Commons Sitting of 30 March 1885

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Withdrawn—Westminster (Parliament Street, &c.) Improvements.*
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [March 27] reported—Leave—Egyptian Loan [House counted out].
Ordered— Telegraph Acts Amendment.
Committee—Report—Royal Irish Constabulary Redistribution [105].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders* [91]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* [86].

QUESTIONS.

  HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION—RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the statement by the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation, page 12, paragraph 17, that—
  "Your Committee fully concurs in the principles laid down by Sir Thomas Farrer for the selection of harbours which may be aided by means of loans at a low rate of interest, viz.:—

  (a.) That refuge and shelter should be considered more important than mere facilities to trade;

  (b.) That fishery harbours, especially when belonging to, or promoted on behalf of, poor fishermen, should be very favourably considered;"

  The recommendations of the Committee that a small Commission be appointed to inquire into this subject, with a view of determining the exact sites at which harbour works could be carried out, will be adopted; whether the recommendations to the same effect, given by the Crofters' Commission—
  "That a competent officer should visit the several localities and report upon suitable sites and probable cost,"
  will receive special attention; and, if so, how soon; whether he is aware that the Scotch Fishery Board have stated, pages 32 and 33, Report 1883, that it had intended to institute an inquiry with reference to the improvement of old and construction of new fishery harbours, but had desisted on account of the then prosecution of the investigations of the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation; and, whether, in view of these combined statements and recommendations, he will undertake, at the earliest possible date, to appoint a Commission of Experts to select sites suitable for piers and harbours?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: With respect to the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission, I must refer the hon. Member to the Home Secretary, who, I think, has already replied to a similar Question on the subject. With respect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation, there appear to be two different subjects contemplated by the hon. Member's Question. The principles laid down in Sir Thomas Farrer's evidence applied only
  966
  to loans; whereas the recommendation by the Select Committee of the appointment of a small Commission contemplated grants of public money, and not loans. The question of how best to assist harbour works by a judicious system of loans is under the careful consideration of the Government, and I hope soon to be in a position to announce their decision in the matter; but the Government are not disposed to make any alteration in the policy of successive Governments, under which they have hitherto declined to make grants of public money for harbour construction, except in cases of imperial and national necessity.

  CUSTOMS—NORTH SEA FISHERMEN— DUTY-FREE TOBACCO.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, taking into consideration the serious results arising from the presence of "coopers" or floating grog shops with the North Sea trawling fleets, and the largo amount of inferior tobacco and spirits they are accustomed to barter or sell, he will give permission that the crews of the deep sea fishing fleets in the North Sea should be allowed, through the medium of the five vessels belonging to the "Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen Society," to enjoy the same privileges with regard to duty-free tobacco as Foreign-bound sailors, with the view of putting a stop to dishonest bartering of their employers' property, drunkenness, and the prevention of smuggling?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have consulted the Board of Customs on the subject of the hon. Member's Question. I am afraid that he hardly appreciates the full extent to which his suggestion would lead us. Although he only mentions tobacco as to be made duty-free, his Question points to a similar privilege for spirits; and the result of the concession would be that through the privilege granted to this Society duty-free spirits and tobacco would be allowed to be purchased by all fishing fleets, first in the North Sea, and in the end everywhere. Having granted it to one we could not refuse it to others. I cannot consent to so serious an inroad on the Revenue, for winch I see no justification. The abuses in the North Sea trawling fleets must be cured, I think, in other ways.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCIENCE TEACHERS.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether teachers holding the degree of any University in the United Kingdom are qualified to earn results on the teaching of all science subjects on the syllabus of the Department of Science and Art, South Kensington, without undergoing examination for the Department's certificate; and, whether this rule applies alike to all science teachers in England, Scotland, and Ireland?
  MR. MUNDELLA: My answer to the first Question is, Yes; and this rule applies alike to England, Scotland, and Ireland.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) —CASE OF MRS. SOPHIA HOWE, BALLYCASTLE, CO. MAYO.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Sophia Howe, of Ballycastle, county Mayo; whether he is aware that her late husband, who had served as National School teacher for twenty-two years, had applied for his retiring gratuity, but had died a week or two before the warrant had been made out; and, whether, seeing that Mrs. Howe is left a destitute widow, with seven children, nothing can be done by the Government to secure her the advantages of which she has thus been accidentally deprived?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is one of those cases in which the teacher delayed in sending in his claim until his recovery was almost hopeless; and it has been frequently pointed out that to grant gratuities in such cases would turn the pension scheme into one of life assurance, thus throwing on the fund burdens which it has not been calculated to bear, as well as to defeat one object of the Pension Act by encouraging teachers to hold on to their schools when no longer able to discharge their duties efficiently.

  POST OFFICE—LETTER CARRIERS.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the case that the additional pay promised to
  968
  all Civil Service men in the Post Office employ, after five, ten, and fifteen years' service as letter-carriers, is being withheld in many cases on the alleged ground of there being no vacancy on the list; whether he is aware that this is regarded by the men as a breach of faith on the part of the Post Office; and, whether he can hold out hopes of their claims being met without delay?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The hon. Baronet clearly refers to good conduct stripes. These stripes are strictly limited in number, and no sort of promise has at any time been made that they would be conferred on the completion of a given period of service. What has been promised is this, and it is strictly adhered to—that after five, 10, or 15 years' service a letter carrier, provided his conduct has been good, shall be deemed eligible for one, two, or three good conduct stripes, and that as vacancies occur his claims to the distinction shall be considered with those of others.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let that be known?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Certainly.

  SCOTLAND—TENURE OF LAND IN THE HIGHLANDS, &c.—LEGISLATION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the uneasiness in the Highlands, and the fear of regrettable incidents, if he cannot bring in a Bill, he will state the general lines on which the Government propose to legislate?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that such a course as that contemplated by the hon. Member was not feasible. There was no Parliamentary method of making known the contents of a Bill before its introduction.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION) —CANNED MEAT.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the attention of the War Office has been drawn to complaints of the condition of the American canned meat and biscuits supplied to the Army in Egypt; whether it is true that hundreds of tons of the canned meat have been found to be putrid when opened, and hundredweights of biscuits in a state of decomposition; whether the orders sent to

  969
  America for canned moat have lately been increased to a total of several millions of pounds; and, whether there are not firms in this Country who are prepared to make contracts for fresh preserved moat, to be packed in this Country, on terms equally favourable to those which the American contractors are prepared to take, due allowance being made for the difference in cost of transport; and, if so, why orders which would give employment to large numbers of working people in this Country are sent abroad?
  MR. BRAND: No Report has been received showing any such extensive loss of preserved meats as that referred to. The loss of preserved meats is estimated at 1 per cent. Very large orders have been given in America. The War Office is not aware of any contractors in this country capable of competing successfully with the American contractors for this supply. On a recent occasion an attempt was made to encourage English competition; but it did not prove successful; in fact, it proved a complete failure. As regards biscuits, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 27th instant to the hon. Member for Glasgow.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: On what ground does the hon. Member assert that no English firms are able to compete for this supply with the American firms?
  MR. BRAND: I thought I stated the grounds in the answer I gave. I said that we obtained a certain quantity of preserved meat from an English contractor; but, on inspection, it turned out bad, and we had to cancel the contract.
  MR. RITCHIE: Has the War Office issued any tenders to the large manufacturers of this country?
  MR. BRAND: I cannot reply to that particular Question; but I may say that every inquiry has been made, and we believe that no English contractor can compete with the American trade.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: May I ask whether the Department are acquainted with the Messrs. Moir, who were large contractors for many years?
  MR. BRAND: Yes, Sir; we are well acquainted with the Messrs. Moir.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— DEGREE QUALIFICATIONS.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  970
  Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland recognise the Arts degrees of the Royal University, Ireland, or of any other University in the United Kingdom as a certificate of competency to teach and earn results payments in Classics, French, and the several scientific subjects included in the Board's extra branch programme; and, whether it is a fact that inspectors are liable to be called upon to examine for results in several extra branches which are not included in the programme of examination for the office of inspector?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The answer to the first paragraph of this Question is yes; but for those subjects only in which the teacher passed creditably. The Inspectors are liable to be called on as stated; but they may, as in England, claim the services of a substitute for any branch in which they do not feel themselves to be competent to examine.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—BORRIS IN OSSORY PETTY SESSIONS DISTRICT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the services of two magistrates, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Walpole, have, owing to their having obtained Government appointments which take them else-where, been lost to the Borris in Ossory Petty Sessions district; whether it is true that, during the past year, on some occasions no Sessions were held in Borris in Ossory for want of magistrates; whether the administration of justice in Borris in Ossory Petty Sessions is practically in the hands of two relatives; whether a Memorial, signed by the Roman Catholic Ordinary of the diocese of Ossory, the clergy of the deanery in which Borris Petty Sessions are held, and by the people of the district, recommending two resident Catholic gentlemen for the Commission of the Peace, was forwarded to the lieutenant of the county, and, on his failing to comply with its prayer, was sent direct to the Lord Chancellor; and, whether the Lord Chancellor has refused to appoint these two gentlemen to the Commission of the Peace for no other reason than the absence of a recommendation from the Lieutenant of the county?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is a very fair attendance of magistrates on the Borris-in-Ossory Bench, Petty Sessions having only failed there on two out of 26 occasions in the past year, and the business is stated to be very light. It is not true that the administration of justice there is in the hands of two relatives. There are one Protestant and one Catholic Justice residing in close vicinity. It is true the Lord Chancellor has declined to overrule the decision of Lord De Vesci with regard to the gentlemen named in the Memorial referred to; but he satisfied himself of the reasonableness of that decision beforehand.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether it was a fact that the Catholic Resident Magistrate referred to signed the Memorial in favour of giving the Commission of the Peace to two Catholics on the ground that he was not able to attend the Sessions at the place; and what had become of the promise of the late Chief Secretary that if eligible men were selected the fact that the Lord Lieutenant of the county did not recommend them would not bind the Lord Chancellor?
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: Neither does it.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—DRUMFIN (SLTGO UNION), AND TYHOLLAND DIVISION (MONAGHAN UNION).
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following cases have been submitted to the Irish Local Government Board; that in the Poor Law election for the division of Drumfin (Sligo Union) six votes were tendered and received in the name of Mr. Charles O'Hara of Annamore, although Mr. O'Hara is at present away from home, and his voting papers were not forthcoming when called for by the police, and were not delivered to the police, as is required by law; that objection has been taken to claims to dual occupation votes in the Tyholland division of the Monaghan Union, such claims being made by persons whose rents have been lowered by the Sub-Commission below the Government valuation of their holdings, and who submit that appeals lodged by the landlord do not affect their right to have the judicial rents regarded as the actual rents unless
  972
  and until the judgment of the Sub-Commission be reversed; and, what is the decision of the Local Government Board in those cases?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the first case referred to in this Question, which is under consideration. As regards the second case, the Local Government Board are advised that if the order of the Land Court fixing the rent was made before the statement of claim to vote was lodged, the voter is entitled to the additional votes, although no actual payment of the reduced rent has been made; and also that an appeal against the order of the Court fixing the rent does not affect the right of the claimant to vote in respect of the beneficial interest referred to.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL BOARD DIVISIONS (METROPOLIS).
  MR. CUBITTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether it is the intention of the Government to rearrange the School Board Divisions of London, which were originally formed to correspond as nearly as possible with the Metropolitan Parliamentary Boroughs, so as to adapt them to the new Metropolitan representation under the Redistribution of Seats Bill?
  MR. MUNDELLA: By Section 87 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, the members of the London School Board must be elected by the 10 divisions specified in the 5th Schedule, the boundaries of which are defined by an order of the Education Department. It would be impossible to re-arrange the School Board divisions to correspond with the new Parliamentary divisions except by a special Act of Parliament; and if Members of the School Board were elected in the same number, and for the same area, as Members of Parliament, the cumulative vote would be inapplicable. As a Committee has just been appointed to inquire into the working of the cumulative vote, I think it would be better to defer the consideration of any important changes until that Committee has reported.

  INDIA—THE BANDA AND KIRWEE PRIZE MONEY.
  SIR WALTER B.BAETTELOTasked the Under Secretary of State for India,

  973
  Whether any portion (over or about £280,000) of the movable assets of the captured Princes of Kirwee has been retained by the Indian Government as not being legal booty, and has not been divided as prize money, and has not been entered in the Parliamentary Re-turn, No. 213, of Session 1876, as the Order of this House, dated 23rd July 1874, calling for a Return of the whole movable estate of the captured princes, and of all their assets retained by the civil power, expressly requires; whether any further legal proceedings are being initiated for the purpose of eliciting from the India Office, in compliance with the strict and repeated Orders of the Legislature, a full and true account of all the movable estate of the captured chiefs which has been retained by the local government, and has not been distributed as prize of war; and, will any supplementary Return, accounting for all movable assets of the Kirwee Princes retained by the local government, whether officially recognised as booty or not, be presented to Parliament to satisfy the Order of the House?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I can only repeat what I said in May last, when replying to a similar Question of the right hon. and gallant Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay). I then said that—
  "The Papers presented to Parliament in 1876, in compliance with the Order of the House of July 23, 1873, gave a complete Return of the amount of all movable property of enemies or insurgents in the territories of Oude or Kirwee, or of the proceeds thereof, which passed into the possession of the authorities in India since the outbreak of the War in 1857, distinguishing the funds which have been distributed among the troops, and the funds which have been retained, or otherwise disposed of, by the local government. The promissory notes, representing the sum referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, never at any time passed into the possession of Government. They were, therefore, not included in the Return. Where any such notes were captured, as at Lucknow, they are shown in the Return. As, therefore, the Return was prepared in strict accordance with the Orders of the House, there is no ground for supplementing it. I may add, full information concerning these promissory notes was submitted to the House in an earlier Return, No. 298, dated July 5,1869."—(3 Hansard, [287] 1300.)
  It is the case that in a letter of the 19th of March, addressed by the Rev. A. Kinloch to the India Office, he has declared an intention of applying for a mandamus requiring the Secretary of
  974
  State to furnish a Return in compliance with the strict Orders of the House. These Orders, as I have shown, have already been strictly complied with.

  POST OFFICE—LETTER SORTERS ON THE IRISH PACKET BOATS.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he received a memorial from the sorters of the Holyhead and Kingstown mail packet in December last relative to the delay in remunerating them for the Sunday work done by them; what steps have been taken to carry out the provisions of the late Postmaster General with regard to the remuneration of those employés; and, why the scale of pay for extra Sunday work given to the sorters on the London and Holyhead line is not to extend to the sorters who do the remainder of that journey to Ireland?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The decision of the late Postmaster General was, that the sorters employed on board the Irish packets should not be specially remunerated for Sunday work, it being his opinion that, owing to the high trip allowance they receive, their present remuneration is ample. Against this decision they have appealed, and their appeal is under consideration; but I shall certainly not concede special remuneration for Sunday work without making some reduction in the trip allowance.

  ARMY—THE FIRST LIFE GUARDS— CATHOLIC SOLDIERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, on Sunday the l0th instant, Colonel Duncombe, commanding the 1st Regiment of Life Guards, ordered a parade of the Regiment, and, after the parade, marched the Catholic soldiers, with the rest, into the Protestant church attached to the barracks (Regent's Park), and kept them there until the conclusion of the service; whether the Catholic soldiers of this Regiment are obliged, by the dietary arrangement in force, to eat flesh moat on Fridays; and, whether steps will be taken to secure that Catholic soldiers in the British Army shall not be obliged to violate the practices of their creed, or to attend any religious services but those of the Catholic Church?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: On the date referred to the whole body of the 1st Life Guards was marched to the Church of England service in the riding school. Colonel Duncombe has explained that this was entirely through inadvertence; and he has expressed his regret that he forgot that the Roman Catholics were, contrary to custom, still in the ranks. Meat rations are issued to all soldiers. I cannot add anything on this subject to an answer I made to the hon. Member on the 22nd of May, 1883. I said—
  "I am informed that by universal custom among Roman Catholics soldiers and sailors are dispensed from all obligations to fast or to abstain from flesh meat; and that this applies even in Catholic countries."
  There is every desire to give Catholic soldiers all proper facilities for complying with the requirements of their religion.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE CALLING OUT OF THE RESERVES.
  COLONEL STANLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether steps will be taken, without delay, to cause it to be publicly notified what classes of the Reserve it is intended to call to the colours, in order to prevent unnecessary abandonment of civil labour, and the consequent breaking up of the men's homes; and, whether he will forthwith address, to the employers of Reserve men who are called up for service, and of Militia men belonging to battalions which are embodied, a request that they will, in the public interest, endeavour to take such men back into their employ when the present national emergency is at an end.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The earliest practicable announcement will be made of the classes, or portions of classes, of the Army or Militia Reserve which it is intended to call out under the Proclamation. As Parliament was about to adjourn for a short time, and also as Her Majesty was about to be absent for a time from the country, it was considered desirable that the Messages to Parliament and the Proclamation should not be delayed; but the requirements of the Military Authorities, especially in India, have not yet been fully ascertained. There will be no delay which can be avoided in giving notice to the Reserve men concerned.
  976
  I do not think that there would be any use in issuing such a Circular to the employers of Reserve men as appears to be suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; but I trust that they will, in a spirit of patriotism, make such arrangements as may be possible, in order to prevent men called up in discharge of their duty permanently losing their employment. Instructions will be issued to general officers and officers commanding regimental districts to take all possible measures in communication with employers of labour for promoting this object.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in case any men in the Reserve were also employed in the Metropolitan Police, he would consider whether they should not be reinstated in their proper places in the event of their not being required?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would take the matter into consideration.

  NAVY—PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD— H.M.S."MERCURY."
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a telegram from the Portsmouth Correspondent of The Times, (March 27th) headed "England and Russia," and referring to the armament of the Mercury; and, whether he will endeavour to prevent Dockyard Officials from giving information to the Press as to the armament of ships being fitted for active service, especially when, as in this case, it appears to be defective?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: There is no evidence that information was improperly given by a Dockyard official to The Times Correspondent at Portsmouth. The Mercury's armament is complete as originally planned for the duties which properly belong to an armed despatch boat. The armament consists of 64-pounders, which are powerful ship-guns.

  ARMY—ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT— REPORT ON MACHINE GUNS AND RIFLES.
  MR. GRAYasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the report on

  977
  Machine Guns and Rifles from which he quoted on Friday in the House?
  MR. BRAND,in reply, said, he did not think there would be any real advantage in presenting the Report; but if the hon. Member wished to improve his knowledge, and move for a Return, no objection would be made.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS— DELAY OF PAYMENTS,
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (for Mr. SEXTOS)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have not yet paid the teachers of National Schools the gratuities due to them for instructing paid monitors for the year ended 30th June 1884, though the monitors were examined over six months ago; and, why the few old teachers entitled to good service salary have not yet been paid the amounts due to them for 1884?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that with the exception of a few cases in which, from one sufficient cause or another, delay has been unavoidable, the monitorial gratuities to teachers for the year ended on June 30, 1884, wore all paid in due course, and that of the 333 cases of good service salary only a few are outstanding which involve investigation and special consideration. These few will not be paid until the investigations have been decided.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—NORTH DUBLIN BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Irish Local Government Board have withdrawn, or resolved to withdraw, their veto against the resolution of the North Dublin Board of Guardians, appointing the Hibernian Bank their treasurer?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This matter appeared to me to be one in which the points at issue, which were not quite clear, would be more probably brought to a settlement by a personal conference than by a continuance of the correspondence. The Local Government Board will accordingly arrange for such conference through their Inspectors; and though there may be a little delay in
  978
  consequence of a recent change of Inspectors in the Dublin district, I trust a final decision will be come to before long.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is intended to remove the present Land Commission, consisting of Messrs. Reeves, Rice, and O'Brien from the Queen's County; and, if so, whether he will make careful and personal inquiries respecting the influences which are working for the change?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have ascertained that there will be a change of Sub-Commissions in Queen's County next Circuit, consequent on a redistribution of the work throughout the whole country. All changes of districts are made solely with a view to the public interests.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)— INSUFFICIENT ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether in eleven out of the twenty-two district lunatic asylums in Ireland the number of cases under treatment exceeds the limits of accommodation; whether the state of things in this respect is getting more and more serious; and, whether the Government propose to take any prompt steps to deal with the matter?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There has not been time to ascertain the exact present condition of affairs in each lunatic asylum in Ireland; but I believe there is no doubt that in some asylums the number of patients is in excess of the nominal accommodation, although, taking the country as a whole, there is more accommodation than is actually required. The Lord Lieutenant gives immediate and full attention to any representations made to him on this subject. Several asylums have already been extended, and extensions are being or are about to be effected in others; but it is to be observed that a serious question of local taxation and consequent local opposition arises in nearly every case, which needs most careful consideration.

  TURKEY (EUROPEAN PROVINCES)— DISTURBANCES IN ALBANIA.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the disturbances which have recently been reported from Albania and Macedonia, and to the dangers threatening the peace of European Turkey in that quarter; and, whether the Foreign Office have received any, and what, intelligence bearing on the subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Reports have been received at the Foreign Office that a feeling of dissatisfaction exists among the Albanians with the local Government, and that disturbances had taken place at Prisrend, which compelled the authorities at Salonica to send for reinforcements. Communication with Prisrend was at one time entirely cut off; but news has lately been received from there that a Turkish officer had arrived with troops. The outbreak is said to have been localized, and the foreign Consuls and Christian inhabitants have suffered no violence.

  SPAIN—THE COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. MONK,asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the entire Correspondence with reference to the Declarations of the 21st of December 1884, and the Negotiations respecting the modus vivendi with the Spanish Government have been published in Madrid, together with the Confidential Correspondence of 1883 with reference to the Protocol of that year, none of which have appeared in the Blue Books; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will present those Papers to Parliament without delay?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; the Correspondence referred to will be presented to Parliament at an early date.

  FRANCE—SHIP BROKERAGE.
  MR. CHARLES PALMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Director General of Customs in Paris has issued a Circular withdrawing some of the rights and privileges which have been enjoyed by the agents or consignees of ships entering
  980
  French ports; if so, whether Her Majesty's Government, in the interest of shipping, have taken any diplomatic action upon such a retrograde proceeding on the part of the French Government; and, whether any, and what, progress has been made with the long pending negotiations to obtain a withdrawal or satisfactory modification of the oppressive monopoly conferred by authority of the State upon a limited number of ship brokers in most of the French ports?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Lord Lyons has again lately pressed the French Government for an answer to the representations made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of ship brokerage in France. His Excellency's attention will be called to the Circular referred to by the hon. Member, who will be informed of the reply received.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— KASSALA.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government have received any information from Kassala since he made his last statement with reference to that place?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have no information from Kassala to add to that which I have already communicated to the House.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether Her Majesty's Ministers had any intention of endeavouring to relieve the garrison of Kassala?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have already stated that Kassala does not come within the sphere of our military operations.

  SUSPENSION OF EVICTIONS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Government will follow the precedent in the case of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of 1880, and introduce a Suspension of Evictions (Scotland) Bill of their own?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; we have no such intention.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "CAMPERDOWN."
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the completion of H.M.S. Camperdown is to be indefinitely

  981
  postponed; and, if this delay in proceeding to complete an armour-clad is in consequence of any imperfection in her design?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: In the ensuing financial year the number of men on the Camperdown will be reduced, not on account of any imperfection in the design, but for the purpose of completing certain ships in a more advanced stage of progress. The amount of construction proposed for the Camperdown in the Navy Estimates for 1885–6 will be carried out.

  NAVY—TORPEDOES.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the 180 steam launches and pinnaces fitted with Whitehead torpedoes, and the 170 launches fitted with the spar torpedoes, are in addition to the boats of that character belonging to Her Majesty's Ships; how many of them are available for the defence of our Home mercantile ports, and are to be stationed there; and, how many Whitehead torpedoes have been actually supplied for the 180 steam launches?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: All launches and pinnaces are adapted for tiring Whitehead torpedoes, and are fitted, or could be fitted, for the purpose in a short time. We have about 250 launches and pinnaces. Eighty-five are appropriated to sea-going ships, of which a certain number must always be in harbour. The remaining boats would be available for the defence of the ports. We have upwards of 170 cutters fitted for the spar torpedoes. The cutters appropriated to sea-going ships are about two-thirds of the total number. All the sea-going ships on foreign stations are supplied with their proper establishment of torpedoes. This includes the supply for their boats. I must decline to give any information as to the means which have been prepared for the defence of the Home ports.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— SPECIAL DRAFT FOR MAGHERA, CO. LONDONDERRY.
  MR. COMMINS(for Mr.O'KELLY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the local authorities of Maghera, county Londonderry, applied for the fifty extra constables drafted into the town on the 17th of
  982
  March; whether any demonstration was announced in the town for that day; whether the relations of the different sects in the district are other than friendly; whether any demonstrations or processions have taken place in Maghera on the 17th of March for several years; and, whether the ratepayers will be obliged to pay any of the expense incurred in bringing extra police into the town without any necessity?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The extra police force was sent into Maghera on the 17th instant on the requisition of the local magistrates. There have been demonstrations in Maghera on the 17th March for several years; but they had not been attended with disturbance. Recently, however, the relations between the different sects have not been friendly, and two serious cases of a Party character have occurred; and the magistrates had reason to believe that the presence of an extra police force was necessary. A moiety of the cost will fall upon the county at large.

  TENEMENT VALUATION (IRELAND).
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the latest Governmental printed publication of the tenement valuation of Ireland, sold in Government offices, dates back more than twenty years, and is sold at about 3s. 6d. per volume; and, whether he will order a publication of the present tenement valuation, and at a price to bring it within the range of average taxpayers?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The printed publication of the tenement valuation of Ireland dates back more than 20 years, and is sold at the price stated per volume. The valuation in force for public and local taxation and other purposes is in manuscript, and is amended annually, the total valuation of the land, however, remaining practically unaltered. I am not satisfied of the necessity to republish this work, which could only be done at heavy cost to the public.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) —SURCHARGE ON THE CORPORATION OF DUBLIN FOR EXPENSES IN ATTENDING CORK INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  983
  with regard to the undertaking given by the late Chief Secretary on the 22nd July 1884, in Debate on the Estimate for the Local Government (Ireland) Board, Whether that Board will insist upon their auditor's surcharge of an item of £40 in the accounts of the Corporation of Dublin for 1883, being the amount of expense incurred by the Civic officials of Dublin in attending in state with the Lord Mayor at the Irish Industrial Exhibition at Cork, in obedience to an order of the Municipal Council; and, whether this surcharge was made by the auditor on the ground that the expense in question could not be deemed to have been incurred for the public benefit of the inhabitants of Dublin?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is quite true that the auditor made this surcharge on the grounds stated; and the Local Government Board, who have recently taken advice on the question, have been informed that the reasons stated by the auditor for the disallowance are legal. In these circumstances, the Board had no other course open to them than to make an order confirming the decision of the auditor.
  MR. SEXTON: Might I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Dublin Corporation expended a sum of money for providing a banner for the London Exhibition; and whether this sum was surcharged?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware.
  MR. GRAY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not in his power, as President of the Local Government Board, to abstain from enforcing surcharges which may be technically legal, but which entail a hardship on individuals?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas understood to say that the matter rested with the auditor.

  CENTRAL ASIA—ENGLAND AND RUSSIA—PREPARATIONS FOR HOSTILITIES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose that Parliament should separate without receiving any explanations on the subject of the great military preparations now being made both in this Country and throughout Her Majesty's Indian Empire?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Before the noble Lord answers this Question, I beg to give Notice to the noble Lord, as I have already given it privately to the Prime Minister, who is not now present, that it is my intention tomorrow, on the Motion for the Adjournment over the holidays, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give the House any information as to the present state of the negotiations respecting the frontier of Afghanistan? It may be convenient, as I cannot put the Question on the Paper, that I should give Notice of it in this form.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend I have to say that it has been repeatedly stated recently in this House that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it is not desirable, in the interests of the Public Service, to give at present full explanations respecting the questions which are the subject of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Russian Government. I do not know if that will meet the Question of the right hon. Baronet opposite, if I say that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will, in reply to the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), give such information as is possible respecting the present aspect of these negotiations. They are proceeding, and the latest intelligence from St. Petersburg is of such a nature as to strengthen our hopes of arriving at a satisfactory result. As to the military preparations, respecting which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) inquires, I can say no more than that, as the House is aware, we are under certain engagements, on certain conditions, to the Ameer of Afghanistan; and, looking to the distance which separates our Military Forces from the regions to which those engagements relate, we are of opinion that it is desirable to make some preparations which would enable us, if the occasion should arise, to fulfil those engagements.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state what force has been ordered to concentrate in the Pishin Valley; who is to command the army there assembled; and, whether any reinforcements are being sent to Sir Peter Lumsden at Herat?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: After the reply which, the Secretary of State for War has just given to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, I hope that the hon. Member for Eye will not press for an answer to the first paragraph of his Question. In reply to the second paragraph I may remark that, as Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission is diplomatic and not military, the question of reinforcements does not arise.

  IRELAND—REGISTRATION OF PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS—EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PREPARING THE LISTS.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, having regard to the increased duties and the difficulties in performing them within the limited period allowed by law, any extension of time will be granted to the clerks of the peace and clerks of unions for carrying out the work cast upon them in reference to the Registration of Voters during the present year; if the necessary precepts will or can be issued in anticipation of the Registration Bill becoming law and thereby follow the course adopted at the passing of the Ballot Act; and, whether any steps will be taken to insure at an early date the performance of the duties and the service of the notices required by section nine of "The Representation of the People Act, 1884?"
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): If necessary an extension of time will be granted; but I hope that the duties will be promptly taken up by these officers, and that an extension of time will not be necessary. Inquiries will be made as to the course adopted when the Ballot Act was passed. Steps are being taken to call the attention of the officers to the necessity of issuing notices under the 9th section early in April.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman seen that in England and Scotland they have raised the number of officers? Will the same thing be carried out in Ireland?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)was understood to reply in the affirmative.

  EGYPT—ZEBEHR PASHA.
  MR. GORSTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Laws of England are generally applied at Gibraltar, and
  986
  whether the Charter of 1830 provides that the Courts shall administer the Law as nearly as may be according to the practice of Westminster Hall; whether it is under the provisions of the general Law, as thus defined, or under some special statute or ordinance, that Zebehr Pasha is kept as a prisoner at Gibraltar without being brought to trial; whether the Attorney General of Gibraltar or the Law Officers of the Crown in England have been consulted as to the lawfulness of the detention of Zebehr Pasha by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I may answer the first paragraph of my hon. and learned Friend's Question substantially in the affirmative; but the application of the law of England in Gibraltar is now regulated by the Order of Council dated February 2, 1884, which declares that, except in matters provided for by local legislation, the law of England, as it existed in England on December 31, 1883, should be enforced in Gibraltar so far as it might be applicable to the circumstances thereof. But by virtue of the legislative power vested in the Governor of Gibraltar a special Ordinance has been enacted authorizing the detention in custody of Zebehr at Gibraltar, and by virtue of this Ordinance he is now detained in a house provided for that purpose. I must ask my hon. and learned Friend to relieve me from answering the last paragraph of the Question. It is both very unusual and inexpedient to dissect the responsibility borne by the different Departments of the Government in respect to any particular course of action which has been pursued.
  MR. GORSTasked if the Attorney General had any objection to lay a copy of the Ordinance in question on the Table of the House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must refer the hon. and learned Member to some other Department for an answer to that Question.
  MR. GORSTgave Notice to the Government that he would ask the Question to-morrow.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORGES)—THE MILITIA RESERVES.
  MR. GREERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact

  987
  that the Militia Reserve consists of an actual twenty-five per cent. of the nominal strength, and includes a large number of non-commissioned officers not on the permanent staff; whether it is also a fact that, when the Reserve men are taken away, each battalion loses so many of its best men as to render it practically ineffective for months afterwards, if embodied; and, whether he will reconsider the determination of calling on the Militia Reserves?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Militia Reserve, when full, comprises in numbers 30 per cent of the establishment of gunners in Artillery corps, and 25 per cent of the establishment of sappers or privates in Engineer or Infantry corps. It includes in ranks a large number of volunteer sergeants. The withdrawal of this body from the Militia reduces for the time, and until their places can be filled by recruiting, the efficiency of the Militia. The Militia Reserve is maintained at a considerable cost for the express purpose of being withdrawn for Army service when required.

  THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION—PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS OF THE CO. DOWN (IRELAND)—REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he would lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commissioner appointed to inquire locally into the boundaries of the Parliamentary divisions of county Down?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir.

  ARMY—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS AT SUAKIN.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that there are only two Roman Catholic chaplains at present attached to General Graham's army in the Soudan?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir; it is the fact, as I stated in my reply on the 5th instant to the hon. Member for Oxford University.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Is it a fact that one of the Roman Catholic chaplains was very nearly being killed within the last few days; and does the noble Lord consider that one Catholic chaplain is sufficient for the necessities of thousands of soldiers?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the matter had been considered, and the number of Roman Catholic chaplains had been thought sufficient.

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACT—CASES OF ENDERSBY AND QUINN.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Board is now disposed favourably to consider the case of the seamen Endersby and Quinn, with the view of remitting the remainder of the sentence of penal servitude they are now undergoing for breach of discipline?
  MR. CAINE: A sentence of five years' penal servitude was passed in each of these cases, and the term of each has already been reduced by the Admiralty to three years. A further reduction may be effected by good conduct on the part of the prisoners. The offences of which the prisoners were found guilty were very serious; and, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, no further remission of the term of imprisonment beyond that mentioned can be granted.

  IRELAND—MEETINGS OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE—ACTION OF THE POLICE AT ROSSCREA.
  MR. HARRINGTON (for Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the custom of the police at Rosscrea to post themselves outside the house where Nationalist meetings are held; whether, on the 15th of February, a posse of police remained outside the hall of the Catholic Club, Rosscrea, and took down the names of persons who entered in order to attend a meeting convened for the purpose of establishing a branch of the Irish National League, and if a similar proceeding on the part of the police occurred on last Sunday; and, whether he will issue instructions restraining the police from continuing these proceedings?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I find that two constables attended as stated outside the meeting of the 15th February, which had been previously announced by placard. They were there in the ordinary discharge of their duty, and I do not think it necessary to issue any instructions to restrain them from performing it.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Might I ask whether it is the ordinary discharge of a constable's duty to take down the names of everyone going into a legal meeting; and whether the police discharge that ordinary duty in the case of the meetings of Orange Lodges?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The instructions given to them are to watch any meeting.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF OWEN PATRICK AND THADY LANG v. PATRICK LYNCH.
  MR. COMMINS (for Mr. O'KELLY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what grounds the magistrates at Ballyfarnon, county Roscommon, dismissed the summons for assault brought by Owen Patrick and Thady Lang against Patrick Lynch, on Friday the 27th instant?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no information on the subject of this Question, which only appeared on the Paper to-day.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT— LOANS TO LANDLORDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS IN DONEGAL.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is a fact that the Board of Works, in the year 1880, called the attention of the Special Belief Sessions held at Letter kenny, for the barony of Kilmacrennan, county Donegal, to the fact that certain loans having been made to landlords in the parishes of Tullaghobegley, Raymunsterdoney, and Clondahorkey, with the object of limiting the public works in these districts, where agricultural or other employment was by these loans provided; whether he will state the amount of employment given under said loans during the period of distress in said districts, specifying the locality and nature of the works on which employment was given; and, whether he has any objection to giving, for the small parish of Clondahorkey, particulars as to (1) the amount of loans approved, (2) of loans passed by the Board of Works, and (3) nature of work done from 1st January 1880 to the present time?
  MR. HIBBERT: The hon. Member has not allowed me time to obtain full information on the subject to which his Question refers. I have ascertained the figures for the barony of Kilma-
  990
  crennan, those for the separate parishes not being distinguishable. In that area 30 loans were sanctioned under the Belief of Distress Acts amounting to £27,310. The total amount advanced has been £21,038, and the certified expenditure £21,807. Of the latter, £16,083 is described as for drainage only, and the rest is mainly for drainage combined with road making, fencing, and planting.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— GREYSTONES BREAKWATER.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Will steps be taken to ensure the construction of the proposed breakwater at Grey-stones on the monolithic principle so strongly approved by the Select Committee on Piers and Harbours; and, will the Treasury provide that the works shall be placed under the supervision of the local engineer who designed and carried out the Harbour works at Wick-low so successfully?
  MR. M'COAN: With regard to this Question, I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the advisability of making an investigation into Wieklow Harbour, which has been built in the way suggested?
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked whether Wicklow Harbour had not already been inspected and highly approved of?
  MR. HIBBERT: The Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Corbet) only appeared on the Paper to-day; but I take note of the hon. Member's two recommendations, and will transmit them to Ireland.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—BELGIAN TRAWLERS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the following report, which has appeared in the newspapers, of a depredation by a Belgian trawler on a vessel belonging to Hartlepool, and at present fishing from Lowestoft:—
  "The lugger H. L. 333, Walter Cook, master, put into harbour on Tuesday morning, having been deliberately trawled into by the Belgian trawler O. T. 116, by which he had sustained a loss of twenty-two nets, warps, and bowls. The outrage took place about thirty-six miles north-east of Lowestoft, on Monday night, and unless the owner recovers his nets, of which there is but little probability, his spring voyage will be at an end. His loss is estimated at £50, at least;"

  991
  and, whether any cruisers are at the present time stationed on the fishing grounds referred to in the above report; and, if not, whether he will at once carry out the promise given of the 16th instant, on going into Committee on the Navy Estimates, "that the Admiralty would do all that lay in their power to give adequate security to the fisheries?"
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: No Report has been received of a Belgian trawler having been seen fouling the nets of the lugger H. L. 333. The Mermaid and Eagle cruisers have been employed constantly on the fishery ground since the 14th of March?

  LAW AND JUSTICE—CASE OF H. WILLIAMS, CONVICTED OF PERJURY AT POOLE.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the evidence on which detective Henry Williams (in the Poole perjury case) was convicted of wilful and corrupt perjury at the Winchester Assizes, and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, was exclusively that of persons pecuniarily or criminally implicated by Williams's evidence; whether the perjury, as alleged to have been proved by such evidence, was anything more than a discrepancy between the statements of Williams and the prosecuting witnesses, as to the length of time spent in a public house by a police superintendent, and as to the quantity of drink the said superintendent consumed; whether, having examined the report of the case, he is able to state that for such a crime, even if conclusively proved, a heavier sentence than three months' imprisonment has ever before been passed; and, whether, having declined to interfere with the sentence, he is willing to lay upon the Table of the House the documents on which he based his decision?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he had carefully examined, in consultation with the Judge, the evidence in the case referred to. He found no ground for interfering with the verdict of the jury, and did not see his way to lay Papers on the Table.

  ARMY—THE RESERVE MEN.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would direct
  992
  that soldiers of the Reserve, who hold situations in large towns, should be permitted to report themselves to some regiment or depot in those towns, and where it can be effected be allowed to go through drill and instruction at times which might make it possible for them to retain their present employments?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The men of the Army Reserve who may be called out will be required for service with their regiments. It will not, therefore, be practicable for them to retain other employment during the time of their Army service.

  ARMY (THE MILITARY EXDEDITION) —THE CAMEL CORPS.
  GENERAL WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the fact that Lord Wolseley's Camel Corps is composed of picked men from the various corps d'élite of the Army, and that no further active operations on the Nile are contemplated for some months, he will consider the advisability of allowing these men to return to their respective regiments without delay?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is not possible to foresee when active operations may have to be resumed; and, as the Camel Corps are especially fitted for the rapid reinforcement of any threatened portion of the line now occupied, I do not think it would at present be advisable to withdraw them.
  GENERAL WILLIAMS: I should like to know whether it is contemplated to reinforce the Camel Corps, and to fill the vacancies caused by death and disease?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: We expect very shortly to receive from Lord Wolseley a fuller statement than has yet been received what reinforcements for the whole Army under his command may be required. No doubt the Camel Corps will be included.

  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT—THE DUBLIN COLLECTOR GENERAL OF RATES.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Collector General of Rates for the city of Dublin has directed that the names of occupiers of tenements rated under £4 per annum shall not be returned for the Poor Law franchise,

  993
  and, further, that he has decided, in regard to weekly and monthly tenants, to rate not occupiers but landlords in all cases where valuation is under £8 per annum; if the Law which enabled this latter practice to be carried on has not been repealed (see 12 and 13 Vic. c. 91, s. 63); and, if care will be taken that, in any such proceedings, nothing will be done to endanger the rights of occupiers to the Parliamentary franchise?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that the Collector General of Rates, acting under the advice of eminent counsel, has given the direction referred to. I also understand that steps are being taken to test the legality of his action in a Court of Law. A provision has been inserted in the Registration of Voters Bill, now waiting for second reading, to secure that the right to the Parliamentary franchise shall not be endangered by any decision which the Courts may give.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CASE OF SERGEANT DELANY.
  MR. BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary, If he has yet received an answer from the Inspector General of Constabulary with regard to the case of Sergeant Delany of New town barry?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; I have not yet received an answer.
  MR. BARRY: I will put the Question down for to-morrow.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, after the Easter Recess, the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question for him. The question of the purchase of laud by tenants is, in our opinion, of considerable importance, and we showed this by the introduction last year of a Bill on the subject, explained by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. But, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, it is impossible to make known to the House what further legislation it is intended to propose on this or any other matter until further progress has been made with the Seats Bill.
  MR. T. A. DICKSON: I wish to give Notice that after the Recess, and when the Seats Bill has made further progress, I shall repeat this Question, and, if necessary, ask the attention of the House to it as a matter of urgent public importance.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now hold out any hope of a day being fixed for the commencement of the work of the Afghan Frontier Commission, or if it is to be understood that, in accordance with the request of the Russian Government, the negotiations for the settlement of the Frontier are to take place in London?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The hon. Member asks if I can hold out any hope of a day being fixed for the commencement of the work of the Afghan Commission. An answer to the last communication of Her Majesty's Government has been sent by the Russian Government. We are not yet aware, however, of its exact contents, but it is understood that it contemplates an early meeting of the Commission, and looks forward to such a meeting as likely to allay the excitement on both sides. Having regard to what we believe to be the conciliatory character of the reply, Her Majesty's Government would strongly deprecate at the present moment the use of any language of a nature to cause irritation, and thereby to endanger the peaceful solution of present difficulties. I must be understood by these observations as in no manner to intend to reflect on the hon. Member opposite or those who act with him, as they have throughout shown the most extreme consideration for the position of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government still adhere to their views, expressed on the 3rd March, that Pul-i-Khisti, Ak-Rabat, and Zulfagar, are Afghan Territory; and, whether the Russian Forces are still in occupation of these positions, and the Russian Government have refused to give orders for their evacuation?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMATURICE: I must again decline to enter into any discussion of these topics with, the hon. Member. The Russians still occupy the places referred to.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: In consequence of that answer I wish to give Notice that, unless the statement promised with respect to this matter is satisfactory, I shall call attention to it on the Motion for Adjournment for the Holidays.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GRAHAM'S FORCE.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the operations of General Graham have fulfilled the necessity to which he referred on the 23rd ult., as to securing the proper and safe retirement of the British Army on the Nile; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider whether it is desirable to advise the issue of a proclamation by the Khedive, similar to that of January 26th 1884, which was withheld by General Gordon, which announced the restoration of the Soudan to independence, the evacuation of the provinces by Egyptian employés and troops with all their belongings; their separation from the Soudan "on the broad principles of peace," and which finally called upon-—
  "All persons in arms to lay them down, and to endeavour by peaceable means to form independent Governments on our frontiers, and to do their best for their own prosperity, so that our intercourse may continue, and commerce be facilitated and civilisation be extended?"
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In our opinion the operations of General Graham have certainly not yet proceeded so far as to fulfil the necessity referred to in the first part of the Question. In these circumstances the hon. Member will probably himself be of opinion that any answer to the second part of the Question would be entirely premature.

  FRANCE AND CHINA—THE HOSTILITIES —CONTRABAND OF WAR—RICE.
  MR. BOURKEgave Notice that he would ask, If the Government would lay on the Library Table any Correspondence with the French Government on the subject of rice being contraband of war, and whether it was a fact that the French Government had claimed to treat as contraband of war the food of the
  996
  people, irrespective of the fact whether or not that food was immediately intended for the support of warlike forces; and whether any Papers would be laid on the Table on the subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I will reply to the right hon. Gentleman at once. Two answers have already been given to Questions of this kind—first by myself, in reply to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac), and next by the Prime Minister, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and which practically cover this Question. I shall obtain a copy of the French Yellow Book and place it in the Library. Papers on the subject are being prepared.

  ISLANDS OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC— ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
  MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the report of Western Pacific Commission of October 16th 1883, in which the following passages occur:—
  "The present arrangements for the control of British subjects, and the administration of justice among the Islands of the Western Pacific are highly unsatisfactory;"
  "Any considerable delay in placing upon a more satisfactory footing the control over British subjects in the Western Pacific will be perilous, and in all probability attended with calamitous results;"
  to the published reports of German officials on the labour traffic carried on under the British flag, e.g. that of the German Consul at the Marshall Islands:—
  "I have made the most exact inquiries, and have arrived at the conclusion that the laws which have been enacted, and which are specially stringent for vessels from Fiji, are simply evaded, and that the labour traffic in New Britain and New Ireland is, with few exceptions, clean slave trading, as bad as any that was ever carried on in Africa;"
  that of Captain Karcher, of the German Navy—
  "The labour traffic is nothing else but slave trading. In it the captains of vessels not only buy persons from the chiefs for firearms, and even breech-loaders with ammunition, but they entice persons on board who come alongside in their canoes to trade and then detain them, or even simply kidnap the crew of a canoe met with on the high seas;"
  whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the repeated offers of the German Government to come to

  997
  An "understanding for the common or identic control of the labour traffic" in the Western Pacific; whether it is intended to station a British man of war amongst the islands from which labour is recruited during the labour trade season, i.e. from May to October of the present year; and, what other steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government intend to take to carry out any of the recommendations of the Western Pacific Commission?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes; Her Majesty's Government are aware of the statements to which the hon. and learned Member refers. An Anglo-German Commission, consisting of Dr. Krauel, the German Consul General in Sydney, and Mr. Thurston, the Colonial Secretary of Fiji, both of whom are now in London, is about to consider this question, and to make recommendations for joint or identical action by Great Britain and Germany for the control of the labour traffic. Her Majesty's ships will give all practicable assistance to the High Commissioner in supervising the labour traffic and preventing abuses in it, but cannot be permanently stationed at any particular places. Until the Anglo-German Commission has reported, it will not be possible to decide how far and in what manner effect can be given to the recommendations of the Western Pacific Commission.

  ENGLAND AND TURKEY.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it was intended to lay on the Table any Papers respecting the Turkish special mission to this country?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he could not answer that Question without Notice.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Then, Sir, in that case I will give Notice that I will take an early opportunity of asking the Prime Minister whether it is the case that the Ottoman Ambassador Extraordinary, in reply to certain questions addressed to him by Lord Granville, stated that it would be difficult seriously to entertain a proposal which involved an appeal to "the one anti-human specimen of humanity" to co-operate in retarding "the saintly mission of the Divine Figure from the North?"

  FRANCE—THE MINISTERIAL CRISIS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked, Whether the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had any information respecting the reported resignation of the French Ministry?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Up to the time I left the Foreign Office no official information had been received. I understand that a telegram has appeared in the evening papers to the effect stated by the hon. Member.

  IRISH INDUSTRIES—THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the noble Lord the Member for Flint, with regard to a statement made on Thursday last, and his reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot), how it is that the noble Lord has not yet given Notice of the Select Committee on Irish Industries, and whether the Select Committee will be nominated before the Recess?
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR: I have been unable to complete the selection, but may be able to complete it tonight, and to place the Notice on the Paper for to-morrow.
  MR. SEXTON: If that is so, the appointment will be made to-morrow?
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR: The appointment may possibly be made to-morrow. I may not be able to complete the selection to-night.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA AND ARMY RESERVES—THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Secretary of State for War, On what day the Government proposed that the House should take into consideration the Message from the Crown in regard to the Militia and the Army Reserve, and whether the noble Lord had any further explanation to give of the very unusual course pursued by the Government, by which the consideration of that Message, which was put down for that evening, had been postponed for an indefinite time?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that before the noble Lord answered that Question, he wished to ask whether it was proposed to embody any more regiments of Militia?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), I may say that I do not think the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I stated, in reply to a Question from the right hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley), the circumstances under which the Proclamation had been issued somewhat before we were fully aware of the exact requirements of the Military Authorities. I would refer him to the answer that I gave to the right hon. and gallant Member. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we think that we shall probably be in a position to make a full statement as to the measures that are intended to be taken under the Proclamation on the day of the re-assembling of the House, on Thursday week; but as probably a good many Members will not have returned by that time, it would perhaps be more convenient to put down the further consideration of Her Majesty's Message until this day fortnight. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) has asked whether it is intended to embody any more regiments of Militia. I think it would be more convenient to defer any answer to that Question until the general statement is made of the measures intended to be taken under the Proclamation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  PARLIAMENT—THE HOUSE OF COMMONS —THE LADIES' GALLERY.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON,in rising to call attention to the condition of the Ladies' Gallery; and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable to substitute for the present grating (or some portion of it) a railing so constructed as not largely to exclude sound, light, and air; and generally, that the accommodation of the gallery should be improved,"
    said, this question was invariably received in that House, like the toast of the ladies at public dinners, with what the reporters described as "cheers and
    1000
    laughter." Ancient precedent was all in favour of reform. He reminded the House that 100 years ago ladies were allowed access to any part of the House of Commons; but these privileges had been gradually curtailed until the ladies were confined to the grated Gallery which they now occupied. Only a few years ago the First Commissioner of Works compared the Ladies' Gallery to the Chamber of Horrors; but he presumed that he addressed that description not to the figures inside, but only to the cage which contained them. He thought everyone would allow that the Ladies' Gallery as at present constructed was very inconvenient. The atmosphere was bad, and even those ladies who were able to obtain the most favoured places could see only very imperfectly, whilst to hear required a great strain on their attention; in fact, those who were in the back seats saw and heard as little of what was going on in the House of Commons as Mr. Sam Weller saw and heard of Mr. Pickwick's proposal. The farce was gone through every day of balloting for 40 seats in this Gallery, although practically there were only 15 or 16 seats from which ladies could really see and hear. Moreover, on any occasion when there was a great demand for seats the ladies had to come before the door was open, and had to stand outside, and physical strength was a great means of obtaining a good seat in the Gallery. Even those who formed the front row could see little more than one-half of the House, and those in the back row could not see as much as one-half. This was a serious disadvantage, because ladies were thereby forced to judge of the composition and demeanour of the whole of the House by the composition and demeanour of the Members who sat below the Gangway on either side. Their vision was confined to the Radicals below the Gangway, the Irish Members, and such remnants of the Fourth Party as still hovered around their old position. They never by any chance caught a glimpse of the Whig Members except on the occasions of critical divisions, when they might see one standing below the Bar preparatory to walking out of the House or into the Opposition Lobby. With very slight alteration the Gallery might be made more convenient for seeing and hearing,

    1001
    and available for a larger number of ladies. A great deal might be done by removing the upper part of the grating of the Gallery. Some persons perhaps thought that injurious consequences might result if the ladies in the Gallery could be seen from the body of the House. But he did not believe they would be seen, and even if they were it was not found that the debates in the other House of Parliament were made much more exciting by the visible presence of ladies. They were told that if they were to make such an alteration as he had proposed in the Ladies' Gallery, whispering and conversation would no longer be possible. He believed that, at all events, the reporters, and probably the majority of those who came to the Ladies' Gallery, would be glad if that was to be the ease. He thought this was a matter which should be decided primarily by the ladies themselves, and the question arose how they were really to ascertain the desire of the majority of the ladies who frequented the Gallery. He believed himself that a large majority of them were in favour of considerable reforms in the present state of things. He would suggest that a practical experiment should be made in the matter by making an alteration in the central portion of the Gallery, so that it might be left to the ladies themselves to prove whether they preferred the improvement. He hoped that the Government would look into the matter and see whether they could do anything to improve the present condition of the Gallery. If they would promise to turn their attention to the matter he would gladly withdraw his Motion, having once called attention to the subject. There were, besides the questions of hearing and seeing, many minor matters connected with the Ladies' Gallery, which had not been looked into for some time, such as that of the ventilation. The front seats also might be lowered, and the back ones raised. He believed that every Member of the House would be greatly obliged to the First Commissioner of Works if he could see his way to placing a telephone by means of which they could communicate from the Lobby with the room of the officials up in the Gallery. Another matter which might with advantage be considered was the present system of balloting. In conclusion, he begged to
    1002
    move the Resolution which stood in his name.
    MR. PULESTON,in seconding the Resolution, said, that nothing connected with the House excited so much astonishment in the minds of a new Member as the condition of the Ladies' Gallery. There was no reason whatever why some change should not be made in it. The present Postmaster General had unquestionably made great improvements; but the grating still remained. It was said as one reason for allowing the grating to remain that the ladies themselves, as a general rule, were against its removal. He hoped he should not be wanting in gallantry if he suggested that that opinion was confined to those who were the more constant frequenters of the Gallery, and who knew how to secure the few front seats. As a matter of fact, only some seven or eight ladies in the Gallery were able to see and hoar what was going on, those who sat at the back finding it impossible to understand what occurred in the House. He considered that if the grating were partially removed it would not really intefere with the privacy of the Ladies' Gallery. There was no reason, again, why the Gallery should not be extended on each side of the House wholly or partially. This could be done without interfering with the privacy of that part of the Gallery which belonged to Mr. Speaker. The accommodation for ladies in the House of Lords had been improved; and, so far as he knew, no inconvenience resulted from the ladies sitting in the open Galleries round the sides of the House. He thought that nothing was more annoying to hon. Members than the necessity under the present system of constantly trying to get seats for the Ladies' Gallery, and he thought that most Members would prefer not having the privilege of giving tickets at all. The House of Commons was the only Assembly in the world in which ladies were caged behind a grating. They did not wish to divide the House upon this question, if his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) would not disregard the request they had made. In his (Mr. Puleston's) opinion, if his hon. Friend gave this question his serious consideration, he would add to his already deserved popularity. He had much pleasure in seconding the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is advisable to substitute for the present grating of the Ladies' Gallery (or some portion of it) a railing so constructed as not largely to exclude sound, light, and air; and generally, that the accommodation of the gallery should be improved,"—[Mr. Sydney Buxton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member for Devonport, in taking upon himself the championship of the ladies, had put him in a very difficult and awkward position, because, of course, he could not hope to speak with the experience possessed by the hon. Member, or by his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. It was the duty of the Department which he had the honour to represent to carry out the wishes of the House; but it was also his duty, before making any change or alteration in the structure of the building, to ascertain as exactly as possible what really were the wishes of the House. Of course, it was their object to study so far as was reasonable the convenience of the ladies who used the Gallery, and he might say at once that the First Commissioner of Works would be most happy to consider any practical suggestions for the improvement of that Gallery, especially, for instance, in such a matter as the position of the benches. Several improvements had been made of late, and he might say that orders had been given to put up a speaking tube, which would connect the attendant of the Ladies' Gallery with the doorkeepers behind the Chair, so that Members would not be put to the trouble and inconvenience of going up to the Gallery when they brought ladies down to the House to find out whether there was or was not room. This, he thought, would meet one of the points raised by his hon. Friend. But the main point before them was the question of what was known as the grille, which, it was contended, prevented ladies from seeing. If hon. Members would look at the Gallery, they would see that the inconvenience was not so much caused by the grille, as by the stonework of the mullions. His hon. Friend implied in his Motion that
    1004
    the grille excluded sound, light, and air-He doubted whether it really did exclude sound, and he thought it was quite conceivable that the grille might even improve hearing by breaking the waves of sound. Then ladies did not want light. Of course, they had sufficient light themselves, and they did not want additional light to read documents and papers in the Gallery. Ladies came to the Gallery to hear and see what was going on in the House, and he did not think that the question of light applied in the matter. Lastly, they came to the question of air. Undoubtedly, the ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery might be improved. At the same time, he would point out that the position occupied by the Gallery made it very dif-cult to ventilate effectively. He did not think that the bars interfered in any appreciable degree with the ventilation, or that if they removed the grating there would be the slightest improvement. This question must be decided by the House, and he thought that the fact that no division had ever been taken on the subject seemed to argue that the general opinion of Members was against any change. There was no proof whatever that the majority of ladies who visited the Gallery desired the change. He knew a great number of ladies who did not, and he did not think that he was less an authority on that point than his hon. Friend. He did not know that the general opinion of hon. Members or of the ladies was in favour of the change, and he had taken the opportunity to consult many Members of the greatest authority and longest standing, and he might say that they were hardly without exception very much opposed to the change suggested. Under these circumstances, and until it was ascertained that the wish of the House generally was to make the change, it was not desirable to carry out the proposed alterations.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he thought that the removal of the grating altogether was the reasonable view which would be taken by a large number of the Members of the House, and he believed it would be very much supported by the ladies who visited the Gallery. The hon. Member for Leeds could not have informed himself of the opinion of many of the ladies if he contended that there was not the greatest

    1005
    was to come before the House that dissatisfaction with the present condition of the Gallery. He submitted that the Gallery was badly ventilated, stuffy, warm, dark, and badly arranged for sound. He did not know whether the removal of the gratings would improve the sound. That was an architectural question. But he thought that if the spaces were made larger and some of the centre mullions removed sound would be very much improved. He was sure that it was the opinion of most Members that some improvement should be made. He would suggest that there should be a new Ladies' Gallery altogether in the Gallery at the back of the Opposition. On important nights the Gallery at the back of the Ministerial Benches was generally full; but this was not so in the case of the Gallery behind the Opposition Benches, where there was always a great deal of room to spare. He thought that 24 seats might very well be set apart for ladies in the Opposition Gallery, which would be infinitely superior to the accommodation now given in the Ladies' Gallery. If this suggestion were adopted they would have plenty of light and air, and as they would be directly opposite the supporters of Her Majesty's Government, they would be able to hear all the oratory of the debate. He hoped that that point would be taken into consideration.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that, some years ago, when this question was brought before the House by his hon. and learned Colleague, the late Serjeant Sherlock'—now, he was sorry to say, no more—it was ascertained that the removal of the grille would be in opposition to the wishes of the larger number of the ladies who frequented the Gallery. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Eye to appropriate for the ladies part of the Gallery over the Opposition Benches was all very well, on the supposition that only the Ministerial Gallery was ever crowded; but that seemed to imply that there was more eagerness to see and hear the hon. Member for Eye than to listen to the Prime Minister. While some might be charmed with the oratory of the hon. Member for Eye, there were others who might wish as a happy change not to hear it.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he could not but think that it was an extraordinary satire on the way in which Public Business
    1006
    was conducted in this country that, in a grave and important crisis like the present, that House should be kept from serious and important Business by a Motion of this kind, which occupied a couple of the most important hours. This matter came before the House in July, 18G9, when Mr. Layard was First Commissioner of Works. Mr. Layard was a very wise man, and, instead of making a speech, he read a letter from a lady on the subject, which was to the following effect:—
    "The removal of the grating would be no remedy: on the contrary, the protection we derive from it enables us to sit as we like, to talk together, to hang up our shawls and bonnets, and dress as we please. These are many advantages, for you know we are compelled to sit quiet not to lose our places while bores are addressing the House. You will not take it amiss, dear Mr. Layard, if I say that there are some bores in the House of Commons. You cannot feel for us, because on these occasions you can go and talk to your friends, and write letters in the Library. The grating besides enables us to leave the Gallery in the middle of dull speeches, which we would otherwise be compelled to sit out patiently, especially if the orator were an acquaintance, and had obtained our seat for us. And, then, the grating is of enormous advantage to hon. Members themselves, who could not come and stretch, and sleep, and snore as they do immediately below us in the Galleries if they saw that we saw them."—(3 Mansard, [197] 1587.)
    Any Member who had the temerity to think that he could add to that reasoning by any words of his own would, he thought, be a Member who was not alive to the importance and dignity of this discussion.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he wished to protest against the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend. The House would observe that his right hon. and learned Friend, who he presumed was in favour of the ladies' suffrage, and he believed had voted for it—[Mr. GIBSON: NO.]—then that made the case worse.
    MR. GIBSON: I do not want my "No" to be taken in a wider sense. I have not voted.
    SIR ROBERT PEELobserved that, at all events, his right hon. and learned Friend had raised a very narrow and barren issue when he pointed to the waste of time at a moment of great crisis in discussing a futile question of this nature, instead of proceeding with the Business of the country. Now, what was the important Business which

    1007
    evening? The next Business after the present was with respect to the miscarriage of justice in the conviction of innocent men. He should like to know if the Government of this country cared one pin about the miscarriage of justice? Then there was a Motion praying Her Majesty to endeavour to induce the German Government to take charge of one of the Possessions of the Crown. To say, in view of these matters, that the time of the House was being wasted in the discussion of what he (Sir Robert Peel) considered a very momentous question, instead of discussing whether Heligoland should be handed over to the German Government, which, he was certain, no one would endorse, was, he thought, an unjust accusation against the hon. Member for Peterborough. The ladies of this country were almost universally Conservative. ["No!"] At all events, a very great many of them were Conservatives; and he should be glad to see the accommodation for them, which was now totally inadequate, enlarged and improved. He hoped the hon. Gentleman who represented the Department of Works in that House would not follow the advice of the lady who wrote to Mr. Layard in 1869. He remembered that letter being read in the House, and the universal opinion was that it was a case of the wolf in sheep's clothing—that it had not been written by a lady at all, but had been concocted for the occasion. It was ridiculous to suppose that the ladies were satisfied with the present cage, and, as he had said, the questions to come afterwards were insignificant compared with the due accommodation of ladies in that-deliberative Assembly.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that, although the question might have occupied sufficient time, it was his duty to add that it was raised last year on the Estimates. He then stated that his own opinion was rather favourable to some change, but he did not think that any should be made, except with the general assent of the House. He then undertook to make inquiries among Members of the House, and also, as far as he could, of ladies who frequented the Gallery; and, so far as he could ascertain, the feeling of the majority both of Members and of ladies was adverse to the proposed change. It was represented to him that the removal of the
    1008
    grille would destroy the freedom that ladies now enjoyed. No doubt, there were some who would like a change; but unless there were a general concurrence of opinion in its favour, it would be unwise to make it.
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he had never yet met a lady who was in favour of the Gallery as at present arranged. Indeed, the ladies had always said to him—"It is impossible to see or hear anything with that horrible thing in front of us." He thought it would be a great convenience to the ladies who frequented the Gallery if the Authorities would remove the grating.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 75: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 86.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—CONVICTIONS OF INNOCENT MEN—ESTABLISHMENT OF A COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. HOPWOOD,who had the next Notice on the Paper, in the following words:—
    "To call attention to the frequent miscarriage of justice in the conviction of innocent men for murder and other crimes, and to the opinions expressed by the Home Secretary and the Attorney General in this House in favour of enacting some method by which doubtful cases of the kind may be re-considered; and to move, That it is necessary that an appeal from conviction in criminal cases be provided by Law,"
    said: Since I placed this Notice upon the Paper, I have received an intimation from Mr. Speaker that the Motion is in contravention of the Standing Order which was passed in order to enable the House to get more rapidly into Committee of Supply on Mondays and Thursdays. Of course, I shall bow to the ruling of the Chair, and will, therefore, postpone the Motion; but I must express my regret at being unable to bring forward this question of social mischief, which is of great gravity to the community and productive of much private suffering. I hope before long to call the attention of the House to the subject, and will do so to-morrow, if possible, on the Motion for Adjournment.
    MR. COURTNEY: This is a matter of some importance, and I was certainly not aware that you, Sir, had given any ruling upon the point of Order. I would venture to suggest that if, on the first occasion of moving the Civil Service Estimates, a question is ruled out of Order because it happens to apply to some other class of the Estimates than those which are down for consideration in Committee, the Standing Order would almost entirely deprive hon. Members of the power supposed to be reserved to them of entering into a general discussion on the first occasion of going into Supply upon the Civil Service Estimates, because it would be in the power of the Government to put down any particular class of the Estimates they chose, or any particular Vote of any particular class—for instance, Vote 1 of Class I. I wish, Sir, to know whether your ruling is that the debate on going into Committee of Supply on the first night of the Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates, must be confined to the particular Votes set down upon the Paper, or to the subjects comprised within a particular class of the Votes? I must confess that, if the Standing Order is to be so construed, it would very nearly deprive the House of the power supposed to be reserved to it of opening a general discussion on the first night of going into Committee of Supply. I would, therefore, submit to your decision this very important question—whether the privilege reserved to the House of raising a general debate on the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply (Civil Service Estimates) on the first night does not extend to any question which may be raised in discussion upon any matter comprised within the whole range of the Civil Service Estimates, or in any branch of them, just as upon the Army Estimates the debate may apply to any class or subject treated in the Army Estimates, and the same with the Navy Estimates, no matter whether the subject raised is irrelevant to the particular class of Estimates put down for consideration? If we are to be confined to the particular class of Estimates selected for consideration on the first night of Supply, I confess that we should lose altogether an important privilege which we are supposed to enjoy, and which was certainly not in-
    1010
    tended to be interfered with when the Standing Order was passed.
    MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that he has, perhaps very naturally, misunderstood the reason which influenced me in the ruling which I privately conveyed to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was not in reference to any particular class of Estimates which might be put down for the evening. That was not the reason on which I founded my ruling; but it was upon the terms of the Standing Order which provides that no Amendment can be moved, or any question raised, unless it relates to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply, which I take to mean in Committee of Supply generally, and not in reference to any particular class of Estimates. On looking at the terms of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, I found that it did not refer to any action of the Executive, and did not impugn the conduct of any officer whose salary is comprised in the Estimates to be taken generally, but that what the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to do was to call attention to the propriety of introducing a general amendment of the law. If every question of a general amendment of the law were to be discussed on the first night of the Estimates, the House would see that there might be no end to the discussion; and I do not think that, in such circumstances, I should be keeping either to the letter or the spirit of the Rule if I permitted the hon. and learned Gentleman to move his Amendment.

  HELIGOLAND—PROPOSED CESSION TO GERMANY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GORST,who had the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "To call attention to the increased expenditure on Heligoland, and to the fact that that island is of no mercantile or strategical value to Great Britain; and to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to endeavour to induce the German Government to take charge of the island,"
  said, he was not sorry that he was prevented by the Rules of the House from making that Motion, since it would, perhaps, enable them to discuss it with greater freedom in the form of a general conversation rather than if they could be called upon to give a vote. The Island was formerly part of the Duchy

  1011
  of Schleswig, and it came only into the possession of Great Britain at the beginning of the century, when it was taken by a Naval Force under Admiral Russell, but it was not formally transferred till the peace in 1814. If at that time the present German Empire had existed, Germany never would have consented to the transfer. The Island was not of great importance in itself, for it was only a mile long and half-a-mile broad, it was rapidly being absorbed by the sea, and was likely very soon to be reduced to a mere shoal of land in the German Ocean. It contained a population of only about 2,000 persons, who lived in less than 4 00 houses, and the male portion of which was engaged either as fishermen or pilots, the women conducting the small agriculture of the Island. The total expenditure on the Island was about £8,000 a-year, and towards that there was a proposed subsidy in these Estimates of £2,775. The situation of the Island was of no importance in the present advanced stage of artillery science; but situated as it was at the mouth of the Elbe and the Weser, and within 18 miles of the Elbe lightship, it was naturally productive of a strong feeling in Germany. It might be only a sentimental feeling; but it none the less applied, and he asked the Members of the House to consider what the sentimental feeling would have been in this country if Heligoland had been an island in the estuary of the Thames, and it had been occupied by the French or the Germans. Why, then, should we continue to hold an Island the possession of which by us was offensive to Germany when it was no possible use, and when its maintenance involved quite an appreciable charge on the Public Exchequer? He did not put the matter forward as though the Island was something they should barter away for a great advantage to be obtained from the German nation; but, looking at the value of the Island to this country, he thought it would be extremely mean to attempt to make merchandize out of the sentimental desire of the German people to possess it. His wish was that, by pursuing the course he suggested, they should gain what was of inestimable value to this country—the goodwill of the German people. He flattered himself that he had now made out his ease that the Island was of no commercial or strategical
  1012
  value to this country. The Government must make up their mind as quickly as possible, because the island was rapidly disappearing. Ton miles out of 11 had disappeared since the last century, and it might not be long before the last remnant disappeared under the waves of the ocean. If, therefore, they wished to do a handsome thing, then let them do it at once.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) with some surprise, for there was a most extraordinary omission in that speech. The hon. and learned Member had spoken of the ardent desire of the Gorman people to have possession of Heligoland; but he had quite forgotten to refer to the feelings of the Heligolanders upon this point. It was certainly a strange proposal to hand over this Island to the Germans without ascertaining the views and wishes of the Islanders. If the hon. and learned Member had inquired into this point, he (Sir Henry Holland) was afraid the omission to state the result of his inquiry must have been intentional, for he was satisfied that there was no desire on the part of the people of Heligoland for the proposed annexation. They had prospered and thrived under English rule, and he was certain that they did not desire to come under German rule and German law, including conscription for military service. He was not prepared to sacrifice these people for the purpose of pleasing and conciliating the German people, however desirable it might be to do so. The hon. and learned Member had stated that from a strategical point of view Heligoland was no use to this country. He (Sir Henry Holland) was disposed to contradict this opinion, oven upon the hon. Member's own statement, as to the position of Heligoland; but he (Sir Henry Holland) had the honour of having served on a Royal Commission on Colonial Defences and the Protection of Trade; and although their proceedings and Report were strictly confidential, yet it would be no breach of that confidence to say that, at all events, some persons of experience entertained contrary views to that of the hon. and learned Member. In truth, the very statement of the hon. and learned Member that Germany ardently desired the possession of this Island, though he said

  1013
  this desire was only sentimental, might not unnaturally lead many to question whether there was not some other and deeper reason for that desire. Might it not be based on strategical reasons'? Might it not be that they looked upon the possession of this Island as more important than the hon. and learned Member would lead this House to believe? He (Sir Henry Holland) thought that Her Majesty would have no difficulty in "inducing the German Government to take charge of the Island;" but he protested against this endeavour being made against the wishes of the inhabitants, and from the knowledge he had obtained when in the Colonial Office, and from Reports of Governors, he was satisfied that the Heligolanders would be averse to any such change. What were we to gain by such a change? The goodwill of the German people, and relief from a very small subsidy. The hon. and learned Member had admitted that the subsidy was very small, and this of itself was a proof of the prosperity of the Island under our rule. Were we to throw over the Heligolanders for such a gain? As to the gradual deterioration of the Island from the sea, he believed that whatever it had been in the last century it was less now than it had been. Upon the whole, then, he hoped the House would not assent to the proposed scheme, which appeared to him most unwise and uncalled for.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he could not agree entirely with either of the speakers. The feeling of a large majority in Heligoland was in favour of being joined to Germany or Denmark. It was not easy, however, to ascertain Heligoland feeling, beeause the language they spoke was Frisian. Scarcely 20 people on the Island understood English. He had not had the advantage of the hon. and learned Member in reading up books on the subject. They had been told that there were 60 cows on the Island. He believed there was not one. Then they were told something about horses. There were no horses.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he did not say that.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, there might have been cows on the Island at some period or other.
  MR. FIRTHadmitted that; but he disputed the hon. Member's figures as to the production of barley, and also the size of the Island. At present it was
  1014
  about one mile long and half-a-mile broad, and it was gradually getting less; therefore, there was something in the suggestion that if the Government acted at all they must act speedily. The Island was not, as stated, at the mouth of the Elbe. Again, if they were to give it to anyone they should give it to Denmark and not to Germany, as it originally belonged to Schleswig. Still, if in presenting' it to Germany the Germans would give up any claim which they asserted to the Northern part of New Guinea, then the good relations between the two countries might be preserved and strengthened without any loss or disadvantage to this country.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, that before the Select Committee on Harbours, which sat and reported recently, evidence was given of the great importance of the Island of Heligoland to the British fishermen who went to the Dogger Bank and the German Ocean. If a proper graving dock were provided on the Island for the repair of the fishing fleet it would be a great advantage. Considering the importance of the Island to our fishermen, he thought it would be most unwise to surrender the Island for no other reason than to curry favour with the German nation.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the principle enunciated by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was capable of very large, if not indefinite, extension, and should not be adopted without very mature consideration. That principle seemed to be simply that if other people very much desired a piece of territory which we possessed, we should give it up to them. In the present instance, the Island which was supposed to be the object of desire to the German people might not be of any great importance to us. But in another case, or at some other time, a foreign nation might desire something which it would be very inconvenient to part with He did not, therefore, think that we could accept the supposed wish of the German people for the acquisition of Heligoland as a reason for surrendering the Island to them. It must not be forgotten that our possession of this Island enabled us to import cargoes into Germany, during the wars of the Great Napoleon, much to the benefit of the German people; nor was it altogether impossible that it might enable us again to render

  1015
  the same assistance to Germany which it enabled us to render to her in past times. He did not think that any case had been made out for giving up the Island, and he thought we might as well consult our own feelings by keeping it as consult the feelings of the Germans by giving it up to them.
  MR. HENEAGEwished to boar testimony to the importance of Heligoland to the fishing interest of the East Coast. The fishermen of Grimsby would be very much astonished to learn of the proposal to put Heligoland in other than British hands. He would advocate the construction of a small harbour on the Island, which would be of the greatest use to the fishermen who went to the Dogger Bank to pursue their calling, and he hoped that, in the interests of fishermen in general, the House would reject the Motion.
  MR. P. H. MUNTZsaid, he thought that it would be much better to leave this Island alone than to surrender it to any Foreign Power, more particularly as there did not appear to be any desire on the part of the inhabitants to be transferred to another nation.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that when the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had mentioned that this Island was formerly part of the Duchy of Schleswig, he was afraid that he was about to re-open the Schleswig-Holstein Question. The considerations raised in the Motion before the House were very numerous, and involved principles very dangerous in their application to the scattered Dependencies of the British Crown. He was inclined to think that some of the doctrines applicable to this case were capable of very dangerous extension and ought not to be lightly adopted. If they were to talk about giving up places because they were not ancient Possessions of the British Crown, they would embark upon a discussion of what were the ancient Possessions of the British Crown. Again, he could not conceive the case for giving up the modern Possessions of the Crown any stronger than that for giving up its ancient Possessions. On the other hand, the probability was that the arguments in favour of surrendering the ancient Possessions of the Crown were stronger than those in favour of surrendering modern acquisitions, and for this reason—that in all probability in the case of
  1016
  modern Possessions some part of the reason for the annexation still existed, while in the case of ancient Possessions the change of circumstances might have rendered the reason for their acquisition non-existent, and they might have become of no value. If the argument of contiguity to another country were applied, it would be necessary to consider it with reference to other Possessions of the British Crown—for instance, in the case of the Channel Islands. The Channel Islands were much nearer to France than Heligoland was to Germany. It was true that, from time to time, some learned German Professor wrote an article with the view of showing that Heligoland ought to belong to Germany; but he was not inclined to think that the same feeling existed for the acquisition of Heligoland by Germany as existed with regard to other parts of the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein. With regard to the inhabitants, there was no evidence before the House of any wish on their part to be surrendered to Germany. Some years ago, he presented a Petition to the House from the inhabitants of Heligoland regarding certain grievances under which they laboured; but, speaking from memory, he was almost certain there was no reference in that Petition to any desire to be transferred to Germany. The Petition expressed the desire of the inhabitants for certain extensions of the form of government in a popular direction; it sought a restoration of certain privileges, and contained a strong expression of opinion on the part of the inhabitants against rabbits being allowed to undermine the Island. The surrender of this Island might raise very important questions as to whether Denmark was not more entitled to Heligoland than Germany. These people were not Germans. They were of Teutonic race only in the sense that all the inhabitants of Germany were Teutonic. They were of Frisian origin, and spoke a dialect of a Frisian character. Then there was another point, which was the importance of the Island in connection with the great industry of the North Sea Fisheries. He hardly thought that the importance of the question was properly appreciated in the House, but those at the Foreign Office were very sensible of it. It would be a serious thing, without very careful consideration, to interfere with the very extensive fishing

  1017
  industry of the East Coast of England. Besides, it would be impossible to hand over the Island to another Power except with the consent of Parliament. Unless at the termination of a war, when new arrangements might have to be made, the Possessions of the Crown could not be alienated by the act of the Executive. He would ask the House to consider what would happen if he or his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies were to bring in a Bill for handing over Heligoland to Denmark or Germany. The Government would be denounced, they would be told that they were cowards, and that it would be a crowning of the edifice of their disgrace. He did not think that such a Bill would receive the support of the Party to which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham belonged. For these reasons, he thought the House would agree with him that we should do better to act on the old maxim, quieta non movere, and not adopt the proposal.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was much astonished when he saw the Notice of Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, which appeared rather as a trap for Her Majesty's Government, and he congratulated them that they had escaped the snare. He was also very glad that the proposal had practically received no support in the House. Even if his hon. and learned Friend had proved his case, he should be sorry that the House should support any Motion for the surrender of one of Her Majesty's Possessions; and if the case had not been proved, as he thought it had not, it would be a bad thing if there were to be any doubtful voices in the matter. His hon. and learned Friend appeared to found his case on two points. In the first place, he said there was a very strong desire on the part of the German people to possess the Island. He had himself never been able to discover any trace of that desire. He admitted that there had been certain writings and speeches from Germans showing that Heligoland ought to belong to the German people; but he did not think that the German people attached any such importance to the matter as his hon. and learned Friend seemed to think. Then as to the other point, that the Island was of no use to us, it had been shown by the noble Lord and others who had taken part
  1018
  in the debate, that Heligoland was of great importance to our fisheries in the North Sea. His hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had been a Member of a very important Commission appointed to inquire into the defences of the country, and though his hon. Friend could not from the nature of the subject speak freely about it, yet he had said enough to show how valuable in certain circumstances the possession of Heligoland might be. As to the feelings of the people of Heligoland, when he was at the Colonial Office, so far from there being any desire on their part to sever themselves from the British Empire, they were exceedingly well pleased to be connected with England rather than with Germany. He did not know, considering the peculiar nature of the Island, and how rapidly it was diminishing, that it would be possible to do anything for it of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), without incurring more expense than would be repaid by any results that could be obtained; but he thought the Colonial Office might turn their attention to the subject, and perhaps, with the assistance of the Home Secretary, they might succeed in devising some Ground Game Act for Heligoland, which would at least have the effect of remedying the principal grievances felt by the inhabitants.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—DISTRICT INSPECTOR MURPHY.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHY,who had the next Notice on the Paper, in the following terms:—
    "To move that the conduct of Earl Spencer and the Irish Executive with regard to the dismissal of District Inspector Murphy was unjustifiable and contrary to the regulations of the Constabulary code and to the interests of public justice,"
    said, he had been informed by the Clerk that he would be out of Order in moving this Motion, because there had been a previous Notice put down upon the same subject. He now found, on consulting Sir Erskine May's volume, that after an hon. Member had given Notice of a Motion, if he desired to change the day for bringing it forward, he must change it for a later and not for an earlier day. He would like, however, to ask, as a point of Order, whether, in the event of an hon. Member withdraw-

    1019
    ing a Notice of Motion, it would be in the power of another hon. Member to bring the question forward on an earlier occasion before the date originally fixed for the Motion?
    MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that my remarks were rather personal to himself in so far as he had himself given Notice of a Motion for the 14th of April, but had withdrawn that Notice and put it down for to-night, knowing very well that Supply was coming on. The matter is one of extreme delicacy, the object of the Rule being to prevent the House from being taken by surprise. When a Motion is put down for a future day, if the hon. Member who gave Notice of it were to be at liberty to change the day, the House would not be aware of the day when the Motion was really to come on. It would, therefore, be quite out of Order for the hon. Gentleman himself, on the present occasion, to move an Amendment in terms almost identical with those which had been placed on the Paper for a future day. I am not, however, prepared to say that another hon. Gentleman—the Motion having been withdrawn and being now off the Paper—might not move it in general terms; but it would be quite out of Order for the hon. Gentleman on the present occasion to move it, and that is the reason why I have ruled the hon. Gentleman to be out of Order. I am certainly not prepared to say that a general reference to the case of this particular individual might not be brought on by another hon. Member.
    tice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that gross irregularity took place in the way in which District Inspector Murphy was treated. Mr. Murphy had given information to his superiors with regard to what was afterwards proved in a Court of Law to be the very gross misconduct of a certain officer of the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and by giving this information Mr. Murphy had drawn down upon himself the displeasure of the Authorities. Mr. Murphy had for many years been employed by the Government of Ireland as Inspector of Police. A man was not appointed Inspector at once. He got into the
    1020
    Force at first as a Sub-Inspector, and, having proved his capacity, he was promoted to the position of Inspector. That position was obtained by competitive examination, and not by favour. It came to Mr. Murphy's knowledge from several sources that very gross misconduct was taking place in very high quarters in the Police Force, and he thought it his duty to give information to the heads of the Police Force in Ireland. It seemed that the policy of the heads of the Force was the same as that of Earl Spencer—namely, to patronize as far as possible, and screen from any punishment, or even inquiry into their conduct, any persons against whom charges of an improper nature were brought. The County Inspector in the place in which Mr. Murphy happened to be treated him in the most offensive manner, and refused to acknowledge his salute. Mr. Murphy then ceased to salute his superior officer, the County Inspector, who complained of him in consequence. After a time a charge of drunkenness was brought against Inspector Murphy; but the charge was not brought in accordance with the rules of the Force, which provided that notice of the alleged offence should be given immediately. The charge against Mr. Murphy was framed by Mr. Bruce, who was, as a matter of fact, the final Court of Appeal in the case. The evidence given at the trial was of a very contradictory character; but Mr. Murphy was found guilty. He combated this decision, and appealed to the Government, who withdrew the charge, the Lord Lieutenant saying that the evidence of drunkenness was of a very slight nature. The Lord Lieutenant, however, called upon Mr. Murphy to resign without giving him a pension or compensation of any kind, not on the charge of drunkenness, but on the allegation that Mr. Murphy was guilty of insubordination and of writing offensive letters to his superiors. The real reason why Mr. Murphy was compelled to resign his position in the Force was, not because of his impertinence, but because he gave information against the pets of the Government. The person charged by Mr. Murphy had been found guilty in a Court of Law, and was now suffering the penalty of his misconduct. He (Mr. Biggar) believed it to be the duty of the Government to re-investigate the

    1021
    case of Mr. Murphy, and either reinstate him in the position which he held before his perfectly illegal and irregular dismissal, or else to allow him the pension to which he was entitled. Instead of persecuting District Inspector Murphy, the Government should have rewarded him for giving information of so valuable a nature.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that if any Members of the Government intended to speak, he would ask them to apply themselves to the leading points of the case. First of all, Inspector Murphy had as the only definite charge against him the imputation of drunkenness, a charge which was afterwards positively withdrawn. It was then stated that the dismissal was due to persistent and insubordinate misconduct on the part of Mr. Murphy; and the second point was, that no definite charge of insubordination was ever made against him, and he was never brought to answer any charge of the kind. The third point—and the important one—was this, that until Mr. Murphy sent the letters containing those astonishing charges against Mr. French, there was nothing heard of Mr. Murphy's drunkenness or insubordination; the whole charge against him began with that time. Mr. Murphy had been 18 years in the Force before that, had been steadily rising in reputation, and had received honours of various kinds. Nothing was heard of his insubordination until he sent those statements against Mr. French. However startling those statements might appear to the Castle officials, they had since been proved in a Court of Law, and French was suffering the penalty of his misconduct. Unless the public received a clear explanation of the whole case, they would say that Mr. Murphy had been made a victim because he made a serious and terrible charge against his superior, which serious and terrible charge had since been proved to be true.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had been in the expectation that something more definite would have been said upon the subject than what had fallen from the two hon. Members. The gravamen of the charge was embodied by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) when he said that it was owing, first of all, to Mr. Murphy having denounced to his
    1022
    superior officers the iniquities committed by Mr. French, that he was found fault with. Perhaps, the shortest way in answering the statements and allegations made was to recount to the House what really took place. The fact was, that Mr. Murphy, against whose capacity he would not say a word, had been, for a long series of years, a cause of great trouble to those at the head of the Force of which he was a member. The Constabulary Force was a disciplined Force, and it was necessary that every man in it should observe those ordinary rules of discipline and that regular conduct which prevailed in every body of that kind. When he was discharged for in-subordination, he said that it was a fresh charge, and that he knew nothing of it before. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could read a number of such charges, in which his insubordinate conduct was pointed out, and after which he was remonstrated with and warned. It was said that all these charges arose out of certain letters Mr. Murphy forwarded with regard to French. Well, in that case, he should be obliged to go back some considerable time, for these charges had commenced in 1875, when nothing was known of French's misconduct. In 1875, he was reduced for making a false Return, and lost 12 steps seniority. That was on the 1st of August. In February, 1881—this was still before the question of French's misconduct had been heard of—he was informed that his conduct would require reform. There were several censures by successive Inspectors General against him on the following dates:—na ly, on the 19th of November, 1875, December 12, 1876, February 13, 1877, March 5, 1878, September 28, 1878, January 14, 1879, September 10, 1880, and the 3rd of January, 1881. The House would, he believed, admit that this was a tolerably long list of accusations against him. He was censured, and warnings were noted against him that, if he persisted in insubordination, he would be severely dealt with. That was the Minute communicated to Mr. Murphy in February, 1881. He would give further particulars as to what was said to him on these occasions. He would begin in July, 1876. On the 26th of July, 1876, he was cautioned that if he was again brought under the unfavourable notice of Sir John Wood, the then

    1023
    Inspector General, he would be seriously reduced upon the seniority list. On the 21st of September, 1876, he was again cautioned. In 1877 he was further cautioned. On the 10th September, 1880, he was again, by order of his superiors, cautioned. On the 3rd January, 1881, the Inspector General refused to submit to the Government a most improper representation made by Mr. Murphy, and he was cautioned with regard to it. On the 19th February, 1881, owing to the improper, disrespectful, and insubordinate nature of his correspondence, he was informed that, if he aggravated by such further conduct the charges against him, he would be dealt with. He, however, persisted in that insubordination, and later in 1881, notwithstanding this, some most insubordinate correspondence was sent in. On May 7th and 12th he was sent for, and was personally informed by the Inspector General (Colonel Hillier), in the presence of his deputy (Colonel Bruce), that his conduct had been censured, and that he was reduced 10 steps on the list; and it was only in consequence of his own admission of the impropriety of his conduct and his expression of regret, that he was not then recommended for removal from the Force. In 1884, Mr. Murphy, having been, on another occasion, the cause of some trouble, was dismissed. What he wanted to point out to the House was that Mr. Murphy had long-been insubordinate, and that his correspondence had been, for years back, full of animadversion on those responsible for the rules of the Force. The House would understand, as he had before observed, that this was a disciplined Force, and that such unruly conduct of tone and temper was perfectly inconsistent with the proper maintenance of discipline and order. That being the state of the case, and no communication having been made, or any likely to be made on the part of Mr. Murphy, in the autumn of last year, a charge was brought against him of having been drunk on a certain occasion. That was a charge which depended upon evidence; and, therefore, a Court of Inquiry was necessary in order to enable the Inspector General to ascertain whether the charge was one which could be sustained or not. In regard to all these questions which he had been alluding to there was no necessity for a
    1024
    Court of Inquiry—the letters proved themselves, and were sufficient proof and evidence of Mr. Murphy's unfitness to stay in the Force. There was, therefore, no necessity for inquiry, because the facts were fully and entirely before the Inspector General. The Government had power to discharge any officer if they found him unfit for the Service, and they came to the conclusion that Mr. Murphy was unfit for the Service. Then he came to the charge of drunkenness. That was a matter of fact. He thought it was really unnecessary to go further into this case, because the Inquiry found that the case was proved, but that the offence was, however, of a slight character; and although it was quite true that the action of the Government towards Mr. Murphy followed upon the finding of the Court, and that he was dismissed for drunkenness, it was never even alleged that this step would have been taken but because of this accumulated series of indents in his previous career, each leading up to a point when it was almost impossible for those responsible for the discipline of the Force to allow it to go further. He believed that the House would admit that the greatest forbearance had been shown to Mr. Murphy before this—if he was not in error, he had himself admitted this before his superior officers. This charge of drunkenness was therefore the last drop in the bucket, and he was called upon to resign his position in the Force, not because of this definite charge of drunkenness, but because his previous conduct had shown that he was not a desirable officer to be retained in the Force. He did not know that he need say anything more upon that point. He now came to the next point—a question which had nothing to do with it had been put before the House—a question with regard to certain communications on the matter of Mr. French's misconduct, which it was asserted he sent in. Mr. Murphy posed before the House and country as the victim of those persons in the Department who wished to screen Mr. French. Well, anyone who brought or entertained such a charge as was grounded on these alleged communications against Colonel Bruce, the Inspector General, could have no knowledge of the character of that officer. Colonel Bruce was a man of the highest rectitude, and of high character and stainless

    1025
    life—[Mr. CALLAN: So was French.] He would leave the world to choose between a man of Colonel Bruce's position and the hon. Member who sneered at him. There was not a word about Colonel Bruce, who was perfectly incapable of such an act; and he could only repeat that anyone who knew him would be aware that it would be impossible to attack, or to attempt to fasten any charge upon him, except vain, idle, sneers. As a matter of fact, the case was this—Mr. Murphy said that in the summer of 1882 he had forwarded letters to Lord Spencer making a series of charges against French. He had seen different accounts given of these letters. They were either anonymous letters, or they were sent by "round robins." Whatever was their form, all he had to say was that they were never received, and that there was not a trace of them. Any document of that sort would have attracted attention; but they never had reached Lord Spencer or his private secretary. The gentleman who then acted as private secretary, whose name was Brackenbury, had no recollection in regard to it whatever. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could therefore only say that he had the testimony of this gentleman, and the fact that no such accusatory documents could be found, if they were sent, against the assertions of Mr. Murphy. If Mr. Murphy knew anything on the subject of the charge, his duty was to report it to his superior officer. He did not do so; but having this knowledge, as he said he had, he adopted an other mode of bringing it before the authorities. It was in the month of August in the following year—he did not know whether he was bound to justify the course taken in regard to French—but it was in August, 1883, that the first article appeared in United Ireland, and French was arrested upon a criminal charge on the 15th July, 1884, and the first communication received from Mr. Murphy on the subject of which anything was known was his Report on the following day in July, 1884. [Mr. SEXTON: Who received that letter?] He did not know. He presumed the Inspector General. That was on the 16th, the day after French was arrested. That Report was immediately examined carefully, and Mr. Murphy was "had up," brought to Dublin, and examined, and it was proved
    1026
    that he could not furnish any information whatever. There was a great deal of hearsay and gossip. This was his information in 1884, two years after he had furnished his original information. Even this information, which he gave, was of such a vague and indeterminate kind, that no additional light whatever was thrown upon that which the authorities already had. The whole contention, on his part, that he was instrumental in bringing French to justice was, therefore, absolutely without foundation. He brought nothing forward to prove it, except in 1882, when he stated that he sent an anonymous letter disclosing vague information. That communication—two years before the arrest of French—was never received, and having regard to the vague character of the information furnished by him in his Report in 1884, if he sent any information in 1882, it must have been equally worthless, and such as no action could be taken upon. Even had it been received, he had shown to the House that, so far from the attitude of the police authorities towards Mr. Murphy being due to his statements with regard to French, an attitude identical with it had been for years before adopted towards him. Long before anything was heard of the charges against French, Mr. Murphy had been over and over again warned and re-warned, that if he persisted in his almost mutinous, insubordinate, ill-tempered, ill-conditioned tone of language, he must be dismissed from the Force. No one could allege that, because he gave some information, that the whole of this business had been got up in order to punish him for having done so. It was very easy talking of screening.
    MR. CALLAN: You screened French.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that if any definite charge were made, they should know what to do with it. There was not a tittle of evidence to support it. He had shown that Mr. Murphy's dismissal from the Force was on account of a series of acts of insubordination extending over years, and long before French's misconduct ever was thought of, either in that House or out of it. He had answered the charge that the accusations about drunkenness had been withdrawn. They were not withdrawn, but had been proved at the Court

    1027
    of Inquiry, and that would have been sufficient in itself to lead to a man's resigning his commission, and retiring from the service. He had also shown that the warnings given to Mr. Murphy for his insubordinate conduct had not been confined to the present Inspector General, but several—Sir John Wood, Colonel Hillier, and Colonel Bruce. He believed that he had shown that three consecutive Inspectors General had had to remonstrate with Mr. Murphy and warn him, and at length it was found that his conduct was perfectly inconsistent with his continuing in the Force. So long as the Irish Constabulary continued to be a disciplined Force, it was impossible that such conduct as Mr. Murphy's could be tolerated. His conduct was such as to be inconsistent with his holding his position in the Force.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Banner-man), by a surprising diversion from the subject before the House, had indulged in what seemed to be a comparison between the character of the Inspector General of Constabulary (Colonel Bruce) and the hon. Gentleman who had interrupted him (Mr.Callan). He (Mr.Sexton) would not follow the right hon. Gentleman into that matter, but would merely remark that the incident was one which tended so little to the profitableness of these debates that it was to be hoped it would not be turned into a precedent. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken about vague and idle sneers against character. The reproach or reproof, if such it were—though he (Mr. Sexton) could not imagine to whom it was addressed—would have come from the right hon. Gentleman with a better grace, if the speech he made in defence of the Government and in attack on Inspector Murphy—for the speech had borne both characters—had been more definite and more distinctly to the point. He had quite expected, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland rose, that he would have addressed himself to one or other of two objects—that he would have endeavoured to prove that the charge of drunkenness had been justly made against Inspector Murphy, or else that he would have come to the Table and set down definite proofs of such other conduct on the part of this officer as would have entitled Lord Spencer to dismiss him from the Force, even con-
    1028
    sidering that the charge of drunkenness had been an ill-founded one; but he (Mr. Sexton) had listened to the right hon. Gentleman with strict attention, and must assert that he had done neither the one thing nor the other. He certainly had not endeavoured to make good the charge of drunkenness, and that was not surprising, for if the right hon. Gentleman had any intellectual faults, recklessness was not one of them, and it would have been reckless on his part to have endeavoured before that House to substantiate the charge of drunkenness levelled against Inspector Murphy. The first remark he (Mr. Sexton) would make upon that charge was that it was conceived in a spirit of cowardly intrigue, and that it was conducted and carried to a conclusion against that unfortunate officer in a manner clearly contrary to the Constabulary Act, to the Code which had grown out of that Act, and to the ordinary principle of common sense and fair play which had its abode in the bosom of every honest man. The rule of the Force—he (Mr. Sexton) called it common sense—was, that when a charge was to be made against an officer, it should be communicated to him at the earliest moment by the person who meant to make it, and that he should be asked, without delay, to put upon record whether he admitted or denied the charge; but what was the course pursued in the case of Inspector Murphy? Why this—the act of drunkenness was alleged to have been committed on 30th August; but this unfortunate gentleman was kept in ignorance of the plot against him until the 5th September. The County Inspector, instead of going to Inspector Murphy frankly, and like a man, and saying—"I am of opinion that you were drunk last night, and I intend to report the fact to the Inspector General, and I ask you, therefore, whether you admit or deny the charge," said nothing at all to him. Inspector Murphy was never allowed to know the plot that was hatching until a week had passed; and, as might well be conceived, it was more difficult for him to prove his innocence then than it would have been if he had received timely warning. He (Mr. Sexton) had said that it would have been reckless on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ire-

    1029
    land to have attempted to prove the charge of drunkenness, so he would proceed to prove that statement. The Report of the Court of Inquiry said—
    "We have to state that, in our opinion, some explanation is required as to why we found the verdict we have—"
    Inspector Murphy's temper might have been very bad; but it was not worse than the grammar of the Government inquiry—
    "Seeing that the weight of evidence as regards numbers would appear to be in favour of the accused. For the prosecution, nine witnesses, including the County Inspector, were summoned, but six of whom were examined. Of these, two would depose to no facts at all as regards the date in question, two more wore hostile; and of the other two, one corroborated the County Inspector, while the other—"
    That was to say the man Pyne, who, for some mysterious reason unexplained, spent his evenings in the County Inspector's kitchen,
    "Deposed to facts that occurred before Mr. Sheehan saw Mr. Murphy. The three witnesses produced for the defence, one being Mr. Murphy's own servant, swore that he was perfectly sober. As those were civilians, their evidence from a Constabulary point of view must be looked upon with caution."
    This reflected upon Mr. Speaker, upon himself, (Mr. Sexton) and all assembled in that House—
    "When we have the direct and positive evidence of a County Inspector, corroborated by the evidence of the man Pyne, that the accused, by his manner and action, was under the influence of drink, and this is strengthened by the fact that the County Inspector's attention was specially directed to his movements at the time when the others were but casual observers, we feel bound to add that the case of intoxication exhibited by Mr. Murphy was of a slight nature; and we are of opinion it would have been more judicious if the County Inspector had acted of his own motion, and charged Mr. Murphy without delay, and informed him of his intention to make a Report."
    "Why, the Report of the Court of Inquiry was a censure on the County Inspector, and not on Inspector Murphy. The impropriety of the course adopted against this unfortunate man, Inspector Murphy, was acknowledged even by the Court of Inquiry; and they had it on the face of the record that out of nine witnesses examined two knew nothing about the matter, six were in favour of the Sub-Inspector, and only one appeared to sustain the charge against him—namely, the person who appeared to be indebted to the hospitality of the
    1030
    County Inspector. This matter of the drunkenness was a vanishing point as they advanced in the case. How did it appear in Colonel Bruce's Minute of October 4th? Why, the Minute contained these words—
    "The Inspector General does not place his recommendation on the case of drunkenness. This was proved, but was a slight ease. Putting that case on one side, there is enough against Mr. Murphy to make it desirable that he should leave the Force."
    Only on the 25th of January of this year, Sir Robert Hamilton, writing to Inspector Murphy, said—
    "His Excellency, however, after consideration, thinks it right to inform you that your removal from the Royal Irish Constabulary was due to your persistently insubordinate correspondence and conduct, continued in spite of frequent warning, and to no other cause whatever."
    Therefore the first fact he (Mr. Sexton) emphasized was, that it was clear that the charge of drunkenness against Inspector Murphy was abandoned by the authorities, was practically abandoned by Lord Spencer; and from that it appeared that Inspector Murphy had suffered what no man, policeman or civilian, should be compelled to suffer—he had been made the victim of a course of action which was repugnant to every man, which was to be correctly described by saying that he was accused on one charge; that that charge was not made out against him by the weight of evidence; and that that proceeding having failed, he was dismissed from the Force upon another charge, of which he had not been accused. But what should he (Mr. Sexton) say of that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which dealt with the other charge against Inspector Murphy? What was the nature of that other charge? Was it not impalpable? Was it not intangible? Was it not, as the right hon. Gentleman would say, "vague and idle to the last degree?" He (Mr. Sexton) had fully expected that, after the manner of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman would have come to the Table, and if he relied upon Inspector Murphy's language in proof of his insubordinate conduct would have taken up a file of Reports, and would have read out the language which constituted the insubordination for which the dismissal had taken place. As the right hon. Gentleman himself

    1031
    had said, the language itself was a proof. The whole of these Reports were upon the file in Dublin Castle; and if the language was so conclusive as to proof, as that proof could be so easily obtained, why was the House asked to take the whole case on credit—why was not a single one of these Reports produced? Inspector Murphy was no angel; he was human, like the rest of them, and it was to be presumed had his faults like other men. He (Mr. Sexton) was not there to say that the fault of temper might not have been one of them. He was not there to say that Inspector Murphy's language was conceived in the spirit and expressed in the phrase of Chesterfield; but it did not require a man to have passed through an official career to know and to understand how easy it was for an insolent and arrogant superior to produce an appearance of faults of temper in an unfortunate subordinate, who would have been humble and polite enough if he had been fairly treated. He contended that the right hon. Gentleman's speech that night was as fine and striking an example as ever came under his notice of how a man could be ruined by innuendoes. The right hon. Gentleman had gone back to the year 1875, and had given them not a record, but an allusion—a poor and vague allusion—to a record of a number of reprimands or warnings conveyed to Inspector Murphy in consequence of something which he could not define. At one time they were told that that officer's tone was impertinent; at another time that he caused embarrassment; and, finally, that he produced trouble; and it was such phrases from a Minister, void of direct evidence, that were to justify the taking away the reputation of a public officer and the ruining of his character. Was this the way to deal with a man who had given them 19 years' public service? He maintained that the right hon. Gentleman had evidently a deplorable want of frankness and candour when he gave them, at the Table, this trivial entry of want of temper and want of taste, and had not suggested to them, on the other hand, as an impartial Chief Secretary for Ireland would have done, that the whole career of Inspector Murphy, since he entered the Police Force, was studded with favourable reports. Here was one account which, he (Mr. Sexton) pre-
    1032
    sumed, would not be questioned—there had been public records, and in them this had not been questioned—and it was so circumstantial, and contained so many precise facts, that it bore on its face the appearance of credibility—
    "When serving at Arva, County Cavan, I was recommended for a favourable record arresting a man who discharged a pistol shot during a riot. When serving at Ballycastle, County Antrim, I obtained a first-class favourable record, and was twice recommended. I was four times recommended for favourable record when serving at Ballina. I was also recommended at Listowel, Kerry, also in Gal-way, when on special duty; and in the County Monaghan, as well, I invariably got favourable minutes when my district was inspected, by superior officers from headquarters, particularly so in 1883 and 1884."
    The evidence, therefore, was, that in 1883 and 1884 there were favourable records for Inspector Murphy, and that the last complaint against him was in 1881, when he was found offending against the canons of taste at Dublin Castle.
    MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: It was the last before he alleged he brought any complaint against French.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman—that was his case exactly. The last warning before Murphy professed to have intervened in French's case was in February, 1881; and in 1882, 1883, and 1884, at a period much later than the date of the last complaint made against him by the right hon. Gentleman, according to his own account, Murphy had obtained favourable records. Would it then be contended, for a moment, that if Inspector Murphy, after he had passed two or three years of perfectly blameless life, had not intervened to make a charge against a formidable personage like French—if he had kept his mouth closed, and kept the evidence of French's guilt in his own bosom—that these old charges of 1876, 1878, 1879, and 1881 would be raked up against him as an alternative case, after the case that had been brought against him had been abandoned, in order to ruin the man for life? The Chief Secretary for Ireland proceeded to say that, in 1882, no complaint was made by Inspector Murphy against French; and, in fact, in the ardour of his argument, he went further, and discredited—he (Mr. Sexton) might almost say pooh-poohed—the notion that Inspector Murphy was at all the

    1033
    cause of the revelation of French's guilt. Now, he (Mr. Sexton) was there to say that Inspector Murphy was the cause of it; and, for his own part, he ventured to maintain that if Murphy had kept silence he would to-day have been an Inspector, and French also would have been receiving the emoluments of his office. Inspector Murphy it was, and no one else, who, acting on a noble impulse to vindicate the law, and hunt up base and unspeakable crime in high places, first brought to light the charge for which French was now wearing a grey jacket in prison—that was, if the tenderness of Irish prison officials would allow them to inflict that indignity upon a gentleman who had occupied the distinguished position of Detective Director in Dublin Castle. Murphy, in his letter, says—
    "Fully impressed with the truth of the allegations which reached me from so many different and independent sources, and knowing that French could not be safely grappled with owing to the enormous influence which he exercised in the Castle, I, at length, in the interests of decency and morality, posted, in conjunction with seven others, two documents in the nature of a round robin, one to Earl Spencer and the other to Colonel Brackenhury, who was then the Under Secretary for Crime."
    The right hon. Gentleman now desired the House to believe that that document never reached either Lord Spencer or Colonel Brackenbury, a proposition which he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find some difficulty in getting the House to accept. If the fact was doubted, the matter was one perfectly susceptible of proof, as the persons who signed the document were still in the Force. But District Inspector Murphy, finding that a communication to Lord Spencer and Colonel Bracken-bury was of no avail, addressed a letter to a Member of that House, and it was a curious circumstance that about this time Colonel Brackenbury retired from the service in Dublin Castle. Colonel Brackenbury was a soldier—he was a man with a soldier's nature—he was a frank and honourable gentleman, and there was a growing suspicion in Ireland that Colonel Brackenbury wiped the dust of Dublin Castle from his shoes, because he found that pliancy to the ruling Powers there meant degradation and self-abasement. The letter addressed to a Member of that House by Inspector Murphy was more fruitful than the round
    1034
    robin addressed to the Castle. An article had appeared in United Ireland, then the Government had been dragged on to prosecute, and in the chain which had dragged them to that prosecution Inspector Murphy had been the first link. In daring to obey the impulse of his honesty Inspector Murphy had pronounced his own sentence of condemnation; and he (Mr. Sexton) thought the House would agree with him in saying that if Inspector Murphy had allowed crime to go unpunished in official places in Ireland he might have gone on to that day indulging his temper, and he would not have been dismissed. But no—he had the courage to impeach crime where he found it in high places, and the lesson of his career and his fate was this—that in official circles in Ireland, while the knave thrived the honest man—for the fault of Inspector Murphy was his honesty—who dared to obey the impulse of his honesty, and endeavoured to point the finger of justice at corruption in official places, drew down upon himself thereby only his own condemnation and his own official ruin.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland impressed him (Mr. Harrington) forcibly with the hopelessness of anyone sent over to govern Ireland clearing himself of the foul atmosphere he found in Dublin Castle. He thought that the punishment inflicted upon Inspector Murphy had been sufficient, without the additional injustice of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. A miserable conspiracy had been got up against Inspector Murphy, simply because he had been instrumental in exposing the iniquity of Dublin Castle officials. If when the trumped-up charge of drunkenness had failed, the Chief Secretary for Ireland desired to show that District Inspector Murphy was insubordinate, why then did he not give the evidence on which that charge was founded? Knowing as he did something of the circumstances connected with this alleged insubordinate correspondence, he (Mr. Harrington) must confess himself utterly surprised at the manner in which it was treated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Would the House be surprised to learn that the insubordination referred to was contained in letters regarding a matter in which the County Inspector had endeavoured to interfere

    1035
    with the private rights of Inspector Murphy? When the public learned the facts of this matter—for they could not be kept secret after the insinuations made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland—they would be surprised indeed to find that the insubordination alleged was due to the interference of the Inspector General, who objected to Murphy's acquaintance with a lady who happened to be a friend of that official When the public found that his insubordination rose from an attempt on the part of that official to interfere with Murphy in the selection of a person whom he desired as a partner for life—that it arose from an attempt unduly to prevent him from visiting a certain house—when the public learned these facts, and saw the grave charge which the Chief Secretary for Ireland endeavoured to base on them, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be more discredited than Inspector Murphy. It had also been said that the round robin regarding French had never reached the Castle; but he (Mr. Harrington) thought he was able to prove, by the manner in which the Dublin Castle officials themselves acted, that it must have reached their hands. When the charge against French appeared in United Ireland an inquiry was held at the Castle, and there were summoned to that inquiry the very men who signed the round robin. If there was no knowledge of the round robin in the Castle, why wore these men summoned to the inquiry?
    MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) must have lost his usual caution in presuming, in the course of an argument in that House, to sneer at Members of the House, and in presuming to compare an official of Dublin Castle to Members of the House. He hoped it would take at least a Royal visit, and the cleansing that must ensue, before any Minister on the Treasury Bench could presume to set in opposition to a Member of that House the character of a Dublin Castle official like Colonel Bruce, contaminated as Colonel Bruce was by contact with the "French" case. Who was Colonel Bruce that the right hon. Gentleman had the effrontery—he (Mr. Callan) would say the audacity—to sneer at Members of that House, because they would not endorse the hyperbolical expressions of respect
    1036
    of the right hon. Gentleman for that official? Colonel Bruce was aware of the charges against ex-Detective Director French, years before they came before that House. Would the Chief Secretary for Ireland grant a sworn inquiry; and he (Mr. Callan) would prove, by the evidence of Mr. Bracker, of the Depôt, by the evidence of Mr. Mallon, the Chief Detective in the City of Dublin, that Colonel Bruce had official knowledge of the misdeeds and the charges against ex-Detective Director French, long before one word of them appeared in the columns of United Ireland? Was the Chief Secretary for Ireland going to follow the example of his Predecessor in Office? On June 17th, 1884, 12 months after Colonel Bruce held a private inquiry in his own office with respect to the abominable practices of French, what did the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) say in that House? He said—
    "How, then, can the Government act against a man who may be innocent or may be guilty, when they have no evidence at all of any sort or kind, except what is contained in an article in United Ireland.—(3 Hansard, [289] 697.)
    He (Mr. Callan) charged now, in the face of the country, that when the late Chief Secretary for Ireland made that statement, Colonel Bruce had full and ample evidence, documentary evidence, taken in his own office, at an inquiry specially held, evidence given by Inspectors of the Police Force, incriminating French as strongly as the evidence given at the trial. What now became of Colonel Bruce? If he had communicated that evidence to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that right hon. Gentleman would not have made that statement; but Colonel Bruce, to shield the infamous scoundrel French, suppressed that evidence from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and this was the man whom the present Scotch Chief Secretary presumed to compare to a Member of that House, and to sneer at hon. Members on account of.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As it is a personal question, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I did not sneer at any Member of this House. What I said was, that I blamed hon. Members for sneering at Colonel Bruce.
    MR. CALLANsaid, even a Scotch intonation could express a sneer, and

    1037
    the right hon. Gentleman had certainly contrasted the character of Colonel Bruce with the characters of hon. Members. Before the right hon. Gentleman had done with Colonel Brace's suppression of evidence, he would be as heartily sick of Colonel Bruce as his Predecessor was sick of French. Mr. Murphy was discredited by Sir John Wood, who had been himself obliged to retire from the Force, and by Colonel Hillier, another tainted character. What were the facts about Mr. Murphy? Was the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, who was taking notes, prepared to deny that long before the article appeared in United Ireland two of the Sub-Inspectors whoso names were signed to the round robin were examined by Colonel Bruce in his own office? How were the names of these men obtained except by the round robin? The Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that Mr. Murphy had furnished a statement of a mere gossiping nature. Was he prepared to produce that statement? The right hon. Gentleman had sneered at the idea of Inspector Murphy having been in any way the cause of French's arrest. Was he aware that in 1883, 12 months before French was arrested, Mr. Murphy—he must be aware, because, by surreptitious and dishonourable means, the Constabulary authorities obtained the information—had supplied information to United Ireland? [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, no!] He begged pardon—to an hon. and learned Member of that House, the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), in which county Inspector Murphy was stationed. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, knowing very well that his speech would be reported at full length, had either stated as facts that of which he knew nothing, or had not taken the trouble to look into the Dublin Office, and had thought nothing of maligning and traducing the character of Mr. Murphy, a most deserving public officer, on mere assertion. They knew but little in Ireland of the present Chief Secretary; but it was to be hoped that they would know something better of him than they were led to expect from his conduct that evening. If not, it would be unfortunate for Ireland and unfortunate for the right hon. Gentleman himself. Though they were Home Rulers, and agreed in some matters and politics with the right hon.
    1038
    Gentleman, they had a greater respect for the opinions of Irish gentlemen of character and position in Ireland than they had of Scotch interlopers.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to remind the hon. Gentleman that his language is extremely violent, and exceeds Parliamentary manners. I shall have to caution him very severely if he pursues this course of observation.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would withdraw the expression "Scotch interlopers," and would say "gentlemen who had intruded, against the wishes of the Irish people, into official positions in Ireland." Lord Ardilaun, a Conservative nobleman in Ireland, had said he was happy to testify to the energy and ability displayed by Mr. Murphy after Lord Mount-morres' murder. That statement of Lord Ardilaun alone was sufficient to overbalance the offensive language used by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Sir Charles Knox Gore, Deputy Lieutenant of the county of Mayo, had no hesitation in saying that he considered Mr. Murphy a zealous, efficient, and steady officer, and that from a personal knowledge of him. He would also call attention to several testimonials to Mr. Murphy's character from Irish gentlemen. One gentleman—Colonel Chichester—who had in last week's Tablet given a character to the Lord Lieutenant, had also given a testimonial of a similar character to Mr. Murphy. Captain Boycott, who had been the means of giving a new word to the English language, had also written very highly of Mr. Murphy, so had Mr. Blake of Galway, Colonel Han-nay of the Antrim Militia, Mr. Gage of Ballycastle, and many others. After those testimonials, he thought Mr. Murphy's character came out scatheless from the ordeal and from the slurs which had been cast upon it; and he hoped the debate would be a warning to the Chief Secretary of Ireland not in future to place the character of any Dublin Castle official in comparison with that of a Member for Parliament, and not to put the character of Colonel Bruce in comparison with that of any man who was not a convicted felon.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he thought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) must be characterized as being, if not disingenuous, at all events, entirely evasive of the point. The remarkable

    1039
    change in District Inspector Murphy's official career took place just at the time when he had entitled himself to the good favour of the authorities. The correspondence between Disfrict Inspector Murphy and the officials was of a remarkably instructive character. The letter announcing to District Inspector Murphy what was virtually his dismissal was couched in somewhat modest terms. The Government felt, he presumed, the weakness of their case, and wished to do what they no doubt considered a necessary, but still an ugly job, in as nice terms as possible. Colonel Bruce virtually abandoned the case of drunkenness, and said there were sufficient reasons without that for Mr. Murphy's dismissal from the Force. It was upon hearsay evidence that the House was asked to support the decision of the Government in their endeavour to condemn District Inspector Murphy. It was perfectly clear to those who knew something of the manner in which the administration of Dublin Castle was conducted that this officer was really dismissed for exposing the iniquities and abominations of the system carried on by District Inspector French, and because he had committed the unpardonable offence of having tried to bring him to justice. His (Mr. Kenny's) contention was, that the officials at Dublin Castle were so implicated in each other's guilt, that they were determined to protect each other, and to crush those of their subordinates who endeavoured to expose them. Had Inspector Murphy consented to shut his eyes he would still have retained his office; but through doing his duty he had lost the advantages attending 16 years' public service, and had had to commence life afresh. It was hard to think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland could stand up in that House to defend a policy of revenge and spite-fulness; and he trusted that the time would come when Ireland would have an official Representative in that House who would have the courage to expose the system pursued in Dublin Castle, and to sever himself from it.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the pith of the charge brought by hon. Gentlemen opposite against the Government was, that there was no real ground of complaint whatever against Mr.
    1040
    Murphy, except that which they themselves had suggested, until the final charge was brought. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), however, had already stated the real charge made against him over and over again—the insubordinate character exhibited in his writings to his superior officers, and his general temper being inconsistent with the discipline which ought to prevail in a Force in which discipline was an essential element. District Inspector Murphy served under three Inspectors General, and under many County Inspectors. Now, when a person was found incapable of agreeing with any of the superior officers under whom he served, there must be something to blame in the character of the man.
    MR. KENNY: It was the fault of his superiors.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): That is what they all say when they are dismissed.
    MR. KENNY: It must have been very hard for anyone to get on with French.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): As far back as 10 years ago, before Mr. Murphy was dismissed, on the 8th of July, 1874, he received a most friendly caution from Sir John Wood, who was then Inspector General, as to the tone of his communications to his superior officers; and that gentleman strongly advised him, if he was desirous of giving satisfaction, to alter that tone very considerably. Under the rules of the Code, the District Inspector was bound to visit his stations once a month; and it appeared that on October 4th, 1875, he made a false return, representing that he had visited a station when he had not done so. The offence having been proved, he was reduced in rank. District Inspector Murphy then made a charge of felony against the County Inspector, and was ordered by the Inspector General to withdraw the charge, or to submit it to the Duke of Abercorn, or to have it heard by a Court of Inquiry. He elected at once to withdraw the charge. In 1876, in Colonel Hillier's time, he was reprimanded for making highly improper and insubordinate statements.
    MR. HARRINGTON: Read the statements.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): If I were to road all the statements made by Mr. Murphy, I should occupy the time of the House until this time to-morrow.
    MR. HARRINGTON: Read one.
    MR. PARNELL: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman read one of the insubordinate statements?
    THE SOLICITOR GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, if it would please the hon. Member for the City of Cork, he would give an instance. On the 20th September, 1880, he said—
    "Lord Macaulay exactly describes the treatment I have received. True justice was meted out thus—first, execution; then, investigation; and last of all (or rather not at all) the accusation."
    That was a sample of the way in which this gentleman wrote. [Laughter.] It might be very amusing and very clever; but he asked the House whether it was the way in which an officer of a Force should write to the head of the Force?
    MR. KENNY: Why not?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, then came the transaction in 1881, to which reference had been made, when he was further cautioned that his conduct was noted on the record; and if aggravated by any future conduct of a similar nature, it would be at once dealt with as continuous and persistent insubordination. In June of the same year he was again reduced for insubordinate writing, and gravely warned that if he were again insubordinate to his superiors, either in writing or in speaking, the Inspector General would report that he was unfit for the Force, and recommend his immediate removal from it. A point had been made by hon. Members on the other side that nothing was recorded against Mr. Murphy since 1881. But that was not the case. After that date, on July 1.5th, 1882, he was again reprimanded, the Inspector General informing him that there was a very improper tone in his official correspondence, and that, if persisted in, the strongest measures would be taken to bring his insubordination to an end, and that it would cause his removal from the Force. Again, on January 8, 1884, he wrote another letter of a similar character, and was transferred in the spring of that year. A month after his transfer he was informed that if he continued to cause so much
    1042
    trouble and to put forward such exaggerated statements, it would be necessary to consider whether his retention in the Force was for the benefit of the Public Service. In August, 1884, he made certain statements against County Inspector Sheehan, which he was given an opportunity of withdrawing, but refused. As he persisted in these statements, the papers were submitted to the Inspector General, and a little later the charge of drunkenness was made against Mr. Murphy. The fact of it having been made was communicated to him five days afterwards. A court martial found that the charge was established, and it devolved upon the Inspector General to decide what should be done. It was a slight charge, and would not of itself have been one on which the Inspector General would have dismissed him; but, in the opinion of that officer, it was the last straw added to the 11 or 12 cautions and warnings which Mr. Murphy had had, including, in one instance, at least, a reduction by way of punishment. It was felt that such an offence was ample, in a Force requiring discipline, to justify the removal of this officer. In forwarding the discharge on September 22nd, 1884, Colonel Bruce recommended that he should be dismissed not on the charge of drunkenness, but on his aggregate conduct. With reference to the charge of felony brought by Mr. Murphy against his County Inspector, it consisted in these facts only—that 27 years before, the County Inspector, when a candidate for the Force, reported his age incorrectly by a year or two. With regard to the transactions with respect to French, he might say that the first occasion on which Mr. Murpby made any statement to the authorities about French was on the 17th of July, 1884, after French had been arrested, and three months after he had been dismissed from the Force. The evidence was submitted to the Commissioner; but what he asserted proved to be hearsay only, and could not be used in evidence. Some very strong language had been used by hon. Members about Colonel Bruce, about Sir John Wood, and about Colonel Hillier—in fact, every official with whom Murphy had come in contact had been denounced in strong language by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan).
    MR. CALLAN: I only used strong language in reference to Colonel Bruce;

    1043
    and I am prepared to abide by it and to prove it if I am afforded the opportunity.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): All I can say is that Colonel Bruce is a man of the highest character.
    MR. HARRINGTON: And so was French.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): He is a man who has held a high post for years with a character unstained, and I believe not one charge can ever be established against him.
    MR. CALLAN: Give me the opportunity.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): What has Colonel Bruce done? He has done nothing. I say that every word he heard about French he at once laid before the Lord Lieutenant. After the article appeared in United Ireland an informal inquiry was held, and nothing transpired against French.
    MR. HARRINGTON: There was no article in United Ireland containing a specific charge against French.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): His name was coupled with that of Colonel Connolly.
    MR. HARRINGTON: There was no special charge.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): But that was the article on which the action was afterwards brought. Everyone know that it was directed against French. It was on that article that he was directed by Colonel Bruce to clear his character. What transpired at that informal inquiry was laid within 24 hours before the Law Officers of the Crown; and they took the responsibility of saying that there was not one word in the proceedings before Colonel Bruce to establish any case of guilt against French. Therefore, Colonel Bruce's character, at all events, ought not to be slandered in the way in which it had been. He was an honourable gentleman, as everyone knew, and a high-minded and upright official.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYsaid, with reference to the fact that District Inspector Murphy had served under
    1044
    three Inspectors General, all of whom he had disagreed with, it would probably be found that he was all the more honourable for having persisted in that course of proceeding. However that might be, he (Mr. Justin Huntly M'Carthy) had to complain that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had drawn a comparison between Colonel Bruce and an hon. Member of that House.
    MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: I did not refer to any individual Member.
    MR. CALLAN: Oh, oh, oh!
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must be allowed to say that I am very sorry if that is the impression left on anyone's mind. I did not refer to any individual Member. When I mentioned Colonel Bruce, and said something in his favour, there was some deprecatory noise—I will not call it a sneer, but a sort of laugh, or something equivalent to that; and I then said that I would leave the country to judge between the character of Colonel Bruce and that of any hon. Member of this House. I did not refer to any individual Member of this House.
    MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYsaid, he would be glad to find that he had made a mistake in the matter; but he was quite content to leave the Irish people to judge which was the better man between District Inspector Murphy and Colonel Bruce. Lord Spencer, however, did not wish to retain an honest man in the Service, and Mr. Murphy was sacrificed. He had, however, done a great service to Ireland by helping to break up an infamous gang in Dublin; and the manner in which he had been treated by the Government would be remembered by the people of Ireland, more especially when it was borne in mind that he had really done nothing to justify that dismissal.
    MR. PARNELL: I am often surprised, when listening to debates raised by Irish Members in this House, at the attitude which the defenders of Her Majesty's Government on such occasions as the present take up. Tonight we have another example of the kind; and we find, as we have always found, that the two forlorn hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are left entirely to themselves to accomplish the task which

    1045
    I cannot help thinking must have been odious to them from the beginning—that of defending their system of government in Ireland, and that they have not the slightest encouragement from any of those who support them on other questions. That is a significant fact. It appears to me that hon. Members of the House, who usually follow the Government on questions which they do understand, vote with them yet on occasions like the present. I cannot help thinking that hon. Members very frequently feel themselves that they are giving their votes with great reluctance, and that they are not going into the right box; and it is a remarkable fact that all through the discussion that we have had upon Ireland no single supporter of the Government finds a voice to speak on their behalf. Then I am entitled to draw the conclusion that, however much they may feel it necessary to support the Government by their votes, they cannot, for the sake of very shame, find it in their power to offer an articulate expression of approval. The House will recollect that District Inspector Murphy was not an officer of a few years' service; he was an officer of 18 years' service. But although we are told he had been guilty of acts of insubordination in corresponding with no fewer than three of the Inspectors General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, yet it was not until after 18 years, not until after he had written a letter, or round robin, in the nature of a Report, to the Lord Lieutenant and Colonel Bracken-bury, giving information with regard to French's misconduct, and after a subsequent letter written by Mr. Murphy to the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), that these charges of insubordination were brought against him. It was then that a charge of drunkenness, which was subsequently abandoned, was trumped up against District Inspector Murphy; it was then that the acts of insubordination were fallen back upon, and made use of as an accusation against him. We have been placed at great disadvantage in this discussion by the extraordinary conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He only gave one side of the case; and in the absence of official documents, to which he has access, and to which we have not access, it makes it unusually difficult for us to show the
    1046
    full strength of which this case is undoubtedly capable from our point of view. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland said a number of extracts from letters of Colonel Bruce, and also Inspector General Wood, complained of insubordinate passages in letters from Mr. Murphy to one or other of the Inspectors General; but though he gave us verbatim the accusatory passages from the letters to those officers, he did not give us a single one of the causes for which Inspector Murphy was dismissed. He has placed us, and the House also, in a very unfair position by this conduct. The charge of drunkenness against Inspector Murphy has been admittedly abandoned. It was abandoned by Colonel Bruce. We have his letter to that effect. It was abandoned by the Lord Lieutenant as his reason for dismissing Mr. Murphy—abandoned expressly, and in so many words. It was abandoned by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. He said that the intoxication in the case was of a very slight nature; and there was some doubt about it, as there was only one witness. Then these acts of insubordination, running over 12 or 15 years, were those upon which Inspector Murphy was dismissed. Inspector Murphy was dismissed under circumstances creating the gravest suspicion against the Irish Executive in the ease of French. It is alleged by the Castle authorities, and by their defenders in this House, that Inspector Murphy was dismissed on account of certain acts or words of insubordination contained in letters to his Inspectors General. Why were not these words given to the House to-night, if they were capable of supporting such a charge of insubordination? Why did the hon. and learned Gentleman carefully avoid quoting them? When he was at last asked to mention one of these acts of insubordination, the only reply he could make was to quote a passage from Lord Macaulay. One would have thought that the knowledge of such an ornate and distinguished author as Lord Macaulay would not have been considered offensive knowledge, even on the part of a District Inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary. But we now learn from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland that it was on account of a quotation to the Colonel of a passage from Lord Macaulay that Mr.

    1047
    Murphy was dismissed. At least, we have not heard any other passage. That is the only insubordinate passage, the only alleged insubordinate quotation on the part of Inspector Murphy that has been brought forward in evidence against him by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. I am entitled to assume that such a distinguished master of prosecution and defence, for he has defended some of my comrades very ably in former days—I cannot believe that such a master of prosecution, as he has since unhappily become, could have omitted any other counts in the indictment. I am, therefore, entitled to assume that the worst and most hideous crime of Inspector Murphy was making this quotation from Lord Macaulay; and that passage will go down to posterity as a distinguished example of insubordinate language on the part of a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary. But even when the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland gets up to defend so distinguished a man as Lord Spencer, he ought to deal with the matter seriously, and in accordance with the gravity of the case. This accusation against the Irish Executive is very serious. It is alleged by us—and we hare brought forward proof of it—that Sub-Inspector Murphy was not dismissed for insubordinate conduct extending over any number of years; that the insubordinate conduct, if it ever existed, and whatever it might have been, was, practically speaking, condoned and forgiven, and is now only the pretext for the dismissal of this unfortunate man. But we allege that Inspector Murphy was dismissed because he, first of all, gave information to the Lord Lieutenant and Colonel Brackenbury of French's misconduct, giving the names of seven witnesses who had knowledge of his misconduct, and because he had written to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), asking him for assistance against the action of the police authorities, and had given to him the same statement which he had supplied to Lord Spencer and Colonel Bracken-bury with regard to French's disgrace. I admit, if you like, that Inspector Murphy was guilty of an act of insubordination in writing to my hon. and learned Friend; but that has not been brought forward as a reason for his dismissal. The Govern-
    1048
    ment have not the manliness to make the charge. The Government cannot admit that which all the world knows to be the real reason for Murphy's dismissal—they cannot admit that he was breaking the rules of the Force in writing to the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan, and appealing to him as the arbiter of law and justice in the matter, after he had vainly appealed to his own superior officer and to the noble Earl who ought to be the foundation of justice in Ireland. They dare not admit that; because, if they did, they would have admitted the real reason why they had made themselves the instruments in defending the most infamous nest of villains which existed in Dublin. But if Inspector Murphy has been dismissed he has not been silenced. He has been able to put in print a narrative of the persecution to which he has been subjected after it was discovered by the Castle authorities that he had been in communication with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monaghan. We allege that there was a conspiracy between Colonel Bruce and Inspector Sheehan to get rid of Murphy. I shall be glad to know if the proceedings of District Inspector Murphy, which were found fault with and criticized by the Inspector General, were proceedings which he was not perfectly entitled to take as an honourable man, and also as an officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary? Secondly, whether his letters written to Inspector Bruce, in which the insubordinate passages not given to us by the Government were alleged to have occurred, were letters written to the Inspector General dissenting against a remonstrance made by Inspector Wood which he was not entitled to make? If that be so, the whole charge against Inspector Murphy vanishes into thin air. Inspector Murphy wants a simple inquiry before a simple tribunal in order to establish two things—first, that he has not been insubordinate; and, second, that he has been a victim of a conspiracy between Colonel Bruce and Inspector Sheehan because he gave information that led to the exposure of French. That inquiry has been denied; but I wish to ask the Government if they still maintain that attitude? Are they afraid to grant Murphy this inquiry? Do they believe that Murphy will be able to prove his

    1049
    case? These are very serious questions for the Government, and questions which the Government will be asked again and again to answer until satisfaction is obtained. Recollect that neither the Irish Executive nor their defenders come into court with clean hands in this matter. The House will remember that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) defended French in the House as long as it was possible to defend him. The Irish Executive used detectives for the purpose of defeating the efforts of Meiklejohn, and they acted in the most injudicious manner to defend these wretched men in this House. It will be remembered that when the Irish Executive was at last driven to take action that action was insufficient in the last degree; that the case against Cornwall and French and the others was got up in such a manner as to render it impossible for the jury to convict; and that no pains whatever were taken to secure convictions, although evidence or proof of the guilt of these men was abundant; and that while, in agrarian cases, all the resources and machinery of Dublin Castle would have been used without mercy and without scruple against the sought-for victim, in the case of these unheard-of criminals nothing was done to secure that justice was satisfied. The House will also remember that, during the whole course of these cases, the action of the Irish Executive was to excite the gravest suspicion that they thought it necessary to defend these wretched criminals, because they believed that the administration of what they called "law and order" was in the mind of the Irish people, and that the prestige of Dublin Castle and the Government would be deteriorated if it was found that some of the principal agents and instruments who were trying to bring home crime to innocent men were guilty themselves of the most unspeakable offences. Under these circumstances, I consider the conduct of the Government to-night doubly suspicious. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland has to take up the burden of his Predecessors in this matter—a burden to escape from which the late Chief Secretary for Ireland resigned his Office. The right hon. Gentleman is obliged, to some extent, to defend everything that his
    1050
    Predecessor did, and all the acts of the present Administration in Ireland. It is one of the misfortunes of the Office which the right hon. Gentleman holds that while he is expected to be a regular Jack-of-all-trades, and to know everything, from the duty of a Field Marshal to the duty of a Sub-Inspector, and the duty of a clerk in a public office, he is also obliged to represent himself as sufficiently well informed upon every point to give answers in this House in relation to the 101 matters which we find it necessary to call his attention to, as if he himself were perfectly acquainted with all the details. We know how vast is the area encompassed by his Office, and how broad, and how deep, and how high is the mass of work which he has undertaken, and for which he is obliged to answer. We know that when he is defending such persons as Colonel Bruce, and when he is reading out here carefully-drafted replies, sent over to him from Dublin Castle, he is not speaking from his own convictions or knowledge, and that he is merely retailing at second-hand the views of a number of prominent officials, who know full well that the period during which they will be responsible for any portion of the system of government in Ireland will be very short indeed. He (Mr. Parnell) therefore sympathized to some extent with the right hon. Gentleman, but; while we sympathize with him, we cannot allow him to escape on that ground, and we say that in taking up, as he has done, the chain which his Predecessor had to drop, and in making himself the defender of such proceedings as those involved in the dismissal of District Inspector Murphy, and defending the doings of Colonel Bruce and County Inspector Sheehan in the persecution of this unfortunate man, he is undoubtedly doing a thing which will bring no credit to the Government to which he belongs, and will certainly not increase the respect of the Irish people for what is called "law and order," or increase their love for, and induce them to cherish friendlier feelings towards, the maintenance of British rule in that country.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that the gloomy and almost savage silence maintained by the bulk of the Party opposite, when complaints were made by Irish Members, was hardly calculated to

    1051
    conciliate the followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He (Mr. Warton) held that a disposition ought always to be evinced to hear patiently the accusations that were brought against the officials of Dublin Castle. As to Inspector Murphy, he ought to have been dismissed from the Force in 1881, if not before. The Executive was much to blame for having allowed him to commit seven or eight acts of insubordination with immunity from punishment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORhoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would now see the necessity of changing the manner in which Irish Business was debated in the House. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in the course of his speech had asked various questions; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) had previously exhausted their right to speak, and therefore there was no one to answer them. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) ventured to say there was no other Member of the House holding the position of his hon. Friend who would be left unanswered. That he considered a most inconvenient, and he might almost say unseemly, state of things, and the sooner it was mended the better. He should be very glad indeed if there were some Member left on the Treasury Bench who could supply some buttresses to the very shaky building set up by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. He complained that though the hon. and learned Gentleman had said all he could against Mr. Murphy when in the service of the Government, he had mentioned none of the points that might be made in his favour, although he knew very well that Mr. Murphy was left without any resources, and had to begin the world anew. He thought that the number of times Mr. Murphy had been highly commended for his conduct when on special service should have been referred to, and also the fact that he was able to get a most remarkable series of testimonials from Lord Ardilaun, Mr. Blake, and others. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not alluded to this unbroken favourable record of services in the most
    1052
    difficult situations and trying times. The hon. and learned Gentleman had repeated, at least five or six times, the charge against Inspector Murphy of making a false return, although Inspector Murphy over and over again endeavoured to direct the attention of his superiors to that charge, in order to have it re-opened, and every time his request to be allowed to clear his character was refused. With regard to the charges of insubordination made against him, they amounted, when thoroughly sifted, to only two, and those of a very insignificant kind, in the course of 18 years. When pressed strongly to give particulars of the insubordinate statements which he attributed to District Inspector Murphy, the Solicitor General for Ireland at last offered to read one of those statements, and it turned out to be only a quotation from Lord Macaulay. That was the solitary instance of an insubordinate statement on District Inspector Murphy's part which was adduced to the House by the hon. and learned Gentleman. For himself, he believed that the real reason for District Inspector Murphy's dismissal was not the ostensible one that was brought forward by the Lord Lieutenant, and that that deserving officer was treated with an amount of unfairness and want of consideration which was a very bad return for all his past services. By the Police Code, any charges brought against a member of the Force had to be in writing in clear and distinct terms, and a copy of the charges must be given. It was also expressly stated that no general charges of misconduct should be brought against a member of the Force. In the case of Mr. Murphy the charge of insubordination had not been made at all, much less in writing, and he had been dismissed upon a general charge of misconduct, in direct antagonism to both the letter and the spirit of the Code under which he had taken office, and according to which he ought to have been tried. It had been said that Mr. Murphy had been reprimanded by three different Inspectors General; but no mention had been made of the fact that one of these three had himself been dismissed from the Force. In Ireland Mr. Murphy would be regarded as an honest and outspoken official, who had on that account been dismissed after an unfair trial. The defence of

    1053
    the Government that night had left the matter precisely where it stood. They (the Irish Members) claimed that Mr. Murphy was treated with an amount of unfairness and want of consideration that were a very bad return indeed, not only for his personal services, but for the extraordinary services which he had rendered to the organization to which he belonged.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £29,057, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Main tenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought it was somewhat surprising that the economical section of the Radical Party was not more numerously represented in the Committee on that occasion. He was of opinion that this item for the Royal Palaces ought never to be allowed to pass through the Committee without being distinctly challenged and carefully scrutinized. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Oh!] The hon. Member for Eye interrupted him when he made that assertion. He was very much astonished that in expressing that sentiment he should have been interrupted by the hon. Member, whose earliest infancy was spent under the banner of the Stars and Stripes in a country where there were no Royal Palaces, but which found itself very well able to get on without them. With the permission of the Committee he (Mr. O'Connor) would examine the items which were included in this Vote for the Royal Palaces. The total amount of the Vote was £35,057 for 1885–6, as against £36,865 for 1884–5, showing a decrease of £1,808. He thought the decrease was entirely due to the searching examination which took place into these items last year. The principal items in the Vote were
    1054
    £21,907 for ordinary repairs and maintenance, against £22,219 last year; £2,010 for salaries, wages, and allowances, against £2,015 last year; £4,776 for new works and alterations, against £6,623; £2,230 for furniture and fittings, against £1,923; £2,250 for fuel, gas, and water, and one or two smaller items. In spite of there being a decrease in some of these items, he ventured to say that these were monstrously exaggerated charges; and if any hon. Member could be found who was in favour of a general reduction of charges, he would find ample justification for any course of action he might feel disposed to take on the present Vote. No man of feeling or humanity could pass through the streets of London without having his heart wrung by the wholesale misery which existed among the labouring population at the present time. Constant appeals were made for alms by men who were willing to work, but found it impossible to obtain it. But notwithstanding the existence of this widespread misery and distress, the Committee seemed to have nothing better to do than to vote £36,057 for the maintenance and repair of Royal Palaces. He found a sum for Windsor Castle of no less than £4,182 for ordinary repairs and maintenance, and another of £6,109 for Hampton Court Palace. Everywhere was to be found the same extraordinary and profuse extravagance. He should like to hear what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had to say in favour of £4,182 being spent upon Windsor Castle in ordinary repairs and maintenance. Last year the Committee, in discussing this Vote, had the advantage of the experience of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), whose absence they all regretted. The noble Lord was well qualified to speak on the subject, because there existed in the possession of his own family one of the finest Castles or Palaces in the country; and the noble Lord declared most positively that the outlay upon the Royal Palaces was incalculably and incredibly beyond all ordinary expenditure. He (Mr. O'Connor) trusted that the Vote would not be allowed to pass without further explanation, or otherwise they would encourage similar extravagant expenditure in the future. As he had said, there had been a decrease of £1,808, and

    1055
    although that was not a very large sum, he believed there would have been no decrease at all if it had not been for the discussion which took place upon the Vote last year.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that the other day he had addressed a Question to the Junior Lord of the Treasury with regard to some decorations at Windsor Castle, and the reply he had received was neither full nor definite, nor was it any answer whatever to the allegations he had made. He now found in the present Vote that Windsor Castle figured for upwards of £4,000 for ordinary repairs and maintenance, and he took it that the subject of his complaint was included in this Vote.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the present Vote had nothing to do with the decorations at Windsor Castle.
    MR. BROADHURSTasked the hon. Gentleman to say what the sum of £4,182 was for?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: For the ordinary maintenance and repair of the exterior and interior of Windsor Castle.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the most striking point of view in which this Vote could be regarded was afforded by the Table which appeared in the Estimates at page 4. That Table divided the Royal Palaces into Palaces wholly or partly in the occupation of Her Majesty, and Palaces not in Her Majesty's occupation at all. The Committee would see that the Palaces wholly or partly occupied by Her Majesty cost the country between £15,000 and £16,000, while the Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty cost upwards of £19,000. The places in the personal occupation of Her Majesty were Buckingham Palace, the Royal Mews, Pimlico, Windsor Castle, Windsor Home Park, with Adelaide Lodge, &c, Windsor Royal Kitchen Gardens, Frogmore House and Grounds, and White Lodge, Richmond Park. Assuming that the five residences were required for the regular occupation of Her Majesty, the items of expenditure upon them were not unreasonable; but the question remained whether all the rest of the Royal Palaces, including residences for the Duchess of Cambridge and other members of the Royal Family, should be maintained at the expense of the country. Among them were Kensington Palace, Pembroke Lodge,
    1056
    Thatched House, East Sheen Cottage, Richmond Park, Bushy House, and Hawthorn Lodge. No explanation whatever was given of the purposes to which those residences were applied; and he thought the country acted with sufficient generosity in keeping up at great expense the Palaces that were necessary for the occupation of the Sovereign. It was rather too much to add to them a number of other residences, the public use of which was not designated. Among the items was one of £40 for an allowance to the High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland for expenses attending the occupation of rooms in Holyrood Palace. Surely if the High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland was allowed the use of rooms in Holyrood Palace, free of expense, it was most unreasonable that he should charge the public with his expenses while occupying them. Then, again, there was another item for a ratcatcher at Buckingham Palace. There appeared to be no ratcatcher at Kensington Palace or Windsor Castle, or even at Holyrood, which was, perhaps, the most ancient Palace of the whole. Certainly the individual was a most reasonable ratcatcher, seeing that he only charged the small sum of £8; but it was anything but reasonable to charge even this small sum to the public.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that he had ventured to express his dissent from the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in the usual and Constitutional way known to that House, and for doing so he had drawn down upon himself a rebuke from the hon. Member. A great deal of the feeling expressed by certain hon. Members in regard to this Vote, and a great many of the objections raised to the Royal Palaces, were pure clap-trap. It was a cheap means of obtaining some attention and notoriety, and it never came to anything practical. The hon. Member for Galway was supposed to be connected with some of the Democrats who sat in that House, and would understand him (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) when he said that the real question at issue was the comparative cost of Royal and Democratic Governments. That was what the whole question came to. This expenditure of a few thousand pounds was not really worthy of occupying the attention of the

    1057
    Committee, especially when they considered that in the case of a neighbour across the Channel the expense of maintaining the Government was £40,000,000 in excess of the Expenditure of this country. If they went across the Atlantic to the United States they would find that the cost of the Civil Services was much greater than it was in this country, and that there was, in addition, gross corruption in the way in which the money was expended. It was obvious that these objections to the cost of keeping up the Royal Palaces were altogether unworthy of the House of Commons.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENwas understood to say that other hon. Members were entitled to hold opinions as well as the hon. Member.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he did not quite understand the observation of the hon. Baronet, who was generally humorous at that hour of the night. What he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) maintained was that these popularity-hunting objections to the expenditure upon the Royal Palaces were altogether unworthy of the House of Commons. On the whole, the cost of the Government of this country was very much less than that of any Republican Government that existed, and in that point of view the expenditure upon the Royal Palaces was anything but excessive. That was his justification for the slight groan with which he had received the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who began the discussion with the ordinary stock objections the Committee had so long been accustomed to hear.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he accepted the observations of the hon. Member so far as they applied to himself, and he felt that the hon. Member might have had some reason for making them. It was not, however, the first occasion upon which attention had been called to the total want of affinity between the remarks of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) and the question before the Committee. He had listened patiently to the remarks of the hon. Member, and all he had ventured to say was that other persons might have their opinions as well as the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member said that anything he (Sir Patrick
    1058
    O'Brien) might say at that time of night would be futile.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No; humorous.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that as he had caught the word it was "futile." [Cries of "No; humorous."] Well, he had nothing to say upon the point of humour; but as to the word "futile," he must remind the Committee that they were considering a Vote which involved a very large annual expenditure. The hon. Member made a statement which he said ought to impress the public. Now, he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was one of the members of the public, and there were other members of the public in that House; and certainly he was never very much impressed or interested by anything the hon. Member said. The hon. Member talked about the Republic across the ocean. His own impression was that the hon. Member read all the London papers carefully every morning, and having learned his politics from them, especially in regard to Afghanistan, he presented the House with a hashed up résumé of them every evening. But in reference to the Soudan, or Afghanistan, or anything else, the hon. Member was really more ignorant than nine out of every 10 men they might meet. Of all men who attempted to throw stones across the floor of the House the last should be those who lived in glass houses themselves—at any rate, if they were desirous of being safely preserved in such a costly arrangement. The hon. Member had alluded to the Republic across the Atlantic; but was he aware that the Democrats, who were the aristocracy of America, were now ruling there, and not the Republicans? It was not necessary to reply further to the hon. Member, because the laugh of the House was against him on every occasion, and ought to convince him of the real estimation in which he was held. That was the only reply he considered it worth while to make.
    MR. BIGGARregretted that no Member of the Government had evinced any disposition to reply to the statements which had been made by several hon. Members in regard to this Vote. He had no wish to make any reference to the expenditure upon the Palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, or partly in her occupation, nor would he reply to the observations of the hon. Member

    1059
    for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) as to Republican Governments and their economy or otherwise; but there was an item in the sum set down for Hampton Court Palace upon which he certainly desired some explanation. Hampton Court Palace was a substantial old building, and he did not see why any money should be expended upon it for new buildings. In point of fact, the expenditure of money upon repairing and keeping up the Palace could scarcely be justified at all, because the apartments in it were allotted free of rent to the persons who occupied them, and the sum of £1,600 charged for new works and alterations certainly appeared to be excessive. Then, again, there was an item of £434 for Hampton Court Stud House; and he certainly should divide the Committee against it, because he regarded any expenditure for keeping up a breeding stud at Hampton Court as a most outrageous waste of the public money, which could not be justified at all. The horses bred there were scarcely fit for Hansom cab horses, and the Government were not only expending a lot of money there, but they were degenerating the breed of horses in a most mischievous manner, and setting a very bad example. He proposed, in the first instance, to await an explanation in regard to the Hampton Court Stud House before moving the rejection of that item of the Vote. He was certainly curious to learn what the explanation would be.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that, although a general attack had been made upon the Vote, it showed altogether a decrease of more than £1,800 upon the Vote of last year, and a decrease of more than £4,000 upon the Vote of the preceding year. There was, therefore, on the whole, a satisfactory decrease. Most of these Palaces, as everybody knew, were exceedingly old, and old buildings required constant repair, and consequently a considerable outlay of money. In the case of Windsor Castle, for instance, it would be found that there was an item for re-facing the stonework of the outer walls of the Curfew Tower, and there was constantly work of that description going on. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had called attention to Hampton Court Palace. Now, Hampton Court Palace substantially existed for the benefit of
    1060
    the people; and if the hon. Member would go down there he would not only enjoy himself, but would see thousands of other people enjoying themselves. But Hampton Court Palace was a very old building, and in order to keep it up properly it was necessary to undertake frequent repairs; and, owing to the great value of the furniture and the pictures, it was necessary to employ a large staff of attendants. The hon. Member for Cavan also objected to the sum put down for the Stud House. He thought the hon. Member was labouring under a misapprehension in regard to that item. It was for the maintenance of the building itself, and there was no charge for the horses in the Vote. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had called attention to a charge of £40 in the shape of an allowance to the High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland in connection with the occupation of rooms in Holyrood Palace. He (Mr. H. Gladstone) was of opinion that that was a very fair charge to be placed upon the Votes, because for 10 days or a fortnight the High Commissioner was required to reside at Holyrood as the Representative of Her Majesty, during which time it was his duty to entertain large numbers of people, and so to incur a very considerable expense. So far as the ratcatcher was concerned, he presumed that when persons of that character were employed even in Royal Palaces it was necessary to pay them for their services.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHasked what was the amount of the salary paid to the High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland, that it became necessary to supplement it by the sum of £40 for the expenses attending his occupation of apartments in one of the Royal Palaces?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he believed the High Commissioner's salary was £2,000 a-year.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the explanation of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. H. Gladstone) in reference to the expenditure upon Hampton Court Palace was altogether unsatisfactory. There was a large expenditure provided for in the shape of new works; and he was of opinion that no old building should require to be patched up with new work, and that, as a matter of fact, new work, under such circumstances, was positively mischievous, and only tended to spoil the appearance of the Palace. Whoever

    1061
    the Commissioner of the Board of Works might be, it was evident that he failed to perform his duty when he allowed expenditure of this kind to be incurred. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Gladstone) told the Committee that the item of £434 for the Stud House at Hampton Court included nothing for the horses; but surely the Stud House itself was for the horses, and any expenditure upon it was for the horses.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: What I said was that no money was included in this Vote for the horses themselves.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was quite aware that the horses were merely ornamental goods; but the Stud House was rendered necessary simply on account of the breeding of horses at Hampton Court—and a very poor class of horses they were, too. He would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £434, the item for Hampton Court Stud House.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £28,623, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes £3; Noes 60: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 87.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £1,120, Marlborough House.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £91,369, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    MR. BIGGARasked for explanations with regard to the increase of the charge on account of Bushy Park and Hampton Court Gardens; also with regard to the charge for Holyrood Palace and Edinburgh Park. It was, in his opinion, a great question whether any expenditure on Holyrood Palace ought to be incurred at all. Although there was a considerable expenditure for keeping the public Parks in London in order, he was not aware that it was the practice to give large sums of money for that purpose in Provincial towns. On the whole,
    1062
    he thought the expenditure on these public Gardens was absolutely unreasonable and extravagant.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he might, perhaps, be in Order in referring upon this Vote to a question which he had intended to raise upon the last. Some years ago he had visited Hampton Court, and found that on that particular day the Palace was shut up; in consequence of that he suggested to his friend, Mr. Gerard Noel, then Chief Commissioner of Works, that a notice might be set up, and information otherwise given to the public as to the days on which the Palace was closed. He desired to call the attention of the First Commissioner on the present occasion to the circumstance, with the view of his making some arrangements for giving notice of the days when the places were open, which would prevent persons going down to those Royal Palaces and Parks and finding them closed when they arrived there.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that when the Vote was taken last year for improvements at Hyde Park Corner, it was expressly stated that it was a contribution on account of such improvements; and they were told that the Prince of Wales's Committee was engaged in collecting a further sum of money for that purpose. He would be glad to know whether that Committee had succeeded in collecting the sum that was expected, because the House voted the £6,000 upon the distinct understanding that a much larger sum would be provided by public subscription.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) replied to hon. Members who had addressed the Committee on the Vote, he thought it highly desirable that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Department (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), or, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman at his side, would state who was responsible for what were, by a misnomer, in his opinion, called the improvements at Hyde Park Corner. It was a misnomer, at any rate, in an artistic sense, so far as the Triumphal Arch was concerned, which by being placed sideways in a position it was never intended to occupy would be altogether an offensive object. Now, the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House (Mr. Arnold) had frequently

    1063
    raised this question; and he thought it desirable that some statement should be made to the Committee, and go forth to the public, as to what was actually going to be done, and who was to find the money for those alterations. They had been told last year that a subscription had been set on foot by a number of distinguished individuals; but he believed that a considerable number of the subscriptions expected had not been forthcoming, and it seemed probable that Hyde Park Corner would be left as it was at present. There was another point in connection with this subject which he would venture to place before the Treasury Bench. They were told last year that £6,000 was to be devoted to a statue which he understood was being now made by Mr. Boehm, to be erected at Hyde Park Corner, the old statue having been conveyed to Alder-shot. He would like to hear from the present Representative of the Department or his Predecessor what was to be done with regard to the pedestal. Anyone who had paid the slightest attention to the works of the Old Masters, and the statues which they had erected, whether equestrian or otherwise, must be a ware that they attached as much importance to the pedestal as to the statue itself. As an example, he would refer to the statue at Charing Cross—a statue placed upon a pedestal which was designed with the greatest possible care by Sir Christopher Wren; and although in his book upon the statues of the Metropolis the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had not mentioned the fact, if he had further prosecuted his investigations he would have found that so careful was Sir Christopher Wren about the pedestal that he made no less than four or five designs, which might now be seen at Oxford. He desired to impress upon the Committee the absolute necessity of this point being attended to, because otherwise there could be no doubt that unless it was placed upon a suitable pedestal the effect of the statue would be thrown away. He would like to know whether any plan had been adopted, or whether counsel had been taken with regard to the pedestal, and whether any sculptor of recognized ability had been applied to? He had suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the importance of employing an efficient architect for the purpose of erecting the
    1064
    pedestal, and he would be glad to hear whether anything had been done with regard to that matter. Finally, he would ask whether the alterations or so-called improvements at this"junction"—whatever it might be termed—were to be carried out under the original plan or otherwise?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken always disclaimed artistic experience and knowledge, they on that side of the House were prepared to credit him with a great deal in both respects. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was quite ready to bear his share of responsibility for the improvements at Hyde Park Corner. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had asked him what had been done in the matter of the subscriptions towards the cost of those improvements. His Royal Highness had collected a large sum of money—he believed the amount was between £14,000 and £15,000—and as soon as the models were completed by Mr. Boehm it would be determined in what way the money collected by His Royal Highness would be expended. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had asked about the pedestal for the statue. He had no doubt that Mr. Boehm was perfectly cognizant of the importance of having a suitable pedestal to the statue. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman dissented; but it should be remembered that Mr. Boehm was a great artist, and there was, therefore, no doubt that he would deal with his subject in a suitable manner.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman challenged him to speak of a particular case, he would refer him to the pedestal of the statue of Lord Lawrence, at the lower part of Portland Place, which after it was set up had to be taken down, and another substituted for it. With regard to the practice of the Old Masters, he said that the pedestal was as much a part of the work of the Old Masters as one thing could be of another. He was glad of having had the opportunity of mentioning this subject to the Committee; and he hoped that as Mr. Boehm was charged with the responsibility for the statue at Hyde Park Corner, it

    1065
    would not in any way resemble that which was set up in Portland Place.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREpointed out that Mr. Boehm himself was dissatisfied with the statue, and had very generously removed it.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the £14,000 collected by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales as a very large sum: but he had last year mentioned that it was expected that £40,000 would be raised.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I intended to convey to the Committee that that sum might possibly be raised.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked who was responsible for the cutting down of the trees at Hyde Park Corner?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: They were removed with my authority. It was impossible to leave them there consistently with the improvements to be effected.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the charge this year for the maintenance of St. James's, Green, and Hyde Parks amounted to the enormous sum of £37,118, and was an increase over the amount voted last year. No doubt their Parks were very well kept; but he contended that the expenses ought to be kept down rather than increased. He found there was an increase this year over last year of £1,023. The Parks should be properly kept up; but he considered that they cost the country too much money. Parliament ought to refuse the continual excess one year over another; and therefore he begged to move that the sum of £1,023 be deducted from the Vote, that being the amount of the increase over the sum voted last year for the maintenance of St. James's Park, the Green Park, and Hyde Park.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £90,346, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that, in answer to his hon. Friend, he would point out that the increase he complained of was mainly owing to the laying of "the asphalte footpath between the Duke of York's Steps and Storey's Gate." That footpath was made chiefly on the strong recommen-
    1066
    dation of Members of Parliament; and, if he remembered rightly, among those Members was the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Dillwyn's) Friend, the hon. Member for Northampton, (Mr. Labouchere). He (Mr. H. Gladstone) might also mention that new railings were being put up round the Green Park; but no money would be charged for the work. It was expected that the new railings could be paid for out of the Vote of last year.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he did not complain of the total expenditure upon the London Parks; but he did protest that the charge did not fall upon London exclusively. He did not propose to divide the Committee upon the question; but he wished to give the Government, through the hon. Gentleman who represented in that House the Board of Works (Mr. H. Gladstone), a word of warning. He (Mr. Illingworth) and others hoped there was a time coming when a change in regard to the London Parks would be seriously considered by the Government. They hoped that to the privileges which would be conferred on the Metropolis by the proposed London Municipal Reform Bill this very proper one would be added—namely, that London should pay for its own Parks. He knew it was contended that Provincial people came up to London and enjoyed the Parks; but he considered that the Provincial who came to London paid for his visit heavily in many ways. Now, there were many towns in England which, in proportion to their population and wealth, had expended as much upon their Parks and playgrounds for the inhabitants as had been expended upon the Parks of London. It wa3 but reasonable that the Metropolis should pay for keeping up its own grounds. Of course, he did not complain of the annual expenditure upon the Parks; but he thought he was entitled to protest against the continuance of the present system. He anticipated that in the new Parliament a very much stronger feeling would be expressed on this point, so far as Provincials were concerned, than had hitherto been expressed; and more than that, he ventured to think that when the working classes of London were adequately represented, it would be found that they would not be so mean as to ask those who lived in the Provinces to pay for privileges London people enjoyed.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there were two questions he desired to ask upon this Vote. He noticed an item of £250 "for planting trees in lieu of others dead and decayed (continuance of work)"in Richmond Park. Was the work to go on from year to year, or would it only be confined to the present year? If it was to go on, how long was it likely to continue? His other question related to the Gardens at Kew. There was a charge made "for payments to experts for naming cryptogams." It seemed to him very curious that in such a well-arranged establishment for botanical instruction as Kew Gardens the services of persons who did not belong to the establishment should be required.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that in answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tomlinson) he had to say that he believed the work of planting new trees in Richmond Park would go on from year to year. As to the second question, he did not think there was any room for complaint on the score of extravagance. The examination of cryptogams required to be made by very skilled men—men of very superior knowledge. It was very probable that few Members of the Committee knew exactly what cryptogams were. For the information of hon. Gentlemen, he might say that cryptogams were a class of plants whose stamens and pistils were not distinctly visible, and they included ferns, mosses, seaweeds, and mushrooms.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) did not speak earlier in the evening, because in that case there would have been some chance of his remarks being reported in the newspapers. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) hoped it might happen that the hon. Gentleman's views would be set before the public, because he wished the inhabitants of the Metropolis, who, under the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill now passing through the House, were to receive a considerable addition to their Representatives, to note the attempt made by an eminent Member of the Liberal Party to fix upon them, through this Vote, increased burdens. In the matter of the Parks, the Metropolis only received justice, and nothing more than justice; and, therefore, he 'Mr. R. N. Fowler) felt bound,
    1068
    as the Representative of a Metropolitan constituency, to enter his protest against the view of the hon. Member (Mr. Illingworth).
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he was sorry that when the Junior Lord of the Treasury (Mr. H. Gladstone) made his explanation about cryptogams he did not say a word with reference to the question brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). The maintenance of the London Parks was a very important question, and he was glad his hon. Friend had introduced the question. He was, however, equally glad that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to divide the Committee, because he (Dr. Cameron) believed the Government were thoroughly pledged to deal with the matter. If they wanted any evidence of that, he thought they had it in the fact of the accession to the Government of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He believed that hon. Gentleman had been the cause of the shifting of the incidence of taxation for the Metropolitan Police Courts, and he was quite certain that the promise of the Government—[A laugh.] Hon. Members seemed to think there was nothing in a Government promise. He and his hon. Friends who sat below the Gangway had faith in the Government, and they regarded a promise of the Government as something that it was intended to fulfil. Anyhow, he was quite certain that if the Government did not fulfil their tacit pledge upon the question of the London Parks, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would resign.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he did not wish for a moment to imply that the charge for the naming of cryptogams was excessive. What he wished to ask, however, was whether the experts were persons who were outside the staff of the Kew Gardens? It appeared to him that the Superintendent of the Gardens ought to have on his staff a person capable of making these examinations.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEremarked that the expert was a specialist in the Department of Kew. He (Mr. H. Gladstone) did not reply to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth),

    1069
    because it had been brought up on this Vote year after year, and the hon. Gentleman said he did not mean to divide the Committee. Hon. Members were well aware that it was proposed in the Government Bill for the Municipal Reform of London to hand the charge of the Parks over to the Metropolis. ["Not the Royal Parks."] All but the Royal Parks. The Government had every expectation of having an opportunity for the introduction of the Bill next year.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYdoubted very much whether there was any widespread feeling in favour of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). He believed that, as a matter of fact, the people in the Provinces, so long as the thing was well done, liked to feel that they paid for it. He wished, however, to bring the attention of the Committee down to a very much smaller matter—to ask his hon. Friend the Representative of the Office of Works (Mr. H. Gladstone) whether something more could not be done to render Kew Gardens not only a scientific, but an agreeable place of popular resort? The Gardens ought to be made a place where people could sit down as well as walk about. He went there a few years ago, and he noticed that very few seats were provided. He trusted the Office of Works would see their way to an improvement in that respect.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, that before the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Gladstone) replied, he would like to support the request made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), with respect to Kew Gardens. He (Mr. Magniac) went to Kew once, and he found that seats were very much required. Besides, the climate of their country was such that they must be dependent upon shelter of some kind. It was very sad indeed to see the people in their best clothes flocking under the trees at Kew, endeavouring to obtain shelter from the weather. This was a matter which required to be taken up by someone outside the staff of Kew Gardens. There was another point upon which he wished to make an inquiry. Piccadilly, undoubtedly, was one of the finest streets in the world; but the upper end was far too narrow for the traffic. By extending the railings some feet into the Park—up to the
    1070
    trees—Piccadilly would be made the most splendid esplanade in any city of the world. The expense involved in the alteration would not be more than a mere trifle. He hoped something would be done to effect the improvement he had indicated.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that a large sum of money was voted many years ago for Battersea Park, and the House was told that the Park would be more than self-supporting. They were told that a large amount of land would be built upon, and, in short, that the arrangements would be of such a character that instead of the Park being a charge on the public finances it would be actually remunerative. He would like to know how far, after 25 years' interval, that view had been carried out?
    MR. WARTONsaid, it was, perhaps, as well that the attention of the Committee should be drawn to the Amendment now under consideration—namely, the very peculiar and strange Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). During the few years he had been a Member of the House, he had noticed that the peculiarity of Amendments proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) was that they never had the slightest reference to the subject it was intended they should refer to. It was the easiest and yet the clumsiest thing in the world to look at two items, the one in the Estimates of last year and the other in the Estimates of this year, to see whether there was any excess, and if there was any excess to move, without rhyme or reason, to disallow it. A little care ought to be exercised in scrutinizing the Estimates, because an excess might arise in a perfectly legitimate and proper way. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillwyn) had looked at the explanation given under "E" he would have seen two items there, of neither of which he had expressed disapprobation. If the hon. Gentleman had said he disapproved of the asphalte footpath between the Duke of York's Steps and Storey's Gate, and given a good reason for his disapprobation, he (Mr. Warton) could have understood his wish to reduce the Vote by £1,000, the charge for that footpath. If the hon. Gentleman thought it wrong to have a statue of the Duke of Wellington, he (Mr. Warton) could Lave under-

    1071
    stood him moving to reduce the Vote by £2,000, the amount of Her Majesty's Government's contribution towards that statue. The hon. Gentleman, however, had simply fixed upon the excess between the Estimate of this year and that of last year, and moved to reduce the Vote by the amount of that excess. He was bound to say the hon. Gentleman gained a reputation for economy in a very cheap way. He (Mr. Warton) was not a blind economist, because he could conceive a reason for an increase of expenditure. It was the simplest thing imaginable to apply the rule which the hon. Gentleman had applied to this Vote to all the Votes, and thus move to reduce the Estimates by hundreds of thousands of pounds. He (Mr. Warton) considered that a most insane Amendment; and, therefore, he should record his vote against it.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he would take care that representations on the subject raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) were made to the authorities at Kew. He was not sure, however, that it would be possible to put up shelters as suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac); indeed, he failed to see why people should be sheltered more at Kew than at Hyde Park. New railings had just been put up in Piccadilly, and the improvement suggested by his hon. Friend (Mr. Magniac) would involve such a very large expenditure of money that he did not think the House would be inclined to sanction it. In answer to the question concerning Batter-sea Park, put to him by the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien), he had to say that £ 100,000 had been repaid with interest out of the proceeds of the sale of surplus lands. In 1880 the estimated value of the remaining surplus lands more than covered the remaining moiety of the principal of the debt—namely, £115,000.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he considered the expenditure upon the Parks was already very large; and, therefore, he should divide the Committee against any increase. He did not think the explanation given by his hon. Friend (Mr. H. Gladstone) respecting the as-phalte footpath from the Duke of York's Steps to Storey's Gate was at all satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman had said
    1072
    the footpath was made at the request of one Member of Parliament. He (Mr. Dillwyn) demurred to that. If large sums were expended they should be expended upon the responsibility of the Government, and not upon the request of any one Member of Parliament.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 18 Noes 57: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 88.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    MR. CAUSTONasked if the next Vote would be taken on the day Parliament assembled after the Easter Holidays. The Vote included a sum for the restoration of Westminster Hall, and he had some observations to offer on that subject.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Vote would not be taken on the 9th of April.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, it would be convenient to Members to know what Votes it was proposed to take upon the day Parliament re-assembled.
    MR. HIBBERT: All the other Votes that it is possible to take.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday 9th April.
    Committee to sit again upon Thursday 9 th April.

  TELEGRAPH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th March],"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1878."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. SHAWLEFEVRE: Mr. Speaker, this Motion for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Telegraph Acts was adjourned at a late hour a few nights ago, in order that I might have a fitting opportunity of stating the intentions of the Government with reference to the introduction of 6d. telegrams. The House will recollect that two years ago it carried against the Government, and by a considerable majority, the Resolu-

    1073
    tion of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) calling for a reduction of the minimum charge for telegrams from 1s. to 6d. In view of this Resolution, the Government promised to introduce a new tariff with a 6d. minimum. In the interval, preparations have been made for the increase of business which is expected from the reduction, and about £500,000 has been spent on increasing the plant and adding to the wires on some of the principal lines, and it has been decided that the new tariff shall come into force on the 1st of August next. My lamented Predecessor (Mr. Fawcett), who took the greatest possible interest in this subject, had not come to any determination as to what the new tariff should be, and he left no indication what his views were on the subject; but he had appointed a Departmental Committee to report on the financial effect of various tariffs which had been suggested in different quarters. I am sorry to say that in the interval which has elapsed since the Resolution to which I have referred was adopted the financial position of the Telegraph Service has not only not improved, but is very decidedly worse than it was. The profit on the Telegraph Service, which for some years had been very low, gradually increased till the year 1881; but from 1881 down to the present time there has been, again, a considerable reduction. Hon. Members may probably have seen the Financial Statement for the past year on the subject of the Telegraph Service laid before the House a few days ago. It is a financial account made in pursuance of the Telegraph Acts; and on comparing it with the account for 1880–1 they will find that, whereas in the former year there was a surplus profit of £32.5,000 out of which to pay the interest on the capital invested in the telegraphs, last year there was a deficit of £19,600 The comparison, however, is scarcely a fair one, as the account for the last year includes the sum of £175,000 expended in adding to the plant for the purpose of introducing the 6d. telegram, and is, therefore, capital expenditure. Both accounts also contain a considerable expenditure, which is necessary year by year for extending the wires. Every year extensions are made in all parts of the country which involve a fresh expenditure upon plant. In order, there-
    1074
    fore, to ascertain what the real cost of the Telegraph Service is, it would be necessary to deduct from the account any expenditure which is in the nature of capital expenditure. Now, if these deductions be made in the two years I speak of, and if the annual accounts were made out on strictly commercial principles, it would appear that the profit of 1881 was £440,000, in 1883–4 £322,000, and for the current year ending on the 31st of March next about £255,000, which would pay interest at the rate of not quite 2½ per cent on the capital which has been invested by the State on the purchase of the telegraphs and on adding to the plant. It will be seen, therefore, that between the year 1881 and the current year there has been a decrease of profit of nearly £200,000, and that the profit on the Telegraph Service is not now sufficient to pay 2½ per cent on the capital sum of £11,000,000 sterling which has been practically expended by the State on the telegraphs. This considerable reduction of £200,000 has been due to two causes; in the first place, to the very considerable additions to the salaries of the telegraphists and other officers of the Department which were made two or three years ago very much at the instance of hon. Members of the House, and which Mr. Fawcett considered to be absolutely necessary; and in part, also, to the fact that the cost of the maintenance of the telegraphs has increased within the last two or three years, owing to the necessity of replacing some of the posts and other plant taken over by the State from the Telegraph Companies. The House will see, therefore, that the margin of profit at the present time is not large, and does not pay full interest on the capital invested. I should also point out that, owing to the depression of trade, the receipts have been very stationary the last two or three years, and that we are now subject to the competition of the telephone. The next point which I have to bring under the notice of the House is the effect of the present tariff for telegrams, and how far it loads to unnecessary and unprofitable labour to the Department in the transmission of superfluous and unnecessary words. Under the Telegraph Act of 1868 no charge can be made by the Department for addresses; and for words in the text the

    1075
    tariff is 1s. for 20 words, and 3d. for every five words afterwards. Now, the House will see that there is no inducement whatever to senders of telegrams to compress their addresses within reasonable limits, or to compress or limit the words of their text, provided they do not exceed 20; and the result is that a large number of unnecessary words are telegraphed. The average number of words in addresses is a little over 11, of which four are devoted to the name and address of the sender, and seven to that of the addressee; and the average number of words in the text is 17—making a total average of 28. We differ in our method of charge from nearly every other country in Europe. Almost without exception their tariffs are based on payment per word, including the addresses, and with some low minimum charge; the result is that there is every inducement to compress the words and limit the length of addresses and text. In foreign telegrams sent from this country, where the charge is a purely word rate, the average number of words used in addresses is five; in Germany it is only four, and the average number of words in the text of these foreign telegrams is also much below our average, the average difference between the number of words used in the addresses here and the Continent is six, the difference between 11 and five. Under our system of free addresses, there is no inducement whatever to limit the addresses; many firms habitually stamp their telegrams with the full name of their firm, where one word would be quite sufficient. I received myself a few days ago a telegram in which 26 words were used in the address, and where six would have amply sufficed; so that the Post Office was put to the trouble of telegraphing no less than 20 unnecessary words. It is the same with the text of the message. Very few people take any pains to limit their words within 20, and a great many purposely fill up the 20, because they like to have their money's worth. Indeed, it has been estimated that at least 30 or 40 per cent of the words telegraphed are superfluous and unnecessary; and the plant of the Department and the time of the staff are occupied in transmitting these unnecessary words without any benefit to the Government or to the public. If the tariff were such as to
    1076
    give inducement to compress the words and to cut off what is unnecessary, it is certain that the same plant and staff would transmit a greatly increased amount of business. The present annual number of inland private telegrams is 24,000,000, and the average receipt from them is 13 d., showing how few exceed 20 words. A very careful estimate has been made of the cost of transmitting them; and we believe that 10 d. may fairly be taken as the average cost of transmitting a telegram, without taking into account interest on the plant. It will be obvious to the House that if we were to reduce the rates all round by one-half, retaining the free address, our receipts for the present telegrams would be reduced by one-half, or about £650,000, and our expenses would remain the same; while the increased business due to the reduction would be carried on at a loss, and would mean financial ruin to the Service. Another suggestion is that we should retain free addresses, and allow five words in the text; but it has been calculated that, assuming an increase of 30 per cent in the number of telegrams under this scheme, the difference to the Department, as compared with the present tariff, would be £264,000, or considerably more than the whole of the present margin of profit on the commercial account. This tariff, also, would not be very favourable to the public, for while it would allow any number of words in the address the words in the text would be very limited; and it would not be open to senders to economize their words in the address, in order to add them to the message itself. The fact is, that if only a small total number of words can be allowed for the minimum charge, it is the interest of the senders of telegrams that they should be allowed to economize words in the address, in order to add them to the message itself. It becomes, therefore, the interest both of the sender and the public, as well as of the Government, that inducement should be given to limit the words of the address; and the only way of effecting this is to charge rateably for the words used both in the address and in the message. After careful consideration of all the various tariffs which have been suggested, I have come to the conclusion that of those which are within financial possibility, the best, both for the

    1077
    senders of telegrams and for the Department—the one which will give the best return, while giving the greatest latitude to the sender, will be one by which 12 words will be given for 6d., and 1d. for each additional two words, this to include the words in the address, free addresses being abolished. That will give five words for the address, and seven for the text. We believe that, under this tariff, the average number of words used in the address will be reduced from 11 to five, of which one word only will be the average of the sender's address, and four of the address of the receiver. In a very large number of cases it will be unnecessary to insert any address for the sender. The text will show clearly from whom it comes; in nine cases out of ten one word will suffice; and in the same way, though not in the same proportion, there will be great economies in the address of the receiver. There will also be great economies in the text of messages; a careful examination of great numbers of telegrams has convinced the officers of the Telegraph Department that 30 or 40 per cent of the telegrams now sent for 1s. will in future be compressed so as to be sent for the minimum charge of 6d. Of the new business attracted by this low tariff, a very much larger proportion will be at the minimum rate. It is estimated that there will be an immediate increase of business of 30 per cent. It is thus calculated that the average receipts for telegrams will be reduced from 13 d. to 10 d., and that the average cost of transmitting them will be reduced from 10 d. to 8¾d., leaving a margin of 1¼d. The difference to the Department, therefore, partly in the shape of reduced receipts and partly in increased staff, will be about £180,000 per annum, which the House will see will leave us but a very small margin of profit; but it may be expected to improve. At all events, it will cost us for the first year £180,000. The tariff I have thus proposed is very much that which was suggested two years ago by a large majority of the principal Chambers of Commerce, and, I think, by the hon. Member for Glasgow. The only objection I have heard to it is that the abolition of free addresses may tell somewhat unequally upon the poorer classes of the community who live in
    1078
    our great towns, and whose addresses require fuller description than others. I should be very sorry if this class should not receive full benefit from any change, and, with this view, I have made inquiries. At present a telegram costing 1s. is a rare luxury to people in this class. I have made inquiries at the principal Telegraph Offices in the East End of London and other parts of the country where the working classes mainly live, with a view of collecting reliable statistics on this point; and I find that, out of 24,000 telegrams, only 167 can be attributed to persons in this class, or less than ½ per cent. These telegrams have been carefully examined; 156 of them were sent for 1s.; of these 71, or nearly one-half, could be compressed without any difficulty, and by the exercise of very ordinary intelligence, within 12 words, including their addresses, so as to come within the minimum charge of 6d. These figures have been carefully tested, and I have a Return which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) can have if he likes, and he will see that what I have said is correct. The fact is, that the great bulk of these telegrams are of the simplest character, reporting the death or the illness of a member of the family, or reporting the movements of the sender, and require a very few words to tell their tale. I am convinced, from a personal examination of these telegrams, that the senders of them will derive at least their full share in the benefit which is to result from the tariff I propose, and that the 6d. telegram will be an immense boon to the poorer classes of the community, and bring the telegraph within the reach of large numbers to whom at present the sending of a telegram at 1s. is a very great luxury. I have, in conclusion, to say that the measure which I propose will repeal the provisions of the Telegraph Act of 1868, requiring that addresses should be transmitted free of charge, and will enable the Post Office to charge a word rate for ad- dresses, as well as for the text of messages. In adopting this tariff, we shall bring our system into harmony with that of every other country in Europe; we shall put ourselves in a position to meet on better terms the competition of the Telephone Companies; and we shall

    1079
    be doing the very utmost which the financial position of the Telegraph Service permits of, and we hope that the House will consent to adopt our scheme.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he was glad to see the development of the telegraph system which the right hon. Gentleman had indicated; but he entered an early protest against the proposal to charge for the address of the consignee. He failed to see how such a charge could be justified, because the address contained the only words which enabled the Post Office to perform their part of the contract. He was well aware that in some extreme cases, such as had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, great inconvenience might be caused by a good many unnecessary words being in the address; but in the particular case the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned, he could see that the matter arose out of the desire on the part of the sender of the message to give the right hon. Gentleman all his titles and additions. He hoped, under all the circumstances, that this part of the scheme would not be pressed, although he fully admitted that the address of the sender was rather a luxury. He should like the right hon. Gentleman, to inform the House, also, whether the present 1s. rate would be retained alongside the new rate?
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he had listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with considerable pleasure, although he thought he had taken a gloomy view of the financial side of the matter. He had told them that there would be a loss of £180,000 during the first year, and he gave them to believe that that was a pessimist estimate; but, for his part, he (Dr. Cameron) hoped that that amount of loss would not be come up to. The decreasing revenue of the Telegraph Department in late years was, to his mind, due to the fact that the increase under the 1s. rate had now reached its natural limit; and he believed that by a diminution in the cost of telegrams a great increase of revenue would be effected. He entirely approved of the proposal to charge a halfpenny per word rate; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider that portion of his scheme which related to the address of the consignee. It would not be very difficult to get into 12 words
    1080
    what might be got into 13; and it was certainly of much more importance that the address of the consignee should be given with sufficient fulness to be thoroughly intelligible, especially in the case of inland and cable telegrams. As a matter of fact, there had been three schemes submitted to Parliament. In the first place, it was proposed to allow the addresses both of the sender and the consignee; and it was said that that would be an expensive scheme, costing the country something like £600,000. By the second plan it was proposed that the address of the sender should be charged, while that of the receiver should go free; and it was estimated that that would cost £64,000. And now there was a third scheme proposed by his right hon. Friend. He should have preferred to have that scheme which would be most conducive to the interests of the public; but, of course, it was only to be expected that the Department would consider the cost. He was convinced that the business of the telegraph would become much developed in consequence of this Bill; and when that was the case the public might reasonably hope for the introduction of further improvements. On the whole, he thought the scheme very similar to that which was shadowed forth by the late Postmaster General; and he did not think that anything very much better could have been expected.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that it would appear, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, that there had been a diminution in the receipts from the telegraphs; but he (Mr. Tomlinson) was very much inclined to believe that that arose from the enormous increase of the telephones. He did not think the Post Office were realizing how these telephones were interfering with the existing system. In the Metropolis the telephones had been developed to an enormous extent; and if inquiries were made of men of business, of the Railway Companies, and persons engaged in various commercial undertakings, who had been in the habit of using the telegraphs on a large scale, it would be found that the development of the telephones had very much diminished the telegrams. He thought the Post Office had missed a great opportunity in not taking up the telephones

    1081
    and working them upon a large scale in conjunction with the telegraphs. He believed it would be much more beneficial to the country at large if they were worked by the Post Office instead of by private Companies.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORexpressed dissatisfaction with the scheme as a whole. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General that there were two ways in which he might overcome the difficulty which appeared to confront him in regard to the question of addresses. One was to adopt a system of counting numbers as a word. For instance, in such an address as "241, Euston Road," the "241" might be counted as one word only. In the next place, they might adopt the system now followed in regard to cablegrams, and permit the address of the sender to be registered. He did not know whether that was the case in reference to inland telegrams; but, if not, he thought it ought to be made a necessary complement of the present scheme. The registration of the name would probably take away a certain proportion of money from the telegraphic revenue; but it might be made up by charging a small fee for registration. At present, he believed, a fee of a guinea was charged for the registration of a name in connection with cablegrams, and the same plan might be adopted in regard to the telegraphs. Then, again, the work of telegraphing would be much facilitated if a considerable change were made in the names of the streets in the Metropolis. At present there were a large number of streets with duplicate names, such as Oxford Street, King Street, Queen Street, Lansdowne Road, &c. To this fact might frequently be traced the difficulty of finding an address. So far as the mere number of words contained in a telegram was concerned, he could say, from personal experience, that there was nothing more easy than to cut down a telegram of 30 words to one of 10. The art of condensation, however, was only acquired by training and practice; but in future it would be largely stimulated by the fact that people would find they saved money by it. When people had to pay 1s. for 20 words they were inclined to think that it would be impossible to get full value for their money unless they put in the full 20 words, and made the address as long as possible.
    1082
    As a rule, under the existing system, the Post Office officials were put to from 20 to 30 per cent more trouble than was necessary. Although he was not altogether satisfied with the scheme of the Government, he was inclined to think that it might be made to work well.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought there was considerable force in the objection that under the new scheme, with the addresses charged for, the sender of 20-word telegrams would be placed at some disadvantage as compared with the position in which they stood under the present system. Under the 1s. rate the addresses of the sender and receiver were allowed to pass free, and the telegram itself might consist of 20 words. But in future, if the same individual wished to send 20 words, and the addresses contained six additional words, he would be a sufferer under the present scheme, and would have to pay 1s. 1d. instead of 1s. He believed that, as a matter of fact, the address of the sender and receiver usually required 10 words, and therefore the sender of a 1s. telegram would have to pay his 1s. for 14 words instead of 20. He thought it should be optional on the part of the public whether they selected the 1s. rate or the 6d. rate.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not think it would be possible to keep up the two scales of charges together. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that the sender of a 1s. telegram would be under a slight disadvantage under the new system as compared with the old. But the disadvantage would be very slight indeed. It was anticipated that the addresses would be reduced, on the average, to five words; and, assuming that to be the case, as 24 words were allowed instead of 20 for 1s. the sender of the telegram would be a sufferer to the extent of one word. He was prepared to admit that the competition of the telephone had had some effect already upon the Telegraph Service. The receipts from the telegraphs had been very stationary during the last two years, partly owing to the depression of trade, and partly from the competition of the telephone. The telegraph receipts had lately been decreasing, although there had been no decrease in the number of telegrams. It was hoped, however, that by the reduction of charge which was now proposed a more favour-

    1083
    able return would be obtained. In reply to the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) he might say that the question of the numbers included in the addresses was under consideration.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE and Mr. HIBBERT.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY REDISTRIBUTION BILL.
  (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

  [BILL 105.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Redistribution of the Constabulary Force).
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANmoved an Amendment to provide that the Lord Lieutenant should redistribute the Force every three instead of every five years.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, at the beginning of lino 8, to leave out "five," and insert "three."—(Mr. Camptell-Bannerman.)
  Question, "That 'three' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  MR. SEXTONmoved to insert the following new Clause:—
  "A Return shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament one clear month before every such distribution, giving the number of sergeants and constables proposed to be distributed as a free quota for each county, city, or town specified in the Schedule to the said Act of 1865, and for the City of Londonderry."
  The hon. Member said the object of the clause was to secure that on every occasion on which the Lord Lieutenant redistributed the Force the House of Commons should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. The result of knowing beforehand what the Government proposed to do would probably be a saving of time.
  New Clause (Return to be laid before Parliament)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANremarked that the clause moved by the hon. Member had not been placed upon the Paper, and he had consequently had no opportunity of knowing exactly what it was.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would read it again if the right hon. Gentleman wished.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNETRMANsaid, that was not necessary; but, as the clause had not been placed upon the Paper, he would suggest that it should be brought up upon the Report.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had no objection to take that course.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday 13th April.

  EGYPTIAN LOAN.—REPORT.
  Resolution [March 27] reported, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill upon the said Eesolution."—(Mr. Chan? cellar of the Exchequer.)
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection to the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill, which was a mere matter of form; but he would like to say a word or two upon another matter which was of very great importance. The Prime Minister had stated that he wished to obtain a definitive vote from the House upon the question of the loan before the Easter Recess. He had now obtained that vote, and he (Sir E. Assheton Cross) now wished to appeal to the Government, when the Bill founded upon the Resolution was brought in, not to press it to any further stage until such time as the House might reasonably be expected to be full of Members. He understood that the Government proposed that the second reading should be taken on Thursday week, the day on which the House would re-assemble after Easter. That he thought would be a very unsatisfactory arrangement.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.