case against the man; but I am not to assume a man guilty, and put into the box, without any evidence, a person in a respectable position in life—a man in an official position. That is the whole case. Then there has been a great deal said about this man Meiklejohn. Well, I have sat in this House opposite hon. Members and heard them, by question and speech, denounce almost every method which has ever been adopted in Ireland for the detection of crime. They have always said—"This instrument is detestable; that instrument is detestable; a Government is infamous which employs detestable tools."
    MR. HEALY: Murderers!
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, I have always been very curious, and my mind has been very much exercised, as to what are the methods that hon. Gentlemen opposite think it would be proper and justifiable to adopt for the detection of crime, and, if they had a competition to decide as to the best method to be employed for the detection of crime, what sort of person they would select? We have no doubt, at all events, learnt from this debate, what is their beau ideal instrument for the detection of crime. We have at last arrived at what is the standard in the minds of hon. Members upon subjects of this description. It is rather a relief to
    1844
    me to find that they are much less scrupulous on that subject than I am myself; because I venture to say that I should not dream—I should not dare, and should not reconcile it to myself—to employ for the detection of crime a man who had been convicted of such an offence as that of Meiklejohn. [Laughter from the Irish Members.] Well, that has been my opinion, and that has been my practice; and when hon. Members can show that I have employed any detective officer convicted as Micklejohn has been, then they can deal out to me a large measure of condemnation. But even if I did employ such a man, I should only follow the example of hon. Members opposite. What did my right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) say on that subject? My right hon. Friend was dealing with charges which were levelled against himself, one being to the effect that French had visited him on this case. My right hon. Friend did not know where that charge came from; but when he knew that Meiklejohn was employed in establishing these charges, he commented on such an instrument as Meiklejohn being employed. So far as I can understand, this is the whole of the charge against the Irish Government, and I say that the charge that Earl Spencer and my right hon. Friend screen men against whom such horrible accusations are brought is not worth answering. No suggestion is made that the Government themselves had evidence against these men. I venture to say that Earl Spencer and my right hon. Friend took the only course open to them—the ordinary course in cases where suspicions are sown broadcast, and infamous crimes are alleged—they called on the persons who were the subject of these allegations to take action. I say that the delay in the case of French was owing to a certificate that the Government were bound to accept, and, in spite of all the hard words hon. Gentlemen have used, they have failed to show that there is the slightest ground for condemning the course which has been pursued by my right hon. Friend and the Irish Government.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had criticized his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), and had defended the Irish Executive for the course they had taken in this

    1845
    matter, because the hon. Member had abstained from swearing informations against the alleged criminals in Dublin, and had abstained also from supplying the Executive Government with that information. Now, he (Mr. Parnell) thought if there had been one thing more certain and self-evident than another, from an examination of the whole of this case, and from its history and its attendant circumstances, it was that, if his hon. Friend had taken the course which was now urged upon him, and which the Government were now saying he ought to have taken at an early stage of the case, the alleged criminals would have escaped from justice, and it would have been utterly impossible ever to have brought the charge home against them. The right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee a description of what he supposed to be, or what he wished the Committee to suppose to be, the charges which his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. Friend made against the Irish Executive. Now, his hon. Friend made a three-fold charge against the Irish Executive. He charged, firstly, and most effectually too, that these offences had been going on amongst a section of the Government officials in Ireland for a number of years, to the knowledge, at all events, of a section of the police authorities, and that no attempt had ever been made to investigate them, or bring the persons to justice, because they were Government officials. He charged, secondly, that as this case developed, and it came to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the higher officials at Dublin Castle, they took no steps, no effectual steps, to investigate the circumstances of these charges, or to inform themselves as to the nature and degree of the suspicion attaching against these Government officials. And, thirdly, he charged the Irish Executive and the right hon. Gentleman that at a later period still, when it was manifestly evident to the right hon. Gentleman, at all events in the case of French, that this was a case in which an indictment, ought to lie—that this was a case in which a warrant ought to be issued—that up to the very last moment the right hon. Gentleman steadily refused to investigate the matter, steadily refused to take any step against these alleged criminals. Now,
    1846
    what were they to suppose from this? They did not impute to the Irish Executive any sympathy with this form of crime, or with any form of crime; but they did say that it had been proved, by what had been brought to light in this matter, that the Irish Executive shrank from investigating this crime, because it was a crime which was committed by Irish officials, and that they were entitled to believe that, as regarded any other offence committed by that class of persons in Ireland, a similar course would be followed. The right hon. Gentleman himself drew a distinction. He said that when a charge was made against a Government official, it was right that the Government official charged should clear himself by an action. Well, he (Mr. Parnell) should like to know, in the case of any charge of felony against an ordinary individual in Ireland, whether it was right, before the Government put their Detective Department into motion to probe to the roots the grounds of the charge—whether it was right, or necessary, or desirable, that it should be left to the person to clear himself, by an action, before the Department responsible for the detection of felony took that course which they undoubtedly would take in the cases of any person except a Government official? He had very little knowledge of the mysteries of statesmanship; but, certainly, he should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, standing in the peculiar position he did, coming as an Englishman to Ireland—a nation that detested his rule and the rule of the nation who had sent him there, who distrusted, and rightly distrusted, his instruments and his officials—he should have thought that, if he had these good intentions which he desired them and the Committee generally to credit him with, he would have been amongst the first to have insisted that no shade of suspicion should attach to anyone in an official position; that he should have insisted upon an immediate and searching investigation being made by all the police and detective powers which undoubtedly were at the command of the Government in Ireland—looking to the acts and doings of these men, in order that he should assure himself that he was not aided in his work—his odious work, if they would—by such contaminating and vile officials. But what had

    1847
    been the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman? He simply trusted to the chapter of accidents. He knew what difficulties must have surrounded his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. Friend the Member for Mallow, in face of all the intimidation of the underlings of Dublin Castle; in face even of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; in face of the fact that one of the best detectives employed by his hon. Friend against this man French was actually arrested at the instigation of French—actually arrested by French himself—and spent a day or a night in the police cell; in the face of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he most carefully turned himself into an advocate, not for French, because his case was then hopeless—though he was not to be arrested, because, poor man! he was suffering from a concatination of diseases — but into an advocate for Cornwall and Bolton; and it was a matter of notoriety that, in the opening statement of counsel for Cornwall, at the trial which took place immediately afterwards in Dublin, the strongest portion of the opening feature of that statement was a villification of the Detective Meiklejohn, following the lead which the right hon. Gentleman had given. These charges which had culminated in the arrest and, he supposed the prosecution of French and Cornwall, was not made yesterday. They were made 12 months ago. French was given seven months within which to bring his action. At the end of seven months his action was dismissed for want of prosecution. Then, was there an action by the right hon. Gentleman? On the contrary, only six weeks ago, when this case was over 10 months old, the right hon. Gentleman stated in this House that the question as to French's pension would have to wait the results of the action—after French had refused and failed to prosecute in his action. Therefore, he (Mr. Parnell) thought that, if ever there was a case made out by mortal man, against Executive Government, this case had been made out by his hon. Friend, and he was certainly surprised to see the Home Secretary step out of his Department and enter into a defence of his Colleague. There was absolutely no defence for the right hon. Gentleman against the charge which had been brought against him. His subordinate detectives were even ordered
    1848
    in Dublin to attempt to intimidate the Detective Meiklejohn. French had the invaluable assistance of the Detective Department of Dublin Castle in attempting to screen his guilt, and not a single word of explanation of this matter had ever been offered by the Government. The sole truth of the matter was this—it was necessary to prove, if possible, that no Government official in Ireland could do any wrong. French had been a prominent agent for the administration of the two Crimes Acts, one of which had already expired, and the other of which would very shortly expire. As Chief of the Detective Investigation Department in Ireland, his advice was sought for, undoubtedly, by the Chief Secretary in filling up the 1,000 and odd warrants under which men were arrested and held in detention in Ireland for long periods of time. Cornwall, also, had been a trusted public servant for 40 years. What a shock to public opinion if any charge was proved against him! It was felt necessary, at all hazards and under all circumstances, and at every risk, to protect these men from conviction and punishment. He charged that the right hon. Gentleman, at a time when he must have been convinced in his own mind of French's guilt, took no step or action against him. He fully admitted that had the right hon. Gentleman foreseen that this would have been the result of his undertaking the Office which he now held—that he would have been compelled and driven into those odious courses—he would have shrunk from the position. He (Mr. Parnell) hoped this would be a lesson to him and to others who were to follow in his footsteps, and a lesson to the Lord Lieutenant and those who in the future would follow him—he hoped that in the future they would know that it would be necessary and consequent upon the Office they hold that they would be driven to acts and to the defence of individuals which, under any other circumstances, any English gentleman would shrink from with dread.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he hoped the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) would offer some observations on this very important subject; or that, at all events, he would answer one or two questions he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) would put to him. He had a theory of his own with regard to the

    1849
    action taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. If he was not wrong, the Home Secretary thought that the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) was a man who, through political enmity and bitterness, would make reckless charges against any man without any means of substantiating them. However, the Irish Members knew that their hon. Friend was a most conscientious man, and one who would not make a charge against any man if he bad not good reasons and grounds to support it. For a long time the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) and a great many of his friends believed that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Brien) and those on the Benches near him were the patrons and sympathizers of assassination. The right hon. and learned Gentleman acted upon that absurd and insane delusion for some time; but he now thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman was beginning to see that the hon. Member for Mallow was not one to make any charge which he was not able to prove. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had to ask how long had the knowledge of these charges been going about Dublin? How long had these horrible scandals been the talk of almost every man living in Dublin? He did not suppose the Home Secretary heard many of the rumours; but how was it that the permanent officials of the Government living in Dublin did not hear of these charges, which were freely made from day to day? He would give an illustration of how the matter was known. Some time ago, he met two gentlemen who had lived in Dublin, but who were now living in London, one of whom held a very important position in the West End, was a very eminent man in his own way, and was well known to the Prime Minister. Both of these men had talked to him on this subject, and expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would not withdraw from the position which he had taken up. He told them that his hon. Friend was not the man to do that. They both told him, at different times and places, that the charges had been ringing through Dublin society for years and years, and that they made the names of certain Dublin officials odious and loathsome to every respectable citizen of that city. They said that
    1850
    these men were converting Dublin, from being a place which bore the good reputation it did formerly, into a foul Gehenna like the waters of the Sea of Sodom. One of his informants said—"I can tell you the name of another man mixed up in the scandal, which has not yet been mentioned;" and he asked him (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) to inquire privately from his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) whether this other man was not mixed up in these charges, "because," his informant said—"against that man the finger of suspicion and scorn has been pointed in Dublin." He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had never heard the name before; but he asked his hon. Friend, who said in reply—"that man is one of the men against whom the charges are going to be made." Was it conceivable that the permanent officials at Dublin had never heard a word of these charges? Both of his friends assured him that these abominable scandals were the talk of everyone in Dublin—in high and low society, in the police force, and everywhere. By what strange infatuation was it that no official of any mark in Dublin Castle ever heard one single word about them? One of his friends was at one time employed in Dublin Castle, and he told him (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) that he had heard officials in Dublin Castle speak of these things years ago, and speak of them with horror. Could be there any excuse for the extreme indifference and apathy which allowed these things to go on? Could there be any excuse for this House refusing to believe that none of the Dublin officials ever heard of these charges when they had been ringing through Dublin society for years and years?
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYsaid, the Prime Minister had honoured the debate by his presence; but he would have liked to have heard the right hon. Gentleman employing his eloquence in defending, or, more properly, in denouncing those Members of his Government who were being impugned to-night. The right hon. Gentleman had not seen fit to do that; but he had allowed two other Members of the Treasury Bench, the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Home Secretary, to defend the conduct of the impugned Irish officials. The Home Secretary's speech was not one of very remarkable

    1851
    importance. They were accustomed in the House of Commons to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's "swashbuckler" style of eloquence; but to-night the Home Secretary was curiously tame. The few remarks the right hon. and learned Gentleman made were singularly damaging to the Irish Excutive. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was very greatly surprised that the Irish Members did not hear with homage the name of the three doctors who certified as to French's state of health. But Irish Members were naturally a little suspicious of the persons who were patronized by the Castle. Of the three doctors in question, one was a Government official, and another was a member of an Orange Lodge; and the Representatives of the people of Ireland were naturally inclined to imagine that such men, even with the best intentions, would be much more likely to lean to the side of an attacked Government official than to that of United Ireland. So it was that Irish Members did not regard the names of the three gentlemen to whom the Home Secretary referred with anything like veneration. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) made some rather striking remarks about the Detective Meiklejohn, which were curiously damaging to the position always taken up by the Irish Executive. The right hon. and learned Gentleman denounced the party who employed such a man. But the Irish Executive were only able to live by the information of worse men than Meiklejohn—upon the information of assassins, murderers, and criminals of all kinds. If Meiklejohn was so obnoxious in the eyes of the Chief Secretary as to prompt him to declare that he would never employ such a man, how damaging were his words to the Executive, who ruled a conquered country solely by the aid of worse men, and whose rule would be impossible without the aid of such men! The Chief Secretary's speech was not a very valuable contribution to the debate. It was dramatic; it was pathetic; and he appealed to the House whether he did not deserve his salary. The Irish Members could only answer that he did not deserve his salary. The right hon. Gentleman said he worked hard for his salary, and complained of the hard words used of him at different times throughout the country. The Irish people were not ac-
    1852
    customed to regard their Chief Secretary with any great affection. Even if the British Government could obtain the services of an Archangel in the shape of a Chief Secretary—and they had not yet got anyone as Chief Secretary who had the slightest resemblance to an Archangel—the Irish people would strongly dislike him. The Chief Secretary's speech was one of complaint, and not one of argument. Of course, they all felt for the right hon. Gentleman in the unhappy position in which destiny had placed him, and for which he was so unfortunately unsuited. But the Irish people, while waiting for a happier condition of things, would feel they owed a profound debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), who had carried on this contest so well, and in face of so much opposition. The hon. Member was very dear to the Irish people formerly, but he was ten times more dear to them now.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had rested his case to-night upon the fact that he was a popular Member of that House, and that he (Mr. O'Brien) was not. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the sympathies of the House on the strength of a statement which he (Mr. O'Brien) denounced, without contradiction in the House, in language as strong as Parliamentary usage would permit him to use, as a calumny and an untruth. He (Mr. O'Brien) stated that there was not one word of truth in the allegation that he had ever tried to link the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary with the charges he had made. Strong things would, no doubt, be said of him; but, whatever charge might be made against him, no one could say that he ever made a charge against any man if he had not good grounds for it. He had always distinctly stated that he had mentioned the right hon. Gentleman's name simply as an illustration of the cruelty and absurdity of asking him to mention, a month before his Motion, the names of a number of officials with whom his Motion was to be conversant. If he had mentioned names, he would have been obliged to mention the names of Dublin Castle officials, against whom he did not dream of bringing such charges as he brought against French, but against whom he did make the charge he had

    1853
    made to-night of culpable negligence. He put it to any man who had listened to the debate from its inception—very few had listened to the discussion throughout; but a great many who had not had ventured to offer opinions about it, and would, no doubt, venture, by-and-bye, to give judgment upon it in the Division Lobby—he appealed to any man who had listened to the debate throughout, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had answered any one of the points of the case he (Mr. O'Brien) had made out to-night? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was not the business of the Executive to have followed this matter up until proof had been been put into their hands. He (Mr. O'Brien) had stated—and his statement had not been contradicted—that the Government did institute an inquiry; that they instituted an inquiry before anything libellous appeared in United Ireland about French; and that, on the strength of their inquiries, they suspended French from duty. He asked what explanation had been given to the Committee to-night of the fact that the man, long in the service of the Crown, was put under the stigma of suspension? Was it not fair to infer that the Government well knew that there was, at least, primâ facie evidence against the man? Evidence of a sub-constable had been referred to—he (Mr. O'Brien) did not mention the official's name. Was it denied that this sub-constable was summoned up from the country, and that he gave the names of a dozen young cadets in the Royal Irish Constabulary from whom evidence could be had? Were those cadets questioned? No; nothing was done. It was said the Government induced French to bring his action immediately the charge was made. The investigation at the Castle took place upon the 1st of September—that was the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Trevelyan) own statement—the investigation took place on the 1st of September, the non - libellous article having appeared on the 25th of August. It was not until the 12th of October, not until United Ireland had stumbled into a mistake, and the Government thought they had United Ireland in a difficulty—it was not till then that an action was started by French. He (Mr. O'Brien) asked what explanation had been given of the conduct of
    1854
    the Government? Had the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary offered any explanation of the fact that French swore in his statement — a statement which appeared in every newspaper in Dublin—made six weeks after he had been dismissed from office, that nothing had occurred to damage his position, and that he had not been suspended from duty? The right hon. Gentleman's explanation to the Committee to-night was that he did not read the statement. Upon that ground alone, he (Mr. O'Brien) and his hon. Friends had a right to object to the right hon. Gentleman's salary being voted by the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman did not see the statement, was it credible that other officials in Dublin Castle, who knew of the man's suspension, did not see it? Why did they not contradict it? Why did they allow a perjury to be circulated to his (Mr. O'Brien's) prejudice? On the strength of that statement, his motion for the remission of his action was dismissed with costs. What explanation had been offered about the detectives, Cottingham and Irwin? It was sworn to, not by a witness of his, but by one of Cornwall's witnesses, that this man French sent instructions to his friends and accomplices, Taylor and Johnston Little, to go to Dublin Castle and put Cottingham and Irwin on Brown. What was the meaning of that? Had any explanation been offered? He quoted to-night the explanation of the Deputy Inspector General; but, judging by the light of the evidence afterwards given, that explanation was a false and fraudulent one. The Deputy Inspector General's account was, that these men thought that some persons were engaged in plotting against French's life. It was, however, sworn in evidence that French was in league with these detectives, and that they knew well who Brown was. Again, take the question of French's dismissal. Had any explanation been given as to whether French was dismissed at all? If this man was a meritorious public servant, if he was not shirking the trial of his action, if it was not plain that he was shamming, and that he dare not face a public inquiry, why should he have been dismissed from the Public Service at that very moment, above all others? He would tell the Committee why French was dismissed. The action

    1855
    dragged along, term after term, in the Queen's Bench—it dragged on with the connivance of the Government — until one of the Judges, Judge O'Brien, commented upon the inaction of the Government, and asked if the man was still in the Public Service. It was then, and then only, that French was dismissed. He (Mr. O'Brien) would not occupy the attention of the Committee further. He was perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Trevelyan) friends, and his (Mr. O'Brien's) foes, would attack him to-night, just as they always did. He had been treated as nearly everyman in Ireland who had crossed the path of Earl Spencer had been treated. He did not object to be attacked openly and manfully; but that had not been the policy of Earl Spencer. It used to be the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), bad as he was in other respects. The policy of Earl Spencer's Government had been, whenever they found a man they considered formidable as an opponent, to fasten upon him some stigma or other, or to incriminate him in something that was disreputable, and in that way to ruin and discredit him. That had been the course of Earl Spencer's administration in Ireland for the last two years. It was for that reason that Mr. M'Carthy was dragged through the streets of Galway handcuffed; it was for that reason that the Mayor of Wexford was put to the ignominy of a plank bed; it was for that reason that his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) was put to horrible torture in Mullingar Gaol. The chief policy of the Irish Executive was to make false charges against opponents, and fasten some stigma upon them. Fitzgerald was arrested in London some time ago upon the charge of treason-felony; but the moment he was landed in Ireland that charge was dropped, and one of the murderers of Lord Frederick Cavendish was dragged out of gaol to tar him with the brush of murder conspiracy. There was not one of his (Mr. O'Brien's) hon. Friends who had not, for the last two years, been dogged with suspicion, and all with the same object and intent. All he could say, in conclusion, was that he did not envy the Government which did such things, or the House of Commons that would back them out obediently.
    MR. HEALYsaid, it was quite evident that this matter could not drop. They had had a speech from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and another from the Home Secretary, who, by the way, knew nothing whatever about the subject; but neither of those right hon. Gentlemen had given them the smallest satisfaction. On a former occasion, a Motion was made in the House for a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Government; but the Motion was defeated. Why, if the Government were so innocent as they claimed to be, was the Committee refused? Were the Government willing now to give an inquiry? If not, why not? Were they afraid of publicity? The Home Secretary, contrary to his practice, made an extremely tame speech, and, in the course of it, said the Government knew nothing about the matter. But the charge the Irish Members made was that the Government did know all about it; that they held an investigation; that Sub-Inspector Maguire was brought up from the country to Dublin Castle by Colonel Bruce, and that he implicated French, and gave the names of other witnesses; and that then the Government dropped their inquiries. That was the position the Irish Party took up. The Home Secretary asked them what their charge was? Their charge was, that the Government, having investigated the matter through their own officials and subordinates, dropped the inquiry the moment they found what they were touching. Certainly, before this Vote was passed, the Irish Representatives must get some satisfaction. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had stated that these abominable practices had been going on amongst officials in Ireland time out of mind, and yet his speech was unanswered. In 1848, similar charges were made against Government officials; and, from that time down to the present, these things were notorious to all the world. The Government said they were the only persons who were ignorant of them. It was a very remarkable thing that when crimes were being committed the only persons ignorant of them should be the Government. The Committee, were entitled to be told by the Government whether any inquiry would be granted; and, in order to afford the Government an opportunity of consider-

    1857
    ing the question, 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. Healy.)
    MR. HARRINGTONdesired to support the Motion of his hon. Friend. He thought the right hon. Gentlemen who sat upon the Treasury Bench, and who had listened to the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, ought themselves to be very willing to render every opportunity to put themselves in a proper light before the public. He could scarcely congratulate them, if they were willing to remain satisfied with the inquiry or discussion as it had lasted up to now. It would not be in Order, however, to discuss the merits of the question any further upon the present Motion; and, therefore, he would only repeat that he had much pleasure in supporting the Motion to report Progress.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 143: Majority 119.—(Div. List, No. 172.)
    Question again proposed,
    "That the item of £4,425, for the Salary of the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. O'Brien.)
    MR. PARNELLwished, before a Division was taken on the proposed Amendment, to put a question to the Government. The whole matter was now being investigated by the police authorities in Dublin; but he submitted that, after the facts which had been brought out in the course of this debate, the public could have no sort of confidence in the result of that investigation, and that it would be utterly impossible to believe, if it should be to the interests of the police authorities in Ireland to conceal the truth, that they would hesitate to do so. He and his Friends were in a position to show that these matters had been known to the police in Dublin, who were now charged with the investigation of a portion of the subject, for a great many years, and that, in fact, the facts of the case had been a matter of notoriety to the police authorities, and at any moment it would have been possible for high and responsible officials
    1858
    in connection with the Detective Department of Dublin Castle to place their hands on a large number of these criminals. But during many years they had failed to do so, until they had been forced to take action in regard to these two notorious persons. It would be impossible to feel any confidence in these inquiries, or to believe that the full truth would come out, if the matter were simply left in the hands of the police authorities; and he, therefore, wished to ask whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland would now shrink from the inquiry which the Irish Members had asked for, in the form of a Select Committee of this House? This was asked for six weeks ago. He could very well understand that hon. Members might think that this question was not satisfactorily raised upon a Motion dealing with the salary of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; but if the Government would grant the investigation which was asked for six weeks ago, but which he was precluded from moving for to-night, the time of the House would be saved. He would be glad to be spared the necessity of dividing against the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary; but he wished to protest in advance against being obliged to receive an inquiry by police authorities in Dublin as a satisfactory or full one. The police authorities were known not to have acted when they possessed, not merely reasonable suspicion, but full proofs in their hands; and it was impossible, under these circumstances, to ask the Irish Members to accept as satisfactory any promise that a full and impartial inquiry would be held by the police in this matter, in regard to which the Government had been shown to have so grossly neglected their duty.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork feels it necessary, in the discharge of his duty, to bring such frightful charges and accusations against persons in most responsible positions—not against one, or more than one, but against all, apparently, concerned in the government of Ireland, and to suppose that, to avoid the inconvenience and scandal which the hon. Gentleman says would follow upon the discoveries, they would suppress the truth. Well, Sir, the hon. Gentleman thinks it part of his

    1859
    duty to make that charge, and a more frightful charge never was launched by one man against a whole body of men. He has launched it without having given this House any grounds sufficient to sustain so tremendous an accusation, or any reason tending at all in that direction. Of course, Sir, the hon. Gentleman need not protest against being held bound to receive the Report which may be the result of the investigation. He is entitled to point out, and it is, indeed, his Parliamentary duty to point out, the insufficiency of such inquiry. But he would do far better, I confess, if he had performed that duty at a proper time, rather than to declare, in anticipation, his belief that all these gentlemen connected with the government of Ireland and with the administration of justice in Ireland are capable of what I must call such horrible contempt of duty as he ascribes to them. Then, Sir, the hon. Gentleman says that, as he has no confidence in any investigation proceeding from that quarter, he would propose to substitute, as a more trustworthy tribunal, a Committee of this House. He proposes to make a Select Committee of this House the instrument for examining into charges of a felonious character, and he proposes that that examination shall he conducted by unsworn evidence. He thinks that the substitution of a tribunal of that kind is the best mode of securing the administration and attainment of the ends of justice for which he asks. I can hardly believe that any Member of the House, except those who may hold themselves bound by a foregone conclusion to follow his opinions, will share the same view. At any rate, so far as regards the Government, I must not leave upon my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary the unmixed or chief responsibility of declining that course. It appears to me, and I am sure it will appear to all my Colleagues who are present, that we can hardly suppose the hon. Gentleman is serious in making this proposal—at any rate, it is one which is totally contrary to the most elementary notions of duty which we have derived, from our experience of public life.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension as to the nature of the inquiry that was asked for. What was asked for, as he (Mr. Parnell) had stated, was an in-
    1860
    quiry similar to that demanded about six weeks ago by the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County—a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Government in reference to these charges; and it did not at all necessarily follow that such a Committee would have to investigate the charges of a felonious character. What he should propose to establish before a Committee of this House would be that the ordinary tribunal in Dublin had failed in its duty in reference to the investigation of these charges; and he believed that could be established by evidence to the satisfaction of a Select Committee of the House. What course would then be pursued by the House, with reference to the setting up of an investigating tribunal to inquire into the offences themselves, would be a matter for the House to determine; but in special offences attended by special circumstances of difficulty the House had before adopted particular agencies, and had appointed special tribunals with greater powers than ordinary Courts to investigate such offences. In the present case, and having regard to all the surrounding circumstances and the action and conduct of the Irish Executive, and more especially the action and conduct of the Irish police, upon which he desired to lay particular stress, for he charged them with being unfit to investigate fairly and fully these matters in Dublin—in this case he maintained that it would be a right course for the Government to pursue under these circumstances if they would take the course he had suggested, especially as the officials in Ireland had failed to endeavour to take action against two members of the Irish Executive, one holding a very responsible position as Director of the Detective Department of Constabulary for the whole of Ireland, and the other holding the important post of Secretary to the General Post Office. In this case the conduct of the Irish Executive was supremely a matter for inquiry by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, with a view of seeing whether justice would not suffer if the question of the detection of the offences charged was left in the hands of the police.
    MR. HEALYwished to mention, as the Prime Minister seemed to have misapprehended the matter, that there were

    1861
    three main points which ought to be investigated by the House, and which it was quite impossible for a Court of Law to investigate. The first was, whether it was or was not the fact, as was mentioned in the article appearing in August in United Ireland, and which was not a libel, that the head of the Constabulary, Colonel Bruce, telegraphed to Sub-Inspector Macrae, and had him up to his office, and made inquiries and received his testimony? The second point was as to the affidavit which French swore on the 27th of October, in reply to the claim that the action should be remitted to another place; and in that affidavit French swore that he was not deposed, or suspended, or had in any way suffered in his position. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said to-night that though that affidavit was published in all the Dublin papers he (Mr. Trevelyan) heard of it to-night for the first time. The third point which a Court of Law could not investigate was as to the allegation made on certificate by Eames, Curtis, and Gordon. On whose authority did they make that investigation? How did they find French? What condition was he in? If their certificate was false, by what other machinery could the fact be ascertained? How could the blame be affixed? Was not Dr. Gordon the Constabulary doctor? Was he not entitled to have his character cleared by investigation from the inference that either these doctors were swearing a false certificate or else French was shamming? It was perfectly well known that French was shamming, because he did not keep it up. He appeared in rude health, and went about the country buying and selling cattle at fairs, and therefore he imposed on these medical men. By what machinery of a Court of Law could these things be inquired into? They ought to be inquired into, and they had been put before the House; but no information had been given about them. There was one further point which ought to be inquired into by a Select Committee, and it was a very scandalous point—he meant the employment by the Government of Detectives Cottingham and Irwin to watch the witnesses and the solicitor employed by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow. The Prime Minister had totally misapprehended the case when he said that the Irish Members wished a Select Committee to
    1862
    inquire into these felonious practices. He (Mr. Healy) wished to know what satisfaction the Irish public were to receive in these matters? In short, did the Government mean to screen their officials or anybody else?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had listened very attentively to the four points mentioned by the hon. Member for Monaghan, and he declared that every one of them could be made the subject of investigation by a Court of Law. If the allegation was that these doctors had wilfully and fraudulently given a false certificate, that could be investigated.
    MR. HEALY: How? By whom?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that such a matter was not one to be investigated by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. If charges of this character were to be made against eminent doctors, it should not be on evidence which was not checked by the sanction of an oath where a man might be made responsible for what he said. There was not one of these charges that ought to be investigated by a Select Committee; every one of them could be brought before a Court of Law.
    MR. HEALY: How?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, they were all involved in the prosecution of French. What was it that the Irish Members complained of? If French was guilty—if all these pretences on which the action was postponed were false—all that was capable of coming out, and he thought must come out, in the prosecution of French.
    MR. HEALY: Who is to prosecute? The Crown?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member for Monaghan declared that he would not trust the Courts of Law, and wished for the appointment of a Select Committee, which would take all statements that might be raked up anywhere, and which would not be testified upon oath. The hon. Gentleman wanted to catch this man, that, and the other, and said—"We will not submit the trial of this case to the constituted tribunals of the country under the sanction of an oath—we demand a Committee to supersede the Courts of Law." The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) also had said it was necessary to discover some tribunal other than a Court of Law to adjudicate on

    1863
    the crimes themselves. But that was a suggestion which he (Sir William Harcourt) ventured to think no man could listen to. It was, in effect, to have a trial indirectly instead of directly, not upon sworn testimony, but upon any species of hearsay that could be brought forward. The hon. Member could not but see himself that any responsible Government must decline to assent to any such thing.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he had listened to the whole of the discussion up to that time on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien); and he was bound to say, with reference to the last proposal that a Committee should be appointed, that he did not think it should be acceded to for several reasons, including those given by the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Trials were pending with regard to those men which would be decided by the jury on the evidence laid before them. If they were guilty, let them be punished; but, at all events, whether guilty or innocent, let them receive an impartial trial according to law. But if at the time when they were about to be returned for trial, and when the trial took place, the Government were deliberately to set up in the House of Commons another tribunal, even if it had only to examine into collateral questions leading up to the question whether these persons were guilty or innocent, they must necessarily prejudice their trial, as well as the public mind and those men who would have to try the question. It was, he said, absolutely impossible to avoid it. He would take the chief points put forward by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), who had an acute perception of all the features of the case. He had listened to them as fairly and impartially as he was able; and he asked whether it was possible to advance, to any extent, any one of those topics which the hon. Member had dwelt upon without prejudicing, it might be to a vital extent, the question of the guilt or innocence of one or both of the men who were now awaiting their trial in one of Her Majesty's gaols in Dublin? The Committee was aware that the name of a Sub-Inspector in Dublin had been prominently brought forward; that he was asked if he could give evidence; that it was stated his
    1864
    brother could have done so, but that the brother was dead. It was said that that statement rested on hearsay, and that it could not, therefore, be brought before a Court of Justice. But he pointed out that the question would have been considered whether that statement brought home guilt to the men who were now awaiting their trial. The next point of the hon. Member was that a certain statement contained in the affidavit of the 27th October was untrue. He would not go into the facts then. He had them distinctly in his own mind, but would make no reference to them. But what would be inquired before the Select Committee of the House would be whether French was guilty of perjury in what he swore on that occasion, or whether he was not. Was it not obvious that that must have an important bearing in Dublin on the trial. The third point of the hon. Member had relation to the state of French's mind; whether his state of mind was such as would enable him to take part in his own defence and plead; and whether he was now able to instruct his solicitors. It was said that on a former occasion he was not able to do so; but he (Mr. Gibson) expressed no opinion on that point now. He would simply indicate that it might become a point of immense importance in the opinion of the legal advisers of French and himself, and one which could not be investigated by any tribunal outside that before which French would shortly appear without being calculated, to a great extent, to prejudice the trial and interfere with the course of justice. He did not want to go further into this matter; but it was obviously desirable, as far as might be, to avoid saying anything which might be used on either side in the course of these trials. Finally, having, as he hoped, satisfied those who had listened to the few remarks he felt it his duty to make on this subject, he trusted the Committee might now be allowed to go to a Division on the Vote, and that any further comments might be abstained from which could but have the effect of interfering with the course of justice in this very disagreeable inquiry.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he and his hon. Friends wished the Committee to consider, not whether certain individuals charged with crimes were or

    1865
    were not guilty of those crimes, but whether Her Majesty's Government, at a certain date, was not in possession of such knowledge and information that any conscientious and decent-minded set of men would have felt themselves compelled to act upon—to make further inquiries which, if the information were proved to be right, would have compelled them to take criminal proceedings against the persons implicated. He believed that he could show that the Government were fixed with such knowledge. When he said the Government, he did not mean the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland personally. The right hon. Gentleman told them that it was not until that evening he had brought to his knowledge an affidavit made by the head of the Detective Department in Dublin, which affidavit had been set forth in terms by every newspaper in Ireland, and that disclaimer alone showed how very incomplete the right hon. Gentleman's information must be on many matters which his position, as Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, required him to be informed about. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) could understand that the multiplicity of the duties to which the right hon. Gentleman had to turn his mind one after the other would make it impossible for him to make himself familiar with any other Department than that of Chief Secretary. Therefore, he did not mean that the right hon. Gentleman was personally fixed with the knowledge he had referred to; but there were behind him a large number of persons who practically had the administration of affairs in Ireland in their own hands. It was the people behind the right hon. Gentleman who were really responsible for the course which had been taken in this matter. It was, at any rate, fair to say that several high officials, who might fairly be included under the title of the Government in Ireland, were in full possession of the facts relating to the conduct of certain officials now charged in Ireland, and it was their duty to make the facts known to those responsible in that House and elsewhere. But they failed to do so; and the right hon. Gentleman was, he contended, by the theory of the Constitution, responsible for that omission. When, therefore, they asked for an inquiry, it was not in order to inquire
    1866
    into the personal knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman only, but to inquire into the knowledge which the Irish Government possessed of the malpractices complained of. He was afraid the Rules of the House would not admit of the appointment of a Select Committee, even if it were time for an hon. Member to move for it, because the matter had already been put to the House, and refused this Session; the Government refused that which Irish Members were prepared, on behalf of public morals, to move for. The responsibility, therefore, rested with the Government. But everyone in Ireland, and everyone on those Benches, had a perfect conviction that the Irish Government did know of the circumstances of these crimes; that they did know of the character of the men in high places; and that, knowing it, they shielded them by making no effectual efforts to drag the character of these men into the light of day. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not charge the right hon. Gentleman with a share in any such culpable conduct; but he could not help fearing that there were many in Ireland who were of the opinion that he was personally acquainted with the circumstances. That, however, was the natural result of refusing these investigations, which would have been beneficial to the public morals and interest. What was the object which he and his hon. Friends had in view in asking for the appointment of a Select Committee? They did not wish that such Committee should investigate charges which could only be investigated by the recognized tribunals of the country; but that the inquiry should be with regard to the conduct of those officials in high places, the charges against whom were so simple, and admittedly of such easy establishment or refutation. The Government, however, had refused that reasonable request, and they must bear the consequences of that refusal.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, hon. Members opposite seemed surprised that further discussion of this Motion seemed necessary to hon. Members on those Benches; but he could assure them that, notwithstanding their surprise, nothing would prevent him from pressing the Government still further for a satisfactory answer to the request of hon. Members. What was the position which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secre-

    1867
    tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland occupied? The right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted, in the course of the debate, that another formal inquiry had to be made into the facts of the case, and it was upon that the right hon. Gentleman rested his defence that evening. But he would point out that these charges had been in the air for the last 12 months; they had been mentioned in that House, and had been talked of everywhere; and, therefore, the Irish Government, he contended, were informally charged in regard to these cases. The right hon. Gentleman said that Colonel Bruce had made informal inquiries; but that he had done so on his own motion. Bat he would ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. Did Colonel Bruce communicate the result of those inquiries to anyone? Did he tell the right hon. Gentleman the result of his inquiries; did he tell anyone in Dublin Castle what he had ascertained; and, if Colonel Bruce did so, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he reconciled that fact with another fact—namely, that, six months afterwards, Sub-Inspector French was able to swear an absolute falsehood in a Court of Justice? The speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself was the best evidence of the necessity for an inquiry, because the right hon. Gentleman was not cognizant of the affidavit made by French, owing to persons in Office who ought to have done so having failed to convey to him the information. [Mr. HEALY: Progress.] Notwithstanding the ingenious arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), he maintained, with regard to the unfortunate men awaiting trial, that hon. Gentlemen on those Benches had no wish to prejudice their position in any way by asking for a Select Committee to inquire into the facts indicated by his hon. Friends; and, further, he said that their position would not be in any respect interfered with by the appointment of such a Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had touched upon three points which his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) said might well be made the subject of inquiry by a Select Committee of that House; but he would point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman left
    1868
    out altogether any allusion to the fourth subject which the hon. Member for Monaghan said might also be inquired into—namely, the conduct of the detectives, who, when French was away in the country, were probably communicated with by him with the object of getting them to shield him. Now, surely the right hon. Gentleman did not want or expect the House of Commons to believe that those detectives did not know something of the charges which were alleged against French; he could not want hon. Members to believe that those detectives, who were conversant with the lives of French, and men like him who occupied similar positions in Dublin Castle, knew nothing of the fearful rumours which were current with regard to them. Then, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin said, with regard to the medical certificate, that if the Committee were to inquire into the affidavit with respect to French's state of mind, the subject of inquiry would be whether the men who signed the document had committed perjury or not? Now, he (Mr. Harrington) submitted that that would not be the subject of inquiry at all, and that it would not be necessary for the Select Committee to touch the subject. On the other hand, he submitted that the subject for inquiry would be, whether, at the time the statement was made, the authorities were watching the progress of French's case against the hon. Member for Mallow to the extent to which they ought to have watched it? They had it admitted that Colonel Bruce informally held an inquiry into the circumstances of the case. The subject for the Committee to investigate would be, whether Inspector French's statement was in accordance, or not, with the facts; and whether he had been replaced in his position for the purpose of fortifying the action taken against the hon. Member for Mallow? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland put it with great confidence to the Committee how it was possible to have the different points mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) made the subject of official inquiry before the Courts? Now, he would point out that, whatever might be the right hon. and learned Gentleman's acquaintance with the English

    1869
    law, it was plain that he knew nothing of the procedure in the Irish Courts if he thought that a Judge presiding at a trial would allow such matters to be the subject of inquiry. As had been before pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary stated that Colonel Bruce made an informal inquiry. The name of one officer of Constabulary had been mentioned who was brought up to the Castle and examined with regard to certain statements made by him. Who, he asked, gave the information except some members of the Constabulary Force? And if that were so, were the Government not cognizant of the charges made by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow? The object of the inquiry asked for was not to establish the guilt or the innocence of these unfortunate men—that question the Select Committee need not touch—but it was to establish the guilt or innocence of men in high official positions in Ireland—as to whether they had certain knowledge, and, having it in their possession, whether they acted properly in not taking immediate and decisive action. He maintained that those persons who held the official positions referred to were bound to give the right hon. Gentleman information, and that he was bound to watch the progress of the case after one inquiry had been held; but they did not give him that information. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members were, doubtless, in a very great hurry to divide, and he could, of course, well understand their readiness to pass from a disagreeable subject, which he could assure the Committee hon. Members on those Benches had no desire to keep for an unduly long period before the public. But both Irish Members and the Irish public had been treated in such a manner, and society and morality had been so injured by the conduct of the Irish Government, that he and his hon. Friends would feel it their duty to keep the subject before the Committee a little longer. It was all very well to cry "Divide!" when Irish Members raised a question of this kind; but if this were a question with regard to Egyptian or South African affairs, the Committee would be willing to listen longer and more attentively to the discussion than they were willing to do on the present occasion. [Interruption] If an English Member were to stand up to make
    1870
    a statement to the Committee on any subject relating to England, they would not hear those cries which were intended now to drown the voice of justice. It was not his habit to detain the House at any undue length at any time, nor was it his intention to do so now; but, before concluding, he would point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had himself completely and thoroughly disposed of the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when he stated how he would have proceeded under the circumstances. The former right hon. and learned Gentleman, having heard only that portion of the debate which did not include the speeches of the Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), proceeded to tell the Committee that he would have acted in a certain way if a charge were made against any official in his Department. But the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would proceed was precisely that which the Chief Secretary did not follow, for he had taken the first opportunity that presented itself of denying and of discrediting as much as possible the statement of the hon. Member for Mallow.
    MR. BARRYsaid, he was in favour of the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the conduct of Irish officials throughout this business. His reason for supporting the proposal was that he had not the slightest confidence in the character of the investigations carried on by the police authorities in Dublin; nor could he see how the Government could have the slightest confidence in the Dublin police authorities after what transpired. They had it on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland that Mr. French was practically dismissed; and they had it in the affidavit of French, sworn six weeks later in Dublin, that he had not been removed from his position, and that he had not been dismissed. That palpable lie, that deliberate perjury, was known to Colonel Bruce, and to the police authorities in Dublin. They knew it was calculated to prejudice the case of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien); but they did not bring it to the notice either of the right hon. Gen-

    1871
    tleman the Chief Secretary, or of the other authorities. What confidence, then, could Irish Members have in the character of such officials? Then, with regard to the information conveyed to Colonel Bruce. Sub-Inspector Maguire told him of some terrible facts about his brother, but that they could not be supplied, because he was dead; Colonel Bruce was also told of a conversation which had taken place. He (Mr. Barry) said that Colonel Bruce had sufficient evidence to have convicted French, and yet he took no steps; and now the Government expected that the Irish people would have confidence in the inquiries being carried on by the Irish police authorities. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had mentioned in the course of the debate that evening that this matter had been the subject of common conversation in Dublin for years past; he had it on the evidence of two cardinal witnesses that it was a matter of common report with regard to certain proceedings of officials at Dublin Castle. If, then, the police in Dublin had remained blind for several years to notorious facts, how, he asked, could the people of Ireland be expected to have any confidence that they would properly carry out an investigation directed against French and his associates?
    MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had made it a point that any inquiry by a Select Committee of that House into the conduct of Irish officials must necessarily prejudice the case of the persons who were to be tried. It was not at all necessary, however, that the inquiry should be held publicly. The Government had made an inquiry into the Westmeath murders, which inquiry had been held in private. Therefore, he said that an inquiry held under the same circumstances could not, in the least degree, prejudice the case of the men for trial in Dublin. He was surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have thought it necessary to advance such an argument in support of the Government position with regard to the appointment of a Select Committee. Were Irish Members to understand that French would be prosecuted for perjury if the present action against him failed? The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee deliberately that French was suspended; but
    1872
    six weeks before that French himself had stated that he had not been suspended. That was an act of perjury, which was practically within the knowledge of the officials at Dublin Castle; and every man in the force, from Colonel Bruce downwards, knew what had been sworn to by French; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that, with the exception of what had been published in the newspapers in Ireland, he know nothing about the case. How would a Court of Law bring out the truth as to that matter? And, again, how would the hon. Member for Mallow bring out the truth as to whether the certificates given by the three doctors were correct or not? He said it was impossible for a Court of Law to go into those points. Then, with regard to his fourth point, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin did not refer to at all, how would a Court of Law be able to enlighten them upon that? He was amazed that anyone should declare that a Court of Law could investigate these points, and particularly that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should do so. It was absolutely absurd to say that the case of the persons awaiting trial would be in any way prejudiced by the appointment of a Select Committee. There was not a shadow of foundation for the statement. How could the question of the correctness of the doctors' certificate affect the question of felony? If it could affect the question of felony the Committee could sit in private. Therefore, as no answer had been given to the Irish Members, the only inference the public of Ireland could draw would be this—that the Government would not give them an inquiry, because they were afraid to do so. He wished to know whether this matter was to drop here? Were the Irish Members, having on these four points convicted the Government, to some extent, to be guilty of screening these men from the charges brought against them—were they to be content with the vote of English gentlemen who knew nothing of what had been taking place, and had, perhaps, been dining out all day? The Government professed to be anxious to secure the confidence of the Irish people. How were they to set about it? Was it by refusing the Irish Members all inquiry, by defeating their Motions by

    1873
    majorities in a Division Lobby? Not at all. Before the Government could get the affection and confidence of the Irish people, they had to get the affection and confidence of the Representatives of the Irish people; and they were a long way from that, so far as he was able to form an opinion. Irish Members in this House were witnesses of the goings on of the Government—they understood exactly what the Government were doing. The Irish Members, who knew more about the Government than did the Irish people at home, had a right to say—"If you cannot please us, and secure our loyalty and affection, how can you wish to secure the loyalty and affection of people 300 miles away, who know no more about you than what they read in the newspapers?" It was a monstrous thing to suppose that Government officials could give bogus certificates, and yet be retained in the Government service; that such a man as Colonel Bruce could make inquiries, and drop them when he pleased; that Detectives Cottingham and Irwin could endeavour to frustrate the objects of persons endeavouring to make good serious charges against public officials; and that English Members should come in from their clubs and vote the right hon. Gentleman's salary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would, no doubt, rest content with the result which would be brought in this way—Noes 24; Ayes 124. He (Mr. Healy) wished the right hon. Gentleman great comfort in that.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he had followed the discussion with some attention to-night, and it appeared to him that the Government did not precisely realize the position. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said he would refuse to discuss the question of the accusation made against the Government to the effect that they had sought to screen certain Irish officials because they were officials, and that they had not taken action when they had full knowledge of the crime, or, at least, full means of informing themselves upon it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had also said no honest man would entertain that belief for a moment, and therefore he discarded it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, he (Mr. Gray) presumed, did not think there were any honest Irishmen—the right
    1874
    hon. and learned Gentleman thought that because the vast majority of Irishmen in Ireland, rightly or wrongly, did believe this of the Government. He did not think he should be exaggerating if he were to say that 5,000,000 of people in Ireland believed it. It was within his knowledge that gentlemen holding very strong Conservative opinions, and differing completely in politics and religion from the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), believed it; and he (Mr. Gray) was of opinion that there was abundant evidence to justify that belief. So far as Ireland was concerned, the question now before the public in that country, and the question which was being tried before a public tribunal, was not the guilt or innocence of Cornwall or French, or of anybody else who might be involved in these transactions, but the conduct of the Government. That was the question that was being tried, and that question the Government were; apparently, quite willing to let go by default. The action of the Government had been incomprehensible, and there was one result of it that he believed the Irish people would never pardon; and that was the hideous scandal and the great demoralization which must inevitably result, and which, as a matter of course, resulted from the enormous publicity given to this case, and necessarily given, owing to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and other Members of the Irish Executive. He made this assertion as one intimately connected with the Press in Ireland, and, therefore, having had unfortunately to be more or less the instrument for bringing about the publicity in connection with this matter, which he, for one, deeply deplored. Unfortunately crimes of this kind were not unknown either in England or Ireland. They might not be very common, but they constantly occurred; and the right hon. Gentleman had only to look at the English criminal statistics of every single year to find some formidable number of convictions for these crimes recorded. Why was it that the English public were never scandalized by having the cases he spoke of common gossip in every circle of the Kingdom. Why was it? Because the very moment such a crime was known, the criminal, if he happened to be, as he nearly always was, a man of low degree,

    1875
    was instantly prosecuted. [Laughter,] He did not see what the Secretary to the Treasury had to laugh at. As a matter of fact, a person guilty of such a crime in this country was instantly prosecuted, if he was a man of low degree, and there was no publicity in the case. The man was punished effectually, and that was all about it. The same result would have happened in Ireland if the Executive had taken the same course as to their own officials that they would have taken if the offenders had been men in another position. It was because it was impossible to induce the Executive to take any action—it was because when they were taxed, and publicly taxed, with knowledge of the criminals, they still refused to take action, and sought to make the innocent occupy the place of the guilty, and to enable the guilty to escape with flying colours as virtuous and innocent. It was because of that that it was absolutely essential for his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) to resort to public opinion. Because of these things it was necessary for the hon. Member to make the thing public, the ordinary guardians of the law having refused to give him assistance. Therefore, he (Mr. Gray) maintained that for all the evil results that must follow, and for all the demoralization which must take place by making, perhaps, tens of thousands of people acquainted with the crime of which they had probably never heard or dreamt, the Government were responsible. Public opinion fixed all the responsibility on the Irish Executive, and the Irish Executive could not possibly free themselves from it. The only reparation they could now make was to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and allow a public investigation. It was no use for them to lay the flattering unction to themselves that by prosecuting two or three persons at the last moment they could save themselves from the discredit which rested on their action during the past two or three months. The public believed that the Executive could have avoided making all these things public if they would, and that it was only when they could not escape from it that they took action. He (Mr. Gray), for one, felt the utmost commiseration for the position in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) found him-
    1876
    self. He did not think any person sitting here, and watching the right hon. Gentleman's face during the last two or three hours, could feel for him anything but pity. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman could, for one moment, have contemplated, when he accepted Office, that this would have been the result of his acceptance, no sense of public duty, and no ambition to find himself a little more rapidly than he otherwise would have been near a position in the Cabinet, would have induced him to accept his present post. But if the right hon. Gentleman found himself in this painful and humiliating situation at present, he had only himself to blame for it. He (Mr. Gray) was present when the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) brought forward his Motion in the House, and when the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) first spoke on the subject. He was present also when the hon. Member for Mallow proposed to put the Motion on the Notice Paper, which was ruled out of Order. No idea had entered the head of the hon. Member of making any accusation against the Chief Secretary. Anyone who knew the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that such a thing was an absurdity, and the right hon. Gentleman's sensitiveness on the point seemed to be so overstrained as to make them almost doubt its reality. But, so far as the hon. Member for Mallow and any of his Friends were concerned, to suggest anything that could cause the right hon. Gentleman pain was the last thing in their minds. It was only when the right hon. Gentleman, of his own motion, stood up in the House to defend the guilty that those who attacked his conduct were driven, by self-defence, to ask for a full investigation. If the debates which had occurred had elicited the fact that, for months and months, the Government left to a private individual the examination of a matter of the greatest difficulty and danger, abandoning their own claim to bring the great criminals to punishment, the right hon. Gentleman had only himself to blame, or those of his superiors who coerced him into a position which, no doubt, must be utterly repugnant both to his sense of justice and his sense of humanity. He (Mr. Gray) had no hope whatever that the right hon. Gentleman would grant an inquiry—in fact, it would not be a sensible thing to

    1877
    expect him to do; but if the Government had any care for public opinion in Ireland on this matter, they would have to take some other steps to clear themselves, not of complicity in crime, which no one ever thought of charging them with, but of screening Government officials from the consequences of their crime. Look at the position occupied by French and Cornwall. French was the chief instrument of the criminal administration in Ireland. He it was who knew all the secret springs by which accused persons, whether innocent or guilty, were brought to trial. He possibly could have given a considerable amount of information as to the expenditure of the Secret Service money in Ireland. Was it not, therefore, conceivable that a man of that kind might have suggested—not, perhaps, to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, but to others—that it would be wiser of the Government not to drive them to bay, and to make disclosures that might be very damaging to people in a superior position? Take the case of Cornwall. He was a gentleman occupying a high position, and very highly connected, being the Secretary to the Post Office. They were told that the only interview that French and Cornwall had was one day when French called on Cornwall in connection with some letters, French being the Chief of the Detective Force, and Cornwall the Secretary to the Post Office. What was that interview about? Could they not, at least, conceive that Cornwall might have suggested that ugly disclosures in connection with some letters might be made if he were driven to bay by the action of the Government? They knew that the law, until it was changed by a trick some years ago, was, or professed to be, that a warrant should be obtained for the opening of a letter in the Post Office. Letters could only be opened on the warrant of the Home Secretary in England, and of the Chief Secretary and Lord Spencer in Ireland. He did not believe that in Ireland the law was carried out. He believed that letters were opened wholesale without authority in that country. Well, the right hon. Gentleman could conceive persons in Ireland suspecting that Cornwall had ugly disclosures to make in connection with these letters; and, believing that, he might have represented to the Government that it would be
    1878
    better not to drive him to desperation, but to let him get out of the difficulty as best he could. He (Mr. Gray) did not desire to draw the Chief Secretary into another indignant speech, or into another disclaimer of accusations against himself. He was quite willing to believe him innocent; but he thought the people of Ireland would require some proof, and as yet they had none. In fact, up to the present, the circumstances tended in the opposite direction. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant wished to clear his Government and himself from these accusations, he would have to do something beyond simply prosecuting these persons, whose guilt was already known before action was taken to bring them to justice.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided;—Ayes 18; Noes 126: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 173.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that before the Vote was passed he had a few words to say with regard to one of the subordinate Departments provided for in the Vote. He thought it was unfortunate that, in such a contentious Vote as the present, provision should be made for so many subordinate Departments; it was particularly unfortunate that the provision for the Fishery Board should be made in the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office. A separate Vote was taken for the Scotch Fishery Board, and the arrangement was found to work very satisfactorily. What he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to was the general feeling in Ireland that the Fishery Inspectors were crippled in the performance of their duties by the fact that they had not sufficient funds at their disposal; and he should like the right hon. Gentleman to consult with the Treasury in the hope that more money might be expended in the development of the fisheries of Ireland. The Report of the Inspectors was usually issued in April of each year; but the Report for last year had not yet been received. If reference were made to the Report of the previous year, it would be seen that the Inspectors complained of the want of means. The Inspectors said—

    1879
    "Notwithstanding every effort on our part to secure correct statistics, we find, with the limited means at our disposal, we cannot do so as completely as we wish."
    It was a very serious thing that an important Board like the Irish Fisheries Board was obliged to state in their Report that they were unable to give trustworthy statistics, because they had not sufficient means at their disposal. The Inspectors complained, also, that they had not at their disposal a gunboat such as was allowed to the Scotch Board. On this point they said—
    "It would be a serious omission on our part, if we did not reiterate our opinion as to the great advantages which we consider would result to the fisheries if we had attached to this Department a properly equipped vessel with a crew composed of skilful fishermen," &c.
    There was a general feeling in Ireland that the Board could do a great deal more good work with a very slight increase of their means. There was another point he desired to refer to. Last year Parliament voted £250,000 to the Commissioners, for the purpose of extending the fishery piers in Ireland. He was informed the Commissioners did not intend to make any Report to the House. He thought it was only proper that the House should know how it was proposed to spend so large a sum of money; and, therefore, he trusted the Chief Secretary would, during the Recess, turn his attention to the matter.
    MR. KENNYpointed out that great injury was done to the fisheries on the South-West Coast of Ireland by foreign fishing vessels who came there, and practically spoiled all the chances of the weaker local vessels. There were a number of men-of-war plying about the South-West Coast of Ireland for the purpose of protecting the country, and these men-of-war might very easily be turned to the protection of the Irish fishing vessels from the encroachments of French fishermen, who came sometimes within half a mile of the shore, and with infinitely superior vessels and tackle fished there to the detriment of the poor Irish fishermen. It was a rather singular thing that while the Admiralty could depute as many as four of their vessels to convey people by stealth from the shore to emigrant ships brought there by a quasi-humanitarian Committee, headed by Messrs Tuke and Gaskell, who were anxious to export as many of the Irish people as possible, they could
    1880
    not afford a single vessel for the protection of the fisheries of the South-West Coast of Ireland. As to the grant made last year for the improvement of the fishery piers it was much to be regretted that the House had not been supplied with a Report. It was of the utmost importance they should know what schemes had been inquired into and passed, and what schemes had been rejected. It would be also interesting to know, seeing that the Fisheries Commission were about to lose the valuable services of their Chairman, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), what course the Government intended to pursue as to the appointment of the hon. Gentleman's successor.
    MR. BARRYasked what was the reason of the delay in issuing the Report of the Special Commission on Piers and Harbours appointed last year? It was promised at the time of the appointment that within a month or six weeks some Report would be issued setting forth the intentions of the Commissioners. From that day to the present he had heard nothing about the Commission, and, so far as he knew, no Report had been issued. He hoped some reason would be assigned for the delay.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that three points had been started with regard to the Sea Fisheries (Ireland) Act. That started by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) was as to whether the Inspectors would report to the House. Under the Sea Fisheries Act he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought that, though not legally bound to report, they were morally bound to do so. At any rate, the Irish Members considered the Church Fund was to so great an extent public money that they would not allow it to be spent without knowing how it had been disbursed. When the Commissioners had brought their labours to a sufficiently advanced point as to make it worth while to report, he had no doubt they would. He would attend to the matter as soon as he had leisure. [Captain AYLMER: Is it their intention to report?] He would discuss the matter with them, and see what their intention was. The hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had asked who was to be the successor to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) as Chairman of the Commission. That was a question he (Mr. Trevelyan) approached with very

    1881
    great reluctance. His hon. Friend (Mr. Blake) showed the very greatest public spirit in undertaking the business at all; but those who knew how he had carried it out, and how his public spirit, fortified by very great knowledge, had been sustained from the first moment to the last, felt that his loss would be all but irreparable. It would be the duty of the Government to consider carefully how best they could repair the loss. He must say that the proposed resignation of his hon. Friend gave him a great shock. He knew the hon. Gentleman found difficulties in his work; but he was extremely sorry to hear from the hon. Member for Ennis that the retirement of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) from Parliament would be coincident with his retirement from the Commission. He hoped they would be able to persuade the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. It was extremely important that as soon as possible the Commission should report. He had received a very short and meagre Report; but it gave accurately enough the actual list of works recommended, amongst which, he was sorry to say, he did not see Kilmore. The Commission appeared to have held 50 Board meetings, and to have gone with more or less thoroughness into 47 cases. Of these cases, 10 had got to the point that a grant had actually been recommended. A pier and a harbour were to be constructed in County Clare—the pier would cost £3,400, of which £2,550 would be provided by grant, and £850 by contribution, and the harbour would cost £13,500, of which £11,000 would be provided by grant. A pier was to be constructed in Donegal, at a cost of £2,000, very nearly all covered by grant. In Galway the pier was to cost £8,000, of which three-fourths would be met by grant. There was a small work, costing under £20, in Limerick. In Mayo there was recommended a pier costing £3,000, very nearly all covered by grant; in Sligo, a pier, costing £6,000, entirely covered by grant; in Waterford there were recommended three piers, costing £1,500, £6,500, and £3,000 respectively. In all, the works would cost £46,911, of which £40,211 was to be covered by grant, and £6,700 by contribution. Hon. Members who followed work of this sort must know that in the first year it proceeded very
    1882
    slowly, because a great many operations were set on foot, and only carried through their earlier stages. They, however, came to their later stages in bunches and groups, and with considerable rapidity. He hoped that the second year's labour would appear to bear more fruit than the first year's labour had done. He thought, however, that, in order to systematize and push the work forward, a Report should be laid before Parliament; and he would confer with the Inspectors on that very point.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the high estimate he had placed on the public services rendered by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) in connection with the Fishery Piers Commission. It would be well if his hon. Friend could be induced to retain his place; but he (Mr. Sexton) feared that if such an application were made to his hon. Friend it would be unsuccessful. He suspected that the disgust felt by his hon. Friend at the obstruction he had experienced from the Irish Board of Works would be found to be incurable. In looking through a Report published on the subject, he (Mr. Sexton) found that, up to the end of the financial year ending on the 31st of March last, 39 works had been recommended by the Fishery Piers Commission. In several cases not only had the works been recommended, but plans, estimates, and specifications had been prepared by the Board of Works, and considered and approved by the Commissioners. The plans, &c., were returned to the Board of Works; but not one stroke of work had been done up to the end of July in connection with any one of the schemes. He would like to know the reason of this. When the plans had been completed, and the assent of the Fishery Piers Commission obtained, every essential preliminary had been satisfied. He was, therefore, entirely at a loss to understand why the spring and summer of the year—the time most favourable for such operations—should be allowed to go by without anything being done. There was a case on the coast of Sligo. So long ago as February the Fishery Piers Commission returned the plans and estimates to the Board of Works. Some dispute had since arisen, the Board of

    1883
    Works had not completed the plans according to the wishes of the Fishery Piers Commission; and although every essential was satisfied in February last, he found, from a communication he bad the other day, that nothing had been done in the way of beginning the work. What was the result? Agherisk Harbour was the place of industry of hardworking fishermen. When they found the plans completed they expected the work would be done; they bought new boats and gear; but the parish priest informed him that the new boats would soon be destroyed, owing to the want of a proper landing-place. Such were the things which had induced the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) to separate himself from the Fishery Piers Commission. He (Mr. Sexton) would like to receive from the Government some assurance that the rest of the summer and the autumn would not be allowed to go by without some real and practical effort being made to set to work upon some of the numerous plans which had been approved by the Fishery Piers Commission.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he must deny that there had been any delay on the part of the Board of Works in regard to the Agherisk Harbour. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) had singularly misread the dates to which he referred. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the plans of Agherisk Harbour as having been returned to the Board of Works so far back as February of this year. As a matter of fact, that was the date on which the Board of Works sent the plans to the Fishery Piers Commission.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the plans were returned immediately afterwards with some proposed alteration. From that day to the present the Board of Works had obstinately refused to satisfy the wishes of the Commission; hence the delay.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Board of Works transacted their part of the work, and sent it back to the Commission for approval. According to an official statement, out of 39 applications made the Board of Works had forwarded plans and specifications in no less than 34. The Board of Works had been waiting, to a large extent, on the Fishery Piers Commission; and it was not the case that the Board of Works was responsible for the delay.
    MR. SEXTON: Why do they not start the work?
    MR. GRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what work has been done?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he presumed that work was now about to be done. Five cases had been finally approved by the Treasury in the course of the last few weeks. He was astonished that statements, such as the hon. Member for Sligo had made, should be repeated over and over again, when it was well known they had no foundation.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it was very easy to astonish the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman had not uttered a syllable in explanation of the delay which had occurred. He trusted that the summer and autumn would not be allowed to pass without some of the works being put in hand.
    MR. KENNYinquired if it was a fact that the Board of Works had refused, in several instances, to grant the loans on the ground that the Grand Juries would not make provision for the repayment of the interest?
    MR. COURTNEY: No, Sir.
    MR. BARRYsaid, he understood that some of the plans had been sent back to the Fishery Commissioners by the Board of Works, and that, in consequence of a disagreement on some trivial point, several months had elapsed and no work had been done. If that was true it was a disgraceful state of affairs, and the Secretary to the Treasury ought to take some immediate steps to settle the differences between the Board of Works and the Fishery Commissioners, and thus cause the work, which had already been delayed an unreasonable time, to be started forthwith.
    MR. GRAYsaid, the Vote included the sum of £11,215 for the Veterinary Department; and he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a matter concerning which he asked two or three Questions in the House early in the Session. He commenced by asking a Question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board as to the state of meat slaughtered under the Act which constituted the Veterinary Department. Under that Act animals were slaughtered which were suffering from pleuro-pneumonia; and he asked the

    1885
    hon. Gentleman whether in England Boards of Guardians sold such animals for use by the public, and the hon. Gentleman congratulated himself on being able to state that nothing of the kind was known in England. He (Mr. Gray) wished to compare the practice in England and Ireland; and he followed up the Question to the Secretary to the Local Government Board by one to the Chief Secretary, as to whether it was a fact that, with the knowledge and sanction of the Local Government Board in Ireland, diseased meat was sold in Ireland, and, if it was, how much was sold? It seemed he was in error in thinking that the regulation of the matter was vested directly in the Local Government Board—it vested, as he understood, now in the Privy Council to the Lord Lieutenant and the Veterinary Department. However, the fact he ascertained was, that about 1,000 beasts were slaughtered annually under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, and sold in Ireland at an average of about £5 14 s. each. The Chief Secretary was in happy ignorance of what became of the carcases. He (Mr. Gray) supposed it was not rash to assume that they were eventually eaten, or else persons would not be found willing to give £5 14 s. each for them. It was also safe to assume that no one in his senses would knowingly buy unhealthy meat, so that what happened was this—meat was sold at an average of one-third the ordinary price; it found its way, sooner or later, into the hands of butchers, who retailed it as healthy meat at full prices, so that they, therefore, made an enormous profit by what was in reality a fraud, though perhaps not technically a fraud. The serious aspect of the question was that, under the sanction and with the authority of a Governmental Department, this trade in diseased meat was carried on to a gigantic extent in Ireland. Under the Public Health Act elaborate machinery was provided in England for the detection of the sale of diseased meat, for the confiscation of the meat, and for the prosecution of the seller. In Ireland, however, the officials, whose salaries the Committee were now asked to vote, sanctioned an elaborate system, under which diseased meat was sold. Some explanation was required from the Chief Secretary. It had been said that meat in certain stages of pleuro-pneumonia
    1886
    might be eaten by human beings with impunity; but he denied that it could. But whether it could or not be so eaten he contended that those who purchased it had a right to know that they were purchasing pleuro - pneumonia meat, and that a Government Department ought not to lend themselves to a traffic in diseased meat. The Department, he knew, argued that they were not responsible after the meat left their Inspectors' hand; that they were not bound to know what became of the meat; but that excuse was not sufficient. Returns which had been presented showed some extraordinary anomalies between the expenditure for the Veterinary Department in England and for that in Ireland; but the Chief Secretary rather conveyed, in one of his replies to him (Mr. Gray), that they were somewhat misleading, owing to the charges in the English Returns being placed under a different head, or presented in a different manner to the charges in the Irish Returns. It was said the expenditure was in Liverpool £890, in Birmingham £900, &c, &c, as against nearly £12,000 in Ireland. If that were so, it was very extraordinary, and he imagined it was capable of some such explanation as, he understood, the Chief Secretary had suggested. But the main question was, after all, was it desirable to encourage this traffic in diseased meat under Government sanction? He would give the Committee the opinions of several medical authorities. Dr. Gordon—this gentleman, he believed, was the same whose name had been so frequently mentioned during the evening, and who was, therefore, well known to the Chief Secretary, and probably the right hon. Gentleman would accept the authority. Dr. Gordon said—
    "I cannot think that the flesh of animals killed while suffering from pleuro-pneumonia should be used as food under any circumstances."
    Dr. R. M'Donnell, whose reputation was well established throughout the United Kingdom, said—
    "Nothing would induce me, if I knew it, to eat of the flesh of an ox killed while suffering from pleuro-pneumonia. This may be only an unreasonable prejudice; but it is an insuperable objection on my part."
    Dr. Stokes said—"I do not consider it fit for food under any circumstances." Dr. Parker said—

    1887
    "It is absurd to suppose that the flesh of animals suffering from a fever like pleuro-pneumonia can be fit for food. No doubt, like other toxic agents, it was not always severe."
    Dr. Butcher said—
    "It is impossible to suppose it can be wholesome food for man."
    Dr. Hamilton said—
    "It is not food fit for man. The blood must be infected, having to pass through lungs charged with the virus of contagion. It is difficult to imagine flesh so supplied with blood can be wholesome food."
    Doctors in England expressed similar opinions. Dr. Sedgewick Saunders said—
    "Reason, knowledge, and common sense suggest it is not fit for human food. Those persons who attempt to dispose of it in London for such a purpose are always successfully prosecuted."
    So, here were persons prosecuted in London for doing that which they were encouraged to do in Dublin by a Department for which the Committee was now asked to vote £12,000. Dr. Cameron, Medical Officer of Health for the City of Dublin, who compiled the pamphlet from which he had made these quotations, pointed out how dangerous was the use of such food, and he said one of the most constant consequences was the production of large eruptions of carbuncles and similar diseases. He thought it ought to be tolerably manifest that, although it might be that the flesh of animals in this condition, if slaughtered at an early stage of the disease, might not be so immediately poisonous as in the latter stage of the disease, still it did not require medical opinion to show that such food could not be as wholesome as the flesh of healthy animals. If it was said that, with the high price of animal food, we ought to economize our food supply, and that we ought to preserve this food for the use of the poor, then let that be done in reality, and let it be provided at a reduced price in proportion to the price it was sold at to the butchers. If it was thought to be good food, why should it be sold at a third of the price of healthy beasts? And if it was thought that it could be used for human food, though not so good as the flesh of healthy animals, then sell it with full knowledge to the consumer, and, if he liked, let him
    1888
    take his chance of carbuncles with meat at 4d. per lb. He trusted that the Chief Secretary, who, as President of the Local Government Board, was also head of the whole sanitary department, would see that the subordinate officers prosecuted rigorously those who were detected selling this unsound meat, instead of encouraging the sale, as, practically, the Board now did. As Chairman, he knew the difficulty the Committee of the Dublin Corporation had in detecting the sale of unsound food. They confiscated a large quantity every year; but, unfortunately, it was within their knowledge also that a large quantity escaped detection, a great deal of the sale of which they would prevent if they could, and yet this pleuro-pneumonic food was now sold apparently under the sanction of the authorities. No butcher would acknowledge the sale of such an article; the Butchers' Association had been for months investigating the subject—nobody sold it, and yet it was bought. They did not know what became of it. It was bought under the sanction of Government, and hero was the history of the transaction—about 1,000 beasts sold annually at the average price of £5 odd—but something more ought to be known of the system. Such a practice, he had been told, was unknown in England, while he was told by the Representative of the Local Government Board that it was not only known, but carried on openly in Ireland. Why was this difference? Why was the Local Government Board in England so careful to protect the health of the people by prohibiting the sale of this diseased meat, while the authority in Ireland—whether of Dublin Castle or the Local Government Board made little difference, for they happened to be represented by the same individual acting in a double capacity—sanctioned and encouraged this practice unknown in England?
    MR. KENNYasked to what purpose were the proceeds of the sale of diseased meat devoted? There was a Cattle Disease Fund in Ireland, he believed for the purpose of indemnifying, to the extent of a moiety, the district where the cattle were slaughtered. He would like to know, if diseased meat was sold in Ireland, the proceeds of the sale were used for augmenting this fund for the relief of the local rates, thereby dis-

    1889
    seminating disease, while in England, where no such system of compensation existed, diseased meat was not turned to that account? He would also like to know the condition of Ireland in regard to foot-and-mouth disease, now that the restrictions in England had, in a few instances, been relaxed since the passing of the recent Act. In the majority of the English counties, in a great number of counties in the South of England, the restrictions for the excluding of Irish cattle still existed; he could name seven, where Irish cattle, though allowed to pass through on the way to their destination elsewhere, were not allowed to remain or to be sold in those counties. It was known that, for a length of time, Ireland had been free from foot-and-mouth disease. No instance in the last four or five months had been clearly proved that Irish cattle were suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. It was alleged, in one instance, that Irish cattle brought through Bristol became affected with foot-and-mouth disease immediately after their arrival in England; but it had not been proved, and if it had been proved, probably the result of an investigation would have shown that they caught contagion on shipboard, owing to the bad state of the vessels used in the trade between the South of Ireland and Bristol. It would be re-assuring to the cattle dealers in Ireland, to breeders, and to English farmers interested in Irish cattle—and some had dealt largely in Irish cattle—it would be re-assuring to know that for the present foot-and-mouth had become extinct in Ireland; that there had been no case for a considerable length of time, and that there was a guarantee that purchasers of Irish cattle would not find, as a result, disease introduced among their herds.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, if the hon. Member for Carlow had closed his interesting speech without the peroration, he would have missed a point; but his speech would have been more instructive. The hon. Member, while describing what, no doubt, existed in Ireland, with considerable knowledge, was mistaken as regarded England. In both countries, so far as he could gather, it was impossible for the Central Government under the Act to prevent the sale of beasts for human food—it was the local authority in each case who had to deter-
    1890
    mine whether or not the sale should go on. But in England the supervision of the central authority was nil in the matter; while in Ireland the supervision of the local authority was, at any rate, constant and, to a certain degree, effective. Now, in England, taking a Report of the Metropolitan Board of Works for 1880—and he was informed that the same system was going on pretty freely over the country—the Report gave the number of cattle slaughtered in a considerable number of counties; for instance, in the West Riding of Yorkshire 360 were slaughtered and considered fit for food, 256 in Kent also, and, in another county, 101 were certified to be unfit for food. So that there were cases where the animals were, and were not, used for food. In only one instance did he find a record of the price, and that was in the City of Edinburgh, and in the accounts for seven years the average price for carcases was £7, including hides; and the carcases sold to butchers or knackers averaged £5, £6, and £8. The pamphlet contained the names of a considerable number of medical authorities; and it appeared to him the differences of opinion among medical authorities would pretty well answer for differences of opinion among different local authorities. When the hon. Member called attention to the subject he (Mr. Trevelyan) made inquiries as to what guarantee there was that pleuro-pneumonic meat should not be sold when unfit for human food, and he found that the guarantee was, at least, as good as that adopted in England; but in consequence of attention being drawn to the matter in the House another guarantee was added. The only other precaution they could think of was that the local authority should make it a rule that the Inspector should in every case give notice of the sale to the medical sanitary officer of the district, and a Circular was sent to the local authorities asking them to insist that their medical officer should be present on every occasion. Whether or not the power of selling the beasts for human food should be taken out of the hands of the local authority and vested in the Central Government, or whether the sale should be forbidden altogether, were considerations that could only be settled by statute. But under the statute, as it existed now, the English Govern-

    1891
    ment had certainly not more power than the Irish Government, and certainly did not exercise more power. As to the question of the hon. Member for Ennis, he only wished it had been asked yesterday. The condition of Ireland with regard to foot-and-mouth disease was, on the whole, satisfactory, almost brilliant. During the present year, comparing the respective weeks with those of last year, the numbers came down until on March 14th there were only five diseased animals in the country, and these were in the Poor Law Union of Dunshaughlin. By arrangement with the Poor Law authorities and the Government the animals were slaughtered and the disease wholly disappeared. At a late period in April another outbreak occurred; but it was confined to 14 animals in one shed, and these all recovered, and the disease was again extinct in Ireland. This morning he should have been able to say that Ireland was entirely free from the disease; but he had heard since of a mild outbreak in Navan; he had not the telegram with him—
    MR. KENNYasked from what did it originate?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the only information he had was that there was an outbreak. He only mentioned it to correct the statement that there was no foot-and-mouth disease in the country. But he thought the telegram said the cattle were few in number, and if they had been all slaughtered, the country might be said to be again quite free from the disease. Practically Ireland might be said to be free.
    MR. KENNYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question as to the proceeds of the sale of diseased carcases.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the proceeds of such sales were devoted to the relief of the local rates as in England.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he was sorry that the Secretary to the Local Government Board had, with great discretion, retired while the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was entering upon his explanation. The information he (Mr. Gray) had from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. George Russell) was distinct. Not professing to have any knowledge of the practice in England he took his knowledge from the hon. Gentleman, who told him, in answer to a Question, that
    1892
    the practice of selling the diseased carcases was unknown in England. He was very glad to hear of the extra precaution the right hon. Gentleman had introduced. The responsibility now, to a considerable extent, would be fixed on the sanitary medical officers; and if they, on their professional responsibility, passed diseased meat, then, to some extent, the Government were relieved from responsibility. There was only one safeguard, besides the complete prohibition of the sale; and that was the natural one, to provide that the butchers who bought the meat—whether wholesome or not he would not now argue, on that there was a difference of opinion among medical authorities—should sell it for what it was, and, if the public chose to buy it, they would do it at their own risk as to consequences. This was the proper way of protecting the public in the matter. He did not quite know whether it was in connection with this subject; but there was another matter to which he should like to call attention, and as to which he had also asked one or two questions earlier in the Session. There were two Bills the Government had promised to introduce for the benefit of the citizens of Dublin. One referred to the system of collecting the rates; and the reason why he mentioned it in connection with this Vote was that a letter from the Irish Executive gave an assurance that had not, so far, been kept, the letter being written by a Secretary whose salary was included in the Vote. He would be brief in his explanation; but the subject was too important to Dublin to allow the only opportunity of calling attention to it to pass. The collection of the rates in Dublin was upon an extremely inconvenient and anomalous system. Every local authority in England and Scotland, and every place in Ireland, except Dublin, had the natural duty of collecting the rates it levied; but, owing to an Act passed in 1849, the origin of which it was absolutely impossible to discover—the only thing known about it was that it was an Act passed by the Government of the day, notwithstanding the strong opposition of the Corporation of Dublin—the collection of the rates in Dublin was vested in Government officials. The result had been, to the last degree, unsatisfactory. The average of uncollected rates was enormous, considerably over 12 per

    1893
    cent, amounting in 10 years—he had not the figures by him—to something like £60,000, neglected by this Government official in Dublin. Of course, the result was that while dishonest ratepayers escaped payment, honest ratepayers had to make up the deficiency; if a number of persons evaded payment, higher rates had to be struck. Well, the working of the system had been most unsatisfactory, and when inquiry discovered that an official had been guilty of malpractices under the Arrears Act, necessitating his dismissal, the Corporation of Dublin seized the opportunity to press upon the Government the necessity, which for years had been evident, of allowing the local authority its natural function—the collection of its own rates—and of enabling them to make those responsible for rates amenable to the law. The last Government had introduced a Bill for the purpose, but afterwards dropped it. The Lord Lieutenant received a deputation on the subject; he did not commit himself to the proposition that all local bodies should collect their own rates; but he did commit himself to the necessity of re-introducing the Bill, and the Under Secretary said the Government proposed such a Bill this year. The Corporation rested on the hope that the pledge would be carried out, and since the dismissal of the late collector the office had been temporarily filled by an official of the Board of Works. For the promised Bill they had been waiting, but the Government had never introduced it. When asked a Question a while ago, the Chief Secretary spoke lightly—he would not say flippantly—that, owing to pressure of Business, he could not introduce the Bill; and, when reminded of a definite promise, he said every Government had a number of such paper promises flying about. This was all very well, from a Government point of view; but, meanwhile, the ratepayers were mulcted unjustly with heavy rates, while a certain percentage escaped scot free, paying nothing at all. It was not fair for the Government to let this go on. Such a Bill might easily be introduced; it was drafted a long time ago by the late Government, and very little amendment would make it all that was required, and it would pass without any serious opposition. At any rate, the Government were bound to redeem their pledge; perhaps the Chief Secretary
    1894
    would say what they intended to do on the subject.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office; and I do not, therefore, think it would be in Order for the hon. Member to go into the details of a Bill.
    MR. GRAYasked whether the Chairman would permit him to point out why he thought his observation relevant to the subject under discussion? They had been for many hours occupied in discussing, on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary, the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in his official capacity. They were referring to his having given a pledge in his official capacity, which he had not carried out. Was that in Order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: So far as the hon. Gentleman has now gone, he is in Order; but it seemed to me that he was about to discuss the details of a Bill.
    MR. GRAYsaid, there was a promise to extend the Borough Funds Act, in operation in England, to Ireland. The effect of not having that Act extended to Ireland was that the Corporations were rendered powerless in the matter. Not only was it impossible for a Corporation in Ireland to promote a Bill, but, at the present moment, it could not even use the Corporate Seal for any purpose in connection with a Bill, so that they were absolutely helpless. The Government had promised to amend the Collection of Rates Act this year, and the Borough Funds Act; but neither of the measures promised had been introduced. The Chief Secretary's excuse was pressure of Business, and he (Mr. Gray) could accept that excuse if a measure were likely to be strongly opposed; but, as that was not the case in this instance, there was no earthly reason why the Bills should not have been brought forward. Dublin was placed in the same position as other Corporations. When they had obtained the consent of the ratepayers to the carrying out of such reform as he suggested, they were absolutely dependent on the Government; and the Government, not much caring about the amount of this dishonoured paper in circulation, were presumably inclined to leave them in their difficulty. There could not be much hope of their being able to do much good this year; but he

    1895
    certainly hoped that they would give a promise that next year they would endeavour to redeem their pledge.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he should be prepared to give a positive assurance that next year he would introduce the Borough Funds Bill. After his experience in connection with the Revision of Voters (Ireland) Bill, over which he had taken a great deal of trouble, he must own that he felt a little despairing as to the success that was likely to attend the most humble and just Bills referring to Ireland. He thought, however, that next Session they would be able to take up the Revision of Jurors Bill and the Borough Funds Bill. He was very sorry that they had been unable to fulfil their pledges this year.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) SALARIES BILL.— [BILL 292.]
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Trevelyan.)
  MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) SALARIES BILL.— [BILL 292.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, this was a Bill which he proposed should be read a second time. He did not think there was any opposition to it; but, at any rate, as it was a Money Bill it was not possible to block it. It could not be prevented from going on if it was thought desirable to press it. It was a measure of great simplicity, its object being merely to continue and legalize what had been done this year. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Postpone, postpone!] If hon. Members thought he had taken them by surprise in proposing the second reading, he would not insist upon taking the stage to-night, but would put it down for to-morrow.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member had given them fair warning that the Bill was of a peculiar character; and he had also told them that he proposed to take the Bill, which some of them thought a very singular one, at any hour. It would be monstrous if such a thing as that were done; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not think the hon. Member should endeavour to advance the Bill by means such as he proposed.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that unless they got a special undertaking that Mr. Clifford Lloyd would not be appointed a special magistrate they should have to give a strenuous opposition to the Bill, and it would lead to a long debate.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 279.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 279.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 3 (Investment of trust funds).
    MR. A. GRANTsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to that clause. It seemed to him that to allow Trustees to invest Trust funds in Preference Shares of railways was a permission which went far beyond what was safe or what was prudent. Preference Shares of railways had not even any fixed return in a great many cases. All those who had anything to do with railways knew that in the majority of cases of Preference Shares the dividends were dependent or contingent on the profits of each separate year, which meant that in any one year, if the profits of the undertaking were not sufficient to cover the Preference dividend, the holders of Preference Shares would have no claim to any dividend in the succeeding year. This was a fluctuating kind of security, which seemed to him not proper for the investment of Trust money. Preference Shares were not like Debenture Stock. They did not hold that fixed value which the other Stock did, but were liable to be tossed every day up and down in the market by bulls and bears continually acting on them. For this reason he would move the omission from the beginning of Sub-section 4 of the word "Preference."
    Amendment proposed, in Sub-section 4, to strike out the word "preference."—(Mr. A. Grant.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he quite agreed that Preference Shares were very faulty securities, and not fit to invest the Trust funds in.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that there was an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster), which he proposed to accept, to the effect that all Stocks in which Trust funds were invested should have paid a dividend during the 10 preceding years. The securities proposed in this clause had been suggested by the most experienced legal authorities in Scotland. It was now found that it was almost impossible to get good investments for Trust purposes by the methods at present adopted; and those interested in the matter were of opinion that those particular Shares which had paid dividends for 10 years would afford very good security. The question was, whether the loss would not be greater by limiting the investments under the existing system than could occur through the risk of investing in these Preference Shares. The question was whether, with the safeguards which were to be proposed in the clause by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Trust funds should not be invested in Preference Shares.
    MR. WEBSTERsaid, that the Amendment which his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate had mentioned would be a sufficient safeguard, and he trusted that it would be accepted. Trust funds must be made as absolutely safe and secure as possible; but everyone acquainted with these transactions knew the great and increasing difficulty of finding safe investments for Trust funds in Scotland. If the investments proposed were made safe, as he believed they would be by the Proviso he intended to move, he thought there would be sufficient protection in the matter, and that these funds might be allowed to be invested in the manner suggested in the clause.
    MR. A. GRANTsaid, that in reply to what had fallen from his right hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench, he wished to point out that in the Amendment proposed there was nothing whatever said as to the dividend to be paid during the 10 years. It might be that a railway was being worked on a margin
    1898
    of ½ or ¼ per cent per annum on its ordinary shares, and yet they were going to allow Trust funds to be invested on a security so shaky and so liable to be swept away as that. His hon. Friend below him had stated that it was very desirable that Trust funds should be made a little more remunerative than at present. He (Mr. Grant) would point out, however, the enormous hardship which would result to many persons by rash investments of Trust funds. The House would, therefore, do well to pause before it gave power to Trustees to invest in these Preference Shares.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in line 9, to omit the word "two," and insert the word "ten."—(Mr. Webster.)
    Question, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'ten' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendments made.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK (MONEY) BILL.
    Select Committee to consist of Nine Members, Five to be nominated by the House, and Four by the Committee of Selection:—Admiral EGERTON, Mr. WHITLEY, Mr. THOROLD ROGERS, Mr. MACFARLANE, and Mr. SEVERNE nominated Members of the Committee.
    Ordered, That the Committee do meet on Friday the 25th day of July at Twelve o'clock, to consider the Bill.
    Ordered, That all Petitions against the said Bill be referred to the Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard, in favour of the Bill, against such Petitions.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.—(Colonel Smith.)
    Home adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.