Commons Sitting of 24 July 1885

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report— Forestry [No. 287]; Industries (Ireland) [No. 288].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE; Votes 28, 30, and 32; CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES; Votes 5, 6, and 9; CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
Resolutions [July22] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance*[247].
First Reading—Housing of the Working Classes (England)*[248]; Land Purchase (Ireland*[249]; Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment*[250].
Second Reading— Secretary for Scotland [242]; Patent Law Amendment [240]; Prevention of Crimes Amendment*[93]; Oaths [62], debate further adjourned; Police Enfranchisement Extension [269].
Select Committee—Crown Lands*[51], nominated.
Committee—Report—Poor Law Unions' Officers (Ireland) [214]; Pluralities (re-comm.) [241].
Third Reading—Medical Relief Disqualification Removal [232]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)*[224], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  DEFENCES OF THE EMPIRE—COALING STATIONS.
  MR. SALTasked the Secretary of State for War, If steps are being actively taken to provide a sufficient armament, in accordance with the necessities of modern warfare, at the distant coaling stations and other positions of strategical importance in the possession of Great Britain?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL or ORDNANCE (Mr. GUY DAWNAY), who replied, said: Steps are being actively taken to provide the necessary arma-
  1778
  ments for our coaling stations, such provision, as the hon. Member is aware, being limited by the amount of the annual sum granted by Parliament during a certain term of years for this specific purpose. The Secretary of State for War proposes, when the Army Estimates are taken on Monday next, to give fuller details as to what has been done in this direction than it would be convenient to give in answer to a Question.

  MERCANTILE MARINE FUND.
  MR. ATKINSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, When the annual account of the Mercantile Marine Fund up to the 31st of March last will be printed; and, if he will try to arrange to get it out in less than five months in future?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The final account cannot be presented until the completion of the audit, which cannot be for some months, as some of the accounts from Consuls and Colonial Officers are only now being received. An approximately estimated account, sufficient for all purposes, will in future be laid on the Table. Perhaps the House will permit me to add a few additional words, by way of explanation, for the past two years—that is, for 1882–3 and 1883–4—with a view to giving the House the earliest information with regard to the Mercantile Marine Fund. The late President of the Board of Trade presented an unaudited account to Parliament in the month of August. The Committee on Public Accounts— No. 267 (1880), P. 5—recommend that the account should be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General before being laid before Parliament. This recommendation will have the effect of delaying still further the presentation of the account, if agreed to, until the date when the Appropriation Accounts generally are presented—say, February following. As a means of meeting the reasonable desires of the shipowners, I think it will be well to revert to the exceptional course adopted by Lord Sandon, and lay an approximate Return on the Table of the House annually. This Return cannot, I fear, be made up with any degree of accuracy until the latter end of July or the beginning of August, because (a) the Board of Trade are dependent on three Lighthouse

  1779
  Boards for the accounts as to lighthouses. The accounts take nearly three months to collect and compile; (b) the accounts of Consuls for the relief of distressed seamen, now included in the Mercantile Marine Fund Account, have also to be collected and analyzed. Those for the month of March last have only just been all received. I have to-day laid the Return for 1884–5 on the Table of the House.

  CUSTOM HOUSE RECORDS.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Under what conditions and on payment of what fees the publie are permitted to have access to the Custom House Records at the various seaports, in order to obtain information as to movements of vessels in which shipowners, merchants, and underwriters may be interested?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND), who replied, said: As a general rule, access to the Custom House Records of the arrivals and sailings of vessels is unreservedly permitted during the official hours of business, under circumstances which do not inconveniently affect the work of the Department. Applicants, however, often pay for accounts containing this information instead of inspecting the books for themselves; and in such cases the fees charged are based upon the calculated cost of preparing the accounts. A small fee is occasionally charged in cases where the work of the Department would be hindered by personal access to the records.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACT, 1842—OBSTRUCTION OF FISHERIES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a few days since, while certain fishermen were engaged in lawfully fishing for mackerel off Teelin Point, county Donegal, a water bailiff employed by a Mr. Musgrave pulled his boat into the middle of the net and cast anchor, thereby preventing the fishermen from drawing the net; whether the coastguards made any report of this proceeding to the Inspectors of Fisheries, and what action they have taken; and, whether, as the fishermen were not in a condition to provide the cost of legal proceedings, the Government will cause the Inspectors of Fisheries to take such pro-
  1780
  ceedings as may be necessary to recover in this case the penalty prescribed by 5 and C Vic. c. 100, sec. 28, as being incurred by any one who is guilty of obstructing persons lawfully engaged in fishing?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): This case has been reported by the Coastguards to the Inspectors of Fisheries, who have pointed out that under the 28th section of the Act 5 & 0 Viet. c. 106, any person obstructing others lawfully engaged in fishing is liable on conviction to a penalty of £5. I am advised that the case is not one in which the Government should institute proceedings, the cost of which would be trivial.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—DUKE OF ABERCORN'S ESTATE-BRYAN MOLLOY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Government are aware that a notice to quit having been served some time ago on Bryan Molloy, a tenant of the Duke of Abercorn, Molloy served an originating notice under the Land Act to have a fair rent fixed, whereupon Mr. Dixon, one of the Duke's employés, read to the farm labourers on the estate on the 27th of May last, being pay-day, a paper, which he described as an order from the Duke's agent, Mr. M'Farland, J.P. directing them not to deal in Molloy's shop, on pain of discharge from their employment and eviction from their homes in case of disobedience; whether, on the following morning, a sheet of paper, bearing a drawing of a coffin, was found outside Molloy's door, and the fact was immediately reported to District Inspector Dower, of Newtownstewart; whether the facts were reported to the Government, and, if so, why no action has been taken; whether Molloy has since been obliged to close his shop; and, what course the Lord Chancellor and the Irish Executive will adopt in view of the facts recited?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I understand that Bryan Molloy, although residing in a house on the Duke of Abercorn's property, has never been accepted as tenant of it, and steps are being taken to evict him. It is not a fact that the statement referred to as read by Mr. Dixon con-

  1781
  tained any threat of eviction. Mr. M'Farland, on reconsideration, withdrew the paper altogether. Molloy's shop is not closed, and the Duke's workmen continue to deal with him. Molloy brought to the District Inspector a paper with a coffin drawn on it, which, he stated, he had found outside his door; but this officer satisfied himself on inquiry that it was not necessary to report the matter as an outrage. The case does not appear to mo to call for any interference on the part of the Government.

  FISHERY TIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—PIERS AT BALDERRIG, KIL-LERDUFF, AND PUL-NA-MUCK, CO. MAYO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether petitions from the fishermen of Bal-derrig, Killerduff, and Pul-na-Muck (county Mayo), having been presented to the Board of Works, about December 1883, praying for the construction of piers at these places, inquiries were held, in the October following, by the Piers and Harbours Commissioners, and upon their recommendation that plans and estimates be prepared, an engineer of the Board of Works visited the districts in February last and prepared the plans and estimates; why nothing has since been done; and, whether, in view of the great difficulties and dangers under which the fishermen pursue their avocation, the Government will take steps to secure that there is no further delay in proceeding with those necessary works, on a part of the coast where no public funds have hitherto been expended?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): This Question should more properly have been addressed to the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Gal way (Colonel Nolan), as Chairman of the Fishery, Piers, and Harbour Commission. He has, however, been good enough to inform me that his Commission wished to make a harbour at Bal-derrig, but found that the expense and risk would be too great. They recommended yesterday grants for Killerduff and Pul-na-Muck; and in these cases the Board of Works will put the contract plans at once in hand, and will call for tenders as soon as they are ready.
  1782
  There has been, therefore, no delay on the part of the Board of Works.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)— MR. SANDFORD WILLS.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the attempt of Mr. Sandford Wills to deprive his tenant, Mr. Patrick Walder, of a reclaimed bog which had been in his possession for twenty years; and, whether he will be prepared to introduce an Amendment to the Land Act to secure to tenants the possession of lands which they have reclaimed and made valuable?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The matter referred to in this Question has not come under the notice of Government. The Government can give no promise of legislation in the direction suggested.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—KILLING OF THOMAS M'GRATH'S GEESE AT CAHIR, CO. ROSCOMMON.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of Captain Gage, E.M., has been called to the killing of a number of geese belonging to a poor farmer named Thomas M'Grath, on the lands of a local landlord named Bernard Sweeny, of Cahir, near Thomas-town, county Roscommon; and, whether the police have made any investigation under the Crimes Act into the killing of M'Grath's geese; and, if not, why have they failed to carry out the Law?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Captain Gage's attention has been called to this case. No investigation has been held under the Prevention of Crime Act; but the police have made, and will continue to make, all necessary inquiry respecting it. I am informed that Bernard Sweeny is not a landlord, but a tenant farmer.

  DEFENCES OF THE EMPIRE—WORKS AT SINGAPORE.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, If he can state whether the guns for arming the works at Singapore are nearly complete, and whether the guns and other ordnance stores for that Island will be sent out this year?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. GUY DAWNAY): A. portion of the new rifled armament is already on the spot, and a further portion is on its way at the present moment to Singapore. The chief part of the remainder of the armaments is under orders for manufacture, but cannot be delivered till early nest year.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—"COOPERING."
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, now that the case of the German vessel Diedrich has been disposed of by the conviction of the English fishermen, the invitations for the International Conference at the Hague, relative to the floating drink shops in the North Sea, have been issued by the Netherlands Government; and, if not, what is the cause of the further delay in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): After the result of the trials in the cases of the Diedrich and Anna were known, Her Majesty's Minister at the Hague inquired of the Netherlands Minister whether the Netherlands Government would take steps to bring about an early meeting of the Conference relative to the liquor traffic in the North Sea. His Excellency replied that he had already taken action in the matter, and that he hoped that he would be enabled to convoke the Conference at an early date. Mr. Stuart will be instructed to bring the matter to the notice of the Netherlands Government, and as soon as a definite reply is received I shall have much pleasure in communicating again with my hon. Friend.

  MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.
  MR. HENEAGEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he still adheres to his statement that it is of the utmost importance that the Medical Relief Bill should be proceeded with without delay; and, whether the Government still intend to use every effort in order that it may become Law during the present month?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Of course, the statement which the hon. Member quotes referred to the
  1784
  Bill as it was. But I am quite aware of the importance of time in this matter, and it is not at all the intention or the wish of Her Majesty's Government to do anything that would defeat this Bill by delay. What I said last night was that we could not assume the responsibility in regard to this Bill which we had hitherto assumed; and I adhere to that position. But if the third reading is moved to-night, as I apprehend it will be, I do not think that our disapproval of the change which has been made in the measure would justify us in opposing the third reading.
  MR. HENEAGE: What I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, whether he will still consider it a Government measure after it has left this House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have already answered that Question.

  ALLOTMENTS EXTENSION ACT, 1882— CHARITY LANDS IN THE ISLE OF ELY.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If he is aware that the trustees of the Charity Lands in Elm, March, and Wimblington, Isle of Ely, have advertised to let the lands by auction on Wednesday 29th July for a term of seven years instead of offering them to the labourers of the parish, as directed by "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882;"whether he is aware that a distinct assurance was given by the clerk of the trustees that the lands should be offered to the labourers on the expiration of the present leases; and, whether the Charity Commissioners will take immediate steps to prevent the letting of the lands by auction, and will compel the trustees to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1882?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Governors of the March Consolidated Charities have offered for letting by auction on the 29th instant, for a term of seven years, about 96 acres of the charity lands situated in the parishes of March, Wimblington, and Elm, which comprise in all about 286 acres. Whether or not the assurance mentioned was given by the clerk of the Governors, the Charity Commissioners have as yet had no opportunity of ascertaining. It appears that part only of

  1785
  the lands of the Charities, amounting to less than one-fourth of the whole, is subject to the Allotments Extension Act, 1882. The case was brought to the notice of the Charity Commissioners for the first time on the 21st instant, and they have advised the Governors that, before proceeding to let any of the Charity lands on lease, they should, in the first instance, take steps for ascertaining, under Section 8 of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882, what part of the Charity lands is subject to its provisions.

  NAVY—RANGE FOR TORPEDO PRACTICE.
  MR. WARTONasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, What provision, if any, has been made by the Admiralty for a torpedo range and for torpedo practice?
  THE LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT): A torpedo range 500 yards long was provided last year at Malta. One at Portsmouth, 800 yards long, is about to be provided on Horsea Island, which has just been purchased for the purpose at a cost of £15,500. As regards money for the Portsmouth range, £25,000 has been provided in the Annual Estimates for 1885–6 and £45,000 from the Vote of Credit. Torpedo practice of all kinds is carried out by the torpedo schools— namely, Vernon, in Portsmouth, and Defiance, at Devonport, and also in all ships and fleets.

  NAVY—HAULBOWLINE WORKS, QUEENSTOWN.
  MR. DEASYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that an order has been posted at the Haul-bowline Works, Queenstown, to the effect that the service of any man who has reached the age of sixty years will be no longer required; and, whether, if such an order does exist, it is intended for the employés of dockyards proper; and, if so, whether, having regard to the fact that the Haulbowline Works will not be complete for three years, and cannot therefore in the meantime be termed dockyard, the men coming within the prescribed age will be permitted to remain in their employment until the completion of the works?
  THE LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT), who replied,
  1786
  said: The order referred to by the hon. Member was issued by the late Board. With regard to the first Question of the hon. Member, I would answer "Yes," unless special reasons exist, which should be reported. The regulation for discharge of workmen on attaining 60 years of age forms part of the Dockyard instructions, and is in force at other works for the construction of dockyards.
  MR. DEASYasked, whether, having regard to the fact that the works would be completed in three years, the order would not be cancelled, so as to allow the men to continue at the works until their completion?
  THE LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The order referred to was issued by the late Board; but I will take the matter into consideration, and see if anything can be done in the direction of the Question of the hon. Member.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR WILLAM HARCOURT: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is to be the course of Business next week? And I should like, in conjunction with that Question, to press upon the attention of the Government the desirability of placing the Criminal Law Amendment Bill on the Paper on a very early day. The House is very much advanced now in Supply for this time of the year, and, therefore, I should hope it will be possible to fix an early day for a Bill in which the House takes so great an interest.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): We should certainly desire to fix as early a day as possible for the consideration of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill; but it is extremely difficult for us, looking at the exigencies of Supply, to fix any particular day with the certainty of being able to keep the promise. We have not been so fortunate in making progress in Supply during the last few days as we had expected; and looking to the state of the Notice Paper I am afraid it is somewhat doubtful whether we shall make any progress in that direction this evening. There are still many Votes of a contentious character to be taken, and we do think

  1787
  it essential to the convenience of the House that Supply should be pushed forward as rapidly as possible before we attempt to deal with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. What I ventured to state to the House the other day was that we should endeavour to conclude Supply by Tuesday or Wednesday next at the latest; that then a debate of a few hours might be taken on the Telegraph Laws Amendment Bill; and that then we should commence to deal with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, and proceed with it until it was completed. With respect to the Business for next week, Monday has been promised for the Army Estimates, and we shall hope to be able to take the Queen's Colleges Vote as the first Vote on Tuesday; but if I might venture to ask for some concession in return from hon. Members opposite, who I notice have several Motions on the Paper, I would hope that they would be merciful to us to-night.

  DEPRESSION OF TRADE AND AGRICULTURE—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. STORERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Commission about to be appointed to inquire into the depression of trade would embrace the question of how far it might be connected with the lamentable depression in agriculture; and, whether the inquiry would be directed with a view of providing a remedy for both should that appear possible?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must not lead my hon. Friend to suppose that this inquiry on the depression of trade and industry can be an inquiry into the depression of agriculture; but in so far as the depression of trade and industry is affected by or re-acts upon agriculture—and it is a fact that it does so to a great extent—no doubt that must be a matter which would come within the scope of the inquiry. In the Motion of which the hon. Gentleman has given notice for this' evening he refers to the "inability of those depending on the land to purchase as formerly," and "the increasing volume of manufactured imports from foreign countries, which refuse to reciprocate our practice of Free Trade," both of which matters must necessarily come within the scope of the inquiry.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  DEPRESSION OF TRADE AND AGRICULTURE—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. STORERsaid, that in consequence of the satisfactory answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not persevere in the Motion which stood upon the Paper in his name, and the terms of which were as follows:—
  "That, in view of the continued, yearly-increasing, and ruinous depression of Agriculture, mainly owing to cheap imports of Foreign produce, considering also the stagnation of numerous other importan industries, caused partly by the inability of those depending on the land to purchase as formerly, and partly by the increasing volume of manufactured imports from Foreign Countries which refuse to reciprocate our practice of Free Trade, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when Her Most Gracious Majesty should be prayed to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject, in order to provide a speedy remedy for this disastrous state of things."
  He only now desired to express a hope that the Commission would not consist of men of one way of thinking only, but of men of business as well as doctrinaires, who were pledged to particular views, and that its composition would be such as to command the confidence of the people of the country at large.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that what was generally desired was that due care should be taken that all sections of opinion were represented on the Commission. They had seen, from time to time, perhaps without any degree of authority, various names put forward as likely to compose the Commission, and, among others, a name which certainly he thought on both sides of the House carried very great weight upon any question—he meant the name of the late esteemed Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons—Lord Iddesleigh. Of course, in that name they had a guarantee for thorough impartiality in the discharge of the duties of President of a Royal Commission; and while it was well known that Lord Iddesleigh enter-

  1789
  tained strong opinions on these subjects, he (Mr. J. Lowther) had every confidence that Lord Iddesleigh would perform, the duties of President of the Commission with that strict impartiality which was indispensable. But, at the same time, it was of extreme importance that gentlemen should be placed on the Commission who were versed in commercial pursuits, though not necessarily deeply involved in politics. They should have men who would carry with them not only the confidence of the commercial but of the agricultural world. It was undoubtedly true that this inquiry would not embrace a distinct inquiry into the cause of the depression in agriculture itself: but, at the same time, the depression existing in the greatest and the oldest industry in the land must of necessity become an essential feature in any question as to the depression of trade generally. He should regret the presence of too many persons with preconceived opinions hostile to the holding of any inquiry whatever, or who had prematurely committed themselves to the idea that nothing substantial could be done for the agricultural interest. He was sorry to have seen that such utterances had been made by some of whom he had expected better things; and he could only hope that the inquiry would be full and comprehensive, and that a satisfactory result would be obtained by the country at large.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. SUB-COMMISSIONER WALPOLE.

  REROLTUION.
  MR. O'BRIEN, in whose name the following Motion stood on the Paper:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the oppressive character of Mr. Sub-Commissioner Walpole's relations with his own tenantry, and the general public distrust justly inspired by his decisions, render it undesirable that he should continue to be intrusted with the administration of the Land Law (Ireland) Act,"
  said, that though under the circum-stances he was disposed to be merciful to the Government in the length of his observations, still ho was afraid that it would not be merciful to the tenantry of Ireland if he were to forego calling the attention of the House to the matter, and, after all, these were the first persons in his consideration. No doubt, it seemed scarcely worth while for him to call attention to the work of any particu-
  1790
  lar Sub-Commissioner in Ireland, for just at present it was pretty generally admitted that the whole system of fixing judicial rents in Ireland by Mr. Justice O'Hagan and his Colleagues was a disastrous and ridiculous failure and it was confessed that the whole thing should be immediately overhauled, and the settlement of the Land Question set about in a totally different direction. However, this gentleman, Mr. Walpole, was specially distinguished by his endeavour to frustrate the operations of the Land Act, and, perhaps, he had done more than any other man to bring the Land Act into disrepute. The Commission, of whom Mr. Walpole was the most influential member, was spread over the greater portions of the counties of Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, and in these districts Mr. Walpole had been applying to the unfortunate farmers whose cases came before him the same sharp practice that he exercised with his own unfortunate tenantry. Specific charges were made against him, and the Chief Commissioners were besought to investigate them; but they refused to do anything of the kind, adopting the usual Dublin Castle method of backing up an official whether he was right or wrong. Mr. Walpole was himself a landlord of the very worst type which had made landlordism so detested in Ireland. He was a retired grocer, who had purchased a small estate in the Landed Estates Court, for the purpose of making a commercial profit out of it by trafficking in and confiscating the improvements of his own unfortunate tenants. He would give a specimen, of Mr. Walpole's dealings with his own tenants, so that the House might judge of the sort of man who was administering the Land Act. When he purchased his property Mr. Walpole increased the rents on it until they amounted to twice Griffith's valuation; and this model Sub-Commissioner, who was set up to teach other landlords to be just to their tenantry, actually tried, according to a case that came before Mr. Justice O'Hagan, to impose on one of his tenants, named Higgins, a lease containing two covenants, the grossest, most penal, and confiscatory that could possibly be framed. By one of the clauses of that lease ho attempted to bind the tenants to renounce all claims for compensation under the Land Act of 1870, and by another this

  1791
  provident Sub-Commissioner sought to make him renounce all benefits in the future under any subsequent Land Act that might ever be passed. In other words, this gentleman sought to deprive his own tenant of all benefit from an Act to administer which he was himself now receiving £700 a year. How could it be expected that such a man could administer the Land Act fairly or honestly. The tenant had refused to sign the lease, but having continued the negotiations his claim for a fair rent had been refused by Judge O'Hagan. Unfortunately Mr. Walpole had shown consistency in Be far that he had acted in a precisely similar manner in his Land Court, as in the case of his own tenants. Mr. James Byrne, J.P., of Wallstown Castle, gave in The Farmers' Gazette a list of cases in which the landlords themselves had actually given substantial reductions on Mr. Walpole's judicial rack rents. On one estate, that of Mr. Purcell, with which he was acquainted himself, the agent accepted a rent of £130 for a farm the rent of which was fixed by Mr. Walpole at £150. In another case at Dungarvan the landlord's valuator valued the land at £27, and Mr. Walpole fixed the rent at £42. Looking over the Return of the judicial rents of this Commissioner for the month of April, he found that no abatement was made, and that upon the whole the rents were left at 33 per cent above the Government valuation, and that in the one case in which the rent was fixed by consent a reduction was made from £270 a-year to £160. The consequence was that tenants would not face the Land Court, but were driven to other means of getting their rents reduced. As to the case of the Earl of Egmont, the agent on this estate was Mr. French. He was a brother landlord and near neighbour of Mr. Walpole in Queen's County. They were frequently together, and he should not be surprised if the tenants drew their own conclusions from seeing the grinding landlord and the Land Commissioner driving together. In addition there was Mr. Bolster, who was a valuer under the Act, and he was cousin to Mr. Walpole. He thought, at any rate, seeing that £80,000 was paid to carry out this Act every year, the law should be so carried out as to be above reproach. Thirty tenants on the Egmont estate had presented a Memorial to the
  1792
  Chief Commissioners making specific charges against Mr. Walpole, and yet they had refused to investigate them. As long as things were as they were— as long as these reports were flying about against Mr. Walpole without any attempt being made to investigate them, so long should he express his indignation and so long should he declare that the appointment was a positive cause of disturbance. The hon. Member con-eluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDseconded the Motion. As long as they continued to maintain a rack-renter as Sub-Commissioner so long would they find that the administration of the Act was a farce. There never was a set of thieves who clung together more closely than the landlords of Ireland; and, as to Mr. Walpole, he had fixed rents so totally wrong that even the landlords had voluntarily reduced them. He hoped the new Government would deal fairly with this matter. A great many bad characters in Ireland, from Lord Spencer downwards, had lost their positions by the fall of the late Government.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must inform the hon. Member that that is not a respectful way to speak of any Member of the other House. I must ask him to withdraw the expression?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Which expression?
  MR. SPEAKER: The expression just used with regard to Lord Spencer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Which expression?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member knows perfectly well what expression.
  MR. O'KELLY: HOW can the hon. Member withdraw if he does not know what expression you object to? What is it?
  MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the expression he used?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he would, of course, withdraw immediately anything Mr. Speaker liked. If he had spoken in a disrespectful way of a Member of the Upper House, it was not at all his intention to transgress the Rules of the House or anything of that kind. Of course, he knew that there were a great many things which a Member was allowed to say outside the House which he could not say inside; and so he should withdraw and reserve

  1793
  what he had to say as to Lord Spencer and others until he went back to Ireland. A great many persons had been removed from their offices in consequence of the change of Government, and if Mr. Walpole should be removed a great deal would be done to allay the suspicion with which the administration of the Land Act was regarded in Ireland. Mr. Walpole was a man who, above all others connected with the administration of the Act, had made himself obnoxious.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the oppressive character of Mr. Sub-Commissioner Walpole's relations with his own tenantry, and the general public distrust justly inspired by his decisions, render it undesirable that he should continue to be intrusted with the administration of the Land Law (Ireland) Act,"—[Mr. O'Brien,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. LEWISsaid, that the hon. Member who had just spoken had made an observation which very much surprised him and which ought to receive some notice. The hon. Member said it was fortunate that observations could be made outside the House which would not be allowed in it. But perhaps some hon. Members found it more fortunate that observations could be made within the House which would not be made outside it. They had been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that Mr. Walpole defrauded his tenants, and was a landlord of the very worst character, and that it was a notorious fact that a set of thieves never stick together more than the landlords of Ireland. His (Mr. Lewis's) belief was, from all the testimony they had heard from the other side of the House, that this gentleman was a highly respectable man. He was sure that Mr. Walpole would not have been so vindictively attacked from the other side of the House if he had not been deserving of the respect of all honourable men. It was somewhat surprising they should be told that a landlord was not fit to be a Sub-Commissioner, because he was an interested party. Well, if that was so, a tenant, for the same reason, ought not to be ap-
  1794
  pointed. Everyone who knew anything of Courts was aware that the discontent of litigants knew no bounds, and that each man believed his own case to be better than his opponent's. he was not, however, aware of any attacks similar to this having been made in that House, either on a Land Commissioner or Sub-Commissioner with reference to the administration of the law in Ireland. But, if that House was to be made a Court of Appeal, not against any particular decision, but against the men who gave those decisions, all ho could say was that it would be impossible to suppose there could be any respect for the administration of justice in Ireland. It was said by the hon. Member who introduced this Motion that nine-tenths of the people of Ireland believed that Mr. Walpole was a perfectly abandoned character. He (Mr. Lewis) trusted they would hear from the Government during the night something of the position and character of this gentleman. On the Ministerial side of the House it was believed that the majority of the Land Commissioners were more in sympathy with the tenants than with the landlord. Their decisions, although always favourable to the tenants, were, nevertheless, always submitted to. He trusted the Treasury Bench would not countenance these charges against the Irish officials. If this was the way in which all persons connected with the administration of justice in Ireland were to be attacked from time to time in the various departments and stages of their duty, there would be very little prospect of any law being obeyed in Ireland.
  MR. MARUMsaid, with a full sense of the responsibility imposed on him in speaking of an absent man, he believed this gentleman—and he knew the locality—was very severe in the exaction of his rents—a quality which ought not to have recommended him to a Chief Secretary for appointment; that great dissatisfaction was caused by his decisions; and that he was not competent for the office either from his knowledge of the value of the land or the working of the Land Commission.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR, IRELAND (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): said, that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion had made a violent attack on the Sub-Commissioners in general

  1795
  and on Mr. Walpole in particular, as well as on the mode in which the Land Act was carried out. But he was not responsible in any sense for the passing of that Act or the appointment of the Commissioners or Sub-Commissioners. He did not think that the House was called upon to pronounce any judgment on the character of Mr. Walpole as a landlord; but, so far as he could gather, there was no foundation whatever for the vague charges—[Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Not vague charges at all.]— levelled against Mr. Walpole for his conduct as a Sub-Commissioner. A Memorial containing various charges against Mr. Walpole had been presented to the Commissioners; they took the greatest possible pains to investigate the matter; and not only from the evidence in their own office, but from every kind of evidence that could be brought before them, they came to the conclusion that the charges were absolutely groundless. It had been said that there was some complicity between him and Lord Egmont's agent, Captain French. It was said that he had driven about with him upon an outside car. It was said that upon one occasion ho had stopped for one night at the same hotel as that gentleman, and also that he had given Mr. Walpole a "lift" upon his car. [Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: He gave him several "lifts."] But he was informed that this gentleman was an absolute stranger to Mr. Walpole. Mr. Walpole was not solely responsible for these decisions; he was one of three Commissioners, and these three Commissioners were responsible in all cases for these decisions. The hon. Member for Mallow had stated that Mr. Walpole's conduct had been of such a character as to drive tenants out of the Court; but he had made inquiry into the matter, and it appeared that at the time Mr. Walpole assumed office there had been only five applications by tenants. He did not think that he should detain the House further. He had done all that he could to find out about these allegations. But he was convinced, both from his researches and the inquiries of the Land Commissioners, that there were no grounds whatever for them; and he thought that if there was any ground for objection to Mr. Walpole's decisions, the Court of Appeal would be a more fitting tribunal in
  1796
  which to try them than the House of Commons.
  MR. BARRYsaid that, accustomed as the Irish were in that House to hear lame defences by the Chief Secretary, he did not believe that in all his experience he had ever hoard a more helpless attempt at a defence than that which had just been presented by the Chief Secretary as to the serious charges made against this official by the hon. Member for Mallow. He had insinuated that the charges made were vague; but he believed that he had never heard anything more clear or specific than the case which had been presented by his hon. Friend. He remembered the great shock which the appointment to the Land Commission of Mr. Walpole had given the country. He was a man whoso evil reputation was widely known. He was a rack-renting landlord of the very worst type—a man who, having been successful in some pettifogging trade, bought land, and at once became an odious tyrant and rack-renter. He had a character which had received full confirmation since his appointment as a Land Commissioner. He asked what kind of proof the right hon. Gentleman wanted? Every public board—Boards of Guardians and Town Commissioners—and public body whose representative character enabled it to express a reliable opinion on behalf of the people had passed resolutions denouncing his onesided and partizan conduct. Surely no better proof than that was required in support of his hon. Friend's statement. In many cases even the landlords themselves, instead of accepting Mr. Walpole's decisions, had actually given reductions, and cases could be shown in which the judicial rent fixed by Mr. Walpole amounted to 40 per cent in excess of the landlord's own valuings. In the counties of Cork, Waterford, and Limerick there existed such a strong and widespread feeling of discontent that it was positively dangerous to the administration of the Act. It was most unfair to the tenants to have such a man to decide their cases, and many of them refused to go near the Court at all where he acted as Sub-Commissioner, feeling convinced that they thereby would only incur useless expenditure in costs, in addition to their loss of time.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he could assure the House that it was with very

  1797
  considerable pain that hon. Members sitting in that quarter of the House had heard the right hon. Gentleman attempting such a forlorn and hopeless task as the defence of this official. He was sorry to see the present Government falling into the errors of its Predecessors in attempting to defend everybody. There had been no stronger case over brought before the House. The block in the Appeal Court was something both disgraceful and hopeless. He had a letter in his hand from a tenant who had served an originating notice so far back as four years ago to have a fair rout fixed by the Sub-Commission. He went into the Appeal Court; but up to the present there was not the least sign of the case being heard. The whole country was waiting for relief against the appeals which blocked the Land Court. He believed that an official of the stamp of Mr. Walpole, who fixed rents in some cases so much above the valuation even of the landlord's valuers that the landlords themselves refused to abide by his decisions, and reduced the rents fixed by him themselves, was a man who really did even the landlords more injury than good.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, speaking as a landlord himself in Ireland, he believed that conduct of the kind which had been described was really injurious to the interests of the landlords. He believed, however, that the question whether Mr. Walpole's conduct was of the nature described should be investigated by some independent tribunal.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he believed that this was really a case which the Government should consider seriously. There was, no doubt, very widespread dissatisfaction at the decisions of Mr. Walpole. The fact was that that gentleman had only had experience of very good land, and was really not competent to decide in cases where the value of poor land was called in question. Without wishing to make any invidious or hard attack upon Mr. Walpole, he would suggest that he might be transferred to some other part of Ireland. Some effort should also be made to expedite the heaving of appeals.
  MR. P. J. POWERsaid, he knew nothing personally about Mr. Walpole; but he was able to state that his action as a Land Commissioner had given rise to the utmost discontent, Resolutions
  1798
  had been passed by numerous Boards of Guardians expressing want of confidence in him.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the Government would do well to be influenced by the advice given them by the hon. and gallant Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst), who, not being a Gentleman who usually acted with the Irish Party, had spoken from a different point of view. He (Mr. Biggar) believed that it was the interest of the landlords to prevent such grievances as gave rise to agitation. The time had come when the number of Sub-Commissioners should be reduced. At any rate, the Government could not expect to get rid of agitation in respect to the administration of the Land Act while they retained the services of Sub-Commissioners like Mr. Walpole, who failed in inspire general confidence in his decisions.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONthought it was clear from that discussion that the administration of the Land Act by that gentleman was not likely to give satisfaction to the Irish people; and ho would suggest that the Government should consider whether they could not see their way to having some inquiry made into that matter. The evidence in favour of inquiry was certainly as strong as it was in the Maamtrasna case.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he thought that the observation of the Chief Secretary had been misunderstood. The only charges, as far as he was aware, which were brought forward against Mr. Sub-Commissioner Walpole were contained in a Memorial that was presented in October, 1884, to the Irish Land Commission. That document contained some general observations in reference to the way in which Mr. Walpole had acted as a Sub-Commissioner; and then it set forth certain specific charges. It then became the duty of the Land Commissioners, as the Body nominated by the Legislature for the purpose, to inquire into that matter; and, after having obtained all such information as would enable them to form a judgment upon it, they came to the conclusion that both the general and the specific charges against Mr. Walpole were without foundation.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Did they take the evidence of a single memorialist? ["Order!"]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, that the charges were dealt with by the Body which the Legislature had appointed, and which made the investigation in the ordinary way. That investigation having been so made, the result was the acquittal of Mr. Walpole not only of the general, but also of the specific charges preferred against him; and if the Government were now to say that the matter would be re-opened, it would not be a censure upon Mr. Walpole, but a censure upon the Land Commission, because it would be conveying to the Commission that they had not done their duty on a matter that had been brought before them. On the result of the investigation which had taken place the Government were prepared to stand.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he considered there were grounds for inquiry, and he should support the appeal made to the Government by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Law-son).
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he happened to know the county in which the property of Mr. Walpole was situated. He had a number of tenants bound down by papers, which he called leases, prepared in a dexterous manner, which deprived the tenants of the benefit of the Land Act. The whole population of Queen's County had been aghast when they had heard of the appointment of Mr. Walpole, knowing, as they did, his relations towards his own tenants; and their forebodings had been fully justified. The people in Mr. Walpole's sub-division would not regard the proceedings in his Court as judicial in any sense. They looked upon him as having been placed in his present position by landlord influence, in order to maintain the level of judicial rents as high as possible. It should also be borne in mind that the inquiry that had taken place was confined to those who were interested in whitewashing Mr. Walpole.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the answer of the Attorney General for Ireland was one which would hardly be seriously regarded. The inquiry which had been made into the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred had been utterly insufficient, and no real evidence had been taken. He could assure the Government that this
  1800
  was a very grave matter. The judicial character of Mr. Walpole was seriously attacked, and a large amount of collateral evidence was brought forward in support of the charge brought against him. He hoped that the Government would look into this matter in the interests of everyone who desired a settlement of the Irish question on a permanent basis. There could be no doubt that the retention of Mr. Walpole on the Bench would prove a great impediment to the agrarian policy which the present Government had entered upon with regard to Ireland.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words" in the opinion of this House, the general public distrust inspired by the decisions of Mr. Sub-Commissioner Walpole renders it desirable that further inquiry should be made into his administration of the Land Law (Ireland) Act,"—{Mr. O'Brien,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 32: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 247.)
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)— PROCURATORS FISCAL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the maladministration of justice in Scotland. His Motion, as it stood upon the Paper, was—
  "That it is prejudicial to the interests of justice in Scotland that Procurators Fiscal should be allowed to engage in private business and to act as land agents."
  Perhaps he might state, for the information of the House, and especially of the Irish Members, that the system of administering justice and conducting criminal inquiries was, in the first place, intrusted to the Procurator Fiscal. He was the Public Prosecutor. Down to 1877 these Procurators Fiscal were appointed by the Sheriffs, and removable by them; but in that year a Bill was brought in by the Tory Government confirming the appointment in the

  1801
  Sheriff, but making the Procurator Fiscal irremovable when he was appointed. An Amendment was attempted at the time to restrict Procurators Fiscal to the discharge of their official duties; but it was negatived. It was evident that there was great risk of abuse of justice in consequence of his being engaged in private business, particularly the business of a land agent. He had in his possession complaints that in a recent case a Procurator Fiscal appeared to prosecute, and was also engaged in the case in three other capacities. It was easy to conceive how hard it would be for a Procurator Fiscal, in such circumstances, to confine himself strictly to his proper business, and not to allow himself to be influenced by other motives. He wished to allude particularly to cases in the Western Highlands. There was the case of the Procurator Fiscal in Stornoway, which belonged to a single proprietor, and the Procurator Fiscal was the representative of the Crown, and was also the agent of the landlord. He had occasion, previously, to call attention to an instance where it was alleged that the Procurator Fiscal had called in the law to support certain estate regulations; and, under these circumstances, the tenants believed that they had not any prospect of impartial administration of justice. He was not prepared to say definitely as to the accuracy of the charges made against the Procurators Fiscal; but there were very numerous complaints as to their action, and one could understand how difficult it would be for the Procurator Fiscal to administer even-handed justice when he was acting in a private capacity for one of the parties. The position occupied by these men was altogether indefensible; and ho called attention to it, now that a new Government was in power, in order that the Government might have an opportunity of stating their views and the course they proposed to take in the matter. Ho made no charge against the late Lord Advocate. The only defence of the present system was that it would be impossible to get the whole of the service of the Procurators Fiscal in those distant places. He advocated to meet this difficulty that they should have some system of promotion under which the Procurators Fiscal could be removed from district to district. If some system of that kind were
  1802
  adopted, he was sure it would have a very beneficial effect on the administration of justice. He was informed that measures had been in progress under the late Government for remedying the evil so far as the Western Highlands were concerned; but the complaint he had to make against the late Lord Advocate was, that when he found he was not able, in a particular case, to do what was required, he did not ask the House of Commons to remedy the law, and so have been able to take upon himself the responsibility for the due and impartial administration of justice. Peace in the Western Highlands depended very much more upon the removal of those abuses than many supposed; but the people despaired receiving impartial justice when everyone engaged in the administration of the law, except the Sheriff, was an official of the proprietor. That being the feeling, it was not at all surprising that the Highlanders attempted to take the law into their own hands, and thus endeavour to redress their grievances.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, that his hon. Friend had done well to bring this subject before the House. It was surely wrong, as a matter of principle, that anyone holding judicial office should be allowed to engage in private practice. Persons holding these appointments should, like Caesar's wife, be above suspicion. The difficulty of getting men to take the office on small salaries might be met by a system of promotion such as had been suggested by his hon. Friend—namely, to hold out the prospect of rising, through good work and merit, to higher appointments. He, therefore, thought that as appointments fell in the Government should insist that persons accepting such appointments should be debarred from private practice. That could easily be done in the large towns, where from £000 to £800 and up to £1,200 a-year was paid. For such appointments there could be no difficulty in getting the best legal men, and already a good beginning had been made in Aberdeen, where the Sheriff Clerk, who formerly bad private practice, had been entirely restricted to his public duties.
  MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, be was not disposed to enter upon the general question, which had been a good deal discussed within the past year. The view

  1803
  taken by the late Government was that wherever they could get the sole services of a gentleman to discharge the duties of Procurator Fiscal on reasonable terms it was desirable to do so; but that necessarily involved conditions— conditions regarding the amount of work, the available salary, or the salary that could reasonably be asked, and other conditions which ho had more fully explained on a former occasion. He adhered to the view that wherever they could obtain the services of a gentleman to fill those duties exclusively it was desirable to do so; and accordingly, although the appointment did not rest with the Crown, but with the Sheriff, subject only to confirmation by the Secretary of State, it was quite possible for persons holding the position which he had the honour to do under the late Government, by communicating with the Sheriff, to try and establish the rule of restricting persons holding the office to the duties of that office. His hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) complained that they did not propose legislation on the subject, He agreed that all appointments of Procurators Fiscal should emanate from the Crown; but in the press of other duties he did not know whether the subject had been embodied in a separate Bill, though he had no doubt that the matter would be kept in view. As to the alleged conflict between public and private duty, having had an experience of some years, he could only now repeat the tribute which ho had before paid to the probity, integrity, and ability with which the Procurators Fiscal had discharged their duties; but. at the same time, he admitted that it was better that they should be restricted to the duties of their office. Reference had been made to appointments in the West Highlands; and he quite agreed that where, from whatever causes, an unhappy state of feeling had arisen, which he trusted and believed would be temporary, it was specially desirable that there should be no ground for the suggestion of a suspicion of any conflict of duty and private matters on the part of a public official. Accordingly, before the late Government went out of Office, they were negotiating with a view to get the Procurators Fiscal of Stornoway, Portree, and Lochmaddy placed on salary and confined purely to their
  1804
  official duties. Of course, their appointment being under the previous law, that arrangement could only be carried out by negotiation, and with their consent; and, although the arrangement was not concluded, he dared say this was a matter which those who had succeeded the late Government would look into, and if they found that reasonable terms could be arranged with those Fiscals they would make arrangements by which these officials would be confined to their public duties. If it were found impossible to make such an arrangement it might then become necessary to consider whether legislative powers to effect such an arrangement could not be obtained, although that would be a somewhat extreme measure.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he would like to bear his testimony, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour) had done, to the way in which the Procurators Fiscal in Scotland had hitherto performed their duties. He had had an opportunity some years ago of seeing how they performed their duties, and he thought they deserved the credit which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given them. As to whether the Procurators Fiscal should be confined, to their public duties alone he had very little to add to what had been said by the right hon. and. learned Gentleman. It would be better, as a general rule, that those gentlemen should not have anything to do except the actual duties of their office; but there were cases in which that general rule would hardly apply, because it might be that they might have to give a much larger salary for a person in an out-of-the-way part of the world who would practically have little to do, and whose only inducement to go to such a place would be to receive the large salary for doing very little. Nor should they forget that where there was little to do, and a man devoted his whole time to doing it, it had not a very good effect on the man himself, for it was not likely to improve his mind or increase his store of legal learning or his habits of industry. His right hon. and learned Friend stated that in certain cases arrangements were attempted for confining certain Fiscals to their official duties; but, unfortunately, up to the

  1805
  time the right hon, and learned Gentleman left Office the attempt had not been successful. It was a matter, however, which would certainly not be lost sight of. More than that he could not say.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—DEPRESSION OF TRADE—THE APPRECIATION OF GOLD —OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I would ask leave to call attention to a subject of which I gave Notice some time ago in connection with the Royal Commission to inquire into the depression of trade. The Notice is as follows:—
  "That, in view of the great depression in trade, caused in large measure by the extraordinary decline in prices, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when Her Most Gracious Majesty be prayed to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the relative position of gold and silver in their use as moneys throughout the world—[Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!]—whether the depression of trade and low prices are in any way connected with, or caused by, the appreciation of our gold standard; how far such appreciation—should it be shown to exist—results from the displacement of silver money over large areas, and whether, or how far, these evils admit of remedy."
  Notwithstanding the deprecatory remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), this is a subject which is attracting a great deal of attention; and there will be a great feeling of disappointment throughout commercial circles unless the Committee which the Government intend to appoint is authorized specially to inquire into it. A special reason exists for this in a Parliamentary Paper recently issued under the auspices of the Board of Trade, which has brought out very clearly that the main feature of the commercial depression is the prodigious fall of prices, as compared with 1873. According to a calculation which I have made myself the average fall of prices to 188.5 is about 37 per cent. The exports of our country this year will attain to about £220,000,000; but had they been measured by the standard of prices that prevailed in 1873 they would have reached about £350,000,000. We have had a collapse in prices and a change in the standard of value, such as has been altogether unknown since the resumption of specie payments in 1819, and this has unsettled all the relations of trade. I would point out how very seriously this change in the scale of prices and standard of value
  1806
  affects the various classes in the country. The commercial classes, who borrow capital very largely for reproductive use, find themselves compelled to pay interest in a standard which is very much appreciated. When the debts have to be repaid they are obliged to pay a very much larger value than they contracted for. The total amount of capital borrowed in this country represents thousands of millions sterling, and the interest probably amounts to more than £100,000,000 sterling annually. It is a very serious thing that this vast amount of borrowed capital should be made so very much heavier in consequence of the extraordinary fall of prices. We have had a discussion this evening as to the Irish Land Act. We know there are great complaints in Ireland that the rents fixed by the Judicial Commission have already become too high owing to the continuous fall of the value of produce; and it is thought by our best authorities that this fall will continue for several years to come. It is hardly necessary to point out how this will neutralize all the good effects that they expect from judicial rents in Ireland. Then our difficulties in Egypt have very largely arisen from the fact that the heavy fall of prices makes the interest of the debt much heavier than it was some 10 or 15 years ago. The Debt of Egypt has virtually increased one - fourth owing to the prodigious fall of prices. I may be asked what proof I have for the assertion that the standard of value has risen very seriously. I would refer to those Papers drawn up by the Board of Trade, which prove that since 1873 general prices have fallen 37 per cent, and I assert that no such fall could be adequately explained on any other ground except that gold has considerably risen. I have no doubt there is something in the nature of over-production; and no doubt foreign competition—especially in food—has forced down prices considerably. But there is a distinct ground for believing that gold itself has considerably risen in purchasing power. My assertion is that at least one-half of the wonderful change in the last 10 or 15 years is owing to the appreciation of our gold standard. The supply of gold has fallen off immensely in the last 10 or 20 years. During the Australian and Californian discoveries, and for some years

  1807
  afterwards, the annual production of gold was upwards of £30,000,000; but it is now less than £19,000,000, and it is tending to become still smaller. On the other hand, gold is being called upon to do very much more than it did 20 years ago. Twenty years ago gold did only one-half of the monetary work of the world. The trade of the world went on smoothly under the bi-metallic system. Gold and silver countries could exchange with each other at a ratio which was reliable; but now the two metals have been divorced. In place of silver being at the ratio of 15½ to I of gold, it is now at the rate of 19 to 1 of gold. This is a very serious thing to a country like England. The time is coming when, if this state of things is not resisted, we shall see a fall in wages corresponding to the fall in general prices. What I hope the House will accept when we have discussed the question, and what I trust the Royal Commission will turn its attention to, is this—that they should aim at restoring that old bi-metallic arrangement which existed more or less for two centuries prior to 1872. If they could return to that system they would confer great advantage upon the country; they would escape great social troubles, and would give a great development to trade. When our trade is languishing, as it is now, there must be something wrong; and the only remedy which I think we have in our power is to join with the United States, France, and Germany to re-establish that old system of currency which answered so remarkably well in the past. I trust that in appointing the Royal Commission which is in contemplation the Government will see their way to place upon it some experts upon monetary questions who have studied the question of bimetallism, and who will have power to make it a vital branch of the investigation. I believe that such a course would give satisfaction to the commercial classes of the country.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)— CORK LUNATIC ASYLUM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he rose to call attention to the repeated refusals of the late Viceroy of Ireland to appoint Mr. John O'Brien, of Cork, a Governor of the Cork Lunatic Asylum. He did not
  1808
  propose to dwell long on this subject, as it was discussed at considerable length in the House on several occasions, and the late Chief Secretary left them under the impression that, in the long run, Mr. O'Brien would be appointed. Well, the Government had a very short run themselves after that, and he was not sorry for it, even if Mr. O'Brien were never appointed. The Cork Corporation had requested the present Viceroy to appoint Mr. O'Brien. He trusted his views on the subject would be immediately made known. It was most important that a man like Mr. O'Brien should be placed on the Board, as he was not only energetic and capable, but he was expert in one department, the woollen contracts, in which a great many irregularities had occurred of late. The Governors of the Institution, also, had been extremely lax in the discharge of their duties. He maintained that the representation of the Cork Municipal Council on the Managing Board of the District Asylum should be better proportioned to its contribution towards the cost of the maintenance of the asylum. He hoped that the Government would promise to consider this matter, otherwise ho would be obliged to bring the matter before the House at considerable length during the present Session.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)-CUS-TODY OF PRISONERS IN IRELAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to call attention to the death of Peter O'Gara, in Sligo Police Barracks. This man had been arrested a few weeks ago on a charge of drunkenness in Sligo, although ho was walking with two friends, whom the police admitted to have been sober. He was put into the cell at the police barracks with another drunken man. At 10 P.M. his wife and son had called and asked for his release, when, on entering the cell, O'Gara was found dead with marks of violence on his face and head, while the other man was found sitting on the floor with his coat and waistcoat off. It was evident that the orderly constable could not have been anywhere close at hand, or he would have heard the struggle which must have taken place. Such an occurrence ought not to have been possible, and he hoped that the Government

  1809
  would take care to prevent anything of the kind happening again. He wished also to call attention to the necessity for better arrangements being made for the custody of prisoners in Constabulary stations in Ireland. More cells should be provided, and the lighting of the cells improved. In Galway, for instance, there was only one cell, and if there were a female and male prisoner arrested at the same time, the female was obliged to stay in the kitchen with the orderly. Such a system was disgraceful. When the Government could spend large sums on palatial police barracks and bath-rooms for policemen, they ought, at least, to make decent and safe provisions for prisoners.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he rose to call attention to the condition of the Magisterial Bench in King's County. There were 92 Justices of Peace in the county, and, although only 15 per cent of the people were other than Catholics, there were only 10 or 11 Catholic magistrates, whereas the number ought to be 73. He had already complained of this disproportion, but the new appointments were on the old lines. There was a vast number of Catholics in the county qualified to hold the position which was denied them. The appointment of magistrates in King's County was confined to certain family rings. It was said that there was a strong alliance between the present Government and the Home Rule Irish Members; but they were not aware of it. Although nothing of the sort existed, still the Government might, from a sense of justice, look into this question; and if they would do so impartially, they would do something to give the Government a claim on the consideration of the Irish people.
  MR. MARUMsaid, that the questions of local taxation and of the treatment of prisoners under remand were bound up with the appointment of magistrates. In the Queen's County there were not more than 14 Catholic magistrates, and several of these were absentees, or did not attend to business. The administration of local rates was vested in bodies composed largely of magistrates, and it was not to be tolerated that the composition of these bodies should be unduly coloured by a political nominee of the Government of the day. One effect of the carrying on of county government by magistrates, nominated as
  1810
  at present, was that female prisoners under remand had to be sent distances of 30 or 40 miles; and it was highly improper that a female prisoner should be sent that distance in charge of a policeman. It was enough to destroy the character of any woman, and the knowledge of the fact that this had to be done interfered with the administration of justice, for a considerate magistrate naturally hesitated to expose any woman to such an ordeal and the hardships of the journey if he could possibly avoid it.
  MR. CALLANsaid, ho desired to enter his protest against the stigma which was cast upon the Catholic gentlemen in Ireland owing to the persistent refusal of the late Government to place them upon the Bench of Magisstrates. He hoped that the present Government would follow the example of the last Conservative Government, and would treat the Catholics in Ireland fairly. The late Lord O'Hagan, from whom great things had been expected as the first Catholic Lord Chancellor, had actually increased the disproportion between the number of Catholic and Protestant magistrates. A principle had been laid down upon which he thought the Government should act, and that was to have at least one Catholic magistrate upon each Bench, if a suitable one could be found in the district. In the County Louth there were 10 Benches, and on four of these there was not a single Catholic magistrate. He had great respect for the present holder of the Office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was distinguished for his impartial, honourable, and kindly treatment of the Irish Catholics. He trusted that the noble Lord would continue in Office after the next General Election, and would retain his post for many years. He looked to him for the removal of the inequality at present existing.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, that the different matters which hon. Members opposite had brought under the notice of the House did not demand any lengthened remarks from him. With, regard to the case of Mr. John O'Brien, he might say that the grounds upon which Lord Spencer had declined to appoint Mr. John O'Brien as Governor of Cork Lunatic Asylum were not at all personal ones. He 'the At-

  1811
  torney General for Ireland) had no doubt that Mr. O'Brien was very well qualified to discharge the duties, and he was quite sure that his claims would be considered by the present Lord Lieutenant. When the last Governor of the Cork Lunatic Asylum was appointed, there was on the Board a preponderance of city representatives. It appeared that the county, which contributed some £8,000 per annum towards the maintenance of the asylum, had only 15 Governors on the Board; while the city, which contributed only some £2,700, had 22, and it being felt that the county was entitled to have its representation on the Board strengthened, the now Governor was selected from the county instead of from the city which Mr. O'Brien represented.
  MR. DEASYremarked that of the 22 Governors only three were representatives of the ratepayers.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, that there was no personal objection whatever to Mr. O'Brien, and doubtless he would be selected as the next city Governor—assuming, of course, the statements of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Deasy) regarding him to be correct. No one could help feeling pain at the sad circumstances of the death of the man referred to by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He at once admitted that if drunken persons wore to be confined in police barracks, adequate cell accommodation was not merely desirable, but necessary. In many police barracks there was great want of accommodation, and that was owing to the fact that houses not built for the purpose had been adapted to the use of police barracks. It was much more desirable that buildings should be expressly erected for police barracks, and that had now been extensively done. With regard to the observations which had been made as to prisoners being placed in the same cells, ho thought he might promise that for the future this would be done as little as possible. There was a rule in the Constabulary Force at the present time which made it obligatory on constables not to place more than one person in the same cell when it could be avoided, and the only thing that led to its being done was the want of proper cell accommodation. If it became necessary to place two persons in one cell, they
  1812
  should be so placed as to be within sight, or at all events within hearing, of the warder. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary would take steps that this should always be done where the want of proper cell accommodation made it necessary to put two prisoners into one cell. The other points to which the hon. Member had referred in connection with cell accommodation should have his attention. The hon. Members for Cork and Sligo had spoken of the appointments to the magistracy. Reference had also been made by the hon. Member for King's County to the Lord Lieutenant of that county. The Lord Lieutenant of King's County did not share the political views of hon. Members sitting on this side of the House, but he was a personal friend of his own, and ho was probably the last person in the world to recommend or refuse to recommend gentlemen for appointments on the ground of their religion. He believed the rule to be laid down with reference to the appointment of gentlemen to the commission of the peace was that they should be appointed upon considerations entirely distinct from their political and religious views, and having regard only to their fitness to discharge the magisterial duties they would be called upon to perform. No doubt in some parts of the country, where there was a predominance of people professing a certain religion, it was desirable that a certain number of magistrates of that religion should be appointed in order that the people might have confidence in the administration of justice; but, nevertheless, regard must be had to their fitness for the discharge of their duties. He hoped that the time might not be far distant in Ireland, when religion, which was now almost identical with polities, might be placed in the background in all questions connected with the government of the country. The selection of the magistrates of Ireland was now in the hands of his noble Friend Lord Ashbourne, who, although a politician, was not a bigoted politician, and, although a religious man, was not a bigot. and he felt sure that such a man as Lord Ashbourne might be trusted to appoint the magistracy of the country with impartiality and without favour to political or religious views, but solely in regard to the fitness for the discharge of the duties of the office.
  MR. BIGGARcontended that it was a great scandal to appoint persons as magistrates in Ireland who were not resident in the counties in which they acted, and sometimes had hardly any connection with them. He hoped that the new Lord Chancellor would use his influence for the purpose of remedying this state of things. He should go through the lists of magistrates, both Protestant and Catholic, and strike out without mercy all who did not discharge their duties and who were not resident in the counties. He thought the Lord Chancellor should ignore almost entirely the Lord Lieutenants of counties in this matter, and should depend upon his own judgment. It was most desirable that the people of the country should have confidence in the administration of justice. That they could not have, if they saw the appointments to the Magisterial Bench entirely taken from one class of the community. Until some reform was made in that respect, it was utterly impossible that the people could believe in the impartiality of justice. He was also of opinion that the policeman who had been so neglectful of duty in the case referred to by the hon. Member for Sligo should be punished.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORcomplained that the late Government had not adequately fulfilled their promise to appoint a fair proportion of Catholic magistrates. He was aware that the present Chief Secretary for Ireland was not responsible for what his Predecessor did. He regretted to say that the promises of the late Government had been kept to the ear, but broken in reality. In the first place, the Irish Members never desired to have a lot of Whig "shoneens and Cawtholics" appointed as magistrates throughout the country.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he merely wished to say that he hoped that Lord Ashbourne, in whose sense of justice the Irish Members had considerable confidence, would take this matter in hand, and deal with it in a candid and proper spirit.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

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

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  (1.) £69,316 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,000), to complete the sum for County Court Officers, Ireland.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the House had repeatedly heard, of late, that there was a great improvement in the condition of Ireland. It had formed a matter of congratulation at the commencement of the present Session. The late Government took credit to themselves for abandoning the main part of the Prevention of Crime Act, and limiting themselves to the retention only of certain portions which they considered valuable. Fortunately, circumstances had put an end to the late Government and their intentions. The present Government had gone further, and had wisely and intelligently dispensed with all the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act. He had been curious to ascertain, therefore, whether the combined opinions of the late Government and the present found a reflection in this Estimate. He should have been glad to find that that was the case, and he had hoped, for instance, that the staff of magistrates, which had been inflated for the purpose of meeting an exceptional state of things in the last few years, would have been brought back to its normal level. They all knew that even before the Prevention of Crime Act came into operation in 1882 Earl Spencer, and his Predecessor, Earl Cow-per, had added to the magistracy generally, and had increased the number of stipendiary magistrates. The day the present Parliament ended, which he supposed was about a fortnight distant, the Prevention of Crime Act would cease. It was enacted in 1882 for three years succeeding, and it would pats out of existence on the day that Parliament was prorogued. Therefore, the period of its cessation was quite close enough to justify an inquiry as to what steps the Government intended to take to reduce the establishment of paid magistrates in Ireland to its normal level. In 1884–5, according to the present Estimates, there were 79 paid magistrates, and for the present year he observed that the number was precisely the same.

  1815
  He knew that the present Government was not responsible for this Estimate, which was drawn and presented before the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Hart Dyke) could have imagined that the luxury of being Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was reserved for him. But when it was drawn up, in the present year, it ought to have been quite apparent, from the state of the calendars and the reports in the newspapers, that there was nothing exceptional in the state of crime in Ireland. Nevertheless, not only in the number of magistrates that were proposed to be maintained, but in every other item, the Estimates, on the face of them, denoted an exceptional state of things. The seven temporary appointments of magistrates were to be continued at a cost to the country of something like £3,000. If seven temporary magistrates were necessary in a time of great emergency, when Boycotting prevailed and conspiracy meetings were rife, why should they be necessary now? What was the meaning of this? Had those seven gentlemen really any functions to discharge? He could understand that at a time when the Lord Lieutenant was required to gallop through the streets of Dublin surrounded by a small army, the circumstances were very different from those which now existed, when the Lord Lieutenant could drive about in an open phaeton like any other gentleman. He saw in the Estimate that there were travelling allowances for those seven temporary magistrates in addition to other expenses. He failed to see, on the face of the Estimate, any sign whatever that the Government conceded the necessity of reducing the expenditure, although they acknowledged, by their policy of allowing the Prevention of Crime Act to cease, that the country had passed from an exceptional into an ordinary condition. Nevertheless, when it came to a question of the expenditure of money they made no reduction in the establishment, and no diminution in its cost. He trusted that his hon. Friends would support him in obtaining some explanation from the Government. He maintained that it was of evil effect to continue an inflated magisterial establishment which the necessities of the case did not justify. When there was an exceptional state of crime in Ireland there might have been reason for
  1816
  creating an exceptional establishment of officials to deal with it. But he did not see why they should make a divisional magistrate a present of £1,000 a-year, instead of going back to the original payment of £500 a-year for persons who held the rank of ordinary magistrate. He would not go so far as to say that those exceptional magistrates would feel inclined to provoke an exceptional state of crime; but undoubtedly they would not be sorry for the continuance of such a state of things as would enable them to claim this exceptional remuneration. So long as the Government paid heavy salaries for the performance of so-called exceptional duties, those men would continue to represent up to the latest moment the necessity for high salaries and an exceptional staff. He thought he was entitled to say that there was no longer any need for special magistrates, or a temporary staff. The ordinary officers of the law in ordinary numbers were amply sufficient to meet the requirements of normal times, so far as the preservation of the peace of Ireland was concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not responsible for these Estimates; but ho was responsible for the change of policy which had been announced since the Estimates were drawn, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to assure the Committee that no officials would be much longer continued in public employment in Ireland for the repression of crime, or the administration of the law, except those who were employed before the cry was raised that Ireland was in an exceptional condition. He thought he was entitled to claim in a country like Ireland that the unpaid magistrates, drawn as they were exclusively from one class of persons— namely, the landlord class, and persons of one creed—Protestants—saturated as they were with social prejudices—that it was, therefore, all the more essential that the paid and Resident Magistrates who were appointed should be men of high mind and independent judgment, who would go upon the Magisterial Bench among the unpaid magistrates in order to keep the inferior members of the Bench in a right path, and use their influence with them in favour of impartiality and even-handedness in the administration of justice. The Resident Magistrates ought to show their activity

  1817
  in deprecating all prejudices; they should endeavour to urge upon the unpaid magistracy the necessity of equally administering the law among different classes of men, and should provide this limited security, at all events—that whenever an unpaid magistrate was inclined to obey the bigotry of creed, or unduly to favour prejudice, a paid official should be there to point out how he ought to administer the law, and, at any rate, to dissent from their action when they refused to take his counsel. The country had a right to expect that men who were so highly paid by the State would use their influence on the side of impartiality and justice. Unfortunately it was not often that the paid magistracy of Ireland answered that description; its members were too frequently old soldiers or old sailors who had lived all their lives among persons of this particular class, and who made their appearance on the Bench of Ireland saturated with old prejudices. A paid magistrate was probably the younger son of a landlord who could get nothing else to do, and the paid magistracy had come to be regarded very much as the Church of England was once—namely, as a place where a comfortable living could be found for those who were fitted for nothing else. If the Government really desired to impress the people of Ireland with a sincere desire to inaugurate a new era and to make the law respected, one of their first steps ought to be to consider seriously the class of men whom they selected as Resident Magistrates. He was not speaking of one class more than another. There were good men of all classes, just as there wore bad men, and it would be very easy for the Government to obtain the services of men who, if they were not trained in the law, would at least have some knowledge of the law, and be actuated by good intentions without being identified with either one side or the other in Ireland. Ho was afraid that the era foretold by the right hon. and learned Attorney General a short time ago was not yet quite at hand. It was all very well to talk of getting rid of religious prejudices in connection with Irish affairs; but the best way to hasten that time would be to take care to have, on every Magisterial Bench in Ireland, a man who, by his character and training, would not
  1818
  be inclined to lean to one side or the other, but who, in the name of the Government, would stand out firmly for a fair and equal administration of justice. The unpaid magistracy were very much like a flock, of sheep—if they were led by one of themselves they would mostly go the wrong way; but if a paid magistrate were in every district among them he would take a firm and independent stand, and it would be found that very few Benches of local Justices would feel inclined to go against him. Ho might illustrate that by a fact which had occurred in the count}' of Sligo. Some time ago a well known gamekeeper—George Garton—went into a public-house to drink, and in the course of a squabble which ensued he knocked down a man, made an assault on the police, resisted arrest, defied any Papist to interfere in the matter, fired off his revolver, and when taken to the station took out a jack-knife to defend himself. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that that particular gamekeeper had for a long time kept this part of the country in a state of terror and commotion. He (Mr. Sexton) had had occasion, more than once, to call attention to his conduct. Garton went about firing off his gun in the yards of peaceable inhabitants, and he had excited so much hostility and resentment by his unprovoked acts of aggression that he had to go about escorted by the Emergency Police. A temporary barrack had been planted for his accommodation, and he (Mr. Sexton) was now told that it would become a permanent charge upon the locality. All that expense had been incurred solely for the sake of one ill-conditioned person who was a pest to the whole district. Attempts had been made to get his licence to carry arms taken away, but they had failed. It was then requested that some other Resident Magistrate should adjudicate upon the case; but the authorities replied that the Resident Magistrates were engaged elsewhere, and it was impossible to send one there. In the particular instance to which he had referred the case was proved up to the hilt; several witnesses spoke of seeing the man quarrelling in the road; they saw him strike a man without provocation, and then fire his revolver. The plea put forward in his behalf was that the revolver

  1819
  went off of itself. But it was an old Colt revolver which could not go off of itself, and very deliberate action was required to fire it off. Three charges were brought against him. The first was that he was drunk, and had unlawfully fired off firearms; the second was that he had unlawfully made use of firearms on the Queen's highway; and the third that he had assaulted the police in the execution of their duty. Could any man suppose that if a member of the popular Party in Ireland had been brought before a Resident Magistrate upon such a charge he would not have been sent to prison with all the hard labour that could be imposed upon him? In this case the punishment for the first offence was a fine, for the second also a fine, but for the third charge a man, on conviction, was liable to suffer six months' hard labour. But what happened to this man, George Carton, this riotous gamekeeper, who had been the principal cause of the proclamation of the district, and of the employment of an extra police force? Simply because he happened to be in the employment of Mr. Evelyn Ashley, the Member for the Isle of Wight, although the evidence was quite clear upon all the three charges, when a paid magistrate came to hear the case he found himself surrounded by friends of the man's employer. Having heard the evidence they retired and deliberated for an hour. He would do the Resident Magistrate the justice to suppose that he was engaged during the whole of that time in remonstrating with the other members of the Bench. He did not know how he could have been otherwise engaged for an entire hour. It could only be supposed that Mr. Henry Turner, the paid magistrate, was trying to bring his unpaid colleagues to reason. But when they returned into Court they held that of the three charges the drunkenness was not proved, although the man was staggering and falling about the road. They held further that the revolver went off accidentally; but they found him guilty of an assault upon the police, and for that offence they fined him £2. That was the way in which justice was administered in Ireland. He could only regard it as an exasperating farce, and the whole case terminated with a simple fine upon a blackguard for whose protection a police force had been saddled upon the district and made
  1820
  permanent. The inhabitants had repeatedly expressed their indignation. Why was an ill-conditioned man of this sort allowed to carry firearms? If he had not had this revolver in his pocket it was possible that he would have been much less aggressive and impudent, and he would have made himself far less offensive if he had known that in all probability he would have had to defend himself with his fists. So long as cases of this kind were tolerated in Ireland the administration of justice in that country would be looked upon with contempt. The people saw that a chartered bully, because he happened to be in the employment of a popular Member of Parliament, could do what ho pleased; that he could get drunk, fire off his revolver in the high road, and have a police barrack erected for his protection. He (Mr. Sexton) had no doubt that the Attorney General, in appointing magistrates, always endeavoured to get the best men; but the best men were those who administered the law, and if this state of things were to be continued no respect whatever could be felt in Ireland for the administration of the law. Before he sat down he would like to know how it was that the Earl of Belfast had been so long retained in an important office in connection with the Commission of the Peace in the county of Antrim? At one time the noble Earl was in the 6th Regiment of Foot, and was regularly employed with his regiment, nevertheless he had been for 35 years Clerk of the Peace for the county of Antrim. Ho had drawn from that office in salary and fees about £1,600 a-year, and, therefore, he had picketed from the public purse not far short of £60,000. But in the course of the 35 years during which he had been Clerk of the Peace he had never once been seen in the county of Antrim. He had never lived in that county at all, nor had he lived in Ireland; and if all the records were searched for the name of the Earl of Belfast it would be found that he had no address to which a letter could be sent except London. He employed a deputy at £200 a-year out of the £1.600 he received to do all the work. Yet the law declared that the Clerk of the Peace should sign certain documents—for instance, the Clerks of Unions sent in the list of voters and a list of claimants in order that they might be placed before

  1821
  the Revising Barrister. But the Earl of Belfast had signed none of those lists. The duty had been discharged by his deputy, and strong doubts had been expressed whether the law had not been violated, and whether the last election for the county of Antrim, which took place not very long ago, was not invalid because the Clerk of the Peace had not done any of those acts which the law declared he ought to do. The Earl of Belfast was the son of the Marquess of Donegal, and in the course of nature he would become a Peer. Was it legal that he should be Clerk of the Peace and a Peer of the Realm at the same time? Ho thought the case was unprecedented. The noble Earl's father was more than 80 years of ago, and not likely to live very long. How did the Earl of Belfast acquire those fees? What was the tenure of it? Was there any possibility of his getting rid of it? It was a gross scandal that a man who had never done a stroke of work, and who lived regularly in London, should draw £1,600 a-year for 35 years as Clerk of the Peace for the county of Antrim; a man who had not even an address in Ireland. In these days, and in the present position of public affairs, he thought they had arrived at a time when persons of this kind would not be tolerated in preying as sinecurists upon the public purse. He asked the Government to inform him whether there were no means of relegating the Earl of Belfast to that private life he was so fitted to adorn, and to replace him in the office of the Clerk of the Peace in the county of Antrim by some person legally competent to perform the duties of the office?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the case which had been mentioned by his hon. Friend of Mr. Evelyn Ashley's gamekeeper was one which ought to be looked into. It was simply scandalous that, because a man happened to be in the employment of the hon. Mr. Evelyn Ashley, and that Gentleman happening to be an official of the House of Commons, and a local landlord of high station, that this fellow should be able to disturb the peace of an entire locality, and bring upon it the stigma of having an additional police force quartered upon it, the inhabitants being compelled to pay the extra taxation that was rendered neces-
  1822
  sary. He, therefore, trusted that the Chief Secretary would be able to say that a case of this kind would be carefully looked into. Of course, the Chief Secretary could in no way interfere with the action of the magistrates in regard to it—that was all done and gone; but he could consider whether the licence to carry arms ought not to be taken away. Certainly, a man who wont about the country drunk, and threatening the lives of Her Majesty's subjects, was really not a fit person to be entrusted with a licence to carry arms, especially when he had been convicted of firing off a revolver upon the highway. The case was a notorious one, and had been brought before the House several times by his hon. Friend; but hitherto his hon. Friend had found it impossible to obtain any satisfaction. He (Mr. O'Connor) had no hesitation in saying that the real reason was that this man had very powerful protectors; but he thought that even the high position of Mr. Evelyn Ashley ought not to be sufficient to protect the man from the ordinary process of the law. As to the second case which his hon. Friend had brought before the Committee—namely, the extraordinary anomaly of allowing the Earl of Belfast to hold the position of Clerk of the Peace in the county of Antrim—he trusted that that also would receive attention at the hands of the Government.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought it was necessary that he should stop the hon. Gentleman at once; and he regretted that he had not stopped the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) from entering into a discussion of this case. There was no item in the present Vote which affected either the gamekeeper, who had already occupied so much of the time of the Committee, nor did he find any reference in the Estimate to the Earl of Belfast. Indeed, he saw no mention of the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Antrim; and, therefore, the two matters which had been referred to at such great length ought not to occupy the further attention of the Committee. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was only now repeating the remarks which had already been made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
  MR. SEXTONwished to point out that the Vote included an item for the

  1823
  payment of Resident Magistrates in Ireland, and one of those Resident Magistrates was Mr. Turner, who, as he thought, had adjudicated wrongly and scandalously in the case of this gamekeeper. He was questioning the acts of the Resident Magistrate in the particular case to which he had called attention. So far as the Earl of Belfast was concerned, he had referred to that case in connection with the Vote for the office of Clerks of the Peace, and his object was to call attention to a circumstance which was regarded in the county of Antrim as a serious grievance.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must adhere to his ruling that it would be irregular to enter into those cases. So far as the Clerk of the Peace for the county of Antrim was concerned, although there was no mention of that officer in the Vote, he was far from saying that such matters should not be alluded to incidentally; but it would not be in Order to discuss at length the position of the Earl of Belfast in this particular county or in Ireland.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should not have risen to address the Committee at all if the Chief Secretary had given any sign that he intended to reply to his hon. Friend. He would only add that it was a scandalous thing that any man should receive a salary for so many years without performing any service for it whatever. The case put forward by his hon. Friend in regard to this nobleman might have an important effect in regard to future legislation for Ireland. His hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) had already expressed an opinion that the recent election for the county of Antrim was rendered illegal by the non-performance of his duties by the Earl of Belfast.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, he should like to say one word as to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in the earlier part of his remarks. In regard to the question of Resident Magistrates, there was a reduction in the Vote, although not a large one. amounting to £521. In regard to the question of extra magistrates, it seemed to him that the point raised by the hon. Member was entirely a question for the administration of the law in Ireland. The hon. Member re-
  1824
  joiced that it was not proposed to re-enact the Prevention of Crime Act; but he must remind hon. Members that if the Government allowed that Act to lapse, they wore, at the same time, responsible for the preservation of life and property, and for the proper administration of the law in Ireland. If any further reduction could be made in the Vote, it would be a good omen for the future of the country; but the present Government had been but a very short period in Office, and there were questions which should only be dealt with on mature consideration. The hon. Member had alluded to the case of a gamekeeper in Sligo. It was the first he (Sir William Hart Dyke) had heard of the case, and he could only reply in regard to it as he would reply in any other case; that if full information were placed before him he would consider it his bounden duty to deal with it according to its merits. The hon. Member had also alluded to the case of the Earl of Belfast. He thought his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had more information upon that case than he had, and he would ask his right hon. and learned Friend to explain the state of the matter with regard to the position held by the Earl of Belfast. He did not think he had any further remarks to make, and ho trusted that after the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) heard the observations of the Attorney General he would be satisfied, and would allow the Government to take the Vote.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he was not aware that any reference was about to be made to the case of the Earl of Belfast as occupying the position of Clerk of the Peace for the county of Antrim. He was unable to do more than give an explanation of the circumstances under which the Earl of Belfast occupied that position. He was quite willing to admit that the appointment of Clerks of the Peace had once been in a very unsatisfactory position. The position in which the Earl of Belfast stood was practically this—he occupied the position of Clerk of the Peace for life, and had virtually a freehold property in the office. He could not be dispossessed of his rights, and he had the right to appoint a deputy, and as long as that deputy discharged his duties faithfully there were no means by which the Earl of Belfast could be forced

  1825
  to attend personally to the business of the office, or could be held responsible for any neglect of his duties. In 1877, when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was Chief Secretary for Ireland, a Bill was passed, the object of which was to bring into a position more in accordance with modern ideas the status of the Clerks of the Crown and Clerks of the Peace. The effect of the Act was to amalgamate the two offices, and to render it obligatory on the gentlemen who wore appointed to perform the duties in person, for it was expected that when a new appointment was made the officer appointed would discharge the duties not only nominally but personally. That Act contained certain provisions which were intended to induce Clerks of the Crown and Clerks of the Peace, who were not performing the duties personally, to retire on equitable terms, and the scale offered to them was a pension amounting to two-thirds of their salary. He was happy to say that in a great many instances the object of that Statute had been carried out; and in many counties, where in the year 1877 there was a Clerk of the Crown or a Clerk of the Peace who for many years had had no connection with the county at all, those gentlemen were induced to retire on the terms offered to them, and the gentlemen who had been appointed since were bound to give personal attention to their duties. But the Statute to which he referred did not provide, nor could it do so, that a person who was entitled to a freehold office, and who was permitted to discharge the duties by deputy, should be deprived of his office. It was left to the gentlemen who held those appointments to avail themselves of the provisions of the Statute, and in some instances they had done so, while in others they refused to do so.
  MR. SEXTONasked how many of those freehold offices were still existing?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, he did not believe that there were more than two or three, and the Earl of Belfast held one of them. The position of the Earl of Belfast was this—lie was appointed at a time when he had a right to nominate a deputy. As one of the terms of his appointment he had that right of appointing a deputy, and so long as the deputy discharged
  1826
  his duty so long would the Earl of Belfast have a right to be continued in the office. That arrangement could only be of a temporary character, because the Statute removed the anomaly in regard to fresh appointments. No doubt, in the course of a few years, all the officers appointed as Clerks of the Peace under the old system would cease; and he, for one, would not be sorry for it. It was the Government of the Earl of Beaconsfield which first directed the attention of the Irish Executive to the matter; and although it was impossible to go further at present, unless those officers retired of their own free will, in the course of a few years the legislation of 1877 would be carried out to the full extent, and there would he in Ireland, and in every county, a real Clerk of the Peace and Clerk of the Crown actively engaged in performing the duties of the office personally, and not by deputy. As a matter of fact, it was an arrangement which was already almost completely carried out in every county in Ireland.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had referred to an opinion he had expressed in regard to the recent election for the county of Antrim. He was under the impression that the duties of the Clerk of the Peace in reference to Parliamentary elections were bound to be carried out by that officer in person. He might be mistaken, but he had a strong impression to that effect, and that the personal attendance of the Clerk of the Peace was made compulsory. In this particular case the Earl of Belfast had never put his hand to an hour's work; he had never done anything for the county whatever, and yet he had drawn from it an annual salary which amounted, during the years he had held the office, to nearly £60,000. He certainly thought that that was purely an imposition upon the taxpayers.
  MR. SEXTONasked from whom, and in what form, this gentleman acquired the office, and were they to understand that Parliament had no power to pass an Act obliging him to retire?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, that Parliament, of course, had power to pass any Act it pleased; but the rule, in matters of this kind, was that a person should not be interfered with as long as he conducted the business of the office properly. In

  1827
  this case the Earl of Belfast had the rig-lit to appoint a deputy, and so long as the deputy faithfully performed the duties the rule was that he should not be interfered with. The only thing the Statute of 1877 did was to hold out inducements to those gentlemen to retire, and to make a different arrangement when the office became vacant. He was quite sure that the hon. Member would not, for the sake of the two or three gentlemen who were holding appointments vested in them before the Act was passed, and who were acting, unquestionably, under powers given them by Statute, interfere with a principle which was founded on what was generally considered to be just in such matters.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the Lord Lieutenant had the power of making the appointment, or, if not, who had?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDthought that at the time the appointment of the Earl of Belfast was made it was in the gift of the Lieutenant of the county, and the person appointed had the right to hold the office during his life, and could not be deprived of it or the emoluments attached to it, except some malfeisance was shown in connection with the performance of the duties. The Clerk of the Peace himself had the right to appoint a deputy, and as long as he performed his duties properly no change could be made.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that it was the great desire of the Government to carry out the law. But this Vote was itself a violation of the law. There was a violation of the law last year, and a violation of the law the year before. The Resident Magistrates were allowed certain salaries by Act of Parliament, which were fixed and limited to a certain sum; but some of those Resident Magistrates were receiving a salary in excess of the sum allowed by Act of Parliament. That fact had been pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it was not the first time that attention had been called to a similar circumstance. No doubt the late Government were responsible for these Estimates, and on those occasions when a flaw was pointed out they brought in a Bill to cover the illegality; but that Bill did not pass
  1828
  into law, and he was not aware that any satisfactory explanation had yet been given. Therefore, those payments in excess were still illegal, and were altogether contrary to the law, which the Chief Secretary was so anxious to see administered. The observation which was made by the financial officer of the Government in regard to the matter was that the Vote for the Resident Magistrates included payments to them in excess of those which were authorized. That expenditure was provided for in a Supplementary Estimate, and the payment was not made until the Supplementary Estimate was passed. In order, however, to put the matter right, the late Government introduced a Bill; but it did not become law. The payments in question were illegal, and had remained illegal; and yet it was proposed now to continue the illegality. If hon. Members would look at the Estimates, they would find that a sum of £43,000 was voted last year, and that there was also a Supplementary Vote amounting to £1,000, making a total of £44,000. The Estimate this year was still £44,000 odd, so that those payments, which were admittedly illegal, were to be continued in the present year. If the late Government had continued in Office, they would certainly have had this matter brought before them. The last three Chief Secretaries were perfectly well aware that the Vote had been challenged. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was also aware of it, and yet not a single one of those officials was present to defend their own Estimates. It really seemed as if the Liberal Party cared for Office, and nothing but Office. When the occasion arrived when they certainly would be expected to defend the Vote they had themselves drawn up, and which they knew would be challenged, not a single Member of the late Government put in an appearance. Of course, the present Government could not be expected to account for these Estimates. The present Government could do no more than take the Estimates of their Predecessors; but he did not see how they could defend and recognize a clear infringement of the law. No attempt had been made to account for the omission to secure the passing of the Bill brought in by the late Government, which was intended to rectify the error they had committed, or to account for

  1829
  the non-revision of the Vote in the Estimates now placed upon the Paper. Under those circumstances, he did not see how the Government could resist the proposal to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000, which it would be illegal to disburse. He was interested to know what answer to that challenge the ingenuity of the present Cabinet could devise. He had drawn their attention to the fact, and he know, of his own personal knowledge, that the circum-stances he had stated were correct.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY(Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, that he had intended to refer to that point, and he was obliged to the hon. Member for having called his attention to the omission. It was perfectly true that four divisional magistrates had been paid a sum in excess of what they were entitled to, and it was true that it had been provided for in a Supplementary Vote. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), who at the time filled the Office of Secretary to the Treasury, did bring in a Bill last year to try and remedy the difficulty; but the hon. Member did not succeed, and, of course, during the short time the present Government had been in Office, they had not been able to prepare a Bill to deal with the matter in the remainder of the present Session. At the same time, it was quite true that he had had his attention called to the point, and he had no doubt that a warning would betaken in order to prevent a similar irregularity in the future. But the hon. Member must be aware that it had been impossible to devote to the matter the attention which it deserved; and it would not be expected that, 011 behalf of the Government, he could be prepared to say exactly how the irregularity ought to be dealt with. He would only say that the matter ought to be dealt with as soon as practicable.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £880,091, to complete the sum for the Constabulary, Ireland.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, that a Notice stood upon the Paper in his name in reference to this Vote, and it had been placed there by him as an alternative to raising the question again of District Inspector Murphy. As the Committee would remember, he had already had an opportunity of going into
  1830
  the merits of that case, and he did not propose to go again into the question. He had only risen now for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary if he had yet had time to fulfil the pledge which he bad given on that occasion to the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy)? It would be recollected that the right hon. Gentleman, on the occasion to which he referred, said that be had only had time to inform himself cursorily of the facts of the case, and that he did not see his way to granting the inquiry which was asked for; but he expressed his willingness to consider any new facts or new evidence which might be brought to his knowledge in reference to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman also gave a distinct pledge to the hon. Member for King's County on one particular point. That point was this. The acts of insubordination alleged against District Inspector Murphy were dealt with at the time they took place. District Inspector Murphy was punished for them; and the contention, therefore, was that the offence had not only been purged by the punishment then inflicted, but also condoned by subsequent commendations from District Inspector Murphy's superior officer. That point did not seem to be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman on the previous occasion, and he promised to inquire into the matter. He (Mr. Redmond) had, therefore, risen now to ask the right hon. Gentleman if ho had yet had time to fulfil that pledge, and if he would be prepared to consider any statement of new facts and new evidence which might be placed before him on behalf of District Inspector Murphy? Upon the answer he received would depend whether he pressed the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARYsaid, the hon. Member had correctly stated the nature of the pledge he had given, and he was sorry that he had not been able to carry it out as fully as he desired. He had, however, made an inquiry to a certain extent, and, as far as he could gather, the acts of insubordination on the part of District Inspector Murphy went on up to February, 1884. He had not, however, got all the information he would like to have, and it was probable that when he went over to Ireland he would be able to obtain more. As far

  1831
  as he Lad been able to ascertain, the acts of insubordination did go on until February, 1884.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not quite met the point he had raised. The question he had asked was whether the acts of insubordination had not been punished at the time they were committed, and whether the offence was not purged in consequence; further, whether, in any case, the insubordination of District Inspector Murphy was not condoned by the subsequent commendations which he received from his superior officer? The information he had obtained went to show that, up to a very recent period antecedent to his dismissal, District Inspector Murphy received favourable records from his superior officer, so that any acts of insubordination must have been condoned. He (Mr. Redmond) fully appreciated the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman, coming, as he did, new to the Office; and he was not disposed to censure the right hon. Gentleman after his statement that he had not yet had time to go as fully into the details of a somewhat complicated case as he would like. He would, therefore, be content if the right hon. Gentleman would promise to inquire further into the matter, and to consider any new facts connected with the case which might be brought before him. He was only anxious to discharge his duty to District Inspector Murphy, and to submit all the facts of the case to the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he had had an opportunity of looking at the Papers which his right hon. Friend had asked for, and he found that the first occasion on which District Inspector Murphy was reprimanded was in 1881. It was undoubtedly the fact that in 1882 he was favourably commended; but it would appear that there had been other acts of insubordination in the interim. The information he had received was to this effect. Colonel Bruce said that although it was quite true a favourable record was given in 1882, the insubordination was subsequently repeated so late as the month of February, 1884, and even down to the months of June and July in the same year. The Government had received that information; but neither his right hon. Friend nor
  1832
  himself had had an opportunity of inquiring into the nature or character of the alleged acts of insubordination which were committed in 1884. They would be fully investigated, both by himself and his right hon. Friend; and if the hon. Member had any further information to lay before the Government it would be received and duly considered.
  MR. MARUMasked for some information in regard to the manner in which the redistribution of the Constabulary had been carried out in Ireland, and what the intentions of the Government were in regard to it, especially as the redistribution affected his own county of Kilkenny. He found, in reference to the redistribution of the Constabulary which the Government had made in obedience to an Act of Parliament, that the total force for the county of Kilkenny was put down at 350. He now found, from the official documents received from the County Inspector, that the entire number for the county of Kilkenny was placed at 365; and he wanted to know what the explanation was of this increase of 15 additional constables? There had been a meeting of the magistrates to consider what force was required in the month of November at Kilkenny, and a resolution was passed asking for a reduction of 10 men. A Petition had been presented on behalf of the Grand Jury, and unanimously adopted at the last Lent Assizes, objecting to the excessive number and the extra charge for the force. No objection would be made to the extra force if it were not charged upon the rates of the county. The officials were called into the Grand Jury room, and gave information that 40 or 50 additional constables were necessary for the ordinary protection of the county without regard to the Prevention of Crime Act, and, therefore, they ought to be placed there as a regular and not as a special force. At the present moment a sum of £1,700 a-year was charged upon the rates of the county for the extra force, and the popular idea was that the extra force was not required, and that the regular force was amply sufficient to do the ordinary work of the county. The imposition of this charge was regarded by the taxpayers as a grievous evil, and the notion was that the county were called upon to pay permanently for an extra force, although in regard to the protec-

  1833
  tion of life and the preservation of peace and order the county had returned to its normal position.
  COLONEL NOLANwished to revert back again to the case of District Inspector Murphy. He thought it was somewhat extraordinary that the Inspector General of Constabulary should have power to dismiss an officer summarily for insubordination. He was of opinion that if any gentleman in the Army had such a power conferred upon him it would be certain to be abused. His temper would often get the better of him, and in such a case as not looking after the care of the pickles, or something of that kind, he would probably do some extraordinary act arising simply from ill-temper or haste. Under such circumstances, to give to any officer the power of arbitrary dismissal would be to run the risk of having the power grossly abused. He certainly failed to see why the Inspector General of Constabulary should be in a different position from a General of Brigade. This power did not, at the present moment, rest even with the Commander-in-Chief so far as the Regular Army was concerned; and whenever a charge was made against even the lowest soldier in the ranks he could not be summarily dealt with until after he had undergone the ordeal of a court martial. He did not see why a similar course should not be pursued with regard to the Constabulary. There ought to be the protection which a court martial afforded in the Army, and the court should be open to the public, so that the whole country should be made acquainted with the grounds of complaint, and should be able to see whether the person who was accused was properly treated or not. Every officer dismissed arbitrarily without inquiry would naturally smart under a sense of wrong. District Inspector Murphy was dismissed for acts of insubordination in writing letters to his superior officer. He (Colonel Nloan) had been told by an officer in the Army that he had only written two clever letters in his life, and that he had got into so much trouble about one of them that he never intended to write another. It must be borne in mind that the letters written by District Inspector Murphy only came before his superior officer; but, as they had not been produced, the House did not know whether they were
  1834
  subordinate or insubordinate. But, no matter what their character was, at any rate they had had the effect of taking away the value of 20 years' previous service. That was a very extraordinary and severe punishment, and he did not think that the power of inflicting it should be left in the hands of any one man. No matter how good a General they might have in the Army, if they conferred upon him such a power it would be resented by every officer in the Service; and he did not see why they should put the Constabulary officers in Ireland on a different footing from the soldiers in the Regular Army. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had intimated that he would inquire further into the matter. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would go fully into all the Papers, and see if the acts of insubordination alleged to have been committed by District Inspector Murphy were of such a character that so severe a punishment was rendered necessary. He had no doubt that District Inspector Murphy had written improper letters which ought not to have been written; but the Inspector General ought to have given him an opportunity of withdrawing them. The punishment which had been inflicted seemed to him to have been an unnecessarily severe punishment, and one that was contrary to all military discipline, and would not be tolerated in any Military Service in the world, not even in that of Russia. The Emperor of Russia dared not give such a power to any of his officers, and certainly the exercise of such a power would not for one moment be tolerated in the Civil Service of this country. It was a power utterly uncalled for and altogether unnecessary, and he thought that the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to inquire into the matter most carefully, and be prepared to take full responsibility for confirming the action of the Inspector General. He now proposed to enter into a different matter, which was a pure matter of business raised by the speech of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum). He objected to the manner in which the Estimates had been drawn up, and ho thought it was important to know how much was credited to each county. That fact did not appear on the face of the Estimates. He had often found fault with the manner

  1835
  in which the Estimates wore drawn up in that respect, not only in regard to Ireland, but in reference to the Army. The Government brought forward prominently something apparently small and insignificant, and included it as a permanent item. General attention was accordingly drawn to it, while more important points wore hidden away, and no attention directed to them in the Estimates. He complained that the Estimates had been so drawn up that the really important information they ought to contain did not appear on the face of them. For instance, the Estimates should show the number of Constabulary credited to each county, and the amount charged to each county for their cost. As regarded his own county (Galway), by a system of jugglery, and by not publishing the full details in the Estimates, it would appear that the county was paying for 510 men, whereas they were in reality paying for 570. He found, among other things, that, although the actual force employed in any county might be only 500, yet it appeared in the Estimates as in reality 20 per cent more, owing to deductions that were made for sickness and other causes. He thought that so large a percentage was altogether extravagant, and he had always attributed it to the natural inclination of the heads of the depot at Dublin to have everything smart there at the expense of other localities. The authorities at the depot, therefore, drew a large number of men from the counties and kept them at the depot; but they were charged upon the counties, although they were never employed there. For instance, there was a band maintained at Dublin which was contributed to by the force at large. He did not object to that band; it was a very good band indeed, and he had heard it at the Exhibition the other day; but he did object to the cost of that band being charged upon the counties. It ought to be charged upon the National Exchequer, and there ought to be someone to see that the counties were not cheated by being required to pay for the services of men who were never employed by them, but were simply maintained in order to keep things smart in a different locality. In the Army there. was a regular committee of officers to deal with the band question, and to see that no undue charge fell upon the Na-
  1836
  tional Exchequer. But that was not the case in regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary; and until they had some regular official appointed in Dublin, or had a Chief Secretary who was an Irish Member, they would never be able to deal with those matters. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would look into the question, he would find that a very large expenditure was unnecessarily incurred for work that in the Army was simply done by the Adjutant of a regiment, or by a Brigade Major in camp, or the Adjutant General in the case of a large Army. These were matters of very great importance, especially when it was borne in mind that they were dragging the county rates out of men with very small means, forming very attenuated holdings, and that they never succeeded in getting back from the landlords one-half of the amount they paid. He suggested that there ought to be a central depot from which proper men could be sent down as supervisors to the counties, and more attention would then be devoted to this question. He thought that the amount which the counties had to pay for extra police should appear clearly on the Estimates. If the Chief Secretary would look into this practice, which he (Colonel Nolan) contended ought to be entirely abolished, he thought he would be doing good service.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the subject to which his hon. and gallant Friend had referred was brought before the House four years ago, and it had also been brought prominently forward by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) during last Session. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had expressed his opinion that the system should be inquired into; and perhaps they might, under the new Government, be able to get some kind of redress. It seemed to him that the whole system in regard to this Vote was unusual, and there was one clear violation of recognized principle of Government finance which would strike anyone who had followed the Estimates for some time. On page 311 there was, under the Sub-head L, a gross charge of £34,000 for Rent of Barracks; but the sum actually charged was only £7,500, because there was a deduction of £26,000, which was obtained by stoppages from

  1837
  men accommodated in barracks (46 & 47 Vict. c. 14, s. 2). Well, he said that that appropriation under a Civil Service Vote was altogether abnormal; the Government had no right whatever to take the extra receipts in aid on a Civil Service Vote. It required the sanction of Parliament to allow extra receipts, in the case of the Army, to be taken in aid of the Vote, and not paid into the Exchequer. According to the established system, all those receipts ought to be paid into the Exchequer; but, instead of that, the sum of £26,500 had been handed over for the purpose of reducing by that amount an item of £34,000 on the Estimates. He regretted that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was not in his place, because he would have appreciated the force of that argument, and would at once have recognized the fact that those who were responsible for drawing up the Estimate had acted against the whole policy of financial administration, at any rate as far as these Estimates were concerned. The effect of this departure from established rule was that the Department was enabled to play with a largo sum of money, the appropriation of which practically escaped the control of Parliament. For his own part, he thought that the Committee would do right in rejecting this Vote, and requiring another Vote to be submitted in the proper form. Then, again, with regard to an item on page 305 for compensation for loss through being Boycotted, which last year was put down at £60. It seemed to him that the Department of the Treasury had here done a distinctly illegal thing, and the Committee had no assurance that the illegality would not be committed this year. The heading, "Compensation for Loss through being Boycotted," was printed in italics, showing that the charge was incurred last year; there was no charge for the present year. But if hon. Members would turn to last year's Estimate, they would find that there was no such heading at all. The money was not voted; it had been taken out of the baronies, and had been sanctioned by the Treasury, but not by the House of Commons. He objected to the Treasury taking upon itself to pay away public money on such a Vote as this. No doubt, several persons had lost from being Boycotted; but if they had no friends to assist them they had their
  1838
  remedy at law, and they could proceed for damages if they could prove that they had sustained special damages; but the Government had no right to spend money voted for a special service in Ireland to make good any losses sustained by those who made themselves obnoxious to persons connected with them, or because, in other words, they had been Boycotted. The whole proceeding was illegal. This particular sum of £60 was spent last year, and his complaint was that it was never voted. The Comptroller and Auditor General said that the authority for this seemed to be a Treasury letter of the year 1882. The Treasury had taken upon themselves to authorize a particular payment out of a Vote which had nothing whatever to do with it. As the Committee had no means of knowing that the same illegality would not be repeated hereafter, he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to give them an assurance that there should be no such illegal payment as this next year.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYsaid, there was a point to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in connection with this Estimate, and that was the sending of police reporters to take down the words of speakers at public meetings in Ireland. The subject had been brought under the notice of the Government in the course of a debate which took place last year, and a promise in respect of it had been extracted from one of the many Predecessors in Office of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary. On the occasion in question the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) gave a promise to the effect that, as far as possible, those police reporters should not be sent to public meetings in Ireland. For himself, the right hon. Gentleman had said he should be very glad if the authorities could be induced to say that at public meetings in Ireland, attended by Members of Parliament, shorthand writers should be dispensed with; and he had expressed the hope that that state of things would shortly pass away. However, Government shorthand writers were still sent to public meetings in Ireland, and no attempt had been made to carry out the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the

  1839
  Member for the Border Burghs. It was that of which hon. Members on those Benches complained—Government spies or reporters being still sent to the meetings. It was absurd to imagine that any Nationalist Member or speaker, addressing an auditory of his countrymen, was at all likely to be intimidated or to alter his speech by the presence of Government reporters. If he altered it in any direction, he would probably make it more extreme; he would be inclined to comment more strongly on the Government when he saw that the authorities were inclined to send down reporters. At any rate, the reporters of the police were useless; they were supposed to know how to write shorthand; but, according to the received authorities, the art could only be properly exercised by men regularly engaged in the work of reporting. Charles Dickens had said it was as difficult to learn shorthand as to learn six modern languages. Certainly, the average police reporter was not a man likely to be able to learn six languages. On former occasions in Ireland, when Daniel O'Connell found that he was being followed by police reporters, he spoke to his audience in the native tongue, and so baffled those persons. He (Mr. J. H. M'Carthy) asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to say that he would fulfil the promise given by his Predecessor (Mr. Trevelyan), and see that these particularly obnoxious persons should not be allowed to attend the meetings. They were of no use whatever, and only served strongly to irritate the Irish people, and to cause an amount of ill-feeling and disturbance which could only be injurious to the administration of any Government in Ireland. The amount of crime and disturbance in Ireland had really diminished, and he thought he was right in saying that the Judges at the Assizes had, in many cases, commented with emphasis on the remarkable absence of crime; whilst magistrates at Quarter Sessions had, in very many cases, also received the customary compliments of pairs of white gloves. Such conditions as those afforded a strong argument for removing such irritating exhibitions as the presence of police reporters at public meetings, and also a strong argument against the maintenance of extra police. There
  1840
  was another point to which he desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary There was in Cork a Resident Magistrate called Captain Plunkett, who had succeeded in making himself obnoxious by the manner in which he had acted in the ingenious manipulation of the body of which he had control. There was one point in particular to which he had called the attention of the late Chief Secretary last year, and in respect of which there had since been no alteration whatever. Captain Plunkett had an ingenious method quite his own, and, as far as he knew, not followed by any of his fellow-magistrates, of endeavouring to make the body of police under his control as obnoxious as possible to the persons with whom they came in contact. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would do well to direct his attention to that matter.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid, he had to make some remarks on the charge of £36,560 which appeared under Subhead G for Clothing. They, in Ireland, complained that vast sums of money were spent by the official class in Dublin Castle every year, and that the ratepayers derived little or no benefit or advantage from that expenditure; and that those sums of money found their way into the pockets of people in Scotland and England. Now, the labourers and artizans in Ireland had formed the idea that they had something to expect from the present Government, and certainly the labourers were justified in coming to that conclusion, because the Government were actually dealing with a measure which they hoped would greatly improve their condition. Owing to the presence in the Cabinet of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), the artizans also had formed the opinion that the present Government was interested in the industrial movement in Ireland, and were very anxious to improve the industrial condition of the country. Added to that, there was the interest which the Chief Secretary had in Irish affairs, and from all that they felt justified in believing that something would result before long. They had this item of £36,560 for clothing the Police Force in Ireland, and certainly the traders and manufacturers of Ireland thought that

  1841
  a portion of that very large sum might find its way into the pockets of the Irish people. It was a subject he knew on which the Government could not then be expected to give a final answer; but it was one worthy of the attention of the Government, and if they were anxious on the matter he was sure that they could get enough cloth for clothing their men in Ireland, although they might not perhaps be able to get the exact kind of cloth they were in the habit of using. He hoped that the subject would engage the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, because it would show that the expectations which the artizan class had formed in this matter were not quite without foundation. At one of the meetings he had had the honour of addressing lately, the people were so impressed with these ideas, that, to his surprise, he heard cheers given for the Tories, and he hoped that the result would show that the good opinion formed of them was justified. There was another subject connected with this Vote which he thought demanded explanation at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman, having been in Office but a short time, might not, of course, be able to answer him that evening fully; but he should be glad to have such a reply as the right hon. Gentleman was able to give. He asked what had occurred in the county of Waterford to justify the authorities in charging the people there with £2,000? Judging by what had been stated to be the condition of the county, they were under the impression that there was little or no crime there; and, in fact, the Chairman of Quarter Sessions had congratulated the jurors that there was absolutely no crime. The only crime committed there had been done by a soldier. There was an affray in which an unfortunate person had been killed. But in spite of that state of things in all the divisions of the county, the Government still charged this peaceable county £2,000 a-year for extra police. The right hon. Gentleman, as he had said, might not be in a position to give a satisfactory explanation of that very heavy charge on this county; but he asked him to communicate with the authorities in Ireland, and to state to the House at a future day what had justified the use of extra police in the
  1842
  county of Waterford. If the right hon. Gentleman preferred it, he would put a Notice on the Paper for Tuesday, and by that time probably the right hon. Gentleman would be able to state the particulars of the case.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to join with his hon. Friend the Member for Athlone (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) in his comments upon the irritating and useless custom of sending police reporters to public meetings. The practice would be objectionable under any circumstances; but it became not only objectionable, but folly, when applied to Members of the National Party in Ireland. The Orangemen in Ireland might do as they pleased; they might defy the law, they might threaten to kick the Queen's Crown, and yet the Government never interfered. They never sent a reporter, still less one of Gurney's staff, to take down those flowers of rhetoric. But if a Nationalist addressed a meeting in the most proper language he would find that there were two reporters at least taking down his words. He had himself been often obliged to provide those reporters with chairs at the meetings he had attended during his stay in Ireland, and to place them in a position of safety. He know that words uttered by someone else at a meeting had been attributed to him by official reporters; and if Gurney's reporters made a mistake, how much more likely were police reporters to do so in these cases? If a meeting were illegal it could be suppressed; but it was exceedingly mean to endeavour to entrap speakers at Provincial meetings by sending police reporters there. If the Government wanted to prosecute a man they could bring him before a packed jury, and Messrs. Bolton and Anderson would do it for them in a moment. Therefore, ho did not see why so much care should be taken to send these reporters to public meetings, because nothing in the nature of accurate evidence was necessary, unfortunately, to get a conviction. Ho hoped that no more would be heard of this practice. He thought the time had come when they might claim an explanation from the Government on the subject of extra police; and he trusted that they would henceforward give up these extra police altogether. Now that life and property in Ireland were safe, and there was

  1843
  nothing but ordinary crime to deal with, I he trusted that the Government would fall back on the ordinary law. He said that the people of Ireland should be relieved of charges under this head, and not be required to pay any more than for the actual quota of police employed. Then, he would ask whether it was a fact that some of the Irish police were employed in Great Britain? He remembered that not long ago some Irish policemen followed respectable Irishmen in London. He himself happened to be once at a restaurant with a friend; he was told that there were detectives present; his three friends took a cab, and the detectives also took a cab; they went to the Princess's Theatre, and the three detectives went there too. He gave the present Government credit for stopping short, in some degree, of the imbecility which the late Government had displayed in the management of Irish affairs. He understood, however, that there was still a corps of about 50 Irish detectives in Great Britain, and that those men, distributed over Liverpool, Leeds, Glasgow, and other large towns, still lurked about public halls where meetings were held; they were always to be found in the vicinity. There were other capacities in which those men could be employed, if necessary, that would be of more use to the State. Then, again, the funds given for the preservation of rivers were not effectual, at any rate they had not the effect of making those who received the money carry out the law. Only a short time ago, at Gweedore, where two or three English gentlemen leased a portion of a salmon river, a boy of 15 was found in possession of a spear or gaff. He was instantly seized by a constable, and accused of endeavouring to take salmon. That incident occurred in the middle of the day, when the constable clearly had no right to interfere; however, he took upon himself to do so; and when the mother of the boy came on the scene, and endeavoured to protect her child, the policeman drove the spear into her wrist. The boy was taken to the police barrack and locked up. The father went there and demanded his son's release; but that demand, notwithstanding that the case was one for the issue of a summons, and not for summary arrest, was refused. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary say whether or not the police were to be allowed to
  1844
  continue conduct of that kind? It was not the duty of the police, nor the duty of the Government, to allow the police to make themselves the agents of private persons for the protection of their private interests. The people who had salmon rivers ought to watch and preserve those rivers by means of their own keepers and water bailiffs, or, if they did not, the duty should be undertaken by the Conservancy Boards. At any rate, the police should not turn themselves into the under-strappers of the people who owned salmon rivers. There could be no doubt that the expenditure of this million and odd of money, according as its distribution was good, tended to the promotion of peace and order in Ireland, and according as it was ill-judged and corrupt tended to disorder and discontent. He contended that the secret of success with the Constabulary Force was this—to keep the men at their proper duty. The vicious principle adopted by the Irish Government in the past had practically resulted in this—that the honest policeman who did his duty fairly between man and man had slight chance of promotion; whilst the constable who put on list flippers and listened in door ways, who collected the gossip of neighbours, suborned perjury, and threatened a prisoner that unless he swore up to the mark a terrible punishment awaited him, was the practitioner who obtained promotion. A glance at the list of honours and rewards bestowed upon the Irish Constabulary during the past few weeks would show that the trickster and perjurer had had chevrons and stripes and money benefits conferred upon him, and had been lauded in the Reports of the Constabulary, whilst the man who had contented himself with an honest. performance of his duty had been left to starve on his legal salary. Would they, he would like to ask, have a repetition of the case of the policeman Barclay, who disguised himself as a blacksmith, at Tubbercurry, and worked there at a forge? The Government had sent that man down there in a blacksmith's jacket, had supplied him with the means to light a forge, and as he had gone on with his work he had attempted to lure innocent young men of the district into crime. Would conduct of that kind be repeated? He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would never allow the

  1845
  Queen's uniform to be so degraded in the future, nor allow public money to be so misapplied. The case of Constable Lynch, at Barbavilla, was fresh in the minds of hon. Members. That man had obtained evidence by telling a man that unless he swore to a meeting at Widow Fagan's to put certain persons into penal servitude he would have to go into penal servitude himself. Then there was the case of Sub-Inspector Gibbons, who had worked up the Maamtrasna trials. He had worked up the case so as to satisfy a Green Street Special Jury; but who was satisfied with that case now? The Government had had to re-open it; and it had been a cause of grave social excitement in Ireland, and would continue to be so until it was settled. The spectre of Myles Joyce, hanged for a crime with which he had had nothing to do, would haunt every Irish Executive until his memory had been vindicated. They found that such was the favour secured in Ireland by Sub-Inspector Gibbons through sending an innocent man to the gallows and four innocent men to penal servitude that he was able to hold the positions of District Inspector of Irish Constabulary and Lieutenant Colonel of the Egyptian Forces—he did not know whether there was any pay attached to the latter post. Inspector Gibbons was a "Bey" in Egypt. There was no reward which was too great for the man who either committed a useful perjury himself, or induced someone esle to do so; and he trusted that in this matter the Government, would in the future pursue a course at right angles with that hitherto adopted. He would give two instances to exhibit the kind of fair play practised by the police in Ireland. The other day, at Dungannon, the Orange faction lit bonfires in celebration of the anniversary of the day which threw Irish Catholics into misery. That was painful to the Catholics—it was virtually celebrating their subjection and their misery, and they could not tolerate it; but the police stood round those bonfires. They not only allowed them, but bestowed upon them the favour of their presence. Well, in Kilkenny the other night, a Catholic Bishop was coming home from Rome. He was a Prelate of so eminent a zeal, and of so keen a desire for the social harmony of all classes of the Irish people, that he (Mr. Sexton) did not
  1846
  think respect for him was limited to one class. But while the procession was passing along the street a lieutenant threw up the window of the barrack, thrust his sword out, and shouted to the crowd that they were "rebels, Fenians, and Papists." He repeated that proceeding on the return of the procession, and if it had not been for the influence exercised over the people by the eminent Prelate they were honouring the town would have been in a state of tumult and disorder. As an evidence of the partial manner in which the law was put into force in Ireland, it would suffice to again call attention to the case of Sub-Sheriff Ormsby, himself a guardian of the law, who was found the other day, lying drunk and helpless in the street, and was carried away by the police on a stretcher. That gentleman was not brought up at the police court and charged with drunkenness as an ordinary citizen or peasant would have been; and he (Mr. Sexton) could not, under those circumstances, help reflecting that in connection with any further legislative measures which might be considered necessary for Ireland the Government would recognize the fact that those laws were best which were best administered. All the Government had to do to make the Constabulary Force effective and remove its unpopularity was to teach each man in it that the countenance of authority and the favour and good-will of those who were set over him would depend on his remembering every day of his service, and in every action of his life, the terms of the oath he took on entering the Force, which was to "do his duty without fear, favour, or affection, without malice or ill-will."
  MR. LEASTsaid, that before the Chief Secretary got up to reply he should like to ask what the intention of the Government was with regard to the employment of extra policemen. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had pointed out that owing to the fact that the Prevention of Crime Act was to die out the extra police force quartered under that Act would have to be withdrawn. The number of extra police who had been quartered on the people under that Act was merely nominal as compared with the number quartered on them under the Act of William IV. After a great deal of cross-questioning the Irish Members had elicited from

  1847
  the then Chief Secretary the information which they now had before them as to the number of extra men the ratepayers of Ireland had had to pay for the last 10, 12, or 15 years. In fact, so long had that being going on, and so little attention had been paid to it by the Government of the day, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) had been actually unable to state the period during which many thousands of men were stationed in certain districts in Ireland—for instance, in the county of Cork, where the annual charge on the rates for those men was not less than £10,000. When the Irish Members asked under what circumstances those men had been stationed there, the Chief Secretary had been absolutely unable to afford them any information whatever. The expiration of the Prevention of Crime Act would relieve the people from taxation for extra police to a certain limited extent; but the people objected to pay the remainder. When they took into consideration the question of the redistribution of police in Ireland and the reduction of the total number of constables in that country, the Government should have borne in mind the great difficulty they had experienced in collecting the extra police tax in certain parts of Ireland. For instance, in the county of Cork, it was only when goats, and donkeys, and other property were seized that the authorities had been able to obtain this 2s. or 3s. a-head from the ratepayers. In many places processes had been issued for 2d., 3d., and 6d., and so on. The payment of the tax was frequently resisted. The people resisted it because they believed there was no necessity for those extra men at all. The county of Cork had been singularly quiet for the past two or three years. In fact, there was scarcely a Quarter Sessions where the Chairman did not consider it his duty to comment on the marked absence of the crimes which might render the imposition of that tax necessary. If there had been any reason for the quartering of extra police on them the people would have been glad to pay the tax; but no such reason could be assigned. The quartering of the men on the ratepayers was an injustice. With regard to the number of extra men in Cork City, the hon. Gentleman the
  1848
  Leader of the Irish Party (Mr. Parnell) had, on more than one occasion, raised a question in that House, and for a long time he had been unable to get the Chief Secretary of the day to accede to any alteration in the law, or to any reduction of the extra police force in the City. But at the end of last Session he induced the Government to give a promise that a short Act would be passed which would enable the Lord Lieutenant to redistribute the free force in Ireland with a view to relieving such a City as Cork of the enormous charges which were now put on it for this extra force. He would remind the Committee that the amount paid by the ratepayers of the City of Cork in respect of extra police had been very close on £20,000. It could not be denied—indeed, no Member of the Government of the Queen had ever sought to deny—that Cork was one of the most peaceable cities in the United Kingdom. The criminal records showed in a most conclusive manner that crime and disorder were singularly absent from the South of Ireland. Under those circumstances, why it was that the ratepayers of Cork should be subjected to an annual charge of £1,000for the purpose of keeping up this enormous force was more than he could understand. Of course, those who were acquainted with the circumstances of the last couple of years would attribute it to the fact that they had in their midst in Cork a gentleman named Captain Plunkett, a gentleman who, for his own glorification, kept no less than 20 constables about him, either in plain clothes or in uniform. The presence of this person in the City was enough to drive people to desperation. The fact of his being seen strutting about with nothing to do and followed by a large number of policemen was quite enough to irritate the people and make them disorderly'. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would, perhaps, tell the Committee in reply to these observations what the Government intended to do with these official Resident Magistrates on their offices being abolished. What Captain Plunkett and his men did he did not know. They did not do ordinary street duty—they were never known to do more than arrest a man or prevent a street fight now and then. As to regulating the traffic or doing anything of that kind they would not stoop to it. It

  1849
  was altogether below them. The police in Ireland sought to exercise over the people more control than even the magistracy exercised in England, or, perhaps, in any other part of the world. The state of things in the City of Cork was this. The free Police Force was nominally 150 men, but in reality it did not number more than 140; because, for some reason or other which did not appear quite clear, eight or 10 men were generally away from the City—or, at any rate, the people did not see them. No return was made of them, but the Government charged for them and for an extra force, notwithstanding that if the City had the full number of the free police, 150 men, the peace would be efficiently preserved, and there would be no necessity for an extra force in the place at all. But, putting that aside, on the basis of population the City of Cork was entitled to a free force of 170 men, and there were there at the present time about 170; but of that number the Government charged for 29 or 30 as an extra force. That was, they charged as extra men those who supplied the places of the absent members of the free force to the number of eight or 10 men, as he had just stated, and 20 men besides who were stationed in the city over and above the free force. Ho maintained that if the Government did not give the City the full complement of free police that it was entitled to—that was 150 men— and if they continued to quarter a number of extra police on the ratepayers, they were bound to pay for those extra police out of the Imperial Funds. They had no right to levy a rate for them. The City, as he had said, was entitled, on the basis of population, to a free force of 170 men; therefore, nothing could be more unjust than to charge it for 30 extra policemen when it was really nine or ten short of its legal complement. He trusted that in the redistribution of the Constabulary Force that must take place, under the Act of Parliament, between this and the 21st of August, the Lord Lieutenant would see his way to reducing the number of extra men all over Ireland, and that he would consider this case of Cork particularly because the people of that City were determined not to be coerced into paying an unjust rate of this kind any longer. They had resisted it for the past three or four years, and were deter-
  1850
  mined to continue resisting it, no matter what the consequences might be to themselves. Under those circumstances, he hoped that before the end of the Session the right hon. Gentleman would be able to inform the House what course the Lord Lieutenant had decided upon in regard to those extra police. He (Mr. Deasy) had put a Question to the Government the day before yesterday as to the redistribution of the Force in Ireland, but had been informed that it would be impossible to know what could be done until the 21st of August, as the actual changes could not take place before that date. Perhaps the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish officials would endeavour to make up their minds, before the time for making the change came, what they intended to do with the men.
  MR. MARUMsaid, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had alluded to the police protecting fisheries, and ho (Mr. Marum) wished there to be no misunderstanding on that point. It was true,' the police looked after the rivers, and he did not object to it so far as the Police Regulations of the rivers were concerned; but if they watched the fisheries as gamekeepers it was highly unsatisfactory. The water bailiffs under the general law were entrusted with the preservation of fish, and their duties should not be undertaken by the police. With regard to the manner in which those water bailiffs conducted themselves, he wished to remark that two months ago he had been obliged to fine one, James Lund, for firing off a loaded revolver in the public road or street. He had fined the man only 10s. A short time afterwards that man and his comrade, Patrick Foley, were out by the river, when they met two or three women who, in a larkish humour, made some shouting. The bailiffs fired their revolvers over the heads of the women. The men were prosecuted, and the defence set up was that they were justified in intimidating the inhabitants by firing their revolvers. Of course, he need not say that the magistrates took a very different view of the law, and fined both the men for what they had done. He had felt it his duty to make a representation to the Lord Lieutenant, and to express the opinion that the men should not be entrusted with firearms; but he was sorry to say that all the notice the Lord Lieutenant took of his

  1851
  complaint was to say that he would consider the matter, and so forth. Three weeks ago Patrick Foley had been brought before him at the Petty Sessions charged with being drunk, and having a revolver in his possession. Of course, they imposed upon him a mitigated penalty under the circumstances, and then he (Mr. Marum) had made a representation to the present Lord Lieutenant—a similar representation to that he had made before—declaring that the man ought to be deprived of the use of firearms. A man who had pleaded guilty to firing shots to intimidate parties, and who had then been found drunk with a revolver in his possession, was not a proper person to enjoy that privilege. The first thing the Lord Lieutenant did was to withdraw the licences of those men. That was a good augury for the future. He did not think the police should be allowed to perform the functions of gamekeepers, and that he said notwithstanding that he was interested in one of the best fisheries of the River Nore.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo had mentioned that, as far as he was aware, the police no longer attended private meetings of the National League which were held in different parts of the country since the accession to Office of the present Government. It was only three or four days since he (Mr. Molloy) had had to ask a question of the Lord Lieutenant as to the action he would take in connection with a case which had happened in his county. A meeting had been held in a certain place— merely a meeting of the people of the neighbourhood, with no strangers present. The people who attended were very well known in the neighbourhood; the meeting in fact was the usual one, and yet, for some reason which he could not explain, the police sent a considerable distance to ask permission to attend. The expense of sending, of course, had to be paid; but that was a small matter. It was the irritation caused by action of this kind to which he wished to draw attention. That irritation was exceedingly great. There was no earthly reason why the police should attend—the meeting was one of the usual weekly meetings. It was advertised in the papers, and yet the police went down and endeavoured to
  1852
  force themselves into it—a meeting of an organization which was legal in every sense of the word, and which the Government had over and over again declared to be legitimate. What, he should like to know, was the object of such a proceeding—why were police sent down to local meetings to the annoyance of people taking' part in them? It only helped to add to the expenditure; it only helped to add to the sums the Committee were asked to vote year after year. When he (Mr. Molloy) had challenged the Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary upon this subject, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the police had no right to indulge in this sort of occupation, and that instructions had been issued to them to that effect. But here was the thing going on still. The fact was that the County Inspectors and their subordinates had come to look upon themselves as superior authorities to the people in Dublin Castle. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, as he had charge of this matter, whether he would issue instructions to the police that they must no longer contravene the law as they had been doing day by day? The police had no right to interfere with those meetings. They had no more right to attend them, and force themselves into the private rooms in which they were being held, than they had to enter the dwellings of private persons in London. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to take this matter seriously in hand. If there was any necessity for him to send to a meeting in order to see that the law was not broken, let him do it; but when there was no necessity and no excuse, let him restrain the police from acting illegally.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he should like to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the manner in which the Appropriation Accounts were made out in the Estimates. In the case of one item, £134,000 in one Appropriation Account had been estimated £131,000. The system of putting down those items was not satisfactory. He should think it would be much better to give the details and to say "so much from the county of Gal way," "so much from King's County," "so much from Louth," and so on, and then the officers of the Grand Jury who had to pay the county

  1853
  rates would be able to say that they had paid over the money. He did not say that it occurred; but it was plain from the manner in which the accounts were rendered that there was great opportunity for swindling. If they looked at the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor General they would see how necessary it was to print something that the people could see, and which would account for the expenditure of this money for extra police. The receipts were so fluctuating that, in his opinion, a special account of them should be presented to the House. The receipts did not correspond with the Estimate; indeed, the Comptroller General did not know how many men were estimated for. Nominally, a certain number of men were allowed the counties; but a less number was given. The fact of the matter was, that the late Government were so ashamed of the present state of things that, instead of putting the accounts in the Estimates in order that there should be some check, they had hidden the whole thing away.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE-LAND (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, that, as was to be expected from the fact that the Vote was a very interesting one to hon. Members, the discussion had ranged over a very wide area. Many of the subjects which had been dwelt upon he had not had time to go into carefully. There were, however, one or two points to which he wished to refer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had complained of the Inspector General dismissing a member of the Force. As far as he (the Chief Secretary) understood, the power to dismiss a member of the Force did not rest with the Inspector General, but with the Lord Lieutenant, though it was very unusual for His Excellency to exercise that power without the concurrence of the Inspector General. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken of the account keeping, and had laid a great deal of stress on the fact that there was not sufficient information given in the Estimates in regard to any change or fluctuation in the accounts. It seemed to be imagined by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that under the present system there might be cheating and fraud; but he (the Chief Secretary) thought that anything like fraudulent proceedings were sufficiently guarded
  1854
  against. Personally, however, he saw no objection to granting a Return of the men in each county. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would move for the Return, no doubt the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) would be able to see his way to grant it. The hon. Members for Kilkenny and Cork City (Mr. Marum and Mr. Deasy) had referred to the question of the distribution of the free force. The maximum free force was 10,006, and it was no doubt a grievance, if the number was considerably below that maximum, that any district should have to pay for extra men. But hon. Members wore, no doubt, aware that an Act was passed this Session to guard against the possibility of such a state of things; it was one of the few Acts of Parliament passed by the late Government which mot with his cordial approval. The Act came into force on the 21st of May, and it was stipulated that its provisions should be carried out by the 21st of August next. He fancied that the difficulty mentioned by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) was one which could be brought to an end by the distribution under the Act of this Session. The present Viceroy had now an enormous number of subjects to deal with; but he (the Chief Secretary) assured hon. Members that His Excellency would take the earliest opportunity of concluding his labours with respect to the distribution of the free force. There had been considerable discussion as to the advisability of members of the free force attending meetings. It was only the other day that he was asked a Question as to a constable attending a meeting, and the answer he then gave was that if any protests were raised against his presence he had no right there. The hon. Members for Sligo and Cork City (Mr. Sexton and Mr. Deasy) had addressed themselves at some length to the question of the maintenance of the extra police. As he had said earlier in the evening, the question of the reduction of the extra police was closely allied to the question of the administration of law and order in Ireland; and he could only repeat that if the country was peaceable and a very considerable reduction of police was attained, he would be the first to welcome such a state of things. As a matter of fact,

  1855
  there had already been a very considerable reduction of extra police. Then, again, complaint had been made of the intervention of the police in fishery matters. Of course, if it could be shown to him or to the Executive that the police had been exceeding their duty, and that they had, as alleged, been acting the part of under-keepers, the matter should receive the attention it deserved. Earlier in the evening the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) complained that a sum of money—he believed it was £26,500—- which ought to have passed through the Treasury was entered in the account and balanced off against other charges in the Estimate. The sum of money was that which was stopped from those men who were accommodated in barracks; and therefore he (the Chief Secretary) did not think there could be any real grievance in the matter. A considerable time had been spent in the discussion of the Vote; he hoped that now it would be allowed to pass.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it was very evident the Chief Secretary had not yet mastered the details of a good many of the questions which had been raised in the course of the debate. That being so, he suggested to his hon. Friends that they should not press the details that night. If the right hon. Gentleman would give them a pledge that the police would be kept to their proper-duties, and would not be rewarded for exceeding their duties, he thought the Irish Members would be disposed to take it for the present as an assurance of a better spirit in the administration of the Force. He was disposed to let the Government take the Vote now, on the understanding that the next Vote relating to the prisons, which contained a good deal of contentious matter, would be a good time to report Progress.
  Vote agreed, to.
  (3.) £56,150, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Ireland.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had to make a few observations on this Vote by way of an appeal to the Government, and he sincerely trusted he would not be put off as he had been by the last Government. The Bishop of Achonry wished
  1856
  to found an industrial school to which girls under 12 who had been convicted of crime could be sent. The object was to prevent the children being contaminated by association with criminals; but as yet the authorities had not seen their way to grant the necessary certificate. A similar institution for boys had proved a great success. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who was an expert on the subject of industrial schools, would reconsider the question. He thought the Government ought to jump at such an offer made by a Prelate of the capacity of the Bishop of Achonry. He trusted the Government would assure him that they would accept the offer. It was very important that a Prelate like the Bishop of Achonry should have an opportunity of watching the children of his own district. In the public interest the settlement of this matter should be no longer delayed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON GROSS)assured the hon. Gentleman that the question of industrial and reformatory schools was one in which he took a deep interest. He did not know much about this particular case; but, at the first blush, he did not see any reason why the school should not be established. He would, however, consider the matter, and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
  COLONEL NOLANpointed out that in the Connemara district there was no industrial school for boys. The Archbishop of Tuam, who was the principal Bishop in that district, had bought laud for the purpose of establishing an industrial school at Letterfrack, a pretty part of the country, and one where there was very much land which could be easily reclaimed. If the Chief Secretary would give his sanction to the establishment of a school at that place, the institution would be found extremely useful to the people of Connemara. It would be very advantageous that the boys should be instructed in the reclamation of land, besides which the extreme beauty of the situation was not to be altogether forgotten. He hoped the Chief Secretary would look into the case; if he did, he would find that his Predecessor (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) looked upon the project with great favour, and, without making an absolute

  1857
  promise, was anxious that such a school should be established next year.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, he could not make any promise; but he would not only consult his Predecessor, but all those who were interested in the matter.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
  (4.) £13,200, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Ireland.
  (5.) £12,747, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland.
  (6.) £2,371, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous, Charitable, and other Allowances, Ireland.

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
  (7.) £15,000, to complete the sum for the Registration of Voters, Ireland.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

POOR LAW UNIONS' OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 214.]
[Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.]
POOR LAW UNIONS' OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 214.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th July.]
  [Mr. RITCHIE in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 (Short title).
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the Attorney General for Ireland would offer any explanation of the measure? Would the Board of Guardians of West-port be allowed to offer any alternative scheme in place of the one whereby the Unions of Newport and Westport were to be amalgamated?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, the Bill enabled the Union of Newport to be amalgamated with that of Westport—a process which had become a matter of absolute necessity. No doubt, the Local Government Board had already the power to abolish Unions or amalgamate them; but he did not think that power had been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, for he believed that no Union had been abolished under it. Inquiries had been held by the Local Government
  1858
  Board into the proposed abolition of the Newport Union, and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had looked carefully into the matter himself. His right hon. Friend had requested him (the Attorney General for Ireland) to state what had been the result of his consideration, which had been approached without any predilection in favour of one side or the other, and which, would probably show that there must be some misapprehension on the part of the Westport Board of Guardians. He would, therefore, state in a few words what was the view which the Local Government Board had taken. He believed there was no difference of opinion at all as to the necessity of abolishing Newport Union. The best thing that could be done with it was to abolish it in some way or other, for this reason—that the Union was not a very large one, the valuation was not great, and the expenses of workhouse management had considerably increased in Ireland. Taking those expenses in connection with the poorness of the locality, the rates of Newport had become excessive. Some remedy must be found for that state of things, and the remedy which suggested itself was to abolish the Union, as a separate Union, and amalgamate it with some other, and thereby save the greater part of the staff and house expenditure. He thought that no hon. Member could object to that being done; and the only difference of opinion was as to whether, if Newport was abolished as a separate Union, it should be handed over to Westport, or whether it should be divided between Westport, Castlebar, and Belmullet. That point had been considered, and the result was that in the interest not only of Newport, but of Westport itself, it was considered best to hand it over to Westport, and once more let it form a Union of the same kind as existed about the year 1847. So far as he could understand, the objection of the Westport Guardians was a financial objection, and they urged that while up to the present time their rates had been moderate, they would now become excessive. But so far as he could understand the figures, he thought there must be some misapprehension about this. Of course, the greater number of paupers would be charged, as at present, upon the electoral divisions. The ordinary paupers

  1859
  would be charged upon the electoral division of Newport, and in no respect whatever would they be thrown upon Westport. But there were the charges of the Union at large, which amounted at present at Westport to £1,000 a-year. The addition which would be thrown on those charges by the amalgamation would be about £135 a-year, making the total establishment charges for the amalgamated Union £1,135 a-year. Now, the Westport Union at the present time had for its rating valuation £31,000 a-year, and that would be increased by the addition of the Newport valuation by a further sum of £13,000 a-year, so that the establishment charges would be raised by £135 a-year, while the rating area would be raised by £13,000 a-year. As a matter of fact, therefore, the establishment charges would be considerably reduced, so far as each individual ratepayer was concerned, and there would be a distinct gain instead of a loss to Westport. The same thing would hold good in regard to certain other charges, which would be spread over the amalgamated Union. The result of the inquiries was that this was the best way in which a change could be made. He had only one further observation to make. It was clear that, for the sake of the inhabitants of Newport, the Newport Union could no longer continue to exist. Everyone admitted that there must be some change, and the only object of passing this Bill was to enable the change to be made in the best way for the interests of justice and the interests of the people. If the Bill was not carried the change abolishing the Newport Union must still be made, and the only result would be to inflict injustice upon those whom the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sexton) would not like to see unjustly treated. Under the circumstances, he asked the hon. Gentleman to allow the Bill to pass.
  MR. SEXTONquite agreed that the amalgamation of the Newport Union was necessary, for the ratepayers could no longer stand the burden that was thrown upon them. He only regretted that the Local Government Board had not taken pains to impress upon the West-port Guardians what were the real facts of the case; and he would ask the Government to make some effort even now to convince the Westport Guardians,
  1860
  who at present were strongly impressed with the belief that they would suffer. However, he now understood that that would not be the case; and, under the circumstances, he did not feel justified in offering any further opposition.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 242.]
(Secretary Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 242.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Sir, I wish to move the second reading of this Bill. It will not be necessary for me to take up any large amount of the time of the House in stating the contents of the measure. No doubt, there has been for some years a desire in Scotland that a special Officer should be appointed to take charge of what may be called the adminstrative part of the law of Scotland. I am quite aware, and hon. Members generally are also aware, that the Lord Advocate, acting as Under Secretary of State, has had very large powers in regard to Scotland, and it was always my privilege and my pleasure, when I held the Office of Home Secretary some years ago, to assist in Scotch legislation and Scotch administration so far as I could. But, undoubtedly, there has been a growing feeling in Scotland for a long time that the people of that country are entitled to have a separate Officer, quite apart from the Secretary of State, who should look after the affairs of Scotland. One way of proceeding was that that Officer should be simply a lawyer, like the Lord Advocate. No doubt, in former times, the Lord Advocate was not so distinctly a lawyer as he has been of late years; but the desire was that some person more intimately connected with the general wishes and feelings of Scotland, and quite irrespective of legal attainments, should deal with these matters, instead of the Secretary of State. When the Government, which immediately preceded the late Government, were in

  1861
  Office, they brought in a Bill to establish an Under Secretary for Scotland. That measure did not, however, meet with much favour, and it was withdrawn. The present Bill is not introduced for the first time, for this is the third year that it has been before the country. I understand that it has been canvassed in every part of Scotland, and that there is a general feeling in that country in its favour. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Lyon Playfair) is of that opinion or not; but, from all I can gather, the general feeling in all parts of Scotland is that a Bill of this kind should be passed, and that this particular Bill, having been threshed out for three years, has eventually come to meet the wishes of the Scottish people. For this reason I have great pleasure in moving the second reading to-night. Hon. Members will see that it transfers the whole of the duties now performed by the Secretary of State connected with the administration of the Poor Law, lunacy, public health, Fishery Boards, police, prisons, and other matters of that kind, entirely to this new Officer. [Sir LYON PLAYFAIR: And education.] I will come to that presently. I am speaking at present of the functions now performed by the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate. They will be found in the first part of the Schedule, which does not touch the question of education at all. Then, by the second part of the Schedule, it will be found that there are transferred all the powers now vested in or exercised by the Privy Council relating to the Board of Manufactures and the public health. In the third part of the Schedule the powers and duties of the Treasury are transferred to the same Officer; and when we come to the fourth part of the Schedule and to Clauses 6 and 7, I am quite aware that we shall in Committee touch a point about which there is a considerable difference of opinion—that is to say, whether the educational functions which are now carried on by the Privy Council in England shall be transferred to this Officer for Scotland or not. The 6th clause says that—
  "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty from time to time, by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, to appoint the Secretary for Scotland to be Vice President of the Scotch Education Department; and the Scotch Education De-
  1862
  partment shall mean the Lords of any Committee of the Privy Council appointed by Her Majesty on Education in Scotland."
  And by the 7th clause it is provided that—
  "After the appointment of the Vice President of the Scotch Education Department, all powers and duties vested in or imposed on the Scotch Education Department constituted under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1872, shall be transferred to, vested in, and imposed on the Scotch Education Department constituted under this Act, with the new Secretary for Scotland at its head."
  Of course, that Officer will be one of the great Officers of State in Scotland; and although he will not have all the privileges and powers of the Lord Advocate, no doubt many of the duties of the Lord Advocate will for the future be vested in this high Officer. I do not think it would be wise in me to take up any more of the time of the House, except to say this—that so far as that part of the Bill is concerned which relates to education, and which is the only contentious matter in the whole of the measure, it seems to me to be specially a matter for discussion in Committee. So far as the establishment of this Officer is concerned, I believe he will be established by general consent from one end of Scotland to the other. Whether all these functions are to be transferred to him is a question to be decided when you, Sir, leave the Chair; but at this late period of the Session, and looking to the fact that there is other Scotch Business to be brought forward, if possible, in the course of the Session, I do sincerely hope that this particular stage of the Bill may be passed to-night, I will not say without discussion, but, at all events, without any long discussion. There will be an opportunity for discussing the Bill when we move that you, Sir, do leave the Chair; and I am sure, knowing what is the feeling of the Scotch Members on this subject, and the way in which their debates are always carried on, they will have no desire to have two discussions where one would be enough. Therefore, without further detaining the House, I bog to move that this Bill be now road a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR, in moving the adjournment of the debate, said, the

  1863
  Scotch Members had been assured by the responsible Minister who had charge of the Business of the House that this Bill would not be brought on that night. There was only one Scotch Member besides himself on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and there was not a single Scotch Member unconnected with the Government on the other side, so far as he could observe. This was a Bill which extremely interested the Scotch people. It was not a Bill upon which there was a common agreement. He was opposed to it in principle from beginning to end, and he had given Notice that he should oppose it on the Motion for second reading. He had fully understood, and, indeed, had been informed—not only that day. but for several days past—that the Bill was only nominally on the Paper that night, and that there was really no intention of proceeding with it at the present Sitting. If it had been believed that it would have been brought on, the Scotch Members would have been there in an entire body, for they were extremely interested in the Bill, and it would be excessively unsatisfactory if the Bill should pass without any discussion. Of course, on a Motion for Adjournment he could not go into the principles of the measure; but he could assure the House that it would be a great disappointment to the Scotch Members if the Bill were taken that night. He did not suppose there was any breach of faith on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; but the Scotch Members had all been informed, and several of them had gone away fully under that impression within the last quarter of an hour, that there was no intention of bringing the Bill on that night. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Lyon Playfair.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)hoped the debate would not be adjourned, on the understanding, which he willingly gave, that there should be a good opportunity for discussion on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair. It seemed to him that at that time of the Session this was the only mode of dealing with such a measure. He was quite sure his right
  1864
  hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) did not desire to discuss the Bill twice, for there was really only one point to discuss. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Bill to be read a second time now.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANjoined in the appeal to his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) to allow this stage of the Bill to be taken that night, on the understanding which had just been given by the Home Secretary that there should be a proper opportunity for the discussion of the important point at issue, and any other point that might be raised on the next stage. The general question had, he thought, been pretty well threshed out and settled, for there had been a similar Bill under the consideration of the country before. Under those circumstances, it did not seem to him to be a Bill which needed so minute a second-reading discussion as ought under other circumstances to be given to it.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRconsented to withdraw the Motion for Adjournment on the full understanding that there would be ample time given for discussing the next stage, and that it would not be taken at so late an hour of the night as this, when it had come on entirely by surprise, and when the Scotch Members were not present.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday next.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(Sir Farrer Herschell, Mr. Holms.)
PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 240.] SECOND HEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General is unfortunately not present. I believe he has some objections to the Bill which he would like to place before the House, and I hope it will be understood that if we assent to the second reading now, we do not at all pledge ourselves to anything with regard to the further progress of the measure. It may be necessary for us to move Amendments of an important character to the Bill.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday.

OATHS BILL.— [BILL 62.]
(Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Percy Wyndham, Mr. Charles Russell, Mr. Noel, Mr. Pennington, Mr. Arthur Elliot.)
OATHS BILL.— [BILL 62.]

  SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [15th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, it was understood that at that time of the Session it was useless to proceed with Bills of a highly contentious character. He thought it would be impossible at that time to discuss a matter of this importance; and, therefore, he thought that the proper course would be to discharge the Order.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged."— (Mr. Newdegate.)
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Hopwood), it would be a very unusual course for the Order to be discharged.
  Debate further adjourned till Wednesday next.

POLICE ENFRANCHISEMENT EXTENSION BILL.— [BILL 269.]
(Mr. Coleridge Kennard, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbebtson, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, Mr. Cowen, Lord Claud John Hamilton, Mr. Robert Fowler, Mr. Reid, Mr. Houldsworth, Mr. George Elliot.)
POLICE ENFRANCHISEMENT EXTENSION BILL.— [BILL 269.]

  SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [23rd July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that at that late hour it would, in his opinion, be improper to take up a matter of this importance. The Bill ought not to have been put down at a time when there was no opportunity of going fully into the matter. The Bill proposed to enable the members of the Police Force to vote
  1866
  at Parliamentary Elections, and there was much to be said in favour of that proposal. But, on the other hand, there were some serious objections to such a proposal, and the question should, therefore, be fully and fairly discussed. That could not be done at that period of the Session, and when the House was in a sense demoralized by the immediate prospect of a General Election. The question should, therefore, be deferred until after the Elections.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —{Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS)said, this question had been already prominently brought before the House. The measure only proposed the enfranchisement of capable citizens; and he sincerely hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he wished to hear the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross) on the Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he could not give his opinion on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. FIRTHremarked, that it was only a quarter past 12 o'clock, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) wished to know his opinion on this Bill, he would say that he could conceive of no more capable citizens, in the fullest sense of the term, than the police. They were men who were intrusted with important public duties, and he did not see that the character of their duties bore in any form or shape upon the question of their politics. They were placed in their position on account of their abilities;

  1867
  and it seemed to him a very hard case, seeing that they discharged a public duty, that they should not be enfranchised. He should, therefore, support the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, the police were intrusted with the preservation of the peace. But who was to prevent political feeling arising in the minds of the police, as it did in the minds of other people? He did not see that any election could take place in which they took part without their being influenced by political feeling. He thought they would place these men, for whom they had a sincere respect, in a false position if they were to intrust them with the franchise, when they were almost exclusively employed in the preservation of the peace amongst the electors. He should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Ramsay.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not agree with his hon. Friend who had just spoken. The hon. Gentleman had said that the police were the preservers of the peace. But so were the magistrates; and he never heard that, because magistrates were preservers of the peace, they ought not to be allowed to vote. There were other classes charged with that duty also, and he did not understood that soldiers and sailors were deprived of votes in respect of the duties which. they performed. There was a time when it was supposed that officers of the Inland Revenue ought not to be allowed to vote, on the ground that political influence might be exercised over them. Considering how widely they were extending the franchise in this country, he thought that a class of men, certainly not the least deserving, ought not to be excluded from it. To select them as special objects of exclusion would be both invidious and unjust. He had asked for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was mainly responsible in a ques-
  1868
  tion such as this. The right hon. Gentleman had given his opinion; and from his own knowledge of the position of the police, he should be extremely unwilling that they should be excluded from the exercise of the franchise.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, in view of the itinerant character of the police, he thought that the period of qualification in their case ought to be shortened. Ho should move that in Committee.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, he had spent some time the evening before in endeavouring to find some Statute which prevented policemen in Scotch burghs from registering their vote, and ho could find none. He therefore thought that it would be somewhat inequitable that Scotch burgh police should have the franchise, and not the English police.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was sure the House would appreciate the difficulties which some hon. Members had in supporting the Bill. He thought the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in reference to magistrates did not apply, because the magistrates were unpaid and the police were paid. That, he thought, was an important distinction. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or his Predecessor (Sir William Harcourt), had made any reference to the rules which prescribed that no part should be taken by other Civil servants in political matters, although they were allowed to vote. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to move on the part of the Government that the Secretary of State from time to time occupying his post should have power to issue regulations of a similar character with regard to the police. With that limitation, he would have no difficulty in supporting the Motion for the second reading of the Bill; but in the absence of an understanding to that effect, he should not do so.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir E. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he certainly never intended that the police should be allowed to do anything else than exercise the franchise. He would take care that a provision of the kind indicated by the

  1869
  hon. Member should be put into the Bill.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that the feeling in favour of the Bill being read a second time seemed to be so general that he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

PLURALITIES (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Acland, Mr. Edward Howard, Sir JohnKennaway, Lord Edward Cavendish.)
PLURALITIES (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 241.] COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Construction and Interpretation).
  MR. WARTONsaid, he rose to move the omission from lines 18 and 19 of the words "and shall have been required of him by the bishop." It would be recollected that on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill he had opposed these words on the ground that they appeared to give too much power to the Bishop over the clergy. He now wished to have an explanation of the meaning of the words. This was not merely a Pluralities Bill, it was really a Church Discipline Bill; and he wanted to know how they were to understand the words—
  "But also all such duties as any clergyman holding a benefice is bound by law to perform, or the performance of which is solemnly promised by every clergyman of the Church of England at the time of his ordination, and shall have been required of him by the bishop"
  Were the words really in duplication of what had gone before, or did they really refer to some particular order or injunction given by the Bishop of his own motion?
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words and shall have been required of him by the bishop."—[Mr. Warton.]
  Question proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. ACLANDsaid, the object of these words was that no clergymen
  1870
  might be taken by surprise on being found fault with.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he believed he understood the meaning of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but he did not think it was expressed by the clause. He would ask the hon. Member to agree to insert the words "and the performance of which shall be required of him."
  MR. ACLANDsaid, he would agree to those words.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 18, after the word "and," to insert the words "the performance of which."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 19, after the word "him," to insert the words "in writing by the bishop."—(Mr. Warton.)
  Amendment (agreed to.)
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 25, to leave out from the word "require" to the word "population," in line 26, inclusive, and insert the words "more than one service in the Welsh language on every Sunday in such church or chapel of ease situated in any such benefice."—(Sir John Kennaway.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Bishop may assign extra stipend of seventy pounds to curate appointed by him under sections 75 and 77 of 1 & 2 Victoria, chapter 106).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 42, to leave out all after "that," to end of Clause, and insert "any stipend or stipends so augmented shall not exceed the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, except in cases where the whole net income of the benefice exceeds the sum of three hundred pounds a year."—(Sir John Kennaway.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 9 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Two benefices may be held together by dispensation if churches within five miles of one another, and annual value of one does not exceed two hundred pounds).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 29, after "pounds," insert "or if, on one of the said benefices there be no

  1871
  church, then the distance between the two benefices, for the purposes of this Act, shall be computed in such manner as shall be directed by the bishop of the diocese."— (Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

MOTION.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HERBERT, Bill to continue various Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HERBERT and Sir HENRY HOLLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 247.]
  House adjourned at quarter before One o'clock till Monday next.