Commons Sitting of 24 April 1888

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Horse Guards Avenue.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Lunacy Acts Amendment* [228].
Second Reading—Partnership* [206].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Factory and Workshops Act (1878) Amendment* [154], and passed.
Withdrawn—Limited Owners (Scotland)* [63]; Bankruptcy (Ireland)* [121].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  HORSE GUARDS AVENUE BILL (by Order).
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)Perhaps the House will allow me to make one or two observations in regard to this Bill. It is a Bill for the construction of a road, to start opposite the Horse Guards from the site of what was Lord Carrington's house, and passing down by the Offices of the Board of Trade towards the Thames Embankment. The Bill contains power to the promoters to enter into agreements with the Office of Woods and Forests, and the Office of Works. Those agreements are not specified, and as they might involve certain charges on the Public Revenue I might have considered it my duty to make a special Report to the House on the matter; but the promoters of the Bill have pledged themselves to strike out altogether the powers of agreement contained in the Bill, so that the Bill will go before the Committee without them. It will then be in the form of the Westminster Improvement Bill of last Session to which I called the attention of the House, as a Bill which might involve a charge had not its promoters promised to strike out the powers of agreement in it. The House consented, on my representation, to allow the Bill to proceed with the clauses struck out. I accept the statement of the promoters in regard to the present measure, and, therefore, I do not intend to oppose the further progress of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE SALVATION ARMY AT TORQUAY.
  MR. MALLOCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has received a letter from certain members of the Salvation Army, alleging that, having been sentenced at the Torquay Petty Sessions, on the 26th of March, to 14 days' imprisonment, they were not liberated until two days after the expiration of their sentence; and that, during the time they were detained in the police cells at Torquay, they were given an insufficient amount of food, and had neither bedding nor light; and, to what extent the said allegations are accurate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.): The prisoners in question were sentenced at Torquay Petty Sessions on the 26th of March, but they did not reach Exeter Prison till the 27th; and, as the term of the imprisonment went, by law, from their reception in prison, they were not entitled to discharge till the 9th of April, when they were released. The reason of their detention in Torquay during the night of the 26th was that a noisy crowd of several hundred persons surrounded the Court House, seized the horses of the omnibus which was to convey the prisoners to the Railway Station, and endeavoured to upset the omnibus. This crowd remained, making a disturbance about the Court House till a late hour, and the authorities did not deem it prudent to remove the prisoners till the following morning, when the crowd had dispersed. The Chief Constable informs me that while in the police cells at Torquay the prisoners had sufficient food and light. They had the ordinary wooden cell beds and two blankets each.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COM MISSION IN CO. LONDONDERRY.
  MR. LEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can yet state when a Sub-Commission under the Land Act will sit in the County of Londonderry; and, how many capes await trial?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): The Land Commissioners inform me that the next sitting of a Sub-Commission in the County of Londonderry has not yet been fixed. The cases awaiting hearing number 622.

  LAND COURT (IRELAND)—ESTATES AND TENANCIES UNDER THE COURT.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of landed estates now under the control or jurisdiction of the Land Court of Ireland, and the number of their agricultural tenants; and showing also in what number of cases during the last two years abatements of arrears of rent have been made by orders of the Judges, and in what number of cases applications
  312
  for such abatements have been refused by the Judges?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. S. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E), in reply, said, he was informed by the Land Judges that it was not practicable to give the Return asked for. To obtain the information it would be necessary to examine not only every statement in each estate, several thousand in number, but also each ruling therein. This could not be done without a great deal of trouble and inconvenience.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Can they furnish a Return showing the number of cases in which they have refused abatements?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand, in order to make any Return positive or negative, they would have to examine all the estates and the rulings in all the cases. As regards the Return asked for in relation to the number of estates now under the control of the Land Judges, that will be given in the Return ordered by the House of Lords, on the Motion of Lord Fitzgerald.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX— SCHEDULE (C)—RETURN.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN - POWELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can lay upon the Table of the House a Return in continuation of that given on page 283 of the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for 1884–5, giving the value of property assessed to Income Tax under Schedule (C) for all profits arising from annuities and dividends, distinguishing the amount assessed on dividends from British, Indian, Colonial, and Foreign Stocks for the year 1886–7, together with the duty chargeable thereon for those years?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton) (who replied) said: The Tables to which my hon. Friend alludes have been referred to; and I observe that the information for which he asks is given in them for intervals of four or five years, the latest year being 1883–4. The information involves some trouble in collection, and cannot be given until a year after date. I therefore think that it need not be given for at least one year from the present time, which would bring it down to 1887–8, or four years from the date of the last Return.

  FRANCE—MILITARY OPERATIONS IN AFRICA—COMPENSATION TO BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Messrs. Scicluna and Taylor, British subjects residing in Malta, have for some time been endeavouring to obtain from the French Government compensation for injuries to their property in Gabes, consequent on the operations of the French Military and Naval Forces; whether a French Commission awarded damages for similar injuries at Sfax for 7,0001., which was paid by the French Government; whether a French Commission assessed the damages for injuries at Gabes for 1,120f., but the case was ordered to be re-opened; whether the French Government now allege that the compensation awarded by the French Commission at Sfax was in excess of the damage done, and that the plaintiffs should be content not to press similar claims for similar injuries inflicted at Gabes; and, whether, as the question in dispute is not one of principle but of amount of damages, Her Majesty's Government will invite the French Government now to proceed to a final settlement by arbitration or other suitable means?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.): The general facts of the case, as known to Her Majesty's Government, are in accordance with the Question of my hon. Friend, although the figures stated by him are not, as I believe, correct. Her Majesty's Government are not of opinion that the case is one which they could further press with propriety. I shall be happy to communicate its history to my hon. Friend; but it is too long to state on the present occasion.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—BENE FITS TO THE TAXPAYERS.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What steps he proposes to take in order to secure to the taxpayer the full benefit of the reduction about to be effected on the charge for the National Debt?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square): Whatever proposals I may ultimately make to the House as to the disposal of the sum saved by the reduction of the interest on the National Debt, the taxpayer will have the benefit of them, either in reduction of the National Debt or in some other way. But I am not prepared to pledge myself as to the disposal of the sum at present.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THREATENED EVICTION AT RATHDRUM, CO. WICKLOW.
  MR. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the approaching visit of the Land Commissioners to fix fair rents in County Wicklow, a landlord named Littledale, on whose estate rents have been raised 800 per cent on the tenants' improvements, is about to evict a tenant named Mooney, of Newbawn, Rathdrum, whose case is pending a hearing by the Commissioners, and whose rent is double the valuation; whether notice of the eviction has been served on the Relieving Officer; and, whether the eviction of Mooney, his wife, and seven children, will have the support of the Irish Constabulary?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): The County Inspector of Constabulary understands that the tenant referred to is shortly to be evicted for non-payment of three years' rent, amounting to £432. He also understands that the landlord has not only not raised the rents on any part of his property, but, on the contrary, has reduced them; and that, in the case of the tenant in question, he recently offered to reduce the rent from £144 a-year to £85 a-year, the Poor Law valuation being £81 a-year, and to accept £100 in lieu of the arrears. The tenant refused to accept this proposal. Notice has been served on the Relieving Officer. I am unable now to say whether the authorities responsible for the peace of the district and the due administration of the law will find it necessary to have police present should the proposed eviction be carried out. The County Inspector is not aware whether this tenant has made application to the Land Court. There is no power for the Court to stay eviction in this case, the valuation being over £50 a-year.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he was informed—and he would be able to prove the statement—that the rents during six of the eight years had been increased to the extent stated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not know there was any contradiction between the statement made by the hon. Gentleman and the statement he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had made to the House.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a tenant is served with a notice of eviction he is thereby deprived of the right to have a fair rent fixed unless he pays the whole of the rent due and the law costs included?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that that was so.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—PRISONERS IN GALWAY GAOL.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If lately the prisoners under the Crimes Act in Galway Gaol have been permitted to take exercise twice a-day, in compliance with the usual custom in such cases?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.), in reply, said, ho had already stated, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) that the Prison Rules made it absolute that prisoners should each receive two hours' exercise per day; but whether in one period of time or more was in the discretion of the Governor. As a matter of fact, however, it appeared from a Report received from the Governor of Galway Prison that all prisoners confined in that prison received their daily exercise at two periods of the day—morning and evening—until between 10th March and 7th April, when it was found necessary, in the interest of discipline in the prison, to have the exercise taken at one period of the day.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked the right hon. Gentleman, was he aware that the Prison Rules set forth that where it was possible and practicable prisoners should have their exercise every day in two portions, and not altogether at one time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had stated what he had believed to be the rule of the Prison Regulations.

  POLICE FORCES SUPERANNUATION— LEGISLATION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he will introduce a Police Forces Superannuation Bill, and extend to other counties the promised provisions in respect of retirement after faithful public service accorded to the constabulary of the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire by recent Parliamentary enacments?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.): I cannot undertake to introduce a Police Superannuation Bill this Session. With the leave of the House I will state my reasons. The annual expenditure which would result from such a Bill would be large, and would, if the Local Government Bill now before the House becomes law, fall upon local rates. I do not feel justified in asking the House to pass a measure of such financial importance to ratepayers until the County Councils, which the Government propose to create, have had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter. In the second place, the system of Civil Service superannuation is now under the consideration of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. Until their Report is before Parliament it is inexpedient to introduce a large extension of the system of police superannuation.

  THE RIVER THAMES—DEPOSIT OF RUBBISH IN THE ESTUARY.
  MAJOR RASCHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Report, stated by the right hon. Gentleman to be expected in a few days with reference to the deposit of rubbish on the fishing grounds of the Thames Estuary, is yet to hand; and, if he will say what course the Department propose to take in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.), in reply, said, that the Report had only just been sent in, and he had had no time as yet to consider the matter.

  RIOTS (IRELAND)—DISTURBANCES AT TULLAMORE—MR. MERCER, R.M.
  DR. FOXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr.

  317
  Mercer, R.M., ordered the police to attack a peaceable gathering of people at Tullamore on the 23rd ultimo; whether two men named Vickers and Byrne were injured so as to incapacitate them for work up to the present time; and, whether District Inspector Carter ordered the arrest of a young man named Burke, because he remonstrated with the police for attacking a young child?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.), in reply, said, the Resident Magistrate reported that on the occasion in question three prisoners were being removed from the Railway Station to prison, when a large and disorderly crowd assembled, and endeavoured to force their way, along with the prisoners and their escort, into the prison inclosure. The Resident Magistrate thereupon directed the police to drive them back. The two men named appeared to have received some injury, though not of the serious nature alleged. District Inspector Carter did not order the arrest of Burke, nor was any attack made upon a young child.
  DR. FOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two men who were injured were confined for two weeks in the County Infirmary; and is it not a fact that he has received his Report from the very men incriminated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the only available information at the disposal of the Government is that furnished by their officers in Ireland; and it, therefore, hardly rests with the hon. Gentleman to object to these gentlemen.
  DR. FOX: Considering that the statement read by the right hon. Gentleman has been contradicted by most respectable witnesses, will he grant an inquiry into the conduct of the police on that day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will be happy to receive any statement the hon. Gentleman may put forward.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—TULLAMORE GAOL—MR. P. O'BRIEN, M.P., AND MR. HAYDEN.
  DR. FOXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Visiting Justices recommended that the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) and Mr. Hayden, now con-
  318
  fined as first-class misdemeanants in Tullamore Gaol, be allowed to leave their cells for three hours out of the 24, and to use gas till 10 o'clock p.m. and, whether they are now confined to their cells 22 out of the 24 hours, and are disallowed the use of gas after 8.30 o'clock p.m.; and, if so, why?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.), in reply, said, the Visiting Justices made the recommendation stated in the Question, subject to the approval of the General Prisons Board. According to the Rules, however, these privileges could only be granted on medical grounds, which did not exist in this case. The prisoners were, however, taken out of their cells to receive visitors, and that made the period of their confinement considerably less than 22 out of the 24 hours.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS (INDIA)— REPEAL.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received by mail last week, as anticipated, the reply of the Government of India to the communications of the India Office on the subject of the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts in that country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham): Yes, Sir.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Will the hon. Gentleman lay the Correspondence on the Table of the House?
  SIR JOHN GORSTasked for Notice of the Question.

  INDIA—CANTONMENT LOCK HOSPITALS.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there is at the India Office a Copy of a Circular Memorandum, No. 21, "Office of Quartermaster General in India," addressed. to General Officers commanding Divisions and Districts, dated from the Army Headquarters, Simla, June 17, 1886, and signed by E. F. Chapman, Major General, Quartermaster General in India, on the subject of Cantonment Lock Hospitals; and whether he will lay that Circular Memorandum upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir Join- GORST) (Chatham): No, Sir.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain the Return?
  Sin JOHN GORST: I cannot possibly undertake to obtain a Return of the existence of which I have no knowledge.
  MR. JAMES STUART: If I state that I have seen the Return, will the hon. Gentleman, under those circumstances, take steps to obtain it?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I made a very full statement to the House some time ago, in which I said that the Secretary of State would not apply to the Government of India for any Reports and Papers on this subject until the full Report promised by the Government of India had been received, considered, and a decision founded thereon.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Is the hon. Gentleman going to exclude all information outside that Report?
  [No reply.]
  MR. JAMES STUART: I have a right to an answer. The hon. Gentleman has refused to give the Return because he has no official knowledge of its existence; and then he says he will ask for no Papers until the Report of the Government of India has been received and a decision arrived at.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is within the competence of a Minister to refuse to answer a Question.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman refuses to answer?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I have not refused to answer any Question. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for any further answers to those which I have given, I shall be much obliged if he will give the usual Notice.
  MR. CHANNING: The reply of the hon. Gentleman in the first instance was yes. I think the House is entitled to know what is meant by that yes.
  [No reply.]

  PARKS (METROPOLIS)—THE BATTER SEA ESTATE AND WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What reason prevailed last year to de-
  320
  part from the arrangements proposed in 1884 to transfer to the Metropolitan Board with the Parks handed over last year the incomes of the Battersea Estate, £7,500, and the Westminster. Bridge, £5,400.
  SIR HERBERT MAX WELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton) (who replied) said: I am afraid I do not quite understand the Question of the hon. Member. The transfer to the Metropolitan Board has been made on the terms laid down by the Act of last Session, which was considered and decided by a Select Committee of this House, whose decisions were accepted by Government.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND). ACT, 1887—THE DISTURB ANCES AT ENNIS—ACTION OF THE POLICE.
  MR. LALORsaid, that before he asked the Question which stood in his name, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could account for the discrepancy between his statement in the House on the 19th instant, that Colonel Turner's order to charge the people was given in consequence of stone throwing, and Colonel Turner's denial now that he gave any such order at all? His Question on the Paper was, Whether, considering that Colonel Turner himself, in his evidence before the Court in Ennis on the 20th instant, has denied that he ordered any charge of either police or military on the occasion of the meeting on the 8th instant; and, considering that Sergeant Cronin, who was in the yard at the time of the charge on the people, has also stated in his evidence that "he saw no stones thrown from the building," he is prepared to give any further explanation to the House of the action of the police and military on that occasion?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): With regard to the statement on the Paper, I see no reason to supplement the statement I made before. In regard to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I am not aware that I made any such statement with regard to a charge. I do not believe I did. What I stated—and what I stated more than once—was that Colonel Turner ordered the police to clear the building by force. Whether I used the word charge or not I do not know; but I think I did not. I cannot

  321
  answer for the military accuracy of every word I use.
  MR. J. E. ELLISinquired, whether it was not a fact that, on the Motion for Adjournment on the 12th of April, the Chief Secretary distinctly stated in the House that Colonel Turner's orders to the police and military to "assault"—that was the exact expression—was in consequence of and after stone-throwing?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that is what I did say.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Is not that emphatically denied by Colonel Turner?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not to my knowledge.
  Subsequently,
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask the Chief Secretary, arising out of his previous answer, as he has denied to-night in the house that Colonel Turner ordered the charge of the police, and as Colonel Turner has himself denied that he ordered the charge, under these circumstances may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is any longer prepared, if so, how is he prepared, to justify the charge of the police on that occasion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that I used the word "charge" in reference to the police, and what they were ordered to do upon the occasion in question. In reply to another hon. Gentleman, I have already denied that I used the word "charge." I am speaking from recollection; but I believe he will not find that I made use of that term. It is possible I may inadvertently have used the word "storm;" but I think he will find that I did not use the word "charge."
  MR. CLANCY: Considering that Colonel Turner has denied that he ordered any storming of the place either, how is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to justify the storming of the place under the circumstances?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —INCREASE OF THE CLERICAL STAFF.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the Postmaster General, Whether an application has been made to the Treasury for a large increase of clerical staff in the Post Office; if so, whether the greater part of this increase
  322
  is necessitated by the requirements of the Savings Bank Department where the hours of service are six per day; whether there are nearly 300 Lower Division employed in that Department, whose scale of pay for seven hours' service is already fixed by Order in Council; and, whether the Treasury, instead of granting an increase of staff, will take steps to carry into effect the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, that all offices should be placed on a seven hours' footing?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton) (who replied) said: No application has been made to the Treasury for any increase in the clerical staff of the Savings Bank, or any other branch of the Post Office. As to any recommendation which may be made by the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, that question should be addressed to the Treasury.

  BRITISH NORTH BORNEO AND THE ROYAL NIGER CHARTERED COMPANIES.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN - POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the two Chartered Companies—namely, the "British North Borneo" and the "Royal Niger," render Returns to Her Majesty's Government of the Revenue, Expenditure, and External Trade of the territories which they administer; and, whether he can inform the House as to the quantities of spirits imported during the last financial year into the territories, respectively, of the British North Borneo and the Royal Niger Companies?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.): The Niger Company is bound, under Article 15 of its Charter, to furnish to the Secretary of State, periodically or otherwise, full accounts and particulars with regard to the Revenue produced by duties, and to obey his directions in respect of such duties. It is not bound to furnish Returns of its private trade. The exact amount of spirits shipped to the Niger is not known; but it may be stated that the import is being steadily reduced by the action of the Company. In 1885 the reduction was 25 per cent on the

  323
  imports of 1884; in 1886, 50 per cent less than in 1884; in 1887 they were one-half of those of 1886. The British North Borneo Company does not render Returns to Her Majesty's Government of the Revenue, Expenditure, and External Trade of its territory; but Her Majesty's Government receive Reports upon the trade of the Company's ports from the Consular Agent, but have not received that for the last financial year. The value of spirits imported in 1885–6 was $14,478.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—CAPITATION GRANTS TO REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS
  COLONEL DAWNAYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, after the passing of the Local Government Bill, it is intended to continue the present Treasury capitation grants to reformatory and industrial schools, or whether the payment of such grants will in future devolve upon the County Councils, in addition to the contributions already made to such schools by Quarter Sessions; and, whether it is intended that, in the future, the Home Office will retain any power in the management and control of reformatory and industrial schools, or whether such management and control will devolve entirely on the County Councils?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): The present powers of Quarter Sessions with regard to this matter are, under Clause 3 (1), VIII. of the Local Government Bill, to be transferred to the County Councils; but it is not intended either to discontinue the present grant in aid of the maintenance of children in such schools or to take away any of the jurisdiction of the Home Office in respect thereto.

  RIVER WEAVER—CONTRIBUTION TO THE COUNTY FUND.
  MR. BRUNNERwho had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that the Trust of the River Weaver, the largest inland navigation in the Kingdom, is a self-elected body; that its income is derived almost en-
  324
  tirely from the salt trade; that its surplus funds have for more than 160 years been used to relieve the county rate; that the salt trade has in this way, and during that time, been taxed to the extent of more than £2,000,000 sterling; that the salt trade is, and has long been, in a deplorably depressed condition; that the sources of salt production have of late years been rapidly developed, and bear no corresponding tax for the benefit of any public authority, whilst they have greatly diminished the demand for Cheshire salt; that the salt manufacturers of Cheshire have since 1866 been taxed, in common with other ratepayers of the county, under the Cattle Plague Act; that the cost to the county of this Act is, for instalment of loan and interest, £14,227 15 s. per annum; that this loan will be paid off in 1896; that under a recent Act the Trustees of the River Weaver contribute £15,000 a-year to the County Fund; and that the constitution of the Weaver Trust has been repeatedly condemned by the Board of Trade, on the ground that it imposed a tax upon trade; and whether he is prepared to recommend, for the management of the River Weaver, the constitution of a public Trust resembling the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and that the payment from the Trust to the County Fund should cease at the date of the last payment on account of the Cattle Plague Loan in 1896, or at an earlier date? said, he wished to postpone it.
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)in reply, said, that he was prepared to answer it at once.
  MR. BRUNNERwished to afford the right hon. Gentleman full time to look into the matter, in order that he might give it his careful consideration.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS - LI CENCE ON PEDLARS AND CHIMNEY SWEEPERS.
  MR. BRUNNERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will repeal or diminish the licence on pedlars and chimney sweepers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square): The licences on pedlars and chimney sweepers are not Excise licences but police licences, and are im-

  325
  posed not for Revenue purposes, but for purposes of police. The Government do not propose to repeal or diminish them.

  THE CONSULAR SERVICE—POSTAGE ON OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. A. THOMASasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to an extract from a letter written by one of Her Majesty's Consular officers, and quoted in The Shipping World for April, in these words:—
  "I should have stated: I have no allowance made to me for postage in this Vice Consulate; and as my correspondence (especially answering interrogations of a similar nature to yours) is at times heavy, I am compelled to post unstamped those letters for which postage has not been enclosed;"
  whether the Regulation of the Foreign Office that no fixed allowances are made to cover postages, but accounts of expenditure on account of official postage are sent in periodically, and are paid when passed, applies to postage on Consular answers to merchants, manufacturers, shipowners, and traders of this country; whether the Foreign Office is aware that allowance is made by the American Government to her Consular Representatives abroad to cover postages upon all correspondence arising out of the Consular appointment, and embracing answers to American merchants, manufacturers, shipowners, and traders; and, whether the Foreign Office, or the Board of Trade, will undertake that Her Majesty's Consular officers shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred in postage upon correspondence with manufacturers, merchants, shipowners, traders, and others, arising out of their official appointment, and intended to benefit the trade and commerce of this country, and will issue a Circular to the Consular corps giving instructions accordingly?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.): Officers in the Consular career are allowed to charge in their accounts with the Foreign Office the cost of official postage on answers addressed by them in their Consular capacity to merchants, manufacturers, shipowners, and traders of this country; but trading Consular officers are only reimbursed the postage on official letters or papers
  326
  addressed to the Foreign Office or to their superintending Consuls on application being made by them for such reimbursements. Her Majesty's Government are not aware of the practice of the American Government in this respect; and the Secretary of State does not see any reason to alter the practice of this Service.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—ALLEGED INSURANCE FRAUDS AT BELFAST.
  MR. CLANCYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the serious criminal charges brought against several citizens of Belfast in connection with wholesale frauds alleged to have been committed against a certain Insurance Company there; whether serious charges have also been made in the Belfast Police Court against the Company; whether this Company is at present conducting the prosecution against two of its own officials, and also against one of its largest policy holders, who is a member of the Belfast Town Council; whether charges have been made that the Company sought to condone the alleged offence of this policy holder, by accepting surrender of the policies said to have been fraudulently obtained by him and by returning him the premiums which he had paid; and, whether, under the circumstances, it is the intention of the Government to take the conduct of the prosecution into its own hands, instead of leaving the conduct of the prosecution in the hands of a Company against which such charges have been made?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN) (Dublin University): I communicated with the Attorney General with reference to this Question. It is obviously a matter requiring ample consideration; and as the Question only appeared on the Paper this morning I must ask the hon. and learned Member to be good enough to postpone it.
  MR. CLANCY: Until what day?
  MR. MADDEN: Monday.
  Subsequently,
  MR. CLANCY: Since the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland asked me to postpone my Question until Monday, I have ascertained that it is possible that the trial

  327
  may have concluded before that day—possibly by Thursday next. Under these circumstances, might I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he can give an immediate answer to the Question?
  MR. MADDEN: The only reason why I asked the hon. and learned Member to postpone the Question was, that it only appeared on the Paper this morning, and it was perfectly impossible to communicate in time and to receive an answer from the Attorney General, with whom the decision rests.
  MR. CLANCY: What day then will the hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared to give an answer?
  MR. MADDEN: On Thursday. The hon. and learned Member is, no doubt, aware that Questions are not usually put upon the Paper on Wednesday.
  MR. CLANCY: Nevertheless, I will put the Question down for to-morrow.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION)— GOVERNMENT BALANCES AT THE BANK OF ENGLAND.
  MR. CALDWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the case that the Government are, during the current financial year, issuing Treasury Bills to the amount of £1,000,000 sterling, dated 4th May, 1888, and payable three or six months after date at the option of the persons tendering, notwithstanding that the Conversion Scheme is now practically assured, and that the balances at the credit of the various accounts of the Government with the Bank of England amounted in the aggregate on 18th instant to close on £8,000,000 sterling; and, whether it would not be possible, by means of legislation or otherwise, to draw upon the above balances at the credit of the Government, and to postpone the issue of Treasury Bills until these balances were very much reduced, thereby effecting a considerable saving to the Imperial taxpayer?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square): The Treasury propose to renew £1,000,000 of the bills falling due on the 4th proximo, which amounted to £1,500,000. Therefore, £500,000 will be temporarily dropped. Regard being had to further issues which are about to be made out of the Exchequer to the National Debt Com-
  328
  missioners on account of last year's Old Sinking Fund, and the extraordinary requirements in respect of the payment of the bonus on Converted Consols and Reduced Threes, and of the quarter's dividend on Converted Consols, it would not be possible or prudent, according to the best forecasts that can be made, to lower the Exchequer balance still further. The House may rely on my keeping it as low as possible. At the same time, I may call attention to the fact that when money is extremely cheap—when, for instance, it can be borrowed at 1 per cent.—it is desirable often to secure what we are likely to want while the rate is low, rather than to have to pay more by postponing the borrowing till the last moment, when rates may have risen.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) ELECTIONS BILL—AGRI CULTURAL LABOURERS IN WALES.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that the majority of agricultural labourers in Wales live in the homesteads of the farmers who employ them; and, whether he is prepared to amend the Local Government (England and Wales) Electors Bill, so as to enfranchise and enable them to take their share in local government?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): I am not aware of the circumstance referred to by the hon. Gentleman in his first Question. I would rather reserve my answer to his second Question until we are engaged in the discussion on the Bill.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—THE EN DOWED SCHOOLS OF WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division, as a Charity Commissioner, Whether the Charity Commissioners have received replies to the inquiries directed during last Session to the Endowed Schools of Wales and Monmouthshire, as to the carrying out of the provisions made in the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for mensuration, navigation, land survey.

  329
  ing, and other forms of technical instruction?
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in reply, said, if the hon. Member would move for the information he desired, there would, as far as the Commission was concerned, be no objection to granting it in the form of a Return.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1857—SENTENCES ON—FERRITER, A NEWSAGENT AT DINGLE.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a newsagent named Ferriter, residing at Dingle, was recently sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for selling United Ireland; and, whether that sentence was on last Saturday confirmed on appeal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): The man referred to appears to have been sentenced in March last to the term of imprisonment stated for selling United Ireland newspaper containing reports of illegal meetings. This sentence is stated to have been confirmed on appeal, after the refusal of the prisoner to give a promise that he would not repeat the offence.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: May I ask whether, if such sentences can be passed and confirmed, it can any longer be affirmed with truth that freedom of the Press exists in Ireland?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  DR. TANNER; May I ask upon what principle persons are selected for prosecution for the selling of newspapers; and why any difference should be made between Ferriter and myself, I having often sold papers containing reports of suppressed meetings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only ground of difference as regards some persons is their unimportance.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether Ferriter is the only person under sentence for selling United Ireland; whether prosecutions have been stopped for that offence; and whether, under the circumstances, he can see his way to allowing the release of this man?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite catch the connection between the
  330
  concluding part of the Question and that which preceded it. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question on the Paper, I will be able to tell him whether any other person besides Ferriter is in prison for this offence.
  DR. TANNER: Arising out of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to me, I wish to ask him if he makes such distinction between individuals, or between an humble person like myself, and a poor, honest fellow like Ferriter—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Subsequently,
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I desire, Sir, with your permission, to ask the Chief Secretary a Question with reference to the sentence on Ferriter, whether he is aware that Ferriter, who is now under sentence of three months' imprisonment for selling, five months ago, a copy of United Ireland containing a report of a meeting in the county of Clare, has been eight times prosecuted within the last year by the authorities for these offences, and in February, 1887, received a sentence of two months.
  MR. SPEAKER: This is a Question that would require Notice, and to be put upon the Paper in the usual way.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to argue the question; but what I wish to submit are facts which are quite within the Chief Secretary's knowledge, and I simply wish to ask him whether, bearing in mind those facts, he does not consider that Ferriter has been already sufficiently punished? And, further, I would like to ask him. whether the fact of there being prosecutions with a punishment of three months' imprisonment still in force, were in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and account for his pleasantry as to the importance of Ferriter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman full information with regard to the previous career of Ferriter, although he appears to bear a bad character.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: He is an honest, respectable man.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the question of whether I think that he has been adequately punished, I

  331
  would point out that that rests with the Judge and not with me.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat outside the House that Ferriter is a bad character?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CLANCY: Mr. Speaker—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  RIOTS, &c. (IRELAND)—THE DISTURB ANCES AT SKIBBEREEN—ALTERA TION OF QUESTION.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDwho had on the Paper the following Question:—To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in yesterday's Daily News that at Skibbereen, on Saturday, there was a serious conflict between the police and the people, in which several people were batoned; and, whether, on the same occasion, a sadler, named Kelly, whilst standing in his own doorway, in Townsend Street, received several violent baton blows on his head? said, that the Question as it appeared on the Paper had been so watered down that—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put the Question as it appears on the Paper.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD; Well, Sir, I refuse to put the Question as it stands on the Paper.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—THE FITZ MAURICE FAMILY—SENTENCES ON TWO FARMERS.
  MR. W. A MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, at a Crimes Act Court, held last Saturday, at Listowel, County Kerry, two farmers, named respectively Pooling and Gallivan, were sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, for no graver offence than that they left the chapel at Lixnaw last Sunday, and induced others to do the same, at the moment when Nora Fitzmaurice, whose father was recently murdered, entered the building?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): Sir, the offence of which these persons were accused, and for which they have been
  332
  sentenced by the Court of First instance, was the dastardly one of intimidating a poor girl for aiding in bringing to justice her father's murderers. On the character of the evidence by which this charge was supported it would not be proper to say anything, as an appeal is pending.

  BURMAH—THE RUBY MINES.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the fact, that the Burmah Ruby Mines cannot be visited by Europeans except by special permission of the Government of India; whether the Government have recently granted such special permission to a representative of the firm of Messrs. Gillanders, Arbuthnot, and Co.; whether this firm were in negotiation with the Government for a concession of these mines, without competition, at two lakhs of rupees per annum; whether the negotiation for a concession upon such terms was defeated by the action of Messrs. Streeter, who urged the adoption of competition, and in such competition in April, 1886, sent in the highest tender, which was provisionally accepted, ofering a price double of that previously offered by Messrs. Gillanders, Arbuthnot, and Co.; and, whether it is intended to afford the latter firm a renewed opportunity of obtaining a contract which they were thus prevented from securing without competition at an inadequate price, and for which, under fair competition, they were largely outbidden?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham): (1) The permission of the Chief Commissioner is required. (2) It is granted to agents of all respectable firms, and if Messrs. Gillanders, Arbuthnot, and Co. have applied for leave, it has, no doubt, been granted. (3) Yes. (4) Messrs. Streeter offered four lakhs. The competition was between them and Messrs. Gillanders only. (5) Until the Report of the expert sent to the Mines has been made, no decision, as I have frequently stated, will be arrived at.

  BURMAH—THE RUBY MINES.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL Staffordshire, Kingswinford)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the offer of Captain Pratten, on behalf

  333
  of Messrs. Streeter, to take a lease of the Ruby Mines in Burmah under certain conditions as to the working and arrangements with the Natives, was formally accepted by the Indian Government; was this acceptance given with the full knowledge of Lord Kimberley; did the Messrs. Streeter fully undertake all the conditions required; and, upon what ground has the present Secretary of State for India repudiated these arrangements?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham): (1) There was no such acceptance as to make a binding contract. (2) Lord Kimberley was aware of what took place. (3) I understand. they wore ready to do so. (4) The Secretary of State has not repudiated any arrangement which had become binding on the Government of India.

  INDIA—STATE OF HYDERABAD—CON CESSION OF MINING RIGHTS.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is true that the concession of all the mining rights in the State of Hyderabad, granted to a syndicate, with the sanction of the Government of India, for £150,000, was immediately re-sold in London to a Company for £1,000,000; if, in order to force up the prices of this Company's shares, the Nizam was persuaded by his late Home Secretary, Abdul Hak, who had recommended the concession, to invest £150,000 in the purchase of shares at a premium; if it is the case, as stated by Sir Salar Jung, that—
  "A special Committee, composed of India Office officials, was appointed to watch Abdul Hak's proceedings, and give him advice during the course of his negotiations;"
  if the India Office was cognisant of, and gave its sanction to, such an investment of money belonging to a Native Prince under its protection; and, if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Yellow Book published at Hyderabad, in which Abdul Hak gives a full account of these transactions?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham): The contract of January 7, 1886, between the Government of the Nizam and Messrs. Watson and Stewart for the grant of mining rights in Hyderabad was described by me, in reply to a,
  334
  Question in the House of Commons, on June 27, 1887. The contract itself, the negotiations which led to it, and the circumstances under which it was sanctioned by the Government of India and the Secretary of State, can be found in Papers laid before Parliament in September, 1887. For the subsequent transactions of Messrs. Watson and Stewart, of the Company formed, and of the Nizam's Government in relation thereto, the Secretary of State has no responsibility. A Committee of the Council of India had in 1883 the question of a grant of mining rights in connection with the proposed extension of the Nizam's State Railway under consideration. Their conclusions are to be found in the Papers above-mentioned, page 3, and were adverse to such grants. The matter was not again under the consideration of the Council, or any Committee thereof, till after the contract of January 7, 1886, had been executed, with the approval of the Government of India. On May 16, 1887, the Secretary of State received a telegram from the Government of India in these words—
  "Hyderabad ruining operations promise well. Nizam's Government wishes to take shares in the Company. The Resident thinks this desirable, and recommends our raising no objection, while accepting no responsibility. We have agreed."
  No action was taken on this telegram; and the Secretary of State was neither aware of the actual purchase of shares nor gave any assistance to Abdul Hak in relation thereto by appointment of a Special Committee or otherwise. If the hon. Member will move for the Yellow Book it will be laid On the Table.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANasked, whether the hon. Gentleman meant to say that the Government had no responsibility for this contract? How did it happen that the Government of India were consulted about the purchase of these shares, and then allowed a Native Prince to come into the London market without seeing that he was not shamefully robbed.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, the Question was an argumentative one, and Notice of it ought to be given.
  Loan RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: How is the hon. Gentleman able to contend that the Secretary of State had no responsility for the action of the Goverment of India?
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked, will the hon. Gentleman state whether, when Colonel Marshall telegraphed to Abdul Hak in England as to the purchase of these shares that the purchase and the arrangements connected with them were satisfactory, he had no authority on the part of the Indian Government to do so, and that the Indian Government accepted no responsibility?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, the hon. Member had better give Notice of the Question.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—SUR- TAX ON BOTTLED WINES.
  MR. SEAGER HUNTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the duty on wine has always been levied at an uniform rate per gallon; and, whether the new surtax on bottled wines amounts to 1s. 8d. per gallon if the wine be imported in Imperial quarts or pints, but to 2s. 6d. per gallon if in the ordinary bottles and half-bottles now mostly in use; and, if so, what is the object of such differential taxation of the same article?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square), in reply, said, the duty had not always been levied at an uniform rate. The purport of the Question of the hon. Member was why Imperial quarts had been inserted in the Resolution instead of Reputed quarts. The fact was that the Imperial quart and its multiples were the only measures known to the law, and were invariable measures; whereas the Reputed quart was a variable measure. He admitted that, under the Resolution, if the importers of wine put it into Imperial quarts they would pay somewhat less of duty than they would otherwise pay.

  ARMY (INDIA)—DEPUTY SURGEON GENERAL AND "HALF STAFF."
  SIR WALTER FOSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that an executive officer of the Medical Staff in India, who officiates for less than one month as Deputy Surgeon General, in the absence of the Deputy Surgeon General on sick leave or furlough, receives no allowances for the period, although he performs the duties
  336
  in addition to his other duties; whether, in such an instance, the "half-staff" of the appointment reverts to the State; whether the acting officer would be held pecuniarily liable in the event of loss of stores or other mistakes; whether officers officiating on the Military (Combatant) Staff, in a similar way, would draw the "half- staff" for broken periods; and, why the difference is made in the case of the medical officers?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham): If an officer were regularly appointed to officiate as Deputy Surgeon General, he would receive pay as such; but if merely appointed to take charge of the current routine clerical work of the Office, he does not receive any extra allowance for this temporary duty. (2) Yes. (3) The Government of India report that he would be liable, but only I imagine to the extent to which he is personally responsible. (4) There is no parallel between the two, as the one is an Administrative Department, the other an Executive one.

  CEYLON—DEATH OF MR. GUNN, PUB LIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to certain statements in The Ceylon Press regarding the death of the late Mr. Gunn, an official of the Public Works Department, alleged to have been caused by the harsh treatment he had received; and, whether the Correspondence relating to this case will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Mr. Gunn, after having a pension awarded to him in 1885, was re-appointed in 1886 as District Engineer; since which time there has been no Correspondence respecting him. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me a reference to the newspaper notices to which he alludes, as I have not seen them.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUB -COMMISSION AT ANTRIM.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-

  337
  tenant of Ireland, with reference to his reply on the 12th instant, Whether he can now state at what time the next sitting of a Sub-Commission will be held to hear fair rent applications in the County of Antrim; whether, considering that nearly 4,000 applications remain unheard in the County of Down, it is still the intention of the Government to send to the County of Antrim after 1st May next the Sub-Commission at present sitting in the County of Down; and, whether he is aware that a large number of ejectment decrees have been obtained, and eviction notices served in the County of Down in respect of holdings where the old rents were demanded and sued for, notwithstanding that the tenants, having made their applications to have fair rents fixed before the 1st of November last, are entitled to the benefit of the reduced rents from the 1st of May last?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): I am sorry to say that, as the Question was only put on the Paper last night, I have not been able to get the necessary information. Perhaps, with regard to the last paragraph, the hon. Gentleman would define any case in which an ejectment decree having been applied for by the landlord, and the tenant applied for a stay of proceedings pending the fixing of a fair rent, the Court has refused to stay proceedings accordingly.
  MR. M'CARTAN: What course will the right hon. Gentleman adopt if I do so?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR; I will give it my very best consideration.
  MR. M`CARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present rate of progress it would take six years to fix fair rents for all the tenants who have applied in County Down, although they are entitled to a reduction since May last?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: However long it may take to hear the cases makes no matter. The tenant will be no pecuniary loser, because the landlord would have to disgorge. What I point out is that if the tenant on an ejectment being applied for were to raise an objection in Court it would be stayed.
  M'CARTAN: But all the while the tenants are required to pay impossible rents. Will the right hon. Gentletleman supply them with funds?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will supply me with the case of any tenant who during the period of appeal has paid the full rent, or of any landlord who has asked him to do so, I will inquire into it.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with a number of cases of tenants who are unable to pay.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS— WHEEL AND HORSE TAXES—EXTEN SION TO SCOTLAND.
  MR. BUCHANANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will take steps to ascertain the opinions of Scotch Members on the subject of the extension of the Wheel Tax and Horse Tax to Scotland; whether he is aware that there has been no general demand in Scotland of recent years for relief to local rates from Imperial Funds; and, whether he will, in the absence of such demand, abstain from imposing upon Scotland new and additional taxation? The hon. Gentleman complained that the Question did not appear on the Paper in the form in which he handed it in. He had based it upon a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech, quoting the words used; and without that basis his Question was hardly intelligible.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question had been altered under a known Rule of the House, for the purpose of avoiding controversy as to what had previously passed in the House.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked, whether it was not the fact that the assessments of the Poor Law and School Board and other rates pressed very heavily upon people?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square): I will establish a basis for the Question of the hon. Member opposite by admitting and reminding the House, if necessary, that in my Budget Speech I alluded to the extension of the proposed Wheel and Horse Taxes to Scotland, and that I drew a distinction between England and Scotland, inasmuch as in Scotland there would this year be no reform of local government, and so the two countries did not stand on an entirely similar footing. And I said I would pay attention to Scotch opinion on the matter. I am not aware whether

  339
  or not there has been as general a demand in Scotland as there has been in England for relief to local rates from Imperial funds. I gather, however, from the Question of the hon. Member who succeeded the hon. Member for West Edinburgh, that there certainly is some demand for local relief. I will confer with the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate on this question, and endeavour to ascertain the Scotch opinion; but if Scotch Members consider that this matter ought to be treated from the Scotch point of view, I hope they will not think it necessary to vote against a Resolution framed according to the English point of view, when English Members may be asked to decide the question as far as it affects themselves.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had told them that the exemption of Scotland from the tax was a question for the opinion of Scotch ratepayers. How was an answer to that question to be ascertained except through the expressions of opinion of the Representatives of the Scotch ratepayers in this House?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not wish to tone down in any way the answer he had given. He should not give an answer to this Question without consultation with the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate. He would confer with them, and would communicate through them with Scotch Members on the subject.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF MAIN ROADS.
  MR. LEAKE (Lancashire, S.E., Radcliffe)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Will the contribution under the proposed Local Government Bill from the County Councils to District Councils for the maintenance and repair of main roads be the entire expenditure legalized by "The Highways and Locomotive Amendment Act, 1878," and not, as at present, the half of such expenditure?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): All main roads are to be wholly maintained and repaired by the County Council, except in the case of an Urban Authority which, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, claim to retain
  340
  under their own control the maintenance of main roads within their district. In that case, as I have previously stated in reply to Questions in this House, where a contribution from the County Council is to be made to the District Council, it will be based on the total expenditure for maintenance of the road. Under Clause 15 (3) of the Bill, the amount of this contribution is to be settled by agreement, or, in default of an agreement, by arbitration.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) NEWSPAPER ACT—REGISTRATION FOR POSTAGE—"WEST LONDON ADVERTISER."
  MR. FIRTHasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that the Postal Authorities have recently refused to register The West London Advertiser as a newspaper, and refused to transmit many hundred copies of the paper through the halfpenny post; and, what is the explanation of this?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University): In the case of the publication to which the hon. Member refers it was found that, in the absence of a sufficient quantity of news matter to meet the requirements laid down in the Newspaper Act, a portion of the Paper had been printed twice over. The attempted evasion was, indeed, admitted by the publisher. Under these circumstances, the paper was, of course, refused registration.
  MR. FIRTHasked, whether the refusal applied only to one issue of the paper?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that he had understood the Question of the hon. Member as applying to one particular issue. If the requirements of the Newspaper Act were complied with in future, the publication would, of course, be treated accordingly.

  CRIMINAL CASES—1NCREASE OF SEN TENCES ON APPEAL.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether there is any practice prevailing in Courts of Quarter Sessions in England to aggravate sentences in appeals in criminal cases, as is now being done in cases of appeal in Ireland?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight):

  341
  The Courts of Quarter Sessions in England have power to confirm, reverse or modify any sentence of the Court appealed from, and exercise any power which the Court of First Instance could have exercised. Whether this power has been exercised in any, and, if so, in how many cases, I am unable to say without communicating with the Clerks of the Peace; but there cannot properly be said to be any practice in the matter, as each case must depend upon its special circumstances.

  WAR OFFICE—COURT MARTIAL ON MAJOR TEMPLER.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked the right hon. and learned Member for Brighton, What was the action of the Deputy Judge Advocate General in connection with the court martial of Major Templer?
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Sir WILLIAM MARRIOTT) Brighton): I have received a letter from the Deputy Judge Advocate General, which I will read with the permission of the House—
  "April 21, 1888.
  "A misapprehension exists regarding my connection with the prosecution of Major Templer, and I think I may fairly ask to have it corrected in whatever manner you may think proper. I did not initiate, recommend, or in any way take part in that prosecution. My share in the matter consisted in little more than answering a Question as to whether certain conduct, if proved, would constitute any, and, if so, what, offence under the Army Act. The facts are shortly these:—On the 18th of January the case was sent to me by the Military Authorities for an opinion. It contained statements which appeared to me to show that Major Templer had brought himself within the penal sections of the Army Act. Of these statements some were made by officers, and some by persons who, though in a humble sphere of life, were not apparently unworthy of belief, and who, as far as could be judged, had no motive for falsehood in the matter. Upon the statements thus submitted to me, and, of course, upon the assumption that they could he substantiated, I gave an opinion in reply that there was, primâ facie, a case against Major Templer, and I indicated the form of charge that would apply. But I added that the evidence before me wanted strengthening in certain important respects, and that the prospect of a conviction would be affected by the ability or inability of the prosecution to show (even assuming the visits to Birmingham to be proved) that Major Templer had, in fact, disclosed secrets which it was his duty not to disclose. This opinion was sent to the Horse Guards on the 21st of January. Further than
  342
  this it was not my duty to take any step, and I took no step whatever. The expediency of resorting to a court martial became a question for the Military Authorities, and the conduct of the case was for the Legal Department of the Treasury. Neither rested in the least degree with
  "Yours very truly,
  "J. C. O'Down.
  "The Right Hon the Judge Advocate "General."
  MR. CHILDERS: May I ask why the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself did not advise in the matter?
  SIR WILLIAM MARRIOTT: Because it is not the duty of the Judge Advocate General to advise in cases of courts martial until they are completed, and then his duty is to advise whether they have been carried on according to law; but the same Judge does not advise as to how they should be carried on.
  MR. CHILDERS: On that arises the question why that duty is thrown upon the Deputy? I can say that no such arrangement existed when I was at the War Office.
  SIR WILLIAM MARRIOTT: I can explain. There were formerly two Deputy Military Judge Advocates, and it was their duty to answer such Questions. Two years ago the office of one of them was abolished; and, there being only one Military Deputy, the Deputy Judge Advocate had to take his turn with him. The Military Deputy could not be present, and the duty fell on Mr. O'Dowd.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: Are the duties different which are thrown upon the Legal Deputy Judge Advocate and the Military Deputy Judge Advocate respectively?
  SIR WILLIAM MARRIOTT: Yes.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.—THE WRIT FOR THE ST. STEPHEN'S GREEN DIVISION OF DUBLIN.
  COLONEL WARING: I wish to ask the hon. Member for West Cavan, When he intends to move for a Writ for the election of a Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin?
  MR. BIGGAR: Mr. Speaker, I intend to move for the now Writ as soon as I get instructions from my Chief.

THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 1882—RULE 2 (ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE).

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1837—INCREASE OF SENTENCES ON APPEAL.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYrose in his place, and asked for leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the departure from the long established practice in Irish County Courts by the new system of increasing sentences in Criminal Cases on Appeal, as in the instances of the Reverend Mr. M'Fadden, P.P., Mr. Blane, M.P., Mr. Flanagan, Messrs. Coffey, Kilmartin, and O'Higgins; and, also, to the different method of treating prisoners convicted of the same offence.
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified—
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid the question which he wished to bring under the notice of the House was really one of urgency, seeing that, so far as Ireland was concerned, it involved a new system of hearing appeals from convictions, under the Crimes Act, which had never prevailed in England. Certain County Court Judges in Ireland, upon hearing appeals, had not only confirmed the convictions, but increased the sentences. This was an entirely new departure, which would not be tolerated in England. Questions had been put to the Government on the subject, and the House was coldly told that there was no settled practice one way or the other. Surely if the course pursued in Ireland was a proper one, and was in conformity with the practice in England, it was surprising that in a House containing so many English lawyers, magistrates, and Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, no hon. Gentleman would get up to tell them of any cases in recent years in which the prisoners making an appeal for a remission of sentence were answered by having the penalty doubled. Although he was no lawyer, ho had lived long enough in this country, and had watched
  344
  the progress of affairs with sufficient attention, to know that it had never been the practice here. He wished to know, therefore, how it was that this new practice had suddenly sprung up in Ireland, and how it was that within a very few days there had been five, six, or seven striking examples of this now theory of British law in connection with Courts of Appeal? Within a very few days—and that was why he called it a matter of urgency—there bad been numerous cases of appeal which had been heard by the County Court Judges and answered by an increase of sentence. He considered it was necessary for the House of Commons and the English public to know what was going on in Ireland, and whether it was right and Constitutional to make a criminal appeal like a game of double or quits. If that was to be the practice in future, he thought the House of Commons should distinctly understand it, and the English public have an opportunity of saying whether they approved of it. The first appeal to which he proposed to call attention was the case of Father M'Fadden—a model parish priest, a philanthropist of the purest kind—whose acquaintance he was proud to possess, and who was well known to many Englishmen. In the poor region in which he served as parish priest he had been the means of saving more lives than even the right hon. Gentleman's system of government had been the means of extinguishing. Well, Father M'Fadden made a speech—which he did not propose to read—which led to his arrest, and after the case was heard by the magistrates the rev. gentleman was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. He would not discuss whether that sentence was right or wrong. Father M'Fadden appealed to a higher court, presided over by that eminent lawyer and consistent politician—Dr. Webb. Dr. Webb, like other lawyers, had—changed his opinions. He was not, however, going to find fault with the learned gentleman for that; it was not, perhaps, for the House of 'Commons to bear too heavily upon men who changed their opinions; but when Father M'Fadden was brought before Dr. Webb his appeal was answered by increasing the sentence from three to six months. He was unable to say what induced Dr. Webb to think that the original sentence was not heavy enough. To some

  345
  extent the bitterness of the sentence was mitigated by allowing Father M'Fadden to be treated as a first-class misdemeanant; but the punishment was, nevertheless, increased from three months to six. The same Judge had before him his hon. Friend the Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane). His hon. Friend had been sentenced to four months' imprisonment for a speech he had delivered. The learned Judge drew a distinction in that case. He considered his hon. Friend the greater criminal of the two, because he did not live in the precise region in which the speech was delivered; he was only an Ulster man. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman was speaking in an Ulster county, and was Member for a division of an Ulster county, but because the speech was not delivered in the actual division he represented, the learned Judge regarded him as a kind of intruder or invader of the district, and appeared unable to understand what concern an Ulster man could have for the well-being of any part of Ulster except that which he lived in himself. Dr. Webb accordingly increased the sentence from four months to six, with the additional stigma of not allowing the hon. Gentleman to be treated as a first-class misdemeanant, but regarded as an ordinary criminal. His hon. Friend was taken away in a third-class carriage, and thrust into a common gaol. He thought the House would admit that these were two remarkable cases. He came next to the case of John Kilmartin, Timothy Coffey, and Thomas O'Higgins, who had been sentenced by the magistrates to six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour for advocating the Plan of Campaign. They appealed against the sentence, and the appeal was heard in Galway, on Monday, by Recorder Honn. Mr. Honn wound up the case very briefly by increasing Coffey's sentence from six weeks to four months; Kilmartin's from six weeks to three months; and confirmed the judgment in O'Higgins' case, but relaxed the sentence by allowing the prisoner to be treated as a first-class misdemeanant. In none of these cases was there any new evidence whatever. No additional facts were imported into any of them to alter the complexion of the case from the day it was brought before the Minor Court and decided there. There was, also, an
  346
  appeal the other day at Ennis, in the case of a man named Flanagan, who had been sentenced to three months' imprisonment for having refused to sell bread to a Boycotted person. He did not propose to enter into that case, nor to say whether the sentence was just or unjust. He would only make this remark—that, upon going through the case, he could find no evidence or suggestion that the prisoner, in his refusal to sell bread, had been acting in obedience to any kind of organized conspiracy, or in concert with anybody whatever. Whether rightly or wrongly, he seemed to have acted entirely on his own motion. Nevertheless, he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for what he did, and the case was heard on appeal before Judge Hicks, who went through the evidence, and wound up by saying—
  "I will inflict upon you the full term the law can inflict, and I sentence you to six months' imprisonment with hard labour."
  All those cases had occurred within a few days. In the same newspaper in which he found a record of these cases, he found that the Viceroy had intervened by one act of mercy in reference to a sentence, but it was only in a case where a man had murdered his wife—none of your unpardonable political offences. Then they had this fact before them—that this practice, which he pronounced to be, if not absolutely illegal, an entirely new system in Ireland, growing up with such frightful rapidity that six or seven cases had occurred within the last few days. He did not believe that the House of Commons had appreciated the extent to which this practice was carried, and he was quite certain that the English people knew little or nothing about it. If they did know, he was satisfied that the judgment of all the intelligent men and women in England would declare that this was not what was understood by the privilege of appeal. It had always been thought that a right of appeal was given to a prisoner so that the sentence might be submitted to a higher tribunal in the hope that the punishment might be mitigated; and he ventured to say if the English people knew that while this was undoubtedly the principle in England, minor and obscure Judges in Ireland were allowed to reverse that principle, and to make the right of a prisoner to appeal nothing more or less than a revolting game of double or quits,

  347
  they would express a very strong opinion. Why did not the Crown appeal, and plead that the original sentence was too mild, and that justice required that it should be made heavier? If the Crown never did that, with what right and justice could it be urged that it should be within the principle and proper sphere of Irish County Court Judges to double the sentence of magisstrates upon prisoners? If this state of things were allowed to go on the whole spirit of the law would be perverted, and a bitterness of the worst kind would be aroused in the minds of the Irish people. He remembered, a great many years ago, hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) denounce a certain change which had been made in the practice of the country as a gigantic innovation. Whether this was a gigantic innovation or not, it was a dangerous innovation, and one distinctly opposed to the spirit of the law. Those who represented the Irish people were anxious to maintain unchallenged the right of a prisoner to appeal. At any rate, they had still their right of appeal to the House of Commons, and it was for the purpose of testing in some way the opinion of Parliament, that he brought forward the Motion and asked the House to mark its objection to this now principle, which would not merely close the gates of mercy, but would open the gates of wanton and despotic action.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not see that the hon. Member has connected his observations with the latter part of his Motion, which refers to the different methods of treating prisoners convicted of the same offence, and does not afford sufficiently definite ground for moving the Adjournment of the House. If the hon. Gentleman will omit that part and confine the Motion to the first part he will be more in Order.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I am quite prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN) (Dublin. Unisity)said, he would venture to submit that the only question raised by the speech of the hon. Gentleman which the louse could for one moment entertain
  348
  was the question whether or not the conduct of the Judges in Ireland, in the exercise of the jurisdiction recently conferred upon them, had put in force powers which had not been entrusted to them. It was in vain to ask the House to go into the details of the individual cases referred to by the hon. Member, and to ask the House, in the utter absence of any reliable material, to form an opinion as to whether the County Court Judge, in each individual case, assuming him to possess the power to increase the sentence, had exercised that power wisely and justly upon the evidence before him. He had observed in one portion of the speech of the hon. Member a suggestion which, he thought, afforded a clue that might enable the House to understand how the question presented itself to his mind: The hon. Member said that, to his mind, the privilege of appeal was one which a convicted person possessed of going to a higher tribunal in the hope of having his punishment mitigated. [Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Hear, hear!] The hon. Gentleman said "Hear, hear!" and he could quite understand how the question presented itself to the mind of the hon. Member if he understood the right of appeal in that sense. That was not, however, what the law understood by this right of appeal. The appeal granted under the Petty Sessions Act, which was incorporated in the Act of last year, was not an appeal in the ordinary sense, but was in reality a re-hearing. The case was re-heard upon evidence, some of which might be new. He had no means of knowing how much of the evidence in the cases brought before the County Court Judges referred to by the hon. Member was new; but he might inform the House that the entire evidence was taken de novo. The case was heard, not on an appeal, as the hon. Member understood the law, but as a re-hearing of the entire case, and it was the duty of the County County Judge, without regard to the decision originally given, to pronounce the sentence which, in his opinion, on the evidence before him ought to have been originally passed. He would remind the House that this provision of the Statute regulating appeals from summary convictions had been incorporated into the Act of last year. The hon. Member asked a question which might have some bearing on

  349
  his own contention—namely, why the Crown did not appeal if the sentence was considered too light? By the Act of 1851 the right of appeal from the Justices to the Quarter Sessions was given to either party in civil cases, and to the party against whom the order should have been made in other cases. In the Act it was provided that it should be lawful for the Court of Quarter Sessions to entertain the appeal and confirm, vary, or reverse the order made by the Judges. The Act of last year conferred on the County Court Judges the jurisdiction in this respect possessed by Quarter Sessions, and it was the duty of the County Court Judge, upon the evidence brought before him, to exercise his discretion independently of the sentence which the Court below might have pronounced. If he was wrong in his law, and if the County Court Judge possessed no such jurisdiction, there was a very simple method in which the question could be tested very expeditiously and satisfactorily, seeing that it was open to any prisoner who had been illegally convicted to apply for a writ of habeas corpus and have the question tested. He had been asked yesterday, and it was some satisfaction to him that others had been asked the same question with the same result, to inform the House of the number and the proportion of cases in which sentences on appeal had been varied in the direction of an increase of the penalty. He had ventured to point out, and he would de so again, that that information could only be arrived at by going through the records of each Court and carefully examining them. Such knowledge did not exist at the present moment in the mind of any Officer of the Crown. There was no person who could be expected to possess information on the subject, and the information could only be obtained by examining the records of each Court, for the given period. But he could state from his own knowledge that where an appeal existed in the nature of a rehearing in civil cases in the Court of Appeal, it was a matter of frequent occurrence that what the hon. Member called "the game of double or quits" was played, and that the appellant sometimes obtained a more unfavourable decision. An appellant has sometimes found himself when he came to the Court of Appeal in the position of
  350
  having a decision in his favour on some point reversed and a more unfavourable decision given. That was so now that appeals were re-hearings, but the same course could not have been pursued so long as the appeal continued to be an appeal in the sense understood by the hon. Member—namely, an application to a Higher Court to have a decision varied in favour of the appellant. Once they established the principle that the appeal was a general re-hearing of the case, then an appellant would always know that when he went to the Court of Appeal he ran the risk of having the decision varied adversely to himself. It was, as he had said, in the power and within the jurisdiction of the County Court Judge upon the evidence before him on appeal to pronounce the sentence which the Court below, assuming the same evidence to have been before it, ought to have pronounced. That was the duty of the County Court Judge under the Statute, and it was impossible for the House to go behind that principle and to deal with individual cases without proper materials to guide them in discussing whether that duty and that discretion had been properly performed and exercised.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that as ho had ventured to put a Question to the Home Secretary on this subject yesterday and to the Attorney General to-day, he hoped he might be allowed to intervene for a few moments in the discussion. It was impossible for anyone who had heard the Answers of the Home Secretary and the Attorney General to come to any other conclusion than that neither of those learned Gentlemen was able to adduce a single instance in which an appeal in England to a Court of Quarter Sessions had increased the sentence of the Court below. He was quite certain that if they could they would have done so. He had put the same question to persons inside and outside the House who had had a long experience of Quarter Sessions work, and he had received the same answer from all of them—namely, that in no case in a criminal appeal had the sentence of the Court been increased, and he was of opinion that no case of the kind could be adduced The Court of Quarter Sessions in England had the same power as the Solicitor General for

  351
  Ireland claimed for the County Courts in Ireland, but the sentence of the Court below in a criminal appeal had never been increased. Perhaps the reason why sentences were not increased at Quarter Sessions was because the law did not give the Crown the right of appeal. The appeal was only given to the accused, and he held, therefore, that it was an appeal given in the interest of prisoners who had been convicted. He believed that was the reason why the Court of Quarter Sessions had never exercised the power of increasing sentences. Under these circumstances, he thought the House ought to scrutinize very carefully the practice which had just been inaugurated in Ireland. He was told that the practice in Ireland formerly was the same as in England, and that no case could be adduced of the Court of Quarter Sessions or the County Court Judge increasing the sentence until within the last few days. But within the last few days they had found three County Court Judges increasing the sentences. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had alluded to those cases, and he (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) did not propose to go into them at any length. It was, however, an extraordinary fact that three County Court Judges, almost on the same day, should for the first time have increased the sentences passed by the Court below upon certain prisoners. The first case mentioned was the Ennis case, where three men were prosecuted for refusing to supply food to Mrs. Maloney. They were sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour by the Court below, but the sentences had been increased from six weeks to three months with hard labour. Now everybody knew that the question of Boycotting, or refusing to supply provisions, was a very doubtful matter in the Criminal Law. He believed he was right in saying that only in a very few cases had there been prosecutions of that kind under the Coercion Act. He had been unable to discover more than three cases under that Act, although Boycotting was a very common thing in Ireland. In each of these three cases the sentences inflicted were very small, not more than four or five weeks' imprisonment without hard labour, but in the Ennis case the sentence
  352
  imposed by the County Court Judge was for the first time the full sentence given under the Act—namely, six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Yet the evidence was precisely the same as that which was given in the Court below, and there was no earthly reason, as he could perceive, for increasing the sentence. Next there was the case referred to by the hon. Member of Father M'Fadden and Mr. Blane. Now, everybody knew that Father M'Fadden was the most popular man in the North of Ireland, and had done more to save the lives of the tenantry in that district than any other person. It was a most serious matter that a man of that character should have his sentence increased by the County Court Judge from three months to six months. Then there was the case of Mr. Blane, who was charged with the same offence as Father M'Fadden. He did not propose to enter into the facts of the case, and he only alluded to it for the purpose of showing that in that case also the sentence was increased from four to six months, and it was not accompanied by the mitigation in Father M'Fadden's case, that the hon. Member was to be treated as a first class misdemeanant. He could not understand why the priest should be treated differently from a Member of Parliament for the same offence. He would not, however, pursue that matter, because he would be entering upon a subject which the Speaker had ruled out of Order. This practice of increasing the sentences was a serious innovation, and would tend to diminish the confidence of the people of Ireland in the administration of justice by the County Court Judges. In the discussion of the Coercion Act last year, no mention was ever made nor was it over suggested that power should be given to the Court of Appeal to increase the sentences. As had already been pointed out, it had always been considered that the appeal was in the interests of the prisoner and not in the interests of the Crown, and although technically the Judge possessed the right to do so, it had never been the practice in any case he bad been able to discover to increase the sentence. He thought the Government ought to give some explanation why this new practice had suddenly, at a moment's notice, sprung up in Ireland. It would point to the suggestion or suspicion that the

  353
  new practice was in some manner due to a suggestion from headquarters. It was hardly possible that three Judges could at the same time have come to the conclusion that it was necessary to depart from the old established practice, without some such suggestion or hint.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he did not intend to deny that the Court to which the appeal was made had technically the power of doing what had been done in these cases. If it had not that technical power there would be no necessity to come before the House, as the hon. Member for Londonderry had done, with a Motion for Adjournment; but the men imprisoned would, by motion before the Supreme Court, take advantage of their rights. He believed that the technical power, as defined by the Statute, was contained in the words which were nearly, though not literally, the same in Ireland as in England. The Court of Appeal had the power—
  "To confirm, to reverse, or to modify a decision, or to remit the matter to the magistrate who had made the decision."
  Then there were words contained later, and which provided that the Court to wich the appeal was made might exercise any power which the Court of Summary Jurisdiction might have exercised. But clearly the intention in allowing the appeal was to give the person who made the appeal the opportunity of having his sentence modified, reversed, or confirmed. If there had been any intention on the part of the Legislature to give to the Crown the power which was so often exercised in France, and which was part of their ordinary procedure, there would have been specific authority to aggravate and increase the sentence, just as there were express words allowing the sentence to be modified or reversed. The three things which were given to the Court of Appeal were the power to modify, to reverse, or to confirm; and, although in practice it might be necessary that the Court to which the appeal was made should possess every power which the Court of Summary Jurisdiction possessed against whose order the appeal was made—although it might be necessary that the Court should have that technical power, it had certainly never been intended that it should be exercised for the purpose of increasing the sentence. Nor
  354
  had it been so considered in this country. He would not take upon himself to say, and it would be unwise to say, as he had not investigated every case of appeal, that there had been no case in which a sentence might not have been increased; but he felt quite sure that he was within limit, and would be confirmed by the Law Officers of the Crown, when he said that it was almost unknown for sentences to be increased which had been passed under summary jurisdiction by the Court to which the appeal had been made. Sentences had been reduced often, confirmed often, modified often, and men had been ordered to come up for judgment when called upon; but the cases in which sentences had been increased were so rare that he did not happen to know of any. There was a possibility that such power might have been exercised; but all the references he had been able to make went the other way. It was almost the invariable practice, if, indeed, it were not the invariable practice, to make the decision en the appeal a decision either in diminution of the sentence, or a quashing the conviction, or of sending it back to the magistrates, or confirming it. It was almost unknown that there should have been such an aggravation of the sentence as found in the circumstances quoted by the hon. Member for Londonderry. He would take the liberty of saying that in the opinion of the people with whom he had come in contact in this country that, as there had been some sentences which had been quashed, the Judges of Appeal, who were hostile to those appealing, had increased the sentences for the purpose of deterring men from going to the Court of Appeal in order to obtain a modification of sentence. He would suggest that if that opinion was well founded it was a terrible matter; and the mere existence of such opinion was a matter which the Government ought not to disregard. There were many matters connected with these appeals which the English public were beginning to notice. They noticed that the highest Court of Jurisdiction in Ireland had quashed sonic of the convictions on the ground that the magistrates did not possess the same confidence of the Irish people as the ordinary magistrates, because they were exceptionally appointed magistrates, giving decisions under exceptional circumstances, subject

  355
  to exceptional influence, and in exceptional relation with the Executive authority, acting sometimes in a judicial capacity and sometimes in an administrative capacity. Rightly or wrongly, the English people fancied that there was a Party tendency in these prosecutions; that the Judges did not hold the scales of justice fairly—that was to say, that those Resident Magistrate Judges were looked upon with the greatest favour by the Administration themselves—namely, the present Castle Government in Ireland, who were more ready to insure a Party victory than to deal out even-handed justice. He hoped the Government would do him the justice to recognize that he had interfered very little in matters of controversy between them and the Irish Members who sat around him. There were, however, some subjects on which he considered it his duty to speak out, and it was because he had contended for the even-handed administration of justice in. England that he felt doubly bound to speak out when he arrived at the conclusion that it was not justice but prosecution that was being meted out to the struggling people of Ireland.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, he should not have intervened in the discussion if it had not so happened that he had gained some experience at Quarter Sessions. He thought hon. Members, when they complained that no precedent was to be found for the increase of a sentence where there had been an appeal from the conviction in England, had forgotten the extraordinary rarity of appeal from a conviction coming to Quarter Sessions. He had practised for more years than hon. Members might think at Quarter Sessions, and he had been frequently concerned in appeals against orders of affiliation, and in cases of the conviction of publicans for offences against the Licensing Laws; but he did not remember a case while he practised at Quarter Sessions in which there was an appeal from the conviction for theft, or in such cases as ordinarily came before a magistrate sitting in a Court of First Instance. It was, therefore, not remarkable that the Law Officer of the Crown for Ireland, when challenged, should not be able to put his hand on a group of cases in which the sentences had been increased. [A laugh.] Hon. Members laughed as if they knew more upon the
  356
  subject themselves. It would have surprised him, and probably would have surprised hon. Gentlemen opposite, if the Solicitor General for Ireland could have put his hand on many cases in which there had been an appeal against conviction at all, except for the offence of permitting drunkenness in licensed premises. He thought it was greatly to be deplored that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) should have delivered the speech to which the House had just listened. There could be no fair reason in his judgment for charging the Government with any kind of interference. [Cries of "Oh!"] That was his opinion at any rate, and when the hon. Member for Northampton said that those who sat round him held opposite opinions, his (Mr. Darling's) reply was that hon. Members who sat round him held opinions that were directly opposed to those of the hon. Member.
  MR. BRADLALTGHsaid, he had not spoken of the opinion of hon. Members sitting around him, but he had spoken of the English opinion with which he had been brought in contact outside the House.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, that ho too had come in contact with public opinion outside the House, although that opinion might by no means have been the same as that with which the hon. Member came in contact; but, perhaps, he and the hon. Member did not meet the same people. Certainly, it was not to the effect that the Government had given itself over to the persecution of any class of people, or had manifested any spirit of unfairness in carrying out the Act of last year. He maintained, in the presence of the Government, that hon. Members opposite bad too readily admitted the state of the law. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and the hon. Member for Northampton, who generally interfered in matters of law, although sometimes without much success—[Cries of"Question!"]—There could be no question about that. He thought they had too readily admitted that there was no doubt about the law in regard to this case. It might be true that a case could not be found, but it did not prove much to say that it was impossible to find convictions in any number. For his own part, he thought the question was more open to

  357
  doubt than the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Northampton seemed to think. The hon. Member for Northampton had quoted words from the Act; but the Act he read was the English Act. The Irish Act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 19, s. 74, did not use the words "confirm, reverse, or modify," but the words used were "confirm, vary, or reverse" the sentence. If hon. Members would refer to that section of the Act they would notice that towards the end of it provision was made for carrying out the sentence of the Court, and they would see it was arguable that the man to be committed. to prison in execution of a sentence was committed upon the conviction of a magistrate sitting in a Court of First Instance. If that were so, it was a conviction and order to carry out a particular sentence, and the prisoner could not possibly be sentenced for a longer period than that contained in the original sentence. Under these circumstances he was certainly surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite admit that technically the law gave the County Court Judges power to increase sentences. Instead of hon. Members founding their arguments on a legal basis, they proferred—and this was the worst of these Irish questions—to rely upon arguments ad misericordiam. Now, where was the grievance? If an Englishman were wrongly convicted he appealed to the Courts of Law. What were the Courts of Law for? What was the Court of Queen's Bench for, unless it existed on the assumption that the Courts of First Instance and secondary Courts decided wrongly sometimes? In England it was admitted that they decided wrongly honestly. Why should not hon. Gentlemen opposite admit the same thing in regard to Ireland? If anything had been overlooked, if any power had been exercised which should not have been exercised by law, then Father M. Fadden and the other prisoners had only to go to the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland and get as good justice as could be obtained in the Court of Queen's Bench in England. Instead of doing that hon. Gentlemen opposite said they thought the sentence was perfectly justified by the law; but they chose to say that the law should not prevail because Father M'Fadden was a philanthropist and one of the best men in Ireland. It was very unfortunate that everyone who
  358
  got into trouble in Ireland turned out to be a philanthropist, and one of the best men in the country. What advantage was there for arguing upon such a basis as that; either the grievance was a legal grievance or it was no grievance at all? If in the Act of Parliament the word "vary" meant to have the right to increase the sentence, it was no grievance that that had not been done formerly, but had been done now. He did not suppose that persons in Ireland—rev. gentlemen of a philanthropic turn of mind, who committed crime, and were sentenced to three months' imprisonment, would be at all deterred because the sentence was increased to six months. Their grievance was a legal one, or no grievance at all, and, after all, it would much better become them to take their appeal to a Higher Court than for their friends to come to the House of Commons, and speak of them as philanthropists, who had been put into third-class carriages like pickpockets, as though no respectable people ever travelled in that way. If they had any grievance known to the law, it was better that they should bring it before a Higher Court, and have it redressed. If they could not do that, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, the English people would come to the conclusion that Irish grievances were, like Irish action, outside the law, and because they were outside the law the English people would not sympathize with them.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has shown that he entirely misapprehends the grounds on which this complaint is made. He has said—and no doubt it is a conception he has derived from Quarter Sessions, at which he told us he has principally practised—that either there is a legal grievance, or there is no grievance at all. That is not the complaint at all, nor do I think that that is the view the people of England will take of this question. I will not say whether the proceedings of the Court are legal or not. It is not necessary to determine that question here. The Solicitor General for Ireland has expressed a confident opinion that that is the true interpretation of the Statute. I think there might be good ground for raising such a doubt as that which the hon. and learned Member who

  359
  has just spoken raised. But for this purpose that does not enter into the question. We are willing to assume that this jurisdiction exists in the Court, and may be assumed to exist in a similar Court in England. We know that there are a great number of unused powers in the law of England—rusty weapons of brutal tyranny, which, if they were brought out and used against the English people, the English people would not tolerate for one moment that they should be employed either by the Courts, or that the Executive Government should allow them to be carried out. There are many such powers as these; they undoubtedly exist, and the employment of unusual powers for the purpose of turning the Criminal Law into an engine of brutal and ferocious oppression, however legal it may be, is unconstitutional. The meaning of the word "unconstitutional" is this—that it is an unusual and unexampled use of a power that cannot be defined as being technically illegal. That is what unconstitutional action means. Unconstitutional action may be taken by the highest power in the Realm if powers that cannot be legally disputed are used in a manner that has passed into disuetude. That would be unconstitutional action on the part of the Crown. There might, I imagine, be unconstitutional action on the part of Parliament if it were to assume its powers and privileges that it was not in the habit of assuming. There might even be unconstitutional action on the part of the Courts, if, in the exercise of unusual powers, they used them in a manner in which they were never used before; and over that unconstitutional action of the Courts there would remain the power of the Minister to advise the Crown to remit sentences of that character. I venture to say that if any Quarter Sessions in England had used their power in a manner in which it had never been used before for the purpose of cruelly oppressing the subject, there is no Home Secretary in England who would not have remitted that sentence, and no House of Commons that would not, if necessary, have made him do it, if he refused. -Why, Sir, over and over again the Executive Government in England, by the power of the Home Secretary, has restrained the action of magistrates and of Courts where it was thought their
  360
  practice was falling into a system that was injurious to Society and to the community. I may be forgiven if I refer to a class of cases with which I was myself connected as Home Secretary. I found that magistrates, no doubt from not having sufficiently considered the matter, were sending children of tender age to prison by scores. I found to my horror and surprise that many children of eight were being sent to gaol, and were confined to a solitary cell. Well, what did I do? I remitted the sentences, and the practice soon disappeared without any change in the law by the action of the Executive, and a practice which everybody recognized as injurious to the community was practically restrained. I believe that at the Home Office the rule still continues, that no sentence of imprisonment on a child under 12 shall be carried out without being reported personally to the Home Secretary, and brought under his notice. Therefore I say it is perfectly idle now for the Executive to plead ignorance of, or that it has no connection with the introduction of these novel practices in the law. It is their business to take cognizance of them. It is for that very reason that they are armed with the power which the Crown has over sentences of this character, and they cannot refuse the responsibility which for that very reason attaches to them. No Home Secretary can be allowed to say he did not know of any practices of unexampled severity being introduced into the Criminal Law, and would not use the prerogative of the Crown placed in his hands to restrain their exercise. That is the view that we take of this matter, quite apart from the technical right of the Court to carry out these sentences. Can anybody doubt what the facts are? As to what the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last said about the rareness of appeals at Quarter Sessions, that is contrary to my experience, gained, not at Quarter Sessions, but at the Home Office. Certainly at the Home Office I became constantly acquainted with appeals in criminal cases, carried from the magistrates to the Courts of Quarter Sessions. I particularly remember cases connected with convictions under the Game Laws. Does anybody believe that when you find the Law Officers on the Front Bench opposite getting up one after

  361
  another, and saying they do not know—they cannot be certain without having Returns prepared—do you believe that if such a case were known by anybody, the Attorney General would have known it, or, if not, would at least have been able to find it out by to-day? Do you suppose that the Solicitor General is so ignorant of the practice of his profession as not to be acquainted with such cases if they really existed? The truth is, that magistrates and Quarter Sessions in England would have been ashamed of such transactions. To suppose that you can introduce a novel practice of this sort without violating all the rules that ought to regulate the administration of criminal justice is a proposition which cannot be sustained. Then what is the conclusion? That you are introducing into Ireland, to whom you promised equal treatment, an exceptional system of cruel brutality in the administration of justice which has no paragon and no example in English practice. This question of appeal comes to us in a rather suspicious garb from the hands of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He began this policy of appeal by an act of deliberate bad faith with this House. He made a solemn pledge that he would give an appeal in every case. The pledge that he gave—he gave it personally to myself, and therefore, I recollect it—he broke. Sentences under the Coercion Act began to be passed in Ireland, and in some instances, in order to obtain a right of appeal, the accused persons asked that their sentences might be increased so that an appeal should be allowed. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary soon afterwards made a speech at Birmingham which contained very significant hints that it would be extremely convenient if sentences were of such a character as not to admit of an appeal. It was a curious circumstance—I do not say there was any connection between the two things—but immediately the sentences conformed to the Birmingham speech, and we have seen how the appeals have been worked in Ireland. There were some Judges, of course, who were more merciful than others. That will always happen. Appeals were taken to Judges who were in the habit of remitting or lowering the sentences. But you can quite conceive that it would be a convenient thing to make people afraid of appeals, even in cases where
  362
  appeals were to be given; and what could be more convenient than to introduce a new practice into your criminal procedure? To tell a man who wished to appeal that if he appealed he would very likely get his sentence doubled would deter him from appealing, because it would depend very likely on the person before whom he was brought as to whether the sentence was diminished by one-half or doubled. There was every probability that a practice of that kind would be a very wholesome deterrent against any man daring to appeal against a sentence imposed on him in Ireland. In such a state of things, do you believe that the Irish people are likely to have confidence in the administration of your law? I say they will not, and they ought not. It is an administration of the law which is contrary to all the principles and sentiments which are known to the humanity of the law as it is practised in England. I say you are doing, by conduct of this character, everything you possibly can to shake the belief in the administration of the law both in Ireland and in England, and all you can do to prevent the restoration of that peace and order of which you are constantly talking, but which, it seems to me, your system of administration is undermining and destroying for over. I am endeavouring to explain to the hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) that the question is a very different one from the technical and Quarter Sessions view. It is a question which touches much higher principles than that; it touches the belief in the justice, the humanity, and the equality of the administration of the law as it is dealt out to the Irish people and to the English people. It is because we think that this practice which is carried out in Ireland is wholly alien and repugnant to the sentiments which are entertained in this country, that we protest against its being applied to Ireland as an additional instance of the inequality of the treatment which you mete out there.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): I am one of the admirers of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) who have watched with considerable regret his decline and fall ever since the unhappy day when, at a moment's notice, he changed the opinions of a lifetime. I

  363
  noticed with regret—I have long noticed with regret—that he has thought fit, in adopting the opinions of his new allies, also to adopt their morality. I noticed with further regret, in the speech he has just delivered, that he has not only adopted their morality, but also their style. I never heard a happier, a more felicitous, a more perfect imitation of the style of United Ireland than that which I have heard in certain parts of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just thought fit to deliver to the House. The right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to repeat an accusation which has been a thousand times refuted. I shall not think of occupying the time of the House with any subject so absolutely irrelevant to the question before us. But I must say a word, not in defence of myself, but in defence of those other individuals whom the right hon. Gentleman has coupled with me in his violent and unscrupulous attack—[Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT dissented]—yes, in his violent and unscrupulous attack. The right hon. Gentleman has insinuated, and more than insinuated—following in this the unfortunate example of the right hon. Gentleman who sits near him on the Front Opposition Bench—the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre)—that the action of the County Court Judges in Ireland is, in some obscure and insidious way, receiving inspiration from Dublin Castle. That insinuation is a foul libel upon an honourable, an able, a learned, and a most independent class of men. On the Bench opposite me, I see more than one right hon. Gentleman who has held the Office of Irish Chief Secretary. I see one right hon. Gentleman, at least, who has given public testimony to the independence of County Court Judges in Ireland. Will one of those right hon. Gentlemen get up and say that, since they left Office, men whom they were proud to defend when they were in Office have sunk to the level which was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman? County Court Judges in Ireland are absolutely and in every possible respect now, as they have always been, independent of the Government of Ireland. Their independence and their learning have been recognized by successive Chief Secretaries belonging to different Parties in the State, and I reject, as a foul libel and aspersion on their character, the insinuations which
  364
  have just been made by two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. Now, the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made some allusion to the legal aspect of this question. I have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman is not always fortunate in his legal allusions. He talked of the increase of sentences, or the power rather under which the County Court Judges have increased the sentences, as being the use of a rusty and disused weapon.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not say so. I said there were many rusty, disused weapons in the English law; but I did not say that this was one.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Under those circumstances, I think, if Mr. Speaker had seen that the right hon. Gentleman was straying so far from the point as to be so totally and absolutely irrelevant, he would have called him to Order. If the right hon. Gentleman did not think that this power was a rusty and disused weapon, in what connection did he use the epithet? What relevance had it to the question? I now accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as indicating that the use of this power is the use of a weapon which is not rusty, but which is still bright. You reject the first alternative; allow me to pin you to the second. This is a power which the right hon. Gentleman frankly admits has been given to County Court Judges, or, rather, to the Court of Quarter Sessions.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said I was ready, for the purpose of the present argument, to assume it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to admit it. It was specifically admitted by the right hon. Gentleman who sits near him, and I think it would be well that they should come to an agreement on their law, as they have with regard to the line of attack which they have adopted on this question. This power; as the right hon. Gentleman himself owns, has been given to the Judges by Statutes which are in no sense antiquated. The Statute in England under which this power is given dates no further back than 1879; it is not more than 10 years old, and the powers given under it have been given in language so specific and so precise that it is perfectly impossible to suppose for

  365
  a moment that the Legislature was not cognizant of what it was doing when it gave these powers to the County Court Judges. But allow me to point out that there is a difference between an appeal given in Ireland and an appeal given in England. In England appeal is given to a tribunal not necessarily learned in the law. It is from magistrates not learned in the law to a tribunal which is not learned in the law. In Ireland the case is different under the Crimes Act, because the Legislature has rightly decided that that appeal shall not lie to Quarter Sessions generally, or to any tribunal composed of laymen,
  but that it shall be tried solely by competent lawyers, who, by virtue of their office, are absolutely independent of the Executive in any shape or form. The right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to describe the action of a learned Judge as "brutal, savage, and furiously oppressive," and as "cruelly oppressive." In my opinion, this House is never worse occupied than when it is attempting to act the part of a Court of Law. It never, in my opinion, is making a worse use of the vast powers entrusted to it, than when it attempts to discuss, without the evidence or the safeguards attached to a Court of Law, the sentences passed by the Judges of the Courts of Law, and surely the abuse of that power was never grosser than in the case of a man who has held the Office of Home Secretary, and who describes, so far as I know, without any knowledge of the facts of the case, without any examination of witnesses, or any documents before him to enable him to judge of the case—who describes the action of a competent, independent, and learned lawyer, as being "savage, brutal, and furiously oppressive." I shall not imitate the action of the right hon. Gentleman; I will only say, so far as I am cognizant of the case, of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, and the character of the offence, and the character of the action of those who committed it, that I absolutely and totally differ from the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman has arrived. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has larger means of information on this subject than I have; but I think that before he, acting as a Court of Appeal in this
  366
  House, without any knowledge of the facts, so far as we know, wishes to and pronounces this censure on the Judges in this particular case, he might recollect that he speaks, not from his own character, but from his position he speaks with some authority in this House, and that he is setting an extremely bad example. If it be true, as is not denied by any lawyer in the House, that the County Court Judges in Ireland have thrown upon them a statutory obligation to rehear eases; if they find themselves dealing with cases about which a vast amount of political and Party excitement has been aroused in Ireland, and has been attempted to be aroused in England; if they find that the Court of First Instance, whose decision they have got to revise, consists of gentlemen who have been subject to the most violent and monstrous attacks, not only in their own country, not only in their own Press, but in England, by English politicians, and by English newspapers; if they find themselves, in these circumstances, obliged to re-hear the cases of men who have committed offences of the gravest kind, are we to refuse them the power—when we compel them to rehear the cases—can we say that they are doing any more than their duty if they modify the sentences in certain cases and increase those that have been given? So far as I can understand the duties which are imposed upon those Judges, they would be absolutely failing in the obligation imposed upon them if they did not approach the consideration of these important cases with minds perfectly unbiassed by the decision in the Court below; they would be failing in their duty if they did not devote themselves simply to the evidence brought before them, and if they did not pass sentences on the offenders proportionate to the offence committed. It is not only for this reason; it is also because I think that this House is entering upon a most dangerous course in erecting itself, under the impartial presidency of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, into a Court of Appeal for revising sentences passed by perfectly competent Judges, not only upon that, but upon the particular ground that those Judges would have been failing in their duty if they had not approached these cases with perfectly open minds,

  367
  that I ask the House to reject unequivocally, and by a large majority, the Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I quite agree with those who may hold that we ought to do anything rather than desire that the time of this House should be occupied in considering the proceedings of Courts of Justice in an adverse or critical sense. This may be an evil, but there are greater evils, and one greater evil is when the proceedings of Courts of Justice are conducted not in the spirit of justice but in a spirit requiring the exercise of the high functions of this House as a Grand Court and inquest of the nation, before whom every man's grievance may be brought, and where no man's grievance is to be sent away unheard. We have had the advantage of the intervention in this debate of the hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling), who informed us, in the first place, that it was no wonder that examples of the aggravation or enlargement of criminal sentences were not to be had in England, because there were no such appeals.
  MR. DARLING: I did not say there were no such appeals. I said they were very rare, and so rare that I could not recollect one.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he practised largely before Quarter Sessions, that he had superior knowledge in these cases, that he was well informed as to the practice before Quarter Sessions. and that there were no such appeals within his knowledge. There are Quarter Sessions all over the country, and, as is well known, especially in some districts, there are cases under the Game Laws which come before Quarter Sessions. Then it is most extraordinary, if the hon. and learned Member thinks that there are cases of such appeals, although rare, and if we have the positive testimony of my right hon. Friend who was connected with such appeals as Home Secretary, that, if such appeals exist, there cannot be produced, by the whole wisdom and knowledge of Gentlemen opposite, one single case in which the Court of Quarter Sessions has enlarged the sentences of the Court below. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who says, as a lawyer, he feels extremely diffident in the consideration of this
  368
  question, proceeded to give us some principles of law, and his principle of law was that either in this case there is a legal grievance or there is no grievance at all. How am I to interpret those words? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to pledge himself to that principle. Courts have a discretionary power in certain cases to inflict a minimum penalty, which is a very small term of imprisonment, or a maximum penalty, which is very large, and where a Court has exercised its undoubted power to inflict maximum penalties in ail cases, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his legal knowledge and from the high position in which he looks down upon the ignorance of us laymen, there can be no grievance at all. The question we have to argue is quite serious enough without arguing that point. When no instance can be produced by the united ingenuity and knowledge of the whole Party opposite and the Law Officers of the Crown, when no single instance in the wide range of judicial practice is deduced from England or Scotland of the enlargement of criminal sentences on appeal, are you, who say you are advocates of equality of law and equality of right as well as of equality of administration between England and Ireland, prepared to stand up in your places and defend this remarkable practice, which, for the first time within our knowledge, has been introduced? The Solicitor General for Ireland says that these are cases of re-hearing; but is not an appeal to Quarter Sessions a re-hearing? [Mr. MADDEN assented.] Yes, it is. Therefore the powers of a Court of Appeal in England are as wide as the powers of a Court of Appeal in Ireland. The practice of the Courts of Appeal in England has been uniform and under no consideration to enlarge the criminal sentences of the Court below; but in Ireland, in the relations in which we stand to her, and when you are agreed in saying that the proper mode of governing Ireland is not to give her a Legislature of her own for the management of her internal affairs, but to govern her from Westminster so equitably and mildly and generously and equally that she shall have no reason to complain—it is now in this matter of criminal justice that you introduce this violent and odious inequality without one single instance from the whole of

  369
  your knowledge of British practice to support it. The Solicitor General for Ireland says—"You are acting in the absence of knowledge of what took place in these cases; there may have been new evidence." Is there any new evidence? If there had been new evidence he would have known it. He did not assert it, because he could not assert it. Had there been, the Solicitor General for Ireland would have told us, and therefore we conclude that there is no evidence in the case, and the suggestion that there might have been new evidence is an idle and empty pretext, with no bearing whatever upon the subject. The hon. Member who moved this Motion did so in terms of singular moderation, and I, for my part, should be very glad if we could look to the enormously important principle which is involved in this question rather than upon the question whether the particular exercise of the discretion was in each case justly and well exercised; but when we are told by the Irish Solicitor General that we have not got the evidence before us, we reply, if it is in his power to do so, let him place that evidence before us. And when the Chief Secretary for Ireland says he shall be glad to place before us a full account of the proceedings in the case of Mr. Blunt, let us encourage the Government to take that course, and let them place before us that evidence which will remove the ground of complaint. The Solicitor General for Ireland quoted the Act under which this power is exercised in Ireland. He quoted very fairly from that Act the provision which gives the power of appeal exclusively to that party to the issue on whom the sentence has been passed. Is there no light thrown upon the intention of Parliament by the provision of that enactment; does not the exclusive grant of the power of appeal to the person on whom sentence has been passed clearly show that it was a power of appeal intended to be exercised in favour of that party, and to be exercised, of course, in the maintenance of justice, but in favour of that party if justice had miscarried, and not exercised in the aggravation of that sentence? When Parliament granted this power, if it was intended that there should be a practice of enlarging these criminal sentences, is it not plain that the power of appeal, as it was where the parties stand on an
  370
  equality, would have been given likewise to the Crown? The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has been criticizing, as he generally does, the morality of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). Morality is the text of almost every sermon delivered by the right hon. Gentleman in this House, and he has taken upon himself, almost since his official infancy began, the business of teaching morality to those who were here long before he was. His assumption may be very graceful and appropriate, but I wish to see how it is applied. He says we have adopted a new morality, and evidently, in his sense, a debased morality which we have borrowed more or less from the Nationalist Members representing Ireland. Well, I ask what kind of morality is that which treats the maintenance and breach of faith as matters of such indifference as to require no reference in this House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said it was irrelevant to a question of this kind—a question which has been discussed ad nauseam.
  MR. W. GLADSTONE: As far as my memory serves me, the right hon. Gentleman did not speak of it as irrelevant to this question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg pardon; I went so far as to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being out of Order in introducing it.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: As I understood the right hon. Gentleman he did not say that, and if he did I humbly contest the question, with regard to my right hon. Friend's reference to a breach of faith in respect of the power of appeal in Ireland; and I say that in discussing that question it cannot be doubted that we have the right, and are bound to allude to the history of this right of appeal. My right hon. Friend charged the Chief Secretary—and has rightly charged him—with a breach of faith.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is relevant to the Motion before the House to discuss the action taken by the Government in connection with the Bill passed last Session?
  MR. SPEAKER: The question is raised as to whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has observed some promise which he made on the

  371
  subject of appeal, and therefore the allusion which has been made seems to me to be relevant to the subject now before the House.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The subject, I know, is disagreeable. I leave it to the right hon. Gentleman's own reflections. But I am compelled, in considering the use made of the power of appeal on this occasion and under this Statute, to refer to the history of this power. Now, it has been set up that there is to be a re-hearing, quite irrespective of the position of the party sentenced by the Court below. I ask whether there is the smallest doubt—at any rate in this House, and in this particular case—that the power of appeal which has been given was given entirely in the interest of the person who received the sentence? It was asked in his behalf, and it was given as a concession to him, and it is stamped upon it that Parliament intended it to be given to him, whereas it has now been wantonly and cruelly used against him. The promise was given as my right hon. Friend has stated, without exception; when the power was conferred, it was given with exception, and we claim that the reservation put upon that promise was a breach of faith with this House. The right hon. Gentleman thinks, forsooth, that that is irrelevant to the question before the House; but it is a vital and essential point when we are considering this power of appeal. Well, Sir, the power was given with exception. And what do we find? We find in Ireland that the first attempt was made to evade and nullify this power of appeal by accumulated sentences—a trick of the meanest character—the dishonour and discredit of which I will not attempt to divide between the Government and the authorities in Ireland, for I know not how to divide it; but I say, in looking at the transaction, that anything more mean and miserable, more worthy of the contempt of every honest man; nay, of almost every dishonest man who would not have descended to such a trick as that—cannot be conceived. That power was given as I have described, and when it is exercised two sentences are passed together of one month each, so that the person shall be imprisoned for two mouths, and yet not have the right of appeal. This is irrelevant in the opinion
  372
  of the right hon. Gentleman. Sir, it is part of the melancholy history of this Statute and of its administration, and of what has been done since. I admit frankly that I do not desire the intervention of this House in matters such as these; but this intervention, unfortunately, in such Acts, and in the administration of the law carried on as it is now in Ireland, has become a matter of necessity. The cumulative sentence passed in order to invalidate and nullify the right of appeal was made the subject of special notice in this House, and I rejoice to say that it has not been made in vain. The Government saw that this method of procedure, at all events, would not do, so another has been devised, I do not say by the County Court Judge—I am persuaded that the great body of those gentlemen are fair-minded, impartial, and independent—I do not say by whom; but I say, translating this into English, the meaning is that the Government say, first of all, we promise you appeal, then, without right or title, we restrain the promise we have given; when the power is passed in its limited form we endeavour to escape from and invalidate it by the accumulation of sentences; we have drawn down public indignation against that practice; but our resources are not yet exhausted, for we possess another power—namely, the power of enlarging sentences in Courts of Law, which will make you think twice and think thrice before you resort to the use of this power in future. My right hon. Friend, according to the Chief Secretary, complained of this as a disused power. Sir, he never complained of it as a disued power; he complained of it as a power which has never been used at all, and one which has now for the first time come into action. But I think that the effect of this intervention of the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. M'Carthy), and the public attention which will be given to this practice in consequence of the present discussion, or in consequence of future discussion, will be this—that the hon. Member for Derry has, I believe, struck a death blow at this probably not illegal, but this outrageous action—outrageous in defiance of practice, of policy, and precedent, and totally impossible in England or in Scotland, but good enough, you think, for Ireland, so long as the people of England are dis-

  373
  posed to tolerate it. Had we received information that the practice prevailed in this country, I quite admit that the basis upon which we proceed would have been entirely altered; but there has been a total failure to produce anything of the kind. The Attorney General is going to speak. He said to-night there is no practice established one way or the other. If there is no practice one way or the other, it must mean that there are cases both ways. But has he a case in which the Quarter Sessions in this country have enlarged a criminal sentence on appeal? If he has not, if there is no such case, I say there is an established practice. Until it can be shown that the practice varies, that it is in this direction at one time and in that direction at another time, the practice is established. The practice is that there is no such power exercised in England; and, there being no such power exercised in England, it ought not to be exercised in Ireland, unless, indeed, you wish to exhibit what Mr. Disraeli used to call "an organized hypocrisy"—a pretence that anything in the nature of equality of right or treatment is to be accorded to the people of the Sister Isle.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight): Mr. Speaker, I am not sorry that the speech to which we have just listened has been delivered in this House, but I confess it is very difficult for anybody to control his language when he has to reply to such a speech, in which, as I will show, innuendo, accusation, and insinuation has been hurled without foundation against everybody who is responsible for the government of Ireland and for the administration of law and justice in that country. There have been three or four very serious charges made—three or four charges so serious that the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to sum them up by characterizing the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in this matter as nothing better than organized hypocrisy. Let us consider for a few minutes whether there is a shadow of foundation for the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman—a suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman is not now entitled to withdraw. I take up those charges, and, although I cannot approach, and never shall be able to approach, the right hon.
  374
  Gentleman in power of language, I venture, in my poor way, to throw back those charges upon him, and to say there is no foundation for them. A charge which he introduced for the first time, and which, from one point of view, may be regarded as the most serious he has made, is the charge connected with the fact that cumulative sentences have been inflicted. It is suggested that a sentence was passed for one month and another sentence for another month, and that this has been done with a view of depriving the person sentenced of the right of appeal; and the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to say in this House, with all the responsibility of his years and experience, that this is "a trick of the meanest order"—[Cheers]—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) cheers—and that every honest, and even every dishonest, man would have contempt for it.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Almost every dishonest man.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Almost every dishonest man: I will accept the correction. What does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) think of that statement? In this House not many weeks ago—I can scarcely think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has forgotten the fact—we produced chapter and verse to show that on more than one occasion, under the Crimes Act of 1882, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division, being then Chief Secretary for Ireland, exactly the same course was taken as that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. Is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division an honest man or a dishonest man? I did net notice he cheered when we heard the vociferous cheers from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The fact is this—if I may have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian—[Mr. GLADSTONE was conversing with Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN]—I am entitled to it—
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am obliged to attend to the charge.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The fact is, it is only by imputing the basest

  375
  and meanest motives without foundation that the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to make charges against us. I am not one of those who care to look back on the past and simply talk about change of mind, but I say that when a Gentleman in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian seeks from his great height to wither with contempt everybody, especially a lawyer, who has thought fit to urge his opinion from this side of the House—when the right hon. Gentleman ventures to make accusations against men who regard their honour and their conduct as conscientiously as he does his, he should at least be careful, lest his Government, the Government of which he was the head, lest his Irish Secretary has been guilty of the same mean and contemptible conduct with which he charges us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division will not misunderstand me. I impute no such motives to him. I am perfectly certain he would have scorned and repudiated the suggestion that he had winked at, or been a party to, or connived at, any judgment being given by a Judge in Ireland for the purpose of depriving any person of a right of appeal which he would otherwise possess. But with regard to this charge, I say again—it may be very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to hold a conversation—[Mr. GLADSTONE was conversing with Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN]—but it cannot be necessary that there should be so much conversation—with regard to this charge I say, and I will repeat it later on, that there is not a shadow of suggestion that either the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland or any Member of the Government moved hand or foot, or interfered directly or indirectly with the action of the persons who inflicted these sentences. On the contrary, in the speech made in the House a few weeks ago and in the speech made at Birmingham to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) referred, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland distinctly repudiated the suggestion, and no one ever attempted to say the right hon. Gentleman spoke untruthfully. There is nobody who is so anxious to cast a veil over what he has said in the past as the right hon. Member for Derby, and therefore it
  376
  is singular to find him returning to a charge which has been proved on two previous occasions to be unfounded. The right hon. Gentleman said the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was guilty of a breach of faith—that he broke the pledge he gave as to the right of appeal when the Crimes Bill was before the House. I believe I know as much about the passing of the Crimes Act as any Member of the House, and I say—I have said it before—there is not the slightest foundation for the charge of breach of faith—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—accusations, at any rate, in Courts of Justice are not established by cries of "Oh!" But we do not regard the House of Commons for this purpose as a Court of Justice—in fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has admitted as much; he considers it a place where every grievance may be aired. Now, what is this particular grievance? Early in the discussion on the Crimes Bill the question of appeal arose, and the question then came up whether there should be special provisions as to appeal inserted in the Bill, or whether the ordinary law of Ireland in regard to appeal should be applied. I assert, and I can prove it by Hansard, that what was stated was this—that there should be given the appeal which is now in the Bill—[Cries of "No!"]—well, I am perfectly willing to be answered. But let the House observe that this has nothing to do with the special case before the House to-night. No one pretends to say, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian does not suggest, there was any pledge that there should be any other than a rehearing. I assert that the law applicable to cases of re-hearing is perfectly well-known. It was enunciated by Mr. Justice Blackburn many years ago in a well-known case; it was law at the time the Crimes Act was passed, and so much is the law known that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was obliged to open his observations to-night by saying he could not dispute the right of the tribunal to increase the sentence. But if there is anything in the charge of breach of faith it must be put in this way, that, whereas it was intended there should not be a re-hearing, if rehearing involved this power, the Crimes Act has been framed and then worked

  377
  so that the Court of Appeal should have this power which was not given to it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not appear to have understood me. The breach of faith of which I spoke was this: that the Chief Secretary for Ireland undertook upon my invitation, and upon my pointing out the difficulty of cases like those of combination and so on, to give the right of appeal. The right hon. Gentleman said—"I admit the truth of that argument, and I will give an appeal to the County Court Judge in every case, whether the sentence is for a month or more than a month." Afterwards that promise was withdrawn, and no appeal was given when the sentence was for under a month.
  SIR RICHARD—WEBSTER: The Rouse is perfectly aware that was not in the least the point of my argument. This sentence was a three months' sentence. The right hon Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian said—"You have been guilty of a breach of faith, and you have worked this Act in a monstrous and outrageous way." I have already repudiated the statement that there has been a breach of faith on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in the matter of including or excluding any particular case for appeal. I had passed from that, and I was referring to what was said as to the way in which the Court of Appeal was to exercise its power. Not only was there no suggestion of breach of faith, but there never had been any discussion on the matter. We imported into the Bill the provisions of the Act which I think is called the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act. I mention this because it is so easy to make accusation; but charges of this kind ought to be founded on facts, and not on statements and innuendoes. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian says that when it was found that one method would not do, another was devised. He does not say by whom? [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman cheers that. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest now that he did net mean to charge Her Majesty's Government with influencing the County Court Judges in the course of their conduct?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said nothing of the kind—not a word. ["No, no"] The right hon. and
  378
  learned Lord Advocate says "Oh" Let me tell him—
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities): I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said "No," not "Oh."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I took the acts and I translated them into words without endeavouring to inquire whose acts they were, and I adhere to that translation.
  SIR RICHARD—WEBSTER: I leave the House and the country to judge. The County Court Judge has been guilty, according to the right hon. Gentleman, of disgraceful conduct.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not say that.
  SIR RICHARD EBSTER: The speech at Birmingham has been referred to. It has been suggested that that speech amounted to a nod which was understood. Now, just let the House remember the right hon. Gentleman's words:—"They found that method would not do." Who found it would not do? The Executive Government? What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he said "they found it would not do?" Did he mean the County Court Judges or the Executive Government? He is impaled on the horns of a dilemma. What did he mean by saying—" I will not say by whom?" Why did he not say by whom?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Because I do not know.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: He says "Because I do not know." Why has not the right hon. Gentleman the common honesty to get up and say by whom? He said, with that shrug of the shoulders, which we so well understand, that the great majority of the County Court Judges in Ireland are still as honest and as independent as they used to be. Did he mean to found his accusation against the residue of the County Court Judges? [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: No.] No: he repudiates that. There are only two parties to this transaction, and as it is not the County Court Judge it must be the abandoned and corrupt Executive. But it ill becomes those who have had to administer similar Acts, under circumstances which may not have been as trying, or which may have been more trying, who have been guilty of identically the same conduct, to have the audacity to charge the

  379
  Executive Government with corrupt practices. At any rate, if they do, they should do so straightforwardly, and not by insinuating that "another method was found out, we do not know by whom." Mr. Speaker, we must be pardoned for saying that we do not allow these accusations, when once made, to be merely withdrawn. We require them to be proved, or else we expect that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit that they made them without very substantial foundation. But there is a third charge, and a very serious one, made by the right hon Gentleman. He said there were greater evils than questions of law, and here, I think, I may encourage my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) that he need not heed the very sarcastic and somewhat ungenerous criticism of the tight hon. Gentleman. Every lawyer on this side of the House has suffered from that at some time or other. Lawyers on the right hon. Gentleman's own side are angels of light and mercy, but lawyers who are opposed to the right hon. Gentleman are unfortunate men whose arguments are legal quibbles. I suffered from that sort of criticism before I had been long in the House, but I have learned to disregard it. What is the right hon Gentleman's charge? There are greater evils, he says, than the proceedings of Courts called Courts of Justice. May I ask the right lion. Gentleman to give me his attention—I am entitled to his attention—[Mr. GLADSTONE was conversing with Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN]. The greater evils are when proceedings in Courts called Courts of Justice are conducted otherwise than in a spirit of justice. What is the meaning of the suggestion called Courts of Justice?" Why was that delicately turned expression" called Courts of Justice" used? Because the right hon. Gentleman meant to say they were falsely called Courts of Justice: that they are Courts of Justice in name only.—[Cheers from the Irish Members.]—I have never asked hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to do otherwise than express their opinions freely; but we do expect an ex-Prime Minister of England, we do expect one who has had much to do with the Government of Ireland to be able, if he charges a body of men for whom in one breath he expresses respect, with acting on principles which are contrary to the principles of justice,
  380
  to bring forward the facts on which he makes the accusation. Now, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), in a speech the moderation of which I admit, which spirit of moderation has not been followed by any of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, did not allege or suggest that the County Court Judges had been guilty of personal injustice. I did not understand him to suggest that they had acted corruptly or improperly. The charge that the Judges had been advised by other persons—meaning, of course, the Chief Secretary for Ireland—has come from the Front Opposition Bench, and not even from the Mover of the Motion for the adjournment of the House. Sir, I assert that there is not a shadow of foundation for the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or any Member of the Government, has interfered with the action of the County Court Judges. It is a foul slander upon as honourable a body of men as ever administered justice, and it is a foul slander upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and I say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, when he charges Her Majesty's Government with indirectly devising this new method of hideous oppression, and with introducing odious inequalities, should, at least, produce some facts if he wishes the House to believe him. I have dealt in strong language, I admit, with the three charges made. I repudiate them one and all. I say there is not the slightest shadow of foundation for the House coming to the conclusion that the Executive have interfered with the judicial action of a single one of the magistrates or Judges in Ireland; and I say, further, that this House, until it sees it has grave and substantial ground on which it can impeach their conduct, ought to support the men who have the obligation and duty and responsibility of carrying out the law, and ought to do its utmost to see that their authority and impartiality are neither impugned nor impaired. Whatever may be the result of the Division, of which we have no fear, I am satisfied that the Motion will fail in its object, which can only be to make those who are called upon to administer justice in Ireland fear that if they carry out the law fearlessly and without restraint they may be subject

  381
  to this kind of animadversion in the House of Commons. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have thought fit to suggest or insinuate that the practices complained of had been advised by the Government. That we indignantly repudiate; and we say again to right hon. Gentlemen—"If you mean to make this charge, make it explain and straightforward language; do not hide your own responsibility under the suggestion that you do not know who has been guilty of the practices which you are only too glad to condemn, while, at the same time, you dare not charge them against the Government."
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: It is matter of regret that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) was not able in the course of his speech of half an hour's duration to devote even one minute to the consideration of the question before the House. My hon. and learned Friend's mind seems to have been so completely possessed with the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that he had no time for the consideration of other topics. He seemed to have been so completely mastered by the passion of indignation at the charges of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian that—
  "One master passion in his breast,
  Like Aaron's serpent, swallowed all the rest."
  The subject of the Motion is the departure of the Irish County Courts, by a course of doubtful legality, from the established practice by increasing the sentences in criminal appeals. Has my hon. and learned Friend ventured to deny that that was a departure from the long established practice? Has he ventured to deny that the system of increasing sentences in criminal cases on appeal is a new system? The whole substance and strength of the argument addressed to the House in support of the Motion remained altogether untouched, unmoved, and unanswered by anything said by my hon. and learned Friend. It stands conceded that the elaborate researches of the Attorney General and those acting with him have been powerless to produce one single case in which, where the right of appeal has been exercised by the convicted person, that appeal has been
  382
  made the means of increasing the original sentence. Whatever may be said about the general practice, the special history of this Act gives abundant point to the complaint which we make. The charge made against the Chief Secretary is, that having given a pledge he broke that pledge. The Chief Secretary distinctly pledged himself that an appeal should be given to those convicted under the Act, an appeal such as existed in England. In that I am corroborated by the recollection of the right hon. Member for Derby, who remembers the Chief Secretary, as I also remember him, in answer to a question, saying that there would be an appeal in every case from the exercise of the summary jurisdiction under the Act. Upon referring to Hansard I find that on the 17th of May last, the Chief Secretary pointed out that in the Bill as drawn, the Act of 1882 had been closely followed, so that there was no appeal unless a sentence of above a month's imprisonment was passed, and added—"We propose to give an appeal in every case." That is unmistakeable language, because the context shows that he had in his mind the fact that under the pre-existing Act there would not have been an appeal unless the sentence exceeded a month. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) interjected these words interrogatively, "Without any cumulative sentences?" and the Chief Secretary answered, "There will be an appeal in every case to the County Court Judge." The pledge was given, but it was not carried out. The provision that was actually inserted was this—
  "A person prosecuted before a Court of summary jurisdiction shall be liable to six months' imprisonment, and shall have the same right of appeal as ho would have had under the Summary Jurisdiction Act."
  That Act does not give an appeal in every case, and is more restricted than the corresponding English Act. I say this is a very grave matter, but I cannot follow my hon. and learned Friend in his appeals to passion. We have established the grounds on which the Motion is based—namely, that this is a departure from long established usage not merely in Ireland, but I believe, in Scotland, in England, and in Wales, and I say that it is particularly important in the present state of Ireland, when the administration of the law is odious to the majority of its people and

  383
  is opposed by the majority of its Representatives—by such a majority as I do I not think can be equalled in the history of any legislative question in this country—in such a state of things as that it is especially desirable that there shall be no additional grounds of grievance and complaint, and that there shall not be added fuel to that flame of discontent in the form of distrust and hatred of the law which your odious Act and your disreputable administration of it have brought about.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If the House will allow me, Sir, I desire to say a word or two in answer to the appeal made to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. He said, with great truth, that I had on a former occasion stigmatized a particular proceeding in Court of Justice in Ireland as a very mean trick.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: You said so also to-night.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Quite so; the hon. and learned Gentleman also says that I repeated the charge to-night. It is quite true I listened to the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion, and it did not appear to me then to at all touch the point; but, looking to his speech as reported, it appears to me that the report has been considerably enlarged and made much clearer than as I thought I heard the speech. However, that may have been my fault. All I wish to say now is, that I cannot profess to change my opinion of an Act, whether done by our Government or by any other Government; but I entirely agree that if there was a similar act done during our Government, I, personally, am completely put out of court, and can have no right to make any charge against the present Government. That I beg to say in the most explicit manner.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: It is, I think, necessary that I should make a few observations after what appears to me to be the very well -judged and well-conceived words that have fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The first I have heard of the case which was referred to by the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) was a month ago from the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not complain in the least of the manner in which
  384
  the Attorney General brought the case forward. As far as I am concerned, he acquitted me of all sinister intentions. The first time I heard of the case was this Session. If at the time it actually occurred, an Irish Representative had got up in the House and stated his case with the moderation of the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. McCarthy), and had urged the Government to acknowledge that that was an abuse of the strict letter of the law, I should not have waited for any words from the opposite side of the House in attack, or from my own side of the House in defence. I should have got up at once and stated that if the thing had been done, it was wrongly done, and should not be done again. What is the state of the case now? Why, not only once or twice, or at long intervals, but in as many as six cases, in three or four consecutive days, this power of increasing sentences has been used in what I cannot but consider a barbarous manner. I should have imagined that the only course for the Chief Secretary to take would have been to do at once what he has not done—to prove that the exercise of this power was to the public advantage, or, failing that, to get up at the desk and say that what had been done was indefensible, and that it should not occur again. If it is not indefensible, the Chief Secretary ought to have offered a valid defence for it. I listened to every word of the Chief Secretary, and I could only find one sentence in which he defended it. That sentence was long, wordy, and eloquent. But I took down accurately a line and a-half, and I understood him to say that these County Court Judges had been abused most cruelly by the English Press and by English politicians, as well as by the Irish Press and by Irish politicians; that when men to whom this had happened found themselves in the position of Judges of appeal, because they had been abused as he described, they ought to inquire most carefully into the case, to re-hear it from beginning to end, and then to attach to the crime the punishment they thought it ought to bear.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The persons I said had been abused were not the County Court Judges, but the Resident Magistrates.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I will only offer this observation, that I think it is unfortunate in dealing with these

  385
  judicial matters to say anything about abuse, either in England or in Ireland. When a case like that of the hon. Member for Derry is put before the Rouse quietly, it ought to be met with a powerful defence, a defence which would clearly prove to the satisfaction of the House that it was for the public advantage that in Ireland, of all countries, the Court of Appeal, when appealed to by criminals, should raise their sentences, instead of either keeping them as they were or diminishing them. If ever there were sentences which ought not to be increased, they are these sentences in Ireland. I know something about them. Take the case of the hon. Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blanc). The other day I was in the Library, writing a letter, when I saw a young man standing near me. He looked so pale and ill that I said to him—"Well, when are you going to have your Easter holidays, and what are you going to do?" He said to me—"That is a matter that does not concern me, because I am going to Ireland to serve my four months." He went on to tell me that last year he had brought a charge against a Resident Magistrate in his executive capacity, as well as I can remember, for not using due precautions to protect the Catholics and Nationalists at the time of a riot. I think he said—though of that I am not certain—that he moved in Committee of Supply to reduce his salary for that. Well, it was before this very magistrate that he was sent for trial. He already had had, he told me, 11 days in prison on remand; he was going back to serve his four months; and now on the top of that he has got two more months, and is to be treated as a common misdemeanant. Now, I cannot sit down without begging Members of Parliament to remember what sort of men these Resident Magistrates are, and what sort of men their Colleagues in Parliament are. They are men with like feelings with ourselves, and with like tastes with ourselves. Let hon. Gentleman remember what six months of hard labour—six months as a common misdemeanant—is to anybody, and let them remember what it is to an educated man, whose whole crime is that he has asked League men to belong to the National League. When, in old days, I defended Irish Judges, I took care that they were
  386
  Judges who had not been appointed by my own Government to the County Court as strong political partizans, or to the High Court of Justice as strong Orange partizans—as was the case with Judge Holmes. I spoke of them highly, because I felt that our hands were clean in these appointments. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has brought up against me one single case of accumulative sentence that occurred in my time. That is a specimen of the sort of arguments with which Lord Spencer and I are assailed. Here, out of many thousands of cases, one only is cited. When I remonstrate against imprisoning Members of Parliament, and against their sentences being increased on appeal in this arbitrary and wholesale manner, I am told—"But you imprisoned Members of Parliament." Well, Sir, we reduced crime in Ireland in six months from 3,000 cases to 500, and we imprisoned one Member of Parliament—not under a Crimes Act. That may have been right or it may have been wrong. The present Government, however, have in six months reduced 380 cases to 280, and, in that time, they have imprisoned one-sixth of the Representatives of Ireland. And what we ask today is that the sentences on these Members of Parliament and on the humbler men who follow in their train ought not, in defiance of all precedents and legal practices, to be increased by the arbitrary will of a County Court Judge.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITII) (Strand, Westminster): I desire to say very few words with reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir George Trevelyan) He has made a statement as to what he would have done had He been aware of certain circumstances when he was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. I am sure the House will gladly accept his statement of what, to his mind, would have been his duty five years ago had ho been aware of the facts. We accept the statement in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to make it. But the facts were known—there was no question abort. them. We knew what had occurred in those cases which were charged against the officers of the law in Ireland and against the Resident Magistrates, under

  387
  precisely the same circumstances as these cases which have occurred recently, and with regard to which such unfortunate, such marked, and, as I venture to think, such unjustifiable language has been used. Now, what is the aim and purpose of this debate? It is to discredit the law by all the authority of the names of men who formerly were bound to maintain and administer that law. Their object is, as we have said, by innuendo to suggest that the Judges are actuated by corrupt and improper motives. ["Hear, hear!"] That is cheered by hon. Members opposite. I understand that cheering. Hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side desire to discredit the administrators of the law by every possible means. It is part of the object of their existence. They also desire by every possible means to intimidate the Judges in the discharge of their duties. [Cries of "Order!" from the Irish Members.] They wish to prevent the Judges from discharging plain, simple duties—from dealing with sentences on appeal, and matters which come before them in the ordinary course of their work according to the light of their own consciences. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh at all allusions to conscience. I am not blind to the facts. I am well aware that any allusion to absolute conscientious duty on the part of those who have to administer the law is always received with derision in that quarter. But let me ask, is this House of Commons prepared, when it is in possession of only the slightest materials, to censure the action of Judges, the great majority of whom, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has said, are men of probity with the highest sense of duty—men with the highest sense of personal obligation to their country and their Queen? But the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow says:—"Oh, yes; all those whom we appointed as Judges were men who deserved the confidence of the country and of Parliament, and their judgments certainly ought not to be impugned by this House or any other tribunal, but you—the Executive Government of this country—make appointments which may be questioned, and the action of these gentlemen may fitly and properly be questioned because they were appointed from corrupt and improper motives."
  388
  That, I think, is the first time that any Executive Government in this country has been charged with appointing to judicial posts men who are not actuated by the highest sense of duty and of obligation. Men are taken out of this House—from both sides of the House—and are put upon the Bench; Governments in succession appoint them, and for the first time we hear it charged, and that by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the nominees of the Government, those they have placed on the Bench, are guilty of corruption, impropriety, partiality, and incapacity to discharge their duties. I trust the House will by a sufficient majority repudiate such suggestions as these, and will vindicate the ancient tradition of Parliament to maintain the independence of the Judges of the land.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 219: Majority 54.

  AYES.

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  Craig, J.

  Crawford, D.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Crawford, W.

  Allison, R. A.

  Crilly, D.

  Anderson, C. H.

  Crossley, E.

  Asher, A.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Asquith, H. H.

  Duff, R. W.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Ellis, J.

  Austin, J.

  Ellis, J. E.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Barbour, W. B.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Barran, J.

  Fenwick, C.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Ferguson, R.C.Munro-

  Bolton, J. C.

  Finucane, J.

  Bradlaugh, C.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Bright, Jacob

  Flower, C.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Flynn, J. C.

  Brown, A. L.

  Foley, P. J.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Brunner, J. T.

  Foster, Sir W. B.

  Buchanan, T. R.

  Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.

  Burt, T.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Byrne, G. M.

  Fuller, G. P.

  Caldwell, J.

  Gardner, H.

  Cameron, J. M.

  Gill, T. P.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Gladstone, right hon. W. E.

  Campbell, H.

  Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Carew, J. L.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Causton, R. K.

  Grey, Sir E.

  Cavan, Earl of

  Grove, Sir T. F.

  Channing, F. A.

  Hanbury-Tracy, hon. F. S. A.

  Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

  Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Harrington, E.

  Conway, M.

  Harris, M.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Corbet, W. J.

  Holden, I.

  Cossham, H.

  Hoyle, I.

  Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

  Hunter, W. A.

  389

  Illingworth, A.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Jacoby, J. A.

  Palmer, Sir C. M.

  James, hon. W. H.

  Pease, A. E.

  Joicey, J.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Jordan, J.

  Picton, J. A.

  Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

  Power, P. J.

  Power, R.

  Kennedy, E. J.

  Price, T. P.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Priestley, B.

  Kenny, J. E.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Kilbride, D.

  Reynolds, W. J.

  Lalor, R.

  Roberts, J.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Roberts, J. B.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Robinson, T.

  Leahy, J.

  Roe, T.

  Leake, R.

  Roscoe, Sir H. E.

  Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

  Rowlands, J.

  Rowlands, W. B.

  Lewis, T. P.

  Rowntree, J.

  Lyell, L.

  Schwann, C. E.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Simon, Sir J.

  McArthur, A.

  Smith, S.

  M'Cartan, M.

  Stack, J.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  M'Carthy, J. H.

  Stevenson, F. S.

  M'Donald, P.

  Stewart, H.

  M'Donald, Dr. R.

  Stuart, J.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Sullivan, D.

  Mahony, P.

  Summers, W.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Sutherland, A.

  Mappin, Sir F. T.

  Tanner, C. K.

  Mayne, T.

  Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

  Menzies, R. S.

  Morgan, right hon. G. O.

  Tuite, J.

  Wardle, H.

  Morgan, O. V.

  Warmington, C. M.

  Morley, rt. hon. J.

  Watt, H.

  Mundella, right hon. A. J.

  Wayman, T.

  Whitbread, S.

  Murphy, W. M.

  Will, J. S.

  Neville, R.

  Williamson, J.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Nolan, J.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  TELLERS.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  O'Connor, J.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Morley, A.

  O'Doherty, J. E.

  NOES.

  Ainslie, W. C.

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. S.

  Bond, G. H.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Boord, T. W.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Baring, T. C.

  Barnes, A.

  Bristowe, T. L.

  Barry, A. H. Smith-

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Brookfield, A. M.

  Bates, Sir E. Brown, A. H.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Burghley, Lord

  Beach, right hon. Sir M.E. Hicks-

  Campbell, Sir A.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Carmarthen, Marg. of

  Beaumont, H. F.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Chamberlain, R.

  Bentinck, W. G. C.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Bickford-Smith, W.

  Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

  Bigwood, J,

  390

  Coddington, W.

  Heath, A. R.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Heaton, J. H.

  Collings, J.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Corbett, A. C.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Hobhouse, H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Holloway, G.

  Cross, H. S.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Darling, C. J.

  Howard, J.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Hubbard, hon. E.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Hughes Colonel E.

  De Cobain, E. S. W.

  Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

  De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Hunter, Sir W. G.

  Dixon, G.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Donkin, R. S.

  Johnston, W.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Duncan, Colonel F.

  Kenrick, W.

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H

  Kenyon, hon. G. T.

  Kenyon - Slaney, Col. W.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  Kerans, F. H.

  Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

  Kimber, H.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Knowles, L.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Lafone, A.

  Elton, C. I.

  Lea, T.

  Ewing, Sir A. O.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Farquharson, H. R.

  Lees, E.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Legh, T. W.

  Lennox, Lord W. C. Gordon-

  Field, Admiral E.

  Fielden, T.

  Lethbridge, Sir R.

  Finch, G. H.

  Lewis, Sir C. E.

  Finlay, R. B.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Fisher, W. H.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Long, W. H.

  Low, M.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Fulton, J. F.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Gedge, S.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Madden, D. H.

  Godson, A. F.

  Maple, J. B.

  Goldsmid, Sir J.

  Marriott, right hon. W. T.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Goschen, right hon. G. J.

  Matthews, right hon. H.

  Gray, C. W.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Green, Sir E.

  Mayne, Admiral R. C.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Mildmay, F. B.

  Gunter, Colonel R.

  Milvain, T.

  Hambro, Col. C. J. T.

  More, R. J.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Morrison, W.

  Mowbray, R. G. C.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Mulholland, H. L.

  Hamilton, Col. C. E.

  Norris, E. S.

  Hamley, Gen. Sir E.B.

  O'Neill, hon. R. T.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Hardcastle, E.

  Pearce, Sir W.

  Hastings, G. W.

  Pelly, Sir L.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  391

  Powell, F. S.

  Taylor, F.

  Puleston, Sir J. H.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Quilter, W. C.

  Theobald, J.

  Rankin, J.

  Thorburn, W.

  Richardson, T.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Ritchie, right hon. C. T.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Townsend, F.

  Robertson, Sir W. T.

  Trotter, Colonel H. J.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Round, J.

  Vernon, hon. G. R.

  Royden, T. B.

  Vincent, Col. C. E. H.

  Russell, Sir G.

  Waring, Colonel, T.

  Sandys, Lieut-Col. T. M.

  Watkin, Sir E. W.

  Watson, J.

  Saunderson, Colonel E. J.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Selwin-Ibbeston, rt. hon. Sir H. J.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Whitley, E.

  Seton-Karr, H.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Williams, J. Powell

  Sidebottom, J. W.

  Wilson, Sir S.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Sidebottom, W.

  Wood, N.

  Sinclair, W. P.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Wright, H. S.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Wroughton, P.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Yerburgh, R. A.

  Stephens, H. C.

  Stewart, M. J.

  TELLERS.

  Sutherland, T.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Swetenham, E.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (BRITISH DEPEN DENCIES).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURin rising to call attention to the evils of the liquor traffic among the Native races inhabiting the British Dependencies, or subject to the control or influence of the British Government; and to move—
  "That this House, having regard to the disastrous physical and moral effects of the liquor traffic among uncivilized races, as well as the injury it inflicts on legitimate commerce, is of opinion that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to suppress the traffic with Natives in all Native Territories under its influence or control, and that whenever self-governing powers are granted to Crown Colonies, stipulations should be made for the effectual protection of the Natives against the sale of strong drink,"
  said: I have been induced to direct attention to this question in consequence of numerous communications from various parts of Her Majesty's Dominions, and especially from the Islands of the Western Pacific, South and West Africa, and several of the Crown Colonies, complaining of the terrible injuries inflicted by the unrestricted traffic in spirituous liquors, and praying for some means to mitigate and, if possible, prevent them. We know something, though, perhaps, not as much as we should know, of the baneful effect
  392
  of intemperance in this country, and of the poverty, destitution, and misery which it occasions; how it greatly increases our rates and taxes by filling our workhouses, gaols, and lunatic asylums; how it greatly wrongs women and children, and consigns vast multitudes every year to premature and too often dishonourable graves. If we require proof of that, we have it in abundance. It is stated that 60,000 drunkards die every year. Many of our most eminent surgeons and physicians have used strong language respecting the injurious effects of spirituous liquors when too freely indulged in, and one of our Judges had described the crime of drunkenness as a crime leading to all other crimes—a crime which we might well say leads to 19–20ths of the crimes of this country. Bad as things are here, however, there is some protection afforded by the Adulteration Acts, which prohibit the addition of deleterious drugs to alcoholic drinks, and render them less pernicious than they would otherwise be. But in warm countries, inhabited by coloured and savage races unaccustomed to such liquors, the Natives seem to have, with the exception of Madagascar, no protection whatever, there is no supervision, no examination; and the consequence is that the drink sold to them is so horribly bad, so utterly ruinous to health, that it speedily demoralizes, degrades, and destroys those who indulge in it. Indeed, it is said to be so bad that Europeans will not drink it, and it has been called the "death drink" by the Natives in some places. The readiness with which Natives succumb to the influence of strong drink is well known, as well as the impossibility of expecting men in an uncivilized state to exercise self-control. Take, for example, the Native inhabitants of the Pacific Islands. They have adopted, to a great extent, the habits and customs of civilized life, and they consume large quantities of British-manufactured goods, which is, of course, a benefit to this country; but legitimate trade is being ruined, and we are told, in the admirable Report in the Blue Book upon the Western Pacific, presented to both Houses of Parliament in September last—
  "That many traders minister to the basest passions of the Natives, and, instead of developing a useful trade in national products in ex-

  393
  change for useful merchandise, they, on account of the increased profit and more rapid gains, thrust guns, gunpowder, and alcohol upon the Natives, and bring about the wholesale murders that are monthly enacted in or upon the innumerable islands forming a continuous chain over 3,000 miles in length, and extending from Fiji to the Eastern shores of New Guinea."
  Again, it was pointed out that Commanders of Her Majesty's ships have repeatedly urged the prohibition of the drink traffic. Captain Maxwell, Commodore Wilson, Captain Bridge, and many others, all condemn it. We have also the high authority of Sir John Thurston, the present, and Sir William Des Vœux, the late, High Commissioner in the Western Pacific, who have stated that the sale of arms, ammunition, and alcoholic drink is demoralizing the Natives of the Pacific, and bringing about their rapid extinction. We might naturally suppose that civilized nations worthy of the name would cordially unite to stop this iniquitous traffic, and it is gratifying to know that this country has taken the initiative in an effort to try and induce the various Powers to agree to put an end to the sale of arms, ammunition, alcohol, and dynamite in the Islands. Acting upon the suggestion and advice of the High Commissioner referred to, Lord Granville in 1884 forwarded to the Great Powers and the United States an International Agreement to prevent the supply of arms, ammunition, dynamite, and alcohol to the Natives of the Pacific Islands. The Governments of France, Russia, and Austria sent favourable answers on certain conditions to Lord Granville's Circular. I am not certain whether Germany has yet given a definite reply, but it is understood that that Power is favourably disposed. The American Government, however, declined to enter into the proposed arrangement. But it is to be hoped that, as the facts of the case become better known, the people of the United States will bring such pressure to bear upon the Government as will compel them to join the other Powers in the proposed arrangement. If we turn to South Africa, we find the picture as dark as it is in the Pacific, and that in the Cape Colony the consumption of spirituous liquors by the Natives is increasing, and the consequences are most deplorable. A Proclamation was issued in 1885 by the Cape Government, authorizing the unrestricted
  394
  sale of liquor to Chiefs, petty Chiefs, and Councillors, and empowering magistrates to issue permits to Common Natives for the purchase of definite quantities of spirits in the Transkeian territories. The Natives held a public meeting at Butterworth, and made a solemn protest against the action of the Government in enforcing strong drink upon an unwilling people. I may also mention that at a numerously attended breakfast meeting, held a few weeks ago at the Westminster Palace Hotel, Lord Stanley of Alderley in the chair, Mr. Hutton, Member of the Legislative Assembly, and late Treasurer General of the Cape Colony, who has had upwards of 40 years' experience in South Africa, said that a Liquor Law was some years ago introduced by Sir Thomas Scanlan, which contained clauses known as "Local Option" clauses, and also empowered or authorized the Government to proclaim areas, wherever they thought proper, within which the sale of intoxicating liquor should be prohibited; and under that law many such areas were proclaimed, after the law had been some time in operation. It was, however, alleged that in some of those areas, especially in one or two near King Williamstown—liquors circulated more freely than ever, because, owing to the nearness of King Williamstown, the Natives resident in those areas go there and purchase brandy by the bottle, and that drunkenness was thereby increased instead of diminished. In consequence of those allegations—whether true or false—the prohibition as regards those areas has been withdrawn, and that first retrogressive stop is greatly to be deplored, as it is certain to be followed by still further withdrawals of similar prohibitions. A Native paper says the Natives ask that the sale of "firewater" shall be treated precisely in the same way as gunpowder, which they are not allowed to purchase, and they would not object to having the country from the Fish River to Umzanqulu proclaimed an area in which the liquid fire should not be sold to them. Surely that is not an unreasonable request, and we might suppose it would meet with the approval of those who desire to deal honestly and fairly with the Natives. But if we are rightly informed, not only has a deaf ear been turned to their appeal, but all the restrictions have been removed, and even the

  395
  Licence Duties have been repealed—involving a loss of revenue—and railway freights have been reduced to satisfy the demands of the winegrowers and distillers. I am also aware that the Cape Colony enjoys responsible local government, and it is questionable how far Her Majesty's Government may feel it right to interfere with their internal arrangements. But we may presume that the opinion of this House and of the country would have some influence with those who are at the helm of affairs in the Colony, and induce them to adopt such measures as may save and not destroy the Natives who are dependent upon them. There are, however, other portions of Africa over which we can have complete control, or can exert very powerful influence, and yet I regret to say that I fear things are almost as bad and disgraceful as in the Cape Colony. We have many sad proofs of death and disease occasioned by drink, of which I could give several personal instances of a deplorable character. We are told that it is difficult, if not impossible, to prevent the sale of alcoholic drinks to Native Tribes. I do not admit the correctness of the assertion, because we have satisfactory proof to the contrary. I have it upon the authority of a Member of this House who has been to Africa that when Sir Charles Warren was in command there he made a clean sweep of the ruffianly traders who were feeding upon the vitals of the unfortunate Natives, and cleared them out in a week or two. And that could be done again. It is stated that the curse of drink has been one of the greatest hindrances to civilization and the spread of Christianity in heathen lands. I believe we are morally bound to protect the Natives over whom we rule, and to promote their welfare by every means in our power. But I believe self-interest—even if we had no higher motive—should induce us to do so. We are a manufacturing and commercial country, and it is of the utmost importance to us that we should have wide fields and numerous customers for our goods. These Native Tribes and Nations, if properly cared for, would be valuable customers. I recollect hearing the late venerable Dr. Moffat, who laboured so long and so successfully in Africa, state on one occasion that when he first went to Bechuanaland there was not £5 worth of British
  396
  manufactured goods sold in that district; but, before he left, tens of thousands of pounds worth were sold annually. And this is the case wherever Christian civilization extends. It is, therefore, suicidal folly to allow the Native races to be exterminated. It is like killing the goose that, properly cared for, would lay many golden eggs. I am glad to find that the Royal Niger Company are alive to the importance of this fact, and that—influenced, I doubt not, by humane, Christian motives, but also by proper financial considerations—they have endeavoured to restrict the sale of liquor as much as practicable. There was a reduction of 25 per cent in 1885, whilst in 1886 the reduction was not less than half the import of 1884. In April, 1886, the Council prohibited by regulation the importation of spirituous liquors into certain regions forming about one-third of the Company's territories. I understand they are anxious to do the same with another third of the territory. On May 19 the Council made a further regulation imposing penalties on the payment of wages in spirits throughout the whole of these territories, and they point out that, in following that course, they have not been guided solely by administrative or humanitarian motives, but have acted in the true commercial interest of the shareholders, which accepts as an axiom that the permanent success of the Company's extensive operations in Central Africa depends upon general and progressive trade, and that cannot be built up on the liquor traffic. I may also point out, that whilst we incur the disgrace and bear the injury which results from encouraging this iniquitous traffic, other countries, and especially Germany, enjoy the lion's share of profit. I find that during 1885 more than 10,000,000 gallons of the cheapest and vilest spirit ever manufactured were sent to Africa, chiefly into the Congo Free State and the basin of the Niger. Of that quantity, England sent 311,384 gallons; Germany not less than 7,823,042 gallons; the Netherlands, 1,000,009 gallons; the United States, France, and Portugal in smaller quantities. I am well aware that this is a difficult question to deal with, as we shall probably be told by the Under Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and the Colonies. I also know that we must take other countries into account,

  397
  and deal fairly with them; but I contend that we have no right to allow any country to poison and exterminate Her Majesty's subjects, or those placed under her protection, to serve their own sordid and selfish purposes. We boast that we have paid £20,000,000 sterling for the abolition of Slavery, and we still expend large sums in endeavouring to suppress that villainous traffic in other parts of the world. Is it not, therefore, highly inconsistent for us to encourage, or, at all events, permit, if we can prevent it, a trade which, we are told on high authority, is even more destructive than the Slave Trade? In the words of the late lamented Duke of Albany—"Drink is the only enemy England has to fear." It is equally true that it is by far the most deadly enemy the Native races have to fear. Sir, I think the facts I have brought before the House prove, beyond all doubt, the greatness of the evil and the necessity for prompt and energetic action to save the Native races from being exterminated, and to prevent the destruction of our commercial interests, which, as I have said, is of the utmost importance to us as a manufacturing country. I therefore appeal for help and sympathy on behalf of those who are, by means of this great evil, being destroyed and hurried to an early and ignominious grave; and I am happy to say that I appeal with confidence, because I believe the noble Lord who so ably discharges the duties of Secretary of State for the Colonies sympathizes with the views which I have endeavoured to express. I hope I may say the same respecting the Under Secretaries of State for Foreign and Colonial Affairs, and, indeed, of every Member of Her Hajesty's Government. I therefore appeal to them with confidence to do everything in their power to stem this torrent of iniquity, and to prevent the degradation, demoralization, and destruction of the Colonial races who are under our control and over whom we exert a powerful influence. I therefore move the Resolution standing in my name.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (Devon, Honiton) said, that in attempting to show the extent of this evil in order that they might have the means of grappling with it, his hon. Friend had taken them over a large extent of the earth, inhabited by races which, although
  398
  savage, were possessed of noble qualities and great capabilities, so that if the influences of civilization and the teachings of Christianity were brought to bear upon them they would be well fitted to take their part in the great brotherhood of Nations. Englishmen had come in contact with these races, sent forth by the love of adventure, the desire of gain, the strong pressure exerted by a crowded population and the spirit of philanthropy, and we had succeeded in establishing an Empire such as the world had never seen, and placing ourselves high among nations mainly through our Colonies and our commerce. We were fond of talking about the beneficent mission of our commerce, the onward march of civilization, and of the glorious character of our missionary enterprize, and had persuaded ourselves that the contact between European and Native races must necessarily result in benefit to the latter. It ought to be so; and, if the right influences were brought to bear, it would be so. But we very often defeated our own objects by bringing upon these races that which was not for their good, but for their hurt. The African more especially had a tendency towards carousing; he was able to make large quantities of his favourite drink, called tembe, and from time to time to fall into intoxication. But the European merchant had done a great deal more than that for the Native by the importation of rum and gin, the taste for which generally grew upon him like wild-fire; he became careless of everything else, had no money to purchase goods from Manchester, and cared little for the arts of civilization, the result being that his last condition was worse than at first. Mr. James Thomson, in a lecture before the Manchester Geographical Society, said that he had travelled and suffered much for the negro race, with the idea of doing them good and opening up lines of commerce and civilization; but that when he had seen the results of these vast importations of liquor his satisfaction was blighted; he thought the little work that had been done had better have remained undone, and that Africa had better have continued a dark country, if the end of it was such as he had seen. Sir Richard Burton said that Africa had gone back to its old state under the Slave Trade; that he would rather see its people given up to slavery than given

  399
  to the habits to which he had seen the people given over. He (Sir John Kennaway) thought the hon. Members had very little idea of the extent to which the importation of spirits went on the West Coast of Africa. Mr. Irvine, in a letter to the Rev. Thomas Waller, said it was impossible to get at the actual shipments; but he did not over estimate them by saying that the importation to the Niger district was 60,000 hogsheads of 50 gallons each, and that there was the consumption on that 200 miles of coast of the cargoes of 20 ships. Another gentleman who had just returned, Mr. H. Allen, Vicar of Bermondsey, said that 60,000 cases of gin, besides an enormous quantity of rum, passed through the country. This country was only beginning to realize the extent of the evil, and what should be done to meet it. They admitted that there ere great difficulties in the way, but great difficulties had not stood in the way of Wilberforce when he attempted, with all his might, to overthrow the Slave Trade against the vast interests arrayed against him. Nor did difficulties appal Buxton, when he set himself to persuade this country that it was a crying sin that any country over which the flag of England waved should be held in slavery; and who had succeeded to the extent that the country made a sacrifice of £20,000,000 sterling to compensate for its abolition. We had to recognize that the traffic complained of was largely carried on by ourselves and in our Colonies over which we had no power; and it had been found, when it was sought to found an international agreement in regard to the importation duties to be levied on spirits, that the Cape Government were unwilling to enter into such agreement. The Colony of Natal, moreover, which stood out in contrast with other self-governed Colonies by its wise determination not to allow liquor to be supplied to the Natives, preferred to make its own arrangements. But though we had no power to force, yet he believed that the Colonies were so justly sensitive to the good opinion of England, that they could undoubtedly exercise an influence upon them for good. There were other difficulties with regard to the Crown Colonies. In the case of Sierra Leone, he found that half the revenue of the Colony was derived from the duty on spirits. All these facts had to be
  400
  looked in the face; nevertheless, he was satisfied that good in some way or other could be achieved, if the people of this country went to work with a determination to do that which was right. It did not, however, depend entirely upon our individual action. Great Britain did not hold a tenth of the coast line of Africa. There were German, French, and Portuguese settlements, and there were some parts of the coast altogether destitute of civilized Government. It was necessary that we should awaken the conscience of Europe, get them to realize the evil, and by uniting with England deal with this question in some way or other. But this was no easy matter. Foreign Governments had their own concerns to attend to. France, for instance, did not long retain its Colonial Ministers; her people were, besides, our rivals in commerce, and he did not think they had yet begun to be alive to the evil sought to be dealt with. An agreement had been arrived at with regard to the prevention of the liquor traffic with the inhabitants of the Islands in the West Pacific; but, for some reason or other, the United States had not favoured the agreement, and that which had been so well conceived and nearly so well carried out was utterly useless. Exactly the same thing had occurred in the case of Zanzibar, when England and Germany agreed for a duty of 20 per cent on spirits, and the French insisted on their privilege of having 5 per cent duty, the consequence being that the cargoes were at once transferred and imported under the French Flag. We had every reason to be proud of the effort made by our Envoy at Berlin in the Conference on the affairs of Central Africa held four years ago, when our Representative boldly put forward this question, and sought to obtain the sanction of the Conference to a proposal that the transit of spirituous liquors should be prohihibited along the Coast of the Niger; but there was one delegate who wished the initiative to be taken by the Local Governments; he objected to the matter being dealt with by the Conference, and they were obliged to be satisfied with the expression of a wish that an agreement could be established between the Governments to regulate the traffic in a manner which would reconcile the claims of humanity with the interests of commerce,

  401
  although he was afraid that that wish would not prevent the importation of liquor into the Colonies in question. There was, however, mention made of a further Convention and united action which he hoped the Government would not lose sight of. They had received great encouragement from a Conference held a little time ago with regard to the liquor traffic in the North Sea, when Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Prance, and Holland were able to come to au agreement, whereby an evil, great in itself, but not great in extent as compared with that to which they had been referring that evening, was put a stop to by the united action of those six Powers. There was a strong feeling upon the subject springing up in our Colonies. In South Africa the Party which represented that feeling was no doubt in a minority; but in Sierra Leone a very strong Committee had been formed, and at the inaugural meeting it was shown that the agents of the French, African, and Belgian Steamship Companies were in sympathy with the object of the Committee. He thought that the example of the Niger Company could not be too much made known, showing, as it did, that the result of their adoption of a policy of restriction was that the importation of spirits was reduced in that district 75 per cent in the last four years, and where it was possible the prohibition of the sale of drink to the Natives had been enforced. The Company had also put down their foot firmly against the payment of wages in spirituous liquor which was prevalent in the country, and was a most objectionable practice. They all thought that the Government was fully alive to the question, and the statement made in "another place" by the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary showed not only what they had done, but what they would do if they were able. He and his hon. Friends wanted by this debate to strengthen the hands of the Government, and to make them feel that they had public opinion behind them which would encourage them to persevere in the course they had begun. In Zululand, Bechuanaland, and Basutoland the most stringent rules had been made against the sale of liquor to the Natives, which rules had been very successfully enforced; so that, unless an importation of liquor should take place by railway
  402
  from the Transvaal, in a way which could not be controlled, a very great and excellent result had already been secured. This question was one which, now that public opinion had been aroused, would not be allowed to go to sleep. He hoped next year that they might have an humble Address to Her Majesty, if the Government had not already taken it in hand, praying that measures might be taken to call together a Convention which might succeed in obtaining the united action of the Powers of Europe in this matter. He ventured to second the Motion, as being one which was in accord with the highest commercial interests of the country, and for the honour of this nation as well as for the sake of humanity, He thought that it might not be out of place on that occasion also to urge upon the House the expediency of the proposal on behalf of the great Missionary Societies which had done so much in the cause of Christianity and civilization. The Church Missionary Society, with which he had the honour more especially to be connected, had always been in the fore front in dealing with Africa. It had spent there a large portion of its treasure; it had sent out the best and noblest of its sons, very many of whom, as real martyrs, had laid their bones in Africa, and it would be its honour for all time to have been the means of raising up many Native Churches. There was present that evening one who himself, once a slave, had been educated, ordained, and had finally become an honoured and trusted Bishop of the Church. The Church Missionary Society was only one amongst many which had come forward; there was the Propagation Society, the Universities Mission to Central Africa, the Scotch and Baptist Missions, and others, whose one object was to civilize and Christianize Africa. Amongst England's great men who lay under the shadow of Westminster Abbey there was David Livingstone, not the least of her heroes, and graven on the stones that covered him were the words—
  "Pray that the nation's richest blessing may rest on him, be he English, be he American, or be he Turk, who shall do his best to remove this open sore of the world."
  They had in that drink traffic to deal with a sore as open as the Slave Trade, and their's might be the blessing invoked by David Livingstone, if by their

  403
  means the wound was staunched, and the sick man made whole.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House, having regard to the disastrous physical and moral effects of the liquor traffic among uncivilized races, as well as the injury it inflicts on legitimate commerce, is of opinion that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to suppress the traffic with Natives in all Native Territories under its influence or control, and that whenever self-governing Dowers are granted to Crown Colonies, stipulations should be made for the effectual protection of the Natives against the sale of strong drink.—(Mr. Alexander M'Arthur.)
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLsaid, he wished to say a few words on this subject, because it was one with which he had had to deal practically. The wording of the Resolution implied that the Government had not as yet taken any steps to suppress the liquor traffic with Natives; but he was sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester did not intend that that signification should be put upon the words of his Motion.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, that he had no such intention.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLsaid, he was glad to hear that observation. The idea was largely prevalent among the public that our self-governing Colonies had not taken any steps to suppress the traffic. He had in his possession a Report of a Committee which met to settle this question, and he found that the Government were recommended to inquire specially concerning the liquor traffic with Natives in several countries under Colonial Governments. Among those countries he found Tasmania and Canada. He happened to be in Tasmania in 1870, immediately after the death of the last Native there, and yet in 1888 they were told that they were to inquire into the spread of the liquor traffic among the Natives. In Tasmania there were no Natives. That was another sign of the prevailing misapprehension. Then, again, anybody who had been in Canada would bear him out in saying that there never was so admirable a system inaugurated in any country as the system which was to be found in Canada for preventing the sale of liquor to the Natives. In Queensland and the other Colonies, with the exception of one, where there were Natives, the Colonial Governments had earnestly and energetically taken measures to prevent
  404
  the sale of intoxicating liquor to the Natives.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, that he confined his remarks specially to the Western Pacific and to South and West Africa.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLsaid, that he was coming to that point; but he wished to emphasize the fact that the Governments of self-governed Colonies were cordially assisting the Imperial Government in carrying out the policy which his hon. Friend supported. In the other Crown Colonies more immediately under the Colonial Office that policy was not so effectually carried out; but he knew that the authorities in Downing Street were certainly not behind any Members of that House in desiring to see a successful policy carried through in this matter. At the same time, he did say, having some personal knowledge of the subject, that in those countries, especially where we exercised influence, though not political control, there was very great room for improvement. When he was in Bechuanaland with Sir Charles Warren, they succeeded in turning out of that country all dealers in intoxicating liquors; but until they got rid of the system of dual control is Zululand, Bechuanaland, and Pondoland, they would not be able to control effectually those Native districts. His experience in Basutoland showed him how Imperial control undeterred could succeed in accomplishing the purpose which they had in view. When he was there in 1885 most of the chiefs were known to be habitual drunkards, and the people had suffered enormously from the drink traffic. But the very energetic Administrator there, who worked under the control of the Imperial Government, had by degrees brought about an enormous change in that country. He had done that, however, with the aid and assistance of the Natives themselves. The Natives, as he knew from personal experience, had set themselves against their chiefs on the question of the drink traffic, and they had made up their minds to make Basutoland a sober country. There were other districts which were outside the sphere of the actual political influence of this country, over which the Imperial Government should assume a more active control. As had been observed in the course of the debate, in

  405
  dealing with these districts the Government had to associate with foreign Powers, and it had been found that such association was not absolutely impossible—indeed, it had been successful. They had been told, for instance, that the arrangement made in the Pacific had been utterly useless. He traversed that statement, because he knew that the Germans in New Guinea had carried out their share in the guarantee. Then the great English Company on the Niger had certainly effectually checked the liquor traffic in that district. But he thought that there was a very grave and difficult task before them on the West and East Coasts of Africa. As to the effect which the drink traffic bad upon trade, he might say that the traders were in earnest in desiring to see it abolished. The traders desired a wholesome and remunerative traffic in ordinary goods, and they knew that that would be put an end to directly drink was admitted. He did not wish to move an Amendment to the Resolution of his hon. Friend, but he thought that a Motion in general terms, calling attention to the evil effects of the liquor traffic, and stating that the House would cordially support the Imperial and Colonial Governments in their endeavours to suppress it, would be more in accordance with the real facts of the case.
  MR. WADDYsaid, that appeared to be one of the debates which should not be prolonged, because they were all of one mind. Whether Liberal, Radical, Tory, or Conservative, they were all of opinion that some action of the nature of that proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. A. M'Arthur) ought to be adopted. As a question of words, it might be the Government would find it desirable to alter the Resolution in some way or other. He hoped some Member of the Government would rise immediately to tell them what alteration the Government thought it desirable to make in the wording of the Resolution, and thus bring the matter to an end, and enable them to pass on to the next Business. They all recognized thoroughly the very grave difficulties which had been suggested. The hon. Baronet (Sir John Kennaway) who seconded the Resolution, said that, although we were the greatest colonizers in the world, we
  406
  could not compel other people to do what we wished. No; but we could do a great deal to bring about the improvement which was desired. We had sent out missionaries and introduced English customs and habits into many heathen countries, yet the wretched fact confronted us, that while we had been trying to do those countries good, people had been going side by side and almost in company with our missionaries, endeavouring to do harm. Those men, for the very worst reasons, had enticed and led the Natives into mischief, until really the poor creatures had died in large numbers, as though they were swept away with the breath of the destroying angel. The time bad come when something should be done. If it were worth while to prolong the discussion, he could not help thinking that a reference to the case of the Island of Fiji would show what good things could be done by proper attention to the very principle which was laid down in the Resolution. He was extremely anxious they should at once hear what was to be said on the subject by the Government, and for that reason he would curtail any remarks of his own.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron HENRY DE WORMS)said, that that was not a question which was in any way within the range of Party polities, but it was one on which men on both sides of the House were agreed. As far as principle was concerned, Her Majesty's Government could accept the Resolution entirely. He also thought hon. Members would agree with him when he said that both the present Government and also the preceding Government had done their utmost, as far as laid in their power, to prevent extension of this pernicious and dangerous drink traffic among half-civilized or savage races. The hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Sir George Baden-Powell) had mentioned the cases of Chiefs who had sought protection against the inroads of traders bringing spirits into their territories. Such cases had come lately under the notice of the Secretary of State, and when they were submitted the Government took immediate steps to assist those Chiefs who were naturally and legitimately anxious to prevent the ruin of their

  407
  people by the introduction of drink. This question of the introduction of drink among Native races had occupied the attention of successive Governments for a long time. At the request of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M'Arthur) a Circular was sent out in January last to all our Colonial Governments, asking them to send copies of laws and ordinances regulating the introduction of liquors into the Colonies and Native territories. The replies had not yet come to hand; when they were received the Government would be in a better position to form an opinion as to what steps should be taken to prevent the sale of intoxicants to Natives than it was at present. Meanwhile he might refer his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester to a speech which had been made by his noble Friend the Secretary of State on March 5 last, and, as regarded the Western Pacific, to a Parliamentary Paper issued in September last. In many cases the Government had gone further than the hon. Member for Leicester himself, for they had been anxious not only to prevent the sale of intoxicants, but also to prevent the sale of arms and ammunition. If they stopped one trade, they ought to endeavour to stop the other. While these endeavours had been to a certain extent successful, it could not be disguised that one great difficulty had been the absence of perfect co-operation on the part of foreign Governments, without which the restrictions of the British Government only hampered British enterprize without benefiting Natives. This was shown by a Report which had been received from Rear Admiral Tryon, dated the 21st of January last, in which he said—
  "The action of the Pacific Islands Acts and the Memoranda and Regulations, framed as they were with the desire that their action should be beneficial to the Native race, have in far too many instances failed in their effect. To some degree, in a few places, they may have checked the supply of what is prohibited as an article of trade; but, on the whole, their action has only affected the sources of supply. All that is forbidden to be done is done with impunity by foreigners, or by unscrupulous Englishmen, who change their nationality to evade the law. Foreign agencies act as a police against Englishmen only, to enforce against them alone the Pacific Islands Acts. During this cruise a German, an American, and a Swede reported and obtained the punishment of their English rivals for doing that which, if done by themselves, would have been lawful, It appears to me that, however desirous we may be to secure
  408
  fair play for the Natives, the actual and unexpected result of what has so far been done is to drive the trade from the hands of the larger English firms, from those who naturally would be interested in the maintenance and increase of trade, and whose action could be easily supervised, and, moreover, whose local position favoured their trading operations; while, on the other hand, it favours foreigners and small traders, hailing from any where, and favours the adventurers and the unscrupulous who under our noses do what we do not permit those to do who retain the name of being Englishmen."
  In that extract were embodied the difficulties of the position. They could make regulations for themselves, and endeavour to see they were carried out, but they were altogether unable to prevent the action of unscrupulous foreigners without the co-operation of the other Powers by conventions. It had been mentioned what had been effected by a little co-operation with regard to the floating drink shops in the North Sea Fisheries. Their trade had been to a great extent suppressed, and he trusted it would be totally suppressed by a little co-operation between the Powers concerned. But so long as cooperation was lacking in the Colonies, and especially in the Western Pacific, so long would existing difficulties baffle our efforts. However, it was not because there were difficulties that nothing, should be done. On the contrary, the greater should be the energy displayed in the effort to overcome them. One Government which stood aloof from an international agreement was that of the United States. They had not yet seen their way to change the view expressed in a despatch from Mr. Bayard, received by Mr. Sackville West, our Representative at Washington, in April, 1885, in which Mr. Bayard said—
  "While recognizing and highly approving the moral force and general propriety of the proposed regulations, and the responsibility of conducting such traffic under proper and careful restrictions, the Government of the United States does not feel entirely prepared to join in the international understanding proposed, and will, therefore, for the present restrain its action to the employment, in the direction outlined by the suggested arrangement, of a sound discretion in permitting traffic between its own citizens in the articles referred to and the Natives of the Western Pacific Islands."
  He (Baron Henry de Worms) much regretted the position thus taken by the United States in 1885; and the Government would be unceasing in their efforts to bring about, if it were possible, a

  409
  better understanding, and to induce the United States Government to adopt the views of Great Britain, and to enter into a Conference or Convention which should enable the two Governments to co-operate in stopping the liquor traffic in the Western Pacific. The late Government took those steps, and the present Government would continue in the same direction; and wherever the Government had been able to act independently of foreign Powers, they had invariably endeavoured to restrain the drink traffic. In Fiji stringent regulations had been enforced, and been found beneficial. With respect to New Guinea, the Queensland Act for its administration provides as follows:—
  "Trading with the Natives in arms, ammunition, explosives, and intoxicants to be prohibited, except under ordinances reserved for Her Majesty's assent, and assented to by Her Majesty. The foregoing articles to he embodied in the Letters Patent as part of the Constitution of the territory."
  In Western Australia, in dealing with the question of responsible government, the Secretary of State had expressed his concurrence with the Governor in his opinion that some measure would be necessary for placing the aboriginal inhabitants of the Colony under the care of a body independent of the Parliament of the day. With respect to Africa, in 1886, upon representations by the London Chamber of Commerce, some correspondence took place as to regulating the importation of alcohol into South Africa by means of a uniform and high duty. The late Government, however, determined to wait for the result of the Western Pacific negotiations before taking further steps. In 1887, the opinion of the Colonial Governments in South and West Africa was invited. The views of the Cape and Natal were not favourable. They were briefly as follow:—The Cape Ministers pointed out that, an excise duty being placed on corn-made brandy and not on spirits produced from grapes, a higher import duty would only increase local manufacture. They were of opinion that the traffic should be regulated rather by internal regulations than by import duties, and they finally declined to take part in the proposed international agreement. The Natal Government stated that if the Cape and Portuguese Governments discontinued the facilities they now give for passing spirits beyond
  410
  their frontiers, they would impose higher transit duties and raise the import duties to the rate agreed upon by the others. But they pointed to the stringency of the law in Natal for preventing the sale of liquor to the Natives, and they considered that the question would best be solved by adopting similar arrangements elsewhere. By the Natal law the penalty for so supplying liquor was, for the first offence, a fine not exceeding £10, or three months' imprisonment; for the second, £15, or six months; for the third, £20, or nine months, with a provision for cancelling licences. In the territories immediately under British rule there were stringent regulations, as follow:—In Zululand a penalty was imposed, and in default of payment imprisonment, upon any one, licensed or unlicensed, who should sell, exchange, or, for any valuable consideration, give to or procure for any Native in Zululand any wine, or spirituous, or partly spirituous liquor in any quantity, unless it was proved that the liquor was supplied for medicinal purposes. Caffre beer might be sold by the Native producer thereof, but not mixed with wine or spirits. In Bechuanaland the same provisions were in force. In Basutoland the rule of 1877 prohibited absolutely the sale of wines, beer, and spirituous liquors, and the bringing into Basutoland of wine, beer, or spirituous liquors without permission in writing of the Governor, agent, or resident magistrate of the district. The last Report for the year ending June 30, 1887, was "The drink traffic has ceased to exist." As to West Africa, in 1887 the Royal Niger Company pressed on the Government the importance of checking importation, and suggested an arrangement with France and Germany to levy a uniform rate. An important communication lead been just received from the King of the Belgians, showing his desire to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government. By a decree of the Congo Free State of the 17th of December, 1887, every person trafficking in spirituous liquors with the Natives must be licensed and pay an annual licence fee of 2,000f. for each establishment, and 5,000f. for each boat used for the traffic. Stringent provisions to guard against abuse were also inserted in the licence, a disregard of which would be followed by forfeiture. The penalty for selling without a licence in a building

  411
  was 20,000f.; in a boat, 50,000f. The West African Colonies were also consulted, but only Lagos replied; but it was feared that the project was impracticable, as the coast line was not at present completely under the control of civilized Governments. Those were the details which he was at present able to give to the House; but when further Returns were received they would, of course, be presented to Parliament, and would contain a much more complete statement than he was able to give. He trusted that the hon. Member would be satisfied with the knowledge that the Government was doing its best to suppress the nefarious traffic; for while they might permit the use, they could not permit the abuse of the traffic with Native races. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, as it would scarcely be accepted as it stood. But the Government were quite willing to accept it, and if the hon. Member in charge of it wanted something stronger, they would agree to substitute for the words after "commerce," the following words—
  "Will cordially support the Imperial and Colonial Governments in their endeavours to suppress the traffic in spirituous liquors with Natives in all the Native territories under their influence and control."
  It was the duty of the Government, and a duty which they would certainly not neglect, to spread the benign influence of religion and civilization wherever British power or influence extended; and they were fully alive to the special duty which devolved upon them of protecting those who could not protect themselves, and of averting the terrible evils which, unfortunately, civilization too often brought in its train upon uncivilized races, and which so largely in this country did so much to swell the long roll of pauperism and crime. He would again assure the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government would do their utmost to protect the Native races against that danger.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he had listened with great interest and admiration to the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Baron Henry de Worms). That hon. Gentleman had made a very excellent and satisfactory speech, but apparently he
  412
  had cut it short in one particular—he had not said what he was going to do in the way of compensation to these traders. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was sure this was an oversight, because he knew the Government meant to deal fairly and impartially with all classes of traders, and he hoped that, before the termination of the discussion, the author of the Local Government Bill (Mr. Ritchie) would get up and say what compensation it was proposed to give to the unhappy dealers. Meanwhile, let him (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M'Arthur) on having found an opportunity for bringing this matter before the House, on having brought it before the House in such an able manner, and on having met with such a satisfactory greeting for it from the Government. He understood from the Government that they were all of one mind on this subject. Yes; all of one mind as to suppressing the liquor traffic—as to suppressing the liquor traffic everywhere except in England. That was, certainly, a most satisfactory state of things. Now, what was this Motion? It was one branch of the attack which was being made on alcohol and the great evil of intemperance, and he was glad that, in the course of the debate, they had heard nothing to the effect that it was adulteration, and not alcohol itself, which was pernicious and was doing all the harm. If they looked at the Returns bearing upon the subject in England, they would find that hardly anybody was convicted of adulteration. The fact was gradually being admitted, that it was alcohol, and alcohol alone, which was doing all the mischief. He would not go at length into all the horrors which this trade produced. He had been struck by what an hon. Member—he thought the hon. Baronet opposite—had stated as the declaration of a certain Native Chief with regard to the introduction of alcohol amongst the Natives—namely, that the traffic in it inflicted more harm upon them than slavery. A statement such as that should have gone to the heart of the Bishop of Peterborough, who had once said that "he would rather see England free than England sober." No one had understood what the right rev. Prelate meant, for no one knew of any divergence between insobriety and slavery;

  413
  but such were the words of that Bishop. How differently that Native Chief talked, and no wonder that the Bishop of Peterborough was regarded in some quarters as the patron saint of the publicans of England. He was glad his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Arthur) had quoted what he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) himself had quoted the other day—namely, the statement of Sir William Gull, that alcohol was the most destructive agent in England. Of course, it was the most destructive agent. It filled our gaols, our workhouses, and our lunatic asylums. It was king of the country. Drink was king of England, there was no doubt. As The Times said the other day, "Every other institution flounders in difficulty; the public-house alone holds its triumphant course in this country." The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) knew that very well when he brought in his Bill with the Compensation Clauses. The question was, whether the Legislature of this country would not be justified, after due consideration, in placing the welfare of the people above the claims of the trade. That night they were deciding that the claims of Native populations should be put above those of the trade; but so far as our own country was concerned, they had not got so far as that. The hon. Baronet opposite had said—"Their duty was to awaken the conscience of Europe." Why not awaken their own consciences, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) should like to know? Why should they be so benevolent and kind in this matter towards the people of Africa and of the Fiji Islands, and of all other parts of the world, and yet be without regard for the interests of their fellow-citizens at home? He should have thought they would have had some pity left for the unhappy Native races of these Northern seas, but that was evidently not the case. What did they do? Why, instead of making an attack upon the people who were carrying on this pernicious and dangerous trade, if they had carried it on sufficiently long, and the quantities of liquor they had sold were large enough, they made Peers of them. And they were now taking a new departure. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, not satisfied with making Peers of them, in cases where the quantity of liquor they sold became
  414
  smaller, proposed to give them pensions. And so they went on. But he hoped the people of the country would become like the Basutos, whom the House had heard about that night. Those people got wiser than their Chiefs, and he trusted that in the course of time the people of this country would get wiser than their pastors and their masters on the drink traffic question. He sincerely hoped they would. It was said that charity began at home, and he hoped that the people of this country would have regard to that proverb as respected the drink question. It would seem, however, that charity began in the Fiji Islands, and had not reached here yet. He was glad, however, to see that it had made a beginning anywhere. A great beginning had been made, and no doubt this debate would be road with delight by hundreds of thousands of people, who would see in it only a forecast of those declarations which would be made when Parliament had become more enlightened upon the question. For his own part, he pitied his fellow-countrymen in connection with this question as much as he did the Natives of Africa; and he failed to see why the interests of the inhabitants of the basin of the Thames should not be looked after quite as carefully as those of the inhabitants of the basin of the Congo. He believed the people at home were quite as worthy of our help and wise legislation as were the Natives of a savage State. What had Sir Charles Warren done; he who was one of the strongest opponents of the drink traffic, and had called it all sorts of bad names when speaking of its existence in foreign countries? But what had he done a few months ago? Why, the only way seemingly in which he could celebrate the Queen's Jubilee was by breaking the law, and keeping open the public-houses a few hours longer, the result being that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was enabled to congratulate the House upon the fact that we had made an additional £300,000 that year out of drink. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was glad to see the Bishops were taking up the case of the Native races, and he wished them and his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Arthur) God's speed in their enterprize. It was time that something was done in the matter abroad, as well as at home. We read continually in the newspapers, and in the speeches of great statesmen, that

  415
  this country had the great mission to fulfil of promoting Christianity and civilization throughout the world. But how did the country promote Christianity and civilization throughout the world? Why, with three agencies—gunpowder, gin, and the gospel. It was by means of those three that we carried out civilization. First of all we introduced gunpowder. A General went out and shot large numbers of the Natives, and then, when he had killed a sufficient number, the gin merchant came in, who poisoned a large proportion of the survivors, and he was followed by the Minister, who converted those who were left. Civilization indeed! No wonder that the Irishman who, when thrown upon what he considered to be a desert island, exclaimed when he saw a man hanging upon a gibbet "Sure, this is a civilized country," and when a little further he met a drunken man he said "Faith, and a Christian one." He congratulated the House upon the work it was doing that night. It might be that it was intended to commit an enormous mistake later on by taking the hard earnings of the people of this country in order to subsidize persons who carried on this pernicious trade for any loss of income they might suffer through interference with their business; but, at any rate, they were now striking a blow for good. It was satisfactory to everyone that the blow should be struck against traders dealing with Native populations, because the traders who were stricken to-night did not possess votes at elections. It was safe, therefore, to strike at them boldly. However, it was a good thing to begin oven against them; because he was quite sure that what was done that night would not be forgotten. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Baron Henry de Worms) would always be glad that he had spoken out so boldly upon this question. Why should they not join in this crusade against alcohol, wherever they found it existing. What did Sir Andrew Clarke say? Why, he uttered these words—
  "When I think of the evil done by this alcohol, I feel disposed to give up my profession and everything, and go forth in the required crusade, preaching to all men the power of this enemy of our race."
  Well he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had been engaged in that crusade for a good while, and he rejoiced that night to find
  416
  that his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester and many other hon. Gentlemen had joined him. They were a band of noble recruits, and he trusted they would go on until they had successfully carried, at any rate, one of the outposts of this great enemy of mankind.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, he was not going to follow the hon. Baronet who had just sat down (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) into the question of compensation to publicans for licences which might be withdrawn under the provisions of the Local Government Bill. He would simply say that he did not agree with the right hon. Baronet upon that point; but he did wish to congratu-gratulate the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M'Arthur) on the great service he had done to mankind by the debate he had raised that night. He (Sir Robert Fowler) hoped, however, that the hon. Member would be satisfied with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Baron Henry de Worms). The hon. Member the Under Secretary had spoken out most strongly about the evils which attended the system which had been brought under the notice of the House. Whatever hon. Members might think of the state of things in this country—which was not germane to the Motion before the House—there would be no doubt that in dealing with uncivilized races we found that spirits had a most prejudicial effect upon them. Although he did not agree with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) in his theories in regard to the use of alcohol, he believed that the result of over indulgence, so far as Native races were concerned, was their destruction, mentally, morally, and physically. There could be no doubt, therefore, that it was the duty of the Government to do everything that lay in their power to put an end to the system which had been described, and that it had been fully recognized by the Under Secretary. That hon. Member had pointed out the great difficulty which the present Government and the late Government and successive Governments had had to contend with in consequence of the refusal of the United States of America to take action in this matter. He would draw the attention of his hon. Friends opposite the Members for Cumberland and Battersea (Sir Wilfrid Lawson and Mr. O. V.

  417
  Morgan), who were much respected in the United States, to that matter. He did not appeal to those Gentlemen as regarded the Government of America; but he knew that they had interest with people in that country, and he trusted that they would bring; the subject to the notice of their friends there. He would appeal to them to make known to their friends in America the course the Government was taking. It was to him a very surprising thing that in America, where teetotalism was more prevalent than perhaps in any other country, there should be so much opposition to the course Her Majesty's Government were taking on this important matter. He could not but hope that what had been stated in that House that night by various speakers would, by the favour of the Press, be read on the other side of the Atlantic, and that it would have some effect in inducing the American Government to take a different view of the subject when next their attention was called to it by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he would ask the hon. Member who had brought forward the Motion (Mr. A. M'Arthur) to accept the Amending words suggested on the part of Her Majesty's Government by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. At the same time he thought he might congratulate his hon. Friend (Mr. A. M'Arthur) on the success which had attended his Motion. The hon. Gentleman had done good service by bringing the question before the House, and he trusted that he would not be content with the result of to-night's debate. The Under Secretary of State had given them an admirable promise for the future, and he (Mr. Mundella) believed that the hon. Member was quite in earnest in his desire to put an end or to mitigate as far as possible this most injurious traffic. But, after all, everything depended on the vigour, energy, and persistency with which the Government took the matter in hand. If the hon. Member (Baron Henry de Worms) would forgive him for saying so, he would observe that if he was as earnest in his endeavours to abolish the drink traffic amongst the Natives under our influence as he was in his efforts to abolish the sugar bounties, there could be no doubt that they might look for-
  418
  ward very shortly to a favourable result. But it was no use sending out circulars to Foreign Powers and to our Representatives abroad, unless we gave them to understand that we were in earnest in the matter, and unless there was someone at headquarters who was determined that the will of the Government should be enforced, and no one know that better than the Under Secretary of State himself. They heard a good deal about the difficulty of obtaining the assent of Foreign Powers. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler) had spoken of the United States of America. No doubt, the United States were, with ourselves, sinners in this respect. He would not say who were the greatest sinners. But there was another Power which exercised a more detrimental influence in regard to this traffic than did the United States, and that was Germany. It was the enormous importation of cheap spirits of the very worst character throughout Southern and Western Africa that was one of the greatest sources of mischief amongst the Native races of that Continent. Well, we had had some experience of what could be done by the Germans. They were not impervious to public opinion. Reference had been made to the North Sea Convention, which he (Mr. Mundella) was very glad to have had an humble part in promoting. That Convention had been for the regulation of the supply of spirits to the fishermen in the North Sea, which was a curse to our marine, and a source of mutiny, bloodshed, poverty, robbery, and every kind of iniquity. There had been some difficulty in getting a number of Foreign Powers to come to a common and substantial agreement, but they had finally succeeded. It was only done, however, by the pressure, so to speak, of public opinion, England taking the lead in promoting that public opinion. Let England do the same with regard to this drink traffic amongst the Native races. Let her record be clear. Let us begin by cleaning our own doors. Let our record be clear in this matter as it was with respect to the Slave Trade, and then let us be resolved to put an end to the evil. It was no use talking about licensing dealers amongst foreign populations. The King of the Belgians might have thought he was doing a good thing in

  419
  that direction; but he (Mr. Mundella) had little faith in the resolution of his action. The only way in which Native races could be benefited was by prohibiting the drink traffic altogether. The Native races were free from all the evils attending intemperance until they came in contact with civilization—with the introduction of civilization, which brought drink in its train. Not only every kind of crime, but every kind of fraud was perpetrated upon them in the matter of land, and in the matter of buying and selling. Persons took advantage of them, by getting them under the influence of drink before making bargains. In this way this drink traffic was not only a curse to the Natives morally and physically, but it was also a curse to the commerce of this country. He thought the hon. Gentleman who represented the Colonies in this House had spoken of the suppression of drink and gunpowder as the things going together, but there was not so much danger in the supply of gunpowder and arms if the supply of drink were stopped. At any rate, if the supply of drink and gunpowder to the Natives were put an end to, much would be done in the way of promoting civilization. Every word which had fallen from the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool confirmed the necessity for this Motion. They would admit the good service which the hon. Member himself had done, and with regard to Sir Charles Warren, it was impossible to speak too highly of his work. Sir Alexander Gordon also had shown them what work could be done in this direction in Fiji. That Gentleman had brought about the complete suppression of the traffic, and the action of no English ruler had ever been more beneficent than his. In conclusion, he (Mr. Mundella) could only say that the hon. Member for Leicester was to be congratulated on the work he had done that night. They must all feel that they owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member the Under Secretary of State for the sympathetic and courageous answer he had given to the Motion. He (Mr. Mundella) trusted the hon. Member would follow that answer up, and would not be content to leave what they had achieved alone—he trusted he and his Colleagues would follow it up time after time, until they
  420
  had impressed their views on all our Representatives abroad.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he was glad to have heard the satisfactory statement made by the Government, and thanked them fur the honest and honourable way in which they had stated their views. But he would urge them not to be "weary in well-doing." It was one thing to make a declaration, and another to see that it was fulfilled; and he would impress upon them to carry their action to a successful issue. Many impediments would, no doubt, be placed in their way, and the greatest possible vigilance would be required. He thought, however, that the present debate would strengthen their hands.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, after the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Baron Henry de Worms), there could be no doubt of the sincerity of Her Majesty's Government, though their efforts to check the traffic had not always been successful. The House and the Government were under an obligation to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M'Arthur), for the Motion would strengthen the hands of the Government in their endeavours. The difficulties to contend with were great, and not the least was the difficulty of arriving at an arrangement by which the co-operation of Foreign Governments could be secured. But he (Sir George Campbell) desired to say a few words upon another practical difficulty. He observed that the Motion was directed to the disastrous effect of the traffic upon the uncivilized races, and, as the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) said, we did not apply the same principle to our own people at home. But we drew yet another distinction, and acknowledged an inalienable right of Englishmen to consume liquor in any part of the world. Wherever, by ordinance or legislation, an attempt was made to restrain or prevent the use of liquor by the Natives, liquor shops and canteens were allowed, so that the English settler might still have his liquor, no matter how few the Whites might be in proportion to the Natives. In that there was a difficulty that prevented drink being kept from the Blacks altogether, for there would always be White men

  421
  willing to help the Native to indulge his propensity for drink. The only effectual way to prevent the disastrous physical and moral effect of drink on uncivilized races would be to suppress the liquor traffic altogether in all Native Territories under British influence, not scrupulously maintaining the trade for the White Christian and denying it to the Blacks. Ho did not think it was at all necessary that wherever a Christian went he should have his liquor. The Government should be prepared to face the question in that way, if they really meant to suppress the traffic; not showing the Natives that while the latter were put under restrictions, full liberty of indulgence was allowed to the Whites. One word on another point of the question. The House had been told that the Germans had scrupulously carried out the prohibition of the drink traffic in their portion of New Guinea; but the British Government had delegated all its responsibility in regard to New Guinea to the Government of Queensland—a Colony whose record was not clean. When New Guinea was made a British Possession, Her Majesty's Government were bound to see that our duty to the Natives was not neglected—we could not shuffle off our Imperial responsibility.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, that after the debate they had had, he was quite willing to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, and thanking him for the courteous manner in which lie had dealt with the subject, he might just say that he had no intention of accusing Her Majesty's Government of any neglect, nor of throwing blame upon the Australian Colonies. He confined his remarks specially to the West Pacific and South and West Africa. He was glad to know what other Colonies had done; he was aware that some of them had done a great deal towards stopping the traffic, and he hoped they would do more. In accepting the Amendment, he presumed that the proper course would be to withdraw his Resolution and move it in the amended form.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House, having regard to the disastrous physical and moral effects of the
  422
  liquor traffic among, uncivilized races, as well as the injury it inflicts on legitimate commerce, will cordially support the Imperial and Colonial Governments in their endeavours to suppress the traffic in spirituous liquors with Natives in all Native Territories under their influence and control."—(Mr. A. M'Arthur.)
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he wished, before the debate concluded, to make some remarks and to obtain some information from the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) on the subject of the traffic in spirituous liquors in one of the latest acquisitions of the Crown—namely, Upper Burmah, and especially as to the issue of spirit licences there. Under the former independent Sovereigns of Burmah, the consumption of opium and spirits by the Natives which was forbidden by the Buddhist religion, was strictly enforced by the civil power, though it was true that there were some Chinese in Upper Burmah who consumed a small quantity of opium, and that some of the wild tribes who were neither Burmans nor Buddhists used spirits. He understood that last April or May the Indian Government, finding itself in want of revenue in Burmah, had determined to issue licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors and opium. He was further informed that the officers in charge of the districts in Upper Burmah, with scarcely an exception, had reported against the introduction of intoxicating liquor as likely to cause great injury to the country, not only morally but in an economical point of view. The best part of the Native population was also strongly opposed to it. Apparently the Government was undeterred by these reports, as well as by the expressed opinion of the principal of the Burmese people, and a considerable number of licences were put up to auction and issued even for districts where the whole population was Burman, and therefore bound by religion and law not to drink intoxicating liquors. The sale of opium was similarly introduced where there was no Chinese population. In July last he had asked for information on the subject, which the India Office professed itself unable to give, and had carried an Address for Returns giving full particulars of the licences issued. Again in February he pressed the Under Secretary for information as to what was taking place and when the Returns would be laid on the Table, but he

  423
  received practically no information. By this time, he earnestly hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be in a position to state when the Returns would be ready. They ought, at any rate, to know when these Returns were likely to appear, but apparently the authorities in Burmah kept the India Office and the House equally in the dark, and treated with indifference akin to contempt the wishes here expressed. The matter was a rather serious one. We conquered the country with professions that it was for its own good, not only commercially, but as regarded the better moral and intellectual development of the people; yet it appeared that the first step we took towards the introduction of civilization was to introduce these very vices which already had wrought so much harm in other parts of our Indian Dominions. He could assure his hon. Friend that it was commonly believed in Burmah that the Government had issued these licences for the sake of revenue. This would probably be denied by the Government; but if revenue was not the object, what was? There was no need for more regulation, because there was nothing to show that unlicensed sale had begun to he, and in fact it was not, a practical evil. If the Government, when it took over the control of the affairs of Burmah, had continued the same severe discipline which was practised by the Native Kings, there would have been no need of the introduction of any licensing system. Nor was it necessary to introduce a licensing system for the Chinese in Burmah, for they were confined to a very few towns such as Mandalay and Bhamo. He would remind the House that they were not without some practical experience in this matter, seeing that exactly the same process had been gone through in Lower Burmah, where the sale of opium and spirits had increased under the British régime with a result deleterious to the country. He earnestly hoped that the Under Secretary would be able to announce that the Government of India had receded from its first intentions, or had checked what seemed to have been the first intentions and acts of the Local Authorities in Burmah. He believed that the expression of opinion which had made itself felt in this country had told upon the Government, and that if the Government did not
  424
  take some step in the matter the opinion of the House would be unmistakably expressed with a view to doing something to check the course upon which they were entering, and to show that those philanthropic expressions which always found utterance when this country made a fresh annexation were real and substantial.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham)said, before alluding to the specific subject which his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Bryce) had brought forward, the House would forgive him if he said a few words on the general subject. In his humble opinion, nothing had been heard during the debate that was really new to the question. It was extremely easy for the House to pass unanimously abstract Resolutions; it was easy to frame Ordinances in Colonies and dependent States, and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seemed to think that if those Ordinances were made in the sense of absolute prohibition of the liquor traffic, there would be no difficulty at all in the matter. But he (Sir John Gorst) would venture to say that when the abstract Resolution was passed. in the House, and the Ordinances for the total prohibition of the traffic in the Colonies were framed, then the difficulties began. The difficulty was not to make laws, but to enforce them. This was, in his earlier days, forcibly brought to his own attention by the utter break down of an honest attempt to enforce total prohibition in the Waikato district of New Zealand. The district was in a state of semi-insurrection against British rule, and one of the bitterest complaints made by the Chiefs against our civilization was that their people were being utterly demoralized by the introduction of extremely bad rum into the district. The Imperial and Colonial Governments were quarrelling among themselves as to who was to be responsible for the management of Native affairs in New Zealand; but they combined to enact stringent regulations to prevent absolutely the introduction of all spirituous liquors into the district, except under special licence, and rendered persons who transported such liquor from one part of the country to another liable to punishment by fine and imprisonment, and enacted the confiscation of all liquor so transported.

  425
  He (Sir John Gorst) was a Commissioner charged with putting these enactments into force. In those days, he was young and enthusiastic, and he refused to issue any licences whatever, so that there was about as absolute a prohibition, even in the sense of the hon Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), as there could be, not only against Natives but Europeans also. After a trial of about a year, the attempt broke down. Liquor was smuggled into the country and concealed, and not all the vigilance of the Commissioner and the Native Chiefs could keep it out. He fined one or two of the offenders and confiscated a few kegs of spirits, and at last one of the Chiefs who had exerted himself greatly seized a large quantity of spirits—perfectly illegally—and kept the spirits in his own village. After the lapse of about a fortnight, he and his head men broached the spirits they had confiscated, and got so drunk upon them that they had to be summoned before the tribunal and fined. The example at once became contagious, and the attempt to suppress the traffic utterly broke down. He did not, as a moral to that, mean to say that the attempt should not be made. He would not despair, he would try again; all he wanted was that hon. Members should see the difficulties. One effect it had had upon him—to make him extremely charitable towards the unfortunate officials in India, who were so often accused of failing to suppress the traffic, because he had had personal experience of the difficulty of doing it. So long as the Government and officials were honest in their efforts to minimize as much as possible the evil that arose from drunkenness, he should be sorry to cast a stone at them; because the circumstances under which they were placed did not enable them to suppress the traffic altogether. From this digression he returned to the question in reference to Upper Burmah, and the last great Native population brought under British rule. There the principle of the Resolution was being carried out. He did not quite join in the picture the hon. Gentleman had drawn of the extraordinary virtue and sobriety of the Burmese under their Native Kings. It was true that the Buddhist religion, like every other religion, forbad drunkenness; but
  426
  it was equally true that adherents of that religion, as of many others, did not always practice what they preached. If this state of sobriety existed in Upper Burmah, its existence had escaped the notice of most authorities who had written about the country. The law was perfect in principle, no doubt; but, as in other places, obedience to it fell short. But he was willing to admit that, as a race, the Burmese were, and are still, a sober people, just as the Indians were, and are still, a sober race. When Upper Burmah was annexed, it was decided, in the first place, to refuse all licences for the sale of opium. That, of course, did not entirely stop the sale of opium; but no licences were granted, the prohibition of the sale of opium to Burmese was maintained, and the sale was strictly confined to a few Chinese who were addicted to the drug and could not do without it. Then liquor shops were licensed in a few exceptional towns, where there was a large non-Burman population. This state of things continued until June of last year, when the Chief Commissioner proposed to extend to Upper Burmah the liquor laws and excise laws that prevailed in Lower Burmah. So far from deserving the animadversions of the hon. Member for South Aberdeen, the liquor laws had been eminently successful there for the past six or seven years in reducing the consumption of liquor and improving the condition of Lower Burmah. He was surprised, as he listened to the hon. Member's speech, because he had a table before him, showing that although the population of Lower Burmah, during the last six or seven years, had increased by 28 per cent, the revenue from the sale of liquor had diminished, and that from the sale of opium only slightly increased.
  MR. BRYCEexplained, that he did not say that the consumption had increased lately; he said that during a number of years after the introduction of the licensing system, the consumption had gone on increasing.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that might or might not be the case. Before the licensing system was introduced, there was no means of knowing what the consumption was; but, so far as the test of figures could be applied, the liquor law of Lower Burmah did not deserve the blame cast upon it, and the same might be said of India, and indeed other parts

  427
  of the British Empire. When the proposal was made to extend the liquor laws to Upper Burmah, it was at the same time proposed to abrogate the restriction of the sale of liquor to Burmese. This, however, was not for the purpose of revenue, but because it was pointed out to the Government that the law was practically a dead letter, and had not had the effect of preventing such sale. Letters from Commissioners, Sub-Commissioners and others, showed this was the case; one of those letters saying that the attempt by means of this law to prevent Burmese from using stimulating drinks was as ineffective as would be a law to prevent the Scotch from drinking whiskey by restricting the sale in Scotland to Englishmen and Irishmen. The fact was, prohibition or not, a Burman who could afford to buy liquor found no difficulty in inducing an Englishman, a Chinese, or a Coolie to procure it for him, and the prohibition was of no great value. Those proposals having been made—not for purposes of revenue, but to improve the excise system found useful in Lower Burmah—were investigated by the Government of India and the Secretary of State. To show the House the principle which the Burmese Government were instructed to follow in the arrangements for the sale of liquor, he quoted from a despatch written at Simla, November 5, 1887, from the Government of India to the Chief Commissioner in Burmah. Of course, he would lay the Paper on the Table if there was any wish for it. It was as follows:—
  "Whatever arrangements are now introduced should be defensible as restrictive measures, and should be carefully guarded against any tendency to facilitate the sale of liquor. Special care is required that indulgence should not be allowed where such does not now exist, and that under the favor of a general excise system intoxicating liquors should not be introduced in places where innocent drinks only are now known. That is the only policy that commends itself to his Excellency in Council, and which, no doubt, you also have in view, but it is also that to which the Secretary of State has pledged the Government of India by answers to Questions asked in Parliament regarding the excise policy now being pursued in Upper Burmah."
  With that policy in view the arrangements were made as follows:—Licences were required for the importation of all foreign liquors into Upper Burmah.
  428
  Secondly, the sale of foreign and country-made liquors was allowed only in selected places, where foreigners were numerous. Thirdly, at each of these places, a distillery might be established, but, in some cases, one distillery might supply two or three places. Fourthly, all other distilleries but those were regarded as illicit, and the liquor made there contraband. Fifthly. licences for sale issued were to be strictly restrictive, the intention being that the present facilities for obtaining liquor should not be increased. The restrictions of sale to Burmese were to be maintained. The possession and transport of liquor were to be brought under regulation. Tari, procured from the palm, was to be brought under excise, and licences to be taken out for tapping every tree and for the sale of the liquor. He did not say that restrictions and regulations of that kind would necessarily be effective in preventing any drunkenness in Upper Burmah, but he did say that they were an honest attempt on the part of the Government of India to check any special prevalence of drunkenness there. Members of the House—who were always so ready to censure the administration of the Indian officials, as being animated only by the desire to raise revenue, and as allowing any degradation and corruption of the people under their charge, if only they could screw out a few more rupees for the revenue—should consider that, in a country where the juice from a tree, after standing for a few hours, became an intoxicating liquor, the difficulties in the way of checking the vice of drunkenness were extraordinarily great, and the efforts of the Government to check it deserved the support of the Parliament and people of this country. As an explanation of the delay in furnishing the Returns ordered, he might say that on receipt by the Government of India of the Secretary of State's despatch in December last, a circular was sent out by the Chief Commissioner of Burmah to all the Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners of Upper Burmah, asking for full information in the various districts as to the circumstances which ought to govern the administration in a final settlement of the excise system, and asking also for a very elaborate Return, which would include that asked for by the hon. Member. He confessed that the long delay in fur-

  429
  nishing the Return was unjustifiable, and as representing the Government of India, he sat in dust and ashes before the hon. Member; but the delay was accounted for by the fact that the Government of Burmah asked for extremely complicated information that had taken much time to collect. He thought it would have been better had the Government been content with supplying what was asked for, not attempting more; but an elaborate Return had been requested, which, though long in being procured, would, no doubt, be found extremely valuable. He hoped that the discussion of that night, and the unanimity that had prevailed in the House as to the principle that ought to govern their policy in the matter towards all Native races, would be productive of good effect throughout the Empire. But he warned hon. Members that, easy though it might be to propound a principle, and to embody it in ordinances and laws, there was great difficulty in enforcing actual practice, and those engaged in that extremely difficult work were deserving of generous consideration and charitable construction of their actions on the part of Parliament.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, he felt bound, as the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) had introduced the subject of Burmah, to offer a few observations in reply. The hon. Member, having become an apostle of the Temperance Party, had adopted the extreme views of that Party, and their version of facts. Everything that could possibly be said by that Party against Burmese administration found an echo in the hon. Gentleman's voice, and was translated into his eloquent language. He (Sir Richard Temple) thought that the House would agree with him that the facts had been exaggerated throughout. Of course, there was a certain substratum of truth in the remarks which had been made; but the truths which underlay them were strained to the extreme. He had never heard until that evening that the Burmese were free from intemperance prior to the British occupation of that country. He certainly believed that drinking existed under the Burmese rule—in a country where Nature supplied the materials abundantly for such consumption. There were, no doubt, prohibitions against
  430
  the importation of spirituous liquors; but no one who took a sober view of the facts believed that those prohibitions were ever effectual. No doubt, the Burmese, like all the Oriental nations, were not drunkards as a rule; but there was a certain amount of dram-consumption among them. He had been especially surprised to hear what had been said about Arracam To believe that the Arracanese were being demoralized under British rule was to believe in an incredible supposition. As to Upper Burmah, the House must recollect that the Burmese were not the only people there. There were also the Chinese, besides a considerable influx of Indian people. The principal stations of the country were occupied by Native Indian troops, the Burmese not being a race who entered into the Military Service. With the troops there were, of course, camp-followers, the non-combatants being, perhaps, three to one to the combatants. There was also a certain proportion of Europeans. All these people were in the habit of drinking in a moderate degree, and therefore there must be a moderate importation and a certain amount of manufacture of spirituous liquors. This being so, it was necessary to have either total prohibition of the traffic, or regulation of it. Total prohibition was impracticable. Prohibition might be enacted, but could not be carried out. The only alternative was regulation, and that alternative had been adopted in Burmah. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India (Sir John Gorst) had stated that in no part of the British Indian Empire was the regulation of the liquor traffic more effectually carried out than in Burmah. He hoped that the statement thus officially made would be accepted. From what he knew of officials who served their country in British Dependencies, he was sure that the officials in Burmah were doing what it behoved them to do for the protection of the Natives from the evil of intemperance as from all other evils. They wished to do their duty in this respect, and he felt confident that the House might safely trust them to exercise properly the powers which were placed in their hands. He quite believed, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) supposed, that the Burmese in the interior of the

  431
  country, if left to themselves, were tolerably temperate. He admitted, therefore, that licensing should be so regulated that no unnecessary temptations to drink should be held out to the people. It was very important that there should be no encouragement of drinking among the people. It was said that wherever British rule extended these dangerous influences arose, and that if absolute prohibition were net introduced the whole country became demoralized. He contended that there could not be total prohibition, but that there must be regulation, and that with regulation there was no fear whatever of national demoralization. He felt sure the House would not think that improper influences had been permitted to arise in Burmah; that the people of Burmah would constantly improve under our rule; and that the introduction of civilization among them would prove to be, not a myth nor a shadow, but a constant and ever-growing reality.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House, having regard to the disastrous physical and moral effects of the liquor traffic among uncivilized races, as well as the injury it inflicts on legitimate commerce, will cordially support the Imperial and Colonial Governments in their endeavours to suppress the traffic in spirituous liquors with Natives in all Native Territories under their influence and control.

  WORKMEN (WOOLWICH).
  RESOLUTION.
  COLONEL HUGHESin moving the following Resolution:—
  "That a Select Committee of Seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection, be appointed to inquire into and report on the circumstances under which workmen entered in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, and other Government establishments, between the 17th day of December 1861, and the 4th day of June 1870, have hitherto been refused the benefit of 'The Superannuation Act, 1859,' and 'The Superannuation Amendment Act, 1873,' and subsequent Amendment Acts, and particularly whether it was in the year 1870 or later that they were for the first time informed that a War Office Circular of the 17th day of December 1861, had assumed to suspend The Superannuation Act 1859,' so far as these men were concerned, and as to whether they are or ought to be within the benefits of the said Act of 1873:—That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:—That five be a quorum,"
  said, that the question was one which affected the interests of 524 labourers
  432
  and artizans employed by the Government. It was not a general question of pension or superannuation, but a question of whether these men were entitled to superannuation in respect of having entered the Government service prior to the 4th of June, 1870. The claim had been considered by several Government Departments, and, up to the present time, in consequence, he believed, of the settled opinion held by the permanent officials, it had been refused. The claim had been investigated individually by several Members of the House, with the result that every Member who had looked into it had come to the conclusion that the men had a just claim to superannuation. The present hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord) investigated the case some years ago, and was firmly convinced of the justice of these men's demand. The hen. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool (Baron Henry de Worms), who was now a Member of the Government, also investigated the case and advocated the claim. The hon. Member gave the men reason to think that their demand was just, and would be attended to; and, no doubt, under the circumstances, he would be disposed to support the Motion. The same observations applied to the hon. Member for the Enfield Division of the County of Middlesex (Viscount Folkestone), who believed in the justice of the case. He (Colonel Hughes) had also investigated the claim, and the more he looked into the matter, the more he was satisfied that the War Department was wrong and that the men were perfectly right. He admitted, to the utmost, the courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) had dealt with the case; but the right hon. Gentleman always gave the same unfortunate answer to the demand made upon him—namely, that the demand could not be entertained. It was really a very small matter. These men would not all live long enough to come into pensions, and, if they did, they would gradually die off. The procedure that would have to be followed before the men's claim could be granted was, that the claim should be recommended to the Treasury by the War Office, and the Treasury would then have power to accede to it. He did not now ask the House to go the length of affirming that

  433
  the men were entitled to what they asked. All he asked was that a Committee of seven hon. Members should be appointed to find out whether the men's statements were true or not. If the War Department settled the matter for themselves, it would be a case of employers deciding against the men in a matter in which they themselves were interested. As long, therefore, as the War Department said "No," the men would say "Yes;" and he knew of no other mode in which the matter could be disposed of than by a Committee of that House. If the men failed to prove their case before the Committee, there would be an end of the matter. If, on the other hand, they could prove it, the Report of the Committee would go before the War Office, which would have the opportunity of acting upon it if it thought fit. The question was not one of a Party character at all, because the men had put their claim before Secretaries of State under both Liberal and Conservative Governments. No doubt, he happened to sit on the Ministerial side of the House; but he wanted to divest the question of anything in the nature of a Party tinge. If the Government refused to assent to the Motion, the only way to settle the matter would be to divide the House upon it, and he would then be able to tell his constituents that he had submitted the question to the highest tribunal he could. The question was whether a Circular dated in 1861, which was supposed to be issued by the War Department, came to the knowledge of the men until nine years afterwards. If the men knew of the Circular in 1861, their ease failed; but if they did not know of it until 1870, then they had been engaged in the same way as those who had joined the Service a day before or a year before, and their case ought to succeed. The late General Dickson, who was Superintendent at Enfield, wrote a letter, stating that the Circular was not sent to Enfield until 1873, 12 years afterwards. Naturally, the men said that if the War Office wanted to alter the conditions of their Service and to deprive them of the benefits of the Superannuation Act, the least thing to have done was to have sent the Circular to Enfield and Woolwich and to have put it on the notice-board in the shops. The men at Woolwich said that in 1870 they were told, for the first time, about the Circu-
  434
  lar, and that it was then, for the first time, put in the book of regulations for the workmen. He had a list of opinions to the effect that this was the main point at issue. Mr. Brand, late Surveyor General of the Ordnance, had said—
  "The question turned upon whether the men had notice."
  The present Secretary for War had said—
  "If the men did not know before 1870, they ought to have their superannuation."
  Sir Ralph Thompson, the Permanent Under Secretary, had said—
  "The only point is, when did the men know of the Circular."
  Colonel Mildward was asked, in 1870, whether the men knew of the Circular in 1861, and he said he believed they did. It turned out, however, on a strict investigation, that Colonel Mildward did not enter Woolwich Arsenal until 1870, and he (Colonel Hughes) could not find out on whose information his report was made. Mr. Edmonds, the Assistant Superintendent of the Gun Factories, in answer to inquiries, officially stated that the men did not know of the Circular until 1870, and he was in the Arsenal during the whole time to which the dispute related. No doubt it had been said by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) who represented the Treasury in that House, that the men were never intended to have superannuation under the Act of 1859. All he (Colonel Hughes) could say was that the Superannuation Act of 1859 took nothing away from them, and they had had superannuation under the old Ordnance Scale before 1859. In 1873 the House of Commons passed an Act respecting superannuation, excusing certificate on entry, and this Act was put in operation in all Departments of the Government except the Arsenal and at Enfield, the reason why the men in the arsenal and at Enfield were not served in the same way as the rest being on account of this hidden Circular. The officials at the Arsenal were instructed in the Circular to make certain Returns, and he was informed that such Returns were never made. That was another proof that the Circular did not reach the Arsenal. Taking it altogether, the evidence was of such a character that half-a-dozen Members of the House, including two Members of the Government, who had investigated the case, were satisfied that

  435
  the superannuation ought to be granted, and he thought he could point to 40 or 50 Members who had gone sufficiently into the case to say that there was a primâ facie case, and that there ought to be no objection to the granting of an inquiry in order to satisfy the men. He could promise the Government that, unless he was defeated he would never leave alone a question in which over 500 of his constituents were so deeply interested, and the Motion would become a "hardy annual." He would remind hon. Members that, since the extension of the franchise, the House of Commons had become essentially a working man's House, and none of them could afford to have it said that working men could not get justice in this country. All the working men could do on a question of this kind was to appeal to the House of Commons to grant an impartial inquiry, and that was the reason he moved his Resolution.
  MR. O. V. MORGANin seconding the Motion, said, it was his firm belief that the men had no knowledge of the Circular of 1861 until 1870, and that, therefore, their claim was a just and reasonable one.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection, be appointed to inquire into and report on the circumstances under which workmen entered in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, and other Government Establishments, between the 17th day of December 1861, and the 4th day of June 1870, have hitherto been refused the benefit of 'The Superannuation Act, 1859,' and "The Superannuation Amendment Act, 1873,' and subsequent Amendment Acts. and particularly whether it was in the year 1870 or later that they were for the first time informed that a War Office Circular of the 17th day of December 1861, had assumed to suspend 'The Superannuation Act, 1859,' so far as these men were concerned, and as to whether they are or ought to be within the benefits of the said Act of 1873:—That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:—That five be a quorum."—(Colonel Hughes.)
  COLONEL NOLANin supporting the Motion, said, a great injustice would be done, if the object of the inquiry, which was most reasonable, were not conceded.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE) (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)said, that he might, in answer to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, take refuge in the fact
  436
  that this subject had been investigated by successive Surveyors General of Ordnance and Secretaries of State since 1870, and that they had all, he believed, without exception, decided that the claim was one which could not be acceded to. But he would not shelter himself behind that argument. He had himself investigated the question, and had received a deputation from the men themselves, who had stated their case with great ability, moderation, and common sense. He cordially agreed that it was very necessary that the Government should keep faith with those whom it employed, and if it could be proved that there was the slightest possibility of it being said that the Government were not doing so, then there would be the strongest ground for granting what was asked. This was, however, a very broad question. The Government were the employers of these men, and were bound to employ them in the best interests of the State, so that the work of the country might be carried on with efficiency and economy, and the Government had undertaken to conduct the Arsenal so far as possible on commercial principles. The hon. and gallant Member had asked the House to stand between employer and men—that was, he asked the House to put the Government in a position different from that of any other employer of labour. The Act of 1859 provided that any claim for superannuation should be referred to the Commissioners of the Treasury, whose decision should be final, and another clause provided that it should be necessary for any person thereafter appointed to obtain a Civil Service certificate. In August, 1861, a Circular had. been issued from the War Office, framed in accordance with those two provisions of the Act, to the effect that no persons were entitled to superannuation who were in receipt of the full market rate of wages; and persons who were not in receipt of the full rate were obliged to obtain a Civil Service certificate of competence. These men had been in receipt of the full market rate of wages, and, if anything, even over that rate, and they had no Civil Service certificate. The matter, however, was somewhat complicated by the fact that another Circular had been I issued on the 17th of December, 1861, as

  437
  the Department had neglected to lay down rules under which the men were to obtain the certificates, and it was thought that some of the men might have entered under the belief that they were entitled to superannuation, and that, therefore, some hardship might arise. This Circular of the 17th of December, 1861, after defining what the full market rate of wages meant, went on to say that if there were any men who had really entered the Department on the clear understanding or well-founded expectation that they would be entitled to superannuation, then the Secretary of State would consider each case on its merits.
  It being Midnight, the Debate was adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday 1st May.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LIMITED OWNERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Haldane, Mr. Asquith, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Mark, Stewart, Lord Elcho, Mr. Ferguson.)
  [BILL 63.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, with great reluctance he would move the withdrawal of the Bill. Last year, it went through a second reading and an investigation by a Select Committee. Its object was to extend the provisions of the Settled Land Act to Scotland. It was a Bill of great magnitude, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had announced his intention of opposing it. Seeing that it contained over 100 clauses, it was impossible for him to face Government opposition with any hope of making progress. He, therefore, asked leave to withdraw the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Order for the Second Reading be discharged,"—(Mr. Haldane,)—put, and agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 154.]
  (Sir George Trevelyan, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Dr. Cameron, Mr. Baird.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  Further Proceedings on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
  On the Motion of Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN, the following Amendments made:—In Clause 3, page 1, line 17, after "repealed," insert "as far as relates to factories and workshops situate within a burgh;" line 25, after "workshop," insert "within a burgh;" page 2, line 1, leave out "places," and insert "burghs;" page 2, line 4, leave out "places," and insert "burghs;" line 6, after "in," insert "such;" leave out from "or," to "parishes," in line 7, inclusive; and in line 8, leave out "and local authorities."
  Title at end, to add "Scotland."

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  MR. HASTINGSsaid, he had to explain that some misunderstanding had arisen in reference to the postponement of a Bill in which he was interested, the Public Health Bill standing fifth on the list. It was his intention to postpone the Bill to Thursday, but when the Order was called, the right hon. Baronet below him by some inadvertence called June 5th.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANhoped he might be allowed to make an apology to the House, and he specially desired to do so, after the kindness extended to him by the House in taking the Factory Bill somewhat later than usual. An hon. Friend of his who had charge of the Parliamentary Elections Bill, No. 6 on the Orders, asked him to put it down for Tuesday, June 5th. He expressed surprise at the lateness of the date, but was assured that that was the day. Between them, they made some mistake as to the number of the Order, and to his infinite, but he hoped not irreparable, regret he actually moved the postponement of the Public Health Bill to Tuesday, June 5th, imagining that that was the Bill committed to his charge. The hon. Member behind him (Mr. Hastings) had not time to intervene. The fault was entirely his, but he earnestly hoped that it was a fault that might be repaired.
  MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps under the circumstances, the House will think fit to allow the correction to be made, which

  439
  under ordinary circumstances would be contrary to the Rules of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.