Commons Sitting of 1 September 1887

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Ailwyn Edward Fellowes, esquire, for the County of Huntingdon (Northern or Ramsey Division).
SUPPLY — considered in Committee— CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 38, 39; CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE, Votes 24, 26, 33; CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, Vote 23
Resolutions [August 31] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS — Committee — Copyhold Enfranchisement ٭ [359]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Trinidad and Tobago ٭ [368]; Tramways (War Department) ٭ [246], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—MONEY ORDER DEPARTMENT—THIRD CLASS CLERKS.
  MR. CALDWELL(for Mr. HOBHOUSE)asked the Postmaster General, Whether all the third class clerks in the Money Order Department of the Post Office have been for some years, and are still, receiving much lower salaries than third class clerks in other Departments of the Post Office; and, if so, what steps it is proposed to take to place them on an equality with the other third class clerks, and to recompense them for the comparative loss they have sustained; and, whether any appointments elsewhere have been offered to the clerks now in the Money Order Office that would benefit them without inflicting loss of seniority and position?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The Question of the hon. Member refers to the few clerks who still remain on the old third-class of the Money Order Office. It is not my intention to make any alteration in their salaries. Two of them have recently been appointed to other offices, and, as fitting opportunities occur, I shall be glad to promote the others, if duly qualified.

  PRIVATE EXECUTIONS ACT, 1868— EXECUTION OF ISRAEL LIPSKI AT NEWGATE.
  MR. F. PARKER(for Mr. KENYON)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that at a recent execution a large crowd was collected round Newgate Prison, and that on the hoisting of the black flag cheers were raised by those assembled; and, whether, having regard to the spirit of the Private Executions Act, the Government have power to enable the authorities at Newgate to dispense with the hoisting of the flag, and thus prevent these public demonstrations?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Mr. Speaker; my attention has been called to this matter. The Rules made by the Secretary of State, under the Act of 1868, are now under revision. The question of dispensing with the hoist-

  719
  ing of the black flag will be considered; but I must not be understood as pledging myself to adopt the suggestion of ray hon. Friend. Some public intimation that an excution has taken place is, I think, desirable.

  RIVERS POLLUTION—THE THAMES AT BLACKWALL.
  MR. F. PARKER(for Mr. KENYON)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the statement, by Mr. Mackie, that the texture of Thames water at Blankwall is that of ink; whether the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works is responsible for this alleged condition of the River; and, if so, to what authority; and, whether the Government contemplate any legislation on the subject at an early period?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have called the attention of the Metropolitan Board of Works to this matter, and the Board informs me it is doing all in its power to improve, by chemical agency, the bad state of the River in this district. The Board of Works is responsible, in so far as the state of the River is due to an imperfect regulation of sewage; but it must be remembered that the long-continued drought of this year has greatly aggravated the difficulties they have had to contend with. I hope that when the new works now in progress are completed the causes of complaint will be lessened, if not removed, and no legislation will be necessary.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—GRAND JURY OF DONEGAL — LIFFORD ASSIZES —CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR(for Mr. O'HEA)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the Grand Jury of the County Donegal, at the recent Summer Assizes in Lifford, refused to present the amount submitted to them as the estimated sum required for the conveyance of prisoners, on the ground that a large portion of
  720
  the expenditure was unnecessary; if part of the expenditure was for "car hire and sundries" in connection with the levying of fines against persona who neglected to take out dog licences; if, in the case of a widow named Catherine Curran, who was unable to pay a small fine for having a little dog unlicensed, Sergeant Mahoney, of Gweedore, accompanied by a constable, brought this poor woman, in very inclement weather, from her cabin to the barracks, a distance of six Irish miles, and after refusing to allow his men at the barrack to subscribe the amount of the fine, took her by car to Letterkenny, a distance of 26 Irish miles, to be kept in Bridewell for 24 hours; whether the same police sergeant charged for a special car to attend the Falcaragh Petty Sessions, 12 miles distant, to prosecute a man named James Sweeny for not registering his dog, and subsequently, because Sweeny through poverty was unable to pay the fine, went to the further expense of hiring a special car to take him in custody to Letterkenny, a distance of nearly 30 Irish miles, to be kept for 48 hours in Bridewell; and, whether it is the intention of the Executive in Ireland to prevent this waste of public money in connection with dog licences?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Grand Jury of the County of Donegal at the recent Summer Assizes approved of a less sum than that submitted to them as the estimated expenditure for the conveyance of prisoners during the ensuing half-year. Their ground for doing so was that they considered it an over-estimate, having regard to the actual expenditure during the previous half-year. The part of the expenditure in connection with dog licence cases was extremely small. I have been unable, owing to the short Notice of this Question, to obtain a Report as regards paragraphs 3 and 4, which necessitated a local reference. As regards paragraph 5, the Inspector General of Constabulary reports that it is of rare occurrence that any expense whatever has to be incurred for levying fines in dog licence cases. I may add that the sum submitted to the Grand Jury was £400, and the sum awarded by them was £300.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL—THE INJURIOUS INSECTS ACT — THE COLORADO BEETLE.
  MR. WEBSTER,asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he has noticed the report in The Mark Lane Express that the Colorado beetle has appeared in Germany; if he has official information if such is the case or not; and, if that insect has appeared in Germany, whether precautions will be taken to prevent its importation into this country?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord JOHN MANNERS): Official information of the existence of the Colorado bettle in Germany was received on August 5, and the Papers were at once referred to the agricultural, adviser of the Department, Mr. Whitehead, who advised that particulars should be obtained from the German Government as to the circumstances in which the beetle had been found in Germany, as well as to the extent of its depredations. A reply has been received from Germany; and Mr. Whitehead had expressed his opinion that, as the German Authorities have taken such prompt steps to prevent the spread of the Colorado beetle, and, as it seems to have been confined to two small areas, it is hardly necessary for the Government to adopt measures to interfere with the importation of haulm or soil of German potatoes, or to put the Injurious Insects Act into operation. The German Government have been requested to furnish a further Report on the subject in the course of a few weeks.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE — EX-POLICE SERGEANT DRUMMOND.
  MR. DEASY(for Mr. LAWSON)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of ex-Police Sergeant Drummond; can he state what his offence was; whether his punishment was increased because he appealed from the decision of his Superintendent to the Chief Commissioner of Police; and, if so, whether he had asked to have his innocence proved by witnesses; and, why he was refused a hearing, and punished more severely?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The last complaint against Sergeant Drummond was by a private individual for assault and using offensive language when on special duty on the 21st of June. His punishment was not increased because he appealed to the Chief Commissioner. The Chief Commissioner thought that he was not fit to discharge the duty of sergeant under the circumstances. He was not refused a hearing, and the evidence of a witness who wrote that he did not see the assault was carefully considered.
  MR. PICKERSGILLinquired whether the sergeant had been reduced in consequence of his past conduct?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he had seen a list of prior charges against Drummond, and he was informed that he was reduced for general misconduct, and not for this particular offence.

  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION — DESTITUTE ALIENS.
  CAITAIN COLOMBasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, What number of persons during the past year have been sent back to the United Kingdom from the United States, and from other countries, by reason of their being destitute aliens; whether the Labour Correspondent, or any other Department of the Board of Trade, has collected information, or is investigating facts, respecting destitute aliens located in the United Kingdom; and, whether the attention of the Labour Correspondent has been directed to the alleged effects of unrestricted immigration of destitute foreigners upon the system commonly known in East London as "the sweating system?"
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I can only give the hon. and gallant Member information with regard to the number of persons sent back from the United States as destitute aliens, and in the first six months of 1887 the number so returned was 46. Of these, nine were said to be foreigners. Information collected by the Labour Correspondent on the subject of foreign immigration into the East End of London is given in the Return on Emigration and Immigration which was presented to Parliament during the present Session. The Labour

  723
  Correspondent has already made inquiries with regard to the sweating system, and is preparing a general Report, which I hope to present very shortly.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, whether there would be any great difficulty in collecting and publishing statistics respecting foreign immigrants into this country from European ports similar to those statistics which were published by the Board of Trade as respected foreign immigrants from ports outside Europe?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he was afraid that there would be very great difficulty in collecting such statistics. The question had been, and was still being, considered by the Labour Department.

  POPULATION—DEATHS FROM STARVATION IN THE METROPOLIS AND ALL IRELAND.
  CAPTAIN COLOMBasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, How many persons per 1,000 of the population have died from starvation or privation in the Metropolis of London and in all Ireland respectively in each of the past five years ending 1st January last?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade do not possess the information required by the hon. and gallant Member; but I understand that it may be obtained from Returns supplied by the Home Office and the Irish Office respectively.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE GAINSBOROUGH MAGISTRATES—SIR HICKMAN BACON.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the conviction and fining of a number of poor persons at the instance of Sir Hickman Bacon, baronet, by the Gainsborough magistrates, on Tuesday, 9th August, under the following circunstances:—A rumour having been set in circulation by some individual, as a hoax, to the effect, that, as Sir Hickman had not contributed very largely to the local Jubilee Fund, he had thrown a pea field open to poor
  724
  people; a large number of the poor of the neighbourhood availed themselves of what they believed to be his generosity, for which they were summoned and fined in some cases 4s., for peas not worth more than 1s.; whether it was admitted by the prosecution that such rumour had been circulated for three or four days previously, and was a "widespread rumour," and that there was written in chalk on the gate of the field "This field is thrown open as a Jubilee Treat;" whether it was proved that the persons summoned acted under the bonâ fide belief that the field had been thrown open to them; and, if so, by what interpretation of the law could they be held guilty of any offence; whether the prosecutor offered to withdraw the summonses if the defendants would pay the costs, and, on their stating their inability to pay, insisted on a conviction; and, whether, having regard to all the above circumstances, he will order the fines to be refunded?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am imformed by the magistrate's clerk that it was not suggested that the rumour referred to was set in circulation as a hoax. Sir Hickman Bacon was the largest contributor to the Jubilee in Gainsborough and three adjoining parishes, and, moreover, placed 50 acres of his park at the disposal of the Jubilee Committee. It was not admitted by the prosecutor that the rumour had been circulated or was widespread, and nothing was written in chalk on the gate. There was no proof given, or offered, that the persons summoned acted under a bonâ fide belief that the field had been thrown open to them. The prosecutor's solicitor offered to withdraw the summonses on payment of costs; but I am informed that the defendants, except one, preferred to be fined rather than to pay costs without a conviction. I collect that no fine was imposed for the value of the peas, or for any larger amount than the costs; and, having regard to all these circumstances, I see no ground for interference.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the magistrate's clerk who supplied the information was solicitor to Sir Hickman Bacon; and whether he would allow him to submit a Report of the matter for his consideration?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that he was not aware of the fact stated by the hon. Gentleman. He should be very glad to see any information which the hon. Member had in his possession upon the subject.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—TARBERT PETTY SESSIONS — CASE OF DANIEL SCANLAN.
  MR. DILLONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a man named Daniel Scanlan was sentenced at Tarbert Petty Sessions, on the 10th of August, to three weeks' imprisonment, and to a further term of three months if he failed to give security for his good behaviour, himself in £20 and two sureties of £10 each, for an alleged assault on a little girl whom he found tampering with the village pump; whether the evidence went to show that Mr. Scanlan, County Kerry, who is 70 years of age, and had charge of the pump for a considerable time, merely took the child by the ear and remonstrated with her; whether the people of the village have suffered much from the children injuring the pump and depriving them of the necessary supply of water; whether Mr. Sandes, who is landlord of the village, sat on the Bench during the trial and adjudicated in the case; whether Scanlan asked to have the sentence increased to four weeks so that he might have the right of appeal, and whether this was refused by Mr. Sandes; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the conduct of Mr. Sandes in this case?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON), in reply, said, the facts in the first paragraph of the Question were substantially correct. The girl assaulted was a little girl five years old, and it was not alleged that she was tampering with the public well. The evidence went to show that he dragged her by the ears and lifted her off where she was standing to the ground. Complaints had been made of children injuring the well; but it was so constructed that it could not be materially injured. The well frequently ran dry. Mr. Sandes was one of five magistrates who tried the case, and when asked if he had anything to say reply to the charge, Scanlan replied in the negative.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he would make some inquiry as to the justice of the sentence of three weeks' imprisonment on a man of 70 years of age, where no allegation was made that the child was injured in any way?
  [No reply.]

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES) — NOTTINGHAM BOARD OF GUARDIANS — COMMEMORATION PRESENTS TO OFFICIALS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he is aware that the Nottingham Board of Guardians, in commemoration of the official opening of new Poor Law offices at Nottingham, have purchased out of the rates and presented to the Chairman of that Board (Mr. John Burton), and the Chairman of the Building Committee respectively, golden keys; if the consent of the Local Government Board to this expenditure has been given, and if funds raised from the ratepayers for the relief of the poor may legally be charged with the cost incurred by the Guardians in this respect; and, if he will direct that the attention of the auditor be called specially to this particular item, and to the general expenditure incurred by the Nottingham Board of Guardians in furnishing and decorating this building, inasmuch as, in the opinion of a large number of ratepayers, the cost incurred is extravagant, especially in face of the present depressed state of the local industries?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Local Government Board have no information as to gold keys having been purchased at the cost of the rates and presented to the Chairman of the Guardians of the Nottingham Union and the Chairman of the Building Committee in connection with the opening of the new Poor Law offices at Nottingham. The Local Government Board have not consented to any such expenditure. It is the duty of the district auditor to disallow any charge which he considers to be illegal; and it is open to any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the auditor with regard to any payment, whether he allows or dis-

  727
  allows the payment, to appeal against the decision either to the Local Government Board or to the High Court of Justice. I will see that the attention of the auditor is drawn to the Question of the hon. Member.

  THE PARKS, &c. (METROPOLIS)— VAGRANTS AT NIGHT.
  MR. KIMBERasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware, or has been informed, that the vagrants occupying Trafalgar Square at night are only a detachment of a larger band who infest the Parks from day to day, and at night sleep on the benches in the Mall of St. James's Park, and on the Thames Embankment, and other public places; that in St. James's Park alone they amount to about 200 in number, of whom about one-fourth are women; that they lounge all day in idleness on the grass, and are well provided with food, small knots sometimes carrying in half a potato sackful at a time; that by mid-day all are provided for, and enjoy al fresco entertainments, accompanied by conduct and language of the grossest description, to the great scandal of the general public, and the depravement and detriment of the many children of the cleanly and industrious poor seeking health and exercise, and who cannot even play on the grass without contamination by vermin; whether the Census of tramps, which used formerly to be taken once a year, could be resumed, and a Return obtained of persons obtaining hawkers' licences, distinguishing the particular lines for which ostensibly they are granted, and the value of the stock they purport to carry; and, whether he will endeavour to secure to the deserving and industrious poor, and their children, the benefits of the open spaces of the Metropolis, which are at present monopolised by vagrants?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I am afraid that there is some substantial foundation for the statements which appear in the Question of my hon. friend, though some of them, perhaps, are a little warmly coloured, and dressed up with considerable powers of imagination. No doubt, some inconvenience is caused to the respectable inhabitants of London by the presence in the Parks of a number of tramps; but the ques-
  728
  tion is, what is to be done? In the first place, so far as the gross conduct and language complained of in the Question are concerned, the Park Regulations contain a provision which forbids any person to commit an act in violation of public decency, or to use profane, indecent, or offensive language; and both the park-keepers and the police-constables who are told off for the Parks have strict instructions to see that these provisions are properly enforced. But if we went beyond this, and gave authority to those officers to distinguish between those of the public who ought and those who ought not to be permitted to use the benches or lie down on the grass, I think such discretion must be sometimes unwisely exercised, and would be certainly often vigorously resisted; and that, on the whole, such a change in the law, if it could be effected, would do more harm than good. I have nothing to do with the resuming of any Census of hawkers, tramps, or other persons, nor do I see how the existence of such Census would affect this question. I can only say that I have as earnest a desire as the hon. Member can possibly have to secure to the deserving and industrious poor and their children the benefits of the open spaces of the Metropolis; and that, if any practical suggestion is made to me for more effectually protecting them from annoyance, I shall give it my most careful and respectful consideration.
  MR. KIMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask whether the officials have power to turn out any people who use gross language?
  MR. PLUNKET: Not only the power to turn them out, but to proceed against them, with a view to their punishment.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—ISSUE OF MORRIS'S TUBES AND AMMUNITION.
  DR. CLARKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the issue of Morris's tubes and ammunition, sanctioned by General Order, No. 98, of 1886, to regiments of Militia and Volunteers has been stopped or suspended; and, whether, considering the difficulty of earning the Capitation Grant under the new Musketry Regulations, arrangements will be made to issue the tubes and miniature cartridges?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE), (who replied), said: The issue of Morris's tubes and ammunition has been deferred for the present in consequence of the numerous other demands on the Vote for Warlike Stores. The question of their issue will be again considered when the general requirements of nest year are ascertained.

  THE MAGISTRACY—(IRELAND) —VACANT CORONERSHIP OF CO. WEST-MEATH.
  MR.D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Coronership of the County Westmeath is now over seven months vacant; whether the necessary steps have yet been taken to have the polling stations arranged for the election of the Coroner; if so, what prevents the issuing of the writ; and, whether the Clerk of the Peace has inserted the necessary notice for holding the election in the local papers and The Dublin Gazette?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The information I have just received is that the magistrates have made an order fixing the polling stations, and the Writ for the election issues from the Hanaper Office to-day.

  IRELAND—CORK CITY CORPORATION AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the Irish Local Government Board have recently reccommended the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury not to permit the Corporation of the City of Cork to borrow money for the erection of a Town Hall and offices; whether it has been conclusively proved to the Board that such a hall and offices are necessary to the Corporation, and will ultimately prove a saving of expense; whether he is aware that the reccommendation given by the Board, that the Corporation should apply to Parliament for an extension of borrowing powers under the Cork Improvement Act, will, in its application, entail not merely con-
  730
  siderable expense, but, by delay incurred, possibly prevent the Corporation obtaining the desired premises; whether he will recommend the authorization of the proposed loan, as it is for a necessary public work, and one which will provide considerable employment for our artizans and labourers in this period of depression; and, whether he can state on whose reccommendation the decision of the Government was taken?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)who replied) said: The Treasury, before refusing to sanction the loan referred to, had consulted the Local Government Board, Ireland. I have not seen any proof of the absolute necessity for the proposed purchase, or of the saving to be effected. The recommendation of the Treasury, that the Corporation should apply to Parliament for further borrowing powers, was made on the ground that the borrowing powers sanctioned by Parliament have been practically exhausted. The arguments suggested by the hon. Member do not appear to me to be sufficient to justify a reversal of the Treasury decision.
  In reply to a further Question by Dr. TANNER,
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the question came before the Treasury in this way. The borrowing powers of the Corporation were £62,000, and they had exercised them to the extent of £61,500. In. addition to borrowing under the authority of Parliament the Corporation might also borrow on the security of the Borough Fund; but he believed that Fund was already charged, if not to the full extent, very nearly; and it appeared to the Treasury, therefore, that the better course would be for the Corporation to apply for the sanction of Parliament.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether the sum of £10,000 on the loan mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was not allowed to be raised to meet the expenditure in connection with the Town Hall? The hon. Gentleman had also omitted to answer the last paragraph of the Question.
  MR. JACKSON: With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I think the best answer I can give is that the decision of the Treasury was arrived at on the recommendation of those who are responsible for this business. With

  731
  regard to the £10,000,I am afraid I have not the details with me.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he would again raise the question in the course of the evening.

  EGYPT—LIGHT DUES ON BRITISH SHIPPING.
  MR. T. SUTHERLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the Light Dues now charged on British shipping by the Egyptian Government are at least double the amount which they should be, according to the Convention entered into by Her Majesty's Representative with the Egyptian Government, and published in The London Gazette in 1870, Clause 12 of such Convention being to the following effect:—
  " That the present tariff shall be subject to be increased or lowered according to the state of the budget of lighthouses to be drawn up by the Government every year;"
  whether he can state the precise extent to which these Dues ought to be lowered in the present position of the lighthouse budget, and the extent to which they have been overcharged for some years past; and, what steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government propose to adopt for the protection of the shipping interest in this matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): To the first Question my answer must be similar to that given to my hon. Friend by the Secretary to the Board of Trade in February. There can be no doubt that the revenue derived from the Light Dues by the Egyptian Government considerably exceeds the expenditure. The estimated surplus for 1887 is £E.53,750. There is no Convention with the Egyptian Government on this matter; that Government in a "Notice to Maritime Trade "in 1870, Article XII., made the declaration stated in the Question; but that leaves the deduction within their own discretion. Her Majesty's Government are pressing the Egyptian Government to construct a new lighthouse on Shadwan Island in the Gulf of Suez. They do not feel justified in also pressing for an immediate reduction of the dues in view of the present embarrassed state of the Egyptian finances; but the question is not lost sight of, and the
  732
  Egyptian Government will be reminded of their engagement whenever there appears to be an opportunity of modifying the charges.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT — WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT— CRAIGHEAD COLLIERY, LANARKSHIRE.
  MR. D. CRAWFORDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether proceedings have now been taken by the Procurator Fiscal against the owners of the Craighead Colliery, in Lanarkshire, in consequence of the inspection of their weighing machines, ordered by the Board of Trade, and the information lodged by the Chief Constable in July last; if not, whether he will direct the Procurator Fiscal to take proceedings immediately; whether an inspection of the weighing machines at the same colliery, showing results similar to the recent inspection, was made in December last, and an information lodged with the Procurator Fiscal in January or February; and, if he would explain why he declined to prosecute on that occasion?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Procurator Fiscal has intimated to me that proceedings will be taken immediately in reference to the case referred to in the first paragraph of my hon. and learned Friend's Question. No prosecution was instituted in the case referred to in the second paragraph, as the proceedings were so irregular that no conviction could have been obtained.

  FISHING BOATS ACT, 1887—THE HERRING FISHERY.
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the recent great loss of life at sea from boats engaged in the herring fishery, caused by the unprotected state of their decks; and, whether, in view of this continued and increasing loss of life, the Government will take steps to secure that reasonable protection shall be extended by owners of fishing boats to those in their employment?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The attention of the Board of Trade has

  733
  not been called to any recent great loss of life at sea from boats employed in the herring fishery caused by the unprotected state of their decks. The loss of life from the cause named, and in the trade named, are this year very few. As regards loss of life from fishing boats other than drifters, the case has been considered by the Board of Trade; and I may refer the hon. Member to Sections 8 and 10 of the Fishing Boats Act, 1887; and, further, I have reason to believe and hope that the owners of fishing smacks will take measures for reducing the chances of accident.

  BOARD OF TRADE (RAILWAY DEPARTMENT)—MAJOR HUTCHINSON'S REPORT ON THE BANTRY EXTENSION RAILWAY ACCIDENT.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, What is the nature of Major Hutchinson's Report on the Bantry Extension Railway accident?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENEY DE WORMS): Major General Hutchinson reports that the accident in question was mainly caused by the driver's want of judgment in allowing the train to acquire too great velocity in descending the long incline of one in 80, near the foot of which the station is situated, and then by his being unable with the brake power at his command to stop the train.

  NEW SOUTH WALES — GRANTS OF LAND TO MISSIONARIES.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government of New South Wales have offered a large tract of land to any missionaries who will undertake the civilization of the Natives; and, whether this offer has been accepted by the Pope and the Propaganda?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): As far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no foundation for the rumour referred to in the hon. Baronet's Question. I may, perhaps, add that the rumour appears to be inconsistent with the circumstances and the policy of the Colony.

  RIVERS POLLUTION — THE RIVER THAMES.
  MR. COGHILLasked the President of the Local
  734
  Government Board, Whether he is aware that, since his attention was called to the matter in February last, the water of the Thames has continued to be polluted by the sewage and other refuse of house boats and steam launches; whether, if the proposed byelaw of the Thames Conservancy has not yet come into force, proceedings might have been taken against the owners of house boats and steam launches under the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 89, s. 63, which enacts a penalty of £100 for such an offence, and a further penalty of £50 for every day during which the offence is continued; and, whether an article in The Spectator of the 9th July of this year on this subject has been brought to his notice?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): My attention has not been specially called to this matter since March last. The byelaws which the Conservators have made on the subject came into force on the 18th of June. Shortly after that date the Conservators addressed notices to the owners of house boats and steam launches, drawing special attention to the requirements of the byelaw as to the discharge of sewage and offensive matters into the River, with a view to the arrangements as regards the fittings of the vessels which were necessary to prevent the pollution of the River being made without delay. It was, at the same time, pointed out that any closet communicating with the River would obviously be an infraction of the byelaw, and could not, therefore, he permitted. I have seen the article referred to in the Question.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)— ARREST IN GLASGOW.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether complaints have reached him that a citizen of Glasgow, Mr. J. H. Patterson, was arrested and questioned by two police constables on his way to his work; that he was searched in the open street, and then dragged to the police office, for no given reason; and that the lieutenant of police asked him there if he knew the National League was proclaimed; and, whether ha will inquire into the truth of these allegations? The hon. Member said, he wished to add that in the Question as handed in by

  735
  him there was a clause which had been omitted from it as printed. The clause ran thus—" Whether "—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That was omitted by my direction.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)(who replied) said: A house was broken into on the date in question, and the man Patterson was stopped by the police in consequence of their observing a bulky article in an inside pocket. He was asked to give his name and address, and to show what he had in his pocket; but to all questions he replied by saying to the officers —" Go and find out." He refused to show what he had in his pockets. He was not searched nor dragged by the police. On reaching the police office he was again asked if he would show what the article was; and, having shown that it was a newspaper, he was at once liberated. The sergeant of police, who had brought him to the police office, gave a written expression of his regret to Patterson, who expressed his satisfaction with it, and told the District Superintendent that he did not wish the sergeant to be dealt with in any way for what had happened. Notwithstanding this an inquiry was ordered by the Acting Chief Constable, and Patterson was on two separate occasions invited to come to the inquiry, but did not take the trouble to come. Some conversation did take place after the newspaper was produced about the proclamation of the National League; but it was entirely of a passing kind. The Acting Chief Constable has informed the Inspector that conversation on general or political subjects ought to be avoided between police officials and persons who may be brought to the office and liberated, I have to-day received a further telegram, informing me that Patterson, on being visited by the Procurator Fiscal, has again expressed himself satisfied with the sergeant's expression of regret, and that this Question is not put by him or with his concurrence.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)—CASE OF DONALD M'MURCHY, OF OBAN.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Lord Advocate, If he has made a full inquiry into the case of Donald M'Murchy, of Oban;
  736
  and, if he will communicate the result of the inquiry?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): An hon. Member some time ago called my attention to this matter with a view to putting a Question; but, on learning the result of my inquiries, the Question was not asked. I had all the papers connected with the dismissal of Donald M'Murchy from the Argyllshire Police Force before me, and was at the time satisfied that there was no ground for the allegation made by Donald M'Murchy. If the hon. Member wishes the matter to be reconsidered, I shall be glad if he will inform me of the specific points on which he desires inquiry, and I shall have the Papers re-transmitted from the Crown Office to London.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER — THE CLOISTER—THE ELECTRIC LIGHT.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the First Commissioner of Works, If, during the Recess, electric light could be substituted for the gas which is spoiling the stonework of the roof of the cloister used as the Cloak Room?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): There is no doubt that the use of gas is doing a certain amount of injury to the stonework in some of the cloisters and passages of the Houses of Parliament, though this was, in the case of the Cloak Room, to some extent remedied in 1878; and I quite agree that the substitution of electric lighting is, for this reason and many others, most desirable. But, unfortunately, there is the odious question of expense to be considered in making such an improvement. I have been for some time engaged in having estimates prepared of what the cost would be; and I hope very soon to be able to submit the matter to the proper authorities, though what its reception will be I cannot say. At present, with the existing power, it is impossible to have electric light in that part of the House.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—WRITERS—DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BONUSES.
  MR. HOWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that there is often a delay of several weeks between the

  737
  application of Civil Service writers for their bonuses and the issue of the Civil Service Commissioners' draft upon the Paymaster General for payment; whether such delay is at all necessary; and, whether the Treasury will direct that steps be taken to expedite the payment of Civil Service writers' bonuses as they become due, under the provisions of the Treasury Minute of December, 1886, so as to prevent any unnecessary delay in future?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Bonuses are paid to Civil Service writers in respect of satisfactory service during a previous half-year on two days in each month; and inquiries are sent out three days before the completion of the half-year to each Department, to ascertain whether the work of the copyist has been satisfactory, and as soon as a favourable answer is received the claim of the copyist is entered for payment on the next bimonthly pay day. Under this arrangement the longest delay that can possibly arise in the payment of a claim is 14 or 15 days. Sometimes, however, applications are made before the half-year is ended, and such applicants may have to wait a longer time. In a few cases— which will not recur—there has been considerable delay while a question which had arisen was under the consideration of the Treasury; but of 514 payments which have been made this year, 320 were made within a week of the Departmental Report, and all but 14 within a fortnight.

  ADMIRALTY—MERCHANT STEAMERS AS ARMED CRUISERS.
  MR. PROVANDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the Table, before the Naval Estimates come on, the Agreements made by the Admiralty with steamers trading to New York for hiring them to be used as armed cruisers or otherwise in time of war, and also such Correspondence as will enable Members to understand the contracts that have been entered into?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Correspondence, which details at length the arrangements as to hiring made with steamers trading to New York, was laid on the Table of the House by command
  738
  on the 18th of March last, and is numbered 5,006. The formal legal contracts based on this correspondence are in the hands of the Treasury Solicitor.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE STATION AT DRUMSNA.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Postmaster General, Whether Drumsna is a sorting office for Kilmore and Hillotree; whether the day mails from Drumsna for Dublin are forwarded direct from that station; whether the night mails are first sent into Carrick-on-Shannon, passing by the Drumsna Railway Station to Dublin four hours after; and, whether he will so arrange that the night mails will be forwarded direct as the day mails now are, and thus give the people of the three districts named a much longer time within which to write their correspondence?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, inquiries would have to be instituted with reference to the several points raised; and as the Question only appeared on the Paper that morning, and it would take a few days to obtain the necessary information, he would ask the hon. Member to postpone it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN RYAN, OF CLOUGHREADY, CO. TIPPERARY.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether John Ryan, of Cloughready, County Tipperary, who was committed to prison for an indefinite term, by Mr. Cosby E. Trench, on 4th June, 1886, for taking forcible possession of his holding from which he had been evicted, is still in prison; and, if so, how long is it the intention of the Government to keep him there?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, he was informed that this man was discharged from gaol on the 30th of July last.

  TOWNS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1854— LISTOWEL.
  MR. STACKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  739
  of Ireland, If it is a fact that offences committed against the Town Improvement Act of 1854 within the township of Listowel are tried at Petty Sessions, thereby depriving the ratepayers of the town of a sum amounting to £150 per annum. to which they are justly entitled; and, whether he will communicate with the Constabulary Authorities, with a view to directing the local police to bring all prosecutions which may be instituted under the Act before the Town Court instead of at Petty Sessions?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Inspector General of Constabulary informed him that cases of persons in which the offence took place outside the township were tried at the Petty Sessions, and in these cases the magistrates got one-half the fines; but offences against the Towns Improvement Act, and offences such as drunkenness, committed in the town, were brought before the Town Court. Such being the case, any recommendation, such as that suggested in the Question, would be unnecessary.
  MR. DEASYsaid, as a matter of fact, the townspeople did not derive any benefit from the cases which were decided at the Petty Sessions.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had answered the Question from the information he had received; but he would make further inquiries on the subject.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—MR. J. R. MAX-WELL, CHIEF MAGISTRATE OF THE GAMBIA.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has countermanded the appointment of Mr. J. R. Maxwell as Chief Magistrate of the Gambia; whether he is aware that that appointment gave general satisfaction to the inhabitants; and, whether, in conformity with the request they have made through Governor Sir Samuel Rowe, he will re-consider his decision?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I have not yet countermanded the appointment of Mr. J. R. Maxwell. I am not aware whether that appointment gave general satisfaction. I should add that Mr.
  740
  Maxwell is related to one of the two members of the local Bar; and that he was informed, before his appointment was actually made, that he would be transferred to another Colony if an opportunity occurred, in accordance with the settled practice and the Colonial Regulation, which lays down that in the case of the chief judicial and chief fiscal offices in a Colony in which the Crown is responsible for the appointments local connection with the Colony, by birth, family ties, or otherwise, will be considered, generally speaking, to render a candidate ineligible. As regards the last part of the hon. Baronet's Question, I may state that no request has yet been received from any quarter as to Mr. Maxwell's continuance at the Gambia.

  LAW AND POLICE—PROSECUTION EXPENSES ACT —EXPENSES OF WITNESSES.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of a proceeding at the Westminster Police Court on Thursday last, when the conductor of an omnibus, who had been subpœned by the Court to attend and give evidence on a charge which was ultimately dismissed, asked for his costs, mentioning that he had lost his day's employment, and could ill afford to do so, as he was only what was called "odd man;" and Mr. Safford, the Chief Clerk, then stated, on the authority of the Clerk of the Peace, that the Treasury had intimated that they would not repay the expenses of witnesses, allowed in accordance with 29 & 30, Vict. c. 52, when the charge was dismissed; whether the statement of Mr. Safford was correct; and, whether, in future, the Treasury will repay such expenses when they have been allowed by the Local Authorities?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): It is the fact that the Treasury have declined to repay to the Local Authorities the expenses allowed under 29 & 30 Vict. c. 52, as such expenses do not fall within the terms of the Vote for the Repayment of Criminal Prosecution Expenses. There is no intention of enlarging the classes of cases the expenses of which are now repayable.

  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION — ASSISTANT REVISING BARRISTERS (IRELAND).
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Has the ex-Attorney General been consulted this year, or is it intended to consult him, in accordance with precedent, as to the names of the proposed Assistant Revising Barristers; is it the fact that in 1885, during a Tory Administration, all the appointments were made by 30th August (some sittings beginning as early as 4th September), while in 1886 the appointments were made even earlier by the Liberal Government; if so, what is the cause of the delay this year; and, is it intended not to announce the names until the Estimates have been passed?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The ex-Attorney General has not been consulted, nor was his Predecessor last year by the late Administration. In 1885 most of the Revising Barristers were appointed by the 30th of August, but some at a later date. In 1885 it was important to commence the revision as soon as possible after the 1st of September, whereas now the revision cannot commence before the 8th of September. It is the fact that Revising Barristers were appointed earlier by the Earl of Aberdeen, who appointed 28 on the 2nd of August, three days before the Marquess of Londonderry was sworn in, and 11 were afterwards added. It is proposed to appoint 26, as against 39 last year. There is no such intention as suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In view of the important fact that the seats of many Members are dependent upon whether "True Blues" are appointed or not, I want to know whether the Government will postpone the Estimates for the salaries of these gentlemen until after we have been furnished with their names? I should not like to be kicked out of this House without—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I shall oppose these Estimates being brought on before we have the names of these gentlemen.
  Subsequently,
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND) (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said: Perhaps it will be convenient to the hon. and learned Member for Longford if I inform him and the House that I shall be able to give tomorrow a list of names of Revising Barristers.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL — STUDENTS IN AGRICULTURE AT SOUTH KENSINGTON.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Vice President of the Committe of Council on Agriculture, How many students have been examined in the principles of agriculture, the amount paid to professors, and the incidental expenses in connection with the subject at South Kensington, during the seven years ending 26th May, 1887; and, whether the students who pass generally follow agriculture as a business afterwards?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): A Return shall be prepared giving the information required, except as regards the last paragraph of the Question. When nearly 5,000 students are examined annually it would be difficult to say whether they follow the business of agriculture afterwards or not; but the Return could include, if desired, the names and occupations of all those who had passed during the last year, from which it would be seen that a large proportion are already engaged in agriculture. It would be well if the hon. Member could see me as to the form of the Return.

  PERU—THE PERUVIAN BOND-HOLDERS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government has been asked to give their countenance, either alone or in conjunction with France, to a Mission to Chili on behalf of the Peruvian Bondholders' Committee; and, if so, what answer has been given?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government have not been asked to give their countenance to such a Mission; nor are they aware that any such is contemplated; but had the British Peruvian bondholders desired for themselves to

  743
  approach the Chilian Government, Her Majesty's Government would have afforded them such support as is usually given by Her Majesty's Representatives to British subjects having well-founded claims against a Foreign Government.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the Judgment of Sir George Jessel and Lords Justices James and Hellish in 1877, in which they stated that the Courts of this country had no jurisdiction in the matter?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the hon. Member knew that the matter was a most complicated one, and one that had many phases. He had been asked as to a particular point, and to that he had no difficulty in giving a direct and positive answer. He, however, could not enter into a recondite history of the Peruvian bondholders.

  FISHERIES—HARBOURS OF REFUGE ON THE WELSH COAST.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, having regard to the fact that, between Holyhead and Milford Haven, there is no port or harbour of refuge into which a boat drawing eight feet six inches of water can run at all states of the tide, that the absence of suck harbour accommodation seriously cripples the success of fishing and trawling on that coast, and occasions serious loss of life every year, he will appoint a Departmental Committee to visit Fish-guard, Aberystwith, Aberdovey, Bar-mouth, St. Tudwell's, and other places, to inquire what steps could, and should, be taken for the further protection of the lives and industry of fishermen and traders along the Welsh Coast?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Her Majesty's Government have no intention of departing from the policy of successive Governments in past years, under which they have hitherto declined to make grants of public money for harbour construction except in cases of Imperial and national necessity. Under the circumstances, it would not appear that any advantage would result from the appointment of a Committee as proposed by the hon. Member. If the hon. Member's Question has reference to the grants of loans to fishing harbours through the Public Works Loan Com-
  744
  missioners, I would refer him to my statement on the subject in Committee of Supply and a Minute of the Treasury to the Board of Trade which I then communicated to the Committee.

  FORESTRY —TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT, 1883—TREE-PLANTING.
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware of the failure of the tree planting clauses of "The Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1883," and, having regard to the fact and the recent Report of the Committee on Forestry, which Report recommends the planting of large areas in each of the Three Kingdoms, the Government would transfer a portion of the moneys still available for migration, under the same Act of 1883, to the development of osier growing and other forest industries in Ireland?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Act quoted by the hon. Member provides for the scheme for tree planting by way of loans. Any failure which may have occurred is not due to the loans not being available, but to applicants not coming forward. There being no failure of funds for the purpose of tree planting, the question of appropriating funds assigned to other purposes does not seem to arise.

  SALMON FISHERY ACT, 1873—BOARD OF CONSERVATORS OF THE DOVEY FISHERY DISTRICT.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Board of Conservators of the Dovey Fishery District has ever complied with the Regulation contained in Section 30 of "The Salmon Fishery Act, 1873," that the holders of licences for fishing in common or public waters should annually elect a representative on the Board; and, if not, whether he will take steps to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade have no power to enforce the provisions of the Act in the manner referred to by the hon. Member, They will, however, communicate with the Fishery Board on the subject.

  METROPOLITAN PAUPER SCHOOLS— COMPARATIVE EXPENDITURE.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Why the Returns of Comparative Expenditure at the Metropolitan Pauper Schools, which up to 1882 were included in the Annual Reports of the Board, have, since that year, been discontinued; and, whether he will undertake to include these useful Returns in future Annual Reports?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The publication of these statements in the Annual Reports of the Board was discontinued with the view of diminishing the bulk of the Reports. The Board, however, furnish copies of the statements for every Manager and Guardian in the Metropolis, and are always willing, on application, to furnish a copy to anyone interested in the subject. If, however, there is any general desire that a comparative statement of the expenditure in respect of the schools in the Metropolis should in future appear in the Reports I will arrange for this.

  BOARD OF TRADE — BOATING FA-TALITY AT ILFRACOMBE.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended to hold an inquiry respecting the capsizing of the unlicensed yacht Monarch on Friday last, at Ilfracombe, when 14 lives were lost, the Coroner having closed the inquiry before the relatives of the deceased could attend or be represented at the inquest?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Yes, Sir; the Board of Trade have directed an inquiry to be held into the circumstances attending the casualty to the Monarch.

  PRISON RULES—COMMUNICATIONS TO CONVICTS.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is against Prison Rules for a convict to receive a letter from a lady District Visitor acquainting him with the death of his child; for a chaplain to inform a prisoner that a wreath should be put on his child's grave; for a convict to have
  746
  a photograph of his wife and children; and, if so, whether he will have the Prison Rules altered to allow prisoners to be more readily influenced for good?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): It is not against Prison Rules for a convict to receive a letter from a lady District Visitor acquainting him with the death of his child; or for a chaplain to inform a prisoner that a wreath should be put on his child's grave. A convict would be allowed to see a photograph of his wife and children; but he would not be allowed to keep it, as no private property is allowed to be in the possession of a prisoner. I think it can be safely left to the discretion of the Governors to do what is proper and humane in connection with the family affairs of any particular convict; and I propose, during the Recess, to consider the whole question of Prison Rules.

  LAW AND POLICE—SOLICITATION IN THE STREETS.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the present inequality of the law regarding solicitation in the streets, the Government will take steps next Session to alter the law so as to secure persons of both sexes alike from serious annoyance in the streets, and to make offenders of either sex equally liable to punishment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I will undertake to consider carefully before next Session what amendments of the law are desirable on the subject referred to, which, as the hon. Member knows, is one of considerable difficulty.

  AFRICA (SOUTH) — A RAILWAY THROUGH SWAZILAND.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention had been called to an article in The Financial News of the 31st of August, in which it was stated that he (Sir Henry Holland) had been approached by the concessionnaires of a scheme for a railway through Swaziland, and involving the creation of a free port at Coosa Bay, and that he had said that he had no objection to the

  747
  scheme, and whether there was any truth in the report?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): My attention has been called to the article referred to. The statement is quite incorrect. I have not been approached by the concessionnaires of the alleged scheme, nor have I had any such scheme brought under my notice. I need hardly add, therefore, that I have expressed no approval of it.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was his intention to report Progress in Supply at an early hour that evening in order to proceed with the Allotments Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that looking at the condition of Supply, he was not in a position to ask the House to report Progress at an early hour; and therefore, unless they got through the Irish Estimates before half-past 1 o'clock, the Allotments Bill would not be proceeded with that evening.
  MR. CHANNINGasked, what day the Bill would be taken if they did not reach it that night? At this time of the Session it would be most inconvenient if they did not know when the Bill would be taken.
  MR. W. H. SMITHgreatly regretted the inconvenience to which hon. Members were put in consequence of the postponement of the Bill; but the hon. Gentleman would see that it was very difficult to fix a day. He would, however, give the earliest possible Notice as to when the Bill would be proceeded with. They must get Supply, and the Report stage of the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill must betaken this week — he hoped on Saturday.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: In case the Allotments Bill is not taken to-night, will it be taken to-morrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the Irish Estimates are disposed of to-morrow night we will take it then.
  MR. CHANNINGasked, whether the Allotments Bill could not be taken at any time of the night? Members on the Opposition side of the House were perfectly ready to deal with it at any hour.
  Subsequently,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, with regard to the answer he had given a few minutes ago, he desired to state that while he did not wish the House to remain sitting till a very late hour owing to the strain put upon Members, it had been represented to him that the Bill would not take a very long time, and in that case he would not object to its being taken at half-past 1 in the morning. But it must be obvious that it would be impossible to enter on a prolonged debate after that hour; and therefore he should leave it to the good feeling of hon. Members to say whether the Bill should be taken at the close of the Sitting or not.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had some important Amendments on the Paper, and he would not wish that they should come on at 3 o'clock in the morning. He would prefer that the right hon. Gentleman should say something definite.
  COLONEL NOLANannounced that as the Bill had been altered by leaving out Ireland, he should move that it be postponed until Ireland was included in the measure.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, under those circumstances, the Bill would not be taken that night.
  In reply to Mr. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Technical Schools (Scotland) Bill would not be taken to-night.

  THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES)—DARTMOUTH MAGISTRATES.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to a matter to which he had twice called his attention, Whether the Lord Chancellor had arrived at a decision with regard to certain Dartmouth magistrates, who, from a recent trial, appeared to have been, guilty of gross misconduct on the public road?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he had no information on the subject more than he had given the hon. Member before.
  MR. CLANCYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had given him no information.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsubmitted with regard to the Bills on the Paper, that the proper course for the Government to take would be at the conclusion of their own Business to move the adjournment of the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he would consider the suggestion; but no disputed Business would be taken after the third Government Order.
  MR. TOMLINSONsuggested, with a view to complete the discussion on the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill on Saturday, that the Rule with regard to Wednesday Sittings should not be applied to that day.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he believed it was the general wish of the House that the Wednesday Rule should be adhered to. From what he had ascertained from Gentlemen on both sides, he believed there was no doubt that the discussion on the Bill would be completed before 6 o'clock on Saturday.

  PARLIAMENT—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE (1882) — RULE 2 (ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE).
  THE PROCLAIMED MEETING AT BALLYCOREE. ENNIS, CO. CLARE.
  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can give us any information on two matters of great importance in Ireland. First, I want to ask him on what grounds the Government have prohibited the meeting announced to be held near the town of Ennis next Sunday, and also if he will state at the same time whether the prohibition will bring the meeting under the definition of an unlawful assembly dealt with under Clause 2 of the Crimes Act; and also I wish to ask how it is, in spite of repeated assurances given by him in this House, evictions are still being carried out on the property of The O'Grady at Herbertstown, county Limerick, of tenants under £100 a-year rent?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): As the
  750
  hon. Gentleman is aware, what I have said in the House with regard to evictions does not depend upon any assurances of mine, but upon what the law is, and upon that point the hon. Gentleman is probably as good a judge as I am. I apprehend the law to be exactly as I have previously stated—at present there can be no legal evictions in Ireland—
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Why do you supply police, then?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of tenants under £100 a-year, and therefore every eviction in Ireland must be either upon title or where the rent is over £100. That I believe to be the law.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has not taken the least notice of the first Question as to a meeting proposed to be held at Ennis, in County Clare, being proclaimed, and whether such Proclamation of the meeting will bring it under the definition of an unlawful assembly under Clause 2 of the Crimes Act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I believe not. If the hon. Gentleman would address that Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman near me, perhaps he would get a fuller answer.
  MR. DILLON: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will inform me?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I think it has been often explained that the action of the Executive in proclaiming any assembly is only a measure of a precautionary character, and does not make an innocent assembly an unlawful one. There is no additional efficacy given to the Proclamation of a meeting by the recent Act of Parliament passed that Session. That Act, under Section 2, deals with cases of riot and unlawful assembly. The Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant does not constitute an innocent assembly an unlawful assembly, but it is a warning that, in the opinion of the Executive, the assembly was an unlawful one, and, of course, law-abiding citizens would naturally pay attention to the admonition.
  MR. DILLON: In consequence of the answers I have received I feel compelled to ask the permission of the

  751
  House to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the conduct of the Executive Government in Ireland in proclaiming the meeting announced to be held in Ennis, County Clare, next Sunday, and also in sanctioning the carrying out of evictions on the old system, of tenants paying under £100 rent.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is mixing up two subjects. He is proposing to deal with two subjects instead of one.
  MR. DILLON: Under these circumstances, I shall be compelled to confine myself to the first matter—namely, the conduct of the Executive Government in proclaiming the meeting announced to be held at Ennis on Sunday next.
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified,
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen,
  MR. DILLONsaid: The practice which has long been in abeyance of proclaiming public meetings in Ireland without the slightest reason appears to be revived. I would ask the attention of the House to the fact that when I addressed two Questions just now, one to the Head of the Executive Government in Ireland, and the other to the Chief Law Officer of the Crown in Ireland, that neither of them deigned to give me even a reply to my Question as to what were the grounds on which this meeting was proclaimed. I twice put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to the grounds of the Proclamation, and he did not deign to pay me the compliment of an answer.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was communicating with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General at the time; and I forgot to answer that Question, which was one among others addressed to me by the hon. Member. I meant no discourtesy, and I am perfectly ready to answer it.
  MR. DILLON: In any case the discussion might have had to take place. It would have been more prudent, however, for the right hon. Gentlman to answer the Question. It was the very
  752
  first Question I put, and I repeated it twice over. This forms a very good case on which to debate the principle of suppressing public meetings in Ireland. Now, Sir, what are the facts in connection with this public meeting? This meeting is a meeting called on long notice. It is a meeting which was announced to take place on last Sunday, and which was announced publicly in the newspapers for three weeks before last Sunday. I believe it is a meeting called, as I shall presently show, for two purposes—one to meet the Representatives of the County and myself, and the other to pass resolutions of thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) and the English democracy for the support and sympathy they have given our country, and also for the purpose of condemning the Crimes Act. These were the purposes of the meeting —no other purpose was stated for the meeting, and no other purpose existed for the meeting. Let me point out this fact—that the meeting was announced to be held not in the immediate vicinity of any estates on which disturbance exists, though I do not for a moment admit that the Government would have a right to prohibit meetings in such a case; but this meeting was announced to beheld in the immediate vicinity of the town of Ennis, a district where there has been no disturbance for a long time. In order to understand the full meaning of this action of the Irish Executive it is necessary to keep in mind this fact — that in the whole course of the movement which has existed in Ireland now for upwards of seven years, during which there have been, I suppose, 10,000 meetings, there has not been a single case of disturbance or injury to property or person springing from any one of these meetings, except where the police interfered and tried to disperse them. I point to that with special pride, for I do not know any country in the world which has such a record. I have got a copy of the only placard issued in connection with the meeting, and it is to the following effect:—
  " The people of Clare are summoned to assemble on the Hill of Ballycoree, within a mile of Ennis, on the 28th of August."
  That was the date originally fixed for the meeting, but the meeting of last Sunday was not proclaimed—it was

  753
  postponed at my request. The Government, having had three weeks' notice, did not proclaim the meeting last Sunday.
  " This meeting is to be attended by Mr. William O'Brien, M.P.; Mr. John Dillon, M.P.; Hon. Philip Stanhope, M.P.; and Dr. Cox, M.P. Resolutions will be proposed assorting the inalienable right of the Irish people to the making of their own laws, pledging renewed fealty to and confidence in Charles Stewart Parnell, thanking Mr. Gladstone for his message of peace to Ireland delivered in Parliament, and the democracies of England, Scotland, and Wales for their noble and truly patriotic efforts to bring about a real and lasting union between the Irish and the English people; and condemning the wantonly exasperating policy of the present Government towards the people of Ireland."
  Then there is a short call to the men of Clare to prove themselves worthy of their historic county and "God Save Ireland" at the bottom of the placard. I do not see anything except it be the "God Save Ireland" which the Government could put forward as a justification for the Proclamation. On what grounds have the Government proclaimed the meeting? It seems to me, Sir, that as they have proclaimed that meeting called by such a placard, and held in a district remote from the centre of disturbance, that we are entitled to expect that as soon as Parliament rises and criticism is removed from their action that they will absolutely prevent all right of public meeting in Ireland except the meetings of the Orangemen. What is the information they have received? The Government as long as they acted on the information of their own officials took no steps to proclaim this meeting, but the magistrates and landlords of the County Clare met last week and sent to Dublin an urgent appeal to have the meeting proclaimed. But when was there ever a Land League meeting held which the local magistrate did not ask to have proclaimed? Have we not got the testimony of Lord Spencer and Sir George Trevelyan as to the tremendous pressure which was brought to bear upon them to put down meetings of Nationalists in every part of Ireland, and we have their testimony to the fact that one of the difficulties they had to deal with in carrying on the government of Ireland under the Crimes Act was this persistent and determined pressure on the part of the landlord and Tory faction to get them to prevent any Nationalist
  754
  meeting from being held in any part of the country. This was a doctrine openly and positively laid down by the faction, and especially by the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman), that it was the duty of the Executive to prohibit Nationalist meetings everywhere throughout the country, because they were treasonable and rebellious, and because sedition was spouted there. As I was pointing out, all the facts go to show that the action of proclaiming the Clare meeting was taken at the dictation of the local magistrates, the agents and the landlords of the County Clare. Are we to understand that wherever the magistrates of an Irish county assemble and swear information or send up petitions to the Castle, that meetings will be proclaimed? The object of this Proclamation is simply this—that Colonel Vandeleur and Mr. Burton, and other Clare landlords, are preparing to evict on an enormous scale. Colonel Vandeleur is going to evict 60, and Mr. Burton 20 tenants, who are rack-rented up to the hilt, and who, if they could go into Court, would get greater reductions than we ask for, and these landlords, terrified by. The result of the enormous quantity of public opinion we brought to bear on Colonel O'Callaghan, are shaking in their shoes lest they should be held up to the public odium of England as Colonel O'Callaghan was. They do not care for the odium of the Irish Nationalists, but they want to prevent the public opinion of England from being fixed on the iniquities they are about to perpetrate. What is it that makes me consider this worth taking up the time of the House about?—for I do consider it to be as important a subject as could possibly be brought under the attention of the House for two reasons —because, not content with enforcing your Coercion Act, you are going also to deny to the people of Ireland the right of public meeting, no matter how peaceable a district may be. If the Government are going by means of the powers they possess under the Coercion Act, to deny the people of Ireland the right of public meeting for peaceable purposes, that will be a sandal that I believe the people of this country will not tolerate. The people of the County of Clare will not be put down. We shall hold our meeting next Sunday whether it be proclaimed or not; and we shall challenge

  755
  the opinion given by the Attorney General for Ireland as to its lawfulness. I say it is not unlawful. Those who are seeking to put down this meeting are doing a most dangerous and deadly act against the public peace in Ireland; and those who would attempt, by means of their bludgeons and bayonets and buckshot in the hands of men under the command of ruffianly inspectors, instructed by secret telegrams like Captain Plunkett's, not to hesitate to "shoot down the people if necessary," would have the blood of the people upon their heads. Very little would induce Captain Plunkett to think it necessary. What was the action of Captain Plunkett the othey day as reported in The Times of this morning? Why, two or three women were standing outside a house, when they saw Captain Plunkett coming along the road. They called him a hangman, and he turned on them and said—"If you say that again I will send the police in amongst you," That is the kind of man who in all probability you will have in command next Sunday. I say we will bring the peasantry of Clare into Ennis. We are standing on our rights, and if, when the people enter Ennis on Sunday they are met by some 500 or 600 armed men with loaded guns, there is bloodshed, it will be upon the head of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who is breaking the law in prohibiting a political meeting and is allowing himself to be made the tool of exterminating and rack-renting and ruffianly landlords of Clare, who dread the public opinion of this country, and know that their action towards their tenants had best be done in the dark. Why, if, as they are proud of boasting, they are not ashamed of these evictions, why are they afraid of our going to Clare and bringing an English Member of Parliament with us? They want bloodshed. They have tried peace for six months, have found the people too strong, and what they want to do is to get back to the old and evil days, and, by creating riots and disturbances, be allowed to let Plunkett and his bludgeon men loose on the people. I look forward to this kind of thing with the greatest possible anxiety and alarm; but it is absurd to suppose—and I do not think the Chief Secretary even can suppose that, even if we were cowardly and base enough to do as the London Times, with its manly sneer, thinks we would, to run away, we
  756
  could not do it. The Times, that great advocate of law and order, says that Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien are skilled in the art of running away from a policeman." I would like to see the editor of the London Times with his head batoned by a constable, and without any means of resistance. I promise him he would run faster than I would. But whether we are inclined to run away or not, one thing is perfectly certain—we are not in a position to do it. It very often happens that when a man is inclined to show the white feather he finds it far more difficult to do that than to face the danger. I am bound to say that I would not be the least ashamed to run away from a policeman, though I never did so in my life. But if a man with no weapon in his hands is attacked by 20 or 30 men who have weapons, I do not think the man need be the least ashamed to run away. I have seen very brave men run away in such circumstances, who, if they had weapons, would have made short work of their assailants; but, what we cannot run away from even if we wanted, is the public opinion of England and of Ireland. Let the Government be under no mistake in this matter; the meeting at Ennis next Sunday must take place, and it will be continued until it is dispersed by the bludgeons and the bayonets and the buckshot of the armed force sent to put it down. I call upon the head of the Irish Executive to justify himself in face of this country if he can for what he is going to do in Ennis next Sunday, and if he has not got very much stronger grounds to go upon than anything he has been able to put forward for some time past, the people of this country will teach him and his Government that there is a length in Ireland to which he cannot go in dealing with the people. In order to afford the right hon. Gentle man an opportunity of justifying his action, I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Dillon.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) might have had the chief portion of the information I shall now give him of the grounds upon which the meeting at

  757
  Ennis was proclaimed had I not inadvertently omitted to reply to one part of his question. I the more greatly regret that inadvertence on my part, because it has afforded the hon. Member an opportunity of delivering a speech which, however innocent it may be in this House, will, I am afraid, have an evil effect upon people on the other aide of the Irish Channel. The hon. Gentleman asks me on what ground we have proclaimed this meeting, and he has read out a placard as proof and testimony that the objects of the meeting are purely political, and that it ought, therefore, not to be interfered with by the Executive. In dealing with this matter, the Executive have to consider two questions—first, what are the real objects of the meeting; and secondly, what are likely to be its results. I am not at all prepared to deny that the objects of this meeting, as appearing from the placard read out by the hon. Member, are entirely and purely of a political character, and that if the meeting had no other object, and was likely to lead to no more serious consequences than an ordinary political meeting held in the Rotunda in Dublin or held in this country, the Irish Executive would have had no right to interfere at all. But I would remind the hon. Gentleman that those who have called meetings in disturbed districts in Ireland have never found any difficulty whatever in showing that the avowed objects of those meetings were of the most innocent political description. The principles that we have adopted in proclaiming the meeting are identical with those that were adopted by Lord Spencer, and carried out year after year by the late Liberal Government. Looking over the list of meetings which Lord Spencer found it his duty to proclaim, I could find several in the very county with which we are now dealing. In Clare Lord Spencer prohibited a meeting at Feakle, as there were very serious disturbances in the immediate neighbourhood, tie proclaimed an endless number of meetings altogether. He proclaimed one at this very place—at Ennis. The meeting was one convened by public placard for the purpose of the hon. Gentleman who is now the Member for Mid-Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) addressing his constituents, and that hon. Gentleman, it was announced, would be accompanied on the platform
  758
  by Mr. O'Brien, M.P., Mr. Biggar, M.P., and other gentlemen, who would address the meeting. Is there anything more innocent than a Gentleman going down to address his constituents? And yet Lord Spencer, on the ground, and the sole ground, that Clare at that time was in a disturbed state, thought it was his duty—and I believe it was his duty— to prevent that meeting taking place. I could multiply such instances times without end; but there is no doubt about the precedent of Lord Spencer. The right hon. Baronet to whom allusion has been made to-night, who is now the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), and was at the time of which I am speaking Chief Secretary for Ireland, told us that in his opinion the National League was a purely political organization, and as such ought to be spared; but I observe the Government of which that right hon. Gentleman was the chief responsible officer in this House proclaimed a meeting in County Cork which was avowedly called for no other purpose whatever than that of establishing a branch of the National League. In other words, he proclaimed a meeting which had for its object the purely political one of establishing a branch of what he regarded as a purely political organization. [An hon. MEMBER: When and where was that?] At Castle Lyon, County Cork, 23rd October, 1883. I am not going to labour this point in reference to the proceedings of Lord Spencer or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division, because precedents abound. There is no question whatever that Lord Spencer invariably considered it to be his duty, and one of the functions of a responsible Government, to proclaim, and, in so far as he could, to stop, any public meeting whatever where its avowed objects, however innocent, or purely political, providing he thought such a meeting would lead to a disturbance of the public peace. But this is not the question. Where, I ask, is this meeting going to be held? The hon. Member for East Mayo said it was going to be held in a peaceful part of the country.
  MR. DILLON: What I said was that it was going to be held in Ennis, away from the centre of disturbance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This meeting is to be held in the very centre of what

  759
  is by far the most disturbed, disorganized county in the whole of Ireland at this present moment. If any gentleman chooses to consult the statistics of crime in Ireland, he will find that the County of Clare stands on the unenviable pinnacle of having produced out of all proportion the largest number of grave agrarian crimes; and not only so, but that Clare is undoubtedly a county in which the system of intimidation, for which we, on this side of the House, think the National League is chiefly responsible, prevails in its most aggravated form absolutely unchecked. Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman has told us that meetings in Ireland—at any rate more in Ireland than anywhere else—are innocent, as they are a peaceful people. The hon. Gentleman really misapprehends the whole purport and meaning of Proclamations of this kind. I do not doubt the least in the world that a great majority of the meetings in Ireland are peaceful meetings. Wherever the mass of the population is in favour of a meeting there is no reason why that meeting should not be peaceful, whatever the doctrines proclaimed at it, whatever result in the form of outrage might ultimately spring from it. The evil of these meetings does not exist, as the hon. Gentleman appears to think, judging by his speech, in any disturbance of the public peace which occurs at the meeting; the evil of these meetings arises entirely from the consequences they produce in the district where they are held—the disturbance of the public peace, the crime, the outrages and the acts of intimidation which., unhappily, too often flow from them. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the Executive Government has been moved in this matter simply by the pressure which has been brought to bear upon them by rack-renting landlords in the County of Clare. On what ground does the hon. Gentleman make that accusation against the Government? The hon. Member in the speech which he has just delivered has spoken of several matters which are within his own personal knowledge, and on which his statements and opinions are entitled to consideration, and respect by the House; but when the hon. Member describes the motives which, have actuated Her Majesty's Government; when he tells us what kind of letters we have received,
  760
  and what kind of effect those letters have produced in our minds, it is manifest from the nature of the case that he speaks without authority, and purely from conjecture, upon a subject upon which he can have no direct knowledge whatever. Sir, I directly traverse and contradict the statements of the hon. Gentleman in that respect. So far as I know, at all events, no letter has come from any Clare landlord.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Oh, no.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gave my sanction, and am responsible for this meeting being proclaimed. Among the documents brought before to my notice when I gave that decision there was— so far as I am aware—no letter from any Clare landlord; and certainly if there was one, which there was not, I was not influenced by it. I was influenced, as every man in my position would be, by information and opinions given me by those responsible for the public peace on the spot. Their clear conviction and opinion was that the meeting to be held was one which would lead to a disturbance of the public peace and to crime and outrage, and, that being their opinion, I was not going to take upon myself the responsibility of saying that with my goodwill the meeting should go on. The Hon. Gentleman has told us that, whether we proclaim this meeting or not, the meeting will be held; and he has said that if, in consequence of holding that meeting in defiance of the Proclamation, bloodshed should ensue, that bloodshed will rest on the head of the Government. [An hon. MEMBER: On yours.] Yes, I think he singled me out especially. But I can assure the hon. Member that responsibility is not to be fixed on one person or another merely on the fiat of the hon. Member. I venture to tell him that the responsibility for the evils that may—and very likely will—ensue, if in defiance of the Proclamation this meeting is held, will rest, and must rest, on the head of those who insist upon holding this meeting in defiance of the Proclamation. It will rest upon those leaders of the Irish people on whom already rests the great weight of responsibilities in these matters; and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can acquit himself and absolve his Friends from their share in the responsibility by pointing over to us and

  761
  saying, "Upon your head will rest that responsibility," I tell him that that will not be the verdict of the English people, and it will not be the verdict of this House. The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) has told us he was driven to take the course he had in regard to this meeting by the force of popular opinion behind him.
  MR. DILLON: I did not say that at all. I said that if I felt any inclination to play the coward I dare not do it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman has emphasized the sentiment I had watered down when trying to repeat it. What he did say is that if he wished to run away he would be afraid to do so. Well, Sir, that means, and can only mean, that whatever his conscience may say, he is driven on by a force over which he has no control. [Mr. DILLON: Absurd!] I venture to dispute that proposition. I believe if you would let alone this unhappy peasantry—if you did not use that influence which your position and your abilities give you, there would be no difficulty whatever in inducing them to be the law-abiding members of a law-abiding community which I hope in the near future we shall see them to be. But, Sir, I do not know that I need say anything further upon this question. [Interruption from the Irish Members.]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) not to interrupt so constantly.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I again give the House the assurance which I have given them before with regard to this meeting and with regard to every such meeting which it may the duty of the Executive in Ireland to proclaim. We shall not be influenced under any circumstances by political considerations. We shall in no degree be influenced towards proclaiming a meeting by the political objects which may be announced or the topics to be dealt with at that meeting; we shall be influenced by the consideration which must always be present to our minds, that on us rests the responsibility, in an far as we can, of preserving law and order in Ireland, and that we are bound to suppress all meetings which, in our judgment, exercised to the best of our ability, may conduce to disorder, to outrage, or to intimidation.
  MR. P. STANHOPEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) seemed to imagine that he alone had authority to speak in the name of the English people; but he ventured to say that the English people, aye, and those who elected him at Manchester, if called upon to decide on this question as to whether the right of free speech was to be abolished, would restore the right hon. Gentleman to the management of his rack-rented estates in Scotland and deprive that House—if it could be called a deprivation—of the presence of the modern Stafford. The right hon. Gentleman had said to the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) "Let alone the unhappy peasantry of Ireland." Why, for 700 years that had been the cry of the Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman. For 700 years they had been let alone to be starved and evicted, and now, because Englishmen were happily alive to the miseries the Irish peasantry had endured and had made the Irish cause their own, the right hon. Gentleman said they were defying the law—the law which the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends had made in opposition to the wishes of the great majority of the English people—because they refused to be intimidated into silence or suppressed at the order of the Irish Executive. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had not in that matter been inspired by the landlords of Clare. He (Mr. P. Stanhope) would ask, had it not been inspired in that matter by Captain Plunkett? Was not Captain Plunkett the agent of the landlords?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Captain Plunkett has nothing to do with the district in question.
  MR. P. STANHOPEsaid, he had, perhaps, mistaken the name of the Resident Magistrate who inspired the right hon. Gentleman, but, whoever the Resident Magistrate might be, he, in any case, must be by the very circumstances of his arbitrary position a friend and a representative of the landlord class. He hunted and shot with the landlords, and reserved another kind of shooting for the tenantry. Well, this meeting in question was called for objects which, were purely political. He

  763
  admitted, however, that one of those objects was unpatriotic and unconstitutional in the eyes of the Government. That object was to express a vote of thanks to Mr. Gladstone for his message of peace to Ireland, He could understand that must strike the lackadaisical and whimsical mind of the right hon. Gentleman who now held the reins of power in Ireland as being a monstrous proposition.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must caution the hon. Member against using language which is not Parliamentary nor commonly courteous. If the hon. Member repeats that language I shall name him to the House.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I bow, Sir, to your decision If, under the impulse of a very strong feeling with regard to the Executive in Ireland I used an expression which I cannot believe will be condemned by the majority of the English people—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must ask the hon. Member not to defend language which, from the Chair, I have emphatically condemned.
  MR. P. STANHOPE, resuming, said, then he had this to say, that his contention was that the meeting in question was called for purely Constitutional objects. It was not called to excite or encourage ill-feeling or any irritation which might unfortunately exist among the peasantry in Ireland; but it was called for the purpose of saying to them words of peace and goodwill, and of telling them—as he (Mr. P. Stanhope) on the part of his constituents now told them—that they were not alone in this fight, but that they had the English people behind them, and that while there was no doubt that the majority seated on the Ministerial Benches were willing to follow the Government in whatever courses they might desire to pursue, yet that there was flowing now throughout the constituencies of England a tide which was rising—a tide which would sweep away that Act under which the right hon. Gentleman had suppressed this meeting, which would restore to the people of Ireland the right of free speech, and some semblance of liberty, and which, in doing so, would also remove a Government which he would venture to call both arbitrary and incompetent from the Treasury Bench.
  MR. M. J. KENNYsaid, he was astounded with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to justify his action by referring to the precedents set by Lord Spencer, and in particular to a meeting of his (Mr. M. J. Kenny's) constituents which was proclaimed several years ago. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that Lord Spencer subsequently recognized his mistake, and that a short time afterwards the meeting was held, and in no way molested. What he objected to in regard to the Proclamation of the meeting at Ballycoree was that whereas Lord Spencer proceeded under specific sections of the Crimes Act of 1882, the present Government had taken no such powers. They went upon what they said was the Common Law— though, in his belief it was not the Common Law—and they proclaimed a meeting which, in his opinion, they had no power whatever to proclaim. The Proclamation was absolutely valueless, and every bayonet used and every charge of buckshot fired into the people would be a crime, and if the lives of the people were taken the responsibility would rest on those who had suppressed the meeting. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had stated he had got no representation from the landlords of Clare. Now, it was a matter of notoriety that a meeting of Clare landlords was held— the report appeared in the Press—and at that meeting a resolution was adopted calling on the Government to proclaim the Ballycoree demonstration, and a copy of it sent to the Castle. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he had not seen that representation; but he (Mr. M. J. Kenny) would like to know whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Ashbourne) had not seen it, and whether really it was not in consequence of that representation that the Castle Authorities took action and declared the meeting illegal. The meeting had been proclaimed, in the first place, not because of the presence of Irish Members, but for the purpose of preventing English Members of Parliament from speaking to the people of Ireland. It was a very easy thing to send Irish Members to the plank bed. That was done before, and would be done again; but it was a totally different thing to send an English Member to prison. He should like to

  765
  see the Bench of Magistrates, men in Ireland, who would venture to send an English Member to prison. They dare not do it; and it was for the purpose of preventing English Members from going across to Ireland and exemplifying by their presence the union between the peoples of England and Ireland, and of preventing a vote of thanks being passed to Mr. Gladstone, that the arbitrary step of proclaiming the meeting was taken by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said the meeting was to be held in the centre of a disturbed estate; but he (Mr. M. J. Kenny) challenged the Government to prove that following any meeting in Clare there had been an outbreak of crime. It was meetings of this kind held throughout Ireland for the past seven years that had changed the country from a country abounding in agrarian crime to a country in which agrarian crime did not exist, and it was only in districts in which meetings had been proclaimed that disturbances arose. In the second place, it had been proclaimed for the purpose of giving facilities to certain landlords in the district to evict their tenants. It was in order to enable the rank-renting landlords to proceed to the full extent in evicting their tenants that that meeting had been proclaimed. He concurred in the declaration of his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that he did not intend to yield to that Proclamation. The result of the Proclamation—if it were persisted in—would be that instead of only one meeting there would be more than one held on the hill of Ballycoree. The Government would not succeed in putting down those meetings. The Irish Members did not care a pin for the Proclamations of the Government. In one respect they were valueless, and could easily be avoided; but by this debate they wanted to show the people of England that the Government were acting illegally, and that it was through no fault of the Government that free speech was not entirely suppressed in Ireland.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought that the House and the country owed a great debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) for bringing that matter forward, because they had an opportunity of learning what the doctrine of the Chief Secretary was in regard to proclaiming
  766
  meetings. The right hon. Gentlemen fully admitted that the meeting was essentially a political one, so far as the object stated in the placard went, and also that there was not likely to be any disturbance at the meeting itself.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that Irish meetings are usually peaceable.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman did not affirm that the meeting would be in any way a disorderly meeting, provided that the police did not interfere. In fact, he seemed to intimate that one of the grounds for proclaiming it was that the district was so exceedingly Nationalist, the people being all of one mind—and it takes two to make a quarrel—that there was not likely to be any disturbance. [Cries of "No, no!"] That was the effect of what he had said. But the right hon. Gentleman alleged that meetings in disturbed districts might incite the people to outrage, crime, and intimidation, not at the meetings but subsequently, on account of what the speakers had said. But how could the right hon. Gentleman know what was to be said at that meeting? He was bound to accept the statement of the conveners of the meeting that they would meet to pass a vote of thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) to express confidence in the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and to ask God to protect Ireland. Were these propositions likely to lead to intimidation and outrage? But the right hon. Gentleman says there have been outrages in that part of Ireland. His (Mr. Labouchere's) hon. Friends denied that, and said there were these landlords who had been rack-renting and evicting, and who intended to evict. Now it appeared to him that all the landlords of any part of Ireland had to do was to rack-rent and evict to produce a feeling of discontent, in order that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might be able to say to the people in consequence of that ill-feeling, "I shall deprive you of your political rights;" for, be it remembered that the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that this was a political meeting. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not conceive how anybody would suppose that the landlords of that part of Ireland had influenced him to proclaim the meeting. Then why did

  767
  not the right hon. Gentleman proclaim the meeting last Sunday? It was a mere accident that the mooting was adjourned to next Sunday; so what were the grounds which influenced him to proclaim it for next Sunday when he had not thought fit to proclaim it for the Sunday before? Had the right hon. Gentleman been induced to change his mind in the interval by the advice of the Resident Magistrates or other Magistrates of the district? Let the right hon. Gentleman fairly tell them who had advised him that the meeting would lead to outrages and intimidations; whether it was the landlords, or whether it was not. He understood that the landlords had met and passed resolutions against the holding of this meeting—[Mr. M. J. KENNY: They sent them to the Castle]—and that a representative was positively sent to the Castle. It could only be supposed that it was at the bidding and dictation of the landlords that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary proclaimed that meeting. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Lord Spencer having proclaimed meetings; but there was this difference between the two cases, that Lord Spencer had, under the Crimes Act, a special responsibility thrown upon him to prevent those meetings if he thought it necessary; whereas there was no such obligation thrown on the right hon. Gentleman, who did not proceed under the Crimes Act, but acted under the same Common Law of England and Ireland. Whenever the conduct of Members of the present Irish Executive was impugned they always slunk away under the shadow of Lord Shakespeare—[laughter] —he meant Lord Spencer—who had admitted that the previous Crimes Act was a mistake, and said he would not support another. Lord Spencer found that the system of coercion had failed, and he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether it was not unfair to attempt to shelter himself under the plea that Lord Spencer some years ago had done the same, when that noble Lord admitted that it was a mistake which he would never repeat again if he were in the same position? He held with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the people of Ireland would utterly despise the warnings of the right hon. Gentleman. What would happen if the people went to that meeting, and there was no quarrel
  768
  among them, they being all of one mind except the police and the military? Were the police and the military to be sent there simply to excite disorder by attacking the people? If the police and the military kept away there was not the slightest probability of any disturbance. That Proclamation appeared to be a species of political manifesto on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. A political meeting was called to express confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary issued a Proclamation urging all law-abiding persons not to go to the meeting. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), if he thought anybody would follow it, would issue the same sort of Proclamation in England. He trusted that the Irish people would go to that meeting, and that the English people would realize and understand that what the right hon. Gentleman confessed was a political meeting, was attempted to be stopped by the Executive for political purposes and for nothing else.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was altogether in error in saying that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) stated that that meeting was to be held for political purposes. His right hon. Friend had made no such statement. If all that was required to take any dangerous meeting whatever in Ireland out of the prohibition of the law was that its promoters should only profess to have some political object the law would be paralyzed. There could be no doubt that Lord Spencer when he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland endeavoured to stop certain meetings in Ireland—having proclaimed 55 in all—and up to the time when that noble Lord left that country nobody had heard a word suggesting that he was dissatisfied with the result of his Proclamations. [An hon. MEMBER: He said he was.] The hon. Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) had observed in the course of his speech that the meeting called for Sunday next would have the effect of preventing crime—[Mr. M. J. KENNY: Hear, hear!]—but the fact was, statistics showed that a great number of agrarian

  769
  crimes had occurred in the districts where the public meetings had been held. [An Irish MEMBER: Give the statistics.] He was not going into the question of statistics on that occasion. Now, the ground upon which the Government had proclaimed the meeting as an illegal one was this. They had proclaimed the meeting, not under Statute, but under the Common Law, as he had stated in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). The Common Law enabled the Government—a responsible Government—to declare that it would suppress and prevent the holding of an assembly, which it regarded, upon the evidence before it, as calculated to cause public disorder, or to be called for a legally improper purpose.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this Proclamation is under the same Common Law as exists in England?
  MR. GIBSON: It is under the Common Law of the land, and so far as I know it is the same. It was impossible to say beforehand, from the mere statements of the placards, what the actual circumstances of the meeting would be, or what would be the danger of the meeting. In England or Scotland meetings might be hold with perfect safety, and he should not be uneasy at English Members going over and rousing any amount of popular enthusiasm in Ireland; but the view which the Government took was that Ennis was a disturbed district. There was no doubt that many references would be made at this meeting next Sunday to the action of the Government in proclaiming the League. Having regard to the state of the country there could be little doubt that the result would be violation of the law, possibly actually at the meeting; and the persons who incited disobedience to the police at this meeting would themselves be liable, as hon. Gentlemen knew, to be proceeded against. Speeches would probably be made at this meeting inciting the people wholly to disregard and disobey the Act of Parliament; and responsible officials on the spot had formed the opinion that it would be dangerous to the public peace if this meeting was held. That justified the action which the Executive had taken; and a serious responsibility would rest on responsible politicians who, instead
  770
  of challenging the policy of the Executive, insisted upon setting their private judgment against the decision of the Executive and trying to force the people of the country into a conflict with the officers of the law. That was a terrible responsibility for hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. He would caution them, and he would ask those of them whom he knew were interested in the fortunes of the Irish people not, by their example and language in that House, to try and force the people of the country into such a disastrous conflict. The Government in this Proclamation had declared on sworn information that this meeting is to be proclaimed and not allowed to be held.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out the terms of the sworn information?
  MR. GIBSON: Certainly not.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Read the Proclamation, then.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the terms of the Proclamation were—
  " Now, we, the Lord Lieutenant and General Governor of Ireland, do hereby prohibit such meeting, and do strictly caution and forewarn all persons whomsoever that they do abstain from taking part in, or encouraging, or inciting to the same; and we hereby give notice that if in defiance of this, our Proclamation, any such meeting at Ballycoree or its neighbourhood shall be attempted or take place the same will be prevented, and all persons attempting to take part in or encouraging the same or inciting thereto will be proceeded against according to law."
  That was the solemn Proclamation put forward by the Executive Government. Responsible politicians might challenge the policy and the authority of the Executive in doing this; but as far as his memory went back he could not recall an instance of any responsible politician in that House inciting the people of the country to violate the Proclamation and insisting upon holding a meeting which the Executive had declared to be illegal.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he had hoped before the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland sat down that he would have set at rest one point which had been urged by more than one previous speaker. The Irish Members had specifically pressed about 10 times for an answer to a plain question; and if the Government found fault with his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) for making a Motion of this kind, he must point out

  771
  that it could be easily avoided by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary giving straightforward answers. He thought the country would judge on whose shoulders the responsibility for wasting the time of the House rested. They had asked why, if this meeting was illegal next Sunday, it was not illegal if it had been held last Sunday? Were the Government going to give an answer to that question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, as the question had been put before the House he had not the slightest objection to answer it. The Government had decided to proclaim the meeting had it been held last Sunday.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is easy to make that declaration; but why was it not done?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I presume the hon. and learned Gentleman does not cast doubt upon my words? The reason why the decision was not made public was because we had heard some time previously that owing to the debate which would take place on the Proclamation of the National League the meeting was to be postponed.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he thought the answer was a very fair one; but he desired to point out this curious fact. He presumed that it had been the intention of the Government from the very first to proclaim the meeting. This meeting had been announced nearly four weeks; but the responsible politicians who were concerned in the meeting, and who had made all their arrangements for attending it, never heard of the Proclamation until the Thursday morning—three days before the meeting—that it was to be put down. The Government would probably remember the famous case of O'Connell at Clontarf. In that case the Government were charged with having a desire to get O'Connell into a conflict with the law by issuing a Proclamation of the meeting at Clontarf almost on the eve of its being held; and it was charged, and not denied, that the Government took that course in order to got O'Connell into a trap. They had their guns presented from the Pigeonhouse Fort towards Clontarf, where the meeting was to be held. Now, it struck him (Mr. T. M. Healy) that the right hon. Gentleman wished to follow the fatal and unfortunate action of the Government
  772
  of that day in postponing the Proclamation of the meeting to the last moment that he might get the people on the bayonets of the soldiers and police. He had been greatly surprised by the observations of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, when he said that no responsible politician had ever before challenged the action of the Executive. Was Cromwell a responsible politician? Was John Hampden a responsible politician? Were any of the men who made English liberties what they were prominent or responsible politicians? Every liberty won for this country and for Ireland had been won in defiance of their Executive. What were the bases of the Government's legality? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had put himself into their hands when he stated that Lord Spencer proclaimed meetings. When Lord Spencer proclaimed meetings he had in every instance statutory warrant under the Crimes Act. Could the Government produce any authority or warrant under their Crimes Acts?
  MR. GIBSON: Lord Cowper proclaimed meetings before.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, in the case of the Sheriffs' sales, although at these people were allowed to assemble, otherwise there would have been no auction; but he would tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what Lord Cowper did. When Sheriffs' sales and evictions were going to be held, Lord Cowper issued Proclamations stating that he would not allow riotous assemblies at Sheriffs' sales; but he asked the Government to give an instance of Lord Cowper proclaiming a public meeting. He had listened with some amazement to the talk of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to the responsibility for bloodshed. He was not aware that there was to be any bloodshed next Sunday. The people would assemble and disperse when they had done their business; and probably instead of one meeting being held there would be 20 meetings held. In addition to this, a feeling of irritation would be produced in the minds of the people, which would probably have more detrimental effects than if the Government had left the meeting alone. The Government believed that the meeting would be mischievous in its results; but they may be

  773
  assured that the consequences of the Proclamation would be mischievous. Supposing one drop of blood was spilt, did the Government think that the crimson stain shed by them in Clare next Sabbath would not—like the eddy in the pond—grow larger, and encircle in a far wider sweep than they ever contemplated? He deplored the conduct of the Government; they had no law or warrant on their side; they had nothing but the ipse dixit of Lord Londonderry. The Government said, however, that they had the Common Law. On the contrary, the Common Law was in favour of the Irish Members. The Common Law showed that where a sworn information was made it was laid down by the highest Courts in the country that the mere apprehension of the people going to create a disturbance was not a reason for the magistrates dispersing the meeting. He had always thought that instead of O'Connell going to Clontarf he should have gone somewhere else after the Proclamation. The Irish Members had advanced a long way since 1847. They knew better how to conduct politics and organizations since that time. They were old Parliamentary hands; old Constitutional hands so far as they were allowed to have any Constitution. [Ironical Cheers.] He would withdraw the expression if it was offensive to hon. Gentlemen who had deprived them of it. Therefore, so far as the Constitution permitted they would face and put down the illegality of Her Majesty's Government. Lord Londonderry's Proclamation was a more dummy; the fact that he had signed it gave him no more power than if it had been signed by John Smith, or W. H. Smith, or anybody else. Lord Spencer had the power under Statute; but was he to be told that when an Act of Parliament lapsed the power resided in the Executive? In the Act of 1882 the Government had to take statutory power to proclaim meetings; therefore they had no such power without the Statute. In the present Crimes Act the Government did not take any such statutory power; therefore in proclaiming the Ennis meeting they stood on the rotten footing of illegality. He might be told that the Government would resist the assembling of this meeting; but the power of the Government, after all, was limited by the number of soldiers and
  774
  police at their disposal, and though by massing a large force at Ennis next Sunday they might succeed in preventing a meeting on this particular hill, still they had to consider the effect this would have upon the minds of the people. The people would be exasperated and inflamed at not being allowed to meet peaceably, and at being driven to hold hole-and-corner meetings on the highways and byways. Thousands of people would come there, and there would be plenty of people to address them; and would they prevent those people from listening to them? The Government were only at the beginning of their difficulties; they had only got their feet into the mess; they would be up to their chin in it soon. This particular Proclamation referred only to next Sunday and to County Clare. Supposing the Government could mass the British. Army in the County Clare next Sunday — supposing they could bring their cannon—as he believed they did in one instance lately in New Ross—to sweep the approaches and prevent an assemblage, it would be very good in relation to the County Clare and in relation to next Sunday; but there were 52 Sundays in the year, and there were 32 counties in Ireland, and innumerable parishes and places where the people could assemble, and the Government would only drive the people to a game of hide and go-seek. After all, the Government had only got 30,000 troops and 12,000 police, and if they meant to be successful they would have largely to supplement this force. They were, therefore, trying to do what was practically attempting to keep back the tide with a pitchfork. The Proclamation would have a much more inflammatory effect than the right hon. Gentleman reckoned upon. He had flung down the glove to the Irish people. It was said that the Government on their own responsibility, at whatever cost, at whatever bloodshed, would resist the assemblage in Clare by force. Suppose some foolish Constabulary man should allow his rifle to go off, the matter could not end there. He would let the Irish people place their construction upon it. He would place his own. Suppose the leaders advised the people peaceably to disperse in Clare next Sunday; the policy of suppressing meetings could not stop here. The land-

  775
  ords, in response to whose resolutions this meeting had been proclaimed, would have an appetite for more suppression, and the people would say—"We will not go to these meetings in future without some means of self-defence." Of course, the Government must be well aware that under the Areas Act they had only taken power to deprive the people of the ordinary weapons of war; but he apprehended that the people of Ireland would not tamely submit to illegality. That kind of thing could not be allowed to go on. The liberties of the people had to be won, sometimes at a very great price, and the fact that they had in the Government a number of Gentlemen sworn to put down the liberties of the masses of their fellow-countrymen would simply teach the Irish people that they had far better meet the Government fair and square at once. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman), after the Dromore meeting, when Giffen was killed, mourned thus—"A loyal man stabbed, and not a single Nationalist's head broken ! "No doubt, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman found it a very unpleasant thing that no Nationalist's head had been broken; but now that he was at the beginning of directing operations against the Nationalists it was well to know that the very first Nationalist's head broken would not be the only head broken. In stating these facts he was not in any sense advising the Irish people to enter into a contest with the Government; he was simply indicating what he believed would be the result of the tyranny of the Government, and of their intention to needlessly spill the blood of the Irish people. The only chance for the people of Ireland to get fair play from the landlord Executive during the coming winter was the holding of public meetings. The landlords coveted the huts of the people; but the people would defend those huts, and their only means of defence was to assemble in their thousands to overawe tyranny and despotism. The Government of Ireland was a tyranny tempered by public meetings; and it was Captain Plunkett, and others like him, who had instigated the Government to proclaim this meeting. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was doing the work of the
  776
  landlords, whose puppet he was, whenever he stood up at the Table of the House. If hon. Gentlemen who voted away the lives and liberties of the Irish people could only see the conduct of this wretched crowd of landlords — from Sunday until Monday, and from the 1st of January to the 31st of December— who instigated them to that action, they would loathe and shrink from expressing approval of their conduct. It was that miserable gang of local landlords who had made Ireland detest the name of England, and caused English law to become a bye-word in Ireland. The Government might secure the friendship of 150,000 people in the country, instead of six; but they preferred the friendship of that miserable gang, simply for the purpose of preventing Irish landlords giving reductions of rent which English landlords had already given. That was the whole object of this Proclamation. It was as much a question of pounds, shillings, and pence as if the money were counted out on the Table; and it would be cheaper to vote the amount of the money to the landlords than to transport troops and policemen to Ennis next Sunday. It would be better to put a Vote on the Estimates every year for these reductions which the Irish landlords were called upon to make, but which the English landlords made voluntarily, than that there should be a repetition of these barbarities. It cost the taxpayers more to carry out these evictions than the whole reductions of rent came to; and he would, therefore, be in favour of reducing the Vote for Police and president Magistrates in order that the Irish landlords might be paid their rack-rents out of the Exchequer. It was a melancholy thing that English Governments went through the same round of repression year after year. Was war to be always going on in Ireland? Was there never to be any truce? Was there to be this winter the same round of scenes, sacrifices, disturbances, and even bloodshed that had occurred in previous winters? He told the Government that their Proclamation would be derided and torn up by the people. They would run a hole through it; they would drive a coach and four through it. The Proclamation would have just as much power to stop the people as the paper hoop had to stop the progress of the acrobat in a circus who leaped through

  777
  it. The people of Clare would jump through the Proclamation as the acrobat; jumped through the hoop, and would then hold it up and show others how it was done. The Government would issue one Proclamation after another, and get deeper and deeper into the mire, until the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, broken in health, spirits, and perhaps in reputation, would be replaced by someone who knew no more than the right hon. Gentleman had known last March, drafted on to the Treasury Bench to make new mistakes, and perhaps spill new blood. The Irish people knew it was useless to make further appeals to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, but they would make appeals outside; and he would tell the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he was treading in a path which lead nowhere, except to destruction so far as his own personal reputation was concerned. The course the Government were pursuing would do the landlords no good; but, on the contrary, it would do them mischief. It would lead to irritation and, perhaps, to disorder, which in the end would only bring about what all must desire to prevent. It would make the Irish still more indignant against the English laws, would make them still more persistent, and might cause them to fling over the advice of their Representatives as the advice of men who were too moderate, because the Irish Members had strained their minds to give the people the advice of moderation within the past few months. He appealed to hon. Members opposite to use their influence; to endeavour in private —they could not do it in that House because they would be denounced—-to put some pressure upon Her Majesty's Government and try and knock a little common sense into the heads of the managers of the Irish Government. He assured them that if they did that they would do more good for their own country and for Ireland than they would do by any amount of support they gave to the policy of repression.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I wish to say in all sincerity that if I were convinced that the meeting that is to be held on Sunday nest is of such a character as to be manifestly an illegal meeting, or if I were satisfied that the Government had legal ground for the action which they propose to take next
  778
  Sunday, I should—while deprecating the impolicy of the proceeding—abstain from condemning them by following the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) into the Lobby, as I intend on the present evidence to do to-night. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson); and I felt, after hearing both of them, more entirely bewildered than I was before they began as to the grounds on which this meeting is to be put down. What is the legal ground given by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland for the course the Government are pursuing? It is not statutory ground. He said that the Government were proceeding under Common Law, and he defined the Common Law as this—that Her Majesty's Government in Ireland were entitled to suppress any meeting which, in their opinion, would tend to disorder and violence. Then as to the reason for the action which Her Majesty's Government have taken. The right hon. and learned Attorney General says that Clare— where this meeting is to be held—is in a disturbed condition; therefore, the result of the meeting will be violence and crime. There is a third reason which the Government allege for their action. It is that the Resident Magistrates of the neighbourhood are of opinion that disturbance of the peace will be the result of the meeting. Is that the Common Law of England? I, for one, should be both sorry and surprised if such a doctrine could be proclaimed as the Common Law either in England or Ireland. If this meeting is to be suppressed, the Government is taking upon itself a great responsibility. It would be a great responsibility, even if the meeting were illegal, to put it down by bare brutal force. The only justification for such action would be in the case of what is called an unlawful assembly. I am going to read to the House a few sentences, in which the greatest living master of Criminal Law in England has defined what, according to the Common Law in England as well as in Ireland, is an unlawful assembly. Mr. Justice Stephen says—" An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or four persons"— here the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland is on safe ground—

  779
  ''together with intent to commit a crime by open force." Is that what the meeting in County Clare is going to do? Has anybody declared that they intend to commit crimes either by force or without force? On the contrary, those who have got up the meeting have declared their objects in the placard read this evening; and these objects have been admitted both by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to be distinctly political, and not criminal. Another definition which Mr. Justice Stephen gives of an illegal assembly is this—
  "They must meet with intent to carry out any common purpose, lawful or unlawful, in such a manner as to give firm and courageous persons in the neighbourhood reasonable grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace in consequence of it."
  Now, who are the firm and courageous persons in the neighbourhood of this proposed meeting who have given this information to the Government? Is that doctrine of the greatest master of the Criminal Law now living in England consistent with the doctrines laid down by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland — namely, that wherever the Government believes that a meeting will tend to disorder, no matter what the intent of the persons calling it may be, it must be suppressed? When the legality of this procedure comes to be decided by a Court of Law, one of the points which will have to be considered is whether the Government have weakly yielded to panic, or whether their complainants were firm and courageous persons. The main thing is this. There must be an intention on the part of those who get up the meeting, not only to carry out the purpose of the meeting, but to carry it out in such a manner as to give those persons reasonable grounds to apprehend a breach of the peace. I call the House to bear witness that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland have shown nothing to justify a reasonable fear that any breach of the peace whatever is likely to result from this meeting. All they allege is that this is a public meeting on an exciting subject in an excited neighbourhood, and that the result will be to tend
  780
  to disorder. Is the language of Mr. Justice Stephen consistent with that position? I say, with reference to the action the Government are taking, that this House is called upon to preserve, not merely the liberties of Ireland, but the liberties of England—and, as a Scotch Member, I will say the liberties of Scotland as well. The House should follow the well-beaten and authoritative path marked out in the words of Mr. Justice Stephen, and repudiate and refuse the vague and unconstitutional legal doctrines laid down by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. There is another point. Though the Proclamation has been read to the House, we do not yet know what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary or the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland intend to do on Sunday; but I now put the question boldly and broadly in this House. Do they mean to put down this meeting with the exercise of all the force that may be necessary to prevent the people coming together to that assembly? We are told by those who are well entitled to speak, by those who are advertised to address the meeting, that they mean to go to that meeting and resist with legal force any force that may be used against them. I put it to the Government—Do you intend to use the powers that undoubtedly are at your disposal? Do you intend to use the fullest influence that may be necessary to enable you to put down the meeting which you have declared to be illegal? Do you intend, if necessary, to kill — legally if your view is right, but illegally if your view turns out to be wrong, and that of Mr. Justice Stephen is right — those who insist on holding that meeting, contrary to the Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant? That position you are bound to take up. Your ground is utterly worthless. Unless you commit yourself to the most extreme consequences— namely, to the extent of bloodshed— you will not prevent that meeting being held. What I ask is—Are you willing to back your opinion as to the unlawfulness of this assembly to the extent of killing those who may choose to take part in it? If you have not that intention your Proclamation, I venture to say, is worthless. If you have that intention, the seriousness of the case is such that this House ought to pause

  781
  before assenting to the position which Her Majesty's Government have taken up. I, for one, will be no party to it, either by my vote, or my voice, or my silence. I hope the Tory Party itself will pause before committing the House to such an extreme and such a dangerous position as that which I have shown to be the necessary and logical consequence of the doctrines which have been laid down in this House to-night.
  MR. CLANCYsaid, they were entitled to assume, and did assume, that this meeting, which was convened for political purposes, was, by the admission of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), suppressed for political purposes. He (Mr. Clancy) challenged contradiction when he said that three-fourths of all the meetings suppressed in Ireland had been suppressed in the counties of Clare and Kerry; and yet crime, instead of decreasing, had actually increased in these particular localities to a larger extent than in any other part of Ireland. It seemed to him that if the Government had not the action of the last Liberal Government to point to in defence of coercion they would not have a log to stand upon in this controversy, or any of the recent controversies in which they were engaged. They were told, as usual, that what the Government proposed to do now had been done by Liberal Governments in former years. But, even if that were true, how could it bo argued that because a Liberal Administration once acted in defiance of the principles of liberty, the present Government were justified in acting in the same way? The answer to that was this —that two wrongs did not make a right. Among the many remarkable admissions which Lord Spencer had made since he gave up the government of Ireland the most remarkable was that the result of his action in suppressing public meetings and carrying out the coercion policy of the last Administration was from day to day to increase the power of the Nationalist Party, and that from day to day the power of the English Government in Ireland to maintain its position decreased steadily. Let the Government bear that in mind. They might suppress 50 or 60 meetings; they might imprison 1,000 men; they might hang 20 or 30 persons for political offences; but all he could say was that when the
  782
  present Government had carried out their present policy of coercion, the result would inevitably be the same as in Lord Spencer's experience, and they, or their Successors—if Successors of the same kidney still sat upon those Benches—would be forced to say that their policy of coercion was a failure— that from day to day the consequence of it was not to decrease but to increase the strength of the National Party in Ireland and weaken the power of the British Administration.
  MR. HUNTERsaid, that, as a Member of that House, he desired to wash his hands publicly of the awful responsibility that rested on those who supported the Government on that occasion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) had truly said that the Proclamation did not make illegal that which was innocent in England. He would remind hon. Members of this—that there was a vital difference between the position of the Government now and that of Lord Spencer's Government. Lord Spencer had a special statutory power to suppress meetings at his own discretion; but that was not the case with the present Government. He gathered from the right hon. and learned Attorney General that what constituted the illegality in his eyes was not what would occur at the meeting on Sunday, but certain "ulterior consequences" of an injurious character which he imagined, at some future period, might flow from that meeting. If that was the ground on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman rested, he warned him that if any of his subordinates should come before a jury it would be the duty of the Judge to charge that jury that that afforded no ground of illegality whatsoever. The only circumstances that could by any possibility make an ordinary meeting unlawful would be that the manner in which it was brought about was such as to give firm and courageous men reasonable belief that a breach of the peace would arise. Ulterior consequences had nothing to do with it; and no person, no soldier or policeman, engaged at the meeting derived any protection whatever from that Proclamation. If a jury found there was no reasonable ground for anticipating breach of the peace, every one of the persons was liable for assault,

  783
  and if any lives were lost they would be liable to be tried for murder. It appeared to him that the Government had now entered on the fatal path which for some time he had foreseen they would be obliged to take. They had now openly declared war on public meetings in Ireland. He challenged any hon. Member who had beard the placard road to say, if this was not a legitimate public meeting, what political meeting possibly could be legitimate in Ireland. Nothing had been alleged to justify the Government in suppressing this meeting which would not justify them in suppressing all meetings. That was a very serious state of affairs. If it was not too late, he would address a word of warning to the Government. For many years past the political affairs of this country had been conducted without extreme violence on the part of one Party towards another; but the Government had taken powers to give the plank bed, the prison code, starvation fare, and the treadmill to their political opponents in that House. That was a very serious thing, because, if his reading of history was not entirely wrong, wicked conduct of that kind led to reprisals. Hon. Members opposite would not always be in power. The turn of the other side would come—the turn of an indignant and an outraged democracy would come—and he feared that the example which had been set of violence and illegality by hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches might produce evil and injurious consequences. They had heard from the landlords and their friends that the cure for all the difficulties of the Irish tenant was the emigration of the people from the soil—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not keeping himself to the point of definite public importance —namely, the Proclamation of a meeting next Sunday.
  MR. HUNTERsaid, he was afraid that in his illustration he had gone a little beyond that point. He only wished, before sitting down, to say that the course which the Government had wantonly adopted was a proceeding like that of the bloody Peterloo; and all he could say was that they would be very fortunate if the massacre of Peterloo was not crowned by the worse massacre of bloody Ennis.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was surprised that the two able addresses from two able lawyers had received no reply from the Treasury Bench. He had heard nothing from the Treasury Bench to show that in the opinion of the Government the meeting was illegal.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, it was the duty of the Government to act upon the view which they took.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman claimed that if they thought a meeting was dangerous to the public peace they were acting legally in proclaiming that meeting. He must say that that was an opinion which might have been proclaimed with some show of reason some time ago; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was surely not unaware of the fact that a Member of thatHouse—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), who was at one time Home Secretary, and who had been an eminent practitioner at the Bar—had declared that that conception of the Common Law right of the Government was wrong. The Executive possessed no such right, the decision in the Salvation Army case having disposed of any such claim. If Lord Spencer and the Executive had a Common Law right to proclaim meetings and prevent them, why was it necessary to confer that right upon them by Statute in that House? He contended that the Act of 1881 was unnecessary and uncalled for. The doctrine laid down seemed to be that because something might be said which the Government would not like, therefore the meeting should be suppressed. The position they were in then was that if a number of persons meet next Sunday in spite of that Proclamation they would be acting perfectly within their legal: right, and if they disregarded the Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant they would disregard a Proclamation that was illegal, and that if they defended their rights against the police sent to disperse them they were defending their legal right against illegal offenders. He wished to know what crime the Government would be guilty of if their soldiers or police shed innocent blood, when they were acting illegally, and when those whom they killed were acting within their legal rights? He was asto-

  785
  nished at the action of the Government. He thought that with all the powers they had at their disposal they would, at all events, attempt to minimize the action of the Executive with reference to large bodies of men. They had the power to strike, and to strike hard, at individuals who offended them or made themselves unpleasant. That being so, surely they might have refrained from interfering with large political rights. He should have thought, also, that the circumstances of the times would have been a reason for their not needlessly provoking the people. The fact of it was the Government had proclaimed war against the Irish people. Their Proclamation was issued in that spirit, and it would be received in that spirit by the Irish people, and it would be resisted in that spirit. By the time this conflict was over, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be as bankrupt and dishonoured as ever Judge Jeffreys was; and right hon. Gentlemen who were in the position of the Government would be as bankrupt and disreputable a political Party as ever used power which a temporary chance had given them.
  MR. ROWNTREEsaid, that a more unfortunate expression never was used than the expression used by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) with reference to English and Scotch political Reformers. The right hon. and learned Attorney General told them that if the people of Ireland were left alone and were not interfered with by political performers things would go on all right; but it was because he and others believed they had a great duty to do towards the poor peasants of Ireland that they were found devoting themselves to that duty. Perhaps at no period of history had so many evictions gone on without crime being committed; and were English Members to be warned away from Ireland and be told that they were political performers? The abject condition into which the Irish people had sunk might be inferred from the fact that when he was in Ireland the people, hearing that he was a Member of Parliament, crowded round him, and asked him whether he could not do them some good, imploring him, at all events, not to do them any harm. It would be doing the Irish people a great deal of
  786
  harm and a great wrong to take away the last miserable rag of their liberty which existed in the right of public meeting; and it struck him that it was a most melancholy finish of this Session of Parliament.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 97: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 440.)

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £104,809, 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 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
    MR. DEASY: Some cases connected with the attempts which have been made by the Emigration Committee appointed by the authorities in Dublin to emigrate the peasants from Westport and Newport have recently been under investigation in the constituency which I represent — West Mayo. I have on more than one occasion put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on the subject. Under the Tramways Act of 1882, a sum of £100,000 was granted for aiding emigrants, and the Tramways Act of 1883 authorized the Treasury to grant a further sum for the same purpose. The money, I believe, was handed over to the Local Government Board, and is now being expended under their supervision. Close upon £1,450 has been expended within the last few months by a Mr. Stoney, a gentleman residing in West Mayo, in aid of the passages and expenses of emigrants from the West of Ireland, although not one of the emigrants was allowed to leave the country without the sanction of the Inspector of the Local Government Board, Captain Sampson. In connection with this emigration a great deal of scandal arose, which for a considerable time

    787
    was concealed from the Government. The parish priest of Newport, near which place Mr. Stoney resides, ascertained that many things were sanctioned by Mr. Stoney and the Inspector which were not creditable to the Local Government Board. He therefore demanded the strictest investigation and inquiry into the charges which were made against Mr. Stoney, with the result that an Inspector was sent down to inquire into the charges which were made. I have now to complain that, although a month has elapsed since the inquiry was commenced, I have been absolutely unable to obtain any details of the investigation from any Member of the Irish Government. I have put several Questions to the Chief Secretary, and I have received answers from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary; but he has only told me that no decision has yet been arrived at by the Local Government Board, and therefore that it would be neither fair nor just towards Mr. Stoney to give me the particulars which I ought to have in order to bring forward the question I desire to discuss. It is certainly important to know what conclusion has been arrived at in reference to Mr. Stoney and Captain Sampson; and it appears to me that information has been suppressed in order to prevent any hon. Members from going into the question as fully as it ought to be gone into. I must say that the deliberate refusal to give information has occasioned great inconvenience, and I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to give the Committee some explanation for the delay in producing the Report, which I consider to have been both unwarrantable and unnecessary. I have been told that the gentlemen against whom the charges have been made have given a complete and detailed account of the way in which the money was spent. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary believes that, but I certainly do not; and I have strong reason to believe, from information I have received from my constituents in West Mayo, that Mr. Stoney was not able to produce more than a few receipts from the hundreds of families he has emigrated from the West of Ireland. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that this gentleman has put a considerable amount of money in his own pocket, and that the agent
    788
    he employed was guilty of embezzling part of it. Of course, it is easy for the right hon. Gentleman to got up and say that Mr. Stoney has rendered a complete account; but he is only acting upon information he has received from Dublin Castle. The reason I press the Government for the particulars is that I think the Local Government Board desire to shield their own officer. The manner in which the Committee was appointed is worthy of mention, and I am afraid that I shall have to speak for some time on the question, because I look upon it as one of national as well as local importance. The policy of the Government has been to exterminate the population. They simply think it a good job to get rid of them at any cost. This has been their persistent policy, although over and over again it has been shown not to be in the interests of the people. I find that, in an underhand way, the Government appointed an Emigration Committee in February last, and another in March, with a view of getting rid of what they call the congestion. The policy of successive Governments has been to keep these unfortunate people in poverty and ignorance, and then to remove them from remote districts in Ireland, where no English is spoken, to the United States, or any other part of the civilized world, where they find themselves in a state of destitution and surrounded by evil influences. Surely it would be better for them to be in their own country than in the back slums of New York. I say this is a false policy, and one which the Government should abandon; and I trust that after the statements I shall be able to make, from information I have received in connection with the inquiry which took place at Westport, that the Government will desist from these attempts to emigrate the people. Who is the gentleman who was appointed at the head of the Emigration Committee, and of what is the Committee composed? Last February, the Local Government Board, or some other authority in Dublin, nominated a number of gentlemen in West-port and Newport, without their knowledge, to act on the Emigration Committee. I do not complain of the nomination of the Committee generally; but I do complain of the appointment of Mr. Stoney at the head of it. He was a

    789
    bankrupt landlord, notorious for rack-renting, and for exterminating the small tenantry on his own estate; and to give such a man complete control of the funds voted by Parliament for the purpose of relieving distress was nothing short of a public scandal. I have received a letter from gentlemen at Newport who say that they found their names among the Committee for the Relief of the Poor by Emigration entirely without their knowledge, and the moment they ascertained that they had been associated with Mr. Stoney and others they at once refused to have anything to do with the whole business. On the 5th of August several clergymen and shopkeepers disclaimed having anything to do with the proceedings of the Committee or the distribution of the money, although they found, to their amazement, that their names were made public as having been parties to what was done by Mr. Stoney. One of these gentlemen says that it was by mere accident he found his name mentioned as being allied to this gentleman, and he adds that he was in a position to deny from the commencement of the proceedings that he had any hand or part in them, and that on no account would he be concerned in any of the transactions to which this gentleman had been a party. Why I principally object to Mr. Stoney's connection with this matter is that he is notoriously a man who has been endeavouring to exterminate his own tenants. He is a man who wants money, and it is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows the relations between Mr. Stoney and the people of the district, and especially his own tenants, that nothing short of a robbery of the public funds could have taken place under his direction. The serious charge which I bring against him is a charge which I shall be able to show, from evidence taken by the Local Government Board Inspector at Westport, was fully proved. Evidence was given of a great number of disreputable transactions; although I willingly admit that many of them took place through the misconduct of his agent, of which he may have had no direct knowledge, but for which I hold him responsible, because he ought to have appointed an agent of respectability. About seven or eight years ago a Bill was passed by the Government giving to the Irish landlords £150,000 for the purpose of re-
    790
    claiming waste lands. We know what became of part of that money; and if the Chief Secretary will explain how the rest of it went, I am sure he will give most interesting information to the Committee. That attempt failed to do any good to the tenants of Ireland. The landlords, who borrowed the greater part of the money themselves under that Act, put it into their own pockets.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is now entering into a question which is altogether outside this Vote.
    MR. DEASY: Then I will not pursue the matter further. I was merely endeavouring to illustrate the policy of the Government, and attempting to show a direct connection between what was done then under the Act of 1881 and what has been done in this instance. However, as you, Sir, have ruled me out of Order, I will not pursue the subject. I will only say that to place the distribution of public money in the hands of a man like Mr. Stoney was an act of folly which cannot be too strongly reprobated. It is only because I believe that what has taken place is part of the policy of the Government that I desire to refer to what occurred seven or eight years ago. In my judgment, this system of emigration is nothing but a means for putting money into the pockets of impecunious Irish landlords. I propose to make three charges against Mr. Stoney—first, that he used the money for the purpose of exterminating his own tenants; secondly, that he profited directly by keeping a large amount of public money in his own hands to enlarge his own estate, without rendering a proper account of the money distributed; and, thirdly—and this is the most serious charge of all—that he applied a large amount of the money for the purpose, whether intentionally or not, of subsidizing and encouraging immorality among the emigrants. He offered bribes of a large amount to tradesmen in Newport, in order to encourage the carrying out of this policy, so as to secure that there should be no failure in it, and that he should profit by what went on. I have here a letter which I received a short time ago from a Mr. Moran, whose name was on the Emigration Committee, but who refused to have anything to do with Mr. Stoney in the matter.

    791
    He states, most positively, that a man named Gannon, an agent of Mr. Stoney, went to him several days before the first Latch of emigrants were sent away, and asked him if he would act on the Committee, intimating at the same time that if he consented to do so it would be made worth something to him. This man Gannon, on behalf of Mr. Stoney, told Moran that if he would only take part on the Emigration Committee in sending these people away by a Transatlantic line of steamers he would got at least £300. A more disgraceful proposal was never made; but Mr. Moran, who is a public-spirited man, refused to have anything to do with it, and then Mr. Gannon went about the neighbourhood stating that Mr. Moran had lost at least £300, because he refused to comply with his wishes. Now, if this agent was able to offer £300 to another person as profit out of the transaction, what was the Chairman of the Committee, through whose hands the money went, likely to get for his own purposes? I am quite sure that Mr. Stoney and his friends would have had nothing to do with the carrying out of the scheme if they had not thought that they would derive considerable benefit from it themselves. Of course, the statement of Moran may be discredited by the Treasury Bench, on the ground that he gave no evidence before the Inspector; but he tendered evidence, and the Local Government Board Inspector refused to allow him to put a single question to Mr. Stoney. What was the ground upon which. Mr. Micks, the Local Government Board Inspector, declined to hear what Mr. Moran had to say, and declined to allow him to put a single question to the witness, I am unable to say; but, as the inquiry was held for a specific purpose—namely, to investigate certain charges brought against the Emigration Committee by Father Greedie and Father Cohen—I do not complain of the course taken by the Inspector. It is obvious that if every man who chose to make charges against a witness were allowed to do so, there would have been no end to the inquiry. The second charge which I have brought against Mr. Stoney is that he has used this money for the purpose of enlarging his own estate, and for getting his tenants' land into his own hands, and for forcing people to accept emigration with-
    792
    out rendering a proper account of the money distributed. I have here in my hand a letter from, a rev. gentleman who resides in Mr. Stoney's district. He tells me that, in a short time, no fewer than 14 tenants of Mr. Stoney's were obliged to take passage tickets to America, and to give up their land to the landlord. [The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. A. J. Balfour) (Manchester, E.) dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head. At any rate, these tenants have been obliged to shift their quarters from the land they held formerly, and I am told that most of them have emigrated. I think I shall be able to prove, according to Mr. Stoney's own admission, that this charge is well-founded; and it is beyond all question that this man has been inducing his tenants to leave the country by bribing them to give up their farms. A very large portion of this sum of £1,450 has been used for that purpose, and that is the reason why I have mentioned the matter. My third charge is that Mr. Stoney has applied a large amount of the money for the purpose of subsidizing and encouraging immorality. The case3 to which I refer are cases which have been brought before the Local Government Board Inspector. They have been shown to be within Mr. Stoney's knowledge, although Captain Sampson, who from the first said he had great doubts of the fact, has not been shown to be connected with it. An admission was made by three of the witnesses examined that young unmarried men, and young unmarried women, were permitted to go to America as man and wife, although they were not relatives, and the money was voted by Parliament for an entirely different purpose — namely, to encourage people to go away in families, in order to relieve the congestion which existed in the West of Mayo. In a very nice way, assuredly, this congestion has been relieved upon Mr. Stoney's property. The first case investigated was that of Thomas Holding, and the first witness called before Mr. Micks in reference to that case was Mary Waller, who deposed that she was the wife of Thomas Waller; that her husband got a ticket from Mr. Stoney; that she had seven children— four boys and three girls—but that some of her children went away with her husband, although others went with

    793
    him as members of his family who were in no way related to or connected with him. Now, this is a case in which Mr. Stoney deliberately gave a passage to a man and allowed his family to remain, although one of the conditions laid down by the Acts of 1882 and 1883 was that whole families should be emigrated together, and that on no account should other persons go with the family. Mr. Stoney know very well everyone who lived within 15 or 20 miles of his own residence; and yet he not only allowed, without sufficient inquiry, a number of strangers to go to America in contravention of the Act of Parliament, but he encouraged young girls to go with families with whom they had no connection. This was distinctly shown by the evidence of a woman named Kelly. She was asked —"Did Mr. Stoney tell you he knew the names of the persons who went out?" and the answer was—"Yes; he named every one of them." On being asked if any of her own family went, she replied—"Yes; Bridget, father, and one daughter out of seven." She was then asked why her husband did not take the others with him, and her answer was that Mr. Stoney said he did not care who he took, he only wanted to let them have their fling. At the close of this evidence Mr. Stoney was asked if he had any questions to put to the witness, and he declined to do so. If Mr. Stoney had any denial to make to these statements, I should like to know why that denial was not forthcoming? [The hon. Member then referred to other cases, and read long extracts from the depositions of the witnesses.] Continuing, he said—From what I have stated there is abundant evidence to show that Mr. Stoney has misappropriated the public funds, and that he has been acting entirely contrary to the provisions of two Acts of Parliament passed for the purpose of assisting emigration. The Act of Parliament expressly stipulates that whole families should be emigrated; but Mr. Stoney, acting as emigration agent, has not only allowed parts of families to go, but has permitted strangers to accompany them. The Act of Parliament has thus been broken, and the public money misapplied. I submit that this is a most serious state of things, seeing that these acts have been done with the aid of money voted by this House. Perhaps
    794
    I may be allowed to refer to another case. John Mattherson was examined by Mr. Kelly—
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Perhaps it may shorten the hon. Gentleman's case if I say that the evidence he has quoted is admitted, and that it is not my intention to make any defence.
    MR. DEASY: If the right hon. Gentleman admits the fact, and will give me an assurance that the case of Mr. Stoney will be considered by the Law Officers of the Crown for the purpose of seeing whether they cannot institute a criminal prosecution against him, I should be quite ready to leave the matter where it stands at present.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot pledge myself to go as far as the hon. Gentleman wishes; but I am quite ready to admit that Mr. Stoney has been guilty of grave dereliction of duty, and possibly, in some cases, of something more.
    MR. DEASY: To some extent I am satisfied with the admission the right hon. Gentleman has made, but only to a certain extent. Having regard to the serious nature of the case, I hope I may be permitted to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown, and ask them to consider whether Mr. Stoney has not laid himself open to a criminal prosecution? If the Law Officers think so, then I ask that Mr. Stoney and his agent shall be prosecuted for the grave offence they have committed. I would further ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay a statement of the case before the Lord Chancellor, with a view of consulting him on the propriety—indeed, the absolute advisability—of depriving Mr. Stoney of the Commission of the Peace?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Report of the Local Government Board Inspector, who carefully inquired into the matter, has just come to hand. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the result of the investigation has been to show that Mr. Stoney has been guilty of very grave neglect, and in some cases of even more than that—namely, willful neglect. I shall certainly forward the Report to the Law Officers of the Crown; but I doubt whether a criminal action would lie against Mr. Stoney.
    MR. DEASY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also lay the case before the Lord Chancellor?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Lord Chancellor will see it as a matter of course.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I think this is a case which calls for immediate action. If Mr. Stoney has misapplied the public money—and the Chief Secretary admits that he has—he is not a fit person to be on the Commission of the Peace in Ireland. Men have been struck off the Commission of the Peace for much less offences than that. The light hon. Gentleman says that the Lord Chancellor will see the case as a matter of course. I think, however, that we ought to have a distinct pledge that the matter will be brought before the Lord Chancellor at once, and that he will take immediate action upon it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no proof that Mr. Stoney has been guilty of malversation of public money.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I said misapplication.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There certainly has been misapplication, and I repeat that the matter will come before the Lord Chancellor in the usual way.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy) will be satisfied with the assurance he has received, and that he will not at the present moment press the matter further. I concur in the view that the Government ought to take stringent action; but I think my hon. Friend was well advised in what he said in regard to the Local Government Board Inspector not having developed any further charges than those which were laid before him. I believe the Inspector who conducted the inquiry is a public authority in whom complete confidence is reposed. I have risen now, however, to put a question to the Government upon the very grave national question which has arisen between this country and America in consequence of the emigration of penniless people from Ireland by acts similar to those which have taken place under Mr. Stoney. I wish to know whether the Correspondence which has passed on the subject between Lord Salisbury and our Minister at Washington (Sir L. Sackville West) will be published? I believe the last telegram was one from
    796
    Lord Salisbury, in which he sent for a list of cases in which these emigrants had been stopped by the United States. In view of the scandal which has arisen already from the way in which this emigration fund has been managed, and the grave scandals which may arise from the indiscriminate sending over of poor people from Ireland, I wish to know whether the Government intend to put a stop, in future, to this system of indecent emigration, which offends not only the public sentiment of America, but of Ireland, and produces the very gravest scandals by giving power to such persons as Mr. Stoney to squander the public money?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not the intention of the Irish Government to allow any public money to be applied to emigration purposes during this year. I am afraid I cannot give any further promise than that.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: May I also ask when the further Correspondence on the subject will be published; because I believe that public feeling both in Ireland and in America has been keenly aroused on the subject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unable to say when the further Correspondence will be published. I can only repeat that there is no intention to allow further public money to be applied to emigration purposes this year.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give an answer to the question I put to him yesterday in reference to the course which has been taken by New Ross and Wexford in regard to the payment of rates?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman has given the House to understand that peace is likely to be established in New Ross, and that the declaration against the payment of rates has been withdrawn. I believe that there is at this moment a financial disturbance in the Union in consequence of a recent dispute; but I hope in a short time to allow the Guardians to be returned. I am anxious, however, that financial order should be restored before the Union is returned into the hands of the Local Authorities.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I wish to call attention to a Question asked by the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Jordan) a short time ago, in reference to the desire which has been expressed by

    797
    the Ennistymon Board of Guardians that one of the chaplains should be paid by fees, and not by salary. My hon. Friend complained that the Local Government Board insisted upon appointing a chaplain to the workhouse at a fixed salary. The salary, no doubt, is very small; but the objection the Board of Guardians take to it is that it is fixed. They do not object to the chaplain being paid by fees; their only objection is that he should have a fixed salary. As a matter of fact, the predecessor of the gentleman who was recently appointed had been 10 years in the chaplaincy of the workhouse, and during the whole of that time he had only visited two or three times. A fee of 10 s. a visit would, I think, be considered a fair remuneration for walking half-a-mile to the workhouse and back again, and, of course, it would be much cheaper in the long run for the Union. I would ask the Local Government Board to ascertain the legal meaning of the word "salary," which I believe has never yet been defined. I believe, however, that when a person is paid a fixed rate per head for his visits that that is considered to fall within the meaning of the word "salary." There is no objection whatever to pay this rev. gentleman so much per visit; but in the course of 10 years his predecessor received £100 and only visited the workhouse three times.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): In this case, the rev. gentleman who has been referred to was getting £10 a-year, and the salary has been reduced to £5. The Guardians now object to pay him anything, except per visit, and they have offered to give him 10 s. per visit. The sum is very small, and I believe it would require fresh legislation to have a chaplain paid by fees. I have received a piteous letter from the rev. gentleman complaining of the smallness of the sum now paid to him, and expressing a hope that it will not be still further reduced.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: Considering that the sum has been reduced, I think I may waive the question of principle. The answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, is not entirely satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for West Clare, who put the Question
    798
    down on the Paper, is not now in his place, and therefore I have brought the matter before the House on his behalf.
    MR. HARRIS: May I ask if it is the intention of the Government to send paid agents for the relief of the distress which is now existing at Clifden? I believe that the poverty of Clifden and the neighbourhood has been brought about by emigration, although I believe that Mr. Tuke and Captain Laslett have acted with the best intentions in their endeavours to relieve the people of the locality by providing them with the means of emigrating. But it has had an entirely opposite effect to that which was intended; because the persons who have been emigrated are the young and the strong people of the district, who have been in the habit of supporting the old and feeble. There have been about 7,000 people emigrated from Connemara, the old, the feeble, and the weak being left behind; and the consequence is that the shopkeepers and the persons who have remained have suffered alike. I should like to receive from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman some assurance that a little relief will be afforded.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I do not see how the Government is to say either yea or nay. If young people will go away, we cannot object. The Government are very well aware of the poverty of the district, and from my own experience I concur with the hon. Gentleman as to the injurious effect of emigrating the bone and sinew of the country wholesale; but I do not know that it is a matter in which any Government can interfere.
    MR. HARRIS: I am very glad to hear the expression of opinion which has fallen, from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I should, however, like to know at whose expense these persons have been emigrated?
    COLONEL KING-HARMANI believe at the expense of an emigration fund which has been administered by Mr. Tuke and Captain Laslett.
    MR. TUITE: The question I desire to call attention to is the delay which has arisen in carrying out the Labourers' Dwellings Act. I know that in my own Union the Guardians have made applications, and that months elapsed before the Inspector held any inquiry. Of course, the

    799
    labourers have suffered greatly in consequence of the delay. I think some power should be taken by the Local Government Board to reduce, if possible, the cost of carrying the Act into operation; and I should like to know from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary, Or from the Attorney General for Ireland, whether the proceedings of the Local Government Board in this matter can be expedited and the costs reduced? In cases where the Board of Guardians have promoted the scheme great delay and expense has been incurred in consequence of the claim of the landlords to be exempted.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I am aware that there has been some delay, owing to the number of applications which have been made under the Act. I will inquire into the cause of the delay, and also into the amount of the cost. I am aware that a considerable amount of cost attends the working of the Act. The employment of engineers and of law agents, I am sorry to say, entails considerable expense; and then, again, there is the cost of an investigation by the Local Government Board, and of carrying it subsequently to the Privy Council. I should certainly be glad if something could be done to reduce the cost.
    DR. FOX: May I call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that many of the resolutions which have been passed at public meetings, and which have been forwarded to the Local Government Board, have received no attention? As far back as 1885 the first step was taken towards the erection of labourers' cottages, and the great delay which has taken place in erecting them is principally due to the red-tape of the Local Government Board, assisted by the obstructive tactics of the ex officio Guardians. A resolution has been passed asking for a sworn inquiry before a Local Government Board Inspector; but no steps have been taken to comply with it. I hope that it is only necessary to call attention to the matter, and that the Government will do something in regard to it.
    DR. TANNER: I desire to say a few words in regard to this labourers' question. I know the
    800
    great interest which has always been taken in the matter by Members of this House, and especially by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Under Secretary, who for some time was blooming alone on the Treasury, like the last rose of summer, has now been relieved by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. I only wish to remind the Government that they have long been endeavouring to ingratiate themselves with the labouring portion of the population. Therefore, I presume that they take a deep interest in this labourers' cottages question, and I wish to make an appeal to them to redeem the pledges upon which they came into Office, but which they have never yet carried out. I was accustomed to hear from my Irish Tory Friends before they Boycotted me that they were going to take up the case of the labourers in earnest.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that this question can only be discussed in reference to the action of the Local Government Board.
    DR. TANNER: Quite so, Mr. Courtney; I was only endeavouring to lead up to that question.
    THE CHAIRMAN: No excuse is necessary if the hon. Member will come to the point at once.
    DR. TANNER: I always feel glad, Sir, to bow to any ruling that may fall from you, and I will at once proceed to the point. This Vote includes the Local Government Inspectors who have to proceed to various districts in Ireland in order to carry out the duty of supervising the erection of labourers' cottages. In the district which I represent there are three Unions—Macroom, Millstreet, and a portion of the Cork Union, which from time to time have been subjected to serious annoyance and vexation in their efforts to get the Act carried out by hook or by crook. They have, however, failed, as a rule, to induce the Local Government Board to send down an Inspector. So sick and disgusted am I with the way in which the Government have behaved that, unless I get a satisfactory assurance from the Government, I shall take a Division upon this Vote, and upon three or four other points in connection with the Vote. I have tried again and again to obtain information. I have constantly put down Questions, and I have always been told that the

    801
    Government would take cognizance of the remonstrances I have made; but it has all been of no avail. Schemes have been passed, and money has been voted; bat owing to the continued and persistent obstruction of the Local Government Board in the district I represent, the cottages which are so urgently required have not been erected. I very much regret to find that in carrying out the duties of the Local Government Board, the Government are not paying that attention to the case of the labourers which their supporters have at all times demanded in the South of Ireland. Unfortunately they never practice what they preach. In connection with the subject, however, we have lately been furnished with a very valuable Return which was asked for by one of the Members for the County of Wicklow— namely, a Return in connection with the administration of the Local Government Board as to the Labourers' Cottages Act. That Return shows the miserable half-heartedness with which the Local Government Board have tried to carry on its business. In regard to the Macroom Union, there were 420 cottages applied for. Of that number 315 were authorized by the order of the Local Government Board; but of those we have only had 55 cottages erected. I do not propose to go into all the columns of figures contained in the tabulated statement which has been presented to every Member of the House. Hon. Members will be able to see for themselves, that in the Macroom Union the people have probably less to complain of than in any other district, and it was only because I happen to represent that district that I have brought the matter before the Committee. It will be seen that in the Macroom district, out of 420 cottages applied for, and 315 passed by the Local Government Board Inspector, and passed only in consequence of continual remonstrances, and only one-sixth of those which are authorized to be Greeted have been put up. I have been down to Macroom myself on three or four occasions in order to try and settle the differences which have existed, and to egg on the Government to get these homes erected. If hon. Members will compare this statement in connection with the Macroom Union with any other district they will see how unsatisfactory the whole state of the matter is. The
    802
    Labourers' Act was passed in the year 1883, and a second Act was passed in 1885, with the object of benefiting a long suffering class of a starving population. The Return I hold in my hand shows, however, that neither the Local Government Board nor Her Majesty's Government have done their duty in providing what it was the intention of this House to provide. In the Macroom Union something has been done in consequence of the action of persons connected with the Union. Her Majesty's Government are in the habit of saying that any delay or obstruction is due to local causes. I deny that that is the case, and I think that these facts and figures show that I am correct. In the Millstreet Union leave has been applied for to erect 133 cottages, and 108 were authorized. Of the total number only 25 were rejected by the Local Government Board, including those which were withdrawn by the Sanitary Authority. There have, however, been none built— not a single cottage has been erected. In the month of September last I tried to induce the Local Government Board to send down an Inspector; but they said it was of no use, because there were many other points to consider. I believe that an Inspector went down in May last; and that is the manner in which the Act passed in 1883 for the relief of the labourers has been carried out. If it had been a Coercion Act it would have been applied at once; but a remedial measure is always delayed. I have said that there have been no cottages erected. I believe there are a number in the course of erection; but not one has yet been completed. Nevertheless, the preliminary expenses incurred by the Local Government Board have been very considerable. I find that money has been spent in every way that was possible except in the erection of these cottages; £9 10 s. was spent in advertising, £19 9s. in shorthand writers, £37 7s. in solicitors and counsel, £3 13 s. in the publication of the Order, and there were minor expenses amounting to £66 1s. These are expenses literally incurred by the Local Government Board in relation to this scheme, and the total amounts to £159 1s. 6d. Nevertheless, nothing has been done. I maintain that the carrying out of the Act is shamefully neglected and delayed. Numerous efforts have been made to

    803
    induce the Local Government Board to do something in the matter, and surely the Board have a sufficient amount of power in their own hands to enable them to deal with the question. Nevertheless, this serious delay has arisen from some cause or other. Possibly it is owing to the fact that the authorities have been obstructed by the action of the people whose land is proposed to be allocated for the erection of labourers' cottages. Another cause, I am told, has been the position selected for the erection of the cottages. The Government say that the delay is entirely attributable to local differences; but surely the Local Government Board have Inspectors of great ability — for instance, there is Colonel Spaight, who has been mentioned in this House on more than one occasion. He is a gentleman of the greatest possible courtesy and ability, and he has tried, as well as he could, to settle difficulties. Then, why not send down that gentleman to this locality? I am satisfied that the oftener he goes down the faster the work will be carried out. I will put it to any man of common sense what the feeling of a man must be who proposed to build a house and directed it to be built in 1883, and then found that even the foundation of the house had not been laid down in 1887. I have no desire to be tedious or wearisome; but I wish to get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that something will be done. Otherwise, I shall have to multiply the number of cases in which a similar delay has arisen. I am satisfied that I can mention at least 50; but I have no desire to go into them fully, because it would occupy too much of the valuable time of the Committee. Before I sit down, in order to show the delay that has occurred, I may mention that on the 14th of March last, and also in the preceding September, I asked a question as to—
    "Whether, in October, 1885, all the necessary notices were served in the Blarney district of the Cork Union upon the ratepayers and all whom it concerned; … whether all the other necessary preliminaries were duly executed for the erection of 13 labourers' dwellings in the said district, and if, notwithstanding the lapse of a year and a-half, nothing has been done towards the erection of those houses, whether the cabins in which these 13 applicants lived were condemned by the sanitary officer as unfit for habitation in October, 1885, and if it is true that since then no at-
    804
    tempt has been made to improve those condemned dwellings, and whether some of tho3e labourers have on several occasions gone before the Board of Guardians, and were told the Local Government Board blocked the way?"
    Well, Sir, I got no answer to that question. I have, however, seen some of these cottages, and the picture of the unfortunate people dwelling in them, with a mass of green mouldy moss growing over the roof, and falling through into the interior, the roofs themselves almost falling in, and the walls and rough stones unmortared, through which the winds of Heaven whistle unhindered—the sight of these cabins, and the poor little children in rags, with very little to feed them upon, is enough to touch the heart not only of a Local Government Board Inspector, but even of Members of Her Majesty's Tory Administration. [A laugh.] This is a matter for deep consideration, and no matter for laughter. The evil lies in this, that the Local Government Board do not pay that attention to their business which they ought to pay, and these people are still compelled to occupy these dwellings, because the Government refuse to pay attention to their demands. I think the people of England will consider the conduct of the Government a burning injustice, which cries aloud for redress. They have shown their activity in regard to coercion, and it is high time that they paid attention to the Christian demands of a Christian people. If this matter is not taken up, we shall be obliged to call attention to it by moving the adjournment of the House, as has been done this evening in regard to another question. I trust that a Tory Government, who have always tried to identify themselves with the cause of the labourers, will endeavour, by some means, to remedy this injustice, and relieve themselves from the incubus of responsibility which lies upon them.
    MR. J. NOLAN: I also rise to impress upon the Government the importance of carrying out the provisions of the Labourers' (Ireland) Act. It is, I think, most unfortunate that a matter of such grave importance should have to be brought before the House at the end of the Session. I cannot but believe that if hon. Gentlemen opposite had the case of the labourers of Ireland placed clearly and fearlessly before them, they would unite their voices with ours for the pur-

    805
    pose of getting the Government to try to remedy the existing state of things. This question of the labourers in Ireland is not a question of to-day or yesterday. For 100 years, generation after generation, English Gentlemen of every shade of politics who have visited Ireland have brought before successive Governments the miserable and deplorable way in which the Irish labourers are housed. I do not intend to go back on the statements made by English writers from the time when the Bishop of Derry brought this question before the English public, down to the time when General Gordon spoke in striking terms of the Irish peasant labourer's position. As one of the Representatives of a constituency in which there are a large number of this class, I must say that from time to time since I have had the honour to represent that constituency, I have been appealed to, not only by the labourers themselves, but by friends in the district, to try to get the work of the Local Government Board expedited; but it would appear as if the officials at Dublin Castle cannot be induced to move in this matter with anything like speed. In the first place, it requires some time to get the Local Authority to act; the Board of Guardians have first to be set in motion; then, when the application is made to the Local Government Board, there is a long delay, and month after month passes before a reply is vouchsafed to the application. An Inspector is sent down, an inquiry is held on the spot, and, after the Inspector goes away, there is another long delay, after which a communication is sent to the Board of Guardians to say that a certain number of schemes have been rejected, owing to some trifling informalities in the schemes themselves, and, perhaps, that a few of the schemes have been approved. After another long delay, a Provisional Order is sent down, authorizing the Local Authority to proceed with the work of erecting the labourers' cottages. Now, that is the process which is being gone through over the length and breadth of Ireland, and it is a state of things for which the people of Ireland can find no remedy. It is said that the officials in Dublin Castle are doing their best in the matter. I venture to say that if these officials were sent down to live for one week in the cottages of these poor labourers, and were forced to live
    806
    under the same conditions as the occupants, at the end of the week Dublin Castle would bestir itself, and it would not be necessary for the Irish Members to complain of the delay of the Local Government Board. I, for one, if I had it in my power, would give these gentlemen a taste of what they are measuring out to the labourers in Ireland. Now, what would be easier, seeing that there is some difficulty in carrying out this Act, than for the officials in Dublin connected with the Local Government Board to send down a simple set of instructions to the Board of Guardians as to what is necessary to be done in order to get the schemes passed, and, having done so, at once to take action on the application made by the Boards of Guardians? Either the authorities in Dublin Castle have a sufficient number of Inspectors to put the Act in force, or they have not. If they have a sufficient number, there is no excuse for the Local Government Board interposing the delay; if they have not a sufficient number of Inspectors, then there is no excuse for their not applying for sufficient money to appoint a sufficient number for a few months, or until such time as the claims which are sent in are disposed of. We are told that money cannot be spared out of the Treasury; but you can find plenty of money to spend in Egypt, and we are told that it is spent on behalf of the poor fellaheen. The position of the fellaheen in Egypt is bad enough, God knows; but I say the condition of the labourers in Ireland is a good deal worse, and that we are compelled both by humanity and the principles of economy to do what is necessary for them. No one having the feelings of a man in his breast can go into one of these cottages without feeling that people in a Christian and civilized country should not be forced to dwell in such houses; and on the ground of economy, I take it for granted, even upon that low ground, that it would pay the nation to house the labourers better. When the tramway system was started, it was found that it was more profitable to feed the horses well than to keep them on a starvation allowance; and so it will be found in the case of labourers, that a nation will get more advantage from them when they are taken care of. Let the Committee imagine the case of

    807
    these men who have to work at all hours of the day and night, and in all seasons of the year, and at the end of their labour are forced to go into such houses as I shall presently describe. With reference to my own constituency, I find that so long ago as 1885, the labourers there made application to the Guardians to have the provisions of the Act put in force. In August, 1886, the inertia of the Board of Guardians was overcome; the schemes were sent forward to the Local Government Board, and in January, 1887, the Local Government Board sent down an Inspector, Mr. Connell, who spent between a week and a fortnight on the spot making inquiries, and it was February, 1887, before the Report reached the Guardians that a certain number of the schemes were approved by the Local Government Board. Now, I cannot understand how it was that the Local Government Board, having decided upon the adoption of a certain number of these schemes in February, 1887, should have only issued the Provisional Order to go on with the work in the month of May. The number of cottages for which application was made was 96, of these there were rejected 36, and 25 fell through for the want of some formality. So that only 35 out of the 96 received the final sanction of the Local Government Board. Now with regard to the condition of the labourers' houses in the Union. I have described a number of them before, and I shall only now trouble the Committee with a description of one or two of them.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That would be to travel outside the Vote. The only question which can be discussed under this Vote is that of neglect on the part of the Local Government Board.
    MR. J. NOLAN: I should have liked to give a description of the cottages; but as you consider it out of Order, Mr. Courtney, I will only add in concluding my remarks that I join with my Colleagues in saying that in the interest of these poor and oppressed people, there is nothing which I shall not do to push forward this movement, and no matter how long we may be compelled to sit here, or what steps we may be called on to take within the rules of the House, I, for one, shall persist in the object I have in view. I say this not because the labourers in my constituency are an
    808
    important and influential body—the action I have taken in this matter is dictated simply by feelings of humanity. If the labourers had political power or influence, they would be in a different position from that which they are now placed in; it is because they are poor, ignorant and without influence that they occupy their present unfortunate position; and I say it is the duty of hon. Members on both aides of the House to see that justice is done in this matter.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I need not say that I fully sympathize with the hon. Member for North Louth in his desire that the condition of the labourers should be improved. At the same time, I may remark that the condition of the cottages of the labourers in Ireland now is very different from what it was some years ago, although I do not, for one moment, say that it might not be improved. With regard to the time occupied in putting the Act in force, I wish to point out that it is not so much the result of the action of the Local Government Board as of the provisions of the Act of Parliament itself. Under that Act, representation has to be made, first, to the Sanitary Authority — the Sanitary Authorities are the Boards of Guardians—and these sometimes act with a knowledge of the Statute, and sometimes they do not. When they act at all, they frame a scheme which is placed before the Local Government Board in Dublin; but before they do that, they have to publish a number of advertisements to enable the land to be taken compulsorily. The matter having gone before the Local Government Board, they send down an Inspector, who, after examination on the spot, proceeds to hold an inquiry, and then makes a Report to the Local Government Board; then a Provisional Order is prepared adopting the scheme in whole or in part; then an opportunity, which is considerably availed of, is given to persons affected by the scheme to petition against it; that petition goes before the Privy Council, and their order is final. The Committee will see that a number of steps have to be taken, and it is obvious that a considerable time mast necessarily be occupied by the successive stages of the business. The hon. Member for North Louth mentioned that

    809
    the labourers in his district set to work in November, 1885, to influence the Board of Guardians; but the real cause of the delay was the Board of Guardians, who, apparently, did not act until the month of August, 1886, or nearly a year afterwards. Then in January, 1887, the Inspector of the Local Government Board went down and made inquiry, which could not have been done, as I think the hon. Gentleman said it was, before that, because of the time required by the advertising in the newspapers. The Provisional Order was made sometime in the month of May, as the hon. Member has pointed out; but with regard to that, I do not think there was any ground for imputing delay to the Local Government Board, because I find that 36 cottages were struck out altogether from the original scheme for 97, besides 25 that were also eliminated on the ground of informality, so that there were only 35 cottages to the good, so to speak, in the Order. It must be borne in mind that the Local Government Board has a very responsible duty to perform in these cases, and that one mistake may invalidate a whole plan. I can assure hon. Members below the Gangway opposite that the Local Government Board, and those concerned in the administration of the Act, are not all to blame for the course that they have taken. With regard to the Millstreet Union, referred to by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), it is obvious that the Guardians did not sufficiently consider beforehand the actual number of cottages which should have been applied for, because a number were struck out of the scheme by the Local Government Board. I do not know—nor did the hon. Member mention—when the Board of Guardians presented their scheme to the Local Government Board; but I am certain it was not presented in 1883. I believe it was much later. [An hon. MEMBER: In 1884.] When was the Provisional Order made? [Dr. TANNER: Early in 1883.] The hon. Member will see that there is great difficulty in dealing with the question of delay in the absence of dates, and that it is from, no unwillingness on my part if I am unable to give him a satisfactory answer. It is the Sanitary Authority that is responsible for the work, and the moment they get their Order they can act; and therefore- they, and no one else, are responsi-
    810
    ble for the subsequent delay. The same remarks apply to the other Union mentioned by the hon. Member. With reference to the point in connection with the Edenderry Union raised by the hon. Member for the Tullamore Division of King's County (Dr. Fox), I do not know the circumstances of the case, or whether they concern the Local Government Board or any of the officers whose salaries come under this Vote. I shall have to inquire into the matter, and see if there is any delay for which we are accountable, with a view to expediting the work if such is the case. I trust that explanation will be satisfactory to the hon. Member. Of course, hon. Gentlemen know well that when a general discussion of this kind is entered upon without specific Notice being given, it is impossible for anyone, however willing, to give a satisfactory answer to everyone; I trust, however, that hon. Gentlemen will recognize that I have tried to deal with the questions brought forward in a fair spirit.
    MR. FLYNN: I recognize the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has looked on the very important question of labourers' cottages. We do not want to approach the consideration of this Vote in any polemical spirit; we merely want to point out the defects that are observable in the working of the Local Government Board, more especially in connection with the Labourers' Act. At the outset of my remarks, which will be brief, I wish to say that we in the South and West of Ireland have joined in recognizing that on the part of many Inspectors there is a praiseworthy desire to co-operate with the Sanitary Authorities in the matter of erecting labourers' cottages. But although this is true, in many cases there are exceptions which we want to bring before the Committee, and which can only be accounted for by the negligence of the Board. This is not very gross; but it is sufficiently grave in its character to call for the attention of Irish Members. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), took up the case of the Millstreet Union. Now, that involves a question of delay in connection with, labourers' cottages from the blame for

    811
    which the Local Government Board cannot possibly relieve themselves. As I understand the matter, it is that this scheme was applied for early in January, and that if the necessary representations had been sent in to the Local Government Board, the delay of close upon nine months would not have occurred before the Inspectors were sent down to report on the scheme. The effect of the delay has been that out of 108 cottages not one has been erected in the Union. The blame for this lies entirely on the Local Government Board, who did not send down their Inspectors to take the necessary steps in connection with the scheme for the erection of the cottages; and I believe that if there was delay on the part of the Board of Guardians, it is a delay for which the Local Government Board are largely responsible. This is one example of delay on the part of the Local Government Board. Another is that of the Cork Union, to which my hon. Friend also referred. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must bear in mind when he speaks of delay on the part of the Board of Guardians that the Act of 1883 was not largely availed of. The Guardians were not satisfied with that Act; but when the amending Act of 1885 came into force there was great activity shown throughout Ireland, with the exception of Ulster, for the erection of cottages under the Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House when I expressed full recognition of the fact that the Local Government Board had in connection with many schemes acted with a great deal of liberality and public spirit; but while that is so, I think it is certainly within our province to point out where the Local Government Board has failed to act with the necessary promptitude. There has been delay in the case of the Millstreet Union, and delay has also occurred in reference to the Cork Union. There was great delay with regard to the scheme set on foot by the Cork Board of Guardians, who were very anxious to have the cottages erected, and who could not, at any rate, be accused of want of knowledge of the locality nor of the various steps necessary to be taken. There is one other point that I have to refer to, and that is in connection with the Inspectors when they go round the various districts inquiring into schemes brought before them by the Local Authorities.
    812
    I do not wish, on a Vote of this kind, to speak in a polemical spirit; but from my own knowledge and close observation, I say that on many occasions, even when the Sanitary Authority has approved the scheme, and the medical officer has certified that the cottages in the district are badly built and defective in point of accommodation, the Local Government Board Inspectors have refused to entertain the schemes. It is only reasonable that the Local Government Board should give directions to their Inspectors to treat these cases on their merits; to pay no heed to the fact whether a man is Boycotted or not; to divest their minds altogether of anything like political prejudices, and to take the schemes as they are presented to them. If they are satisfied that cottages should be built in a particular place, and are satisfied with the representations made to them, they ought not to pay the slightest attention to tittle-tattle, but to carry out the scheme. A Return has been presented of the various Unions in which schemes have been put forward. I am not clear on the point as to whether it was in answer to a Question, or in connection with some other public business, that the question of shorthand writing was raised in this House; I think it was in reply to a Question. It has been pointed out that enormous expense has been incurred in bringing down shorthand writers from Dublin to take notes of the proceedings before the Local Government Boards Inspector in connection with these schemes. The travelling expenses alone of the shorthand writers are very heavy. Of course, the expense of shorthand writing must be met from some quarter. At present we find it in the Estimates. All these expenses tend to make the cottages more costly. I find that in the Clontarf Union, which is in my constituency, 426 cottages were applied for, but only 132 have been erected out of 326 sanctioned. Now, the shorthand writers' expenses in the comparatively limited inquiry in Clontarf amounted to the large sum of £40 18 s.l0 d, I believe you could have got competent shorthand writers from the City of Cork, which is close to the Clontarf Union, for £10, or £15 at the outside. That would have been a considerable saving in the Estimates, and at the same time the business would have been done quite

    813
    as well, if not bettor, because in places like Cork you can always get reporters of the highest order of ability moat competent to do the work required in these inquiries. Besides, the shorthand writers naturally look jealously upon the fact that shorthand writers have been brought from long distances and at much greater expense, which need not have been the case. I do not know that there is any other matter in connection with the question of labourers' cottages which I wish to bring before the Committee. I should not like, as I have said before, to be regarded as indulging in any unfair or harsh criticism of the manner in which the Local Government Board of Ireland have acted in connection with this very important question of the erection of labourers' cottages. I believe that in many cases they have acted with great public spirit, and with anxiety to do their duty to carry out the schemes the Legislature intended when they passed the amending Act of 1885; but, at the same time, there are many occasions in which they have not so acted. There have been occasions in connection with some particular scheme such as I have enumerated—Millstreet and Cork —on which they have not so acted, and in which cases there has been an unaccountable delay, on account of which delay large numbers of labourers are still kept in occupation of these miserable hovels which are a disgrace to the fair soil of Ireland, and have long been a reproach to the civilization of the State ruling over the destinies of the people of Ireland. Having said this, I do not wish, generally speaking, to unduly blame the Local Government Board in this matter, because I know there are many Local Authorities which have been much to blame. We hope that when next we come to discuss the Estimates we may not find so many opportunities of criticizing so adversely the work of the Local Government Board in connection with one of the most useful measures that Parliament has ever passed.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HAIUIAX): I am sure it would be impossible to find fault with the tone of the hon. Member's remarks, which have been very fairly and frankly made. In his concluding sentence, he hoped that when next the Committee came to discuss the Estimates
    814
    he and his hon. Friends would not have the same ground for criticizing the work done by the Local Government Board. I think that if he will look back to last year, he will find that there were probably more grounds for complaint than there are this year. I am sure, considering the spirit he has shown, the hon. Gentleman will join me in saying it is absolutely impassible that a great measure like the Labourers' Cottages Act, involving as it does so many conflicting interests, can be administered without a certain amount of friction and delay, some of which delay may be necessary, almost unavoidable, and some of which may be unnecessary. The present state of affairs is certainly better than the former. The best sign of this is that there are less appeals, and that there is certainly a greater disposition on all sides to view the matter in a frank, fair and reasonable manner, to recognize the fact that a labourer is not only worthy of his hire, but worthy of a home in which he can be lodged and housed like a Christian being. I am sure it is hardly necessary for me to add that the Government have every desire that this Act shall be administered in the spirit in which Parliament intended it should be. Now, there are one or two remarks of the hon. Gentleman in regard to which. I should like to say a word. The hon. Gentleman desires a pledge from the Government that in all cases where objections have been raised to schemes, no question of what I may call politics will be allowed to enter into the minds of the Inspectors. I think he said the Inspectors should have no concern as to whether a man was Boycotted or not.
    MR. FLYNN: I said whether the farms were Boycotted or not.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I would go a little beyond that. We are discussing this matter in a friendly and open and frank spirit, and I think the hon. Gentleman will allow that when the Bill was first brought before the House, I, then sitting on the Opposition Benches, supported the second reading. My sole fear was that the Act might be used for political purposes. When the Act became law it was undoubtedly, to a certain extent, used for political purposes, [Mr. FLYNN dissented.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not mean to say that it was used for political purposes on one side more than another.

    815
    Party differences did unquestionably enter into the consideration. In some cases Nationalist Guardians were found in conflict with the Act, while in other cases the Guardians who were not Nationalists opposed schemes which, I think, they are now inclined to look upon with favour. With regard to the question of shorthand writing, I confess on looking through the account I was struck in exactly the same way as the ton. Gentleman. The shorthand writers' expenses seemed to me a rather extravagant item; indeed, they were altogether disproportionate to the other expenses, The hon. Gentleman has done well in calling the attention of the Committee to this matter. He complains that in certain cases Cork reporters have not been employed. I do not speak from personal experience; but I have always understood that shorthand writers were engaged from the nearest town; if they are not they certainly ought to be. Reference has also been made to the charges of the solicitors engaged in the carrying out the operations of the Act. Now, if hon. Gentlemen will examine the account they will see that in two Unions where a great deal of good work has been done the solicitors' costs are very small indeed, and that in Unions where little work has been done the solicitors' expenses are enormous. That is a matter in which the Government are not responsible, but in which the Guardians are solely responsible. The Government do whatever they can to restrict the incidental charges as much as possible. In conclusion, I must impress upon the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Flynn), and all Irish Members who are anxious, as I am, to see this Act carried out in. the manner it ought to be, that the working of the Act must necessarily take time. The Government are certainly desirous of seeing the Acts properly administered; but, at the same time, administered with as little friction as possible.
    MR. HAYDEN: I hope the Government will give us some information regarding the item for auditing. The total charge for salaries is £6,842, and of this £3,467 is taken for auditing. It appears to me that the charge is altogether disproportionate to the service rendered. 1 do not complain of proper salaries being paid to auditors; but I certainly think that the local
    816
    rates should not be overcharged with auditing expenses.
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: The light hon. and gallant Gentleman's (Colonel King-Harman's) speech was certainly couched in a tone which we are very happy to recognize and to reciprocate. There are some points, however, in which I think he is a little mistaken. He says he does not consider that the Local Government Board are to be blamed for the largo expenses incurred in solicitors' costs where no work has been done. If there is anything in Ireland more painful than another to persons who have publicly mixed themselves up in local matters, it is the extravagant waste of public money in the administration of this Act, especially in districts where there is not a single thing to show for it. In many districts where solicitors, reporters, and proprietors of newspapers have received an enormous amount of money in pursuance of the proceedings under the Act not a stone has been laid. The intention of Parliament in passing the Act was that the money expended should go towards the employment of the labourers themselves in providing cottages for themselves. I think I could show the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) that if the Local Government Board progressed during the past and present years at the rate he thinks they have, a great deal of the expenditure incurred would have been obviated. I maintain that while the old Act required that there should be three publications in two months, the Local Government Board did not exert themselves to communicate with the local Guardians. There have hitherto been two classes of Guardians, ex officio Guardians and elected Guardians. The ex officio Guardians, since they have lost their hold upon the Chair of the Board, and since they have found that they can no longer be the masters of the Board, have abstained from attending the Board meetings. They, of course, have the advantage of education and the advantage of being in nearer touch with the Legislature than the elected Guardians, and they can in many cases be useful if they wish to bestir themselves. The contrary, however, has been the case. They have abstained, as I say, from attending the meetings of the Guardians, and the Local

    817
    Government Board have also abstained from doing their duty. They did not acquaint the clerks of the Unions with their duties. They did not put before the Guardians in letter after letter, as they should have done, the necessity of complying with certain regulations. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot altogether agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Local Government Board are free from blame in this matter. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the figures of the present Vote they will find an increase of £1,380 in law charges. Had I been present when this charge was reached I should certainly have challenged the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to give an explanation of this increase, and I should have been surprised if he had been able to show that any increase in value to the people had resulted from it. These law charges afford another instance of the intricacy of Irish government. I have been a witness of those things. I know a solicitor to a Board appointed in the time when landlords and agents had practically the Board in their hands. This man continued to be the solicitor to the Board even after the popular Guardians were elected, who, I am glad to say, have not taken any violent methods and removed the man for the sake of superseding him by a man agreeing with their own views. But what has happened? This solicitor, in his capacity of legal advisor to the Board, has come before the Board to show how they could best get labourers' cottages erected in their Union. This very solicitor has gone down next day to the next Union, and has opposed, in the interests of the local landlords, the erection of labourers' cottages. The solicitor to the Union to which the gentleman to whom I have referred went has returned the compliment in coming forward to oppose the erection of labourers' cottages in the adjoining Union. These solicitors are the representatives of the landlords. They get more from the landlords than they get from the Boards of Guardians, and solicitors, at best, are but human. There is more likelihood they will make their best efforts in the interests of those who pay them best, and they are the landlords. I fear that, however long I were to speak, I could not altogether adopt the tone and spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cork (Mr.
    818
    Flynn) There is one matter which, I think, may fairly be raised on this Vote; at any rate, I think I may just touch upon it. It is with reference to the duties required at the present time of rate collectors. I do not know whether I am in Order in referring to this matter; but if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will indicate that I am not, I will not raise the point. The rate collectors of Ireland generally contract to do certain duties. Now, in many instances, owing to the depression of the time and to the reduced percentage they receive, their recompense has been diminished, while their duties have been increased. On account of the scarcity of money, these men have often to call half-a-dozen times for the rates, and they are now asked to do extra duty in connection with the services of the franchise notices. I have been very much surprised, after the series of Questions put to the late Government, and also to the present-Government, that there has been no indication on the part of the Government that they will take this matter into consideration. No doubt, I shall be asked how I would pay the rate collectors for the extra duty. My answer would be that they should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question does not come within this Vote at all. It is a matter of local power—it is not a matter under the control of the Local Government Board.
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Will you allow me, Sir, to say that my reason in venturing to raise the question was that certain Unions in Ireland have declined to impose these extra duties on the rate collectors. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who is also President of the Irish Local Government Board, is responsible for the acts of the Local Government Board, and therefore that the action of the Local Government Board may be reviewed on the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary. I do not see how the Local Government Board can direct these men to continue the performance of that extra duty without directing how they are to be paid. I am thankful to you, Sir, for indulging me so far, because I have virtually stated all I intended to state. I do not now expect an answer from the right hon. and gallant Gentle-

    819
    man (Colonel King-Harman), as the matter does not come within the purview of the Vote; but I think the matter is one which may be fairly entertained by the Government with a view of lightening the duties of the rate collectors. Allow me to say, in conclusion, that while I do not wish to break the harmony of view which seems to exist with regard to the action of the Local Government Board, my experience gained in having attended, in my capacity as a newspaper man, Local Board meetings in Ireland, is that whenever the Local Government Board can find a flaw or irregularity in the action of Guardians, especially of elected Guardians, who will attend to delay the carrying out of schemes under the Labourers' Acts, they have only been too glad. I do not deny that there has been some improvement; but I wish to impress upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman) that there is room for even greater improvement. There is vast room for improvement in every Department of the Government in Ireland, and in none more than in the Local Government Board.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Edward Harrington) has expressed surprise that in face of the questions asked in this House concerning the extra duty imposed upon the rate collectors, the Government have not indicated their intention of dealing with the matter. I should like to remind him that the only question asked about rate collectors and their duties during this Session was that asked a few days ago.
    MR. J. O'CONNOE: I rise for the purpose of asking my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) to emphasize his remarks by making a distinct Motion so that we can take a Division on this subject, which I hold to be one of very great importance to Ireland. It was once very truly said in this House that Ireland is the most deboarded country in the world. That expression was uttered by a great Irishman, Mr. Butt. Well, we have had a very interesting speech from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson). He told the Committee all about the Labourers' Acts; he described the routine it is necessary to go through in order to carry out a scheme for building la-
    820
    bourers' cottages. I am sorry the Committee was not fuller at the time the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke; because I feel that hon. Members would have been very much inclined to agree with the Representatives of Ireland as to the conflict between the manner in which laws are drafted in that country and the way in which they are carried out. But, Sir, if we have had the "laws delays" of the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), we have "the insolence of Office" of those who carry out or administer law in Ireland. Certainly those who administer the law under the direction of the Local Government Board did all in their power by red tapism, by insolence, and by delay to frustrate the intention of Parliament. It is well known how this House laboured hard in the years 1881, 1882, and 1883 to pass the Irish Labourers' Act. We all know the efforts made since to mend that Act. I believe there have been two Acts of Parliament to amend the original Labourers' Act. At last, the Act was got into a fair shape. The Board of Guardians in Ireland were entrusted with the carrying out of the Act, and notwithstanding all that the Attorney General (Mr. Gibson) says, notwithstanding all that he has hinted at, rather than what he has said, regarding the action of the Poor Law Guardians in Ireland, I maintain the Act has had fair play so far as the action of the tenant farmers of Ireland who mainly compose the Poor Law Boards could give it fair play. But, Sir, the Boards of Guardians in Ireland are composed of two distinct classes. You have the tenant farmers who are the representatives of the people, and you have the ex officio Guardians who are appointed according to their property. The ex officio Guardians help the tenant farmers to make the mistakes that have been alluded to by the Attorney General.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Several times I have had occasion to point out that the only way in which this matter can be discussed is with reference to the action of the Local Government Board, and not with reference to the action of the Boards of Guardians.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I am coming to that, Sir. I believe it was the duty of the Local Government Board to set the Poor Law Guardians right if they were

    821
    making mistakes. The Inspectors who went down to the Unions from time to time should, instead of hindering and preventing the erection of cottages, have instructed the Boards of Guardians as to the manner in which they were to perform their duties. There have been great objections put in the way of carrying out this Act of Parliament. We have to look to the Government for the administration of the Act; but what will the value of this discussion be if it is to go no further than the plausable speeches to which we have listened from the Government Bunches. Frankly, we have brought before the notice of the House the maladministration in Ireland of the Acts of Parliament. We have always been mot by plausable speeches from Members of the Government, but not one step has been taken to rectify the defect in the administration of which we complain. This is what we protest against. We have had a speech to-night from the Attorney General for Ireland of which no person can complain. We have had a speech from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) of which no one can complain. The Government are full of the best intentions, but it is necessary to emphasize our protest against their neglect by every means in our power. This is the only time we have of bringing our grievances before the country; it is the only way in which we can make the Government alive to their duties; it is the only means we have of showing our constituents that we are watching over their interests, and therefore I protest against being put off with the mild and plausable speeches which have been delivered by Members of the Government to-night. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) who opened this discussion, who pointed out the defects in the Poor Law system of Ireland, who pointed out and clearly proved that the Local Government Board in Ireland threw obstacles in the way of a proper administration of a beneficent Act of Parliament, an Act of Parliament in the passing of which the two sides joined, an Act of Parliament which was passed by the unanimous decision of the House, and with as little opposition as possible from anybody. I admit that some of the best provisions, the best Amendments that
    822
    were proposed to the Bill, were objected to, and that if they had been passed there would have been no need for this discussion to-night. I hope my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) will accept my suggestion—namely, to make such, a Motion that we can go to a Division. The people of Ireland will thus see that we are alive to our duties, and the Government will understand that we are not to be put off with plausable speeches, but that we demand that they shall put their expressed good intentions into effect.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I think this is a good time to bring before the attention of the Committee a matter in which 10 or 15 Unions in Ireland are greatly concerned. Of course the Chief Secretary and the Parliamentary Under Secretary are perfectly aware that this year the Local Government Board have ordered the levy of the last installment of the Seed Rate. I believe that 94 per cent or 95 per cent of the Potato Loan has been paid off, which everyone will agree is a very satisfactory state of affairs. In some well-to-do Unions, the whole of the loan has been paid off; but there is a balance of 6 per cent or 7 per cent unpaid, and the Local Government Board have ordered that the whole of this amount should be raised in the current year. I brought this subject before the House in the short Session we had last autumn.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think I told the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) last autumn that the subject could not be introduced.
    COLONEL NOLAN: But since then the Local Government Board have taken action. Of course, if you rule that the subject cannot be referred to, I will not refer to it; but the Local Government Board have issued an order for the levying of the rate this year. And what I want to do is to impress upon them the desirability of reconsidering their decision on account of the exceptional circumstances of the year.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is out of Order to refer to the subject this year for precisely the same reasons as it was out of Order to refer to it last year.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: There is a matter in connection with this Vote very worthy of the attention of the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) as President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman has

    823
    introduced a Bill called the Distressed Unions (Ireland) Bill, and the mere introduction of that measure has had the effect of certain Banking Companies in Ireland putting pressure upon various Unions throughout the country. The Union I have the honour to be connected with is greatly affected. The reason I wish to connect this with the Local Government Board is, that we find in former years the National Bank allowed the Limerick Union to have a considerable overdraft; but now, owing, no doubt, to the introduction of the Distressed Unions Bill, the National Bank is pressing the Limerick Union. We have made application to the Local Government Board to allow us to pay off our present treasurer and to appoint a treasurer who will honour our cheques to a considerable amount; we were met with a distinct refusal. This is a matter of considerable importance, because it is clearly the duty, and it is also to be the privilege, of any Union to change its treasurer at any time. Yet we are met in this case by the refusal of the Local Government Board to permit us to make this change I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) whether if we can find in Ireland another Banking Company who are willing to take over the account of the National Bank, to pay off the National Bank, and to allow the Limerick Union to draw what is sufficient to carry on the work of the Union, the Local Government Board will permit us to change our treasurer in the manner I have indicated.
    MR. DEASY: Before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. Balfour) replies, I should like to ask what he intends to do with the Distressed Unions Bill? The right hon. Gentleman must know the strong feeling there is on those Benches.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman can ask a question, but cannot make a speech respecting the Bill in question.
    MR. DEASY: I will raise the point in a different way. Under this Vote I shall impugn the conduct of the Local Government Board in not using the power they possess to deal with certain Boards of Guardians in the West of Ireland. I complain that the Local Government Board have, through their Inspector, permitted Boards of Guardians in Westport and other Distressed Unions to misuse, if they have, as alleged, the
    824
    powers granted by this House under the Bill passed last year to distribute a sum of money amongst the poor people within their Unions. An inquiry was held under the auspices of the Local Government Board into the distribution of this money in Westport and other places during the last three or four months. The result of this inquiry is, I confess, not satisfactory to me, and not satisfactory to anyone else who has had anything to do with this particular district. It must be said in extenuation of the conduct of these Guardians that the Boards are not constituted on a popular basis. I have to complain of a Memorandum which was submitted to this House, setting forth some of the salient features of the Report made by the Local Government Inspector. That Memorandum entirely overstated the true facts of the case, and anyone reading it would imagine that the Guardians in these particular districts had been guilty of nothing less than fraud, and a little short of wholesale robbery. I frankly admit that these Guardians have not done their duty as well as they ought to have done; but, at the same time, it must be recollected that when hundreds of people are on the verge of starvation, and when the machinery at the disposal of the Guardians for grappling with this starvation is inadequate, irregularity is almost inevitable. The Local Government Inspector took part in the proceedings, and, as a matter of fact, he was present at the meetings of the Board at which the irregularity occurred. Why did not the Local Government Inspector report to his Board that the business of the Union was not being transacted as it ought to have been, and why did not the Local Government Board step in and give directions as to the mode in which the business under the Act should be carried out? Why did the Board permit the Guardians to run into arrear as they have done? It is perfectly true that the rates in the district are extremely high. It is perfectly true that, to some extent, the Guardians are to blame; but it is also true that the Local Government Board and their Inspectors are primarily responsible for the present state of affairs which exists in the West of Ireland and other districts. I ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) what he intends to do with these Unions; whether he intends to compel the Board, of which

    825
    he is the head, to exercise the power given to it by Parliament more than 40 years, of suppressing the present Boards of Guardians and appointing Vice Guardians? I think that is a very strong and objectionable step. I do not thick it is absolutely necessary; but it is preferable to the method the Local Government Board propose to adopt in dealing with the Distressed Unions. The Local Government Board can allow the Board of Guardians to carry on their work as best they can, possibly enabling them by giving them loans at no interest, to carry it on, or they can appoint Vice Guardians which will take up the business and the liabilities of the present Board, and will conduct the proceedings as if the Guardians were not in existence. The latter course is not one which commends itself to me; but, of two evils, I choose the lesser. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the opposition which the Distressed Unions Bill is likely to receive on these Benches, he will compel the Board of which he is nominally the head, to adopt the course which for the last 45 years the Local Government Board have adopted throughout Ireland, and not have recourse to the extraordinary and unnecessary measure of altering the present law which he has been telling us for the last three or four weeks, and which is necessary in order to prevent the poor people of the West of Ireland dying of starvation. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of Public Business, would do well to adopt the suggestion I have made.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Deasy) asks me what course I propose to pursue with regard to the Distressed Unions Bill? The course the Government desire to pursue was adequately explained to the House the other day. Owing to the opposition offered by some of the Friends and Colleagues of the hon. Gentleman this Bill has not very much chance of passing this Session. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether, if I cannot pass the Bill, I will appoint Vice Guardians. Now, in the earlier part of the debate this evening, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) urged me to reinstate the elected Guardians in New Boss, and to dispossess the Vice Guardians— [Mr. DEASY: For different reasons.]—
    826
    I told the hon. and learned Member I was anxious on an early day to reinstate the elected Guardians. I desire to retain all the privileges of local self-government which exists in Ireland as they exist in England, with regard to Poor Law matters, and therefore I cannot promise to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Deasy) — namely, to appoint Vice Guardians to deal with the existing condition of things in the Unions in the West of Ireland. I grant that the state of affairs in these Unions is very disastrous; but to what is it due? It is due entirely to the wretched mismanagement of public funds by the Boards of Guardians of those Unions. The hon. Gentleman suggests, as an easy way of getting over the difficulty, that the English taxpayer should come to the relief of these Boards of Guardians. I do not feel at all disposed to ask the British taxpayer to supply funds for the relief of distress in Ireland, except under conditions which would render the repetition of the evils which have occurred impossible. I do not know I can add anything to what I have said. The proposal of the Government is clearly before the House, and if the hon. Gentleman desires that anything should be done, he should do his best to facilitate the passing of the measure I have introduced.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I desire to ask for an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) as to why a letter sent by a returning officer of the Bantry Union to the Secretary of the Local Government Board was suppressed? The letter was in reply to a telegram sent by the Secretary of the Local Government Board in reference to a recent election in the Union.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I think that if the hon. Gentleman had wished to call attention to this matter, it would have been better to have done so in the form of a Question. I remember I answered a Question on this subject some time ago. I did so to the best of my ability upon the information I received. If the hon. Gentleman had a copy of the letter in question, it would have been as well if he had supplied me with it.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I had not the letter at the time I asked the Question, but I have since received one from the

    827
    returning officer. I furnished the Chief Secretary with a copy of it, and asked him for an explanation; but he treated the matter with complete indifference, if not with contempt. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I assure the hon. Gentleman I have never had the least intention to be discourteous to him, or to neglect any communication he made to me. I do not recollect the precise circumstances to which he alludes; but if he will put a Question upon the Paper on the subject, I will do my best to give him as satisfactory an answer as I can.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I complained at the time of the action of the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman) in the matter.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I never saw or heard of the letter.
    MR. GILHOOLY: You answered the Question, and not the Chief Secretary. Now, in connection with this Vote, I have to complain of the action of the gentleman who audits the accounts of the Bantry Union. As I understand the law, it is that no work costing more than £20 can be done for the Union without there being a contract. The Chairman of the Bantry Union, aided by a number of ex officio Guardians who usually come in to do a job when the Chairman summons them, gave out work costing £61 without a contract. In my opinion, this was quite illegal and irregular, and the gentleman who audits the accounts at the Bantry Union passed the matter. I wish to know from the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) or from the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) whether the auditor acted properly and legally in so doing? I wish also to refer to the manner in which the Local Government Board treat Minutes of some Unions. The Chairman of the Bantry Union has refused to accept Resolutions in regard to which he could have his will. The Local Government Board never took notice of these irregularities, unless some member of the Boards of Guardians wrote to them. I hold, Mr. Courtney, that the Local Government Board ought to see that Resolutions referring to the business of the Board of Guardians is not refused by the Chairman. It is the
    828
    duty of the Local Government Board to remonstrate with Chairmen of Unions, and instruct them as to their duties. There is another matter in connection with the Bantry Union to which I have to call attention. The doctor of the Bantry Dispensary holds the keys of the place, and keeps the Minute Book locked up. On some occasions, the members of the Dispensary Committee have been inconvenienced by the doctor being absent, and neglecting to leave the key in some convenient place, in order that the Committee might gain access to the Dispensary in which to hold their meetings. A communication was sent to the Local Government Board upon this subject, but they took no notice whatever of it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the auditor has acted legally in passing certain expenses connected with the Bantry Union? I presume that the auditor acted illegally, if he broke the law.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I ask for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give an opinion off-hand. The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether the Local Government Board ought to pass Minutes of the Poor Law Guardians which are not countersigned by the Chairman.
    MR. GILHOOLY: What I asked was whether it was not the duty of the Local Government Board, when they saw that Resolutions were refused by the Chairman, to remonstrate with him and acquaint him with his duties.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: I regret to have to recur to a matter which I brought under the notice of the Committee a few moments ago; but it seems to me a matter of very great importance. The Limerick Union Banking Account is at the present moment something like £10,000 overdrawn. There is a large amount of rates due for which the Guardians are unwilling to press the ratepayers unduly in consequence of the scarcity of money in Ireland at the present time. The Union is in a position to get another Banking Company to take over the account of the Leitrim Union from the National Bank, and to advance all the money necessary to keep the Union going. I want to know how it is that the Local Government Board will not give the

    829
    Limerick Board of Guardians power to change their treasurer? In former years, we were obliged to make remonstrances to the Local Government Board in regard to the way which we were treated by the National Bank, which is treasurer of the Union. I think it is clear that the Board of Guardians themselves are the proper persons to judge who they will have for their treasurer, and I now ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) whether he is disposed to allow the Board of Guardians to change their treasurer, on the understanding that the new treasurer will pay the National Bank all the amount due to them, and that the Union shall keep their account with the new Bank? If the Local Government Board withhold their permission, I can assure them that the Limerick Board of Guardians will cease to lodge any money with the National Bank, and that will be a very serious matter. It is absurd that we should be compelled to retain a treasurer from whom we cannot get the facilities we require.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I had better deal with this question at once. I am sorry to say that the Limerick Union has very largely overdrawn its account. I am afraid that is due to ladies on the part of the Board of Guardians themselves. [Mr. W. ABRAHAM: No, no!] Yes, the Union is a rich one. The rate made in March last was calculated to produce £31,500. Only £7,800 of that was collected up to the end of June, leaving £23,000 outstanding. It is clear, from the fact that such an amount of rate is outstanding, that there has been great neglect on the part of the collectors. I am now asked that the Union should be allowed to transfer its account to a treasurer who will lend them what they want. It seems to me, speaking without any full knowledge of the particular circumstances and considerations which have influenced the Boards of Guardians in desiring to make a change of treasurer, that the change is one which ought to be made with great caution. I am bound to say that, so far as I am able to form an opinion, the difficulties in which the Limerick Guardians find themselves are chiefly of their own creation.
    MR. W. ABEAH AM: The right hon. Gentleman seems to ignore the fact that every effort has been made on the part of the Board of Guardians, through their collectors, to get in the rate. Surely, the Chief Secretary will admit that in such a year as this has been the Guardians ought to give every possible latitude to the over-burdened taxpayers. When the National Bank, which, in former years, allowed Boards of Guardians to overdraw their accounts more than at present, are putting the screw on a Board, and when another Joint Stock Bank is willing to relieve that Board, I think they ought to be allowed to deal with that Bank. The National Bank has sometimes £15,000 to the credit of the Guardians, yet now that they are overdrawn, they are coolly told that if they wanted money they must put more pressure on the ratepayers. The Guardians would not do that, and he had to complain on behalf of the Limerick Board of Guardians that in the management of their affairs they got very little assistance from the Local Government Board at any time, and now that they come to ask this favour—when they come to ask that they might be allowed to transfer their business from the National Bank to another Bank, so as to get the accommodation they required—they received no assistance or advice in devising a means by which they could get rid of their treasurer.
    DR. TANNEE: Might I point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, with reference to this very subject which has been so well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. W. Abraham), that practically the same state of affairs was in existence in the Macroom Union about four or five months ago; but in consequence of the strong attitude taken by the Boards of Guardians, because the National Bank would not allow them to overdraw, and another Bank—namely, the Munster and Leinster Bank—offering them the necessary accommodation, the difficulty was got over. After remonstrating on several occasions with the right hon. Gentleman, they finally got the matter squared, the National Bank gave the necessary advances, and everything was put right. The same thing could easily take place in connec-

    831
    tion with the Limerick Union, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would only give his sanction to the transaction. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the Limerick Union was a rich Union, but the Macroom Union was not a rich one, not nearly as rich as the Limerick one. When they were able to settle the difficulty which existed iii a poor Union in the early mouths of this year, I do not see why, if the right hon. Gentleman seriously took the business of his Office into his own hands, and went into these local matters personally, and put the screw on his subordinates, the difficulties in connection with this rich Union should not cease at once. If the right hon. Gentleman would do this, the consequence would be that he would have a much more easy time of it than he has. He would have in every sense an easier position, and every one would be more satisfied, notwithstanding his very many shortcomings.
    MR. GILHOOLY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will answer the question put to him. Will he inquire into the action of the creditors of the Bantry Union, and into the action of the dispensary doctor in keeping the account book locked up, and refusing to allow members of the Board of Guardians access to it? Will he also inquire as to the action of the Local Government Board in regard to the resolutions passed by the Bantry Guardians?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour to communicate with me as to the various questions he has raised, I will take measures to have them inquired into.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I have done the right hon. Gentleman that honour before he asked me.
    MR.MURPHY: The question of the Distressed Unions Bill, which was raised by the hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy), and replied to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, requires, I think, little more discussion on this Vote, which will be the only opportunity we shall have of discussing it, unless the Bill at present before the House proceeds further. The right hon. Gentleman drew a comparison between the case of New Ross and the case of the Western Unions. He said that the hon.
    832
    and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) bad called upon them to replace the Vice Guardians by elected Guardians in New Ross; but there is no parallel between the We cases. The necessity which arises in the one case is totally different from that which arises in the other. The right hon. Gentleman states the reason why nothing has been done in the case of the Distressed Unions Bill, and says it is owing to the opposition of Members on this side of the House. I regret that this Bill has been opposed; but I would point out that the opposition is not on account of the action of the Government, who consider it necessary to do something in the matter. The Irish Members them selves think that special legislation is required; but the objection they take to the Bill is on account of its form, and from that point of view they hold it to be objectionable in many respects. It is objectionable primarily from the point of view that it proposes to enable the Commissioners whom the right hon. Gentleman wishes to appoint—
    THE CHAIEMAN: It is out of Order to discuss this particular Bill. All that can be discussed is the action of the Local Government Board.
    MR. MURPHY: I am afraid I have perhaps wandered somewhat beyond the limits I am entitled to walk within under the Vote; but I desired to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that our objection to the Bill was bondâ fide—that it was not for the necessity of doing something; but to the form in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do it. I have some Amendments to the Bill on the Paper; but as I am precluded from going into the details of the Bill itself I will not say any more on the question. If the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a measure of a practical and useful kind, enabling the Treasury to help these Unions, and if he would strike out the objectionable clauses, there would be no opposition on this side. A very bad state of things exists in the Unions to which this Bill would apply. The right hon. Gentleman attributes it to the Guardians themselves; but I attribute it to the way in which the money was advanced by the Local Government Board of Ireland—that is to say, to it having been advanced without the Local Government Board assuming any control of its

    833
    administration. We know that these districts clamoured for money, and it was very natural that they should do so; but there can be no moral doubt that a system of advancing money without retaining control over its administration is an extremely bad one. The Local Government Board have not exercised the control and supervision over the administration and distribution of the money which they ought to have done. The present condition of the district arises from that cause. On the part of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, who has put down a Notice against this Bill, I wish to point out that it is not for the purpose of preventing the Government from introducing a measure that will deal with this matter that he has taken this course. The objection taken is simply to the form of the Bill.
    MR. MAHONY: I do not think the Chief Secretary fully appreciates the difficulties under which the Guardians in those Unions laboured at the time this money was advanced by this House. There was very great and acute distress in those districts when this money was advanced. I know that for a fact, because I was in the district serving under another Commission at the time—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that the question to be discussed is the action and power of the Local Government Board.
    MR. MAHONY: That is precisely what I am going to deal with. I am going to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he did not give credit to the Board of Guardians for the difficulties under which they laboured; and I am going to proceed then to point out that, in a great measure, the Local Government Board, and not the Guardians, are to blame for the mess into which these Unions have got. There was at this time very great distress existing in those Unions. There was undoubtedly very grave danger of death from starvation. These Unions had been asking the Government for relief sometime, when suddenly, very suddenly, the Government granted them assistance to the extent of £20,000; and I think I am correct in stating that they were actually authorized to commence this system of works for outdoor relief by telegrams.
    834
    The Guardians finally received a telegram saying that £20,000 was at their disposal. The Local Government Board had the power of dividing that £20,000 between the various Unions. They did not intimate to each Union how much money would be at their disposal. They went on working in the dark for some weeks; and it was after the damage had been done—after the irregularities had occurred—that an Inspector was sent down, and called their attention to the irregularities. Nearly all the damage had been done before their attention was called to it; and I therefore say that there is a great deal of excuse to be made for those Bodies, who were suddenly called in to perform duties of a totally new character. There is one other point I wish to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is this, that at a trying time, when the Boards of Guardians were being taxed to the uttermost of their power, the ex officio Guardians, to a man, absented themselves, and did not attend a single meeting, though only a short time before they had been practically the managers of those Unions. Their conduct has been commented upon very strongly in the Commission appointed to inquire into the state of those Unions; and when the Chief Secretary gets up and finds fault with the elected Guardians, I think he must let a share of his wrath fall on the heads of the ex officio. I think, also, that the Local Government Board are in some measure to blame in the course they pursued. They gave no previous directions to the Board of Guardians as to how they were to proceed in administering the Act. They gave no idea whatever as to the amount of money which should be allocated to each Union.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member has asked me two questions, and I will answer him in very few words. He says the Local Government Board, when they sent the message to the Unions to spend the money, did not accompany it with instructions as to how it was to be spent. But that is not the case, and the Local Government Board cannot be held to blame in any respects. The hon. Member went on to attack the ex officio Guardians, declaring that they might have attended the meetings much better than they did. Well, 1 grant that; but I would point out, at the

    835
    same time, that the life of ex officio Guardians has not been made very pleasant to them during the last few years by the elected Guardians. The responsibility for the condition, of things at present existing clearly lies with, the elected Guardians.
    MR. MAHONY: As a member of a Board of Guardians, and as an ex officio member, I am bound to say that the statement the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has just made is a most uncalled-for statement. I would tell him what my experience has been in connection with the Listowel Board of Guardians—a Board which Gentlemen of the right hon. Member's opinions declare to be one of the worst Boards of Guardians in Ireland. I do not think that the ex officio Guardians who have attended that Board have ever met anything but a most courteous reception at the hands of the elected Guardians, except when they went out of their way to introduce political matter, and matters upon which the Guardians could not agree. When they flew in the face of the elected Guardians, I dare say they got tit for tat. But I am bound to say that in that Board of Guardians I have always noticed that the ex officio members were treated with the greatest respect; and, more than that, during the first year I attended regularly on that Board, I was opposed to the elected Guardians. I acted almost universally with the ex officio Guardians, and in opposition to the elected Guardians, and I am bound to say I was always treated in a most considerate and most kind manner by my opponents.
    MR. DEASY: I merely rise for the purpose of correcting a misapprehension on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman as to what I said with regard to the appointment of Vice Guardians. I did not advocate the appointment of Vice Guardians, except against the plan of the Local Government Board. I maintain that some steps will have to be taken by the Government, and that, whatever their plan is, it will have to include the granting of money to the present Boards of Guardians, which they can spend in order to get over the comic g winter. I do not say that it will be necessary to hand money over to the Vice Guardians also. I think it will be necessary to do that in any case. A most important question—and I shall
    836
    only deal with it for a few moments— has just been raised. Hon. Gentlemen who have been attending to the duties of the Cork Guardians must know the difficulties that the Cork Board has had from time to time with regard to money matters. More than once when I was on the Board, almost the entire Board passed resolutions asking the Local Government Board to allow them to change their treasurer, and to allow them to deal with a bank which would be likely to treat them fairly. The Local Government Board refused them permission to go to the Bank of Ireland, in place of the National Bank, although the Bank of Ireland has a Government grant, and although no bank can be more solvent. I do not think there would be likely to be any disposition on the part of the Cork Guardians or the Limerick Guardians to invest the money of the ratepayers to the amount of some £50,000 a-year in any Joint Stock Bank that was not perfectly solvent. I think that in this matter the Guardians may be perfectly trusted always to exercise a proper discretion. I think it extremely hard on those Boards that the Local Government Board will not allow them to change their treasurer. With regard to the question of auditors which has been discussed, I would throw out a suggestion —although I do not expect an answer from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland seems to take great interest in the administration of Irish affairs, and I would ask him to give his earliest attention to one or two points I would raise, particularly as to administration. I have referred to the question of the treasurers, and I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to look into the matter, and consider the observations of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. W. Abraham), the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), and myself. He will find, if he will only consult the Local Government Board officers themselves, that there has been the utmost dissatisfaction upon those matters amongst the officials. But the point upon which I now wish to speak is this—I think the money spent upon the auditors is thrown away. These men do nothing. They go over from one end of the country to the other; they spend pleasant days chatting with the clerks and with some members of the

    837
    Boards. They know nothing about the condition of the Union; they make no inquiries as to whether items are legal or illegal, and the result is, that thousands of pounds are illegally paid under their very noses. The only thing they can do is to come down on the unfortunate Nationalist Guardians if they have taken it into their heads to sign for £1 a-week for an evicted tenant, or something of that kind. I have been fined in that way, but I have never paid the line, and the auditor who has come down has never inquired as to whether I have paid it or not. He has clearly neglected his duty in not making such an inquiry, and not insisting upon my paying the money. Of course, it would be useless if he did insist, because I should not pay it; but still I think it is his duty to insist. I have been fined £2, and I think this official is to blame for not endeavouring to got the money from me. I say that the Local Government Board, in regard to this question of granting relief, should give a discretion to the Guardians. They give us power to give relief. They have no right to tell us—" You may give 12 s. 6d. a-week, but no more." A pound a-week is not too much for a family thrown on the roadside by the landlord, with no provision for them except the workhouse—which provision, if it were resorted to, would be infinitely more expensive to the rate-payers than the outdoor relief the Guardians would prefer to give. I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord lieutenant to consider these matters. There is another matter about which there is great dissatisfaction—namely, the way in which the National School Teachers are treated by the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board have power to sanction, or refuse to sanction, the salaries granted by the Boards of Guardians to these teachers. In no case does a salary exceed £80 a-year, and I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider whether the Guardians should not be allowed to exercise their discretion in this matter also. I hope that next year we shall find that during the coming winter the Boards of Guardians will have found their discretion enlarged on those points, owing to the action of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    MR. MURPHY: The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to the manner in which the lives of the ex officio Guardians are made unpleasant by the elected Guardians, are remarks of a thoughtless character, and tend to render discussions in this House heated and longer than they otherwise would be. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the facts are just the reverse of those stated by him. The question of the treasurers to the Boards of Guardians has been discussed on the Benches opposite, and on these Benches. A difficulty has arisen recently of obtaining advances from some of the treasurers of the Unions in Ireland, and I believe that it is in a great measure due to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, and the method in which he proposed to deal with the accumulated debts of the Western Unions. I am not, however, entitled to discuss the form of that Bill. Perhaps I might be allowed to suggest some means for meeting the case of the Western Unions, which would, to some extent, be accepted on this side of the House. I would, in the first place, suggest that as there is no bankruptcy in these districts, the Guardians should have time, when they would be able to pay all their debts. We think that money should be advanced to Unions temporarily distressed. It would not be reasonable to give entire control of the money to the Guardians; but whilst keeping the control in their own hands to some extent, the Local Government Board should provide for some combination of elected Guardians and representatives of the Local Government Board. Such joint Board would, I think, be able to get the Western Unions out of their difficulties. At any rate, I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to that proposition, and if he will consider it I should like to know what view he forms on the subject.
    MR. CRILLY: I am very sorry to stand between the Committee and this Vote, and as I very rarely trouble the House I think the Committee will forgive me if I stand up for a few moments to join my protest to those which have already fallen from this side of the Committee against the administration of the Local Government Board in Ireland. From my own personal knowledge, in my own constituency in

    839
    Ireland, the records of the Local Government Board are bristling with, scandals and injustice. The Local Government Board is not in touch with the people. The officials of that Board have no sympathy with the people, nor any sympathy with their sufferings. The Local Government Board is part and parcel of the system which we are determined to break down. I desire to join my Colleague in the representation of West Mayo (Mr. Deasy) in expressing a hope that even before we get some measure of Home Rule from this Parliament, you will adopt some method by which you will allow the auditors of the Local Government Board to do justice to the acts of the Boards in Ireland. Take my own constituency—the constituency of North Mayo. When last Session the distressed Unions were being discussed in this House, I suggested that the Ballina Union should be inserted in the Schedule. The House refused to do that; and, indeed, Sir, as events have gone, I am very glad that the Ballina Union was not inserted, and the people of North Mayo, I dare say, are themselves delighted that they were not put in. But, as a matter of fact, two other Unions — namely, those of Swineford and Belmullet, were permitted to be scheduled; and I remember I said at the time that no two Unions could be pointed out where there was greater distress and poverty than in those. I stated—and I think the House agreed with me—that this being so, there must necessarily have been a large amount of suffering in the Ballina Union as well. What was the result? As the hon. Member for West Mayo has pointed out, the result of this distress was that the Boards of Guardians gave power of making grants for four weeks of a larger amount than they can usually offer. The Ballina Union, in several cases, granted—say, to Edward Gallagher with six children, to Martin Garrette with a wife and seven children, and four or five others with families larger or smaller—a larger amount of money than is usually distributed. The Local Government Auditor went down to the Ballina Union, and, without acting upon principle or upon any definite system at all, disallowed half the grants that had been made by the Ballina Union in good faith, and because they were believed to be absolutely necessary
    840
    for the lives of those distressed people. The auditor disallowed half the grants which had been made; and what I protest against is this—that in Ireland this auditor is absolutely autocratic. In the case I refer to the Ballina Union made a bonâ fide grant. Knowing the circumstances of the poor people they had to deal with, they made a grant which they believed to be absolutely necessary; and this auditor, who, as has been pointed out, merely goes down to a Union, spends a pleasant day with the clerk, and merely puts his initials to the accounts in the book and goes away— this gentleman, on his own authority, and without the slightest knowledge of the locality, and without having sympathy with the people, disallowed the grant. The result is that one of the most respectable merchants in Ballina, the Vice Chairman of the Board of Guardians, finds himself surcharged to the extent of £12. This gentleman is called upon to pay this amount for merely acting as Chairman to the Board of Guardians, a Board consisting of Conservatives as well as of Nationalists. No regard was paid to the fact that the Guardians, feeling that the amount that was granted was required for the sustenance of the poor people of the Union, made it freely and unanimously. We have no appeal against the decision of this auditor. You have an appeal against the decision of the Local Government Board Inspector in England; but we have none in Ireland, we have no remedy whatever, except to stand up in this House and make our complaints. But that, as the Committee is well aware, is of very little use, particularly so far on in the Session. But we who have the interests of our people at heart shall, whatever the result may be, continue to rise in this House and make the most earnest protests we can against the evils of the present system. I have now only to say that, so far as we can do, we are resolved inside this House, and outside, to pursue a policy which will result in the administration of Ireland being re-organized from top to bottom; and I certainly join my Colleagues on these Benches in protesting against the action of the Local Government Board in Ireland for the past 12 months.
    DR. TANNER: Might I finally ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he

    841
    will do anything in connection with the point which I have had the honour of bringing before him, and that is in connection with the working of the Labourers' Act? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be feasible, in connection with the working of this Act, and also in connection with the system of inspection, seeing that the officers who carry it out are under the Local Government Board, to offer something in the nature of a commission to look into these matters, so that we could have some Return made after the Recess. I trust I am not trespassing upon the time of the Committee by going into this matter; but my desire is that some practical result should come out of this discussion. We are approaching the Dissolution of Parliament. [" No, no ! "] Well, we are approaching the Prorogation, at any rate. We are approaching both, I hope; but, at any rate, as we are approaching the Recess, a great deal might be done if the right hon. Gentleman would take this matter, and try to force the Local Government Inspectors to furnish him with Returns as to the working of the Act, and to show us practically where the fault lies. If he would do that at the commencement of next Session, we should be placed in a much better position to deal with the subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will grant us, at any rate, that consideration. If he will do so, he will be doing a work not merely of practical utility, but a work which I consider an absolute charity. We have heard from his own lips this evening that he agrees with hon. Members sitting on this side of the House; and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman) has also given expression to the same strain of ideas; and when they both agree, and might be said to agree with hon. Members on this side of the House, I think we might, at any rate, ask them for this practical consideration of which I speak. I should like to get an answer from them upon this point before I draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to another matter, in which both the Local Government Board and the Secretary to the Treasury are interested.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot admit that the working of the Labourers' Act has been unsatisfactory.
    842
    It cannot be considered unsatisfactory, seeing that the work has been overtaken by the Office in whose province it lies. If the hon. Member desires further information, and if he thinks that which has been given is not sufficient, I will endeavour to supplement it.
    DR. TANNER: This afternoon I put a Question to the Chief Secretary with regard to the application of the Corporation of the City of Cork to borrow money for the erection of a Town Hall and offices. I understood I was putting it to the right person when I put it to the Chief Secretary. I was dealing with the action of the Local Government Board, who recommended the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury not to accede to this application on the part of the Corporation. I may as well remind the House of my Question. My Notice was—
    " To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if it is a fact that the Irish Local Government Board have recently recommended the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury not to permit the Corporation of the City of Cork to borrow money for the erection of a Town Hall and offices; whether it has been conclusively proved to the Board that such a hall and offices are necessary to the Corporation, and will ultimately prove a saving of expense; whether he is aware that the recommendation given by the Board that the Corporation should apply to Parliament for an extension of borrowing powers under the Cork Improvement Act will in its application entail not merely considerable expense, but, by delay incurred, possibly prevent the Corporation obtaining the desired promises; whether he will recommend the authorization of the proposed loan, as it is for a necessary public work, and one which will provide considerable employment for our artizans and labourers in this period of depression; and whether he can state on whose recommendation the decision of the Government was taken? "
    Now, the City of Cork is a large city of over 80,000 inhabitants. It had, at one time, 100,000 inhabitants; but it has gone down 20,000. Well, Sir, that City is not provided with a Town Hall and Corporation offices, which, of course, are a desideratum; and the want of these necessary buildings puts the Corporation to a great deal of trouble and expense. They are obliged to carry on a portion of their business in a house in the South Mall, and another portion of their business, as well as the meetings of the Town Council, is carried on in the Grand Jury Room in the Cork Court House. Well, it is needless to say that where you have the work divided in this

    843
    way, and where the offices of the Corporation are apart from the place where the discussion of City affairs goes on, you must be at a manifest disadvantage in the conduct of public business. Well, Sir, to refer to the past history of this subject, it was rather difficult for the Corporation to get hold of a suitable site for a Corporation Hall and offices. the Corporation, to my certain knowledge, have been trying for many years to get some place which would be suitable and available for this purpose, and also which would not be too expensive. They were anxious to get a site where they would not have to clear away existing buildings, as that would save them the expense of demolishing what stood on the ground before they could put up another structure. I recollect that at one time it was thought that a site on the South Mall could be got—a site which is occupied by large stores. I suppose the hon. Member for South Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry) knows the site very well, as it is opposite—or nearly opposite—the County Club. Those buildings it would have been necessary to demolish in order that the Town Hall may be built upon the site; but it was found almost impossible to get hold of those stores, the firm in possession of them being anxious to keep it. A great many difficulties lay in the way of the Corporation, and accordingly from time to time this subject had to be deferred. Well, Sir, there is a building situate on the south bank of the River Lee, a building known as the Corn Market, and latterly the Corporation think they can acquire this. The Corn Market is carried on by a very antiquated Board, which consists of steady-going old Tories, and as usual they have got into trouble and are just as badly off as those unfortunate Boards of Guardians in the Western districts whose conduct has been condemned by the Chief Secretary. They have got into arrears and into terrible difficulties. They are prepared to part with the land in their hands. Originally, they wanted too much for it; but they are willing now to transfer a certain portion of the land to the Corporation at a reduced price, and the Corporation have nearly unanimously agreed to adopt the selection made by their officers of this site as a good one for the erection of a Town Hall and Corporation offices. Accordingly, I
    844
    would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that an opportunity has now arisen for obtaining a suitable site. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, in answer to my Question, says that the Cork Corporation have exhausted their borrowing powers; but at any rate now they have got a suitable site. I will deal with the site first, because at one time it was difficult to obtain, and now that difficulty has been removed. If they can get the money, the Corporation can now go on with the construction of a Town Hall, and on this point I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that when an opportunity occurs of getting a desirable site, it is always well to take the ball at the hop, and not to wait until by some means or other it falls and evades your grasp. Now as to the action of the Treasury. In the first place, in the year 1856 the Corporation obtained an Act, called the Cork Bridges and Water Works Act, which was to enable them to construct the present water works which are situated above the Wellington Bridge on the upper portion of the Lee. They are very excellent works, and a great deal of money was spent upon them. The Act was also to enable the Corporation to build two bridges, one known as St. Patrick's Bridge and the other known as the North Gate Bridge. Naturally enough, in connection with these large public works—namely, the building of two bridges over the widest branch of the River Lee, and the construction of these water works, there was more money spent than was allowed to be raised by the Act. The excess was actually £20,000. The Corporation finding that there was this excess over the amount they were allowed to raise did not like to go to the expense of getting a new Act for additional borrowing powers, but avoided that by borrowing money on the credit of a fund known as the Borough Fund, which consisted of property in land, tolls, and works. This fund was more in the nature of revenue, not being derivable from the rates, whereas the money which was borrowed for the construction of the water works was raised on the security of a mortgage on the water works and also on the water revenue—the income derived from the water supply which was furnished for manufacturing purposes. When they had got this money

    845
    raised on the Borough Fund to meet the emergency arising in consequence of the excess in expenditure by £20,000, a Memorial was presented to the Treasury setting forth the entire facts, and after a certain amount of pressure had been brought to bear upon the Treasury— such pressure as I am endeavouring to bring to bear upon them at the present moment—they sanctioned a loan in or about the year 1861. Now, Sir, that was a case in which the Treasury might very properly have refused their sanction. Why? Because the Corporation having exceeded the amount they were entitled to raise by Act of Parliament, Her Majesty's Government or rather the Lords of the Treasury, might very reasonably turn round, and say—"If you want this money, all you have got to do is to get an extension of the previous Act." Well, Sir, the Government behaved in a kinder way than that, and sanctioned this loan, as I have stated, in or about 1861. But then, in the year 1868, a new Act came into existence, an Act known as the Cork Improvement Act. This is rather complicated, but still I should like to put it before the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury as clearly as I can. There are really only two Acts, and the sanction of the Government for raising of this loan which I have just mentioned. In 1868 the Cork Improvement Act was obtained, and I will ask the hon. Gentleman's attention to these facts with regard to it. A clause was inserted for the purpose of making the water rate repay the £20,000, or, at any rate, the interest, and the instalments of the principal which had been up to that time paid out of the Borough Fund. The hon. Gentleman called my attention to that payment out of the Borough Fund. The Act also provided for future payments of interest and principal. Well, now, in this Act of 1868, it was enacted that a Town Hall was urgently required for the City of Cork, and the sole object of taking the power to increase the amount of money which that Act authorized the Cork Corporation to borrow on the credit of the Improvement Rate to the extent of £10,000 for the Town Hall and offices was because it would save the heavy cost of a mortgage deed. That I think explains itself The only expense in raising money on the credit of the rate
    846
    was about 2s. 6d. in the pound; whereas, on the other hand, we know that raising money on a deed of mortgage amounts to hundreds of pounds. Accordingly, I must say I think hon. Members will agree with me that, in acting as the Cork Corporation did at that time, they acted very wisely, and trying to save the money of the unfortunate ratepayers at a season like this is a matter of manifest importance. Well, Sir, I would point out that these borrowing powers in no way prejudiced or affected the powers given to the Corporations by the Irish Municipal Act, 3 & 4 Viet. c. 108. The powers given to the Municipalities to borrow under that Act enabled the Corporation to borrow money for the purpose of erecting a Town Hall, and hence what the hon. Gentleman said to me to-day. He was manifestly labouring under an error, because there was £10,000 under this Cork Improvement Act allocated to the erection of a Town Hall, yet the Corporation were practically not bound, as the hon. Gentleman wished to imply by this Improvement Act, to erect a Town Hall. They might do that, Sir, under the Municipal Act to which I have alluded. Now, that borrowing power in no way prejudiced or affected the powers of the Corporation, and the Treasury seems to be legally wrong as well as wrong in the matter of common sense in their assumption that unless the Act of 1868 had been passed the Cork Corporation would have had no power to erect a Town Hall at all. All that the Act of 1868 said was that a Town Hall was desirable, and that it was one of the purposes for which another sum not exceeding £10,000 was to be raised on the credit of the Improvement Rate. Well, £10,000 is altogether insufficient for the purpose. In the first place, you have to purchase the site, and the hon. Gentleman surely must know that in a city like Cork, which is a large trading city, anything like a satisfactory site would cost a great deal of money. Then the erection of the building must necessarily cost a large sum, and the furnishing must also be very expensive. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to take all these matters into consideration, and he will know and will be generous enough to admit that £10,000 would be totally insufficient. Now, the Corporation raised

    847
    all the money they could under the Improvement Act, and owing to the urgent necessity for and to the construction of very large drainage works, which were of the very utmost importance, owing to the opening of new streets and the clearing away of a certain number of slums—all very excellent works as the Committee will admit—the £10,000 has been spent. All the fever districts were cleared out by the judicious action of the Corporation of the City of Cork, and all the money which they had power to raise was spent in connection with this urgent municipal business. Well, having spent this money, and now having obtained a suitable site for a Town Hall and offices, they try to get sanction for an advance of money to enable them to carry out the work. They applied to the Lords of the Treasury. The Lords of the Treasury referred the matter to the Local Government Board for some unexplained reason, and the Local Government Board advised the Treasury not to advance the money. Well, I ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury who is responsible for the advice so given? Is it owing to any legal difficulties or deficiencies? I know, Sir, that in the City of Cork there is another body of gentlemen who want to try and force the Corporation to take over some premises they desire to part with. My hon. Friends have asked me not to go into that matter, and I will not go into it. I would a great deal sooner leave the matter, having made my statement as briefly as possible, to the tender mercies of the hon. Gentleman without doing so. I sincerely hope I shall receive a favourable answer from him. I must say this finally—that, at a period like the present, I conceive that all that is required is the sanction of the Treasury. Surely the City of Cork can give good security for the money they require; and at a time like the present it would be a great advantage to enable public works to be undertaken, because not only are these works necessary, but, if they are carried out, they will give a great deal of employment to the distressed population during the coming winter. I think the hon. Gentleman will not only be acting in a humane way, but acting in a way which I believe the whole population of the City of Cork will thank him for, if he gives favourable consideration to my proposal.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I am afraid I shall not be able to give what the hon. Member calls a satisfactory reply to his question, because I am afraid I cannot promise to reverse the decision already arrived at. The hon. Gentleman himself has pointed out to the Committee that in 1868 a Town Hall, which is now said to be so urgently required, was then also said to be urgently required. I have no doubt that it would be a great advantage to the city. I do not wish to offer any objection to the proposed scheme, and I do not wish to say anything to the detriment of Cork, and to suggest that the city is not of sufficient importance to warrant the construction of a Town Hall. I would point out, however, that no one is responsible for this refusal but the Treasury. The whole question is in a nutshell. The Corporation of Cork must borrow money under the sanction of Parliament. As I understand it, the Corporation of Cork obtained Parliamentary sanction to borrow to the extent of £62,000. I also understand that they have exercised that power to the extent of £61,500, and therefore there is no margin, so far as Parliamentary sanction to their borrowing power goes, for them to carry out the work they desire to undertake. Then, in addition to that, they have already borrowed money on the security of the Borough Fund. Well, I am informed that this fund, as it at present exists, is in this condition—that the expenditure slightly exceeds the income. Therefore, there is no security there which the Treasury could consent to lend money on. A simple solution of the difficulty would be this—the Corporation ought to come to Parliament and ask Parliament for increased borrowing powers. Having obtained those powers, they could exercise them. So far as I can see, there can be no doubt that Parliament, on a good ease being made out, would give Cork power to exercise larger borrowing powers. I hope, therefore, that, so far as the refusal of the Treasury in this particular case is concerned, it will be clearly understood by the hon. Gentleman that there is no desire whatever to prevent the Corporation from borrowing money for the objects they have in view. The question is simply one of finance. We are

    849
    bound to consider the question of the security of the money advanced. I think Cork would have no difficulty in borrowing if it had Parliamentary sanction; and I am one of those who strongly believe that it is desirable to impress every district in Ireland, as well as every hon. Member, with the great importance of exercising—shall I say local self-government?—and helping themselves as much as possible, rather than trusting to the Government to do these things for them.
    DR. TANNER: Might I point out that if the Government had acted on the suggestion of their own Royal Commission, and if they had extended the municipal areas as recommended, there would then have been no extra rate. If a fault exists anywhere, therefore, it is on the part of the Government of the hon. Gentleman, because they have not acted on the suggestion of the Royal Commission. I regret that the hon. Gentleman does not see his way to reconsider his determination, and I am sorry that he has misled me alogether; because, as I said, it was in consequence of the action of the Local Government Board's representation that the Treasury refused the application. We know what the Local Government Board is in Ireland, and I trust that my hon. Friends will show their disapproval of the action of the Board by not allowing the Vote to be taken without a Division.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £23,751, to complete the sum for the Public Works Office, Ireland.
    MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I desire, as briefly as possible, to draw attention to a matter which has excited a great deal of interest in the central districts of Ireland —namely, the drainage of the River Barrow. That subject has lately occupied the attention of a Royal Commission, and the recommendations of that Commission have been before the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see in what way this is connected with the Vote for the Board of Works.
    MR. W. A. MACDONALD: The Board of Works has entirely neglected its duty in this matter, and will not move in it, in spite of the urgent necessities of the case.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is no part of the duty of the Board of Public Works
    850
    to take care of the River Barrow until the duty is imposed upon it by Parliament.
    MR W. A. MACDONALD: Am I at liberty to speak on the question of £5,000, which was promised, but has not been given?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would not be in Order in doing so on this Vote.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to call the special attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) to Item 28, on page 6. It appears that the sum of £647,000 has been advanced in Ireland, of which I am glad to see that £005,000 has been returned, and it is the balance of about £41,000 which is outstanding that I wish to refer to. I want to impress on the Secretary to the Treasury that there has been a great deal of drought in Ireland, and I do not think the Treasury ought to press for the payment of this amount during the present year, at any rate, without some inquiry into the manner in which the money was raised, which has been paid back into the Treasury. I understand that the Treasury have been pressing for the repayment of the balance this year; and I think, under the circumstances in which the money was granted, that the Treasury should exercise some judgment in the matter, and ascertain by inquiry if the money was in every case advanced to the people of whom payment is now claimed. I believe that, owing to the pressure and hurry, one half of the money was not advanced to the particular individuals from whom payment is demanded, and there is, consequently, very great difficulty in collecting it. When the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) was Chancellor of the Exchequer I had a sort of promise that there should be an investigation of this subject, or, rather, that the subject should be considered. I thought at the time that the Local Government Board should examine into the circumstances; but I am of opinion now that the Treasury should do so. I propose that the outstanding amount should not be pressed for this year, on the ground that so large a proportion of the debt has been repaid, and that no money has been advanced this year for seed purposes. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that

    851
    the hurry and pressure I have referred to was purely owing to the laches of the Government in sending out a wrong Circular, which, notwithstanding my representations, they refused to withdraw and substitute for it another. On the grounds stated, I think there is a strong case and reason why the balance should be remitted. The hon. Gentleman will see that the whole amount outstanding is only 6 per cent of the total amount advanced, and I think he might look into the matter, and see how much it is possible to recover, and how much could not possibly be got in. Then, with regard to Galway Harbour, which is now in the hands of the Board of Public Works. In this case, a large sum of money was advanced and the harbour authorities got into great trouble with the Treasury, with the result that the Board of Public Works have now taken possession of the work and are the authorities at the harbour. They have cleaned out the passage to the old dock; but the drift has blocked up the passage to the new dock. What I want to impress upon the Treasury is that they are losing money under the present system, because ships will not go into the new dock.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be appropriate to the Vote for Public Works Loans in Class I.
    COLONEL NOLAN:I am not asking for any improvement in the harbour, Mr. Courtney. The Board of Public Works having taken over the harbour, I am only asking that it should be kept in repair.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is work which does not come under this Vote.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I shall be satisfied with the observations I have made, and I hope that, the Secretary to the Treasury's attention having been called to the subject, he will see that the ships are allowed to go into the new dock. I hope I shall not be out of Order in drawing attention to the way in which the accounts are made up with regard to fishery piers and harbours. I want the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to get the Board of Public Works to publish an abstract of the actual money spent on these works, and how much has now been spent on contracts. My point is, that if these accounts were published, it would be
    852
    shown that there is a large balance of, say, £20,000, which might be devoted to building and other purposes.
    DR. TANNER: I wish to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) to one or two points in connection with the Board of Public Works, and to the way in which the Inspectors do their duty. A great many piers and harbours on the South Coast are, in the first place, erected at a considerable expense; a portion of the money is furnished by the Treasury, and a portion levied on the local rates; but, unfortunately, owing to the deficiency of inspection, and in many cases owing to the deficiency of engineering, which I believe may be referred to on this Vote, the work is not satisfactorily done. I wish to refer to some circumstances in connection with the new piers which have just been finished.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be in Order in doing that on this Vote.
    DR. TANNER: Then, I should like to refer to the subject of ancient monuments. Our country is one with a great and glorious history; its monuments ought to have that consideration which they would certainly receive from Irishmen if they were consulted about them. But their restoration and preservation are in the hands of a Department, at the head of which there is a Scotchman, and not an Irishman; and they do not, therefore, receive the consideration which they merit. In February last I happened to be in the county of Galway; I visited the town called Clonmacnoise, or "the Home of the Kings, "where there are two relics of the past—one the Abbey, and the other an old castle—which are well worthy of preservation, and demand that cognizance should be taken of them by the Inspector of Ancient Monuments. These relics are falling into a bad state of disrepair, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will call the attention of the Inspector to them, in order that he may visit the place, and see that proper steps are taken for their preservation. Then there is the Round Tower of Cloyne, which belongs to a class of antiquities that receive the greatest consideration at the hands of foreigners, although not be much at the hands of Englishmen. With regard to this tower, if it is to be repaired, I make the suggestion that it

    853
    should not be treated in the same way as the Round Tower of Kildare, which has been restored with battlements, which is absurd, and out of all character with those constructions, which were cone-shaped. The architect who had this matter in hand, and received a large sum of money for what he did, has made a great mull of the restoration, and I urge that these monuments should not be treated in the barbaric manner in which this gentleman has treated the Round Tower at Kildare.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): If the hon. Member will look at the records of public works in Ireland, he will see that they have received a good deal of attention during last year, and I believe he will admit that, on the whole, the work has been done in a very intelligent manner; indeed, the Treasury have felt that, so far from falling short of their duties, the authorities have rather exceeded them in this matter. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan), I wish to say at once that there is no desire to press unduly for the arrears outstanding for seed. It is true that some of the amounts are small; but I dare say the hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly well aware that in some districts the amount outstanding is much in excess of what it is in others. [Colonel NOLAN: They are richer.] That is true; but in some districts although the persons who actually received the loans have paid the money back to the Guardians, who have not paid it over to the Treasury. I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman sees the distinction. [Colonel NOLAN: Hear, hear !] With that reservation, then, I am glad to say that I am entirely in accord with him in thinking that every consideration ought to be shown. I am afraid that I should not be in Order in replying in detail to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks on the subject of Galway Harbour and Dock, but I may venture to say that the question raised by him shall be taken into consideration, with regard to the contracts; although it is true that, as compared with the total amount of the contracts, there appears to be a surplus, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that Estimates are sometimes exceeded. I will, however, make a note
    854
    of the subject referred to, which is very worthy of consideration.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I quite agree that the Guardians who have received the money for the seed loans ought to pay it over to the Treasury; but there is a very small margin, perhaps not more than £7,000, with respect to which it is very difficult to ascertain who got the money, in consequence, as I have said, of the wrong Circular having been issued by the Government, and I think this amount might be wiped out.
    MR. JACKSONwas understood to signify assent.
    MR. T. M. HEALYI wish to say that Irish Members generally regard with the greatest satisfaction, and I, for my part, acknowledge the spirit in which the work with regard to ancient monuments has been carried on, and I trust the Treasury will act liberally in the matter.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: While agreeing with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), I wish to point out that we object to the insufficiency of the work done, and to the amount of remuneration to the officers, which is not sufficient to stimulate perseverance in the work. This is a question I take some personal interest in. The attempt at restoration has in some cases been a failure, while in other cases it has been comparatively successful. I think fair praise is to be given to the efforts made, and I only complain that greater efforts have not been made, and a more liberal expenditure incurred for the purpose of preserving these ruins. Now, I want to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to one or two matters which crop up on this Vote. The point I wish particularly to refer to has reference to the reclamation of the Clare slob lands. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) is aware, as previous Secretaries to the Treasury are aware, to their cost, that for some time past a considerable expenditure has been incurred in connection with these lands. I do not know the exact amount which has been expended upon these works in the past, but an additional sum of something like £5,000 is required this year for the purposes of this reclamation. A singular thing is that, when these works have reached a certain point of completeness, a storm invariably arises and

    855
    blows them down again. It is something like the attempts of Foreign Nations to invade England. Every time the enemy's ships have got near to the shores a storm has arisen and destroyed them. Now, I want to know whether this storm is to be annual, and whether the expenditure is to go on for ever? If we are to have many more of these annual grants, the result will be that the Treasury will expend something like £200,000 upon something like £10,000 worth of property. That would be an extremely bad bargain, and it would be very much bettor to let these works go by the board than to spend this sum of money upon them annually. I believe that if these works had been properly looked after—if the Irish Board of Works were a competent body, instead of meriting the distinction of being the most incompetent public body in the whole world, infinitely the worst body in Ireland, and, therefore, the worst body—if the reclamation of the Clare Slob Lands had been properly attended to they would now have been works of some value. I believe that if they had been reclaimed before the great depression of land in Ireland they would very nearly have recompensed the original outlay. The original design was a swindle undertaken by an English adventurer who imposed on the late Mr. W. E. Forster to such an extent that the right hon. Gentleman induced the Treasury in 1880 to make certain grants of lands towards this reclamation. The Treasury having been induced to make a grant of something like £48,000, I presume they feel they are obliged to proceed with the works. Fully £70,000 has been advanced by the Treasury, and still we are no nearer the completion of the works. It is a public scandal that this money should be thrown away— thrown as it were into the sea, or into the River Shannon. We have no guarantee whatever that these works when completed will do more than to, a very small extent, recoup the Treasury. This Vote comes on every year, and every year the Board of Trade have the same weary tale to tell. It is time the Secretary to the Treasury took some strenuous action with regard to the completion of these works. Within the past 12 months £5.000 has been spent upon what appears to be absolutely useless work, and unless we have some definite assurance
    856
    that this expenditure will not be continued any longer; but that the works will be brought to a completion, and something done to recoup the taxpayers for the amount expended upon the works, I shall certainly consider it my duty to divide against the Vote for Public Works.
    MR. BIGGAR: I should like some information from the Treasury with regard to loans made in respect of the construction of certain railways in Ireland. There is a railway in course of construction through the part of the County of Cavan which I represent, and I want to know to what extent the Treasury have made advances, if any, in respect of this line. Then there is the Cork and Coachford Line, upon which some information is very necessary. I desire to view this matter from an impartial point of view, and now that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) is in his place, let me appeal to him to put some restraint upon the system of lending money in Ireland upon bad security. Some of my hon. Friends think it is a very grand thing to borrow money from the British Exchequer; but they seem to forget that we are a partner in the Exchequer or firm. Only the other day I was impressing upon my hon. Friends the absurdity of encouraging the squandering of public money in Ireland. They said—"Oh ! it's all right; the money will be supplied by the English Exchequer, and we shall never be expected to pay." Now, I should like to offer one argument in opposition to the view taken up by my hon. Friends, and it is that if we ever get Home Rule these charges will probably be handed over to us as good assets, and the losses may possibly come out of the ratepayers. I therefore think it is a very short sighted policy to encourage the outlay of public money that is not going to be reproductive. It is all very good to spend money, if it is to be reproductive; but I do seriously object to a system of expending money which is not going to pay a reasonable amount of interest. Now, some of my constituents have recently held a meeting at which they criticized this new railway—the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Railway it is to be called. They criticized adversely the way in which the work has been done. One of the statements made at the meeting was that the

    857
    County Cavan ratepayers would have to pay 15 or 16 pence in the pound to make up the guarantee, and it was maintained that the loss to the ratepayers would actually be 3s. in the pound, which would amount to 15 per cent upon the rentals of the properties. This is by no means a political question. The chairman of the meeting was a Conservative landowner, one of the other speakers was a Conservative land agent; another was a Catholic magistrate who lives in the neighbourhood, and whom I know very well, and there were present Nationalists as well as staunch Conservatives. I should like to know, too, what has been done in the case of the Schull and Skibbereen Line, which appears to be a complete failure?
    COLONEL NOLAN: I quite agree that the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) is justified in calling attention to the schemes in which his constituents are interested, though it must be remembered there are other Members for Cavan and Roscommon and Leitrim, besides the hon. Member. It may be the fact that it is injudicious to construct this Cavan Railway, and that the hon. Gentleman is justified in objecting to the expenditure of public money upon it. It is only when my hon. Friend gets more enterprising and goes into other parts of the country, and he falls into mistakes. Now, in Galway the people are very anxious for tramways and railways, and all the regulations passed have been in favour of the schemes. The rate of interest at which the Treasury have lent money has been reduced from 5 per cent to 4 per cent; 5 per cent was admitted to be too high a rate of interest; indeed, the Government have actually made money by the advances towards Irish railways. Whatever may be the case in Cavan, I know cases of small railways in which the Government have been paid most regularly. The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) must recollect that if he makes a good railway he develops a whole district. The Treasury are quite right in getting in the money. I admit that in the present year the repayment has not been so large as usual; but that is owing to the present unfortunate circumstances of Ireland. The question of railway communication is really one for the Government of the country. In small countries, the State make the railways at their own
    858
    expense. Such a system is not suitable to England; but I believe it is suitable, to a certain extent, to Ireland. I must say that in the case of most of the tramways the Secretary to the Treasury now gets ample security. He gets the security of the rates of the whole land in the district, and there is a good collector in the shape of the Grand Jury. My hon. Friend is prejudiced against all railways which do not pay good dividends. I will not go as far as that, because I think it is very often to the interest of the State to advance money at a very low rate of interest. Of course, whatever interest is charged ought to be paid, and I maintain that up to the present the Treasury have made money on what they have advanced upon Irish railways.
    MR T. M. HEALY: I entirely support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar). I maintain that if we are going to take over Ireland, we must take it over as a going concern. That being so, we ought, at the present time, to be extremely suspicious of the vultures who come over from the City of London, and try to suck our blood. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman in regard to the tramways. What are the facts respecting the Schull and Skibbereen Line? I do not know whether it is true; but I am told that £60,000 has been spent upon the line, but that £50,000 could not be got for it. Take the ease of the Waterford Railway. When I first went to the country 15 or 16 years ago the rate was 8d. in the pound for the half year. Now it is 2s. 6d., because the people have to pay for this miserable railway. No works ought to be made that are not going to pay. Why should people be saddled with works which will be unremunerative? It is all very well for contractors to say that this is a very good thing, but it is not the interest of contractors which have to be consulted, but the interests of the people of Ireland. I advise the Treasury to beware of the railway contractors and persons in the City of London who only want to milk the Irish. Personally, I look with considerable suspicion upon Gentlemen who come over to Ireland with benevolent paunches to try and show their benevolence to the Irish people.
    MR. HAYDEN: I have received strong representations from my

    859
    constituents respecting the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Railway. They are extremely anxious that the Board of Trade should not pass the line without the most careful inquiry. They believe that the line might possibly be useful, if it was properly constructed; but that as it is now being made it will be a burden to the ratepayers.
    MR. FLYNN: I quite agree with the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as to the undesirability of the Treasury lending money for the construction of railways or tramways, unless there is a good prospect of the lines being successful. There cannot be a doubt that the Schull and Skibbereen Line is a standing disgrace to some Department or other. As far as my knowledge goes, it is a standing disgrace to the Board of Works in Ireland. They sent down an Inspector and the railway was passed, although it was quite unfit for a permanent way for any engine to travel on. An engine was sent over the line and it got stuck, and now the whole thing is an unworkable concern. It is a matter of grave reproach to a great Public Department that a short railway of this kind could not be properly looked after, especially after all the attention which was directed to it by the Members of the district and various other Irish Members. This is a matter we shall have to watch very closely indeed. Before the matter proceeds any further, we shall have to receive an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that they will hold the contractors so tight that they cannot receive any further money until the line is properly constructed, and until locomotives can travel safely upon it. With regard to the Cork and Coachford Tramway, I must take a different view to my hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar). The hon. Members for Cork, including myself, who have an intimate acquaintance with the locality through which this line passes, are of opinion that, with ordinary management, the line can be made to pay its way. If that had not been our opinion, we should have been slow to have voted for the construction of the railway, which we did in the early part of last year. I cordially agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as to the general principles upon which these light railways should be constructed.
    860
    That is, that money should not be advanced unless there is a reasonable prospect of the lines paying expenses. I understand my hon. Friend's objection to tramway and light railway schemes is, that it is inequitable and unfair in the event of failure to saddle the occupiers of land or other rateable property with the entire amount. He thinks that if there is a loss, it should be borne in equal proportions by the owners as well as the occupiers; and that such being the case, there is great responsibility on Irish Members who sanction, or in any way aid and permit, the construction of these lines. I should like the Committee, and other persons who are not present, to thoroughly understand that we should have been very slow to have had any hand in the construction of the Cork and Coachford Line, if we had not been strongly of opinion, as business men, that with proper management the line would pay, and be a great factor in the development of the districts through which it passes.
    MR. BIGGAR: Of course, it is not a pleasant thing to refer to a particular tramway system; but I may remark that the farming classes of Ireland, as a body, are very large lenders to Irish banks, and that if these railway schemes were fair and reasonable schemes, the local people have plenty of funds to invest in them.
    COLONEL NOLAN: No, they have not.
    MR. BIGGAR: It is a notorious fact that they have. Why, only recently there were two illustrations of this in the cases of Guinness's Brewery and The Freeman's Journal; the people rushed to invest their money, simply because they were convinced they were paying concerns. In the case of these railways, however, the Treasury lends money, and then it has to be dragged out of the unfortunate ratepayers, many of whom are on the verge of pauperism and can ill afford the money. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) knows better than I do the amount of money lent on schemes of different sorts in Ireland, upon similar representations to those made in the case of the reclamation of the Clare Slob Lands and the Schull and Skibbereen Lines. I sincerely hope that money will not be advanced by the Treasury upon these useless undertakings. Certainly I, personally, would never think of in-

    861
    vesting a shilling of my own money in a single one of them. Many of the railway schemes which have been promoted in Ireland during the last 20 or 30 years have ruined the promoters, and have proved a serious burden upon the unfortunate ratepayers. Indeed, the only people who have derived any benefit from them at all have been the contractors.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): Speaking personally, and on behalf of the Government, I may say we are extremely obliged to hon. Members who have spoken so strongly, and, I believe, so wisely, with regard to the advances of public money which are made from time to time. Now, Sir, before answering the question put to me with regard to those railways, I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny). I will admit at once that there is no case which has ever come before me since I have been at the Treasury which has more exercised me than the condition of the expenditure on the reclamation of the Clare Slob Lands. So far as I understand the matter—I do not wish to speak in too strong terms about them, but I certainly feel very strongly on the subject—the original estimates must have been based upon calculations which were entirely erroneous, or there must have been extremely bad management in the expenditure mentioned. We are landed in this position—that there has been a very large sum of money expended on this reclamation, and I dare say it may be that advances have been obtained in recent years on the understanding, or on the representation, that if a certain sum of money were advanced it would complete the whole scheme. But we were in this position, we had to face this difficulty—that a large sum of money had to be expended, and we were assured that a certain sum would complete the expenditure; and unless it is completed it is hopeless to expect that any return will ever be made for the amount expended. I do not feel in a position to defend the course which has been taken with regard to the enormous expenditure which has been made, and the extremely unsatisfactory result which has been obtained. I will join hon. Gentlemen in saying that I think the circumstances connected with the
    862
    reclamation, in this particular instance, are such as do not reflect credit on those who have had to do with the matter. The works which have been effected so far are extremely valuable; and it is not at all unlikely that we may get back a portion of the money which has been spent.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: You will never get a sixpence of it.
    MR. JACKSON: We may get a portion of the money back. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) has given voice to what I may call an extremely sound sentiment. He is extremely sound upon this question of light railways in Ireland; but I am sure he will agree that I am only bound to advocate proceedings for which I am actually responsible, and that, therefore, with regard to the schemes which he has mentioned I am not to be blamed. With regard to these schemes, I confess I heard, with some surprise, and a great deal of pleasure, from the hon. Member, who knows Ireland so well, that, in his judgment, whenever it is necessary to make a railway of this kind in Ireland the local farmers are able to lend all the money required for the construction of the line. I am glad to hear that the local farmers are sufficiently well off to be able to do this—it is extremely satisfactory.
    COLONEL NOLAN: We do not agree with him in that.
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the Leitrim, Roscommon, and Cavan Railway. Since I have been at the Treasury there has been no advance made to that railway, and I do not think it likely that there will be any. My efforts have been directed to endeavouring, if possible, to obtain some arrangement by which a very considerable advance—I think, £100,000—would have been made by the Government, under which we should, if not immediately, at any rate, at some not very distant date, have obtained some interest on the outlay made, bearing in mind that the Government hold, upon this line, the first mortgage—that is to say, the first claim upon the whole property. I believe the hon. Member knows that the amount considered necessary for this railway is about £250,000. The line is being worked, and the returns show a very slight improvement in the receipts. I am not able to say

    863
    what is the condition of the rolling stock or the condition of the permanent way; but I can quite understand that, under the present circumstances, every economy that can be practised is practised. I am able to say, with regard to the Ballymoney and Ballycastle Railway, that no advance has been made by the Treasury.
    MR. BIGGAR: Has the interest been paid upon what has been lent?
    MR. JACKSON: We have been receiving some interest; but this railway has been rather in difficulties. I do not know that I am not justified in saying to the Committee that the rolling stock, which certainly ought to have been included in the original contract, and ought to have been covered by the original advances, apparently was bought from some individual or from some company who retain a charge upon it, and the position is that unless the owners obtain payment for their roiling stock, they are in a position, being the owners of it, to remove it from the line. Therefore it is a question, of making the best of a bad bargain. But I am able to say to the Committee that arrangements are in progress by which I hope to bring affairs into a satisfactory condition, and that I have reason to believe, from the figures I have seen in the traffic returns, that the state of things is much more promising for the future. In fact, what I am informed leads me to believe that we shall get back our money with interest in the course of time. With regard to the Cork and Coachford Line, I must plead guilty to some responsibility. It appeared to me to be an instance in which a good case had been made out for some help, and a case in which unless that help were forthcoming the large expenditure which had already taken place on the railway would be more or less sacrificed. The district would have been saddled with a great responsibility. It must be borne in mind that in this particular case—and this is rather a curious instance of the way in which business is managed in certain districts in Ireland—that whether the railway continued to run or not, the locality would have been liable for payment of interest on the guarantee shares. The Government interest was only from a general point of view, and from a desire to promote the interests of the country. We have undertaken to find
    864
    £20,000 for the completion of the line, and we have endeavoured to attach to it such conditions as will secure that the money shall not be thrown away. The Committee must bear in mind that there has been already expended upon the line more than £40,000, and that to the advance which has been proposed, an additional £10,000 will be advanced for the completion of the line to Blarney. The additional £10,000 will only be advanced on the completion of the line to Coachford—the completion of the whole undertaking including the rolling stock—and the line being certified to be in working order. We have taken such precautions as we can to secure that this shall be found to be one of the light railways in Ireland of service to the district through which it runs. It will be found, I hope, ultimately not to be a charge either on the district or on the Treasury. Now, with regard to the Schull and Skibbereen Line, I have no personal responsibility for that, and the statement made by the hon. Gentleman with regard to inspection, I believe to be quite correct. What I would point out is, that it appears to be a fatal blot about all these concerns, that the baroney which, in the first instance, is responsible for giving encouragement to the scheme, and sanctioning the scheme, and guaranteeing the interest on the amount advanced, seems to take so little interest in the carrying out of the works.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It is the Grand Jury.
    MR. JACKSON: I do not care who it is; but I say it is their bounden duty, if they sanction these lines, to pay some attention to their future progress, and to endeavour to ensure that the work is carried on according to contract.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: They are your own Party.
    MR. JACKSON: I am not seeking to make the matter a Party question at all; but I am endeavouring to treat it in a business-like manner. What I say is that everybody who is responsible for sanctioning a line in a district is bound to see that the work is done.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Why did the Government Inspector pass the line in an improper state?
    MR. JACKSON: So far as I have been able to gather, the deficiency has rather been that the engines employed

    865
    upon the line were too light for the traffic—too light for the traffic, considering the gradients they had to overcome. It has been rather a question of that kind than a question of the construction of the line.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Did not the Inspector examine the engines?
    MR. JACKSON: Certainly not. The Inspector of the Board of Trade has nothing to do with the rolling stock. All he has to do is to certify as to the permanent way, and the safety of the line. I think I have noticed most of the questions which have been raised. All I can say, in conclusion, is this—that I am exceedingly grateful to hon. Members for the support which their speeches and the action they have taken to-night will give mo in my endeavours to resist the very numerous applications which I receive from speculative contractors. I should like to put it in this way—that I hope the action taken to-night will be looked upon as an indication that no encouragement will be given to fresh undertakings of this nature by hon. Members opposite, or by Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: There is one defect in the Tramways Act which may, to some extent, account for the blot the hon. Gentleman has referred to. Under the Tramways Act there appears to be no power given to the County Inspector or Surveyor to inspect the lines of railway. I contend that the County Surveyor should always have power to go and inspect works in course of progress. If that were the case, I believe that a great many evils which now occur would be obviated. It is no use appointing Local Authorities to look after the lines, because they may know nothing about surveying—it is no use doing this, and leaving those persons in the country who know something about the matter no voice in the question. I think if that defect in the Tramways Act had been remedied when the Act was passed, a good many of the mistakes which have occurred would have been avoided. But I am principally concerned in the observations of the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and the reply that they have elicited from the Secretary to the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan enunciated certain principles with which I agree, and certain principles with which I utterly disagree.
    866
    I believe that the Tramways Act has been in a good many instances extremely beneficial, and that there have been certain cases where encouragement has been given to undertakings which are certain to repay any sum of money advanced upon them. I would point to the railway in which a Member for one of the Divisions of Dublin is interested —I refer to the Ennis and West Clare Line. Had no encouragement been given by the Government to that line it would probably never have been constructed; but now that it is made I look upon it as absolutely sure to pay its way, and more than pay its way. That is an instance which distinctly disproves the general principle laid down by the hon. Member for West Cavan. What I join with him in objecting to is the advance of money on insufficient security for projects which show no reasonable sign of giving any return. I believe that the onus probandi should be thrown on the promoters of those schemes, and that they should be proved to be sound before the Government advances one halfpenny towards carrying them out. I think that the Treasury should only advance money on schemes of this kind on security that can be considered ample. I have- seen a tabulated statement by the Board of Public Works as to the security afforded by the baronies and counties for public works. There are some cases in which the security given is totally insufficient, and, of course, there are other cases in which it has been ample. It is only in these cases, I think, that advances should be made by the Treasury. My hon. Friend spoke of the farmers in the localities and other persons being capable, or, rather, being in a position to invest money in undertakings of this kind. He said that if undertakings of this kind were of a healthy description, these persons would readily invest their money in them. I do not for a moment agree in any statement to the effect that any appreciable number of the Irish farmers have a single halfpenny to invest, so far as lending money to the banks is concerned. They do not lend money to the banks; on the contrary, as a general rule, the banks have to lend money to them. If you were to calculate the difference between the amount of the advances payable by the banks to the

    867
    farmers and the amount payable by the farmers to the banks, you would find that in the case of every £100 the farmers would have to be debited to the extent of £99. If my hon. Friend will look at the lists of the shareholders in Guinness's Brewery and The Freeman's Journal concerns, he will find the names scarcely include a single farmer. That is about the best test you can possibly apply to a question of this kind. But I quite agree that unless the promoters of a railway can satisfy the Treasury that there is an absolute certainty that their undertakings will pay working expenses, and will not be a burden on the Consolidated Fund or the baronies, the Treasury should not advance them a single halfpenny. With regard to the Clare Slob Lands, the money advanced on this reclamation has been looked upon by successive Secretaries to the Treasury as a concession from England to Ireland. I believe the works were originally undertaken not so much on the pretence of the reclamation of land, as that of the reclamation of the natives. A gentleman of lively imagination and great ingenuity came up to Dublin Castle, met the late Mr. W. E. Forster, and made a dramatic speech to him, in which he explained that if the money of the State were expended on the reclamation of those lands that concurrently with that reclamation would proceed the reclamation of the people from the state of savagery in which they then existed. I believe such a speech as that was made, and made in the presence of Mr. Forster, and I believe that Mr. Forster's philanthropic mind and heart were touched, and that he immediately used his influence with the Treasury to get this money advanced. Mr. Forster's philanthropy prevailed. It was on the representation of this Gentleman who went over to Dublin Castle, and succeeded in getting money advanced on these false pretences, that the Treasury were induced to enter on a bargain which will finally land them in the loss of something like £100,000. I will tell the hon. Gentleman this—that my honest belief is that this land can never be reclaimed, as it is considerably under the level of the Shannon, or, rather, under the level of the Fergus. This land is an extremely broad place where the Fergus branches out into the Shannon. You may almost call it the sea, and the tide
    868
    there has so much force that the waves are almost as powerful as in the Atlantic Ocean itself. Even if you had the seawall completed to-morrow, a storm might come like that of December last, which will never be forgotten by the people in the locality, and would break down the result of all your labour. The work is a bad job, and the Government will never be able to make anything out of it. The whole wall will have to come down with a run. If I were the Secretary to the Treasury, I would never spend another halfpenny upon what appears to me to be an altogether impossible and useless work.
    MR. MURPHY: In the discussion concerning the railways and tramways promoted in Ireland under the Act of 1883, there seems to have been some little confusion in the minds of hon. Gentlemen. I think they have been confounding the question as to whether these undertakings should be completed or not by local expenditure with the question whether the Treasury should have lent money on them or not. It must be remembered that the Treasury can never lose a single shilling of the advance it has made, because it has the security of the rates of large districts for the repayment of the capital and interest. The responsibility with regard to the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway ought not to be thrown upon the Board of Works, the Treasury, or other high public authority. The contractors were local people, and it is to their neglect of looking after the line that probably the whole failure is due. The local people had the employing of the contractors, and it was for them to see that the work was done properly. I have no hesitation in saying that the whole responsibility lies at the door of the local people. There have only been some half-dozen projects under the Act, and some of these will be useful, whilst some will not be useful; but with regard to the general question touched upon by the hon. Member for West Cavan as to the desirability of these undertakings, I would point out that for 20 years back, with the exception of a very few short lines of railway, there has not been a single line made without local support—I mean without local guarantee. Now, out of the many lines for which guarantees have been given from time to

    869
    time, there have been two or three which have not turned out as it was anticipated they would, partly owing to the mismanagement of the promoters and the people who had charge of them, and partly owing to the fact that the schemes ought never to have been undertaken. It must be borne in mind, however, that in addition to the facilities for travelling which have been given by all those lines, the condition of the districts through which they run has been greatly improved. The price of butter and cattle and agricultural produce generally has improved, and other advantages have accrued to the locality. As I have said, some six or seven lines have been laid down under the Tramways Act; and it may be satisfactory to the hon. Member to know that of the English promoters who went over to Ireland in order to promote these undertakings, not a single one was successful in getting charge of a line. The Irish people have carried out the work themselves. I think that if the Treasury could see their way to giving assistance of one kind or another to the exceptional case of the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway, they would remove the only great scandal of this kind which is ever likely to occur in connection with these schemes in Ireland. I should like to hear from the hon. Gentleman whether the Treasury can see their way to do something. The liability under the Act, so far as the localities are concerned, is very great. They are not only obliged to pay interest on the money invested, but they are also obliged to raise more money in order to complete the tramways, to keep them in order, and, if necessary, to work them.
    MR. GILHOOLY: In connection with this tramway, Sir, I think the hon. Gentleman had. not the means of ascertaining the facts in the same way as the Poor Law Guardians of the district or the principal ratepayers. Mr. Justice O'Brien, at the recent Assizes held in Cork, said that it was by the default of an officer of the Board of Trade that the line was now in the hopeless condition in which it is. A gentleman was sent down by the Board of Trade, and passed that line; yet seven months after he had done so it was practically useless for all purposes connected with traffic in the district; and it is very strange, Mr. Courtney,
    870
    that such a thing should have been allowed. I will not dwell upon it at any length; in fact, I suppose I would not be in Order in discussing the action of the Board of Trade in this matter; but I feel bound to point out that the very gentleman who passed the line was himself sent down to investigate into the causes of its collapse. That, I think, is most strange. According to his Report, which I have here, the locomotive in use was not a proper one; the banks had fallen in, the gradients were too steep, and the curves were too sharp; and if he were able to find all these faults with it now, surely he ought to have seen them when, he passed the line on his first inspection. But, however that may be, it is altogether a most lamentable occurrence. I can call it nothing else; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I see in his place, if he will take into consideration the condition of the ratepayers, who are a very poor class in that locality, and if he will come to their aid by giving them some grant out of the £50,000 which he proposes to set apart for the relief of Ireland?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not in Order in discussing that grant.
    MR. GILHOOLY: May I ask a question, at all events? Two of the baronies have guaranteed a sum of £57,000 for this tramway. I will ask is it not fair that the Government, by the default of whose officers this calamity has been brought about, should come to the assistance of the ratepayers, and relieve them of some of the unjust burdens which will be thereby cast upon them?
    MR. BIGGAR: Before this branch of the subject is dropped I wish to say one or two words. I wish, first, to apologize to the Committee for speaking so often; but I am exceedingly anxious that this matter should be fully investigated. I need not say that in the remarks which I have made I spoke without reference to politics. Some of my hon. Friends have complained of what I said in regard to the farmers of Ireland having sufficient money to carry out any reasonable scheme. Well, I repeat that the farmers are able to make investments, and that there is in the Irish banks a large amount of deposits.

    871
    I happen to know that a substantial number of farmers have money to lend. Of course, there are others who are very needy. I did not intend to generalize, and to infer that every farmer was well off. But I just now asked a question about the Ballymony and Bally-castle Railway; and I should like for a moment to be allowed to refer to another railway which has been in existence a good many years—at any rate, 10 years to my knowledge—and which runs through some of the Northern counties. I refer to the Northern Counties Railway. Now, I believe that is not able to pay the interest on the money borrowed from the Government, and I wish to ask how are the railways which are made for and through poor districts where the traffic is exceedingly small to be expected to pay the interest on money borrowed for their construction? I really do not see any possibility of Ireland being able to pay for any new railway, and I therefore do protest against loans being granted for the making of any fresh lines. In the case of the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Railway, a few thousand pounds were first asked for, and having been obtained and spent, then the promoters came to us and said—"Unless you give us more money we shall not be able to finish the lines, and then you will lose all the money you have already invested." The same course was pursued in regard to the Slob Line in County Clare. A commencement was made by the Government on a comparatively small sum, and as soon as the cash had been exhausted, then they came to us for more money, and threatened that if we did not give it, what we had invested would be all lost. Now, I think that this is very wrong, and I wish to enter my protest against such a course of action, because the result is that money is obtained by one means or the other, and a great deal more is spent than was ever contemplated. A reference has been made to the line which is to have a branch to Blarney. I believe this is nearly finished; and it has been suggested, in regard to the application for another £10,000, that it would have been better to sink what has already been invested in the line, and not to spend any more money upon it. The fact is, the line will run through a village in which there are very few inha-
    872
    bitants, and very few houses. I am not speaking from my own personal knowledge; I have never been to the place; but I am told there are not more than 50 houses; that neither fair nor market is held in the village; and that it is perfectly absurd to talk about making a railway there. I advise that this line should be made a suburban tramway, and I think that probably then it might pay.
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I will not enter at any great length into those matters, as I should have done had I risen earlier; but I would like to say a few words in reference to what has fallen from the lips of the hon. Member for West Cavan. But before I do so I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question. Our anxiety, I may say, is to keep communication by means of railways to the sea-coast; and we believe that there are many small towns which, if they could be brought into connection with the sea-coast, would afford great encouragement to the work of developing the fishing industries. Then with regard to the money provided for these undertakings. It is said that the money is got in England. But what is the cause of the money being got there? It is that the Parliamentary agents are in England; that the railway engineers live in London; and that the lawyers in London have the first grab at what is to be obtained from it. Therefore, it is not a matter of surprise that the money that is necessary to be advanced is also found in London. We do not find fault with Englishmen for investing their money in this case; we only wish they could continue to do so. And with regard to these tramways, I have no fear that if they were properly managed, if there were proper local management, they would show much better results. Let it be remembered that the Grand Jury of a county is called upon to pass these undertakings, and that in that Grand Jury there are not only the representatives of the baronies who will have to contribute to the cost, but there are representatives of other baronies who have no interest whatever in the matter. The Grand Jury do not have to pay anything. The majority of the Grand Jury have no earthly interest in the matter; practically they are non-cesspayers, not that there is anything in that that I wish to complain of very strongly; but

    873
    I do wish to direct the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury, and to got an answer—I hope a favourable one—with regard to the loans that are advanced to tenants by the Board of Works. In this matter this anomaly has often happened in Ireland, and I ventured to draw the attention of the Government to it some time ago by a Question; but latterly the putting of Questions has been so futile that I gave up the practice altogether. There is a class of tenants in Ireland who have not come under the recent Land Act of 1881. They practically ought to be under it, but technically they are not. These tenants are those on the estates of minors, or estates in trust for minors, administered by Masters in Chancery; and I believe this matter also affects the estates of persons in lunacy, and therefore the unfortunate tenants, in consequence of the minority or lunacy of their landlords. They have granted to them a series of seven years' leases which are really nominal, the object being to keep a legal grip on the property until it shall pass into the hands of a properly qualified owner. The Board of Works has positively refused to recognize this class of tenants as tenants for the purposes of these loans; they have refused to advance them any money. I contend that that is a very harsh course of action; because it should be remembered you are not advancing the money to a man; you are advancing it to the land; and if the money is advanced the Engineer to the Board of Works has to certify that it is properly and judiciously sunk in the land. I hope the Government will look to it, and deal with this matter from a common-sense point of view. We all know that the moment an attempt is made to disturb any of these tenants, or to treat them other than in the ordinary way, it is at once recognized that they have just as good a title as any other tenants. I do, Sir, think that this is a matter of some importance. I have got letters from several of these tenants enclosing letters from the Secretary to the Public Works Board refusing to make the loans, because he says that they have not a sufficient tenure of their land, or a sufficient security. Now, that is owing to the technical points to which I have drawn attention—namely, that they hold under seven years' leases. I have no doubt that there may be other points in
    874
    which injustice is done; but I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if he will kindly inquire into this matter, and if the law be elastic enough to cover this class of cases, will he give instructions that loans be granted to such tenants? To my mind, the Board of Works are interpreting the law too strictly. I think the money should be advanced to those tenants who are desirous of improving their land. The land will be a security for the Board of Works, the same as other land is taken as security. Money cannot be pocketed, by these men; they cannot run away with it. It can only be advanced under a certificate of the Engineer of the Board of Works that it is properly sunk in the land; and therefore I trust that the Government will give attention to this important matter.
    MR. JACKSON: My attention has been drawn to this subject generally, although not to particular cases. We think that the Board of Works are hampered by having to comply with certain conditions. The hon. Member has spoken about seven years' leases. I do not think that the Board of Works have power to lend money to tenants who have only seven years' leases.
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: It is only technically that they have seven years' leases.
    MR. JACKSON: Well, I am afraid it is impossible for the Board to lend the money in such a case; but I will cause inquiries to be made.
    DR. TANNER: I rise in consequence of the few remarks which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar). I also should like to make use of that Paul Pry-like apology for having only just popped in, and hope I do not intrude. Bat I wish to refer to the Cork and Coachford Tramway, because I have received a request from several of my constituents to giving attention to this matter. I think it is very unfair for my hon. Friend to couple the Cork and Coachford Tramway with that foolish switchback line—the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway. ["Oh, oh !"] Yes; I say it is a switchback line. Its gradients are something absurd; it is an up-and-down arrangement. I once or twice drove alongside when it was in course of construction, and I saw at the time that it would not work. Several

    875
    remarks have been very properly made this evening in reference to the money advanced for that tramway. Practically speaking, it was in consequence of the action of the Grand Jury that the line was hurriedly pushed to completion, and I hope that a similar course will not be followed in connection with the Cork and Coachford Line. When I was there last autumn, Mr. Courtney, I took the opportunity of driving over a portion of the line which was very nearly ready for the Government Inspector. He had not been down at that time; but it seemed to me that the line was very well laid down so far as I could see superficially; and since it has been opened great numbers of people have been availing themselves of this route to Blarney. The line has taken great numbers there. Unfortunately, it is in connection with the Cork and Coachford Tramway. Some people have been trying on a little job. I find that some private grounds at Blarney, which used to be open there to the public, are now only opened subject to an impost; and that, I think, is a reason why the hon. Gentleman should be cautious in advancing loans to tramways, because he may find that the people who are the supervisors of the line—the baronial directors are put on in consequence of a job—that they are elected, not by the votes of the tenant farmers, who have to look after every penny in these times of depression, and who, after all, have to pay for this land; but they are elected for interested motives. I see in this case one of the baronial directors was appointed by the men who owned land in the vicinity of the tramway. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman will look into this matter before he advances any more money. Now, Sir, in connection with this Cork and Coachford Tramway there is one point to which I should like to call attention, and that is the actual appointment of these baronial directors. One of those appointed is a gentleman who has spent the major portion of his life in the bush of Australia; but a gentleman left him a large sum of money, and therefore he came back home. He knows nothing whatever about tramways; and his colleague, I think, is a gentleman known as Mr. Hussey Townsend, whose appointment was a perfect job. I do not propose to trespass much further upon the attention of the Committee; but
    876
    I think we are bound to draw atten-to this matter, as the hon. Gentleman has told us he has advanced £2,000 to this tramway. But I ask him if he will look into this matter, and get some satisfactory assurance that in future the proper men shall be appointed to look after the interests of the ratepayers? I differ from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan. I think when there is any new railway or any new public work undertaken which may be of benefit to the country, it is very unwise indeed to go and make an attack upon it, without having sufficient grounds to justify the attack. I think my hon. Friend was extremely unwise in his remarks as to the tenant farmers having plenty of money to invest in schemes of this sort. I know most of the people in my own district; and I can certainly say that, owing to the way in which they have been robbed by the landlords, it would be utterly impossible for them to invest any money in these undertakings,
    MR. HOOPER: At this late hour I do not propose to detain the Committee at any length; but I wish to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and I hope he will pay a little attention to what I am going to say. It is an appeal in reference to a matter affecting one of our great industries in Ireland—namely, the fishing industry; and I wish especially to refer to the pier in course of erection at Kinsale. This work was undertaken under the Kinsale Harbour Act of 1880. I would ask the attention of the hon. Gentleman to a few figures which I am about to quote in order to strengthen the line which I intend to take up. I wish to ask him for a reduction of the amount of interest which has to be paid in this case. I am informed that it is 5 per cent, and that I think is a a monstrously high rate of interest, because the money has been advanced for a work of national utility. The original estimate of expenditure was £16,000, to be made up by a grant of £7,600, a loan of £6,500, and contributions from the locality of £2,000; but it has now been ascertained that the sum which will have to be expended on the pier is about £18,000, and the difference between this and the original estimate will have to be made up by the locality. But I should like to call atten-

    877
    tion to the fact that the yearly instalments actually exceed the local revenue of the harbour on which this charge is made, and for the past year the locality has had to bear a deficiency to the amount of something like £100. This is due to the fact that the harbour revenue has declined in the past few years. It has declined from £835 in 1884 to £622 in 1886—a reduction of over £200. Now, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this fact; and in the face of this diminishing revenue and increasing liability on account of the loan, does he not think it desirable, and of urgent necessity, that some reduction should be made in the unusual rate of interest— 5 per cent—which is charged for the loan? The words in the Act of Parliament are that the interest to be charged shall be at the rate of 3½ per cent, or such other figure as Her Majesty's Treasury shall fix, in order to secure the Public Revenue from loss. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that in works of public utility, such as artizans' dwellings and matters of that description, which are of great advantage to the population, the Treasury consent to grant loans at the rate of £3 2s. 6d; and, therefore, seeing that 5 per cent is charged in this case, I think the matter deserves the careful attention of the hon. Gentleman. And I make this appeal with greater reason from the circumstances of the time. This Government, which, when assuming power, made a considerable flourish on the subject of the development of Irish resources, ought to consider the case of Kinsale. Kinsale Pier was started for the advantage of what is one of the great industries of the South of Ireland; but it was not alone for the advantage of the local fishermen—it was for the advantage of quite 400 ships, one-half of which certainly come from Scotland and the Isle of Man. On that account the Kinsale Pier question has far wider than a local aspect; and I ask the hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind that the Government have decided that £50,000 shall be appropriated in developing the material resources of Ireland, to consider whether this charge of 5 per cent is not an unjust imposition in a work of national utility, and in face of the circumstance that it presses unduly on the resources of the locality? It taxes a locality which has a rapidly declining revenue, owing
    878
    to the recent adverse seasons. I would ask him whether he cannot, at any rate, reduce the charge to 4 per cent? I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to give his answer at once; I merely appeal to him to look into the facts of the case, and say whether it is not one of the most meritorious which have been brought under his notice for a considerable time? I trust that he will soon communicate with the authorities of the harbour and pier of Kinsale in the manner which we desire.
    MR. JACKSON: To what does the hon. Gentleman refer to in regard to the works he mentions?
    MR. HOOPER: I refer to the Kinsale Harbour Act of 1880.
    MR. JACKSON: As I understand the matter, the Act empowers the Treasury to charge 3½ per cent; but it is not necessarily to be 3½ per cent. I shall, however, be very glad to look into the question.
    MR. CLANCY: I observe in the Report of the Board of Works relative to Howth Harbour a statement to the effect that—
    " The roads and piers and wharves of this harbour have been kept in good repair during the past year, and we had a steam dredger at Kingston put in perfect order to be in readiness if so directed."
    I would ask if that would not bring the question of these works at Howth Harbour within this Vote?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question of these works comes under the Vote in Class I., which deals with the work done under the Board of Works to the harbour referred to.
    MR. CLANCY: But the Board of Works speaks of the dredger being put in perfect order to be in readiness if so directed, and I would submit that that would bring the matter under the purview of this Vote.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have told the hon. Member that the matter is properly one which comes under the Vote in Class I.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: But this Report of the Board of Works says — "The roads and piers and wharves of this harbour have been kept in good repair during the past year," which, no doubt, comes under the Effective Vote of the past year; but it also says— "We bad a steam dredger at Kingston put in perfect order and readiness if so

    879
    directed." This, I think, shows that my hon. Friend is correct in supposing that this particular charge comes within the present year's Estimate.
    THE CHAIRMAN: But there are two Votes, one of them being for the works done by the Board of Works, and the other—that which is now under consideration—which deals with the question of loans made by the Board of Works. The matter the hon. Gentleman has alluded to is one that comes under the first of these headings, and ought to be considered in the Vote under Class I.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The salary of the Inspectors and officers falling under this Vote, would not my hon. Friend be right in speaking of the action of the officers under the Vote?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the discussion could be taken under this Vote. Where there is a separate Vote dealing with a point thus raised, the discussion must be taken under that Vote.
    MR. CLANCY: Well, then, I would ask the indulgence of the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the other Vote has not been taken; and therefore it would not be desirable for him to ask for indulgence from the Committee.
    Vote agreed to.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I should like to ascertain at this juncture whether hon. Members below the Gangway opposite would be willing to proceed with Class III.? The first Vote is for Law Charges, to which I apprehend there can be no objection.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: There would be no objection to taking the Admiralty Court Registry Vote, No. 24, the Registry of Judgments Vote, No. 26, and the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum Vote, No. 33.
    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (3.) £785, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.
    (4.) £1,388, to complete the sum for the Registry of Judgments, Ireland.
    (5.) £3,630, to complete the sum for the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report these
    Resolutions to the House."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. CLANCY: May I ask in what order the remaining Votes will be taken?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: In the order in which they stand in the Estimates.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: There is a matter I would call attention to in relation to the Vote with regard to the breeding of horses. If that could be taken some time to-morrow it would suit the convenience of many Members.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: It might be taken at an early hour, provided it will only ocupy a short time. In that case, I will endeavour to promote the convenience of hon. Members:
    MR. CLANCY: At this hour of the night it would hardly be right to take the Public Buildings Vote.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: We do not propose to take it now. If hon. Members will undertake that it shall not be discussed for more than half-an-hour, I shall be willing to take it, as I have just said, at an early hour.
    MR. CLANCY: I know of only two points that are likely to be discussed, and one very obvious one is that in reference to the Chief Secretary's Office.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall not object to its being taken now, if hon. Members think it can be disposed of.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when will the Allotments Bill be taken?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I should not be in Order in answering that question at this moment.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it intended to take the Supplementary Vote to-morrow?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND) (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR),: I will take it after Class III.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It can hardly be taken to-morrow.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I understood the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) was desirous that we should take the Public Buildings Vote now, and; if so, there is no objection to that course being adopted.
    DR. TANNER: It is very hard to arrive at any agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. The other day I offered him four Bills for one miserable Bill, and he would not accept; and now he wants to monopolize all the time of the House. I now put it to the

    881
    right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness to allow Progress to be reported.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (6.) £114.662, to complete the sum for Public Buildings, Ireland.
    MR. CLANCY: The Government could not expect this Vote to be passed without some reference to one or two of the points involved, because if no question should be raised it would imply that everything was satisfactory in this Department; whereas the very reverse is the fact. I refer especially to the condition of Howth Harbour. The pier which has been erected, instead of being the chief protection to the harbour, has been not only no protection, but an injury to it. It has been contended over and over again that this pier has been the chief cause, or one of the chief causes, of the silting up of the harbour, and, consequently, of why the harbour is less fitted for the purposes it is intended to serve than it was 20 years ago. The Report, to which I have previously referred, speaks of a steam dredger for the deepening of the harbour, which dredger is to be kept in readiness, if so directed; and I want to know whether anything is to be done to improve the present condition of the harbour, which is disgraceful? In the evidence given by a gentleman well known in Ireland as a Conservative—Judge Boyd—one who has, with great credit to himself, for a number of years taken a strong interest in the welfare of the Howth fishermen, that gentleman stated in reference to this subject, at a public inquiry held by the Fishery Commissioners, that the state of the harbour was so bad that it was utterly useless for any purpose. Even a rowboat can hardly get in or out of the harbour at low tide, while ordinary fishing - boats, have to lie outside or inside the harbour, as the case may be, for some three or four hours until the tide comes in. Such is the present state of the harbour; and what we contend is that that condition is due to the action of the Board of Works itself, in two ways—first of all, because 20 years ago, when the harbour was to have been improved, it was done in the most imperfect manner; and, in the second place, they have made a pier which, instead of affording protection
    882
    against the sea or the silting up of the harbour, has actually facilitated the silting up, and prevented it from being a Harbour of Refuge in bad and stormy weather for the fishing people. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman) will bear me ont in saying that the present condition of Howth Harbour is, in reality, that which has led to the present condition of the fishing industry and the declining number of the fishermen of Howth. Steamers used formerly to come there for the fish; but now they cannot get inside, and the consequence is that the prices have gone down through increased competition, and the fishermen have suffered the greatest loss and inconvenience. There is a statement in this year's Report of the Irish Fishery Inspectors, to the effect that although the fish harvest last year was very abundant, it was of little or no use to the unfortunate fishermen, in consequence of the low price of the fish. That being so, I think we are entitled to ask the Government to complete the work they undertook, and make this harbour, under the arrangement for which they were themselves responsible, more fit for the purposes it is intended to serve than it is at the present time. As an additional ground for some relief being afforded to the fishermen in regard to this matter, I may mention that about 20 years ago a toll was levied on the fishing-boats at Howth; and it was stated, in an inquiry which took place at that time, that the revenue from that toll amounted to £600 a-year. Well, there is a sum of £300 or £400 a-year that is voted by this House for the maintenance of the harbour; and, in addition to this, there is the £600 a-year from tolls, and it is now stated that the Board of Works have not got in their hands as much as would clean out the harbour once every five or 10 years. I want to know where the £600 a-year goes to? As far as I can see, it is not expended on the harbour. All the expenditure on the harbour, as far as I can find in the Estimates, are the salaries paid to the Master and Deputy Master of the harbour, and any sums of money more scandalously applied I have never heard of. The Harbour Master is a retired naval officer, and he receives £150 a-year for doing absolutely nothing, the fact

    883
    being that his duties permit him to live about two miles away from Howth; while the Deputy Master, who receives another salary, has to discharge duties of so light and unimportant a character that he can afford to be away every day of the week but one. This, in itself, is a scandal that ought to be removed. It is quite plain that the duties of the Harbour Master might be committed to a man who would perform them for £1 or 30 s. a-week; and, in that case, the balance of the money would be sufficient, after a few years, to conduct all those dredging operations that are absolutely necessary for the harbour. What, I ask again, is the meaning of that passage in the Report which states that there is at Kingstown a steam-dredger put in perfect order, so as to be in readiness if so directed? Is this intended as a joke? If it be, the Board of Works might have employed their time in a much bettor way; and if it be not a joke, then I ask what is it the Board propose to do? Certainly the matter is urgent. I have explained, as briefly as I can, that the condition in which Howth Harbour is now placed has led to a great deal of misery in Howth; that the want of access to the harbour has banished customers and lowered the price of fish, because there is not sufficient competition. The Liverpool boats would come if they could, but they cannot get there, and the consequence is that there are few buyers for the fish. This constitutes a state of things to which Her Majesty's Government might be invited to pay attention. Here is a material grievance, capable of being remedied; and as the grievance is one which the Board of Works have themselves occasioned, I contend that Her Majesty's Government are bound to apply a remedy at the earliest opportunity.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to support my hon. Friend in expressing a hope that Her Majesty's Government may do something in the direction he has indicated. I have had many conversations with Judge Boyd on the matter; and, as everyone knows, he takes the greatest possible interest in the welfare of the fishing population. He has described to me, in a way that would almost make a horse laugh if it could be told to him, what has been done towards the filling of this harbour. Why will the English Government do
    884
    these foolish things? All I can say is that if I could get 5 per cent on the job, I would undertake to run Ireland for half the money Her Majesty's Government expend upon it. Here is the Harbour of Howth lying adjacent to the City of Dublin, where fish is of some importance, and yet there is not a real, substantial boat-load comes into Dublin more than once a month, and all because you lot the harbour silt up, and allow the money intended for its improvement to be humbugged away by gentlemen connected with the Board of Works. I hope the Treasury will say that they will take this matter in hand, and, at any cost, endeavour to effect the desired improvement.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): It is, no doubt, very difficult to satisfy hon. Members who take an interest in works in a particular district that expenditure has been sufficient in quantity, or efficient in its application.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Give us the money, and we will spend it for ourselves.
    MR. JACKSON: Well, I am quite sure if the hon. and learned Member had the direction of the expenditure the work would be properly done. In regard to Howth Harbour there has been considerable expenditure, and I do not think the hon. and learned Member has quite done justice to the Board of Works. We have had a great deal of correspondence on the subject, and the Board express the greatest confidence in the work done.
    MR. CLANCY: Where is the result?
    MR. JACKSON: Well, there is the whole secret. If we are correctly informed, the local fishery has fallen off, not because of any fault with the harbour works at Howth, but because the herrings have left that part of the coast and gone elsewhere, and no amount of expenditure, I am afraid, will influence their movements. I am quite ready to admit this harbour is of considerable importance; and though it may be, and very probably is, true that there is no very deep water at low tide, that is only the condition of many harbours in England and Scotland, into which vessels cannot enter at low tide. I believe it is intended to make further progress with the work of dredging the harbour. The Commissioners assure me that the

    885
    sea-wall erected is standing the test wonderfully well, and that there is a certain scour going on that is improving the condition of the harbour, and, except for some slight silting up at one end of the wall, they have every reason to be satisfied with the work that has been done. With reference to the dredging of the harbour, I shall be glad to call their attention to it, with the idea of improving it as far as they can, and I will inquire into the funds to which reference has been made, and endeavour to have the dredging operations carried out.
    MR. CLANCY: It is no matter what the Board of Works may say; they or anybody else tell you lies if they say the sea-wall is doing any good to the harbour at Howth. It is the unanimous testimony of all who are practically acquainted with the harbour that this wall is the chief cause of injury to it. It is simply a fashionable promenade; it has been concreted all over, and big stones are rolled over it into the harbour in stormy weather. I have myself seen at high tide stones, shingle, and sand rolled into the harbour over the smooth concrete of which the Board of Works are so proud. In truth, it is the general opinion that the harbour would be better without the wall. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs incredulously; but what I say is not an exaggeration, as the fishermen will tell you. Judge Boyd would tell you that he had to take his yacht out of the harbour.
    MR. JACKSON:Surely, not on account of the sea-wall.
    MR.CLANCY: Yes; certainly. There is absolutely more sand and shingle gets into the harbour than if the wall were not there. Its former condition was that of a big, rough sea-wall, with rough stones, which served as a sort of breakwater; but now that the top has been made smooth the waves roll shingle over it, and big stones come over it like balls at every storm. The hon. Gentleman says the decline of the herring fishery is due to the decrease in the number of fish. That is an old pretence; we have heard all that before. It is well known that the fishing industry declines at one time, and revives at another. Does the hon. Gentleman expect us to believe that it will be quite time enough to go on with
    886
    the works when the fishing revives, and when there are 200 fishing vessels outside waiting to get into the harbour? Do you expect the work to be done in five days or five minutes? It is not an argument which a sensible person, with knowledge of the facts, will listen to. Will not the hon. Gentleman give a straightforward answer? What does this memorandum mean? Is this dredger spoken of kept in readiness at Kingstown in expectation of funds going to be voted? What does it mean?—
    " In anticipation of funds being made available for the harbour, we have caused a dredger to be in readiness at Kingstown to commence work if so directed."
    Are any funds to be made available; or is it a statement merely to deceive myself and others who may be interested? If the hon. Gentleman does not give us some assurance that the work of dredging the harbour, for which the Government and the Board of Works are responsible, shall be carried out, I promise to give him as much trouble as ever I can on this subject.
    MR. JACKSON: I hope the hon. Member does not think that whether he gives me much or little trouble it will make any difference in the discharge of my duty. I should be sorry to suppose he thinks that would make the slightest difference. I shall do all I can to meet the just demands of the question, and what I believe to be the object of hon. Members. The hon. Member refers to the dredging; and it is only fair to the Board of Works to say that it is not their fault that the money has not been voted for the purpose; they have already made application for it; but the Treasury said they could not ask for a Supplementary Estimate on this account, and replied that the application must be made next Session, when, I suppose, it will be dealt with.
    MR. CLANCY: Is it to be put in the Estimates next year?
    MR. JACKSON: Undoubtedly, it is the intention of the Government and the Board of Works that there shall be a Vote on next year's Estimates. I think hon. Members may accept my belief of that intention; and, indeed, I may go so far as to ask them to accept my assurance that it is the intention of the Government to consider it with a view to asking a Vote next year.
    MR. CLANCY: If, in my concluding remarks, I said anything calculated to wound the susceptibilities of the hon. Gentleman I wish to withdraw it; but it has been our experience, in regard to Irish matters, that the more we hammer away at grievances the more is the Government likely to listen to us. Too long we took things easily, sending an humble begging petition to this or that Department; but, as we kicked up no row, we received no relief. I hope I am not wrong now in assuming that an Estimate will be laid before us next year in respect to this object. I do not demand that the whole of the money should be spent in one year; but a beginning ought to be made next year in the necessary work of dredging the harbour. Do I understand that is the intention?
    MR. JACKSON: Yes.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: No one is more willing to admit than I am the admirable manner in which the hon. Gentleman discharges his duty as Financial Secretary to the Treasury; but even if we allow the credit he takes to himself for rectitude in his Office, yet rectitude is often improved by a little pressure. There are two questions I wish to raise on this Vote, and the first has reference to the quarters of the married Constabulary in Phœnix Park. We had a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) when he was Secretary that the erection of the married men's quarters should be stopped; but by some fluke during the Parliamentary interregnum these hideous structures disfiguring the Park "rose like an exhalation." The Park is so occupied with police barracks, houses for the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, the Under Secretary, the Hibernian School, and the ground is reserved for polo, for hunting, cricket, and all kinds of things, that if the appropriations of space go on there will soon be no room for the significant but humble primrose to raise its head. Well, you had a Vote last year for these married men's quarters, and here, again, is an item of £3,400 for the same purpose. Cannot you stop voting them money? They have their quarters; they are in complete working order; and I cannot understand what this expenditure can be for—it is a specimen of what goes on
    888
    all over Ireland. With a quarter of the money spent on these ridiculous married men's quarters we could have done some good. Why not hand over the disposal of Irish expenditure to a Grand Committee of Irish Members? Suppose it costs £6,000,000 to run Ireland, why not say to such a Committee carve this out to meet your requirements for Ireland? I think it would be a reasonable thing to imitate the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington—who has a separate Committee for inquiry into the expenditure of the Services, which, if I were an Englishman, I would not wish to see cut down—to refer these Irish Votes to a Committee. Then there is an item for the Chief Secretary's residence. We have had £420 for his coals, and now here is a sum of £900 for his Lodge and Garden. The Chief Secretary does not use it as a residence, and I understand he has sublet it to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I am told that the Lord Chancellor is living in the Lodge. I do not grudge him that; he has my best wishes wherever he lives; and if he lodges there at the expense of the Chief Secretary, or if the latter chooses to let lodgings, I am quite willing—but why should we have to pay this? I may be entirely mistaken; but it is common gossip in Dublin that the Chief Secretary's Lodge is now in the occupation of the Lord Chancellor. If the Chief Secretary will not live in Ireland, then, why, in the name of Heaven, should we pay for his residence? I will not grudge him £420 for his coals, though I should like to know how much of this expenditure really goes up the chimney, and how much into the contractor's pocket; but why £900 for the Lodge? And then I come to another item for our old friend the Ulster Canal, contingent on the passing of the Ulster Canal Bill. Now, I protest against this grant to the Lagan Navigation Company; and I ask the Government, have they any expectation of passing this Canal Bill? It has been read a first time, and it now stands for second reading on the 2nd September, with a block against it in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who was never known to take off a block in all his life. There is, further, a note in italics against the Bill, that it is to go before a Select Committee. Now, have you the slightest

    889
    hope of getting the Bill through? If I move the discharge of the Bill, is there any reason why you should say no to it? And yet you vote £12,000 on account of this proposal—that is the total; for this year it is £3,000. Is it not absurd? What are you going to do with it? You cannot get your Bill, and this money will be thrown away. Why not promise to move the discharge of the Ulster Canal Bill, and reduce this Vote by £3,000?
    MR. JACKSON: With regard to the first question of the hon. and learned Member, the quarters for married men, the hon. and learned Member says he had a promise from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that the work should be stopped; but I believe at the very time the right hon. Gentleman made that promise, if promise it was, he was under some misapprehension—the work had begun under contract, and I had no power to stop it.
    MR. CLANCY: Do not give the money.
    MR. JACKSON: That would be simply throwing away the money already spent; hardly a wise policy to pursue. Therefore I am afraid I cannot do anything in regard to that.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The place is occupied; it is full of police; and little children of all ages have been there for 12 months past.
    MR. JACKSON: The item, I think, is £3,400, and I suppose that is for work under the contract that will come in course of payment during the present year.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It is finished.
    MR. JACKSON: It may be finished now; but hon. Members must bear in mind that this includes expenditure from the 31st March last.
    MR. CLANCY: It was finished long before March.
    MR. JACKSON: Then, I am afraid I cannot answer the question, for then it would not come into the payments for this year.
    MR. CLANCY: It is most incomprehensible.
    MR. JACKSON: Then the hon. and learned Member refers to the Chief Secretary's Lodge, and seems to think that £900 is too large an amount. Well, it is an expensive place to keep up. Then the hon. and learned Member
    890
    made some joke about the coals. This allowance was fixed a long time ago, and I expect it really represents a great deal besides actual coal. And now as to the Ulster Canal. I hope the hon. and learned Member does not think that if the Bill does not pass this money will be spent? If the Bill does not pass the expenditure will not be incurred, and the money will return to the Exchequer; so in any case there will be no waste of the £3,000.
    MR. CLANCY: Cannot you wait until you actually want it?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It is contingent upon the Bill passing, and have you the slightest hope of that?
    MR. JACKSON: Well, I have had that hope, and still I do not relinquish all hope. The hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), I know, is very tenacious when he blocks a Bill; but I have heard this Bill urged very strongly, and, no doubt, so far as the Government are concerned, it would be a considerable economy if the Canal were handed over to the Lagan Navigation. From the Treasury point of view, it would be a reduction of expenditure if they were in a position to hand it over to the Lagan Navigation, where it might serve a useful purpose and they would be definitely relieved of an expenditure that attaches to their responsibility.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think we really cannot leave this matter where it is. I will throw over the married men's quarters and the Chief Secretary's Lodge; but I must stick to this. Here is the Government going to devote £5,000 to the drainage of the Bann, and remember the Bann drains from Lough Neagh into the sea and this Canal cannot be kept up if Lough Neagh is reduced below a certain level, as reduced it must be, if the Lower Bann is to be drained, if the drainage is to prevent the valley being flooded. So you lower the level of Lough Neagh and the Canal runs dry. See how you are playing at cross purposes. What the English Government are doing I cannot understand. You propose to drain the Lower Bann, and you also vote money to keep up the Canal, which depends upon and cannot be kept up without the Lough being at a certain level. So you vote money for one purpose, and more money for another purpose in opposition to the first; and therefore it is that we are

    891
    kept here on the 2nd September to fight the Ulster Canal Bill, when the Lord knows we have quite enough to keep us here without that. I invite the First Lord of the Treasury to include this Bill in his sentence of massacre. If it passes its second reading, it is to be referred to a Select Committee. Can anything be more absurd? You expect to refer this Bill to a Hybrid Committee; you send out your notices, and I suppose you will have over Mr. Grey Vesey Porter and others, and the House is to be kept waiting while the Committee debate the scheme. Let us have a decided statement. I will forego all objection to the amount for the Chief Secretary's Lodge and his coals, and to the married men's quarters; but take out this £3,000 and move the discharge of the Canal Bill. It is out of the question to keep us here to discuss the Bill, and it is impossible to let this Vote pass.
    MR. SEXTON: I hope the Government will not altogether accept the view of my hon. and learned Friend as entirely correct, but will have some regard to that commercial opinion interested in the passage of the Bill.
    MR. BIGGAR: This proposition to lend money to the Ulster Canal is exactly the same sort of thing, though on a smaller scale, as the land reclamations in County Clare. It has cost the British taxpayer £130,000, and not a penny has been, repaid, and now comes the question of lending £3,000 more to be continued in instalments for many years to come. If you agree to this, you create vested interests that will make it impossible without paying compensation to properly drain the Bann Valley, and the loss by want of drainage is many times greater than any value that can possibly arise from the Ulster Canal. The trade along the Canal could not compete with the railway. In addition to that, two Commissions have been appointed—namely, that of which the present Lord Derby was Chairman, and which reported very strongly against this scheme; and the fresh Commission of this year, which, I suppose, will also report against it. It seems to me to be a foolish thing to appoint a Commission to inquire into a particular case, and then, before you have a Report, to commit yourself to unlimited expenditure.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I must ask the Committee to allow this Vote to be passed this evening. I must remind the hon. Gentleman who has just made an interesting statement with reference to this particular matter that a Bill has been before the House for a very long time; that the measure was introduced by our Predecessors, and not by ourselves; and that we are simply trying, to the best of our ability, to carry out the pledge given by the previous Administration. We are asked, to give up the Bill; but we are not greatly disposed to make concessions at this time, in view of the progress made in Committee, and we will consider to-morrow what we shall do with the Bill.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: As far as I am concerned, I have nothing to reproach myself with in regard to my action in Committee of Supply. I do urge the Government to say that this Ulster Canal Bill shall not be proceeded with this Session. No doubt, there are a certain number of people who are interested in it. You could not take away a dunghill without finding that there were a certain number of people who were interested in the smell. Of course, there are people who have a vested interest in the Canal, and they make representations to the Government. But I am surprised that the English Government—the Government of hard-headed men that we hear so much about— should spend all this money on this rat-hole. I remember, when I first came into the House, describing the Canal as not being large enough to swim a kin-kin in, and things are now exactly in the same position as they were then. The Government ask us to allow this Vote to be passed; but they will not extend the Allotments Bill to Ireland, or pass the Belfast Bill, or do anything for us. It is not fair, under these circumstances, to accuse us of being unreasonable. I ask the Government, on this 1st day of September, 1887, to state that they will drop this Ulster Canal Bill. They have no hope of passing it. They have already yielded to the Orange faction of this House on the questions of Irish Land, Irish Government, and affairs in Belfast, and I would warn them that this Orangeism

    893
    may in the end cost them a little too much.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I told the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) that we would state this afternoon what course we would take with regard to the Bill. My reason for saying so is that we cannot say whether my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who has been obliged to retire, owing to excessive fatigue, has made any pledge by which the Government is bound.
    MR. CLANCY: The item respecting furniture, which caused us to postpone the Vote, still remains unexplained. I find that £2,100 is put down for furniture for the Dublin Castle residence, £300 for the Chief Secretary's Lodge, £150 for the Under Secretary's Lodge, and so on. I could understand these sums being wanted once for furnishing the houses; but I cannot understand why they should be required every year. I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) whether £2,100 is required every year for the Castle?
    MR. JACKSON: No, Sir; £2,100 is not wanted every year for the furniture of the Castle. I have obtained the details for this year, and I find that, of the £2,100, a very considerable portion is for items not likely to occur again.
    MR. CLANCY: A considerable sum is voted every year.
    MR. JACKSON: Yes; and I am afraid that a considerable sum will always be voted; because the Vote is not for furniture alone, but includes other things, such as painting.
    MR. CLANCY: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Under the head of "Supplies and Maintenance," there is a Vote of £2,300.
    MR. JACKSON: I am quite aware of that; but this year there has been transferred to the item of furniture, so-called, a considerable sum which formerly appeared in the item to which the hon. Member has called attention. I believe that £500 or £600 was so transferred, because it was thought it more properly came under this item.
    MR. CLANCY: What is the money for?
    MR. JACKSON: Well, it includes decorating and covering chairs, and it also includes dismantling and pulling down. It further includes housekeepers' and housemaids' salaries, and a great
    894
    many other things. It appears that there is certain inside decoration done periodically at the Castle, and that this is the year when it is done. It costs probably about £2,000.
    MR. CLANCY: Will you explain what the "maintenance" item is for?
    MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I have not the particulars about the maintenance. It appears that the £3,700 includes the cost of certain things which will not again be necessary. There is an item of about £200 or £300 which, it is said, will not appear again for 15 years. [Laughter from the Home Rule Members.] I do not know why hon. Members should laugh.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The statutory term of 15 years.
    MR. JACKSON: Well, a great many things may happen during the next 15 years. It must be borne in mind that a great many repairs have to be done to these buildings. I suppose the hon. Member will understand that a place like that is not kept up without great expenditure.
    MR. CLANCY: Explain what the furniture is.
    MR. JACKSON: Well, Sir, the £2,100 includes the cost of repairs and furniture of one kind or other. It includes supplies and maintenance for the outside quarters, for the Chapel Royal, for the House of the Master of the Horse, for the Chamberlain's house, for the Controller's house, for the estate-steward's house, for the stables—
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the kettle-drummer get anything?
    MR. JACKSON: And it includes furniture for all the Departments. There is, as I have said, about £500 which will not appear again. I have been through the items, and I can honestly say that the amount could not have been kept down this year. No doubt it will be lower next year.
    MR. CLANCY: But for the lateness of the hour I would divide upon every item in this Vote. I consider that it is a perfect scandal. The explanation of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) can hardly have satisfied himself. The idea of paying such an amount as this for the decoration of Dublin Castle, when the Government absolutely refuse to pay a single penny to clear out Howth Harbour, is a shame and a scandal.
    MR. BIGGAR: I would like to make a fresh appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject to which I alluded a short time ago.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment? I wish to say that we will announce the course we will take at 4 o'clock to-morrow afternoon, and, if the Vote for £3,000 is not required we shall move to reduce it on Report.
    MR. BIGGAR: What I say is, that the whole argument is that the present Government are acting upon an arrangement made by their Predecessors. Now, I think that, after all, that is a weak argument, because nothing has taken place which amounts to a contract, or even amounts to an understanding, as to the course which would be taken. I am really sick at heart to see what has happened with regard to money in cases of this kind. I think it is time that the Government should put a perfect stop to this system, which is really a scandal. My theory is that the Government might lend money at low interest on first-class security, but that they should not lend money on any pretence upon these shallow securities.
    DR. TANNER: I am unable to support my hon. Friends in what they have said respecting the Ulster Navigation Bill. I have been over these works; I have ridden on the Canal; and I can tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) that it is not only able to swim a kin-kin, but to bear a boat. I think that when the Canal exists, and when there is a possibility of handing it over to any Corporation which will take care of it, there is no reason why the Government should not advance a certain sum of money in order to benefit the locality. If it was doing a very great deal of harm, the Government would be sure to be waited upon by deputations, and to have a large number of remonstrances addressed to them from the localities. I think that if this Ulster Canal were opened up and dredged, and made fit for carrying canal boats, it would be very useful for such purposes as the conveyance of coal, and I do not see why it should not be made use of. It has been allowed to fall into disrepair, and, of course, the upper portion is not at the present time in a fit state for canal boats; but I do not see why
    896
    it could not be made fit. If this Navigation Company would take it over, I really think it is a very rational undertaking, and that the claim ought to be supported. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Government will see their way to vote this £3,000, and that they will not withdraw their Bill.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope, Sir, that the Committee will now at last come to a decision.
    MR. TUITE: I see, Sir, that the Vote includes an item of £4,500 for some police barracks in a small country town. Although the population is very small, there are 30 police in the town. Certainly 10 men could do all that is required. The sum of £4,500 for police barracks is certainly too much. Why, it would build a palace.
    MR. JACKSON: I see that there is only £1,000 to be voted this year. I will inquire about the £4,500, and ascertain really what the cost of the barracks is.
    MR. TUITE: I wish to know whether it relates to only one building?
    MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I cannot say.
    DR. TANNER: I will take pity on the Government, and, as far as I am personally concerned, will make my remarks as short as possible. There are two subjects to which I would call attention. One is that of the Newcastle Harbour in South Down. I had occasion to visit the place not long ago, and I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan) to bring the matter forward. A great deal of money has been spent in building an artificial harbour at South Down; but a number of large blocks of granite having been employed to form the entrance, a quantity of sand has collected about them, and the result is that ships cannot get in. I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) whether he will see if anything can be done to remove the obstruction? The second matter to which I wish to call attention is this. A fishing pier has lately been opened at Ballycotton, in County Cork. Well, the wrong site has been chosen, because inside the pier is a whole reef of rocks on which ships have got aground on several occasions. I have been asked to call the attention of the Gentlemen in charge of the Vote to this matter.

    897
    These rocks could be easily blown away without any very great expenditure of money, and the pier would then be a very great protection to vessels which have to run into Ballycotton in stress of weather, and also a great protection to fishing boats during the bad seasons. I should have liked to bring other matters before the Government—notably, the case of Queen's College, Cork, but, as the hour is so late, I will confine my remarks to these two matters, and I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury to favourably consider them.
    MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir, I will promise to look into the matters.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.