Commons Sitting of 10 September 1887

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Appellate Jurisdiction* [234]; Coroners* [378]; Local Authorities (Expenses) * [361]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Second Reading—Committee—Statute Law Revision * [379]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Escheat (Procedure) * [373]; Sheriffs (Consolidation) * [262]; Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment* [356], and passed.
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance [363]; Prison (Officers' Superannuation) (Scotland) *[233], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Superannuation Acts Amendment [354]; Bankruptcy (Discharge and Closure) [327]; Deeds of Arrangement (No. 2) [381]; British Settlements* [369], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—STATE OF THE STRAND—"A DISGRACEFUL STATE OF BRIGANDAGE."
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement, made at the Bow Street Police Court on Wednesday by Mr. Vaughan, to the effect that the evidence in several cases heard by him showed that "a disgrace-
  156
  ful state of brigandage" exists in the Strand between the hours of 10 and half-past 12; and, whether he will instruct Sir Charles Warren, to take more effectual steps to secure the public safety?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he is now making inquiries into the alleged state of brigandage in the Strand; but he is not at present prepared to say that any additional police are required.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— PENSIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the pensions given as compensation for loss in office in the Transvaal, which are lumped in the Colonial Vote without details, have ever been brought to the knowledge of the House in the same way that new retiring allowances are always submitted by every other Department, in Returns stating names, amounts, and cause of grant?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I believe that those pensions, not being granted under the Superannuation Act, were not brought in detail before the House when they were first granted in the same manner as new pensions under those Acts. I have already explained how they were granted upon the retrocession of the Transvaal.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, when they first appeared on the Votes?
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he presumed they appeared in 1884, the first year after they were granted.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that they had never been brought before Parliament, but had been confined to a confidential Report, which the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to let him see.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that no details of names had ever been brought before Parliament, in the same way as in the case of pensions under the Superannuation Act. The Vote, however, for these pensions came up every year; and any hon. Member could, of course, make inquiry, as the hon. Member himself did this year.

  EGYPT—ATTACK ON BRITISH OFFICERS—COMMISSION OF INQUIRY—MAJOR MACDONALD,—FLOGGING OF SHEIKHS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered and approved the proceeding's of Major Macdonald, British Member of the Extraordinary Commission sent to try, in a summary and extra legal manner, certain Egyptian villagers, particularly in sentencing to be flogged two Sheikhs of the village, not for having taken part in the affray, but for not preventing it, and also sentencing to be imprisoned and fined a number of other Sheikhs, because they were Chiefs of the Tribes to which the accused men belonged; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have approved the conduct of the British Authorities who sent British troops and English prison warders to carry out the sentences?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government have not thought it necessary to express any disapproval of the conduct of the British officer who took part in the Court to which the Question of my hon. Friend refers. At the same time, I must point out that I cannot admit that in the terms of his Question he has accurately described the case as stated in the Papers before the House. I have no reason to think that the Court was extra legal. It sat under the authority of the Government of Egypt; nor can I admit that the Sheikhs in question were flogged for the reasons stated, although the reasons stated were probably considered aggravations of their offence.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the Court was extra legal. He asked if it was not the fact that Egypt at the present moment was subject to certain conditions of legality; if it was the fact that there exists a Legislative Council; whether that Legislative Council was consulted; and whether the Extraordinary Commission was not issued by the Khedive upon his own sole authority; could it be shown that the punishment of the Sheikhs or headmen of the village was justifiable; and could it be shown that they could have prevented the affray?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The hon. Gentleman has put a great number of Questions, and I cannot undertake to answer them off-hand; but I may say that a Legislative Council is not consulted in Executive acts. The Commission, I believe, was legally constituted; and the punishment of the Sheikhs was due to the fact that they were Chiefs of the villagers which were concerned in the outrages upon the officers, and were present and abetting them.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLgave Notice that he would call the attention of the House to the subject on the earliest possible opportunity.
  MR. BRADLAUGHinquired, whether the affray to which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had called attention did not originate in a British officer having wounded four out of five men—possibly by accident, and upon a struggle arising out of the wounding in killing one of them right out—as the officer said also by accident?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The Papers are before the House, and hon. Members are as able as I am to say what is in them. I think it is hardly necessary for me to repeat the explanations which I gave at great length about the affair when it occurred.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that if his reading was a correct interpretation of the Papers before the House he would ask whether any steps had been taken to punish the officer who was guilty of killing one man and wounding three others accidentally?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I never heard of anybody having been killed or wounded, except accidentally. The hon. Member asks whether a man has been punished for doing an accidental act. Certainly not.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The officer himself alleges that the killing was accidental. At any rate, the firing was on his part.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—THE FATAL RIOT AT MITCHELSTOWN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What information he can give with respect to the action of the police at Mitchelstown yesterday?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): In the absence of my right

  159
  hon. Friend the Chief Secretary I have to inform the hon. Gentleman, with regret, that we have not yet got any official information on the subject of this Question. All I know is that in regard to the unfortunate action of the police at Mitchelstown yesterday—and there is no doubt that an unfortunate collision did take place—the police having been attacked, two men lost their lives in consequence of gun-shot wounds. The Government have sent a telegram to Mitchelstown, and they expect to get official information at the earliest possible moment. I do not think it is desirable, nor that the House would expect me, to make any statement with regard to the occurrence until we have that official information on the accuracy of which we can confidently rely.
  COLONEL NOLAN: On the same subject, Sir, I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private, although I admit somewhat scanty, Notice. I wish to know whether the Government will consider the propriety of compensating those sufferers from the action of the police who may not be proved to have committed any unlawful act; and in the case of those persons who have been killed, if it can be shown that they were innocent parties, and were guilty of no unlawful act, whether the Government will consider the propriety, in the same manner, of compensating the families of the deceased men?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I fully appreciate the motives of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the entire absence of anything like Party spirit in the observations which he has made. But I am sure he will see that, in the absence of that complete information which we ought to possess before we attempt to deal with so grave a question as this, I am unable to give him an answer. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks it right to repeat his Question on Monday I hope to be able to give some information to the House.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I called attention to the deplorable occurrence which took place last evening at the rising of the House this morning. I will, therefore, ask whether any effort has since been made to establish direct telegraphic
  160
  communication between Mitchelstown and London.?
  MR. GIBSON: I have already said that a telegram was sent last night to Mitchelstown. I believe that a further telegram has been sent this morning; and I understand that arrangements have been made to keep the wire open for the purpose of transmitting information to the Government.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether the attempt to disperse the meeting at Mitchelstown was solely in consequence of the meeting having been proclaimed? Is it the view of the Government that the proclamation of a meeting which would otherwise be a lawful meeting constitutes that meeting an unlawful assembly, so that it may be dispersed by force, killing all persons who make any attempt to resist?
  MR. GIBSON: As I have already pointed out, it is out of my power to make any statement in reference to the facts of the case, because, up to the present moment, Her Majesty's Government have received no official information. What I understand occurred is this—a Government shorthand writer was, in discharge of his duty to take notes of the speeches, about to take notes of the speeches that were going to be delivered when the police, who were protecting him, were attacked. That, I believe, was the origin of this unfortunate occurrence.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the police authorities conveyed any information to the conductors of the meeting that they desired to report the meeting, or made any request, as is usually done at meetings in Ireland, for accommodation of the Government shorthand writer on or near the platform?
  MR. GIBSON: I have already stated to the House that I am not acquainted officially with the actual circumstances which took place yesterday at Mitchelstown; but I am not aware that in order to enable a policeman to discharge his bounden duty it is necessary to give any prior intimation that he intends to discharge that duty.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I desire to know from the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has seen the reports in the newspapers which

  161
  describe that this police reporter was endeavouring to force his way to the platform? I also wish to know from the Attorney General whether he will do his best to get information in the course of to-day, as I am anxious about the matter?—the combatants being my constituents, of whoso conduct I am intensely proud to-day.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice, Sir, that I shall strenuously resist any progress being made with the Appropriation Bill unless a full and official account is laid before the House to-day.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is a fact, as is shown by to-day's papers, that the commencement of this terrible affair—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! A number of Questions have been asked on this matter, and the Ministers have replied that they are not in possession of sufficient information. The matter cannot be carried further.
  DR. TANNER: I bow to your decision; but—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
  MR. SEXTON: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are other Questions on the Paper which have not yet been put.
  DR. TANNER: Hear, hear !

  IRELAND—BELFAST—GRANT FOR CITY CHARTER.
  MR. SEXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Irish Law Officers reported on the Petition for the grant of a City Charter to Belfast; what is the cause of the delay in finally dealing with the Petition; and, when he expects to be able to announce the granting of the Charter?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have had no time to obtain information on this subject, the Question having only appeared on the Paper this morning.
  MR. SEXTON: I will repeat the Question on Monday.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he rose to move for an
  162
  Address for a Return showing, for each, of the years from 1881 to 1886 inclusive—(1) Total number of constables promoted to the rank of sergeant; (2) number of the above who at the time of their promotion either were over 35 years of age or had served in the force upwards of ten years.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member could not move for the Return, as it was opposed.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, that there was no Notice of opposition on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not necessary.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, that he would move it at the close of the Sitting.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 354.]
  (Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exhequer.)
  SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 354.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Clause 2 (Power to grant retiring allowances to persons removed).
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he rose to move the omission of words from the clause, which provided that the particulars of a civil servant's inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office should beset forth in the Treasury Minute granting an allowance.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "the particulars of his inability to discharge inefficiently the duties of his office."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)said, he strongly objected to this Amendment. He thought it was only reasonable that these particulars should be given. This was a Bill to give the Treasury a discretion which hitherto had been exercised in. an illegal and irregular manner. If public servants made themselves sufficiently disagreeable, they wore got rid of in the prime of life with large superannuation, allowances, the result being that their services were lost to the public, while an additional burden was imposed upon the

    163
    taxpayer. He had no doubt that both the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary to the Treasury were vigilant guardians of the public purse, but they had pressure put upon them, and, as the old proverb had it, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? He had been for some years sitting in the House, but it was only lately he had come to understand that the Auditor General was no real check. It was true that the Auditor General often reported that certain grants of pensions and other grants were illegal, irregular, and unauthorized, but they were got through by the Committee of Public Accounts. That Committee was no doubt an excellent body, but it was composed of Members of that House, and the Government had great influence over them. He did not remember one single case in which the Public Accounts Committee proposed that these illegal and irregular payments should be refused by the House. The words proposed to be left out were allowed to remain in the Bill during its two previous stages, and he now made an appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober of the Treasury rot to strike them out.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, the matter was really a very trivial one.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Not at all.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, that the hon. Member appeared to be under the impression that since the Bill passed the second reading and the Committee stage some pressure had been put upon the Government to strike out these words. That was not the fact. He was not aware that the words had been left in the Bill. He admitted that was his own fault, because he agreed when the Bill first came before the House to strike out the words, as he thought them unnecessary and needlessly offensive.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: With whom was the agreement made?
    MR. JACKSONsaid, it was made with those who thought their interests were affected. The hon. Gentleman complained that in discharging a disagreeable duty the Treasury sought to discharge it in a manner as little disagreeable as possible. If a man was given a certificate of inability it was entirely unnecessary to give the particulars and set them forth to the world. So far as knowledge of the circumstances was desirable full and complete
    164
    security was taken under the clause as it stood, because it provided that the Treasury Minute granting the allowance should set forth the amount of the allowance and the reasons for granting it and should be laid before Parliament.
    DR. TANNERsaid, that the Bill, which was of considerable importance and very long, had never been discussed except in the small hours of the morning. There was one particular point connected with the general question of superannuation which he thought ought to be considered by the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must not discuss the provisions of the Bill, but must confine himself to the Amendment.
    DR. TANNER: I had not the slightest intention of doing so.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman was certainly doing so.
    DR. TANNERsaid, his only object was to lead up to the Amendment of the Secretary to the Treasury, which struck out of the clause the words "the particulars of his inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office." His own opinion was that whenever a civil servant was superannuated, whether from accident, old age, inefficiency, or disease, the cause should be clearly stated. He hoped the House would divide against the Amendment, as he believed it would destroy the whole gist of the clause.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, that there was reason to complain that at the last moment this change, which was a most important one, should have been sprung upon the House. He asked for the retention of the words in the interests of the civil servants. If there was security that the civil servant should know the precise grounds upon which he was discharged his objection would be met. He did not understand what security there was that the civil servant would be able to ascertain the precise grounds.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, that under Section 2 the Secretary to the Treasury was required to state the amount of the allowance granted to a discharged civil servant, and the reasons for such allowance. The only point was whether it was necessary to go further and state the par-

    165
    ticulars of the officer's inability to discharge efficiently the duties of his office. To do that would, it appeared to him, be both unnecessary and mischievous to the officer, especially as the particulars could always be ascertained.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, that did not meet his objection; the reasons for the allowance were perfectly distinct from the reasons for which the officer was discharged.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, he should support the Amendment. He agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury that the proposed alteration in the Bill was a kindly concession to the civil servants. He thought all the information that was necessary would be contained in the certificate.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he regretted that the omission of these words had been proposed. They were a defence and protection to the Treasury. While the House, as a rule, looked to the Treasury to prevent extravagance, the Treasury itself was not so strong that it could afford to throw away a protection if it could obtain it, and that protection was being thrown away out of delicacy to the feelings of the officer himself. He thought they were carrying that delicacy too far in refusing to put in the Minute the reasons why the officer was discharged. The Treasury were occasionally pressed to allow retirements of which they did not approve; and if they were able to put in the certificate the reasons for the discharge, they would find in that a protection which they were now, for reasons which appeared to him totally inadequate, going to throw away.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, if he thought the hon. Gentleman was right in the view he had taken of the words he would support his contention. But he ventured to think that, as the words stood, they were sufficient protection to the Treasury. There were cases in which it was very desirable to state, and the Treasury would state, the reasons for the dismissal if it was necessary to protect themselves; but, on the other hand, there were cases in which it would not be necessary to do so in order to protect the Treasury, and yet if those words were retained they would be compelled to do it, and therefore, as the
    166
    Treasury could do it in every case, he thought the words were not necessary.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 76: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 471.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    DR. TANNER: No!
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member name a Teller?
    DR. TANNER: I name the hon. Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew).
    MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member tell?
    MR. CAREW: Yes, Sir.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 16: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 472.)
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  BANKRUPTCY (DISCHARGE AND CLOSURE) BILL.— [BILL 327.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Baron Henry De Worms.)
  BANKRUPTCY (DISCHARGE AND CLOSURE) BILL.— [BILL 327.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    DR. TANNERsaid, he had an Amendment to move to the second clause of the Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman cannot move an Amendment, as the Question is that the Bill be read a third time.
    DR. TANNER: "As amended to be considered" is on the Paper.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is that the Bill be read a third time.
    DR. TANNER: I challenge a Division.
    MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member name a second teller?
    DR. TANNERnamed the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien).
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 14: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 473.)
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT (No. 2) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 381.]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT (No. 2) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 381.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he did not think it right that the Bill should be read a third time in this summary way without some explanation of its contents being given to the House. The Attorney General, who had sprung the Bill upon them, had stated on a previous occasion that the Bill had been discussed last Session, and that it had been considered by several Irish Members of Parliament.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I said the Bill was considered this Session.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, that so far as he recollected the Bill had never been discussed in the House, or, at any rate, he had never been present during its discussion, in spite of the fact that the Attorney General said that he (Mr. Clancy) had taken part in the discussion. He should like to move an Amendment to the 5th clause, and he had understood that such opportunity would be offered on the Report. He should like to know whether or not he would be entitled to move an Amendment.
    MR. SPEAKER: I distinctly asked the House whether there were any Amendments to this Bill, and the hon. Member in charge of it said "No." Therefore, the next step was to put to the House the Question that the Bill be read a third time.
    MR. CLANCY: May I move an Amendment now?
    MR. SPEAKER: No Amendment can be moved now.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, in that case he must protest, by way of taking a Division, against the third reading of the Bill. The measure had been hurried through the House in the early hours of the morning.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that matter now. He is not discussing the Bill or anything connected with it.
    MR. CLANCY: I was going to give some reasons—
    MR. SPEAKER; Order, order! I must warn the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he was only stating his reasons against taking the third reading now. He hoped he might be permitted to add that if he had had an opportunity he would have moved an Amendment to Clause 5, under which the period for registration was to be seven days. It appeared to him that that was a very short time to allow. This seemed to be a clause for filling the pockets of the lawyers with fees. On this ground and on other grounds he begged to move that the Bill should be read a third time on this day three months.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does any one second that proposal?
    DR. TANNER: Yes, Sir, I do.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that perhaps he might be allowed to clear up a misapprehension which appeared to exist in the mind of the hon. Member. The hon. Member said that the Bill had only been brought in at early hours of the morning, and that it had not been discussed in that House at all. This Bill was a peculiar one. A Bill precisely the same word for word as the present Bill quitted the House of Commons early in the Session. It was discussed at considerable length, and the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) took great interest in it, and co-operated largely with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. King) and the Attorney General in bringing it to a third reading. The Bill went up to the House of Lords, but its promoters in this House were unaware of the necessity of getting some Peer to take it up and prosecute its progress in the other House. Along with one or two other Bills which went up to the House of Lords with the full concurrence of the House of Commons, it was delayed until after the time whoa it was possible for it to be taken by their Lordships. It therefore practically became a dropped Bill. In order that the

    169
    time and labour of this House might not be wasted, their Lordships apparently spontaneously brought in a new Bill word for word the same as the measure which had left the House of Commons. That Bill being passed in the House of Lords now came down to this House, and this House was now asked to go through what was perhaps an empty form, that of reasserting and reaffirming what was done at an early part of the Session. That was the excuse for the Bill being passed without explanation or consideration in the early hours of the morning, which the hon. Member complained of. The hon. Member would see that the House had had full knowledge of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Bill was as much the work of the hon. Member for Kilkenny as of its original promoters. He trusted that the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he also hoped that after the elaborate and courteous explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, for which they were all very thankful, his hon. Friend would withdraw his opposition, though that opposition had, in the absence of any explanation on the part of the Attorney General, been quite justified.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, that this discussion would have been obviated if the explanation given by the Chairman of Committees had been given at the outset by the Attorney General. It was part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman has no right of reply.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  (Mr. Jackson, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

    [BILL 363.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he desired to draw attention to several matters in connection with the Bill, and for the purpose of doing
    170
    so he would move that the Speaker should leave the Chair that day three months. This Bill provided for the continuance of a number of Acts of various kinds, and which were continued in a hand-to-mouth fashion from Session to Session without any opportunity being given for their reconsideration. It continued, for instance, the Employers' Liability Act. The whole subject-matter of that Act had been threshed out before a Select Committee of the House. There was no reason whatever why a new Employers' Liability Bill should not have been passed into law in the present Session; but the Government, instead of taking up useful projects of that kind, had thought fit to fritter away the time of an unsually prolonged Session in so-called Business which could not possibly conduce to the well-being of the Empire, or any part of it. The labours of the strong and industrious Committee on the Employers' Liability Act had been practically thrown away, at any rate, for a considerable time to come. The whole question was ripe for legislation. The House and every branch of industry were agreed in the provisions embodied in the Special Report of the Committee, and he believed the Government had actually a Bill ready for presentation to the House, founded upon that Special Report. What was the consequence of the conduct of Business by the Government? The whole class of seamen was excluded from the provisions of the Employers' Liability Act, and besides that whole classes of men were now compelled by the terms of their service to contract themselves out of the benefit of the Act. Other recommendations of the Committee which would have found acceptance were, for the time being, absolutely wasted, and the present imperfect law was to be continued by the hand-to-mouth method of this Bill. He protested against this miserable way of carrying on the Business of the country. He hoped that the Attorney General would state in the clearest way what was the intention of the Government with regard to the Bill, and the recommendations of the Committee, and, in the meantime, he moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill this day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of

    171
    the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that no one knew better than the hon. Member that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill must be brought in at the end of the Session, and it was always necessary to bring it in at a late period, as it was impossible to know early what Bills the Government would be introducing, and what Bills would require to be dealt with in this way. The hon. Member had asked a very fair question as to the Employers' Liability Act, and in reply he (Sir Richard Webster) could assure him that no one was more anxious than himself, and the Government also had been most anxious, to bring in a Bill on the subject, not embodying altogether the recommendations of the Committee, but to a great extent adopting them. He might say that the recommendations of the Committee would form a very large basis for the Amendments that the Government would propose to introduce into the new Bill. It was not only an amendment Bill but a codifying Bill which the Government had prepared, and which they hoped to have passed this Session. It was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure embodying the recommendations of the Committee, and going further by qualifying the relations between masters and servants It was because the Home Secretary desired to make the Bill as complete as possible that the measure became so heavy that it was impossible to deal with it this Session. The Government desired to deal with the matter at the earliest possible opportunity next Session.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he must complain that questions ripe for settlement had not been treated by the Government during the long Session just coming to an end, although they had the complete control of the time of the House. It seemed to him that the object of the Government was to evade their responsibilities as long as they
    172
    could. He hoped their delay in legislating on the employers' liability question would be noted by those most interested, and that the Government would be brought to their senses in this matter, just as the agricultural labourers had brought them to reason on allotments two months ago. His hon. Friend's complaint was so well founded that he hoped he would go to a Division as a protest against the Government's way of doing Business.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, there was a good deal of ground for the complaint made as to certain Acts contained in the Bill. He found that there were no less than eight Acts in this Bill relating to one subject—namely, Parliamentary elections and corrupt and illegal practices at Parliamentary elections. It appeared to him that such subjects as these should not depend on an annual Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, but that all the provisions relating to such an important matter as Parliamentary elections should be properly dealt with in a permanent law. He must also complain of the inconvenient policy pursued in regard to the endowed schools schemes and the payment of the Charity Commissioners, and record at the same time his strong objection to the Sunday Observance Prosecutions Act.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, no doubt there must be an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and he admitted the convenience of the principle. The ground of his objection was that the Bill contained no less than 34 Statutes, several of which ought to have been dealt with by amending and reforming Bill. The fact was that an omnibus Bill of this kind and at this period of the Session was a test and a meter of the incompetence of the Government. If the Government had not wasted the public time several of the Statutes included in the list would have been dealt with. He joined with his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in protesting against the failure of the Government' to amend the Employers' Liability Bill There were many of his own constituents and numerous workingmen throughout Great Britain who felt the gravest disappointment on account of the failure to amend the law in this respect. He also thought that the Irish Sunday Closing Bill should be excluded from the pro-

    173
    visions of this Bill. He hoped that he would be able to obtain a reply from the Government to the Question that he addressed to them on this subject yesterday. It was very inconvenient when so many questions came on relating to Ireland there was no Irish Minister present. They had become used to that state of things at Question Time, but now there was no Minister present. It was some consolation that when they mentioned their absence one of them always came out of some dark corner. The Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman) had just entered from behind the Speaker's Chair. He hoped that right hon. and gallant Gentleman would pay attention to what he said. He would remind the Government that the Irish Sunday Closing Act was passed in 1878 as an experimental measure, and that it expired in 1883. It had been repeatedly stated in the House that at the end of the five years there would be an inquiry into the working of the Act in order to ascertain whether it had failed or succeeded. Ever since 1883 the Irish Sunday Closing Bill had been annually renewed, but not as a separate Statute. It had been renewed under circumstances that had rendered discussion and inquiry as to its success impossible. He was informed that there was a very divided opinion upon the matter. He had not formed any decided opinion himself, and he expressed none as to the effect of the operation of the Act; but the time had come when the House should inquire directly and effectually into the measure and success that had attended the Act. He desired to know whether the Government would pledge itself that a formal inquiry should be held? As the Chief Secretary had now come into the House he would remind him that the Act was passed in 1878 and expired in 1883. It was a general understanding that during the period of the first enactment an opportunity should be afforded for inquiry, and, it might be, amendment; but the Act had been renewed ever since 1883 without any such inquiry. It was now again included in an omnibus Bill, and they never had the opportunity of inquiring how far the Act had succeeded or failed. The Chief Secretary had frankly admitted on the previous day that there was no question, certainly no social question in Ireland,
    174
    that was more in dispute in Ireland than the question of closing public-houses on Sunday. One body of men stated that the measure had met with miraculous success, whilst another body averred that it had been a conspicuous failure. He would not venture to decide one way or the other. After five years' trial he considered that a Bill about which there was so much contention should be the subject of inquiry and adequate debate. The time had come when the Representatives of Ireland on that ground alone were entitled to make a stand and say that a social law of this character, involving such severe restrictions, should no longer be allowed to exist unless the pledge of the Government that there should be inquiry was carried out. The inquiry was promised years ago, but was repeatedly withheld. The Chief Secretary could not deny that the working of the Bill was a matter of dispute, and that there was strong feeling on either side. That being so, the public pledge given nine years ago should be kept, and he thought the Irish Members were entitled to claim, and they did claim, from the Government an expression of opinion before the Speaker left the Chair that should guide them in Committee. He desired to know whether between this Session and the next there would be any inquiry of the kind which the opponents of the Hill desired to see?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he did not know what was the kind of inquiry to which the hon. Member referred. He had stated that a promise was given by a Government some years ago that an inquiry should be granted; but he was not aware that that was a fact. As the hon. Member was aware, the responsible Government of the day had twice brought in Bills for the purpose of making perpetual this Bill, which, under existing circumstances, required to be renewed each Session. He did not believe that any responsible Government, without inquiry, could determine to modify the law in one direction. The fact that the responsible Government had twice determined to make the Bill perpetual showed that, so far as they were acquainted with the working of the Act, they thought the Act had worked beneficially. The information he had been able to obtain pointed in the same direction. If it

    175
    would satisfy the hon. Member for West Belfast, he would do his best to look into the question in the course of the Recess. As to the complaint of the hon. Member—that there had been no opportunity of discussing the Act—he was not prepared to deny that it might be a proper thing that the question should be fully discussed by the House. But the hon. Member would admit that the discussion could not take place this Session.
    MR. SEXTON: That is the basis of my complaint—that the subject has not been discussed since the promise was given.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR, continuing, observed that, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, two Bills on which the question could have been raised were brought in by some of his Friends, but they never came on for adequate discussion at all. There was no doubt, however, that the hon. Member would be able to raise the question in a form which would give full opportunity for Parliamentary discussion at some period early next Session. He conceived that would be the proper course from a Parliamentary point of view; but from the point of view of Ministers he was ready to give a pledge that he would look into the subject in the course of the Recess, and to the best of his ability form a judgment upon it. The information he had received, however, distinctly was not in the direction of inducing a modification of the action of Parliament that had already taken place. He had observed that the bulk of Irish opinion seemed to be in favour of this law; and when they found that opinion opposed they often ascertained that the opposition proceeded from those who were, no doubt conscientiously, influenced by motives which were hardly connected with the good of the community. Under those circumstances, and having regard to the decisions come to by his Predecessors in the Office he held, he felt he was bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that his own inclination would be in the direction of the continuance of this law. He was clearly convinced that there could be no possibility of getting adequate discussion of the matter this Session; but in the absence of that opportunity to drop the Bill out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill would be a very prejudicial step of public policy, and he could hold out no hope that the Government would accept such a Motion.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY)said, he rose for the purpose of making a suggestion, which might possibly save I time and satisfy the requirements of the hon. Member for West Belfast. He remembered distinctly the history of the passing of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and the kind of objection which was taken to it before it was carried. He remembered on one occasion Mr. N. Murphy speaking for four hours on a Wednesday afternoon in opposition to the Bill, and that Major O'Gorman defeated it Session after Session. But eventually it was carried. He thought, in face of the experience they had had of this Bill, a discussion upon it now would be an entire farce. They would have just the same sort of lengthy speeches leading to no result whatever. There had been twice introduced already, on the responsibility of the Government of the day, a Bill for making this Act perpetual; and in one of the Bills he believed it was proposed to extend the Act to the large towns. The opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was in that direction at present; and he thought he might fairly suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might undertake to introduce a Bill at the commencement of next Session, which, on the understanding that hon. Members from Ireland would assent to the second reading, might then be referred to a Select Committee, and the evidence taken before it would at length place the House in a position to decide upon this much disputed matter. In respect of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, it was said such a Bill would not be necessary if the Government did not go on wasting its time; but that was an accusation always made—[Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: And always true.]—and in his opinion never true. That was just one of those reckless statements which hon. Members were in the habit of making. There must be an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; but if the Government would accept his suggestion, an important matter of dispute might be avoided and the question settled.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that he would be satisfied if the Government would introduce next Session a separate Bill on Sunday Closing, and refer it to a Select Committee, He hoped that this reasonable suggestion of the Chairman of Com-

    177
    mittees would he accepted by the Government. In that event, he would not resist any Motion to include the Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was perfectly ready, at all events, to give this pledge, that next Session he would endeavour to make some occasion, by Bill or otherwise, for a discussion by a Select Committee or otherwise.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid, he had listened with great attention to the statement of the Chief Secretary, and to the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means. As he was the Member who was about to move the omission of this Bill from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, he was anxious to receive from the Chief Secretary some definite statement with regard to the course which the Government intended to pursue. The Chief Secretary had promised them an inquiry, but he did not approach that inquiry with an open mind. He (Mr. John O'Connor) took an entirely different view of the position of the matter from that stated by the Chief Secretary. He came to a different conclusion altogether upon the fact that two Bills had been introduced by former Governments in that House dealing with this matter, and the very fact that those Bills came to nothing showed that there was a great difference of opinion upon the subject, and that the Government were not sincere in their desire to press them forward. The Chief Secretary, it appeared, would be inclined to support a measure for extending the operation of the Bill to the five cities which were exempted. Well, upon a little inquiry as to the results of the operation of the Act in different parts of Ireland—as to the state of things in exempted parts of the country, and the state of things in those places where it was in operation—he thought he would be led to an entirely different conclusion. It was an investigation of facts which had led him (Mr. John O'Connor) to that opinion, and he had no personal interest whatever in bringing the question forward. They courted investigation into the matter, and believed they should be able to prove, before an impartial inquiry, that the view they took was the correct view. What was the use of accepting the assurance of the Chief Secretary that he would inquire into the matter during the Recess, when he brought to that inquiry a closed mind?
    178
    Therefore he should, in the absence of any further statement, be compelled in Committee to move the omission of the Bill.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he trusted the Chief Secretary would meet a little more frankly the suggestion of the Chairman of Committees. He thought the matter was one the Government might well meet in the sense proposed. He had no desire to press the Government for any unfair pledge; but to pledge themselves to refer the matter to a Select Committee early next Session did not seem to him to be asking too much.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought he had met, in substance and in spirit, the suggestion of the Chairman of Committees very frankly. He was unwilling to pledge the Government to legislation on the subject; but he was perfectly prepared to pledge the Government to give a Select Committee, in some form or other, by which the matter might be inquired into.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, if they understood that if there was not a Bill there would be a Select Committee next Session, he would advise his hon. Friend not to further press the matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, that will be so.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I am perfectly satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
    DR. TANNERsaid, it was absolutely necessary on this question of Sunday Closing in Ireland that both sides of the question should be heard. They would never arrive at a judicious judgment on this burning question without taking the interests of all parties into consideration. Although there was difference of opinion on the subject, still a large number of the Members of the Irish Party believed "Ireland successful, Ireland sober." There were several Statutes in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill that they ought naturally to object to. For instance, there was the Act which gave power to Lord Lieutenant and Magistracy to collect a certain amount of county cess. That Act constituted a standing injustice in Ireland. He objected to important questions which ought to be thoroughly considered being disposed of in this manner at the end of the Session.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (short title).
    MR. CLANCY: Complaint was made just now with reference to the practice of the Government in holding over till the end of the Session several important questions which are ripe for legislation, and then mixing them up altogether in one Bill, and thus getting rid of their responsibility in the matter, and evading the obligation put upon them by their position to endeavour to bring such questions to a settlement. I desire to propose a step now which would compel the Government, if it is taken by the Committee, to make up their minds before the end of the Session upon these disputed questions, and which would not allow them the opportunity of evading their responsibilities and obligations in the matter. In Clause 2, line 20, I propose to substitute for "December" the word "August."
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! We are on Clause 1.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Continuance of Acts in Schedule).
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to move the omission of the word "December" in line 20, and the substitution of the word "August." If this alteration be made the Government will be obliged to commence work early in the Session, and to some extent it will prevent the scandal we have witnessed during the last week or fortnight of keeping the House towards the close of the Session until 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock in the morning, and, as it were, holding the blunderbuss at their head of the displeasure of the country if they do not pass the Bills submitted to them. The manner in which legislation has been conducted during the last few days is scandalous. The Government have kept us hero till 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock in the morning, and if we have insisted upon our rights, they have charged us with obstruction. The proceedings of the past week ought to be explained in some form to the country, so that the charges of obstruction brought against Members of the House who desire to have legislation
    180
    carried on in a rational way should be understood in their proper sense.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the word "December," and insert the word "August."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    Question proposed, "That the word December' stand part of the Clause."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It must be quite obvious to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) that it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. We cannot foretell what the conditions of the next Session of Parliament may be, and therefore it would not be wise to provide that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill should cease to operate in August. The Employers' Liability Act, for example, might cease to have any force or might expire altogether at the end of August, a few days probably before another Bill could be passed. It would be a most absurd, and, I was going to say, a silly proceeding on the part of this House. No, Sir, the provision must remain as it is—namely, that the law shall continue in force until the expiration of a reasonable period beyond the ordinary course of the next Session of Parliament. It is possible that, owing to circumstances, we cannot now foretell Parliament may continue to sit, as it has sat this year, much beyond the usual period, and, under these circumstances, the Government cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. SEXTON: I think the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was scarcely civil to my hon. Friend. He spoke of my hon. Friend's Motion as a silly one.
    MR. W. H. SMITH; I said it might produce a perfectly absurd result.
    MR. SEXTON: I suppose a Member of the House is capable of foreseeing the effect of his own Motion. My hon. Friend has never distinguished himself by silliness, whatever may be his other qualities. I think the Motion he has moved is a highly straightforward one. What is the object of his Amendment? It is that the Expiring Laws Bill shall only continue in operation until Parliament has had an opportunity of considering what it contains—until the 31st of August next year—which is practically the date at which a Session of

    181
    Parliament is ordinarily at an end. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury quoted a remark which may be applied not only to the proceedings of this Session, but to all human affairs. He said it was impossible to forecast the proceedings of Parliament next year. Of course it is, but we may forecast that this Parliament will meet again next February, and that, with the exception of a short holiday at Easter, will sit right on until August. We may suppose, too, that there will be no Coercion Bill passed next year, because the Government have exhausted human ingenuity in respect of coercion to Ireland. We may assume that next Session will be more free for normal and regular legislation than this Session has been, and what my hon. Friend desires is to apply a useful spur to the side of the intentions of the Government in regard to legislation. He says—"We will only allow your expiring laws to continue in force until the end of August, unless you take care to deal with every Statute, either by way of an omnibus Bill or by separate legislation before the end of August." The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury cited the case of the Employers' Liability Act, and hinted that inconvenience would arise if it together with other Acts were to cease in August next. But unless the Government deal with the Employers' Liability Act some way or other it will expire in December. The right hon. Gentleman must see that he has made no reply whatever to any hon. Friend because all the Statutes included in this Bill will expire before December next year. The Government must deal with every one of them sometime next Session, therefore any argument which applies to the Motion of my hon. Friend applies equally against the Bill as it stands. I fail to see any reason why the Acts specified in this Bill should remain in force until the end of 1888 when there will be six mouths of intervening legislation next year. I think the date mentioned by my hon. Friend is the most convenient one.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 19: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 474.) [2.15. P.M.]
    Clause agreed to.
    Schedule.
    MR. CLANCY: I asked the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) yesterday for an explanation of the first Bill specified in the Schedule. No doubt his answer was intelligible to himself, but I am afraid it was not regarded by hon. Members of the House as very satisfactory. For that reason as well as for others I bog to move the omission of this Act from the Schedule—namely, "5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 27," which is an Act dealing with the hemp and other manufactures in Ireland. I venture to say there is not one man in the House except the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is at all acquainted with the provisions of this Act.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, to leave out "5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 27."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): There are two Acts which deal with the linen industry. This Act is one for the protection of the linen industry of Ulster, and among other things it deals with the embezzlement of linen, hemp, and other materials of the same kind. There was a proposal made in this House in 1877 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that the linen Acts should be consolidated. The Bill was blocked, and the result was that it was not passed into law. No opposition, as far as I am aware, has ever been made by any section of the community, either by employers or employed, to the continuance of this legislation. There have been complaints no doubt from, time to time about the lowness of the wages in the industry—I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his opposition.
    MR. SEXTON: I must say the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland's explanation is the very lamest I have ever hoard. He has been asked what is the purpose of the Linen Acts, and why they should be continued. The right hon. and learned Gentleman with as much vagueness as he exhibited yesterday, has said these are Acts to deal

    183
    with cases of embezzlement. But the general law prevents stealing or taking away. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there has been no complaint made from any quarter about the continuance of these laws. I cannot understand what can be the meaning of the laws, because no one can commit an offence of dishonesty with regard to the materials mentioned which is not punishable by the ordinary laws. We still wait come explanation of the use of this particular Statute.
    DR. TANNER: One could easily understand the retention of these laws if they were of any use in backing up the linen industry of the North of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland apparently does not think it worth his while to give us any explanation of this ambiguous Act of Will. IV. I, for one, would be very pleased to support this Act if it were really one capable of backing up and maintaining the linen industry of Ireland. If, for instance, it was for the purpose of preventing the introduction of German linen into Belfast, and of its being sold as Irish linen. The three Conservative Members for Belfast are conspicuous by their absence to-day. They would have acted wisely in attending to-day, and seeking to introduce some clause into this Bill which would deal with the standing injustice at present done to the linen industry in Ireland. It is a notorious fact that linen is sent from Germany to Belfast, bleached in Belfast, and then sold as Irish linen. We certainly hope that this Bill will not pass without the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland explaining to us what is really meant by this expiring Act. If it is of no use, it would be much better to let it expire in the due and ordinary course of things, and then bring in next year some measure which would really deal with the emergency of the case, and which would relieve the people in the North of Ireland who are now suffering. The people in Belfast are suffering as much as those of any other place, and I think if you were to allow this Act to lapse, and next year bring in a Bill dealing with the exigencies of the case, everybody would be a great deal better pleased. I call upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to save
    184
    us the trouble of further expostulation; to save us the trouble of taking a Division upon this matter. If he will only rise and afford us the information we desire, he will save us from much acrimonious discussion.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: The Irish Members say they do not care for this expiring law. Let us have an inquiry to see how far the law is necessary. I think it is very much to be regretted that when such an important question is raised no Cabinet Minister is present.
    MR. CLANCY: If the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland can say that this Act affords protection that is not now afforded by the Common Law, I shall be quite willing to withdraw my opposition.
    MR. GIBSON: The utility of this Act of Parliament has never until now been called in question. A Bill was introduced on the subject by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to make this law perpetual by putting it into a perpetual code. There is a law in England which is substantially similar to this law relating to Ireland—namely, the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 40. I venture to put it to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) that Parliament is not in the habit of passing Acts of Parliament when there is no necessity for them. We cannot suppose that an Act of Parliament which was passed in the 6 & 7 Vict., with the object of preventing abuses in manufacture, and containing 35 pages, was entirely illusory and unnecessary. There is no doubt whatever that this Act of Parliament does perform very useful functions. This must be patent to the hon. Gentleman if he reads the Act.
    MR. CLANCY: I will persist in my opposition to the Act if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who—as we see—has the information in his possession, does not condescend to give it to the House.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I do not contemplate with great satisfaction the possibility of the right hon. and learned. Attorney General for Ireland reading all the sections of this Act, because it appears to me to be a lengthy Act, and probably it is filled up with such old verbiage as old Statutes were filled up with. What I desire,

    185
    however, to impress upon the Government is that, if they really believe this Act is a useful one, it would certainly be better to make it a permanent Act instead of troubling us with a discussion of this kind year after year. If, on the other hand, this Act really is of no use as contended by my hon. Friends, if all it does can be done by the Common Law of the country, I think it would be better to leave it out of the Schedule altogether. It appears to me that there are only two logical conclusions. The very fact that this is a temporary measure dating back, I think, 50 years, and that it has been renewed year after year for 50 years, shows the absurdity of its being included in this Bill. If it has been worth while to renew it yearly for 50 years, why not make it a permanent Act? If, on the other hand, it is of so little consequence that you cannot make a permanent Act of it, why not drop it altogether? There is another course, however, which might be followed. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland might tell us as briefly as possibly what are the principles and essential provisions of this Act which he thinks useful, and then we might leave out all that is unnecessary. If there are one or two sections which he can satisfy us are really useful provisions, I am sure that my hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy) would not be unreasonable, and would not refuse to accept them.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): If this line of discussion wore to continue, we might spend days and weeks in giving hon. Gentlemen information upon points which they ought themselves to master if they intend to oppose the renewal of a law. I assert that not only in regard to one point, but in regard to 20 or 30, these Acts supplement the Common Law, and give remedies and protection to trade that the Common Law does not give. It is somewhat strange that an hon. and learned Gentleman like the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), who frequently professes knowledge of law, should ask us to read him a number of section of Acts of Parliament, In this particular Act there are provisions as to the quality of linen, and there is a provision as to the way pieces shall be folded.
    186
    An hon. MEMBER: They are all useless.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: They are not useless, because there are penalties provided for the breach of them. The subject was investigated some few years ago, and it was in connection with that investigation that permanent English Acts were passed. Surely hon. Members will not suggest that if these Acts were obsolete Parliament would have made them the permanent law of England. There are a number of provisions for settling disputes, and for a variety of other matters every one of which is valuable to the trade to a greater or lesser extent, but which it would take many hours to discuss. I assort that there are a number of provisions in this Act which do supplement the Common Law. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) calls our attention to any particular point, we shall be very glad to endeavour to answer him.
    MR. CLANCY: I think the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) is such as to compel us to go to a Division. I am clearly justified now in having asked for an explanation of this Act, for what do we find? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) told us that this was an Act for the protection of the linen industry and other industries in the North of Ireland, and now it appears that it is an Act for the restraint of trade.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I did not say one word about the restraint of trade. If the hon. Gentleman will read the Act, he will see there is nothing about the restraint of trade.
    MR. CLANCY: Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not use such a phrase; he was not such a "silly-billy" as to use an expression like that. [Cries of "Order, order!"]
    DR. TANNER: Well, he said he was not a "silly-billy."
    MR. CLANCY: That is my inference from his remarks, and I am justified in the inference when I hear there is in this Act such an extraordinary provision interfering with the course of trade as one prescribing how linen shall be folded, and another provision dealing with the settlement of disputes between musters and workmen. The

    187
    sooner we get at the bottom of this matter the better—[An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!]—Yes; and I hope that the country will understand that Conservative Members are prepared to support a measure for the restraint of trade. I do not know the name of the hon. Gentleman who cheers, but I shall try to find out in order that I may bring it before his constituents. Now, this is an Act, according to the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), which clearly upholds the absurd and irritating policy of the last century, which goes back to the worst days of Protection, which is actually imposing in the 19th century restrictions on trade which are supposed to have been abolished long ago in the British Dominions. Sir, I think this measure contains such unsuspected depths of iniquity that we are bound to oppose it to the very last. I repudiate the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Attorney General that we are not to ask for explanation of these Statutes. It is the business of any Member of this House who introduces a Bill to explain its provisions. It is not the business of the hon. and learned Gentleman to throw Bills at our heads, but it his business to make himself acquainted with the provisions of Bills of this kind, it is his business to explain the provisions of the Bill, and it is not courteous or civil, but it is indeed insulting to the House, for him, instead of performing this duty to expect those who object to the Bills to perform it. The explanation we have just had makes me suspicious of the nature of these old Bills, and if I do not get an explanation about every one of these Statutes, I shall be obliged to move their rejection and omission in order that we may examine them for ourselves before we assent to their continuance.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think it convenient to state with reference to the future discussion of this Schedule, what must perhaps be known to hon. Members, that it is the duty of every Member of the Committee, wherever he may sit, to bring to the discussion of the subject-matters before the Committee his best ability and his best industry. But to continue a series of inquiries on matters about which an hon. Member apparently remains, I will not
    188
    say purposely ignorant, but negligently ignorant, must be construed under certain circumstances, and I would be bound to so construe it, as an attempt to defeat and delay the progress of legislation.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): Having some special knowledge of this trade, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words. I think that this Bill is certainly not useless, but important, and so far from its being a restriction to trade, it is really a protection to the honest trader. Hon. Gentlemen will understand that it is of great importance to any trade that an article should really represent that for which it is sold. Now, let me say with reference to one-class of goods, flat yarn, that it is sold according to its number, and according to its number it is well known in every market of the world. According to its number and the size of the yarn its price varies. It is extremely desirable, and indeed necessary, that there should be some provision securing that one number, one size of yarn, should not be sold for another. That is secured by making it necessary that every skein or bundle of yarn shall contain the same length of thread. That is exactly what is provided for in one section of this Act. The section indicates that a bundle of yarn shall be composed of a certain number of skeins, and that the skein shall be of a certain length, and there is a special penalty and a special mode of procedure provided for punishing anybody who sells yarn for something else than it actually is. It is of the greatest importance to the linen industry of Ireland that there should be some provision that the purchaser should get that for which he pays.
    MR.HOWELL: I shall feel bound to support the second reading of this Bill, and the clauses that are in the Schedule. At the same time, I shall not do so for the reason urged by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but rather do so because I think there is another and far better way of dealing with all these Acts. A great number of these Acts are old and obsolete, and really contain very little of use to the industries represented. What I ask my hon. Friends from Ireland to do is to do in this case, as I have endeavoured,

    189
    to do in some other cases—namely, to put down Questions upon the Paper as to whether these Acts are really useful, and let us see whether we can once for all rid our Statute Book of them. I do not suppose that any of the clauses of this Act are put in force in Belfast at the present time; I should be surprised if they were. There are, indeed, a number of clauses in various Acts of Parliament which apply in some way to this country; and I think it would be extremely useful if hon. Members would make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the contents of the Acts, and let us all see if we cannot co-operate to get these old and obsolete Statutes so purged that we may be able to understand, with much less difficulty than we have at present in doing so, the utility of these Acts.
    MR. SEXTON: Hearing the right ton. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) discourse so eloquently on the subject of yarns rather conveys to us a supreme sense of our ignorance than a sense of the utility of this measure. It may be possible that there is a remnant of utility in the Act, though I must say I have a doubt on the subject. I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his opposition any further.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    DR. TANNER: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the Survey of Great Britain Act, which stands No. 3 on the Schedule. In doing so I wish to say this. The Survey Act in itself is very good, no doubt, but at the present time it is desirable that we should have the matter dealt with in a better way. Not very long ago we had a long discussion on the extension of a certain portion of the Bill which deals in a satisfactory way with England, and which gives England certain advantages which are not extended to Ireland. It is for that reason that I rise to take exception to the Bill continuing without equalizing the law, and extending it to Ireland in the same way that it does to England. In Ireland at the present time, owing practically to the number of estates which are thrown on the market, there is a considerable amount of difficulty in dealing with the boundaries, and accordingly, latterly, we have agitated to get this 20-inch scale map which you have
    190
    in England. To the advantage of all parties along discussion took place upon this subject not so very long ago, I think in the course of last month. Well, it is not my intention to start another debate upon the subject, or to treat the matter in extenso, but I must ask the Government to give us some explanation in the matter, and to tell us what they intend to do in this business, or I must move to omit the Bill relating to the Survey of Great Britain Bill. I do not think there are any Members of the Irish Government in their places—yes, I see one—and I trust he will be able to re-assure us on this point as it is one which is exciting a great deal of interest in Ireland, and which we sincerely hope will be dealt with.
    THE CHAIRMAN: All that the hon. Member can do in the case of these Acts is to move to omit them, or to omit certain portions of them. It is not competent for him to move their extension, or modification in any other fashion. This is a Bill which concerns Great Britain only.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): I think I can satisfy the hon. Member for Mid Cork on this subject. I do not think he was in the House when I answered a Question on this subject which was put to the Government by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). The hon. Gentleman may recollect that the hon. Member for East Donegal took great interest in the matter when the subject came up on the Estimates, and that I promised at that time to look into the matter. Afterwards when the hon. Member for East Donegal asked me a Question about it I was glad to be able to tell him that what he desires will be done. An order will be given in Ireland for a map to be prepared on the scale desired by the hon. Member for Mid Cork and the hon. Member for East Donegal. It does not require any alteration to be made in the Act of Parliament in order to enable this to be done.
    MR. CLANCY: I propose to move to amend Bill No. 7.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Mid Cork has given notice of an Amendment to No. 6.
    DR. TANNER: That is true, to amend the measure dealing with eccle

    191
    siastical jurisdiction. I was hoping, Sir, until you had made your statement from the Chair that we should have some explanation with regard to the Bill dealing with these ecclesiastical matters, but of course if you say otherwise I would not proceed with ray Motion. I took the trouble to go into these Acts. They are extremely long, and apparently throw a considerable amount of power into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Authorities, and that, Sir, I main tain—notably, at such a time as the present, in an Act extending to Wales—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I would call the attention of the hon. Member to the remarks I made a while ago.
    DR. TANNER: I will explain my meaning, Sir.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not propose to move anything?
    DR. TANNER: I will move the omission of this Bill from the clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, "that item No. 6 be omitted from the Schedule."—(Dr. Tanner.)
    Question proposed, "That the item proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. SEXTON: I think, Sir, it would be well for the hon. Member to remember what you said a little time ago as to the desirability of Members informing themselves of the meaning of the various enactments contained in this Bill before moving Amendments. I think my hon. Friend will do well not to press this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CLANCY: I wish to draw attention to the Act dealing with the levying of county cess. I have taken your advice, Sir. I have inquired as to the objects of the Bill before rising to speak upon it. I find in this apparently ancient measure which has been introduced year after year, that there is a provision which has led to considerable discussion and irritation in Ireland, and in the second place has led to innumerable questions being asked in this House time after time and year after year, and has also caused debates to arise in consequence of the unsatisfactory answers which have been given to these questions. The third clause, which I desire to omit from the Bill, gives the Lord Lieutenant
    192
    power to issue warrants directed to the collectors of county cess in Ireland, desiring them to levy the estimated charges and expenses of any additional constabulary force appointed for any county or district thereof, and it also gives him power, under the second part of the clause, to appoint special collectors for that purpose. Now, Sir, this touches one of the most acute grievances in Ireland. [Colonel NOLAN: Hear, hear !] There is not the least doubt that the object of successive Governments in imposing additional constabulary on various counties in Ireland, sometimes upon no pretext at all, and generally, if not always, upon the flimsiest possible pretext, is a crying scandal and a crying injustice to the people of Ireland. I have, myself, personal knowledge of this fact that pro tests have been made even by Grand Jurors—and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) will bear me out in this. The Grand Jurors, themselves, men who are amongst the most loyal persons who live in these districts, and who pay the same local rates, know what it is to be fined for nothing at all, and have protested in the strongest manner possible against charges for additional constabulary in these various districts and counties. Of course, if the Grand Jurors in Ireland have taken that course, it may be readily assumed that the ordinary body of cess payers have a still stronger objection to this insane process of fining peaceable districts in Ireland. Time after time has this matter been brought up in this House. Questions have been asked as to why additional bodies of constabulary have been imposed on the districts. It has been pointed out again and again that the most peaceable counties have boon saddled—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have before me the Statute as it at present exists, and I must observe that it appears to me that the hon. Member has misapprehended the purpose of Clause 3. The clause he is referring to was in a previous Act, and is not the particular Clause 3 in this Bill.
    MR. CLANCY: Is not the clause to which I am referring in this Act at all, Sir?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It is not in the Bill, nor has it been in the Bill for some time.
    MR. CLANCY: If the 3rd clause is omitted, and is not now law under this Bill, may I ask under what Statute this additional charge for Constabulary is inflicted every year upon Ireland?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I cannot answer the hon. Member's question; but the particular provision to which he objects was repealed by the 20 & 21 Vict. All that is in this Bill is a provision to enable money collected to be paid into the banks.
    MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland tell me under what statutory authority the Lord Lieutenant imposes additional police on the districts in Ireland?
    MR. GIBSON: I cannot give the exact reference; but if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper I will ascertain.
    MR. CLANCY: I do not desire to throw any doubt on the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England; but it is very curious.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: We were not aware that any question would be raised upon this Bill, and therefore we have not looked up the reference; but I notice in Section 3 of the Amending Act a reference to the principal Statute, which is a perpetual one.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to move that the County Cess (Ireland) Act be not included in this measure. If the original Act is repealed the whole of this system of having extra Constabulary would fall to the ground.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing about Constabulary in the Act as it at present stands; therefore the observations of the hon. and gallant Member are not appropriate.
    DR. TANNER: I see that there is included the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 19, and I would ask what is the use of including that measure? Up to the present time the law has not been carried out. I have again and again risen in my place and taken exception to the way in which this law is administered in the locality which I have the honour to represent. I have shown how, owing to the negligence of the authorities at the Irish Local Government Board, this measure is not carried out.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is referring to a totally different
    194
    Act. He is referring to the Act making provision for the construction of dwellings for labourers.
    DR. TANNER: I believe, Sir, I am right.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Act the hon. Member refers to is the Act passed three years ago, and amended quite recently. It is not this Act, which was passed 20 years ago.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I have put down a Notice to omit from this Schedule the Statute 29 & 30 Vict. c. 52, which provides for the payment of the expenses of prosecutions on charges of felony and certain misdemeanours which are heard by examining magistrates and dismissed by them. I have not put down this Notice because I think the Act is a bad one, quite the contrary, but it has practically become a dead letter; and my object is to ascertain from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), or from the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), what steps they propose to take to give effect to the Statute? At present its existence on the Statute Book is a sort of snare. It operates in this way—and I may give the Committee an instance which has actually occurred. A poor man was compelled to attend at one of the Metropolitan Police Courts to give evidence in a case which was ultimately dismissed. He applied for his expenses, and the magistrate, thinking it was a suitable case, granted them to him under this Statute, and he was told by the clerk to take the certificate handed to him to the office of the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex. Well, I understand that at the office of the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex payment was refused, on the ground that the Treasury declines to repay expenses in cases which have been dismissed. Now, Sir, comes the anomaly. If instead of the charge being dismissed the person charged is committed for trial, then there is no difficulty. The County Treasurer honours the certificate by paying the money, the State repaying the county without a murmur. So that it practically comes to this—that the payment of the expenses of a witness is conditional upon the person charged being committed for trial; and I think I shall have the sympathy of this Committee in saying that a condition of that kind is not

    195
    consistent with public policy. Why do the Treasury decline to repay expenses in dismissed cases? They may say that there is no statutory obligation upon the Treasury to do so. That is quite true; but equally there is no statutory obligation upon the Treasury to repay the expenses of prosecutions at all. It is simply this—that since 1846 it has been considered a sound and just principle that the expenses of prosecutions should be repaid to the counties and boroughs by the Treasury. Now, why should an exception be made in the case where the person charged is not committed for trial? Perhaps it may be said that when a charge is dismissed it ought never to have been brought; but, besides the fact that an inference of that kind is hardly well founded, I may point out that the Treasury has ample security that expenses would not be paid in unsuitable cases from the fact that not a farthing can be paid unless the magistrate certifies that it is a suitable case. Now, my object is, if possible, to get from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who I regret to see is not in his place at this moment, a promise that in future the expenses in dismissed cases will be repaid by the Treasury exactly as they are repaid in other cases. There is really no obstacle which would prevent the Treasury from taking that course. I was told by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury the other day that expenses were allowed, in accordance with a Treasury Minute issued in February, I think, 1875. Well, that is perfectly true. I have looked into that; but by a mere stroke of the pen, as one may say, it would be quite competent for the Treasury to issue a new Minute—if, indeed, that is necessary—to provide that the same regulations which are now in force in regard to the payment of expenses in cases where a person charged is sent for trial shall also apply in cases where the charge is dismissed. But I do not think it really matters, as one would say, a brass farthing whether these expenses are paid out of the taxes or out of the rates. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury told us the other day that the cases are extremely rare, and that, therefore, the amount concerned is a very small one; but if the Treasury refuses to repay these expenses, then the only alternative which remains, in the inte-
    196
    rest of poor persons who are compelled to appear as witnesses, and to lose their day's work, is for the Attorney General or the Public Prosecutor to take steps to compel the Treasurers of Counties and Boroughs, on whom the statutory obligation lies, to pay these expenses. Of course, it is absurd to say that the witness has his remedy at law against the County Treasurer, In the case I cited just now the witness was a poor omnibus conductor who was not in regular employment, and who had lost a day's work. I say it is the duty of the Attorney General, as representing the administration of justice in this House, either to take care that the Treasury shall repay these expenses when paid by the County Treasurer, or to take steps to see that the County Treasurer shall discharge the statutory obligation which is laid upon him. For my own part, as I have said, I do not think it matters much which course he adopts; but what I would urge is that as this is a pressing matter, constituting a great hardship in a few individual cases, something should be done. These County and Borough Treasurers should be made aware that if they do not fulfil their statutory obligations they will be made to do so, and that they must not refuse to honour the certificates of the magistrates. I think the right course would be for the Treasury to issue a Circular calling the attention of the County Treasurers to the duty imposed upon them. If that were done, practically the mischief would be overcome. I beg, Sir, to move formally the omission of this Statute.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines 18 and 19, to omit from the Schedule the Act 29 & 30 Vict. c. 52.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    Question proposed, "That the Act proposed to be omitted stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I quite agree that the hon. Member has pointed out a grievance that exists; but he will forgive me if I say that, though I appreciate his motives, if he did succeed in cutting out this Act from the Schedule he would prevent the unfortunate witnesses from getting any expenses under any circumstances. It is well that I should give a little explanation. The hon. Member is quite right in what he

    197
    says of the Act; but in the Act the Treasury is not mentioned at all. They have nothing to do with legislation. The drafts or orders for the payment of witnesses ought to be honoured by the County Treasurer or Clerk of the Peace. But it appears that some years ago, long before this Act 29 & 30 Vict, was passed, a bargain was made between the Treasury and the counties that there should be a contribution from the former towards the expenses of witnesses. But the parties have not always agreed. The counties think they do not get enough in some cases. But the contest does not rest only on this question of witnesses giving evidence where there is no conviction or committal; and the hon. Member must not think it is any question between the county and a witness involving the particular matter to which he has called attention. I do not say the County Treasurer is justified; but he has thought fit to make the non-payment by the Treasury a pretext or excuse for the non-payment of witnesses. I have already expressed my opinion in the House that witnesses are entitled to their expenses when they get their certificate, and that there ought not to be a fight over the body of the witness between the Treasury and the county. But the only way in which this can be dealt with is, as I suggested, by a letter to the Clerks of the Peace for the county, pointing out their duty to pay, and that they must then fight out their battle with the Treasury for the repayment to which they think they are entitled; but they must not try to gain their own end by reducing payments to which witnesses are entitled. I sympathize very much with the hon. Member's desire to remove the grievances of witnesses; and I undertook to bring the matter before the Treasury. This I have done; and I also undertake to bring the subject to the notice of Clerks of the Peace, and I hope that the result of these representations will be that when a certificate is given to a witness the County Treasurer will see that he has no right to refuse payment, even though he may be unable to get repayment from the Treasury. The dispute between the county and the Treasury must be decided by another tribunal. But the result of the hon. Member carrying his Amendment, and omitting reference to this Act, would be that the unfortu
    198
    nate witness would get no recompense at all. The matter has already received I attention from the point of view of the hon. Member; and, so far as I can, I will endeavour to see that the provisions of the Act are carried out.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: This is a very old question. I remember it being discussed 10 years ago, when the hon. Gentleman the present Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) took up the question very much as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) has raised it. But I would remind the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) that the Treasury found it necessary to reduce the expenditure under this head, which, at the time of Sir Robert Peel's Administration, had mounted up to £250,000. Now, I find that the amount on account of repayment of expenses of witnesses is £135,000; but, unless some judgment is exercised in the system of repayments, we shall again have the sum mounting up to £250,000, which the Treasury will have to pay.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: But this should not affect the witnesses.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: All I want to point out is that the Exchequer will be landed in enormous expenditure for the payment of witnesses if this is allowed to proceed unchecked—if counties and boroughs know they can fall back upon the Treasury; but I deny that counties and boroughs have the claim for repayment. The assistance of the Treasury is in the nature of a subsidy, which now amounts to £135,000. But this is one of those questions that should be looked into and settled at the beginning of the year, and there is no advantage in continuing the discussion now.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I should just like to say one word, not by way of opposition, or to throw any difficulty in the way of the Committee; but I believe there is a remedy for witnesses which, if mentioned, might, perhaps, save them from the unpleasant experience of the omnibus conductor to whom reference has been made, and that is the remedy which, unless I am very much mistaken, a witness has of refusing to give evidence.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: No; not in criminal cases.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Well, thou they ought to have the power of refusing to give evidence unless their expenses are guaranteed. If the condition of things does not allow of that, then the case is a great deal worse. I hope the hon. and learned Attorney General may be able to do something early next Session to meet the case.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Allow me to say a word in acknowledgment of the frank and courteous manner in which the hon. and learned Attorney General has met me. If I have seemed pertinacious it is only because I feel very strongly the grievance and hardships inflicted on very poor people, and was anxious to have a distinct and definite pledge given. There is one point on which I desire a little further explanation. As I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, he said that a bargain had been made between the Treasury and the County Authorities in regard to the payment of a portion of the expenses of witnesses long before the passing of the Statute we are now considering. But I was referred by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to a Minute issued in January, 1875, for regulating this matter, and I have read that Minute.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: If the hon. Member will pardon me. I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the question as between the counties and the Treasury. I do not think we could discuss that here, for the Statute does not raise the question; all I mentioned as bearing on this discussion with reference to the Treasury Minute was that the counties made it an excuse for not honouring these orders or certificates. I did not express an opinion as to whether the counties or the Treasury were right, and I do not see how that can arise now.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: No; but I do not understand what the practice that has been introduced is. I believe that the principle which has been laid down as sound is that the Treasury shall pay the whole of the prosecution expenses. Before 1846 the Treasury repaid a moiety of the prosecution expenses. I understand that it was agreed upon that from 1846 the Treasury should pay the whole of the expenses of criminal prosecutions, and they accordingly issued this Minute of 1875, laying down certain
    200
    rules which would prevent the charges made by boroughs and counties being of an extravagant or extortionate character. I should like a precise answer on the point. Is it understood that the Treasury pays the whole of the expenses of criminal prosecutions?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): No; certainly not.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question really does not arise on the Bill, which deals only in respect to witnesses in counties.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Very well, Sir. Then, in regard to the principal object I had in raising this discussion, I think the assurances of the hon. and learned Attorney General are satisfactory; and as I do not really want to hinder the re-enactment of this Statute, I propose, with the consent of the Committee, to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    DR. TANNER: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the 20th Act on the list—that which deals with prosecutions for Sunday trading; and I wish to move the omission of a clause of that Act. The words I desire to omit are those following after the words "offence is committed "—
    "Except by or with the authority of the chief officer of police in the police district where such offence is committed, or two Justices of the Peace, or stipendiary magistrate, having jurisdiction in the place where such offence is committed."
    The Act which this Continuance Bill proposes to continue is one relating to a very old Act of Parliament; indeed, one, I think, passed in the Reign of Charles II., and known as the Sunday Observance Act, and it is only carried out in a spasmodic way, according as it suits the convenience of the Local Authority, and I want to accentuate this point by reference to a specific case. In the North of Ireland there are strict Sabbatarians to be found in some places, though they are not so strict in other places; but when they have the influence they draw a hard-and-fast line and apply this old Act in a manner not always considered judicious by all classes of the community. Now, what happened in the town of Derry? Some boys were called up before the magistrates under this Act, fined, and, I believe, imprisoned, in default of paying

    201
    the fine, for selling; in the streets on a Sunday copies of a Dublin evening paper, The Evening Telegraph. Now, in the course of my residence in the Metropolis, I have continually seen papers that are brought out on Sunday morning—The Observer and other papers—hawked about and sold freely in the London streets. Now, if this Act is to be carried out at all, let it have equal application all round; but do not give to Justices power which, in many instances, they use in antagonism to the general interests of the people. It is, unfortunately, the case in my country that they do use their powers in a manner antagonistic to the interests of the people, and they use this antiquated old law in an unfair way. Unless the right hon. Gentleman will answer my request, and satisfy the Committee—as he ought to satisfy the Committee—that there shall be a fair and square application of the Act all round in the future, I shall have to persevere in my Motion. It is much to be deprecated that in the North of Ireland, where there is a certain amount of religious antagonism, the application of this Act for the observance of the Lord's Day—commonly called Sunday—should be made the means of further inflaming the opinions of people who do not agree upon religious observances. I really think that, instead of repealing merely one section of the Act, it would be better that the whole series of these Acts should be repealed. I am myself opposed to the closing of all places of amusement on Sunday. I think it is hard that people who have only one day in seven at their disposal should be debarred from visiting museums and such places then.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now entering too fully into the principle of the Act—not confining himself to his Amendment. And as to the Amendment again, I find, on reference, that one of my Predecessors in the Chair has ruled—a proposal being made to amend an Act contained in a Continuance Bill by the omission of a portion of a clause—that such an Amendment could not be entertained, and that by an Amendment the Committee could only decide whether a whole Act, or any substantial part of an Act, should be maintained in the Bill. The Bill cannot be amended by striking out the words in the Act to which the hon. Member has referred.
    DR. TANNER: Then, Sir, I will move the rejection of the whole Act. It is an enactment that is the cause of a great deal of mischief in the North of Ireland when entrusted to the administration of people too ready, by encouraging such speeches as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) has delivered and by other means, to in frame the feelings of religious fanaticism, to the danger of the community at large, I sincerely hope the Committee will support me in the Motion to omit this Act.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines 36 and 37, to leave out Item 20.—(Dr. Tanner.)
    Question proposed, "That the Item proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I trust that this Motion will not be pressed by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). I do not know whether he understands the effect of striking this item out. I regard these Sunday Observance Acts as of most obnoxious character; but this particular Act limits the effect of them, and provides that they shall only be enforced under the responsibility of a responsible officer. I think myself the old Act is most objectionable; but it is difficult to discuss that on this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and I do not want to occupy time. I am against the law, and for this reason I oppose the Amendment, which, being carried, would make the effect of the old law much more harsh.
    MR. CLANCY: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork will persist in his Motion. I fancy he will not. The reference he has made to a prosecution in Derry was a very aggravated case. It appears that the Orange Magistrates of Derry, having allowed the sale of Orange papers on Sunday year after year, took the very first opportunity they could of trying to stop the sale of a National paper on Sunday. Such an instance of gross partizanship naturally led my hon. Friend to move the omission of an Act under which it is in the power of magistrates in the North of Ireland to indulge in such an unfair and foolish proceeding.
    MR. CONYBEARE: On the second reading I had occasion to refer to this

    203
    specific Act; and may I be allowed to say that my objection to this Act is not as an Act limiting prosecutions under the old Act? My objection, like that of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), is to the whole code of legislation of this kind, and to this Act in particular, as dealing with that legislation in a wrong spirit. My view is that the whole of this legislation ought to be repealed, and that it should not be in the power of any individual to institute a prosecution.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I hope hon. Members will not leave out of view the statements made by Lord Cross when he was Home Secretary, as to the beneficial effect of legislation in this direction. Great credit is due to the Conservative Party for passing an Act restraining the prosecutions for Sabbath-breaking under the Act of Charles II. This was done by Lard Cross, and ought not to be repealed; but it should now be made permanent.
    DR. TANNER: After the remarks of the ton. Member for Northampton I will withdraw my Motion with pleasure. But may I point out that the application of this law in England and Scotland and the use made of it in the North of Ireland are very different things? Where the law is administered by magistrates, the bulk of whom belong to the Orange faction, its application has such strong traces of partizan spirit that it cannot fail to prove injurious to the public interest, and brings law and order—that well-worn phrase we have so often heard—into contempt. Of course, having heard the explanations made—notably that of the hon. Member for Northampton—that the effect of my Amendment would tend to renew the old Sunday Act in its harsh and crude manner, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That this Schedule be the Schedule of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 18: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 475.) [3.40 P.M.]
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  ESCHEAT (PROCEDURE) BILL [Lords].
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  ESCHEAT (PROCEDURE) BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 373.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Power to regulate procedure with respect to escheats to Crown).
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—
    In page 1, line 12, leave out "regulating;" line 16, after "real estate," insert "or any interest therein;" line 17, leave out from the second "escheat" to end of line 18, and insert "whether in relation to the Crown or otherwise, or the holding of any inquest of office not otherwise regulated by law.
    "(2.) Such rules shall provide that an inquisition touching real estate shall find of whom the real estate was held, and that every inquisition shall be forthwith returned into the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and that every person aggrieved by any such inquisition shall be entitled to traverse the same, or to object thereto, in such manner as may be from time to time directed by rules of court.
    "(3.) Subject to the provisions of section six of 'The Intestates Estates Act, 1884,' no grant shall be made of any real estate alleged to be escheated until after the inquisition finding the title thereto has been returned to the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
    "(4.) An inquisition shall not prejudice any rights which, at the time of the death of the person that led to the inquisition, were vested in some other person.
    "(5.) If the inquisition does not find of whom the real estate was held, any person aggrieved shall be entitled to obtain from the High Court an order for the taking of another inquisition.
    "(6.) This Act shall apply to inquiries into the title of Her Majesty in right of Her Duchy of Lancaster, with this qualification, that any rules which may be made under this Act shall be made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with the approval of the Lord Chancellor."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Repeal of enactments in Schedule).
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 4, after "effect," insert "the validity or invalidity of;" in line 11, after "procedure," insert "or practice;" and, after "use," insert "under the provisions of any Act hereby repealed or otherwise."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule.
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, leave out lines 23 and 24.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): As there appears to be absolutely no difference of opinion whatever on this Bill. I will ask the House to allow the further stages to be taken.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now considered,"—(Mr. W. H. Smith,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered, as amended.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
    MR. SEXTON: On a point of Order, is it permissible to take this further stage after we have only just taken Committee and Consideration?
    MR. SPEAKER: At this time of the Session it is frequently done, there being no Amendments made on Consideration. The right hon. Gentleman is at liberty to ask the House to do it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords].— [BILL 379.]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords].— [BILL 379.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    In reply to General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR,
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the valuable work of the Revision Committee could not become apparent until effective steps wore taken to clear away a large number of obsolete Statutes.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)asked the House to allow the remaining stages to be taken at once, and moved that the Speaker should now leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired whether the White boy Acts were included in this measure?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, they were not.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: They are spent.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he could not say that, not being an Irish lawyer. The Bill only included those Acts which the Law Officers knew of their own knowledge, without elaborate investigation, to be obsolete.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he must protest against the White boy Acts not being included in this Bill.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would oppose the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman has already spoken on the Motion.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I only asked a question.
    MR. CLANCYmoved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Clancy)—put, and negatived.
    Original Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Several Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I merely wish to point out clearly, and in express terms, what it is we are doing. We have been taking the second reading of a Bill of an important character—the importance of which has been impressed upon us by hon. Gentlemen—and then, without any Notice given, we are invited at once to go into Committee. We may have Amendments moved which are not upon the Paper, and which not one single soul in the Committee, except the hon. Member who moves them, knows anything at all about. I do say,

    207
    with all due respect to the Government that, whatever the period of the Session is, that is not the proper way to conduct Public Business.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)I shall be happy to give the fullest explanation with regard to the Bill in every particular in which explanation can be required. There are only three Amendments, and all these but one are verbal. One of them has been passed and I will state what it is if the Committee will permit me. It was merely the insertion of the date of a certain Statute which had been omitted by accident. I think the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will admit that there has been nothing very unconstitutional in making that Amendment in Committee without Notice. The second Amendment is a mere verbal improvement effected by the draftsman, who saw that there were certain words after the name of the witness Eva Thornton. The third is the omission of a Statute which ought to be struck out, owing to a learned Judge having raised a doubt as to whether it is obsolete or not.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: No doubt, the particular Amendment before the Committee is trifling in its character; but I think we have a right to ask that this Bill shall not be taken until Monday.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The third reading will not be taken until Monday.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: It was proposed before going into Committee that the Committee stage should be deferred until Monday; and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, because he would not assent to that proposal, put us to the trouble of assembling for a Division, although a Division was not taken. If we had been allowed time, we should not only have understood the point of the Amendment now before the Committee, but we should have understood all the other points which could be raised on the Bill. This particular Amendment refers to putting away "certain divers books and images."
    THE CHAIRMAN: We have not come to that yet. The Amendment is, on page 10, to leave out lines 34, 35, 36, and 37. The Question is, "That these words
    208
    stand part of the Schedule to the measure."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): If hon. Gentlemen, wish, to have until Monday to consider the effect of this Amendment, there will be no objection on the part of the Government to postponement. I trust, however, that on Monday, when these things have been thoroughly considered, there will be no difference of opinion on the matter. If that is understood, I shall agree to report Progress.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I have not, in the case of this Bill, Sir, been able to follow your salutary advice to make' myself acquainted with, everything in the measure; but, taking from the Table a volume of the Statutes, I find that this Statute we are asked to prolong in the present Bill has been spent—namely, that the 3 & 4 Edward VI. c. 10 is really so far spent as to have been eliminated from the Statute Book.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. Member has taken up a volume of the Statutes, in which he will find the 3 & 4 Edward VI. c 10, but not in the proper rotation. That arises from the fact that there are in some years several Acts bearing the same number. If the hon. Member will refer to the Statutes at large he will find that what I say is correct, and that the Act he is speaking of is the one continued in this Bill.
    MR. CONYBEARE: We have kept on the Table of this House a revised edition of Statutes for reference; and when one gets up and appeals to this revised version, and finds it inconsistent with what we find in the proposed Bill, he is told that he is altogether wrong in the matter, and that there is a different rotation. Of what year is the Act of Edward VI. to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. Member has not read the Bill. He will find in the Bill the precise reference to the Act which is now continued—on page 10 of the Bill, volume 15 of the Statutes, page 1,266. As I am now addressing the Committee, I may as well say that I will not go into the other Amendment, but will put it on the Paper, so that hon. Members will see

    209
    what it is. The object of it is to strike out certain words on page 15.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I give credit to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) for Ms dexterous Parliamentary tactics. I compliment him upon the success of his stratagem. He has made progress with this measure because, now that the Bill has reached this stage, it is impossible to block it. The right hon. Gentleman has very dexterously effected his object; but the Government ought in all fairness—having had this Amendment up their sleeves as it were—to have given us some indication before the Speaker left the Chair that it was their intention to alter the Bill when they got into Committee. Apparently, at least so far as we can judge, they seem to be anxious to amend a Bill which called for no Amendment whatever in Committee, and therefore the Committee stage appeared to be, practically, a merely formal proceeding; but now we find that it is nothing of the kind; and with regard to that Amendment last moved, I was desirous of endeavouring, if possible, to get included in the Bill certain matters cognate altogether to books and images which the Amendment dealt with. On the mere Question that the Chairman report Progress, of course I am again debarred from going into the subject-matter of this Amendment, which I desire to secure. My Amendment related to what is really an obsolete law. It had reference to the position of Members of the Orders of Jesuits and other religious bodies in Ireland and the penalties attaching to certain proceedings by them. The Motion to report Progress is of such a character that one is obliged to confine himself to the particular point. It does appear to me that on this occasion the Government has been guilty of what, without desiring to be offensive and giving the Government credit for all dexterity, I do think is a piece of sharp practice. They have got their stage, and, no doubt, they will be able to carry through the Bill and be able to resist any Amendment which we may move, however reasonable it may be.
    MR. CLANCY: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) complained a little while ago of our discussing a question of which he had received no Notice. I now beg to give Notice that I, for one, when the Bill next comes before the House, will move to insert in the Schedule those provisions of the Emancipation Act, 1829, which renders absolutely every priest in Ireland and the member of every religious order a felon liable to transportation for the term of his natural life. I give the hon. and learned Gentleman Notice that I will raise the question, and I hope he will not then plead that he has not had time to consider this matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [Lords].— [BILL 234.]
  (Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
  APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL [Lords].— [BILL 234.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he did not wish to delay the Bill; but he desired to point out that Lay Lords, besides the Law Lords, could exercise—as one Lay Lord had recently exercised—the right to sit as Judges in the Court of Appeal. He did not propose that the point should be dealt with now; but he thought the Appellate Court should be specifically confined to the Law Lords, and that Lay Lords should not be able to give judgments. In the case of "Clark v. Bradlaugh," Lord Denman sat and delivered a judgment which the rest of the House was obliged to disregard, and that gave rise to scandal at the time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he hoped the hon. Member would not attach any importance to the fact that a layman sat on a particular occasion. With that exception, so far as he was aware, there had been no case in modern times in which other than Law Lords had taken any effective part in

    211
    judgments delivered in the House of Lords, or in the consideration thereof.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he remembered the case cited by the hon. Member, and it created a great scandal.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  SHERIFFS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 262.]
  (Mr. Solicitor General.)
  SHERIFFS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 262.]

    COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th September], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title).
    MR. CLANCY: I think there is just as much reason for postponing this Bill as there was for postponing the other Bill upon which the Government consented to report Progress. This was described by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) as a mere Consolidation Bill the other evening when it was brought forward. I have seen some of the comments upon it, and if these comments are correct it is anything but a Consolidation Bill, for it contains a great deal of contentious matter, and, so far as I can see, contains a good deal of matter to which we should object as being likely to be injurious in Ireland to the public interest. Under the circumstances, I think it is only reasonable that the Government should now consent to report Progress. I beg to make that Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his Motion. As the hon. Member is perfectly well aware, the Bill does not apply at all to Ireland. It has to do merely with the law in England; and, in regard to the Bill itself, all I can say is that it has been before those
    212
    who are most interested in the subject for a considerable time. The Law Society appointed a committee to investigate it, and I have had communications from different persons who are interested in the subject; and there is only one point in Sub-section 29 which is pointed out as being a thing which ought not to appear in the Bill, because it is in another Act of Parliament which we do not propose to repeal. With that exception, no objection has been made to the consolidation of the Statutes in the measure. Many persons have suggested improvements in the law relating to Sheriffs; but that is a different matter. Amendments are things which can be much more easily dealt with when this Consolidation Bill is placed on the Statute Book. The effect of allowing this Bill to pass through Committee this evening will be that we shall get rid of no less than 40 Acts from the old Statutes which it is now absolutely necessary to keep there, and which, unless this Bill is passed, it would be necessary still to retain. This measure will prove a very convenient addition to the Statutes at large, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite to allow us to go on with it.
    MR. CLANCY: I made the Motion for reporting Progress under a misconception. I did not know that the Act did not apply to Ireland; and being a Home Ruler, and recognizing the right of the people of England to have what they like for themselves, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion. I only wish that the same view with regard to Irish affairs was taken by English Members in this House.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I would remind the Committee of a letter which appeared in The Times, to the effect that this Bill is something more than a mere Consolidation Bill, so far as it transfers the duty of arresting persons from the police to the Sheriffs. It opens up a great matter of controversy. The writer in The Times shows, with regard to a portion of the Bill, that if a bailiff or other officer of a Sheriff arrests anybody for a felony he is liable for a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for a year. It is evident, therefore, that the Bill is a great deal more than a Consolidation Bill. Is it pro-

    213
    posed to transfer from the police to the Sheriff the duty of arresting a felon?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The gentleman who wrote the letter to The Times which the hon. Member refers to did not understand altogether the matter he was writing about. He understood one part of it, but certainly not the particular point the hon. Member has just referred, to. There is no transfer to the Sheriff of any duties which he did not previously perform contemplated by this Bill. I think it right to say that before that letter was written we had ourselves noticed that Section 29 of the Bill did propose to do that which is objected to in the letter—namely, make a certain wrongful act on the part of a Sheriff's officer a misdemeanour. That being dealt with by Common Law, we had intended to introduce an Amendment to the clause bearing upon that point. The other point suggested in the letter—namely, that duties were about to be transferred to the Sheriff which the Sheriff does not now perform—was based upon a misapprehension.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Is it not now a misdemeanour at Common Law for a Sheriff to act in this way in cases of indictable offences?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Yes; it is a misdemeanour at Common Law; but it must be remembered that this is merely a Consolidation Bill.
    Clauses 2 to 10, inclusive, agreed, to.
    Clause 11 (Duties on receipt of debt to Crown).
    MR. CONYBEARE: The clauses from 9 to 14 have reference to the duties of the Sheriffs; and what I want to know is—as I cannot find anything about it in the Bill—what is to be done in respect of the duties of the Sheriff's officers or the Under Sheriff?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): They are not touched upon in this Bill. The object of this Bill is to put in the form of an Act of Parliament all the Statutory Law as to Sheriffs which is found in old Statutes. This Bill is a consolidation of the old Statutes in the Schedule; but it does not purport to be a Bill defining the whole duties of the Sheriff.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 12 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 29 (Punishment for misconduct).
    MR. SEXTON: This clause contains a proposal to render the Sheriff liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year if he refuses to arrest a tenant. I am not aware that it is the duty of a Sheriff to make arrests. I considered that the duty of making arrests was always performed by the police.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: This clause makes no alteration in the existing law. The Sheriff may at any time be called upon to make arrests for felonies.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to, with verbal alterations.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)
    MR. SEXTON: All I have to say is that the customs of the House are being entirely subverted.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  CORONERS BILL [Lords].— [BILL 378.]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  CORONERS BILL [Lords].— [BILL 378.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, such a Bill could not be settled at that period of the Session. The Government admitted that it was an incomplete Bill, and the Lords had had plenty of time to make it a perfect measure. He complained of the Bill on the ground that it contained no provision for the fining of Coroners for neglect of duty. He noticed the other day that a Coroner had fined himself 40 s. for neglect, and he thought some such provision should have been introduced into the Bill. The only other point he wished to refer to was the power given to Coroners to exclude representatives of the Press from their inquiries. This question was brought prominently forward some time ago in connection with a grave scandal that had arisen at Ipswich; and considering

    215
    the amount of interest evinced in that case he thought those who had framed the Bill should have given attention to this point. Coroners ought not to have such arbitrary powers, and in these days publicity was necessary to prevent injustice.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the question of fining Coroners and the exclusion of the Press from inquiries were foreign to the scope of the Bill, and he would not enter into that. As regarded the rest, most valuable work had been done by the Bill.
    MR. HOWELLsaid, he hoped the Bill would be passed, as it repealed many ancient and useless Statutes. When they consolidated the Statutes—and they had done something towards it—they would be able to understand the law. At present the most learned Member of the Bar—even the hon. and learned Member for Camborne—could not understand the Statutes.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENSES) BILL.— [BILL 361.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Long.)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENSES) BILL.— [BILL 361.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that the object of the Bill was twofold. The first object was to enable the Local Government Board, with the consent of the Treasury, to frame regulations for the purpose of recovering from Local Authorities the charges and expenses of Government Inspectors sent down to different parts of the country for the purpose of holding local inquiries with reference to such matters as schemes of drainage and water supply and Provisional Orders. At present a large part of the cost of this service fell upon the Treasury. The second object which the Government had in view was to save the necessity for a great amount of correspondence and a great loss of time, in connection with disallowances by District Auditors, by providing that payments which had
    216
    been sanctioned by the Local Government Board should not be disallowed. That will enable the Board, where if a disallowance were made they would remit, to sanction the payment, and thus avoid a disallowance. That would put an end to a great deal of just irritation caused by the present system.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. Ritchie),—put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

  DUCHY OF CORNWALL—ANNUAL PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COINAGE DUES.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that he wished to call attention to an item of £16,216 15 s. charged on the Consolidated Fund for an annual payment to the Duchy of Cornwall. This sum was charged in pursuance of what was done under the Statute of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 120, by which certain coinage dues, &c. were abolished in the counties of Cornwall and Devon. The amount, which was fixed in 1838, was peculiar, because in examining Sir Reginald Welby it appeared that £16,216 was fixed as perpetual compensation for the loss of part of £11,356. It seemed a little difficult to understand how a sum of £16,000 odd could be the proper compensation for losing a portion of £11,000 odd. But what he wanted to call attention to was an absolutely illegal payment. This sum of £16,216 included in it an amount for post groats and white rents. The Statute to which he had referred gave directions to the Lords of the Treasury to ascertain what had been the clear net annual income from these sources year by year during the preceding 10 years. They had found that the sum of £10 a-year only had been received by the Duchy, and the commutation money of that £10 a-year was £630 12 s. 2d. The Lords of the

  217
  Treasury had by Minute determined that this sum of £16,216 should be paid less the sum of £630 12 s. 2d. as from the 5th of April, 1841, as that sum was the commutation money, for the loss of £10.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was dealing with money that had been voted by the Committee of the House?
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he was dealing with money applied by this House from the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. SPEAKER: The only question that arises is whether the payment is out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of the Votes passed by Parliament.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: This particular sum is out of the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid it would not be in Order.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: If I am out of Order in raising it on this Bill I will not continue the discussion; but—
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is the appropriation of the moneys voted by Parliament.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that this matter was one within the scope of the Secretary to the Treasury's duties, whose salary was included in the Appropriation Bill; and he apprehended he would, therefore, be in Order in referring to it. The Secretary to the Treasury had admitted that for many years after the 5th of April, 1841, this payment of £630 12 s. 2d. had been annually paid by the Treasury without any authority for so doing; and in reply to a Question as to whose duty it was to have seen that the payment of this money was duly authorized the Secretary to the Treasury had replied that it was nobody's duty. He desired to call the attention of the House to the fact that money was thus paid away without any efficient control on the part of the Treasury. The Treasury under this Statute were directed to report what they did to the House of Commons; that they did so report that they had ordered the £630 to cease; and notwithstanding that they yet continued that payment secretly and behind the backs of the public to the Duchy of Cornwall.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the hon. Gentleman had stated the
  218
  facts with substantial accuracy; and if the matter could have been questioned immediately after the transactions to which the hon. Member referred—at the beginning of the present Reign—he would have had some doubt as to whether there was a sufficient warrant for continuing those payments. But this, of course, was a payment which had been continued for many years, and micas to which Parliament had had many opportunities of expressing an opinion. He certainly did not think that there had been any concealment in the matter. The whole question of the income of the Prince of Wales was considered at the time of his marriage, and a careful estimate was made, and his income was made up to a certain, figure by a grant from Parliament, and it was quite clear then that this was treated as a matter of income for which the Prince of Wales had to give credit in one sense. He thought it right also to say that, while the bargain was assented to by King William, he had considerable doubt as to whether it was binding on the Prince of Wales, although on that point he had not sufficiently studied the matter to give a final legal opinion upon it. On any occasion when that income again came to be re-adjusted, this matter might then be duly considered; but under present circumstances he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would rest satisfied with having called attention to the matter.

  LOCAL TAXATION SUBVENTIONS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the House to a gross financial injustice to Ireland under the head of several Votes which the Irish Members, in their desire to facilitate Business, had not thoroughly discussed when the House was in Committee on the Estimates. One fact to which he wished to refer was that whereas a sum of £240,000 was being voted in aid of the highway rate in England, and £35,000 in aid of the highway rate in Scotland, there was no similar Vote for the highway rate in Ireland. It had been calculated that Ireland's share amounted to £50,000, a sum which would reduce county rates in Ireland 1s. in the pound. Ha might be met with the argument that if Ireland had not got the money to reduce county rates it

    219
    was given to her in other ways. No doubt, a sum of £50,000 was being voted towards Irish drainage and Irish fisheries; but that was not an adequate equivalent. He protested against the proposed expenditure of £30,000 upon drainage works, on the ground that it was an unfair application of the money of the Irish taxpayers. Some constituencies would contribute far more to this expenditure than would ever be returned to them in resulting benefit. He complained also that the Irish Members were not consulted before the Government determined upon an expenditure of £30,000, which would pledge Ireland to find eventually no less a sum than £700,000 for drainage purposes. The money which the Government had allocated for the furtherance of horse breeding, for the fishing school at Baltimore, and for other objects was really provided out of the Irish rates, although the people of Ireland had not yet realized the fact.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he was sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be under the impression that justice had not been done to Ireland in this matter. The hon. and gallant Member thought that some similar concession to that made in the case of highway rates in England should be made with reference to the county cess in Ireland; but in England they received £540,000 from the Carriage Tax, but they had no such tax in Ireland, so that the cases were not parallel. It was not the view of the Government that the expenditure of £30,000 upon drainage works must necessarily commit Parliament to a final expenditure of £700,000. It would not be right to commit either Parliament or the Local Authorities of Ireland in that way, the information at present possessed not being full enough to justify such action. The Government believed that the expenditure now proposed would be most beneficial, even if the Local Authorities of the districts which were specially interested in the drainage of the Shannon, Barrow, and Bann should object to tax themselves for any subsequent development of the scheme. The Government were satisfied that this money could be applied usefully in relieving the waterlogged districts of Ireland, and that great
    220
    public advantage would result. The expenditure had been recommended by the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the subject, and the Government relied absolutely upon their recommendation. Next Session the Government hoped to present to Parliament proposals in connection with this question of drainage which would be recognized as deserving the local efforts which they must involve.
    COLONEL NOLANasked what was the total expenditure which would be necessary to complete the scheme for which this sum of £30,000 was wanted?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The scheme for which this sum is wanted may form a portion of a much larger scheme, or it may be complete and satisfactory in itself. We have laid it down as an absolute condition of this expenditure that not a single farthing shall be spent wastefully.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had every reason to suppose that the £30,000 and moneys voted in subsequent years would be expended to the greatest possible advantage; but, at the same time, it seemed to him that the Government was in the greatest possible danger of seeing a considerable amount of money practically thrown away. Pressure had been brought to bear—or was about to be brought to bear—upon the Government by ambitious engineers with private interests to serve to induce them to adopt a limited scheme. He was anxious to see the work done well, and on a large and thorough scale; but not to see the money spent in Ireland in a wasteful and injudicious manner. He was satisfied, however, that there would be a great waste of public money if a partial scheme was sanctioned. He desired to point out an absurd anomaly in connection with this grant of £50,000; £1,000 of this sum was to be given to encourage the industries in Donegal. Mrs. Ernest Hart, a business-like lady, had done much to encourage home industries there; and, recognizing her merits, the Government had agreed to allocate this small sum in aid of the technical education of the poor people in this district. But what had occurred within the last week? A quantity of wool put out by Mrs. Hart, first to be dyed and afterwards to be used in knitting and weaving, had been seized by the emis-

    221
    saries of the Government, which proposed to subsidize the industry. In 1879 and 1880 there was very great distress in Donegal, as in other parts of Ireland, and an advance was made in certain districts, including Donegal, for the purpose of furnishing seed to the poor occupiers who could not provide themselves with it. From that day to this the districts so aided had been laden with a seed rate, intended to recoup the expenditure thus laid out. In the recovery of this seed rate seizures had been made in Donegal during the past week, including a considerable quantity of the wool to be used in the very industry which the Government said they now wished to assist. In the circumstances, he thought he might reasonably appeal to the Government to cause the wool so seized to be surrendered, otherwise the industry would be paralyzed.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR, IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN)said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that this was the first information the Government had of the seizure of the wool. Personally, he was much interested in those home industries, and he would take care that every inquiry was made into the facts mentioned by the hon. Member.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— FATAL RIOT AT MITCHELSTOWN.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. SEXTON: I now apply to the Government to give us their account, and such justification as they think they can offer, of the cause and the effect of the murderous acts perpetrated yesterday at Mitchelstown by their armed agents, I put a Question early this morning at the rising of the House; but the Government then, although they are in telegraphic communication with Mitchelstown, appeared to be destitute of any official information. I put a Question again at the Sitting of the House at noon to-day; but the official information had not then arrived. I trust they have now received it. Our information upon the question has been greatly extended since I first inquired this morning. We have read the reports in the public Press; and if anything is beyond doubt in this most sad and terrible affair it is that the outbreak of disorder, the shedding of
    222
    blood, and the loss of life—the loss of innocent life—have resulted from a wanton attack by an armed body of police upon a body of citizens engaged in the exercise of their undoubted and Constitutional right of public meeting. The fact that a meeting in Mitchelstown was being held was not to anyone a secret. The fact that a meeting would be held was known for many days. The time and place of the meeting were matters of common knowledge. The Government did not prohibit the meeting. The Government claim that they have powers undefinable and unlimited—powers at Common Law to prohibit any meeting. They prohibited a meeting in Ireland a few days ago under these powers which they do not possess by Statute. They prohibited a meeting in Ireland a few days ago, and dispersed that meeting by force of arms. They did not prohibit this meeting at Mitchelstown, the fact of which was notorious a long time in advance. They had magistrates quartered there. These magistrates made no declaration; they gave no indication or offered any hint that the meeting was open on any grounds to objection. The people were not only allowed to assemble at the place of meeting, but they were encouraged to assemble there. I have not in any quarter found that exception has been taken either to the cause of the meeting or to the nature of the proceedings there. I should be glad, therefore, to learn from the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he denies the right of the people to assemble at Mitchelstown yesterday, or if he questions any part of the proceedings which had occurred up to the moment of the attack by the police? The meeting was addressed by several English and Irish Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was present, the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis), the hon. Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire (Mr. Brunner) was also present, and amongst the Irish Members present were my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and the hon. Member for South Tipperary (Mr. John O'Connor). Why did the police break in upon the meeting? The Chief Secretary thinks it is a smiling matter; but he is the only man in the British Isles who thinks so.
    DR. TANNER: He will laugh on the other side of his face?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
    MR. SEXTON: They broke in upon the meeting because a police reporter desired to report the speeches. We have had many a meeting in Ireland in recent years, and the Government have reported the speeches; but have they ever on any previous occasion pursued a course so dangerous and so deadly as that they pursued at Mitchelstown? In the days of Mr. Forster, in the clays of Sir George Trevelyan as Chief Secretary, and of Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, the course pursued was at least judicious and discreet, and nowhere was there any serious breach of the peace caused by the presence of any reporter. In previous cases the Government, before the meeting was held, applied to the committee, or the local promoters of the meeting, or some public man advertised to speak there, and they applied to him by the Sub-Inspector or the Head Constable to provide accommodation for the Government reporter, and I am not aware of any case in which the accommodation was refused, or that it was inadequate for the purpose. I am aware of many such applications even having been made to me. I have spoken in many counties, and the Sub-Inspectors and Head Constables have applied to me to provide accommodation for the Government reporter, and I have often procured him a chair and table upon the platform, because I have no desire that any words of mine should be uttered without the cognizance of the Government, and I have never known any accommodation applied for for the Government reporter to be refused or to be inadequate. I remember on one occasion in Dublin being called upon by the Superintendent of the Detective Department. It was a troublesome time, and I thought he might have some function to perform appertaining to myself. I asked him when he came into the room what he wanted, and he told me he had been sent by the Government to see if I would guarantee the safety of the Government reporter at the meeting I was advertised to speak at. I replied that I certainly would. The Government accepted that engagement. The Government reporter was accommodated. The meeting began peacefully, and peacefully went on to its conclusion. I want
    224
    to know why this course was not pursued on the present occasion? Did the Government inquire of any local man—did the Government inquire of any Member of Parliament whether the Government reporter would be accommodated on the platform, or otherwise suitably enabled to report the speeches? If they did not, Sir, and if in the absence of such application they broke with violence into that meeting, the guilt of the bloodshed is on their heads. Did the police take any steps to post their reporter at any suitable place in the vicinity where he could report their speeches? They knew beforehand the day, the hour, and the place of meeting; and did they, before the meeting began, send a body of policemen there in advance with their reporter? They did not. Did they, while the meeting was in progress, content themselves with marching their forces of police to the edge of the meeting and allowing their reporter at the edge of the meeting to report these speeches? Sir, none of these courses was pursued, but a course was pursued which I declare I can reconcile with no other intention than the intention to excite the passions of the people, with the view of provoking them to violence. Sir, what happened? A body of policemen, whilst the meeting was peacefully in progress, and legally engaged for a Constitutional purpose, marched up to the edge of the meeting with a Government reporter in their midst holding up his notebook in his h and, as if he desired to proclaim his errand and excite the people. The police then endeavoured by main force, and without a word of warning, to force their way from the edge to the centre of the meeting. The meeting was closely packed. Had the people a right to be there or not? If they had a right to be there, had the police any right to interfere with them, or to endeavour to force a path through the meeting? The police, unable to proceed through the meeting, retired. I should have thought that at this point someone in authority would have seized the opportunity to intervene. There was a magistrate on the scene—there were officers of all grades—but after the first retirement of the police, when they failed to induce the people to allow the meeting to be broken up, why did not the magistrate, Captain Seagrave, or some officer, come to the verge of the

    225
    meeting and call upon those on the platform to admit the Government reporter, or provide him with accommodation? No such demand was made, and the police returned a second time, strengthened by the addition of a baton party. The baton party, without a word of warning, proceeded to attack the meeting. They struck the people savagely on the head and shoulders with their batons. Neither in Ireland nor in any other country is it in human nature for men to suffer an unprovoked and mortal attack without retaliation. The people struck back. The police had batons—the people had blackthorns. Well, while the contest lay between blackthorns and batons the blackthorns might be safely expected to hold their own. The police retired—they fled to the barrack. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who was addressing the meeting at the time, adjured the people to be peaceful and patient, and to pursue their proceedings to a close. I am at this point addressing myself especially to the First Lord of the Treasury, who must feel the great and painful responsibility cast upon him. Surely at this point, when the physical conflict had closed, and the police had retired, and before any other stop was taken in the path of violence, a magistrate or some superior officer should have appeared upon the scene. Where was the magistrate? Refreshing himself in the hotel. Where were the officers? I have been unable up to the present to determine. I could understand if the police, having been driven back by the blackthorns in retaliation, returning accompanied by a magistrate or superior officer, and if the riot had not been quelled, reading the Riot Act, and ordering the meeting to disperse, and if, after that reading of the Statute, the meeting had failed to disperse, then I could understand the use of violence. The people would have had warning, and they would have understood the penalty of disobedience. Now comes the most grave and unprecedented part of this terrible occurrence. The police fled to the barracks—some of the people followed part of the way; then all but a few returned to the meeting. The space round the barrack was empty except for the presence of a few people. What did the police do? They rushed to their rifles, they
    226
    went upstairs, and out of the top window of the barrack they fired upon the few people who were standing within range. All was quiet at this time—the disorder had ceased, the conflict was over. Now, I ask any lawyer, or any other Member of the House, whether the police, having made good their return to the barracks, and having obtained safety in them, were entitled to load their rifles and come to the windows of the barracks and fire out of them? Were they entitled to fire from any other cause except to protect the barracks from instant attack, when provoked at the moment, and in defence of their lives? They were not. There was no case of this sort. That was the only imaginative cause for action such as the police took. Having fired out on the few people who were standing quietly in the space—what did they fire with? They fired with bullets. Nothing has been more familiar to our ears in recent years in this House than that the use of bullets on occasions of this kind had been superseded by the use of buckshot. The late Mr. Forster used to plead that it was the most merciful charge, inasmuch as buckshot did not kill. Why did the police use bullets on this occasion? The action of these constables in firing out of the windows is irreconcilable with an intelligent view of the capacity of officers of peace. They did not fire to maintain order, they did not fire to restore it, they fired to kill. An old man who was standing quietly in the street had his brains scattered upon the highway and fell dead. A young man of 17 who was walking quietly by got a bullet through the forehead, and the poor fellow was seen to stagger a few yards and make the sign of the cross on his forehead, being a Catholic, and fall dead. Several men have been seriously injured, if not mortally wounded. Was there any magistrate in the barracks? There was not? Was there any superior officer? I do not know, but I do know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo rushed to the barracks as soon as possible to endeavour to prevent fatal results, and I see by the newspapers to-day that he was taken in a rude and violent manner and pulled into the barracks. He states that the state of things inside the barracks was one of chaos. Every man seemed to have rushed to his rifle,

    227
    and of his own impulse simply committed murder. The firing from the windows was not an act of discipline; it was not an act of consideration, of order, but it was an act of retaliation and revenge. Will the Government defend this act on the part of peace officers? We should claim from the Government to know what bullets were fired out of the barracks, upon what order the bullets were fired, and what steps have been taken—24 hours have now elapsed since the occurrence—to identify and bring to justice the constables who committed this act of murder. Nor was that the end of this black page in this horrible occurrence. Surely the law was vindicated sufficiently when the police fired out of the barracks. They did not think so, however. Having fired and wounded and killed, they put down their rifles—they took up their batons, they sallied out of the barracks, they went in force to the square where the meeting was being held, and batoned indiscriminately with furious passion every man and woman they found there; and so completely was their passion taken from under their control, that they rushed into the house of the parish priest and batoned the men and women who had taken refuge there, where surely they might have hoped for sanctuary, and some English ladies, including Miss Manders, of Manchester, had a very narrow escape. I do not know that it is necessary that any English person should be batoned or murdered in order to excite the horror of this country. I fear that if that is required, if English Members of Parliament and English gentlemen and ladies continue to go to Ireland to be present at evictions or public meetings, there is slight probability that they will much longer escape from this horrible brutality. I can discern no trace of the intervention of any superior mind of magisterial action. I can discern no trace of the control of any man corresponding to a commanding officer of the Army. The police appear to have acted upon their own motion. Where was the magistrate all this time? How many magistrates had you? You certainly had one whose name is Captain Seagrave. He was in charge of these armed forces, and the account in the Press this morning is that during the whole of these transactions from the
    228
    first action of the police, when they tried to wedge through the meeting to the final batoning on the street. Captain Seagrave was in the hotel. Why did Captain Seagrave remain in the hotel, and in his absence who was in command of the forces? Who was responsible for the wanton attack upon the meeting which led to the retaliation and to the action which followed that retaliation, which I consider to be morally and legally acts of murder? This whole affair, this whole terrible catastrophe, is the inevitable result of the language and conduct of the Government. Their speeches here, their action on this occasion, and their conduct in Ireland have taught an evil and a mortal lesson to their subordinates of every grade. There is no official in Ireland, from the Chief in Dublin Castle to the constable in the village, who does not regard the policy and the conduct of the Government as an encouragement to incite him to acts of violence and bloodshed; who does not believe in his heart that the path of violence, trampling upon popular rights, is the path for him of favour and promotion. What have been the manifestations of this spirit? We had the first manifestation in the famous telegram of Captain Plunkett. Captain Plunkett came fresh from an interview with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. They had spent an hour together in Dublin Castle, and Captain Plunkett went red hot to the telegraph office and he telegraphed to Youghal, Mallow—"Don't hesitate to shoot the people down." Well, the lesson has improved with time. The hesitation that may have been felt at that date at least appears to have been felt no longer. They did not hesitate to shoot down the people at Mitchelstovvn. A further manifestation of this spirit has been given at the Herbertstown evictions. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Cork (Mr. William O'Brien) was holding an interview with some friends, the magistrates called out—"Clear away these people there!" The people were standing quietly by. Have the people no right to be present at an eviction? Surely if there is any event which naturally excites the interest of the people, or any event which the people have a right to observe, it is such an event as an eviction. To some it is an offence to cheer, to others to groan.

    229
    You want to strike the people down. If that is wanted by the Government it cannot be done. There is no law to accomplish such an end. On this occasion, when the people were standing quietly by, the police rushed at them with their batons, and they fled from the violence of the police. At another place a magistrate said to a constable—"Haven't you got a batoning party there. "We have,"—said the constable. "Then go at them like the Davil!" [Cheers.] A military Gentleman opposite cheers—he accepts the infernal comparison, I suppose. It appears, too, that they are going at them like the Devil, and it appears, too, that no other comparison would adequately describe them. I do not think it would be possible to overstate the gravity of the circumstances in Ireland. The Irish people are no more patient than other people—they have schooled themselves to patience, and we have endeavoured to make them patient and forbearing; but I tell the Government that they are going too far. A man who saw this scene of bloodshed yesterday, was heard to say—" You have not heard the last shot." the House will feel that it is easier to begin a conflict of this kind than to end it. You are rousing the passions of the people in Ireland, and every man will feel the force of what I say when I declare that it is easier to rouse those passions than when aroused to check them. You are provoking the people of Ireland wantonly by a reckless invasion of the only elementary right of popular meeting into a state of civil war; and I warn the Government, and I warn all those who have influence with the Government, that if they do not keep in check the brutality of their agents they may try to allay the passions of the people which they have excited when it is too late.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has asked the Government for information with respect to the recent serious and grave occurrences at Mitchelstown. Twice already has the hon. Gentleman asked for information which we were not in a position to give. But now that he has raised the same question again, I will, of course, be very glad to put him in possession of the principal parts of the information
    230
    we have received—all the material parts of the information we have received—during the internal. But, Sir, I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman seems to be the last person in the House to whom the information is necessary, for he has given an account of the transaction far more minute and detailed than any I can pretend to lay before the House, and, I am bound to say, different in almost every vital and substantial particular from the accounts that I have received.
    MR. SEXTON: Who are they from?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They are the accounts the hon. Member asked me to give before—the official accounts that I have received. Well, Sir, the hon. Gentleman has asked me whether this was an illegal meeting, and, if so, why did we not proclaim it? Sir, I do not think it necessary to go into the character of the meeting now. I do not now give any opinion as to the legality of the objects for which the meeting was assembled, nor shall I attempt to decide whether the Government would or would not have been justified in proclaiming it. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government may have a perfect right to proclaim a meeting, and yet may not deem it expedient to do so? The hon. Gentleman should be the last to complain that we did not proclaim it, since he and his Friends are never tired of condemning the action of the Government in proclaiming the meeting at Ennis, If, therefore, there was to be any complaint of the action or want of action of the Government in this matter, we should never have anticipated that it would come either from the hon. Gentleman or his Friends. The hon. Gentleman has described this occurrence as an unprovoked and wanton aggression on the part of the police, he has repeatedly said that it was rightly and properly resisted by the people, and that the unhappy and tragic results which we all deplore were not caused by the police in self-defence, but were the gratuitous action of an inflamed and undisciplined mob. Well, Sir, the account I have received traverses the information of the hon. Gentleman in every one of these particulars. The hon. Gentleman asks whether we have in this case pursued what he describes as the invariable practice of former Governments—namely, whether we have

    231
    gone to the gentlemen who have called the meeting and asked whether they would guarantee the safety of the Government reporter? I do not know whether that has been the practice of previous Governments. But to lay it down as a canon which no Government should outstep that the very persons to judge of whose conduct the Government are sending a police reporter are to be approached in an attitude of humility, and asked whether they will guarantee the reporter's safety, appears to me to be a most monstrous and unheard of proposition. The hon. Gentleman has given his account, and I have no doubt he fully believes it, of what occurred when the Government reporter, under an escort of police, approached the meeting in order to carry out his instructions and make an adequate report of the speeches to be delivered. But what happened was this. The Government reporter, under the escort of the police, did endeavour to approach the speakers, who were not on a platform, but on some kind of vehicle, which, being movable, he could not have been expected to take up his position beforehand at the place from which the speakers were to address the meeting. While the Government reporter was endeavouring under the escort of the police to get within earshot of the speakers, one of those speakers—an hon. Gentleman a Member of this House—I think the Member for East Tipperary (Mr. Condon)—shouted out to the people—" Close up against the police." That, as far as I can gather, was the signal for an assault upon the police, utterly unprovoked and of the most violent and brutal character. The police were assaulted with stones and with blackthorn sticks; they were broken into disorder by men on horseback; they were thrown out of their formation; there were driven back upon the barracks; they were pursued to the barracks; they were driven inside the barracks, the barrack doors were broken, the barrack windows were broken; and it was in self-defence, in order to protect the party coming in and to protect themselves, that the shots to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded were fired. Now, it appears to me that if that account of the transaction is accurate—and I believe it is accurate—there never was a more wanton or brutal attack made upon the police than on this occasion, and are the
    232
    Government to say that the police in resisting such a wanton and brutal attack were not justified?
    MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that the space about the barracks was nearly empty when the police fired upon the people?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The information I have received precludes that supposition altogether. And the severity of this attack may be estimated from the number of police injured. The hon. Gentleman has drawn a picture in dark colours of the sufferings of the wounded and the tragic effects of the fire of the police.
    MR. SEXTON: The deaths.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There were two deaths. The hon. Member said there were more, but as far as my information goes there were two. Three were wounded and two were killed. The hon. Member has omitted altogether all reference to the injuries inflicted upon the police. [Cries of "There were none."] Fifty-four of the police were hit, 29 were injured—one very seriously and eight severely. Now, Sir, when an attack of that kind is made upon the police, are the police, who are men, to be said to have exceeded their duty when they resort to what should be resorted to only in the last necessity, but which when the last necessity occurs no officer should shrink from using? The hon. Gentleman says that the police on the spot excited the people beyond a point where endurance was possible. If any persons were concerned in exciting the people it appears to me to be those under whose orders processions with bands and banners went out previous to the meeting, and especially those who, when the police were seen approaching, cried out to the mob to close their ranks against the police. The hon. Gentleman says the responsibility for these transactions rests with us. I listened in vain for any justification of that grave accusation. Who is it that has been attempting to inflame the minds of the Irish people? Is it the Government? [Cries of "Yes!"]
    MR. CLANCY: You have done it for 20 years.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Or is it that band of politicians who describe themselves as the Leaders of the Irish people? I recollect the hon. Gentleman pointing

    233
    to speeches made by Members of the Government as being in themselves a sufficient ground for justifying such, brutal attacks as were made on the police yesterday. But I recollect a speech made in this House a few days ago, not by a Member of the Government, but by the hon. Member for East Mayo, in which he described over and over again the Government reporter as a Government spy, until you, Mr. Speaker, called him to Order. That is the kind of language which inflames the Irish people; that is the kind of language which moves these unfortunate crowds to attack the police, and in consequence of these attacks to bring on themselves such unhappy and melancholy retribution. The responsibility rests not with us; it rests with you. If hon. Gentlemen who claim to have, and I believe have, influence over their fellow-countrymen, would really exert that influence to keep the people within the law; if they would not content themselves with talking about liberty of speech and Constitutional agitation, and using a few phrases of that kind to throw in the face of the English democracy; if they would use their influence to prevent the Irish people from breaking the law—[Mr. CLANCY: There is no law there]—if they would do all they could to see that law was respected and obeyed, we should never have these melancholy scenes to deplore, and these endless discussions in the House. I believe the information I have given the House, though not so full as I could have desired, is quite accurate; but I shall, no doubt, receive on Monday a full and detailed account of all the proceedings. I have had to depend on the telegraph for information, but I have given the House all the information that I know and that is material. I do not think anything would be gained by prolonging a discussion of this kind. Hon. Gentlemen will be able to raise it again, if they think it necessary, at a later stage of the Bill, when we shall be able to discuss the question with fuller knowledge and more perfect information from the reports we shall then have received. I would therefore deprecate further discussion now. But I may say with full confidence that though we have not complete information, what we do possess tends to show conclusively that the version of the occurrences which the hon.
    234
    Gentleman has given is wholly erroneous, that the police acted in this matter simply in self-defence, and that they were the subjects of one of the most unprovoked and brutal aggressions on the part of the crowd which even the melancholy history of Irish political meetings can supply.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought the majority of hon. Members would from their own reading recognize that the account of the occurrences at Mitchelstown laid before them by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) was supported by the correspondents of every newspaper, of whatever shade of politics the newspaper might happen to be.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must point out that the hon. Gentleman has already spoken on the Bill, and that he has therefore exhausted his right to take part in this debate.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, the speech delivered by the Chief Secretary was precisely of the character that might have been expected. In the case of every circumstance of that kind that had occurred in Ireland of recent years, and especially since the right hon. Gentleman had taken Office, the practice had been to assume everything said by the police and magistrates as true, and to disbelieve every person on the other side. Whose evidence had the right hon. Gentleman presented to the House that evening? Why, the evidence of the very men who were incriminated. The men who had endeavoured to force their way into a peaceable meeting, who afterwards returned, batoned the people without cause, and who, as the final outrage, insisted on firing into a peaceable crowd, although there was no possibility of any attack being made on the place where they were posted. That testimony was opposed to that of every newspaper, whether Whig or Tory, and of every person who had written or spoken on the subject up to the present time. He challenged hon. Gentlemen, opposite to point to a single morning paper in London which gave an account which was not entirely opposed to that of the right hon. Gentleman. The evidence of the persons present was to the same effect, including that of an English lady, Miss Manden, of Wolverhampton, who said she was more than astonished by the interference of the

    235
    police. At the very moment the meeting was broken up she was listening to Mr. Dillon advising the people to observe a peaceful and patient demeanour. The Chief Secretary could not impose on the English people the story of the incriminated ruffians in Ireland, who had been acting as his agents, against the testimony of all the newspaper correspondents who were at the scene of the massacre, and of the persons, male and female, who were there as independent spectators. The right hon. Gentleman said his information differed in every particular from, that of the hon. Member for West Belfast. Of course it did. If the incriminated persons admitted the accounts given by all the newspapers and the independent persons present they would confess themselves murderers. They could not be expected to agree with those accounts, and he and his Friends rejected the story of the right hon. Gentleman. It was a false account. It was supplied by the persons who ought to be in the dock, if the right hon. Gentleman were an impartial administrator of the law. The spirit of impartiality which the right hon. Gentleman had shown was clearly evidenced by the fact that, having only got telegraphic intelligence of these matters, and having got in the public Press, on the other side, a full account of these transactions, he came to the Table of the House and said he disbelieved the reports in the public Press, and believed implicitly the account of the police. It was nothing new. The agents of the Government in Ireland had interpreted the speeches and the action of the Government in the past in a manner perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, did not anticipate—although on that point there might be two opinions—but they interpreted that action in a spirit which, if it was pursued, would yet lead to further massacres on the part of the police, and perhaps to further retaliation on the part of the people. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the statement of his hon. Friend that in Ireland it had been the practice for Government reporters to ask for permission to take up a position at meetings where they could best discharge their task, and he described that as humiliating. That showed the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman. That showed the spirit of the imperious tyrant, as he ventured to de-
    236
    scribe him, and the spirit of a man who would not stop at trifles in order to compass his object. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the difficulty of the Government reporter obtaining proper accommodation, and that the platform was a vehicle which moved about. That was a common occurrence in Ireland, and he had himself had the Government reporter on his carriage taking notes of his speech. When reporters had come to the carriages which were used as platforms at these meetings, they had invariably been accommodated; and then there was no row such as occurred yesterday, when the Government reporter insisted on forcing his way through a crowded and packed meeting—a meeting packed as close as it possibly could be, and through which he could not get without kicking up a row. What right had the Government reporter to try to get through the meeting? He did not understand the Government had any such rights. Everybody had a right to be there. It was a legal meeting. It had not been proclaimed. The Government reporter was in the position of the ordinary citizen. If he wished, no doubt he could have taken up a good position at the meeting—that was the usual practice. The police knew where the meeting was to be held, and stationed themselves near the platform, and the consequence was everything went on peaceably. But yesterday they tried and insisted on forcing their way into that crowded and packed assemblage, to get into which was impossible without creating a row. What right had the reporter or police to break through the meeting? They had no more right than any other ordinary citizens; and, moreover, the reporter could hear just as well as the people on the outside fringe of the meeting. What right had he? He had no right. What cause had he? He had none; and therefore he charged on the agents of the right hon. Gentleman all the ultimate consequences, including the shedding of blood and the loss of life which afterwards ensued. The right hon. Gentleman had not yet made up his case, which would be found, not only on reference to the papers, Tory and Liberal, to borrow his own words, to be different in every essential particular from the truth. He actually described the events of the second encounter as having happened in

    237
    the first. Nothing happened at all at the first. The policemen came with their reporter, and there was a little pushing in the crowd. That nothing more occurred appears plain from all the accounts of the occurrence, except that the horses which were on the outside of the meeting became restive when the police approached. So impatient was the right hon. Gentleman that he did not even wait to see whether he was right or wrong in that vital matter; he did not hesitate to go up to the Table of the House and profess entire belief in, and give implicit credence to, the reports of the incriminated parties—the police. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to notice one part—tbe most important part—of his hon. Friend's speech. Under whose orders were the shots fired? Where was the magistrate? A distinct charge was made by the hon. Member for West Belfast, on the strength of the statements published in the London papers, that that magistrate was in the hotel the whole time, and, if he (Mr. Clancy) was not mistaking the man, he charged him with drinking in that hotel. He made that statement on the supposition that he was the same man of whom he had read that he had already been in a lunatic asylum on account of his excessive drinking. If that was the man the thing became much more serious. He regarded it as a very suspicious circumstance that the right hon. Gentleman sat down without noticing that very important part of the speech of the hon. Member. And what did the House think of the term in which he described that firing in the course of which two men's brains were knocked out and one man was shot through the heart—he called that by the nice name of "retribution." That was a pretty word for a responsible Minister of the Crown to use. The spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to go to his work, and consequently induced his agents to go to their work, was a spirit of revenge. If such a spirit as that was rampant in the Government it would produce terrible consequences in Ireland. It was not a spirit which even the English people would tolerate, and the English people would learn that that spirit was not only acted upon in Ireland, but shamelessly and openly avowed in the House of Commons. They hold the
    238
    Government to be responsible in this matter, and they held that the men who kept them in Office were equally responsible. They held that every Member who supported the Government in this policy of blood was personally responsible also. In this category they ought never to fail to include the Liberal Unionist section of that House, without whose aid the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to maintain his present position for 24 hours. The House might be certain that it had not heard the last of this matter. He could only express an ernest hope that, taking human nature to be what it was, the consequences of this policy would not be what might naturally be expected to follow from it in a population not yet degraded to the level of slaves. He trusted such dreadful consequences would not occur in Ireland, and if they did, the responsibility would entirely rest on the Chief Secretary.
    SIR EDWARD REEDsaid, he thought it would not be altogether proper that no one who customarily sat on the Front Opposition Bench should rise and join in the protest of the Irish Nationalist Members. He did not think, however, that he should have risen if anything like a moderate or a proper speech had been delivered by the Chief Secretary; but he considered that the spirit in which that speech was delivered and received, was fraught with future disorder, misery, and agitation, not only in Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if it were to be supposed that a public meeting which was peaceably proceeding to discuss a political subject, might be roughly broken into by a posse of police on any pretext whatever, and that when the people, excited and irritated by this conduct of the police, defended themselves, they were to be fallen foul of, cudgelled, bludgeoned, batoned, and shot—if this were so, the Government were challenging a state of things which would receive a response from this country. He could speak with assurance of his own constituents; he knew the feeling of the people of Cardiff, because they had had some little experience of this sort of conduct on the part of the police at the last General Election. Speaking with knowledge of his own constituents, he could say there was a profound determination to recent

    239
    in future the improper interference of the police. He should have thought that any Minister of any Government would at least have included in a speech made in the present condition of things, some language calculated to allay public excitement rather than to stir it up, and intensify it, as the Chief Secretary had by his speech. Perhaps he might be allowed to call attention to one part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that had been referred to by the hon. Member who spoke last. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not to be wondered at that the police had acted as they did, although, according to all accounts, they were the first disturbers. [Loud cries of "No!" from the Ministerial side.] There could not be the shadow of a doubt about that. He had taken the trouble to read the accounts, and the conclusion he had drawn from the descriptions given by the correspondents of the London newspapers was, that the police were the first to break in on a body of peaceable citizens. [Renewed cries of "No!"] About 20 policemen, in trying to force their way through the crowd, were the first to produce this disturbance. The right hon. Gentleman said it was no wonder that the police, having been attacked in return for this disturbance and disorder, should go to their barracks, bring out their rifles, and shoot the people down.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I stated more than once that the firing of the police was done in self-defence.
    SIR EDWARD REEDremarked that what the right hon. Gentleman said was, that it was not to be wondered at that the police should go to their barracks and fire on the people. That was the essence and the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
    A Home Rule MEMBER: "Retribution."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said in self-defence.
    SIR EDWARD REED: The right hon. Gentleman did not say in self-defence. [Murmurs on the Ministerial side.] Then no should like to know where the word "retribution" came in.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should not be in Order if I were to rehearse the whole of my speech; but I can tell the hon. Gentleman with the utmost confi-
    240
    dence that the word retribution did not come in the connection in which he supposes it to have come.
    SIR EDWARD REEDsaid, he would not be slow to accept any disclaimer of that kind, for his feeling in this matter was one of profound grief and regret that anything should have happened to intensify the antagonism of the people towards the Government in any part of the United Kingdom. He would retreat from his position if he had in the slightest degree overcharged the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. But he must say he thought that if the history of this country had proved anything at all it had proved in the first place the right of the people to assemble in public meeting for the peaceable discussion of public questions; and, secondly, that it had established that it was the duty and the obligation of the Government to use every influence in their power to deter their servants from firing at the people and using force and violence against them. Politicians had laid down the argument that resort to force against a public meeting was the last resort under any circumstances. He did not listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with any prejudice against him. On the contrary, he had the intensest sympathy for him in the arduous and exacting duties he had to perform, considering that the right hon. Gentleman's antecedents had not well qualified him to deal with thorn. But he must say that the whole effect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on his mind was this: If the people of Ireland, assembling in public meeting, would not submit to have bodies of police pushing them aside and breaking in among them arbitrarily to escort a reporter, or for any other purpose, and if they were not quiet under that treatment, and would not submit to be cudgelled and batoned by the police after a quarrel had happened, then not only would the Government justify the police in shooting the people down, but they would do that which every such speech from the Treasury Bench did—encourage and incite the police to violence. He thought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been flavoured with some indication of impartiality. He knew how much truth there was in the allegation that the information he had given was contradicted by the Press accounts.

    241
    To do the hon. Member for West Belfast justice, he had drawn his account from the papers, and not from any secret information that could not he tested; but this House knew that the information of the right hon. Gentleman was tainted in its very source. [Cries of "No!"] Was there a single Member of the House who doubted that the information given by the right hon. Gentleman had emanated from incriminated parties? Where else could the right hon. Gentle man get his information from? It must be from the official source, and the official source was tainted. What they ought to expect, and what they must claim if they were not to lose their national rights, was that a Minister should speak not on the authority of a party or a section, but he should speak to the country on a matter of this kind with great reserve, and lose no opportunity of testing in other ways the information supplied him. When he rose in his place he should not represent the views of prejudiced and interested parties; he should submit his information to those tests which it was in the power of the Government to apply, and which it was the duty of the Government to apply. He did not like to criticize the language of the right hon. Gentleman, which was always scholarly and nearly always correct, but he did not understand one passionate remark in which the right hon. Gentleman asked—Were the police doing less than their duty when they rushed to the barracks, took their rifles, and fired? It must have been a slip of the tongue; he must have meant more than their duty. No one would suspect them of having done less than their duty. The right hon. Gentleman failed altogether to do what he ought to have done, and what he must do if this country was to remain quiet. The people of England would not submit to have their fellow subjects batoned and massacred, and he thought it was only due to the Government to let them know that in matters of this kind they would not only have to encounter the opposition of 86 Irish Members, but also of a great political Party in this country. Let the House imagine the case which he had himself experienced. He was parsing from his hotel at Cardiff to the club, not 100 yards away, and in total ignorance of any disturbance, when he found himself
    242
    confronted by a body of gigantic policemen. One had a truncheon raised to smite him down to the ground, and it was only in consequence of two friends coming forward and shouting out who he was that he was saved from a brutal and violent attack. The function of the police was to arrest criminals and keep down crime, not to bludgeon people and fire into crowds indiscriminately. He had no desire to prolong this debate, but he had risen to add his protest to that of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway against the tone and spirit of the Chief Secretary's reply.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid, the Chief Secretary had alluded to the attitude of humility with which it would be necessary for the police to approach the promoters of meetings in Ireland. Why was it that in the past the meetings in Ireland had passed over in peace and quietness? It was because this attitude of humility was used by the police—it was because the promoters of the meeting were approached by the police in a respectful manner, and because the promoters of these meetings gave that protection to the police reporters which was needed, and which enabled the meetings to pass off quietly. He would point out to the House that there was attached to this permission and protection of the reporter one condition, and that was, that there should be no police at any of the meetings, but that condition which was laid down by Mr. Forster in the House had been outraged and violated by the Police Authorities, who, after this permission had been granted to the reporters, still invaded the meetings by the directions of the Government whose Representatives sat on the Bench opposite. A change had occurred in the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, but he would ask the Chief Secretary whether he was satisfied with the result of the change of policy? When these meetings passed over peacefully, the Irish members took the protection of the reporters into their own hands, with the result that the people exercised their undoubted right of free speech and public meeting without endangering the public peace of the country. The Chief Secretary had alluded to the fact that one of their Colleagues told the people to close their ranks, but in his garbled report the right hon. Gentleman tailed to say

    243
    that it was on the second occasion this expression was used. It was properly used, and if he had been there he would have used it himself and asked the people to close their ranks against the police reporter, who was naturally looked upon as a spy and informer. The Chief Secretary also said the police fired in self-defence. Then whom did they shoot? Did they shoot the men who attacked them? No, because they had retired to the meeting, but they shot an old man who was round the corner and formed no part or parcel of the meeting, and a youth who was passing by and who also formed no part of the meeting. These were the men who were injured and killed by that system of organized ruffianism, the Irish police. The Chief Secretary said there was no provocation given by the police. Had the right hon. Gentleman read the fair reports in the London papers which described how the police batoned the horses that surrounded the meeting, and caused the first commotion, and how they assaulted the people without the Riot Act being read? Had the right hon. Gentlemen even read the impartial reports in those London papers which were the indicators of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman and his officials in Ireland were doing their best to provoke the people, and upon him the responsibility must rest. He knew what it was to see drunken Inspectors come out of their hotels and take charge of this organized system of ruffianism, and he knew what it was to see drunken police magistrates in Ireland, with the lives of the people in their hands. He had seen at Mallow station people brutally batoned by police in charge of a drunken Sub-Inspector, whilst another Resident Magistrate, Mr. Butler, protested against the action of this man; and had it not been for the humane and intelligent exercise of authority on that occasion by Mr. Butler, the man to whom he alluded would, in his drunken attitude, and in command of this organized ruffianism, have shed the blood of the people. Contrast the suppression of the Ennis meeting last Sunday with the action of the authorities at Mitchelstown—contrast the action of the English gentleman and soldier, Colonel Turner, with the action of the friends of the Irish landlords, the Irish Sub-Inspector, and the
    244
    Resident Magistrate. He attributed to the peaceful result of the Ennis meeting the fact that there were two English gentlemen present, one in command of Her Majesty's forces, and the other on the side of the people. When the Government left the maintenance of peace and order in the hands of drunken Inspectors and prejudiced Resident Magistrates they created all these difficulties and troubles which surrounded and which would eventually overthrow them. He had said before that his constituents were concerned in this matter. They were the men of magnificent Tipperary, who struck a blow yesterday for the liberties of the people. He was not the first to use the expression "magnificent Tipperary." That expression was first used, by an English General who once contended in a famous field in India, when two regiments of Tipperary men marched through 30,000 Sepoys, and saved his honour and the character of the English Army. He was proud of the conduct of his constituents. They struck a blow for the right of public meeting and the Constitutional liberties of the people, and he called upon the people of England to defend them in their brave action. He knew he should not be disappointed in relying on the English people. He had been up and down this country lately, and he did not misjudge the spirit of the people when he said they were jealous of their Constitution and. of the privileges that were being frittered away by the Government now in Office. He appealed to the people of England to stand by the men who wore assaulted yesterday, and to show their self-sacrifice and friendship in defending the liberties of British citizenship.
    MAJOR BANESsaid, that it was unworthy of the House, which prided itself upon being a deliberative Assembly, to continue this discussion, for it must be admitted that at present the House had not sufficient information as to the facts to pass judgment on what had occurred. Hon. Members opposite might take a certain view of the matter, but they all knew the excitability of their nature. Objection had been taken to the Chief Secretary's statement; but the right hon. Gentleman had been forced to make a statement, and had given the House the best he could. He had admitted that the

    245
    statement was not as full as he could wish, and they must wait, as sensible men should wait, for further information. The Members on the Ministerial side of the House deplored this lamentable affair; but they must pause before they passed a decisive judgment upon it. It was said by hon. Members opposite that no fault could be found with the meeting, that it was quiet and peaceable, and that the odium of the disturbance rested on a small body of police- To any common sense man that did not seem convincing, especially as these so-called peaceable men came to the meeting armed with blackthorns, and carried with them missiles and weapons. The country would judge—[Home Rule cheers]—as it would judge of the attitude of hon. Members opposite that day. [Ministerial cheers and interruption.] He could well understand the hon. Members opposite did not want the true facts of the case to be known. [Renewed interruption.] Hold hard. He begged pardon of hon. Members; but he contended that the people of Great Britain would not form their judgment entirely on the allegations of hon. Gentlemen opposite. At the present moment, however, the House had not sufficient information to profitably discuss the matter. The English constituencies were sympathetic in this matter; but before they gave their decision they would insist on hearing both sides of the question.
    MR. CONYBEAREremarked that hon. Members behind him had had far more experience of public meetings than the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite—he did not even know his name.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. CONYBEARE: I will withdraw that remark.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! I did not ask the hon. Member to withdraw anything; I only ask him to be courteous to other Members of the House.
    MR. CONYBEARE, resuming, said, they had so far the facts before them that they had reports in every newspaper in the country, which were much more impartial than the statement which the Chief Secretary had been able to lay before the House. The hon. Member for Tipperary had appealed to the English and Scotch people for support. That appeal would be answered.
    246
    The people of this country and of Scotland would not stand by and see their Irish fellow subjects dragooned, shot down, and massacred, as they were yesterday. This was not an illegal meeting. He would not admit that a Proclamation could make a meeting illegal, but there was not even a Proclamation. There was no reading of the Riot Act. It was nonsense to ask them to believe that there was any question of self-defence when the police fired. How could the police have fired only in self-defence when all the evidence proved they went into their barracks and fired from the top stories? The magistrate it appeared was enjoying himself in an hotel, instead of taking command and doing the duty for which he was paid. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House to believe that all the independent accounts of the newspapers from one and to the other were inaccurate, and that the official reports furnished to him by persons incriminated were the only true versions of the case. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), it appeared, was speaking when 30 policemen made their way through and attacked the people with their batons. Was there, he asked, any danger of such things as this last summer? No; because of the peaceful policy which was organized by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. He supposed the Government would shield the offenders in this case in the same way that they had already declined to prosecute a policeman for murder. The newspaper accounts affirmed that the police produced commotion by using their batons upon horses, and that statement was not denied. No answer was given to the question why the Riot Act was not read before the police fired. It was no justification of violence to say that Members of the House had described police reporters as "spies." The responsibility for this affair rested upon the Government, who had disturbed the comparative peace of Ireland, and on Lord Salisbury, who had described the Irish people as "Hottentots." The people of this country would not allow the Government to continue this course of tyranny and. massacre by the Bashi-Bazouks of the Constabulary. The Government were living in a fools' paradise, and they had better wake up out of it. The people of this country would not stand by and see

    247
    he right of public meeting put down in Ireland. He challenged any Ministerial Member to address a public meeting of his constituents—not a packed meeting—and to justify the conduct of the police and of the Government in this matter. Let any hon. Member opposite address a mass meeting, say in the streets of Bradford, and he would soon find what would be the effect of the discontinuance of the right of public meeting. He warned the Government that unless they took steps at once to keep in order their Bashi-Bazouks in Ireland it would be worse for them.
    MR. HALLEY STEWARTfelt it his duty to enter his solemn protest against the speeches from the Ministerial side of the House. The hon. and gallant Member for West Ham (Major Banes) asked them as a deliberative Assembly to keep their judgment in suspense; but how could they do that in the teeth of the impassioned statement which was made by the Chief Secretary? It was full of bitter feeling towards hon. Members below the Gangway, heaping upon them contumely and contempt and holding them up to all Europe as being guilty in this matter because they came to this House to vindicate the first right of their constituents. It would not be right for Members of the Opposition to abstain from protesting against the way in which the Chief Magistrate for Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman might be called, spoke and acted with regard to the administration of the law in the country whose interests were committed to his hands. The right hon. Gentleman had absolved the police for breaking into the crowd in the first instance with the reporter. What right had the police to break into the crowd? He had charged the hon. Member who called out "Close up against the police," as being guilty of the whole transaction by making that statement at the very beginning; but had not any man in such a situation the right to turn round upon his supporters and the public and say, "Close up?" He maintained that it was an abuse of the law of this country to break in upon a peaceable assembly, and then to charge upon the man who, addressing the assembly, called out "Close up," the responsibility of this dire transaction. Worst of all was the Chief Secretary's attempt to
    248
    justify the action of the police in shooting from their barracks. Had it come to this, that no abuse could be resisted in any assembly while the Government vindicated the conduct of policemen in their barracks, unattacked, firing upon the mob?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no objection to hon. Members giving their own version of what occurred; but if the hon. Member is representing my speech, I give his representation of it a most emphatic contradiction. I said the police fired from the barracks in self-defence.
    MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not stated that there was any crowd there, and if there was not, what need was there to fire in self-defence? He could not conceive, if the tenfold statements which had come to this City were correct, that there was anything to warrant the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He implored the independent supporters of the Government not to sanction these transactions. Depend upon it, we were beginning a career which would mark a serious epoch in our national history. If these things could be done when this House was sitting, what would be done when Members were dispersed? In vindication of the right of public meeting a higher tribunal would be appealed to, and he would say to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, in the name of hundreds of absent Members and of millions of their fellow countrymen, that there would not be wanting men to stand by their side in this great trial, and though English and Scotch Members would know that they were supporting their own right of public meeting in their own country, it would not be from any selfish motive alone that they would champion the Irish cause; but in that spirit of brotherhood and love of justice which prompted them on that and all such occasions to fly to the help of the weak and the oppressed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I desire to say but few words at the close of this debate in respect to some of the arguments which have fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite, because, as everyone knows, the whole of this important matter will be discussed very fully on Monday next. With the materials before us we cannot discuss the ques-

    249
    tion now with the fulness with which we shall be able to discuss it on Monday. One of the first considerations I have to invite the attention of the House to has been lost sight of by most hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House, and that is, what were the circumstances under which this meeting was held? Yesterday, an hon. Member of this House (Mr. W. O'Brien) was summoned to stand his trial at Mitchels-town with a person of the name of Mandeville. The Resident Magistrates were in attendance there to try him and dispose of the case, and that was the day and that was the place which was selected for a demonstration composed of men coming in from all the adjoining counties, amounting altogether to between 3,000 and 4,000 men, with bands and banners, and accompanied by every circumstance calculated to influence and affect the judgment of the judicial tribunal and the witnesses to be examined. What would have been the effect of that demonstration within the hearing of the Court House if the trial had been one by jury? [Cries of "Question !"] This demonstration was composed not only of foot men who were armed with blackthorns, but of what had been most correctly described as peasant cavalry. Under the circumstances there was a considerable force of police in Mitchels-town to preserve order and to see that no violation of the law took place. Having regard to the circumstances under which the meeting was held, it was the duty of the Government to see that a note was taken of the speeches which were to be delivered. Now, beyond doubt, it is the law of the land—and I say so in order to correct what appears to be a misapprehension on the part of some speakers—that if there is a meeting held which the Government believe is likely to be attended with circumstances of illegality, and that speeches will be made which would incite to violation of the law, it is the duty of the Government to see that the speeches are reported, and anyone resisting the official Government reporter in the attempt to take a note is engaged in the resistance of the law. Is it to be said, for one moment, that if a seditious or illegal meeting is to be held, it is entirely at the discretion of the parties holding the meeting whether they will allow a report to be taken or not?
    250
    [Cries of "No!"] According to hon. Gentlemen opposite the police can be resisted if they attempt to force their way into the meeting. [An hon. MEMBER: Not at all.] The police on this occasion did, in the exercise of their duty, attempt to make their way to the waggonette from which the speeches were to be made. They were resisted. The peasant cavalry, by the motion of their horses, disordered the discipline of the police. [Cries of "No, no!"] The police were attacked, and I am surprised hon. Members who have referred to the reports in the London newspapers this morning have forgotten to mention that in some of the papers it is said that the police wore mercilessly assailed, kicked, beaten, and stoned. In one paper I have seen it said they flew for their lives. They were a small force of 50 or 60 men, and were confronted by 3,000 or 4,000 people. The made their way to their barracks, chased and stoned. It is reported as an amusing incident that one policeman's helmet was kicked up and down like a football. The police made their way to the barracks disordered and routed, and when they arrived there they had to turn round and fire upon the people in self-defence. I think it will be found, when the full reports come in, that some of the police were actually struggling behind, and that it was necessary for the actual protection of the force that this course should be taken. One hon. Member has stated to-night that it was an unfortanate circumstance that an old man and a young man should have lost their lives. Yes; it is a very sad thing in these outbursts of violence that innocent persons are sometimes the sufferers, but it is not unlikely, as hon. Gentlemen who have studied the history of Belfast riots know, that when the police are defending themselves shots may sometimes reach those who are really innocent. At Belfast innocent men, and even women, were shot, but I do not think any allegation was made that these persons lost their lives owing to misconduct on the part of the police. The police defended themselves, and the unfortunate persons who lost their lives may not have been the most guilty. I think that hon. Members will see that many of the observations which have been made to-night are most unjust. Last night Questions were addressed to the Government as to

    251
    what was the official information that we had received from Mitchelstown, and it was stated that we had not got the official report of the circumstances, but that the moment we received it we would submit it to the House; and now we are told that the necessarily imperfect telegraphic summary which was read by the Chief Secretary to the House was not worth hearing, because it comes from a tainted source. Why did they ask us to get official information at all? May I ask why it should come from a tainted source? Why are we told it comes from an incriminated quarter? Are the police any more on their trial in this matter than anybody else? [Interruption from a Home Rule Member.s] The conduct of the police in this case—[Renewed Interruption—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must ask the hen. Gentleman not to interrupt so constantly, or else I shall have to take further notice of his conduct.
    MR. GIBSON: The conduct of the police has been denounced without their having an opportunity of being heard. The only statements which the House has heard against them were statements which have been made by hon. Members. The Government, however, rely, and I think they are entitled to rely, and that the facts will show they are entitled to rely, on the statement communicated by my right hon. Friend, which appears to be marked with the stamp of truth. Why is it hon. Members on the reports of newspapers denounce the police as Bashi-Bazouks and as being unworthy of the name of Christian men at all? The statements in this morning's newspapers, when they come to be examined carefully, will be found not very different from the statement made by my right hon. Friend. They show that there was a severe and prolonged attack by a very superior and apparently organized force upon a comparatively insignificant body of police. What were the forces brought upon that field? On the one side were 3,000 men, a great number of them armed with blackthorns, and a peasant cavalry who proceeded to break up the order of the police. On the other side were about 50 policemen to whom, in the discharge of their boundon duty, in a few moments resistance was offered. You find them flying for their lives, their helmets
    252
    knocked off, the men kicked, stoned, and beaten with the sticks which were in the possession of the crowd. All the facts of the case will be necessarily more fully in our possession on Monday than at present, and I have no doubt that all the circumstances will be very fully discussed, and on the Motion which we are told will be made by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) a very considerable debate will take place. I will, therefore, suggest that this discussion, which has now gone on for a considerable time, may now with advantage be allowed to close. No doubt many hon. Gentlemen would like to be heard on the question, because they feel a great interest in the matter, and may think they will not have another opportunity of speaking. What good will be obtained by discussing the question on imperfect information? The arguments have been well placed on the one side by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and the police have been adequately denounced. On the other side of the House we have stated our views as clearly and simply as we could without exaggerating the facts on the material we have received. Our information is from the County Inspector on the spot. There is no doubt that when the discussion takes place all hon. Members will have a very full opportunity of going through the circumstances of this occurrence, which has resulted in a loss of life, which every one, no matter in what part of the House he sits, must most sincerely deplore.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, he was sorry to have hoard from the Treasury Benches a few moments ago so romantic a defence of what he considered to be a very illegal act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had given them a, very coloured and picturesque account of how these occurrences took place in Mitcholstown. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rested his justification of the action of the police on the necessity of getting a report of the speeches, but he had not explained to them why it was necessary to take this report in any particular part of the crowd. The right hon. and learned Gentleman failed entirely to understand that this police reporter could have taken his report just as well on the edge of this crowd as he could

    253
    in the middle of it—in fact he could have taken it a great deal better on the edge than in the middle Therefore there was in the first place no absolute necessity for the police forcing their way into the crowd. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman conveniently mixed up the events of the day. So far as their information went, and the information they were now relying on was the independent information which appeard in the Press generally, there were three stages in these proceedings in Mitchelstown. There was first the advance of 20 police with the police reporter. Now, anyone who was in the habit of attending meetings in Ireland knew it was utterly unnecessary to send 20 policemen with the Government reporter. He had never seen 20, but he had often seen three or four who were sent to protect the reporter from being pushed whilst he was in the middle of the crowd. There was no necessity for sending these 20 policemen, but that was only the initial stage of the proceedings. When these men came into the crowd they forced their way in and there was no riot. But these 20 policemen retired from the field and came back reinforced, and that was the time this fighting arose which so shocked the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They had undoubted testimony that this fighting began with the action of the reinforced body of police attacking the people, and that was the essential point of the whole case. These men made no peaceful effort to report the meeting. They did not pretend they could not have reported it without this appeal to violence, which resulted in the collision between the crowd and police. The police then retired to the barracks. They had the further effort on the part of the Ministry to create the impression that the people who formed the mass of the meeting pursued the police and attacked them in the barracks. All the information which the Irish Members had received contradicted that statement. There was no such movement of the people on the barracks. The police were allowed to retire into the barracks, and the fact that a few policemen retiring before such a mob were all of them able to get back into the barracks was a proof that they was not pursued by the mob. Therefore they had come to this position—that when the firing began from the
    254
    police barracks the mass of the people were listening to the speeches at some distance from the police barracks. There was no collection of men of such force or of such importance near the barracks as could by any possibility have placed the lives or even the persons of the policemen in danger. They could not have been in the slightest danger from the attacks of the few persons who might have advanced to the barracks. Therefore there was no legal justification in the action of the police. But all the Gentlemen who had spoken from the Ministerial Bench had also skimmed over another most important point, and that was that from the beginning to the end of these proceedings they missed the presence of any commanding officer whatever. What were these magistrates for? Who were in command of these armed policemen? If these men were left to run loose among the people and use their deadly arms without control they ceased to be soldiers and police, and became brigands. He said the action of these men was rather the action of brigands than the action of peace officers in defence of order. The fact that some of the police were injured had nothing to do with the question at issue. The question at issue was how this trouble arose. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said when the people attacked the police the police defended themselves. If men went into a fight they must expect to be hurt; but the fact that they had escaped without serious injury was a contradiction of the highly-coloured statements of both the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland, because if the crowd had been of the nature which it was represented—if there had been any organized attempt or intention to hurt or injure the police—it would be impossible for those men to have got off as they had got off. But the point after all, and the essential point, upon which this discussion turned, was what right had these men to attack the meeting in the beginning? That was the point to which the Government had to address themselves to justify their conduct in Ireland. He warned the Government that if the spirit which was displayed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland spread among the subordinate officials, in Ire-

    255
    land, they would find, and properly find, that they would not be allowed to commit these outrages with impunity.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, he did not rise to prolong the debate, but to ask a question upon a point which had been left ambiguous by the Attorney General for Ireland. He wished to ask him whether he contended that a police reporter had any right of interference at a meeting different from that of a reporter of a newspaper; and whether, if that were so, the right depended upon Statute or upon Common Law?
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that he did not know whether he was quite in Order in answering the question, or whether the hon. and learned Member was in Order in asking it; but his view of the law was that if the Government had reason to believe that the meeting was a meeting which would be attended with disorder and breach of the peace or illegality, they were bound, if they thought that speeches were to be made at that meeting which might require the notice of the law, to have a reporter present, and that that reporter was entitled to be admitted, and persons who resisted the reporter were guilty of a violation of the law. He would call the attention of the hon. and learned Member to the fact that this meeting was held in the public streets of a town.
    MR. HUNTER: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give any authority for that opinion?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to speak twice.
    DR. TANNERsaid, he had once had the curiosity to read a very celebrated pamphlet called Killing no Murder. It was written, he understood, by a celebrated man, Oliver Cromwell, the Protector of Great Britain. It appeared to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had adopted the argument of that pamphlet in his defence of law in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told them that at the meeting there was great difficulty in getting the police reporter through the crowd, and that it was in consequence of the opposition offered by the people that the police batoned the people, and that it was by these circumstances that the lamentable occurrences were brought
    256
    about. The speakers always, or nearly always, spoke from waggonettes. He had again and again listened at meetings, and if he had the necessary stenographic power he could certainly from the bottom of the street have easily reported speeches. He mentioned this to show that there was no necessity for the note-takers to push up through the crowd. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there was a great number of people there. Well, if there was a great number of people there, they would be incensed by the shorthand reporter pushing into the centre of the crowd. But was it the object that the meeting should pass off peacefully? Distinctly not, because they heard that the first commencement of the attack was in consequence of the police batoning horses. They knew perfectly well that if they batoned horses they would sway in one way or the other. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said they upset the order and ranks of the police. The people probably tried to prevent the horses going on one side, and thus upset the ranks of the police on the other. That was the more natural outcome of the circumstances, and the police should have borne it with good temper. But it did not appear to be the case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman repeated three times that the people were armed with blackthorns in profusion; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew that in Ireland the commonest thing in the world was to go about with a blackthorn. He (Dr. Tanner) came down to the House every afternoon with a blackthorn, although he did not consider that he went about armed with a blackthorn. It was one of the commonest sticks for walking purposes in those districts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have known that those peasant cavalry, as he called them, came from the counties of Limerick and Tipperary. Why should they not travel such a long distance by horses when they had them? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's meaning was that they came there to attack the armed forces of the Crown, but he (Dr. Tanner) said that was not the case. He should like to know whether in this instance the police note-taker had applied for admission to the waggonette? He had attended numerous meetings, and where such application was made it had always been acceded to. The action

    257
    of the police in firing on the people from the upstairs windows was, in the first place, unnecessary; and, secondly, disorderly. They had such proceedings backed up by responsible Ministers in the House. They knew that the outcome of such speeches as had been made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland when such laws existed in Ireland as at present was sure to be violence. After the meeting at Ennis the people of Ireland had been taunted with cowardice by the newspapers of this country. Now the hounds of the law had been sated with bloodshed, and let the huntsman cheer them on in their bloody course.
    MR. NOLANsaid, he desired to read an extract from the accounts of the proceedings which appeared in one of the London papers of that morning, which would remind the House of the real facts of the case after the garbled account that had come from the Treasury Bench.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word "garbled."
    MR. NOLAN: I think, Mr. Speaker, you are under a misapprehension.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman charged the Chief Secretary for Ireland with supplying garbled accounts to this House, and I must ask him to withdraw the word "garbled."
    MR. NOLAN: I do not apply the term to the right hon. Gentleman, or any Member of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: the expression could have no meaning if the hon. Gentleman did not apply it to any Member of the House.
    MR. NOLANsaid, he might not have made himself understood. What he intended to convey was that accounts supplied by officials to the Government were garbled. The account which he wished to read stated that the people who assembled in the square were perfectly peaceable and orderly until the police attacked them wantonly and cruelly with their batons, and that had the police not interfered no disorder whatever would have occurred. This account, short as it was, would appeal eloquently to hon. Members on the other side of the House, and would convey what he was convinced would turn out to be a truthful account of what occurred. That was written by the hon.
    258
    Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire (Mr. Brunner). It was of the utmost importance that statements communicated to this House should be correct and impartial. The language of the Chief Secretary that afternoon would be an incitement to the police, who read their newspapers every day, and who were greatly influenced by the tone of their masters. When, for instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian's policy was before Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle was Chief Secretary, the attitude of the police towards the people and the leaders of the people became exceedingly mild. The worst enemy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland could not wish to take a word away from, or to add to, his speech. He, however, regretted to find that none of those who had spoken from the Government Benches had expressed any regret at the circumstances that had occurred. There was one thing which ought to go home to the minds of the British people, and make them more keenly sensible of the terrible nature of this deplorable event, and that was that one of the unfortunate men who were killed was not a rioter, but was discharged home from the British Army after, perhaps, serving Her Majesty in various parts of the world, and on his return to Ireland he was shot down by the very men who were paid by the taxpayers of this country for the protection of life and property.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 25: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 476.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In fulfilment of the pledge which I gave to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), I now beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—VACANT GROUNDS (NUISANCES PREVENTION) BILL.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSinquired what course the Government intended to take with respect to the Vacant Ground (Nuisances Prevention) Bill?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that the measure was really directed against certain transactions in connection with a particular graveyard near the Tottenham Court Road. The Government strongly reprobated the shocking character of the use to which the burial ground of Whitfield's Tabernacle had been put; but they felt that they could not interfere in the matter proposed in the Bill without giving compensation to the owners of the ground. The land had ceased to be used as a burial ground for many years. It had been leased, had reverted to the owner in fee, and had then been sold under an Order of the Court of Chancery. The parties to whom it now belonged desired to make use of the property. The Home Office having interfered to prevent the land from being built upon, the owners had resorted to the shocking expedient of permitting fairs to be held on the ground. The Government intended to enforce any existing law that was applicable to the case, and would inquire whether they could not put a stop to the exhibitions of which the burial ground was the scene by enforcing the provisions of the Open Spaces Act and the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884. But should the law fail to meet the case, they could not undertake to interfere with the rights of private property unless compensation were given. He thought that the hon. Member would agree with him that in these circumstances it would not be right to press this Bill upon the attention of the House.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill be taken as the first Order of the Day on Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock till Monday next.