Commons Sitting of 6 August 1888

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Liverpool (West Derby Division), v. Lord Claud John Hamilton, Manor of Northstead.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Report—East India (Hyderabad Deccan Mining Company) [No. 327].
Fourth Report—Navy Estimates [No. 328].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 4] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [August 4] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Registration of Assurances (Ireland)* [369].
Second Reading—Copyhold Acts Amendment [298]; Land Charges Registration and Searches [356].
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (No. 3).
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) [290], and passed.
Withdrawn—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Amendment* [131].

QUESTIONS.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881, SEC. 19—LABOURERS' DWELLINGS.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is in
  1682
  a position to state in what number of cases of applications to fix fair rents under the Land Act of 1881, the Land Commissioners having made an order under the 19th section of the Act for the erection of labourers' dwellings, such orders have been complied with, and the number of cases in which steps have been taken to enforce such orders?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, I may be allowed to answer the Question. The Local Government Board find that orders respecting labourers' dwellings have been made by the Irish Land Commission under Section 19 of the Land Law Act, 1881, in 132 Poor Law Unions. In the case of 11 of these Unions, however, the Returns received are in an incomplete state, and will probably not be ready for a few days. They show that 87 orders have been made in those 11 Unions, but further details are wanting. In the case of the 121 Unions where the Returns are complete, 743 orders were made. Of these, 466 have been complied with, 310 in due course, and 156 after steps had been taken to enforce obedience. The remaining 277 have not yet been complied with. In 45 of these latter cases the necessary steps have been taken by the Sanitary Authority to enforce obedience to the order; in 225 cases no steps have been taken; and in seven cases the period of six months authorized for carrying out the order has not yet expired.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, whether it was a fact that in the county represented by the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Lewis) no orders had been made for the erection of labourers' cottages, nor even a scheme formulated, while in every other county in Ireland labourers' cottages had been built?
  MR. MADDENsaid, the Return did not distinguish between the different counties, and therefore he could not answer the Question of the hon. Member.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT (IRELAND)—THE BOTANIC GARDENS, GLASNEVIN.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether

  1683
  it is the intention of the Department of Science and Art to provide a house in the Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, for succulent plants; whether such a structure has been both planned and estimated for by the Department; and, whether it is a fact that letters approving of, and stating the necessity for, such work being carried out have been received from the Department at intervals during the past 30 years?
  THE SECRETARY (MR. JACKSON): The desirableness of such a structure has been recognized, and plans and estimates have been prepared for it by the Board of Works; but other more pressing improvements have taken precedence, which have entailed a considerable outlay.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether much additional space is required in Professor M'Nab's laboratory at Glasnevin; and whether, in consequence of the annually increasing number of students, and the inconvenience occasioned because of the limited space afforded, steps would be immediately taken to remedy the requirements of the case?
  MR. JACKSON: The laboratory has been found sufficient till recently; but as the number of students is increasing, I will see what steps can be taken, in concert with the Board of Works, to enlarge it.

  IRISH LAND COURT—CASES LISTED IN CO. ANTRIM.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR&c.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the number of cases listed in County Antrim for hearing in the Land Court is at present unusually large; what number of cases have been placed on the list since September last year; if he can say when the next Land Commission Court will sit in that county; and, if he is unable to give an exact date, does he think that the number of cases awaiting adjudication is so great as to warrant his drawing the special attention of the Land Commissioners to the accumulation of unheard cases in County Antrim?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners inform me that the number of cases in the County Antrim now waiting to be heard is 2,120, of which 371 have been lodged since September
  1684
  last. They expect to be able to appoint a Sub-Commission to sit in that county in November.
  In reply to further Questions by Mr. M'CARTAN (Down, S.) and Mr. W. P. SINCLAIR,
  MR. MADDENsaid, he had no doubt that the long interval which had elapsed since the last sitting of the Sub-Commission in the County Antrim was due to pressure of business elsewhere. He had no doubt that the question of appointing more Sub-Commissioners would receive the consideration of the Government.

  NORTH AMERICAN FISHERIES—THE ALASKAN WATERS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked, Whether it is correct that four captured British sealing schooners have been brought to Port Townsend by a United States tug, and that they are to be put up for sale on August 22; and, whether any arrangement is likely to be arrived at with the United States Government and that of the Dominion of Canada for the purpose of preventing illegal fishing, and the indiscriminate destruction of seal fish by Canadians in Alaskan waters?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: We have heard that four British schooners, seized last year in Behring's Sea, are being taken from Sitka to Port Townsend for sale by the United States Marshal. Her Majesty's Minister at Washington has been instructed to request the United States Government to postpone the sale, pending a settlement of the question as to the legality of the seizures. Negotiations are in progress for the protection of the seal fisheries.

  LAW AND POLICE—DRUNKEN SOLDIERS AND SAILORS IN RAILWAY CARRIAGES.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to a number of letters in The Standard newspaper describing the outrageous conduct of drunken soldiers and sailors thrust into railway carriages at Willesden Junction; and, whether he will take steps that will prevent the recurrence of such action on

  1685
  the part of the railway officials, whereby the safety of passengers is endangered?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I have made some inquiry into the matter referred to, and I find that three out of 47 discharged soldiers, for whom special accommodation was provided, escaped from the observation of the station officials at Willesden Junction, and got into an ordinary compartment, where they misbehaved themselves. They were taken from the train at Tamworth and brought before a magistrate, who imposed a trifling fine on account of their previous good character. There has been communication between the Horse Guards and the Railway Company, and steps will be taken to prevent the recurrence of such annoyance, and attendants at refreshment bars will be cautioned not to serve the men.

  INDIA—SIR LEPEL GRIFFIN.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State for India is aware of the grave dissatisfaction which is felt in India, particularly among the native population, in consequence of the proceedings of Sir Lepel Griffin, late Governor General's Agent to the Central Indian Feudatory States, while in charge of the Central Indian Agency, especially is respect to the State of Bhopal; whether he is aware that the female Ruler of that State is alleged to have been subjected by Sir Lepel Griffin to serious indignities as follows:—
  "Abusing the Nawab Consort in a public Durbar in the Begum's Palace and in the Begum's presence;
  "Requesting the appointment of a Secret Agent, whose existence was not to be made known to the Viceroy or the Agent's (Sir Lepel Griffin's) subordinates;
  "Making private visits to the Begum's daughter against the Begum's vehement protests, and at a time when the Agent was aware of domestic disagreement between the Begum and her daughter;
  "Compelling the Begum to pay the debt of a certain pensioner, and to make certain contributions against Her Highness's expressed objections;
  "Compelling the Begum to dismiss two faithful old servants of the State, and to deport them from Bhopal;
  "Violating Act 9 of the Treaty securing the Begum in her rights, interfering with the internal affairs of the State, and compelling Her
  1686
  Highness, out of the State Treasury, to re-imburse a Turkish trader 6,851 rupees for goods alleged by him to have been stolen from him;
  "Compelling the separation of the Begum from her husband for eight months, that is, until Lord Dufferin intervened;
  "And, refusing to transmit to the Governor General, Kharitas, setting forth Her Highness's grievances and her defence, addressed by the Begum to Lord Dufferin;"
  whether the Secretary of State has seen certain letters alleged to have been written by Sir Lepel Griffin to the Begum from May, 1881, to May, 1886; whether it is true that Sir Lepel Griffin has been appointed Resident at the Court of His Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad; and, whether, considering the dissatisfaction which has been caused by the proceedings of Sir Lepel Griffin in his relations with Native States, the Secretary of State will take any action in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State is aware that dissatisfaction has been expressed by certain vernacular newspapers and pamphlets in India with regard to Sir Lepel Griffin's proceedings while in charge of the Central India Agency, in respect to the Bhopal State; but no Memorial, either from the Begum of Bhopal or any other person, complaining of Sir Lepel Griffin's proceedings has ever been received by the Secretary of State; and he believes that the view the Government of India have taken of the charges so preferred through the Press is that they have no foundation in fact. With regard to the specific indignities to which the Begum is alleged to have been subjected by Sir Lepel Griffin, the Secretary of State has no information except that the late administrative measures as conducted in Bhopal have met with the approval of the Government of India. As for certain letters alleged to have been written by Sir Lepel Griffin to the Begum, the Secretary of State has no official information. The selection of an officer for the post of Resident at Hyderabad is within the discretion of the Governor General; and no report of any selection has yet been made.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: You say the Government have no official information. Has the Government any information to communicate to the House?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: No, Sir; the Secretary of State, I am informed, has no information on the subject.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)— ORANGE DEMONSTRATION AT ENNISKILLEN—SERGEANT MAJOR HOUNSEL.
  MR. CAREW(for Mr. W. REDMOND)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Sergeant Major Hounsel, of Enniskillen, attended an Orange demonstration in that town on July 12; and, whether officers of the Army are allowed to go to party demonstrations provided only that they are in plain clothes?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): As regards the Sergeant Major, I called for a full Report of the circumstances after the hon. Member gave me a photo of the platform; but it has not yet been received from Ireland. As regards the second paragraph of the Question, the Regulation is that no officer or soldier can attend apolitical meeting in uniform; and if he be in plain clothes he may not attend one in barrack quarters, camps, or their vicinity.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CONFESSION OF A MURDER IN 1879.
  MR. MILVAINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a confession relating to a burglary committed at Edlingham Vicarage, in the County of Northumberland, in 1879, for which two men were in that year convicted; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to what purports to be a confession in this case; and I have authorized the Treasury Solicitor to take a statement from the man who is alleged to have made the confession, in case he be willing to make such a statement.

  INDIA—COOLIES—MORTALITY IN TEA GARDENS.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to the treatment of coolies described in
  1688
  a despatch issued at Calcutta on the 5th of May, 1888, from the Secretary to the Indian Association to the Secretary to the Government of India, wherein it is stated that—
  "Since the passing of the now Emigration Act, in 1882, the mortality in the tea gardens has largely and steadily increased. The death-rate, which followed a downward course from 1878 to 1881, began to rise in 1882, when it was 37·8 per 1,000. In 1883 there was a further rise to 41·3; and in 1884 it arose to 43·2:
  "In 1884 the death-rate among children in tea gardens had risen from 39·7 to 14 per 1,000. While the death-rate increased, the birth-rate gradually fell; in 1882 it was 39·7 per 1,000; in 1833 it was 34·3; and in 1884 it further decreased to 32·7 per 1,000;"
  and, whether any steps are being taken by the Government of India to see that effect is given to the assurance made in 1883 by Mr. Elliot, then Chief Commissioner of Assam—
  "That no exertions will be wanting on the part of the civil and medical staff of the Assam Commission to wipe out the blot on the administration, of which this terrible mortality is the cause?"
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The Memorial of the Indian Association referred to has not been received at the India Office. In November, 1886, the Secretary of State requested the Government of India to watch narrowly the working of the Emigration Act of 1882. In 1885 the rate of mortality sank to 36·8 per 1,000, and in 1886, notwithstanding the prevalence of cholera, it was only 39·8. The Secretary of State is confident that the Government of India will take due notice of the representations made by the Indian Association; and will not hesitate to enforce, wherever necessary, the adoption of such measures as will lead to the greater health of the labourers in the Assam tea gardens.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC— THE LOYALTY ISLANDS—EXPULSION OF THE REV. JOHN JONES.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he is able to give any further information concerning the expulsion, by the French, of the Rev. John Jones from Mahé, one of the Loyalty Islands; and, whether there are any Papers respecting the case which he will lay upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I regret to say that the French Government adhere to the position they have taken up, and there is no hope of their re-admitting Mr. Jones to Mahé. They have the right, if they please, to expel a foreigner. It should be stated that nothing has been proved to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government in any way affecting the character of this gentleman, who, they believe, has carried on a Christian and meritorious work. Papers on the subject will be given if the bon. Member chooses to move for them.

  STATE OF IRELAND—BOYCOTTING— MURDER OF——FORHAN.
  MR. BYRON REEDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph in The Kerry Sentinel, of August 1—
  "Some years ago a man, named Edmund Walsh, was evicted from his holding, at Gale, by Lord Ormathwaite, for failing to pay an exorbitant rack-rent. The exact circumstances under which Forhan became the owner of Walsh's evicted farm some time subsequent to the eviction are not known, but Forhan was, ever since he took the farm, regarded as a landgrabber, and to a certain extent treated as such;"
  whether he has any information as to the character of the treatment here referred to; whether, in consequence of it, Forhan had been afforded police protection; and, whether that protection was being still afforded to him at the time of his murder?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that Thomas, not Edmund, Walsh, was evicted from his holding in April, 1883, for non-payment of three years' rent. Forhan took the farm about 10 months afterwards, and was thereupon treated as a landgrabber and Boycotted. No one would buy from him; no one would work for him; no one would associate with or even speak to him. In consequence of this he had police protection for about a year, when at his own request it was withdrawn. This personal protection was not subsequently renewed; but police patrols ambushed
  1690
  occasionally at night in the neighbourhood of Forhan's residence.
  MR. BYRON REEDasked, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would state what protection the Government were prepared to extend in future to persons living under such circumstances?
  MR. MADDENremarked that each case must depend upon the circumstances. It was obviously impossible to make any general statement.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, if the Solicitor General was award that it was shown in evidence before the Bessborough Commission that the Poor Law valuation of the farm was £22, and that the rent was £66; whether it was not the fact that the tenant, before the eviction, offered to pay the rent less the law costs; whether the National League in the district was suppressed about a year ago, and that the full powers of the Crimes Act were applied; and, whether the Government did not agree that the suppression of the League tended to the promotion of crime instead of preventing it?
  MR. MADDENsaid, he had no special information as to the fact relating to the eviction. If the hon. Gentleman desired he would inquire.

  THE INQUEST AT MITCHELSTOWN ON MR. MANDEVILLE.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, When the shorthand writer's Report of the proceedings at the inquest on the late Mr. John Mandeville will be in the hands of Members of this House?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): The entire of the shorthand writer's notes of the proceedings at the inquest of Mr. Mandeville have not yet been received. I am, therefore, unable to state the exact date at which they will be in the hands of hon. Members; but I can assure the hon. Member that every effort is being made to expedite the preparation of the Returns?
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, in view of the letter published that day from the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane), that Dr. Ridley, late Surgeon of Tullamore Gaol, told him he was perpetually in friction with the Prisons Board about the treatment of pri-

  1691
  soners under the Crimes Act, the Solicitor General for Ireland had any objection to lay all Correspondence between the Prisons Board and Dr. Ridley on the Table, as well as a note of any verbal communication made by the Board to Dr. Ridley?
  SIR CHARLES LEWISasked, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had any information as to why the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) had not been examined before the Coroner?
  MR. MADDENsaid, he was not able to give any information to the House with reference to the Question of the hon. Baronet. The shorthand writer's notes, and everything which was given in evidence at the inquest on Mr. Mandeville, would be laid on the Table. If the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) required any additional Papers, he must ask for them in the usual way.
  MR. FLYNNinquired, whether it was not a fact that the hon. Member for East Cork would be examined at the inquest on Dr. Ridley, on Wednesday?
  MR. MADDENsaid, that might be so; but he had no specific information on the subject.

  CIVIL BILL ACT (IRELAND)— MEMORIAL OF OFFICERS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the Memorial from the Irish civil bill officers, praying that the salary allowed them under the Civil Bill Act should be increased; whether it is the fact that at present a civil bill officer is only paid £10 a-year, together with the small fees for service paid by litigants; whether he is aware that several of the County Court Judges have publicly commented on the desirability of improving the position of the civil bill officers, and that all the County Court Judges are in favour of such a course; and, whether, in view of the difficulty of procuring respectable officials for so small a salary, he will consider the advisability of revising a rate of wages fixed at a remote period when the circumstances of the county were wholly different?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): My attention has been called
  1692
  to this matter by the Question of the hon. and learned Member. There would be a difficulty in increasing the amount of the fees, having regard to the desirability of keeping down the cost of Civil Bill proceedings, and no increase of the annual salary could be made without the consent of the Treasury. I shall, however, be glad to consider the matter in detail, with a view to seeing whether anything can be done.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (IRELAND) —NEW RULE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of a Committee of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland drawn up in March last, and complaining, amongst other things, of the Rule made by the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellor preventing any action set down after July 14, and any Motion set down after July 19, from being heard before November, notwithstanding that the Long Vacation does not begin before August 8; whether a copy of this Report was sent by the Incorporated Law Society to the Judges; and, if so, with what result; and, whether, in view of this expression of opinion by the Incorporated Law Society as to the inconvenience of the Rule in question, he will submit to the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellor the advisability of abrogating it?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I have no official information as to the matters referred to in the second paragraph of the Question. In answer to a former Question, I stated the objects with which the notice referred to had been issued for many years by the Master of the Rolls, by his predecessor, Sir Edward Sullivan, and by the Lord Chancellor, and I then stated that the matter is not one in which the Government have power to interfere.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that, no matter what Rule is made by a Judge, the Executive have no power to interfere?
  MR. MADDEN: The Executive have no power to interfere with any Rule made by a Judge for the facilitating of the business of his Court.

  WAR OFFICE (SMALL ARMS)—THE COMPOUND RUBINI CARTRIDGE.
  MR. D. A. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any information, either official or private, has now been received as to the failure in Switzerland of the compound Rubini cartridge, having a loose brass ring, issued for trial with the new magazine rifle, in consequence of the loose brass rings, in which the bullets are seated, blowing forward; whether any information has been received as to the determination of the Swiss Military Authorities to abandon or to adopt the particular pattern of cartridge in question; and, whether any inquiry has been made?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have heard, incidentally, that the Rubini cartridge has not been altogether successful in Switzerland; but I have no official knowledge on the subject. Experiments with this cartridge have been made for the War Office for the purposes of the new magazine rifle. The new rifle is not dependent on this cartridge; but the best cartridge for its purpose which can be discovered will be used.

  PATENTS—WAR OFFICE OFFICIALS— SIR FREDERICK ABEL.
  MR. D. A. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any, and what, Rule in regard to paid Government officials taking out patents; whether Patent No. 14,803, applied for on November 15, 1886, was granted to Sir Frederick Augustus Abel for a manufacture of smokeless explosive, he being at that time chemist to the War Office; and, whether he is still chemist to the War Office, patentee of a smokeless explosive, and at the same time Chairman of a Committee appointed to report upon the merits of various explosives submitted to the War Office as suitable for Her Majesty's Service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): A War Office official, before taking out a patent, is required to have the sanction of the Secretary of State. In November, 1886, Sir Frederick Abel, then chemist to the War Department, patented a smokeless explosive; and he states that
  1694
  he did so for the purpose of reserving to the War Department the right of making and using it. Sir Frederick Abel has ceased to be War Department chemist; but he is president of the Committee on Explosives, which would decide on the merits of explosives submitted to the War Office.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—DIETARY OF PRISONS—REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on July 23, 1885, while Dr. M'Cabe was a member of the Prisons Board, a Circular (No. 328) was issued by the Prisons Board to the Governors of prisons in Ireland with reference to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on improving the dietary of prisoners; whether the following occurs in that Circular, a copy of which the Governors were specially instructed to hand to the prison doctors:—
  "Having regard to the fact that Class II. diet, as it stood before the addition of two pints of milk in Ireland, had remained for some years in operation in English prisons, and that it has been found sufficient to maintain the health of English prisoners; if the medical officer considers the two pints of milk unnecessary he will be good enough to state whether he considers the original diet for Class II. sufficient;"
  whether he is aware that it is stated in the Report of the Royal Commission that—
  "Due consideration ought to be given to the fact that the condition of such prisoners in Ireland is, in many cases, and especially in Dublin, different from that of the same class in England, their previous habits, the quality of their food, and their generally low physical condition of health, rendering them more susceptible to the effects of prison discipline;"
  whether Dr. M'Cabe was present at the meeting of the Prisons Board where the Circular (No. 328) was adopted; and, whether the result of that Circular has been to induce medical officers of prisons to go counter to the Report of the Royal Commission?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The General Prisons Board state that the Circular relating to prison dietary referred to by the hon. Member was issued in 1886,

  1695
  not in 1885. Dr. M'Cabe was then medical adviser to the Board, but was not a member of it, and was not present at the meeting of the Board when the Circular was adopted. The Circular invited the medical officers to state their opinions and their experience of the effects observed while the new diet was in use. They were not requested to report in favour of the old diet. The result of the Circular has not been to induce medical officers to go counter to the recommendation of the Royal Commission—the recommendation in question was that two pints of milk daily should be added to the diet—that is, 14 pints weekly. Of this weekly ration 11¾ pints are still issued, and 1½lb. of bread was given in place of the remaining 2¼ pints of milk, in consequence of its being found in practice that the milk did not form a desirable combination with soup, which is issued at dinner three times weekly.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DOWNPATRICK BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report of the proceedings of a meeting of the Downpatrick Board of Guardians, as published in The Down Recorder of July 28, and to a letter read at that meeting from a number of ratepayers in the Killough Division of the Downpatrick Union; whether these ratepayers complained that no Division in Ireland, similarly situated, is so highly valued, and requested the Board to send their valuator to re-value the Division, and "equalize it with the rest of the Union;" whether Colonel Forde, the Chairman, stated, in reply, that the Commissioners could not reduce the valuation, as they had power only to increase it; and, whether he will take steps to relieve the ratepayers of this Division from the excessive rates and cess which such a valuation causes to be imposed upon them?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said, the reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph of the Question was in the affirmative. The Chairman's observations would be seen, by reference to the newspaper report, to have solely referred to rates which might be put on in cases of the erection of new
  1696
  buildings. The case was one for the consideration of the Commissioners of Valuation, who gave attention to such cases annually at the proper time. The instructions of the Commissioners were acted on by the Guardians.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it is within the power of the Valuation Commissioners to vary the valuation?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes, Sir.

  TURKEY (ASIATIC PROVINCES)—MRS. BARKER—THE COURT AT ALEPPO.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON&c.)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that Mrs. Barker, a British subject residing at Aleppo, who was violently dispossessed of her house there by a dragoman attached to the Turkish Governer of Aleppo, remains unable to recover possession of her house and compensation for the injuries she has suffered, because the Turkish Court refuses to carry out the judgment it has pronounced in her favour; whether the Turkish authorities, on being appealed to to require the Court to enforce its sentence, reply by advising Mrs. Barker to bring an action against the Judges of the Court; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, considering the long and oppressive denial of justice from which this lady has suffered, will represent to the Turkish Government the hardship of the case (which was brought to their knowledge more than a year ago), and will endeavour to obtain due redress and better security for British subjects living in the Sultan's dominions?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Mrs. Barker brought an action against Jed in the Aleppo Court for recovery of her house; it was decided in her favour by the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal. Jed then appealed to the Court of Cassation at Constantinople. That Court was ready, on the 31st of January last, to give judgment on either party making application for it, and Mrs. Barker was advised by the Embassy to appoint an agent to do so. This advice she has not followed, and consequently Sir William White took the only step open to him, and requested the Minister of Justice to recommend the settlement of the case

  1697
  to the Court of Cassation. With reference to the criminal proceedings at Aleppo, Mrs. Barker complained that her adversary had bribed the members of the tribunal; but the opinion of the Embassy and Consul General at Constantinople is that unless she can succeed in proving this, she must appeal to a higher Court, and that, as the accused is not a British subject, Her Majesty's Government would not be justified in interfering against the sentence of the Aleppo Court.

  WAR OFFICE—ROMAN CATHOLIC ARMY CHAPLAINS.
  MR. NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, How many vacancies for Roman Catholic Army chaplains there are at present, and how soon the authorities intend filling them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): My reply, on the 24th of February last, to the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) still holds good; that is, it is not proposed to commission at present any more Roman Catholic chaplains, as there are no stations vacant at which there are sufficient troops of that denomination to justify such an appointment.

  SPAIN—COMPENSATION TO OWNERS OF THE "MARY MARK."
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the owners of the Mary Mark, may expect the payment to them of the compensation awarded by the arbitrators seven months ago for the destruction of their vessel by the Spanish man-of-war some four years since?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I am not surprised that dissatisfaction is felt on account of the delay in the payment of the compensation in this case. Her Majesty's Government have done what they could to hasten it; and on the 4th of this month they heard that the money was in the hands of the Spanish Minister of Marine. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires was at once instructed by telegraph to receive and transmit it, and I think that it may be expected to arrive immediately.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—GALWAY PRISON—TREATMENT OF MR. BLUNT.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact, as stated by Mr. Blunt in The Freeman's Journal, that Dr. Kinkead, surgeon of Galway Prison, was summoned before the Prisons Board in Dublin, and cautioned by Mr. Bourke, the Chairman of the Board, regarding Mr. Blunt; whether Dr. Kinkead was forbidden to take Mr. Blunt into hospital, except in the case of serious illness, or threatened with the interference of another doctor if he should so remove Mr. Blunt; and, whether Dr. Kinkead ever received directly or indirectly either from the Chief or Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or the Prisons Board, or any member thereof, any instructions as to how he was to treat prisoners, political or others?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The allegations contained in Mr. Blunt's letter referred to in the Question are without foundation. Dr. Kinkead received no instructions in the matter other than those which he had before him in the ordinary Prison Rules.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE CORK POLICE COURT.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true, as stated in the Cork daily papers of Tuesday 24th instant, that Mr. Gardiner, R.M., was again absent from the Cork Police Court. That in his absence Sir George Penrose tried the case of Thomas Ahern, who was charged by Sergeant Knox with coming up to him in a threatening manner in Patrick Street with a walking stick in his hand; whether the report correctly states that it was sworn that while the prisoner was
  "Walking in Patrick Street the sergeant came up and kept staring at him; then after a little time he asked the sergeant if he thought he was either a robber or murderer, and told him if he had any charge against him to make it,"
  and for this he was arrested. That Sir George Penrose then said—
  "You appear to be a very bad boy. The police would not be doing their duty if they

  1699
  passed you by without staring at you. You are fined 40 s., or a month;"
  whether Sergeant Knox, who stared at the prisoner, has been on several occasions incarcerated in a lunatic asylum; whether the report is true that in the next case tried, an Artilleryman, named Michael Seward, was charged and convicted of having assaulted an old man named Thomas Weston and attempting to commit an indecent assault upon his grandchild, and that the same magistrate fined him 30 s., or 21 days; and, if the circumstances are as stated, whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor will be directed to the conduct of the magistrate, and the sentences imposed by him in these instances?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: Ahern was drunk and disorderly in the public streets of Cork, for which offence he was arrested by Sergeant Knox by order of his Head Constable. Ahern was brought up at the Police Court on July 23, the Bench consisting of two local magistrates, the Resident Magistrates being engaged on duty elsewhere. The accused was fined 40 s., or one month's imprisonment with hard labour. There were 11 previous convictions against him for drunkenness and assault. There was no such matter sworn to as that alleged in the second paragraph. The remarks attributed to one of the magistrate are substantially correct. Sergeant Knox has not been on several occasions incarcerated in a lunatic asylum. He was, upwards of seven years ago, in one for some days through a paroxysm of grief owing to a serious domestic affliction; but the Resident Medical Superintendent of the asylum stated that he could not discover the slightest trace of insanity, and the sergeant was discharged. He is reported by his officers to be a very good policeman. Michael Seward, a Militiaman, was charged with being drunk and assaulting Thomas Weston. The assault was a trivial one, and there was no previous conviction against the accused. He was fined for drunkenness 10 s. and for assault 20 s. No such charge as that of having attempted to commit an indecent assault appears to have been made against the accused.
  DR. TANNERinquired if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not seen the report that the man was fined for an in-
  1700
  decent assault as well as for an aggravated assault upon an old man?
  MR. MADDENsaid, his information differed entirely from that which the hon. Gentleman had been supplied with. No such charge appeared to have been made against him.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—BATTERSEA PARK—DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYES.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether any, and what, decision has been arrived at as to the superannuation to be granted to the men who have for many years been employed at Battersea Park, and who have been dismissed by the Metropolitan Board of Works since that Body has taken over the control of the Park?
  COLONEL HUGHES(who replied) said: The only men formerly employed at Battersea Park to whom the Board is legally empowered to grant pensions are those who would have had a right to a pension if they had continued to serve under the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works. All the men who had such right, and who have been discharged by the Board since Battersea Park came under its control, have had pensions granted to them. With respect to the discharged men who had no such right, it is clearly beyond the Board's statutory authority to make any pecuniary provision for them.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— ISLE OF DOGS—RAIN FLOODS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, What explanation the Metropolitan Board of Works can give of the cause of the further disastrous flooding that took place in the Isle of Dogs on the afternoon and evening of Monday, July 30; whether the flooding was chiefly due to the fact that the capacity of the main sewers proved insufficient to take off the water; and, what steps the Board proposes to take in order to prevent the recurrence of such a calamity?
  COLONEL HUGHES(who replied) said: The flooding in the Isle of Dogs on Monday was due to the torrential storm of rain which occurred on the evening of that day, and at a time when

  1701
  the tide was rising; under quite different conditions, therefore, from the flooding on the 26th of June last, about which the hon. Member asked a Question at the time. Both the temporary engines were working their hardest the whole time, all the engineers, stokers, and flap-keepers being on the spot, and everything that was possible having been done by them. I am quite unable to say what steps the Board can take to effectually meet such a great emergency as that of last Monday. The matter will require much consideration.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked, if the Board would take the matter into consideration, in order to see if the floods could not be prevented in future?
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, they would have great pleasure in doing so. The difficulty was that the basement of many of these houses was below high-water mark.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—COUNTY DOWN RAILWAY SERVANTS' PROVIDENT SOCIETY.
  THE LORD MAYOR or DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been given to Rule 12 of the Rules of the Belfast and County Down Railway Servants' Provident Society, established 1st July, 1888, which directs that—
  "All persons at present in the service of the Company, being males, in receipt of wages, shall become members of this Society, and also all such persons hereafter entering the service of the Company;"
  whether Rule 3 directs that each member shall submit to a certain deduction from his wages; whether the Registrar of Friendly Societies has refused to sign the Rules; and, whether the imposition of such Rules upon any servant of the Company against his will is legal?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, this was a Question for the Treasury.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he had put it upon the Paper three times, and he would be glad to know who would answer it.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I answered a Question a few days ago upon this subject. My answer was that the Registrar of Friendly Societies had
  1702
  refused to sign the Rules; and I think the hon. Member will see that a Society whose Rules have not been certified by the Registrar is in no sense under his control, and he has no power over it.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I will ask the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to prevent an open violation of the Truck Act?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not gather from the Question that there was any violation of the Truck Act; but if there is the Inspector will look into it and report.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not a violation of the Truck Act to make a considerable deduction from the wages of the men?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Not necessarily. I have recently had to decide that point in a London case. Fines are not illegal.
  MR. SEXTON: I do not refer to fines. I will put another Question to-morrow.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND)—THE LORD LIEUTENANT'S COUNTY DOWN TENANTRY.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has served a writ of summons on his tenant, Mr. Hugh Ferguson, Chairman of the New tow nards Board of Guardians, for recovery of one and a-half years' old rent up to May 1 last, notwithstanding that Mr. Ferguson is entitled to the benefit of the fair rent from May, 1887, and that the Lord Lieutenant's County Down tenantry usually paid their rents only once a year, and were never called upon to pay a half year's rent; whether Mr. Ferguson offered to pay his rent less a reduction similar to that given to Mr. John Boyd, a tenant on the same estate, and his offer was replied to by the service of a writ of summons for the recovery of the old rent; whether, on the County Down estates of the Marquess of Down-shire, Baron Trevor, Colonel Fordo, Lord Annesley, and the Lord Lieutenant, upwards of 1,200 applications to fix fair rents were made before November 1, 1887, thus entitling the tenants to the benefit of the fair rents from May 1, 1887; whether he is aware that these landlords have since then exacted payment of the old rents; whether, in County Down alone, upwards of 3,000 of these applications made before November 1 last are

  1703
  still unheard, and the general practice has been to exact the old rents from the tenants; whether on the estate of Mr. Joseph Harvey, County Wexford, decrees were obtained by the landlord at Ross County Court for recovery of the year's old rent, besides costs, in cases where the tenants were entitled to the benefit of the fair rent for the entire year; whether, on the estate of Elizabeth Maybury, in County Cork, Patrick Moroney, of Goggin's Hill, Ballinhassig, whose rent is £116, and gross Poor Law valuation £58, made application to the Land Commission to fix his fair rent on September 24 last, which entitled him to the benefit of the fair rent for the year running from March 25, 1887; whether a writ of summons was served on the tenant on May 11 last for the year's old rent due on March 25 last; whether an offer to pay a fair rent on account pending the fixing of a fair rent was rejected by the landlord; whether notice to have judgment marked on June 11 last was served on the tenant; whether, notwithstanding the production of doctors' certificates, and affidavits made by his wife, his solicitor, and the parish priest who attended him, that the tenant was dangerously ill and unfit to make affidavit to defend the action, judgment for the whole rent and enormous costs was obtained against the tenant, who died a few days afterwards; and, what relief he proposes to give to the tenants in these cases, and in hundreds of similar cases which can be supplied to him, where landlords are stringently exacting payment of the old rents?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: I understand that it is the case that Mr. Ferguson received last month a writ of summons for one and a-half years' rent, he having refused to pay the years' rent to November, 1887, unless it was reduced to 14 s. an acre, making it about £37 instead of about £62 a-year. The agent offered to reduce it to £1 an acre, which would be £53 a-year. He further pointed out that he required payment of one year's rent, only the additional half-year having been included as a matter of form; and that, as Mr. Ferguson must be well aware, there was no analogy between his case and Boyd's, the latter's land being of much poorer quality. With regard to Paragraphs 3,
  1704
  4, and 5, it is stated that there are about 993 fair rent applications which were made on the estates of the land owners named prior to November 1, 1887, together with many others on other estates in the County Down, which have yet to be heard. The old rents are being generally collected, though not in all cases, on the understanding that when the judicial rent has been fixed, the tenants shall be refunded the amount of any deduction made. On the estate of Mr. Harvey two tenants who had applied to have judicial rents fixed, and whose cases have not yet been heard, were applied to for a half-year's rent to September 29, 1887. They took no notice of the application. The landlord then obtained decrees against them for the year's rent to March 25, 1888, the County Court Judge ordering the half-year's rent to September to be fixed in May, and the half-year to March in October next. The landlord gave these tenants 15 per cent reduction on the half-year's rent so paid in May, and he states that he did not charge them with costs. With regard to Paragraphs 7 and 11, there does not appear to have been any tenant named Patrick Moroney on Mrs. Maybury's estate; but, assuming that it relates to the case of Patrick Loomey (now deceased), it appears that a writ of summons had been issued against him while the hearing of the application made by him in September last to have a judicial rent fixed was still pending. The widow is not aware that judgment, with costs, was obtained—if so, her solicitor has not informed her. She is of opinion that the case will come before the Land Commission to fix a fair rent. As regards the last paragraph of the Question, I have to point out that the Act of last year makes the reduction of rent retrospective, and entitles the tenant to deduct from the accruing rent any sums paid by him in excess of the reduced rent.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—GRAND JURIES.
  MR. D. SULLIVANasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, What quorum is necessary when a Grand Jury is deciding in fiscal matters; and, can a presentment be passed by a majority which is not 12 or more?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I assume, from the Question of the hon. Member, that the legality of some particular action on the part of some Grand Jury is questioned; and I do not think that I ought to give an opinion on a matter which may be the subject-matter of decision in a Court of Law. If the hon. Member will place on the Paper the state of facts to which his Question relates, I will then be able to see whether I can give him an answer.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS—MIXED TRAINS —ACCIDENT ON THE HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true, as stated in The Times, that a serious accident occurred to a mixed train near Kincraig, on the Highland Railway, on Thursday morning last, owing to a goods waggon leaving the rails and pulling other vehicles along with it; whether the train was marshalled with 17 waggons, two vans, and four passenger carriages in that order; whether, in Reports of Inspectors of the Board of Trade on accidents of a similar nature to mixed trains, the attention of Railway Companies has repeatedly been drawn to the serious danger of placing passenger carriages in the rear of waggons; and, whether, having regard to the persistent neglect of the recommendations of the Board of Trade by Railway Companies, especially in Scotland, in this matter of placing goods waggons and trucks first in the marshalling of mixed trains, he will include this matter among those on which he proposes to obtain compulsory powers for the Board next Session?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he had directed an inquiry to be made into the accident. He had no information as to the way in which the train was made up. On the 25th of August a Circular was sent out by the Board of Trade to different Railway Companies, calling attention to the danger of making up mixed trains, and especially when they were made up as in the case named in the Question. He would certainly consider the expediency of obtaining compulsory powers for the Board of Trade with reference to this practice, which, he believed, was by no means uncommon among Railway Companies.
  MR. CHANNINGasked, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the danger of marshalling trains in this way was much increased when a large number of trucks were loaded by the owner and the couplings defective?
  SIR MICHAELITICKS-BEACHsaid, that might be so; but it depended on the condition of the trucks.

  BORNEO—BRITISH PROTECTORATE OVER NORTH BORNEO, SARAWAK, AND BRUNEI.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the statement that a British Protectorate is to be extended over North Borneo, Sarawak, and Brunei; and, whether it is distinctly understood that the Treaty of 1824 does not apply to Borneo?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The question of a British Protectorate over the three States referred to is the subject of negotiations which are not yet completed. It is distinctly held by Her Majesty's Government that the Treaty of 1824 between Great Britain and the Netherlands has no application to Borneo.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Are the negotiations proceeding with Holland?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: No, Sir.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— NEWCASTLE PIER, CO. DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the present state of the harbour at Newcastle, County Down; whether he is aware that the pier is now in ruins, and that it is impossible to bring with safety any vessel into the harbour; and, whether, considering the loss to trade, and the loss and danger to the poor fishermen who live there, he will advise a grant to be given to put into repair the quay of this favourite summer resort?
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this. Before I was dismissed from the Inspectorship of Fisheries by Earl Spencer, at the instigation of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I was carefully considering—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The pier in question was handed over to the Grand Jury in the year 1854. I understand that it was damaged by a storm in the year 1868; but all liability for the expense of repairing it attaches to the Grand Jury.
  COLONEL WARING: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Grand Jury protested against the handing over of the pier in the condition it then was?
  MR. JACKSON: My experience is that Grand Juries, when piers are constructed, object to them being handed over to them.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I wish to say, on my own behalf and on behalf of hon. Friends around me, that I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Johnston) will soon be appointed a Fishery Commissioner again.

  LEASEHOLDS (IRELAND)—PECULIAR CONDITIONS OF LEASES IN CO. DOWN—"ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW."
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that there are certain leases of houses in Castlewellan, County Down, wherein the lessor has provided that if the lessee, his heirs, or assigns harbour or give a night's lodging to an "attorney-at-law," the rent shall be increased to a penal amount therein mentioned; and, whether he will introduce a clause into the Solicitors Bill, to relieve "attorneys-at-law" from such exclusive treatment without exposing the tenants of these houses to the imposition of any such penalty for giving a night's lodging to members of this branch of the Legal Profession?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: I was certainly not aware of the facts referred to by the hon. Member; and I have never, in the course of my professional experience, come across leases containing any clauses at all analogous to those to which he has called attention. As regards the suggestion contained in the second paragraph, I am afraid that parties to leases must be allowed to enter into their own contracts, no matter how peculiar their views may be; and I do not see my way to suggest special legislation dealing with these particular leases.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is it fair to have attorneys Boycotted in this fashion?
  MR. MADDEN: If the hon. Gentleman asks me my private opinion, I say certainly not.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE EMIGRATION CLAUSES.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is a fact, in reference to the clause in the Local Government Bill enabling County Councils to borrow money for the purpose of making advances to promote emigration, that the Government of Victoria has addressed a remonstrance to the Colonial Office, on the Motion of the Honourable Duncan Gillies, Premier of Victoria, warning them against the deportation of paupers to the Colony in question?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said, that no such communication had been received at the Colonial Office.

  PRISON DIETARY—ALLEGED COMPOSITION OF PRISON BREAD.
  MR. H. S. WRIGHTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph which appeared in. The Nottingham Evening News of July 31, headed A chat with a Nottingham Surgeon, in which, referring to the death of Mr. John Mandeville, the writer says:—
  "He proceeded to explain that prison bread is a diabolical concoction of chopped wheat, with the cuticle cut into lance-sharp particles for the purpose of inflaming the internal coatings of the stomachs of unhappy prisoners;"
  and, whether there is any truth in the above allegation and description of prison bread?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: No, Sir; the statement is entirely devoid of foundation.

  PERU AND CHILI—THE PERUVIAN BONDHOLDERS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in a despatch dated February 2 last, the Chilian Government, in reply to written representations made by Mr. Fraser, Her

  1709
  Majesty's Minister resident in Chili, declared that the Government of Chili—
  "Would limit itself, so far as the creditors of Peru are concerned, to faithfully carrying out the Treaty of Peace of October 20, 1883;"
  whether, on February 28 last, Sir Julian Pauncefote addressed a letter to Mr. P. Nickalls, a jobber on the Stock Exchange, to the effect that a telegram had been received from Her Majesty's Minister in Chili reporting that, if the opposition to the Chilian Loan was withdrawn, the Chilian Government will negotiate at once for a settlement of the difficulties arising out of the recent contract between the Committee of Peruvian Bondholders and the Government of Peru, known as the Grace Contract, and, later, as to the other matters in difference in relation to their claims; whether Mr. Fraser was again instructed by the Foreign Office to obtain the withdrawal by the Government of Chili of its objections to certain clauses of the Grace Contract, which the Chilian Government contended were in conflict with the Treaty of Peace between Chili and Peru of October 20, 1883, and, in consequence of Mr. Fraser's appeal, a Protocol was signed in Santiago by Mr. Fraser and Senor Matte, the Chilian Minister for Foreign Affairs, on April 11 last, and whether in the said Protocol it was expressed that Chili required that the Treaty of Peace with Peru be maintained in its integrity; whether Her Majesty's Government has information that the President of Chili, in his Message to Congress, dated June 1 last, stated, with reference to the claims of Peruvian creditors against Chili—
  "That the Representative of Her Britannic Majesty in Chili had put forward a request, and this request decided the Chilian Government to give its final answer on this matter in the despatch of February 2 last;"
  and, whether, in view of this ultimatum, and in view of the serious consequences to British subjects and their interests which will follow any misunderstanding with this friendly Power, Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table of the House all correspondence and documents relating to the matters in question?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The statements referred to in the first three paragraphs of the Question are correct. No copy of the
  1710
  President's Message to Congress has yet reached Her Majesty's Government. There is nothing in the Chilian Note of February 2 to indicate that it was final in its character; and, as a fact, further communications have recently been taking place with the Chilian Government on the subject. In reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) on the 15th of June, he was told that the proposals made by Chili being confidential, they could not be laid on the Table.
  MR. LABOUCHEREinquired, when the Foreign Office would receive the text of the address of the President of Chili?
  Sir JAMES FERGUSSONreplied, that sometimes the newspapers received earlier information by telegraph than did the Foreign Office.
  MR. LABOUCHEREwould point out that this address of the President of Chili was delivered on June 1, and that it could come by post. Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of his Question?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that the hon. Member knew that it was unusual, and would be inconvenient, to lay correspondence upon the Table while the negotiations were going on—and they were going on.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked if, when the address was received, it should appear that the President's decision was final, the negotiations would still go on?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the question had passed through many phases, and it had entered upon a new phase since the address was delivered.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS—ACCOMMODATION FOR PRISONERS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Wills, in his recent Memorandum as to the accommodation for prisoners in the Metropolitan Police Courts, to the effect that the accommodation is wholly insufficient to protect children and respectable women, who may in many cases have been arrested in error, and ought never to have been detained, from exposure to the most degrading companionship and moral contamination; and, whether he will, at the earliest moment, take steps

  1711
  to secure separate accommodation for child prisoners, and to carry out the recommendation of Mr. Justice Wills that—
  "At Courts where many women are brought up every day in the year, there should be some provision for the effectual separation of the sexes, and for the custody of women by a warder of their own sex, as well as some possible escape for respectable people, who may be innocent, from intolerable humiliation and torture?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have stated more than once in this House what steps I am taking to carry out the recommendations of Mr. Justice Wills, and of the Committee over which he presided, as to accommodation for prisoners in the Metropolitan Police Courts. The Report was no sooner published than I placed myself without delay in communication with the various authorities, by whose agency a better accommodation for prisoners awaiting trial could be secured. The particular recommendations referred to in the Question, with regard to the better protection and accommodation of children and women, are now being urged forward by me with a view to their being carried as far as possible into effect.

  WAR OFFICE—EDUCATIONALATTAINMENTS OF NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an order has lately been issued to the effect that all Battery Sergeant Majors, Quartermaster Sergeants, Colour Sergeants of Infantry, and Troop Sergeant Majors of Cavalry, who are not in possession of a first-class certificate for educational attainments, are to be considered ineligible for further promotion; and, whether a second-class certificate has hitherto been regarded as sufficient; and, if so, what is the reason for the change?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Hitherto it has been the rule to require a second-class certificate of education on promotion to Sergeant, and no higher test has been demanded for subsequent promotion. Now, however, the ranks of Warrant Officer and Quartermaster sergeant carry such advantages and have such duties that, considering the
  1712
  general state of education in the country, it has been thought that a higher standard might fairly be required for promotion to those ranks. It is also hoped that the Regulation may induce better educated men to enter the Army. Accordingly, from the beginning of 1889 the first-class certificate will he required. This will give candidates time to prepare. I may add that the test is only about equivalent to Standard VII. in the Board Schools, which many boys reach before the ago of 14.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—INCREASE OF THE FORCE AT DOOMBEG, CO. CLARE.
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, since July 1 last, the number of the police force at Doombeg, County Clare, has been increased to nine; if at the suppression of the National League the number was increased from five to eight; if the sergeant of the force at Doombeg swore at the Petty Sessions at Kilkee that his district was perfectly quiet and peaceable; if no crime or outrage has been committed in Doombeg parish for the past five or six years; if, on June 30, four or five of this extra force got drunk in barracks; if the sergeant and three of the men had a free fight; if this row was reported to the authorities by the sergeant; and, if so, has any investigation been held in reference thereto; and, if the Government will make inquiries into these allegations, and, if true, will they reduce the police force there to the normal numbers?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The District Inspector of the country reports that no increase whatever has been made in the number of the police force at Doombeg since July 1. Two men were added in November, 1887, and one in February, 1888, making a total of eight, at which the number at present stands. He is not aware that the sergeant made at Kilkee Petty Sessions any such statement as that ascribed to him. Within the past five and a-half years 16 outrages have been reported from Doombeg; and in the present year extensive preparations were made for violent resistance to the Sheriff. He believed there is no ground for the allegation that the men miscon-

  1713
  ducted themselves on June 30. He was at the station himself on the following day and saw no trace of any such occurrence, nor was there any Report made to him on the subject. He is of opinion that the present number of men there is absolutely necessary.

  IRELAND—SUNDAY LABOUR IN BAKERIES—EVASION OF THE LAW.
  MR. NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated by the Amalgamated Operative Bakers of the various Trades Unions in Ireland, in a Petition presented to this House on July 12, that the law relating to Sunday labour in bakeries is rendered inoperative in Dundalk and other towns in Ireland, owing to the fact that the onus of setting it in motion rests with the operatives, who can only take action at the risk of instant dismissal from their employment; and, if so, whether the Government can do anything to keep this law from remaining a dead letter in many towns in Ireland?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: From the Reports before me it appears that the law relating to Sunday labour in bakeries has been violated in Dundalk, and in certain other towns in Ireland. The Government will consider what steps should be taken to enforce the provisions of the Act.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— ROSSLARE HARBOUR, WEXFORD.
  MR. J. BARRYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the Treasury has decided to take any action on the recommendation made by the recent Royal Commission in reference to the completion of Rosslare Harbour, County Wexford; whether his attention has been drawn to the Resolution passed by the Grand Jury at the late Assizes, urging the necessity for speedily granting a small amount of Government aid to prevent a stoppage of the works at Rosslare, which would lead to the closing of the railway between Rosslare and Wexford, and would involve great loss and inconvenience to the country and to the town of Wexford; and, whether he is aware that the large sum of money (over £200,000) already ex-
  1714
  pended, and a portion of which was raised locally, on the understanding that the Government would complete the harbour, will be practically lost unless Government aid is at once forthcoming to finish the works?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, the facts were as stated in the Question of the hon. Gentleman. General Sankey, of the Irish Board of Works, had been at Rosslare; and he (Mr. Goschen) saw him on Friday last, when he reported on the condition of the harbour, and the necessary expenditure which might be required. The hon. Member was probably aware that when the Royal Commission which had recently inquired into the question of Irish Public Works reported on this harbour, they recommended the amalgamation of the Rosslare and Wexford Harbour Boards. The Government regarded this amalgamation as a sine quâ non for any assistance to Rosslare; and it would be for hon. Members and others to exercise their influence to promote this amalgamation.
  MR. BARRYasked, whether, while the Treasury was considering the larger question of dealing with the harbour, it would be possible to make a small grant for the purpose of continuing the works, which otherwise would be stopped within a few days?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, as soon as the Treasury knew there was a disposition to promote the amalgamation they would be prepared to make a grant; he was quite aware of the urgency of the matter, and it was engaging the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

  VENEZUELA—DECLINE OF TRADE.
  MR. WATT, asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that the total actual export trade from Trinidad to Venezuela showed a falling off for 1887 of nearly 50 per cent as compared with 1885, or nearly 70 per cent. as compared with 1884, declining from £102,145 sterling to £33,816 sterling; whether the value of goods "in transit" (not amenable to the 30 per cent. additional duty) was included in the amount recently stated; whether, in 1884, when the additional duty was temporarily taken off, food stuffs exported to Venezuela increased by nearly £30,000 value

  1715
  —namely, from £72,566 to £102,145 sterling; whether the Government have received the Returns for the first six months of the present year; and, if so, whether the amount is less than that of the previous six months; and, whether having regard to the disastrous results which must ensue to the West Indian Colonies from further delay in arriving at an arrangement with Venezuela in relation to the various questions now in dispute, Her Majesty's Government can hold out any hopes of a speedy settlement being arrived at?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: From a Return furnished by the Government statist, the figures quoted in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question appear to be correct. The answer to the second and third paragraphs is in the affirmative. The Returns for the first six months of the present year have not been received. All negociations with Venezuela have been suspended, in consequence of the interruption of diplomatic relations by the late President Guzman Blanco; and no overtures for their resumption have been received from the new President.

  POOR LAW AND MEDICAL CHARITIES ACTS (IRELAND)—PENSIONS TO MEDICAL OFFICERS OF UNIONS, &c.
  DR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether pensions are ever granted, or can legally be granted, to medical officers of unions or dispensaries in Ireland under the Poor Law or Medical Charities Acts for other reasons than physical or mental incapacity, or length of service and age; whether Dr. O'Connor, medical officer of the Ballycastle (County Antrim) Union and Ballycastle Dispensary, has recently resigned the latter office, and has been granted a pension of £98 per annum and allowed to retain the former office; on what grounds did he receive the pension on resignation of his dispensary; and, if there is any precedent for the course pursued in Dr. O'Connor's case—namely, of being allowed to resign and receive a pension for one office, and being allowed to retain the other?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The grounds upon which medical officers of workhouses and dispensary districts may be superannuated are correctly stated in the Question. Dr. O'Connor's superannuation allowance has not yet come before the Local Government Board for their consent; but they understand the arrangement set forth in the Question has been made. The Board are not yet aware of the precise grounds upon which Dr. O'Connor was superannuated. As regards the dispensary, the course mentioned is not unprecedented; but the Board would require very full information before they consented to it, and Dr. O'Connor's case will be fully considered when the matter comes officially before them.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART (IRELAND)—PROFESSOR M'NAB'S LABORATORY AT GLASNEVIN, DUBLIN.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the case that much additional space is required in Professor M'Nab's laboratory at Glasnevin; and, whether, in consequence of the annual increase of students and the inconvenience occasioned because of the limited space afforded, steps will be immediately taken to remedy the requirements of the case?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, that until recently there had been sufficient accommodation; but the number of students was increasing, and he was informed that his right hon. Friend (Sir William Hart Dyke) would see that steps were taken in consequence.
  DR. TANNERasked, Whether the providing of additional space had not been recommended in the last two Reports, so that the want was one of long standing.
  MR. JACKSONventured to say that that was the case. He understood that attention would be given to the matter.

  NAVY—SCOTCH COAL.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What progress is being made with the trial of Scotch coal already sent for the Navy; and, whether the

  1717
  Admiralty will avail themselves of the present Naval Manœuvres, and the presence of a portion of the Fleet in Scotch waters, to still further test the capabilities of Scotch coal?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY)(who replied) said, all the trials of Scotch coal had shown that it was not so well suited for use in the ships of the Navy as Welsh coal. One of its defects was density of smoke, which was a serious disadvantage in Naval Manœuvres, when it was the object of contending Fleets to keep their movements as secret as possible.

  STREET IMPROVEMENTS (METROPOLIS).
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether notices connected with any Bill to acquire property for street improvements in London during the next Session of Parliament require to be given by November next; and whether, as the London County Council cannot give such notices, he will consider the propriety of bringing before the Metropolitan Board of Works the desirability of drawing up a scheme of street improvement for next year and giving the necessary notices, although its powers and duties for carrying it into effect will have expired, or whether he will consider some other arrangement whereby street improvements next year may be effected?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): In the case of a Bill to be promoted during the next Session of Parliament, conferring powers of compulsory purchase of property for street improvements in London, it is necessary that the notices should be given in November next. As regards any scheme of street improvement for which there is an urgent necessity, it does not at present appear to me that there would be anything to preclude the Metropolitan Board of Works from giving the necessary notices; although it would, of course, rest with the County Council of London, as the successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works, to determine whether they would proceed with any measure which the Metropolitan Board of Works might introduce.

  POST OFFICE—POST OFFICE TRAVELLING VANS.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is about to make any further arrangements for facilitating the transfer of letters directly from the railway station pillar boxes to the railway Post Office travelling vans; and, whether there is any, and what, reason why the system for this purpose, which has been successfully in operation on the Continent for many years past, should not be adopted in this country?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, a Departmental Committee had recently been inquiring into the subject of extra postal facilities, including the matter mentioned in the Question, and he hoped very shortly to be able to announce their decision.

  THE MITCHELSTOWN RIOT (SEPTEMBER, 1887)—THE INQUEST—THE SHORTHAND WRITER'S REPORT.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, in view of the extracts from the Departmental Inquiry into the shooting of three men at Mitchelstown on September 9 last now furnished to Members of this House, the Government will also furnish Members with copies of the shorthand writer's report of the proceedings at the inquest held at Mitchelstown containing the sworn evidence of the officials present at the proceedings of September 9?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has already stated, in reply to former Questions, that the Government cannot consent to lay on the Table the documents referred to. I may add that the hon. Member appears to put his Question under a misapprehension. No extract whatever from the Departmental Inquiry has been presented to the House.
  MR. ROWNTREE: May I ask if the paper showing the diagram of Mitchelstown Square and the police barracks is not an extract from the Departmental Report?
  MR. MADDEN: No; I am informed that it is not.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)— COLLECTION OF COUNTY CESS.
  MR. FINUCANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the county cess in Ireland is nominally collected by men who are known by the name of barony constables, who are paid by a poundage rate of 1s. in the £1 in 17 counties and of 9d. in the other 15; whether he is aware that the taxes are actually collected by deputies who receive, on an average, about 4d. in the £1, and who are required to give ample security, equal in nearly all cases to that given by the baronial constables; and, if he will introduce a Bill at the earliest opportunity so to amend the Grand Jury Laws as to enable the farmers to save £30,000 a-year, which is now voted by the Grand Juries for the payment of these barony constables, by providing a more economical mode of collecting county cess in Ireland?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: I have no information as to the matters of fact referred to in this Question, Grand Juries not being under the control of the Executive Government. With regard to the last paragraph, the Government cannot undertake, in the present time and in the present state of Public Business, to approach the question of the legislation suggested by the hon. Member.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, whether the Government would, at an early date, facilitate a Bill for the purpose of giving the Local Government Board power, through its auditors, to inspect the accounts of the Grand Juries, and surcharge them in cases of excessive expenditure?
  MR. MADDENsaid, no doubt the matter would receive careful consideration.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked, whether several of these collectors getting this high poundage had not, as in a particular case in Kerry, neglected to prosecute landlords who were their relatives when those landlords failed to pay the cess?
  MR. MADDENsaid, he had no information on the subject.

  GOLD AND SILVER CURRENCY COMMISSION—THE REPORT.
  MR. SUMMERS(for Mr. S. SMITH)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the long time that the Currency Commission has been sitting, to the great importance of the questions submitted to it, and to the serious financial consequences to India of the continued depression in the exchanges, he will give the House some assurance that the Report will be issued before the House adjourns for the Recess?
  MR. F. HARDCASTLEasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman can hold out any hope that the Report of the Currency Commission will be presented to the House before the Adjournment?
  CAPTAIN COTTONasked, if the right hon. Gentleman is able to give the House any information as to when the Report of the Gold and Silver Commission is likely to be presented; and, whether it may be expected before the close of the Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he had communicated with the Chairman of the Commission. He had his authority to say that, although a long time had elapsed since the Commission had been appointed, the question being of an extremely intricate character, it was not possible to arrive at an early conclusion. They hoped to be able to report in the course of the next two months.

  DEAN AND CHAPTER OF WESTMINSTER—STATUE OF THE LATE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is a fact, as stated in the newspapers, that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, after having offered to place a statue of the late Earl of Shaftesbury in Westminster Abbey, required the payment, in the first instance, of £400, and afterwards of £250, for the privilege of permitting its erection; whether this demand has hitherto had the effect of preventing the erection of the statue; and, whether he will consider the propriety of amending the Westminster Abbey Act, so as to render

  1721
  the demand of such fees in the future illegal?
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the propriety of amending the Westminster Abbey Act, so as to prevent the erection of any more statues in the Abbey and the consequent disfigurement of the interior of the church?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I cannot give the right hon. Member for Whitehaven the assurance which he desires. No doubt the Abbey is extremely crowded, but I understand that the Dean and Chapter now exercise considerable discretion with regard to the erection of additional monuments. I have no reason to doubt that the allegations contained in the Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Summers) are correct; but in the absence of the Dean of Westminster from England I am not in a position to make any authoritative statement on the question. I am, however, informed that the customary fees for the erection of statues in the Abbey are applied in aid of the Fabric Fund; and I do not think I should be justified in asking Parliament to prohibit such contributions from being obtained for the maintenance and repair of the Abbey, as has been the practice from time immemorial.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether the First Lord would not suggest to the authorities of the Abbey that it would be as well to wait for a little time after the death of an individual before placing his bust in the Abbey, seeing that there was no power of real discrimination as to the enduring merits of any person until some years after his death?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The duties of the Government are sufficiently onerous as they are. I would be stepping beyond my duty if I sought to interfere with the discretion which, I think, has been well exercised by the authorities of the Abbey.

  RELEASE OF MR. DILLON AND OTHER MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will afford facilities for bringing on a Motion for which Notice has been given, and now stands for Monday next,
  1722
  for moving for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen, praying Her to order the release of Mr. John Dillon and other Members of Parliament now imprisoned in Ireland? The hon. Gentleman stated that the Motion had originally been put down for last Thursday, and had been adjourned until that evening.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see that it is not in my power to offer the facilities he asks for.
  MR. DILLWYN: I wish to express my regret at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the great interest which the matter excites in England and Wales, and I shall take an early opportunity, if I possibly can, of bringing it before the House.

  THE TITHE RENTCHARGE RECOVERY AND VARIATION BILL—THE CORN AVERAGES COMMITTEE.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now give the House any assurance that the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery and Variation Bill will not be taken until the Committee on Corn Averages has made its Report?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he desires, as I remain of opinion that, whatever may be the Report of the Corn Averages Committee, it is necessary, in the public interest, that the Tithe Bills should be passed.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL—MR. BUCKLE, OF THE "TIMES."
  MR. CLANCY(for Mr. T. M. HEALY,)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Mr. Buckle, editor of The Times, came to see him in reference to the allegations against Members, along with the proprietor of that journal, or separately; and, what were the date or dates of the interviews?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated on Thursday last, at my request, that I had not seen Mr. Buckle at all with reference to this subject.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now inform the House what course the Government intend to take with respect to the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, the Government would have been very glad if they could have seen their way to have disposed of the Bill before the close of the present Sitting of the House. He agreed that the discussion in the Standing Committee ought to lead the House to expect that a comparatively short discussion of the Report would be necessary in the House; but it had been represented to the Government that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members who took an interest in the question, and especially to those who were known as Labour Representatives, if the measure were postponed until November. On the responsibility of those hon. Members, and to meet their wishes, the Government had consented to adopt that course.

  GRANTS TO MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY—THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Advisers have yet completed their Report on the subject of Royal Grants?
  MR. SUMMERSasked, when the Government intend to redeem the pledge repeatedly given that a Select Committee would be appointed to inquire into the subject of Royal Grants?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The communications that are passing between Her Majesty's Advisers and Her Majesty on the subject of Royal grants have not yet been concluded; but I hope to be in a position to make a statement to the House on the subject in the early part of the next Session.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman did not announce some weeks ago that a Report had been presented to Her Majesty on the subject?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that was the case; but the communications between Her Majesty and her Advisers were still proceeding.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE SMALL HOLDINGS COMMITTEE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can explain why, after the Small Holdings Committee was appointed on the Motion of the Government, no steps have been taken to call it together, and enable it to decide whether it is to meet in the autumn or to attempt to do anything in the present Session of Parliament; if steps will now be taken to bring together the Members of the Committee; and, with whom it rests to take the initiative?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Small Holdings Committee was appointed at such a late date in the Session that it was useless for them to meet for the examination of witnesses; but I am informed that the Committee will meet this week for the appointment of a Chairman.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government will consider whether the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill might possibly be settled, and the waste of a day saved, by applying to the other burghs the provisions of section 15, by which the larger burghs are enabled to adopt the Act, in whole or in part, at their option?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill is a Consolidation Bill, and it would be most unsatisfactory to give it a permissive character, and thus perpetuate differences of constitution and administration in Scotch burghs.
  MR. WALLACEasked, whether the First Lord of the Treasury still persisted in his intention to compel Scotch Members to consider a Bill of the vast dimensions of the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill on Wednesday; and whether he would not consent to take the Bail (Scotland) Bill on Wednesday and the

  1725
  rest of the time for his own purposes, and give the Scotch Members an assurance, upon which he was sure they would all gladly rely, that in the autumn he would give them a real, good Scotch week, if necessary all to themselves, in order that they might be able to work off their Bills in a decent, reasonable, and Christian fashion?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would be exceedingly sorry to force hon. Members from Scotland to consider any measure, if they were not themselves in the great majority desirous to do so. He was told that that was the case; but the hon. Member would have an opportunity on Wednesday to make his protest; and if it should turn out that that protest was shared in by the great majority of Scotch Members, certainly the Government would not insist upon proceeding with the Bill on Wednesday. But an opportunity would be afforded on Wednesday to pass a measure which, he understood, was very much desired, and which was mainly of a consolidating character.
  In reply to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Bail (Scotland) Bill would be put down first on Wednesday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BRYCEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he proposed to proceed with the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill before the adjournment?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he hoped to be able to do so.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked, when it was proposed to proceed with the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, which had come down with three Amendments from the House of Lords?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped it might be taken to-morrow.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANdesired to know whether the County Courts Consolidation and Amendment Bill would be proceeded with?
  MR. W. H. SMITHreplied in the affirmative.
  In reply to Mr. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside),
  Mr. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped to be able to deal with the Sea Fisheries
  1726
  Regulation Bill and the Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Bill before the end of the Session.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was true, as had been reported, that in the event of the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill being passed, the inquiry would not be commenced until the beginning of November?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have received no intimation at all, Sir, on that matter. If the Bill is passed, it will rest with the Judges themselves to settle what course they will take.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, if it was true that Mr. Justice Day had resigned; and, if so, whom it was proposed to put in his place?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no information upon that point.

MOTION.
  REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES (IRELAND) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the registration of Assurances, and to provide for the registration of other Acts, Instruments, and matters affecting land in Ireland."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): May I ask whether this Bill will enable a person living in Ireland to ascertain whether his life has been insured or not? I may be pardoned for asking the Question, because I happen to represent Belfast, which is a rather lively place for a politician; and I am informed, also, that during my recent illness some persons took the opportunity to insure my life at a temptingly high figure.
    MR. MADDENreplied that this Bill referred only to the insurance of landed property, and not to the subject in which the hon. Member was so much interested.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland and Mr. Arthur Balfour.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 369.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY [3RD AUGUST].—REPORT.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th August],
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, That a further sum, not exceeding £7,712,800, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1889."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. WALLACEsaid, that he had hoped for a satisfactory statement from the First Lord of the Treasury with regard to Scotch Business, which would have made any further remarks of his unnecessary.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he hoped the hon. Member would understand that he had not intended to be guilty of any want of courtesy to him. He had not made a statement because he did not wish to interfere with the continuation of the hon Gentleman's speech.
    MR. WALLACEsaid, he would not for a moment imagine that the First Lord of the Treasury would willingly be discourteous to anyone, nor did he expect that the right hon. Gentleman would have risen before he (Mr. Wallace) resumed his speech. What he was referring to was an answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to a Question he put to him with respect to Scotch Business. He had hoped that the nature of that answer would have been such that it would have been unnecessary for him to continue his remarks; but unhappily they were not in that position. Hon. Members would, perhaps, recollect that on Saturday he was engaged in a few preliminary observations with the view of showing the humiliating condition into which Scotch Business
    1728
    had fallen. It was no pleasure to him to obtrude himself upon the House. He was not one of those who obtruded his opinions frequently upon the House; in fact, he considered that men who spoke in the House without having something to say in the interest of their constituencies were public nuisances. Therefore, for his own part, he would not speak except upon the impulse of some duty, either to truth at large or to the constituency which he had the honour to represent. He thought, however, he would carry with him the concurrence of his Scotch Colleagues when he said that with respect to this matter of Scotch Business they could not any more be silent. He assured the House that the public of Scotland were getting exceedingly angry and impatient on this subject. He did not think he, for one, could go back and face the Scottish public unless he attempted to represent their feelings in the matter. It was as much as his place was worth, to speak colloquially, not to express the opinion of his constituents and the Scotch public. Expressions not loud but deep were daily being made use of towards the Scotch Representatives in connection with this matter. He did not want to introduce to the House such expressions as "muffs," "duffers," "humbugs," or "cowards." These were shabby phrases in themselves, and as the First Lord of the Treasury would say, they did not contribute to the dignity of the House; but, in spite of that, they were in daily use with respect to Scotch Members in connection with the timidity and subservience and want of manliness and courage which it was alleged they were displaying in not standing up more stoutly for a proper share of legislative time. It was undeniable that for years and years Scotland had been, he would not say defrauded of, but been compelled to go without a share of the legislative time of the House, and he took it upon himself to say that a very large number of the Scotch Members were on this occasion resolved to enter into the matter with far greater amplitude of argument and completeness of statement than he could pretend to employ. He thought that towards the conclusion of his humble reflections on Saturday he succeeded to some extent in showing that Scotch Business, upon a minute and careful arithmetical calcula-

    1729
    tion, had a right to at least three full weeks of the legislative time of the Session; yet the First Lord of the Treasury, either under or against the advice of his Scotch advisers, had offered a few hours at the fag end of a Wednesday afternoon, and his offer, small as it was, was conditioned by the question whether the Irish General Commission of Inquiry into Most Things under the Sun Bill would be finished on Tuesday evening. His humble contention was that that was not only unjust to the Scotch Members, but insulting to the Scotch nation, and, he ventured to say, to the common sense of mankind at large. It was utterly impossible to consider even the initial stages of the Burgh Police Bill in so short a time. That Bill was a great structure. It contained almost as much matter as a volume of the Encyclopœdia Britannica, and as complicated in some respects in its construction as these volumes usually were. He knew very well what would be said if the Resolution of the First Lord were carried out. He knew what English newspapers would say. The so-called comic papers would talk of "a day lost in a Scotch mist." They would become sarcastic about cockie-leekie and bagpipes as if they supposed these substances differed not in kind, but only in degree. What were they to do in such circumstances? Finding themselves in the position of being ill-used by the Government and their Supporters, the Scotch Members must fix the blame on someone. The official on whom they should fix the blame was not the First Lord of the Treasury, because, dissatisfied as they were with his treatment of them, that right hon. Gentleman was in the hands of others. Unfortunately, they never saw the Secretary for Scotland. His knowledge of Lord Lothian was principally by reputation and not by personal observation. He was aware that he was a good business man when he was allowed to do business in his own way. He was also a courteous Gentleman, as a matter of course; but what good was that to them? The Secretary for Scotland did not sit in this House, in the place where Scotland was to a certain extent represented, and the Scotch Members could not give him a bit of their minds in the place where it was proper that he should get it. The very fact of his being a Member of the
    1730
    Peerage made it difficult for Scottish Members to perform their duties in that matter. There were one or two Lords he liked, but generally, in the abstract, he hated Lords. He did not want them because they cost him a great deal of trouble, both mentally, morally, and corporeally, as the genuflexion, the bated breath, and the whispering humbleness necessary to approach them was a painful process and rather a tax on his constitution. The necessary absence of the Secretary for Scotland from that House, owing to the fact that he was a Member of the Peerage, was distasteful to the Scotch Members because they could not in his absence begin to abuse or criticize unfavourably that affable but ineffectual nobleman. The consequence was that they must fall back on what he might call the whipping boy of the Secretary for Scotland—he meant the Lord Advocate. He must also in this connection throw in, in point of form, the Solicitor General for Scotland, but there was not much whipping in him. The Lord Advocate would amply suffice for that purpose. He must not be understood to speak of the Lord Advocate personally in the matter, except in the most pleasant manner of which he was capable, but in his public capacity the Lord Advocate would no doubt take as he gave very heartily. In respect, then, of the Lord Advocate's conduct of Scottish Business, he had not only a great responsibility, but he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a good deal of blame attaching to him. He thought the Lord Advocate in this matter had studied too deeply the maxim, "That the man is wise who speaks little." That was a valuable maxim, but in connection with Scotch Business it seemed to him that the Lord Advocate was a trifle too wise. The Lord Advocate occasionally gave the Scotch Members what he called a touch of the rough side of his tongue; why did he not in the same way give a taste of his quality to the First Lord of the Treasury and let the First Lord understand the exact nature of his "unruly" Member in that particular? He was not going to allude very particularly to the emoluments of the Lord Advocate, or appeal to the fact that the Lord Advocate was well paid for the work he did or possibly did

    1731
    not do, because he was perfectly sure the Lord Advocate was amenable to higher considerations. But those were matters which occurred to his meaner intelligence, and it had also occurred to him to make a little calculation in the way of comparing the emoluments with the utterances of the Lord Advocate in this House on Scottish Business. Dividing his income by his outcome, he found that, almost as exactly as could be, he cost them about half-a-crown a word or a shilling for every second syllable, so that it might literally be said of him as was said of a still more distinguished compatriot of his and theirs in the last century who came up to London, that when in London, and especially in Parliament, he could not open his lips or move his mouth but "bang went six-pence." He thought that if the Lord Advocate would give them the assistance of his extremely valuable speech they might be in a better position. Why should the Lord Advocate be so afraid of the First Lord of the Treasury? Why should he shrink from telling the First Lord what the rights of Scotland were in this matter? Why should he not, in language that had now become classic, "Make it hot for old Smith and Co.?" Why should he not take a leaf out of the book of the famous Roman Emperor who, whenever he saw the unfortunate general, kept saying to him "Oh, Varus, where are my legions?" Why should not the Lord Advocate, in the Lobbies, in the dining rooms, or even in Society, buttonhole the First Lord whenever he saw him, hold him "with his glittering eye" and din into his ears, "Oh, First Lord, where are my three weeks, where is my fortnight?" as the case might be. He ventured to suggest to the Lord Advocate to consider whether he could not with profit and advantage to his country play the part of the importunate widow with the Unjust Judge in the parable. The Lord Advocate was well acquainted with that case. Why should he not badger the First Lord, deal with him to such a degree that at last the First Lord, in desperation, would be compelled to say, "Although I neither fear God nor regard man, yet because this Lord Advocate troubleth me I will arise and give him his three weeks." If he were the Lord Advocate he would not give the First Lord the life of a dog. He would make the
    1732
    right hon. Gentleman's existence a burden to him until he came down handsomely on the question of time for Scotch Business. While they were doing their best to ask the Lord Advocate to prevail on the First Lord to deal with them justly, he knew that they could only do that for a short time, because they were going to lose the Lord Advocate. He was not to be long with them. An arrangement had been entered into by which a distinguished Peer and Judge in Scotland was to vacate the presidency of one of the law divisions in the Court of Session.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): This matter has been alluded to in this House before, and I have never taken notice of it hitherto; but I have to say now that there is not one word of foundation for the statement the hon. Gentleman is making. I do not expect if I leave this House it will be under any arrangement with any person or set of persons whatever.
    MR. WALLACEsaid, he had not stated it was an arrangement between the Lord Advocate and anybody. He said it was an arrangement which was going to take place, and prophecy was as open to him as to the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate had misrepresented him entirely. He did not say it was an arrangement with any person. He was simply going to state what was going to take place, and what he thought and believed was going to take place. The point which the Lord Advocate had taken up was, of course, unintentionally leading the House on a false issue.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: If the hon. Member did not state that an arrangement had been made, then I apologise for having interrupted him at all; but he distinctly said that an arrangement had been made.
    MR. WALLACEsaid, he had stated that an arrangement had been made, but he did not say that an arrangement had been made of which the Lord Advocate had any knowledge or with which he had any personal connection. He was most careful in his statement. He was only predicting that they were going to lose the Lord Advocate by an arrangement made by other people; but the more fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not know what was going to happen, did not pre-

    1733
    vent them from saying what was going to happen. His knowledge was not to be measured by the Lord Advocate's ignorance. It was the most infantile fallacy than any reasonable being could be called upon to consider, but since he saw it was painful to the Lord Advocate to contemplate the possibility of his being taken from among them, he would not refer further to the subject. He was going to refer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's departure with pain and regret in consequence of the many losses there would be in connection with public life in Scotland, though it was his duty here to accuse him of certain deficiencies. It was the most singular experience he had had almost either in public or private life to find the Lord Advocate contemplated his own promotion with pain and resentment. There was another person that they had a right to make responsible in this connection, and that was a Gentleman who, unfortunately, was not present, for he would have been too pleased to deal with him in his presence. He referred to the Solicitor General for Scotland. He did not know, he had often wondered, what was the meaning or the call for the existence of a Solicitor General for Scotland. He had early been taught that "all creatures had been fashioned for a wise purpose," but he must say that the teleology of the Scotch Solicitor General was too much for him. He had not been able to see any purpose, wise or unwise, which the Solicitor General for Scotland served. When he had seen him sitting beside the Lord Advocate the idea of the whale and the sprat of Scottish politics had less occurred to him—["Oh, oh!" and "Question!"]—than that while the Lord Advocate really did nothing the Solicitor General for Scotland was there to see that he did it; in short, that he was merely the "sweet little cherub that sits up aloft to keep watch o'er the life of poor Jack." The Solicitor General for Scotland in that connection should be made to have some responsibility. The Solicitor General for Scotland had absolutely no visible connection with Scotch Business. He had never heard him open his mouth in the House on Scotch Business.
    An hon. MEMBER: He has answered Scottish questions in the absence of the Lord Advocate.
    MR. WALLACEsaid, an hon. Member reminded him, indeed, that the Solicitor General for Scotland had lately made a speech on Scotch disestablishment, but that speech was really one addressed more to Imperial than to Scotch considerations. The hon. and learned Member was put up by the Front Ministerial Bench more in the capacity of the saucy street boy, who was to chaff the heavy and conscript fathers on the Front Opposition Bench. He was not going to deny——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must call the attention of the House to the great abuse involved in the course which the hon. Member is pursuing. The hon. Gentleman is not only talking at extreme length—I do not complain of that, which it is competent for him to do—but he is repeating the arguments he made use of on the last occasion, and repeating himself to-day on a subject which is purely a financial one. I have never in my experience known the latitude allowed abused so much as in the case of the hon. Gentleman, and I submit with great respect to the House whether they will allow this sort of thing to go on.
    MR. WALLACEsaid, he was extremely unwilling to incur the Speaker's censure or disapprobation; but he was not conscious that he had been wandering from the rights that belong to him in discussing the point, but, of course, at once he accepted with respect any judgment the Speaker was pleased to pronounce, and assured him that with the heartiest willingness he would try to conform himself to what the Speaker ruled. But he must, at the same time, say that he was put considerably at a loss by the ruling just made. He had a good deal to say on the subject of the Solicitor General's relation to this matter, a subject on which he did not think he had spoken previously, and he was not aware that he could possibly have been repeating. Well, he should omit entirely what he was prepared to state with respect to the position of the Scottish Law Officers in regard to Scottish Business, because he was now without hope of giving the Speaker satisfaction in that connection. The style in which he was going to speak was pretty much the style in which he had been speaking previously, and although it did not seem to him to be what was improper in

    1735
    this House, he did not persevere in it. He would appeal, if not to the Scottish Law officers, to the English Members and the First Lord of the Treasury. He asked English Members to consider in what position Scottish affairs stood. The Scottish Members had the greatest respect for the English nationality, but he thought English Members ought really to give some consideration to Scottish Members and to their claims and interest. Scotland was a small nation, it was true, but they had some merits and some claims—and to give them no time or attention at all was to make an oppressive use of their power. He would appeal to the First Lord himself. Although the Scottish Members were his political opponents, he was sure he spoke for himself and many of his Colleagues in saying that they regarded the right hon. Gentleman, not only with personal respect, but with a sort of sneaking affection. Although he almost always kicked them downstairs, he did it in such a pleasant style that they might almost fancy he was handing them up. At the same time, his fine words were of very little profit, and he would ask him in all fairness to consider whether the Scottish Members were to be treated with the justice to which they had a claim. He knew it was too late now to exact the full measure of their demand. He believed they had, perhaps, been too late in presenting their account, and if the account must stand over, he must ask the right hon. Gentleman during the Autumn Session to hand over to the Scottish Members as much of their claim as could be paid them. In the position to which he had been reduced by the Speaker's ruling, he must, of course, sit down without having delivered the speech he had intended to make, and which was certainly designed and believed by him to be strictly relevant to the point, and to be of such a nature as to have enabled him, in some measure, to have performed a duty which he believed to be owing to his constituents and to his country in this matter.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I trust the House will allow me at once to intervene in the debate, and to say a few words, a very few words, for I noticed one portion of the speech of the hon. Gentleman with great approval—that is, when he quoted
    1736
    the saying that a man is wise when he speaks little. Whether a larger amount of wisdom might be attributed to this House if hon. Members would but follow that excellent adage, I am not prepared to say, Sir, at present. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman's observations so far as they are merely personal. I am sure he would not wish that I should attempt to enter upon the questions he has raised, sometimes with good humour, and sometimes, as I think he himself will feel when he reads the report of his speech, in a taste that there is some slight reason to regret. But the hon. Gentleman has spoken of the position of the Lord Advocate with reference to the Government and to myself, in regard to the arrangement for Scottish Business; and it is only just to the Lord Advocate to say in his presence, and to the House, that he has been incessant in his representations to the Government to provide better opportunities for the transaction of Scottish Business. I think it would be most unfair to him, and most unfair to the Secretary for Scotland, if I withheld from this House the statement of that fact, that these statements have been repeatedly and persistently made, and that, in the exercise of the discretion vested in me, and the necessity I have felt under to proceed with the other Business before Parliament, I and my Colleagues in the Government have been unable to make the arrangements which the Lord Advocate desired for the prosecution of Scottish Business. Sir, the Government and I, as their representative in this House, are responsible, wholly responsible, for the course that has been taken. When I say wholly responsible, I must include within that responsibility also the action of Members of this House. We have from time to time asked the House to consider Business which we felt to be of the highest importance, and I think few hon. Members of experience in the Business of this House would have said that anything like a business-like arrangement of time could have been effected unless we had proceeded day by day with the work which we have in hand. Take, for example, the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Conversion of the Funds. Take the Local Government Bill. Any hon. Member who has experience in this House knows that if it is desired to

    1737
    make progress with any particular Business, that Business must be proceeded with when the House takes it up from day to day, unless some overwhelming necessity arises. That is the statement I have to make to the House with regard to the course I felt it necessary to take in the arrangements for the Business of this Session. The hon. Gentleman says that Scotland has been treated with contempt, and that the rights and interests of Scotland have been entirely neglected. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that Scotland has had an enormous interest in the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Conversion of the Funds. Scotland has had a great interest in the Railway Rates and Traffic Bill, and in the Employers' Liability Bill. It is a mistake to suppose that Scotland does not share with England in all measures of Imperial importance, and it is with measures of Imperial importance that we have proceeded during the course of this Session. I admit that the Local Government Bill does not apply to Scotland; but it was always understood that the Local Government (England) Bill must precede the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, which, when it is taken up, must be proceeded with in precisely the same manner as the Local Government (England) Bill was proceeded with. I say it is for hon. Members of this House to provide the time necessary for the transaction of its Business. There is no Legislature in the world in which so many speeches and of such length are made as in this House. There is no Legislature charged with such important Business, and I venture to think, Sir, that the extent to which speeches now are carried, and that on a question of this kind the hon. Member thought it necessary to make a speech which lasted more than an hour, is evident that the Legislature of this country must break down if any large proportion of the 670 Members who constitute it think it right to exercise their privilege and their right of speech to the extent to which they have power to do so, but to an extent which would render reasonable discussion almost impracticable. Why can we not follow the example of our neighbours in France? There they sit, from four to six hours a-day, at most, to transact their business. I do not mean to suggest that we should shorten the period of our proceedings; but surely
    1738
    nine hours a-day for six or seven months in the year ought to be sufficient, if hon. Members exercise that self-restraint which has been exercised in past years—the self-restraint of not repeating arguments or statements of fact, but only of speaking when hon. Members have something absolutely new or valuable to communicate to the House. I make that observation to the House with very great respect, and with some hesitation, and I was only tempted to do so because of the remarks of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. There may be wise men who speak much, but there is a great deal of truth in the proverb quoted by the hon. Member, and unless the House of Commons recognizes that truth I am afraid it may find out before long that it has lost that command and control of its powers of doing Business which it formerly exercised. The hon. Member has said that there ought to be at least three weeks devoted to Scottish Business.
    MR. WALLACE: Three weeks of legislative time.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that Scottish Business is involved in the general measures which have come before the House of Commons this Session, and in which Scottish Members have taken an important part. If it was necessary that there should be a separate Railway Traffic Bill, a separate Employers' Liability Bill, a separate Conversion Bill for Scotland, I could understand the views of the hon. Member, and I could understand him if there was a great measure of importance for Scotland and adequate time was not being given for its consideration; but that is not now the case, and I can only promise that, so far as is in my power to do so, I shall, when such a measure is being considered, endeavour to make arrangements whereby it shall receive that consideration which the House of Commons ought to give to it. With regard to the arrangement for Wednesday, I was under the impression that it was one of which the majority of the Scottish Members approved. It is, of course, difficult to meet the views of all Scottish Members, but it seems to me desirable that I should go as far as possible to meet the views of the majority. If it should on Wednesday appear—as I have already stated in reply to a Question—that the majority

    1739
    of Scottish Members do not desire to proceed with the Scottish Business that day, then, of course, we shall bow to their wishes; but I feel bound to offer them an opportunity for proceeding with a measure which I understood was a purely domestic Bill, and was more of a consolidating character than one involving new principles and new legislation. Be that as it may, it is only right that I should take the sole and entire responsibility for the course which the Government have thought fit to take, to relieve my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate from any imputation or charge whatever of any neglect of the interests of Scotland, and to assure the House that I have the greatest desire to do that which I believe to be best in the interests of Scotland, by providing that when a measure is taken up it should be carried through, and that certain amounts of time should not be given to it at intervals far apart, which hinder rather than assist that complete settlement of questions which are of importance. I trust that the House, having regard to the present position of Public Business, may terminate this debate very speedily.
    DR. CLARK: I shall have to ask some questions first.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member can, of course, ask any questions; but I hope we shall terminate the debate in order to make some progress with the actual Business of the country.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, that he sympathized with the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to go on with the important Business on the Paper; but it was necessary to make it clear that the Government was responsible for the neglect of Scotch Business. The culpability of the Government in this matter had never been more completely proved than during the present Session. He asked the House to remember the new powers which had been given to the Government. They had had a new Code of Procedure passed this Session by which they had had every opportunity of conducting the Business of the House with greater expedition than heretofore, and of which they had not failed to take full advantage by a frequent use of the closing power. He should like to remark, also, that in no Session since 1880, he might almost say since 1875, had so little time been wasted. He appealed to hon. Members if debates had ever
    1740
    been more practical or condensed, and whether, even on bitterly contested Irish questions, there had been much of what was commonly called Obstruction? In fact, there had been every desire on the Opposition side of the House to forward and advance the main measures of the Government. In such circumstances, hon. Members, and Scotch Members especially, had very strong reason for complaint as to the manner in which Business had been conducted. This was not a new thing; it had been going on for many years. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to some Business in which Scotland was interested along with England; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Railway Traffic Bill had been entirely disposed of by a Grand Committee upstairs, and had occupied less than six hours of the time of the whole House. Therefore, Scotland, in this respect, had made no claim on the time of the House. A comparatively small portion of time had been devoted to Irish affairs, indeed far less time than their importance demanded, during this Session. When the Procedure Rules were being discussed, a Motion was made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) and the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) for the appointment of a Scotch Grand Committee. Scotch Members put the case then, as they did now, as to the neglect of Scotch Business, and spoke of the growing discontent in Scotland; but the Government refused to give the slightest attention to their case. They then pointed out that there were a large number of Bills which had not the chance of passing a second reading, unless they were sent to a Grand Committee, but which three-fourths and even four-fifths of the Scotch Members were prepared to support. There was, for instance, the questions of rights of ways and rod fishing—and in regard to some of those measures they were supported by Scotch Members on the Ministerial side of the House. They could not get forward these Bills because the Government would not give them facilities. The Government did not realize how serious the position was. They did not think of the dangers they were unconsciously helping to bring about by their neglect of Scotch affairs. He could assure the First Lord of the Treasury, and he believed he was stating less rather than more than what was said

    1741
    and felt in Scotland itself, that the feeling of Scotland was very deep and strong on this point. The Scotch were not a noisy people. They did not resort to the methods sometimes taken by other sections of the House in order to make their feeling felt, but it was none the less strong and none the less likely to prove a serious factor in the future. This neglect of Scotch Business, if it continued, would take the shape of proposals as to methods of legislation which would be very unwelcome to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which would increase the difficulties already felt in adjusting the legislative relations of the three or four parts of the United Kingdom to one another, and might eventually bring about a state of things that would tax to their utmost the constructive powers of the statesmen of this country to introduce arrangements which would do justice to the reasonable claims of the people of Scotland. He expressed no opinion as to the desirability in themselves of the changes to which he referred; but he warned the Government that the unwise course they were following was likely to bring these changes about.
    DR. CLARKsaid, he wished to ask questions as to one or two matters, and he was sorry they were compelled to do it in the House, because hon. Members from Ireland took possession of the whole time in Committee, and this was their only chance. The only thing he would say in regard to Scotch Business was this—he believed the Lord Advocate had done his best, and that Lord Lothian had done his best; but the House knew that Scotland had not got any Representative in the Cabinet. The Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), being a Scotsman and a Member of the Cabinet, represented Scotland there; but he did not think they could take that right hon. Gentleman as in any sense representing Scottish ideas. The only way in which they could expect to get any Scottish Business attended to was to have the Secretary for Scotland a Member of the Cabinet, and not kept any longer in his present unfortunate and uncomfortable position. At the beginning of the Session the Clashmore case was brought before the attention of the Lord Advocate, and since then—when they were prepared to give evidence that the wrong man had been convicted, and that Mr. Matheson
    1742
    was miles away from the place where the crime was committed—the man who had committed the crime had gone to Edinburgh to surrender himself to the authorities. The Lord Advocate, when the question was previously discussed, said that when the men who were guilty came forward and confessed, other men would not be punished; but the person who went to Edinburgh to confess the crime had to wait for three days before he was arrested. He brought the woman's dress with him, and he was in some respects like Mr. Matheson, who had been in prison for seven months. This man, who surrendered, confessed his guilt, and he (Dr. Clark) wanted to know why Mr. Matheson had not been released? They had sent the real culprit 150 miles away to go before the authorities there, and now he was going for trial; but why should the innocent be kept in prison? He hoped the matter would be settled without any delay. Another question on which he desired information was in reference to the appointment of the Procurator Fiscal for the county which he had the honour to represent. He did not complain that it was a Tory agent who was appointed, for probably he was as good a lawyer as a Liberal agent; but he did blame the Lord Advocate that after the repeated statements that the Procurators Fiscal would be no longer landlords' agents where there were new appointments, and although pressure was brought to bear by every other law agent in the country to prevent his doing any private business, this new Fiscal had been appointed with permission to transact private business. All the Commissions which sat on the subject reported in favour of making the Procurators Fiscal Crown servants only. He hoped to get some satisfactory answer on that point, He also desired to know why the Government had not fulfilled the pledge given last year, that this Session a Bill would be introduced to amend the Act with reference to the Scottish Fishery Board, so that the reconstitution of the Board, which was so much needed, could take place? There was also the question of the salaries paid to Scottish prison surgeons and chaplains. He did not trouble himself about the chaplains; but he urged that the salaries of Scottish prison surgeons, who had more work than the surgeons of either English or

    1743
    Irish prisons, should be put on the same scale of salaries as English prison surgeons. He understood that even the Scotch Secretary had pressed this matter upon the Treasury, and he (Dr. Clark) wished to know whether this injustice to Scotland was to be put an end to? Then there was the work of the Crofters Commission, on which some information was needed. There were two counties, he believed, where the Commission had never yet gone. His own impression was that the Lord Advocate did not trouble himself about this Commission, because he thought that the Commission had not been reducing rents any lower than the landlords were voluntarily doing. But this was a mistake. Lord Lovat, who was looked upon as a good landlord, voluntarily reduced his rent 17½ per cent; but the Commissioners had made much greater reductions. He complained also that the men whom the Commissioners appointed valuers had not the confidence of the people. They had been appointing a class of theoretical men, who did not know very much about the matter—men who had been acting as factors and sub-factors instead of farmers, and men who knew practically little about the subject. He had no complaint to make about the manner in which Sheriff Brand, as head of the Commission, had carried out the Act; but he had a great deal to complain of the factors who were put on the Commission. It was not wise for Judges to go to houses and drink with people who were affected by there judicial work. That might be all right while the factors were merely factors, but now they were Judges they should not do so. He concluded by expressing the hope that Mr. Matheson would be liberated without delay, as every condition required by the Lord Advocate for that purpose had now been fulfilled.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that the First Lord of the Treasury had said nothing that should induce him to refrain from associating himself in the protest his hon. Friend (Mr. Wallace) had made as to the neglect of Scottish Business. The grievance of which the Scotch Members complained was by no means confined to this Session; if it were, he would not care to occupy the time of the House about it, but it was a chronic, increasing grievance. On the 10th of August, 1887, towards the end
    1744
    of one of the longest and most laborious Sessions in our Parliamentary annals, he made a mild protest to the effect that the House of Commons was called upon on a Wednesday afternoon to discuss in a few hours the whole legislative programme with regard to Scotland, and that, as far as Scotland was concerned, the Session was beginning that day. The same words would apply to the Session of this year. For two years and more Scotch Members had been addressing appeals to the Government for some little consideration with regard to specific Scotch Business, and the answer was such that they were compelled to make a stand. The grievance was a national grievance; it amounted to a persistent, systematic, continuous, and repeated neglect of Scotch Business in that House. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in a tone of complaint of the time taken up by his hon. Friend, forgetting that, when this Vote was before the House a few nights ago, the whole of the time was taken up by the Irish Members, and that these Members had had much more of the time of the Session than the Scotch Members. All that Scotch Members got was an hour at the tail end of the Address, and a few hours at the fag end of the Session. The Burgh Police Bill they were asked to discuss in a few hours on Wednesday—a monstrous volume of 561 sections, ever so many Schedules, and about 300 pages. An hon. Friend reminded him that it had been nine years before the House, and frequently before Select Committees.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, it had never been before a Select Committee such as considered it this year. It was a Select Committee consisting of 25 Members, all of whom were Scotch Members, with two exceptions, and one of these was a Scotchman, so that there were 24 Scotchmen on the Committee.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that he was informed by an hon. Friend, who was longer in the House than the Lord Advocate, that it had been before as large a Committee prior to this year.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, that on former occasions the Select Committee consisted of the ordinary number of nine; but on this occasion there were 25 Members.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that he believed that one of the previous Select

    1745
    Committees was even larger than that number. But the reason why the Bill had never passed was that it had always been thrown at the heads of Scottish Members at a period of the Session when it could not reasonably be dealt with. Scottish Members and Scotland itself were not ravenous for legislation. It was the Government themselves who wanted a bulky Statute Book, and that was the reason why they were pressing forward upon them these measures at the end of the Session. Now, Members sitting on his side of the House had no reason for helping the Government to push these matters through; and if the Government wished to legislate for Scotland, and asked for facilities, they were entitled to expect two conditions, the first being that the measures should be brought forward in decent time, and the second that Scottish Members should be allowed to make some kind of selection of the legislation to be proposed. He had not the least doubt that the Scottish Members would not choose the Burgh Police Bill; but they would certainly choose the Returning Expenses (Parliamentary) Officers Bill. That measure had been approved by a Committee of Scottish Members every Session he had been in Parliament, and he would not mind taking half-an-hour on Wednesday afternoon for the purpose of proceeding with it. It was not in regard to legislation alone that Scottish Members had a right to complain of the position to which the action of successive Governments had reduced them. They felt they had no practical influence on the Government of the country. He was not speaking of this Government or that, and particularly he was not blaming the Lord Advocate. Indeed, he should be prepared to re-assert the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, that the Lord Advocate had done his best to press Scottish Business on the Government. One reason why they were in this lamentable position was the result of the legislation for the institution of a Secretary for Scotland. No doubt that proposal was a good one; but as it had worked, he knew it had done evil rather than good, in so far as the influence of Scottish Representatives on the Business of their country was concerned. Previous to the institution of this Office they had the Lord Advocate, one of the most powerful officials
    1746
    known to the British Constitution. In his early days he always regarded the Lord Advocate as the greatest dignitary. He was equal to the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General rolled into one. What was he now? There were "None so poor as do him reverence." In his place they had got a degraded Lord Advocacy in this House. Official, of course, he meant, and not personal, and his Office was taken by a Gentleman who was not a Member of the House nor a Member of the Cabinet. As compensation for the reduction of the influence of the Lord Advocate they ought to have the Scottish Secretary, if not with a seat in this House, at least with a seat in the Cabinet, and the absence of that condition was far more powerful than any personal cause in producing the predicament into which Scottish Business had fallen. They were told they should accept the result of a Select Committee, because it was composed mainly of Scottish Members; but the Government refused their request at the beginning of the Session to establish a Standing Committee of the Members for Scotland, and that unwise rejection of the proposal was one of the causes which had led to the state of matters of which they complained. But he was bound to say the Scottish Members themselves were not wholly guiltless in this matter. He believed the supineness of the Scottish Representatives, their willingness to become the more tools of Parties on one side or the other, had contributed to the condition of things complained of. He had a Resolution sent him by an Advanced Liberal Association in Scotland, to the effect that while the Scottish Members were roaring lions on the platform, they were as timid as turtle doves in the House. He believed it was because they had not asserted themselves that they had been obliged to make this complaint. The hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) warned the Government that this question had a much larger interest than they seemed to be aware of. In the speeches of the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) they heard what he was afraid was the first rumble of Scottish Home Rule. They might be told by the Chairman of Committees that these were merely the murmurs of Provincialism.

    1747
    If they were, let them take care they did not by their mismanagement convert them into the thunders of Nationality. He was not disposed to sympathize with an exaggeration of national claims in this House or out of it, but he looked with apprehension to the developments which were taking place. His ideal was a state of things in which they should neither be English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh in the House, but should all feel members of the greatest nationality in the world—the British Nationality. It was because he wished to avoid causes which would produce a result in a contrary direction that he asked the Government, before it was too late, to give some attention to the respectful protest they had made on behalf of the Scottish nation. He should like to ask whether his Liberal Unionist Colleagues were going to help them in the demand they now made? Scotland had contributed a larger number of supporters to the Liberal Unionist Party in proportion to her representation than any other portion of the Kingdom. He asked his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Finlay), who was a leader of the Liberal Unionists—the Party consisted entirely of leaders—and he should like to know whether he was going to take the same line on this question as he did when the question of the Scottish Committee was before the House? He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not discuss it at considerable length, and then wind up by informing the First Lord that it was time the Question was put. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend and others would insist on their right to associate with the Liberal Party on general politics, and give them the benefit of their support to-night. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, no doubt, spoke strongly and at considerable length. It might be some of his expressions did not suit the fastidious taste of the First Lord of the Treasury; but the substance and gist of what he said would undoubtedly commend itself to the people of Scotland. The advanced section of the Scottish Liberal Party were determined to submit to the state of things in this House no longer. They did not believe their constituents liked to see them pick up legislative crumbs. No matter what expressions his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh might have used, he (Mr. E. Robertson) associ-
    1748
    ated himself most absolutely with the spirit and substance of the speech he had made.
    MR. CRAIG SELLARsaid, he greatly regretted that a Member representing any Scottish constituency should have laid himself open to such a severe and, he was bound to say, such a well-merited rebuke from the Chair that evening as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) had done. He (Mr. Craig Sellar) wished to dissociate himself entirely from the manner and method of the hon. Member. He sympathized to a large extent with some of the complaints he made; but he felt that both the manner and the complaints themselves had been largely exaggerated. When they heard such phrases as these—"The Scottish Members have sunk to the lowest level of contempt," and that—"They are the laughing stock of other Members of the House," he thought he was not far wrong in saying without exaggeration that the language was somewhat overstrained. One complaint especially made was that, when Scottish measures were before the House, Scottish Members were left by themselves to discuss them. He did not think that was a legitimate reproach to cast upon them. On the contrary, it seemed to him that the Members of the other three nationalities had perfect confidence in the reasonableness and justice of the Scottish Members, and so left them to fight their battles out amongst themselves. That practice, which had been followed for many years, was a potent reason why they should hesitate some time before appointing a Special Scottish Committee; but these objections had been chiefly made by hon. Members who had not been for a very long time amongst them. He did not profess to be an old Member himself; but since 1870–18 years ago—when he became Secretary to the Lord Advocate, he had carefully watched the progress of Scottish Business, and he had read the reports of its progress prior to that date, and he found that there had been periodical outbreaks with regard to the conduct of Scottish measures. Surely his Colleagues would admit that they were much better off now than they were of old, for the reason that they had now got a Scottish Secretary. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He agreed it would be much

    1749
    more satisfactory if the Scottish Secretary were a Member of the Cabinet, and he should be glad also—though they all regarded the present holder of the Office with respect, and admitted that he performed the Scottish work with great acceptability to the whole Scottish nation—if they had a Gentleman sitting in the House of Commons rather than in the other House, and he hoped the result of this discussion would be to hasten the time when the Scottish Secretary would be a Member of the Cabinet. He would like to ask this question. Granting that they had some ground for complaint, did they compare so very badly with other portions of the Empire? Were matters specifically connected with India treated with more respect than those specifically connected with Scotland? Were there not periodic complaints of the way in which the Indian Budget was postponed to the fag end of the Session? Were matters specifically connected with England and Wales better treated than specifically Scottish matters? It was true that the principal measure which the House had dealt with this Session referred to England and Wales, but its main principle was that local affairs should in future be managed by Bodies elected by the ratepayers. It was of great importance to Scotland that that principle had now been accepted; and when they came to deal with the Scotch Local Government Bill, as he hoped they would in the next Session, they would have the benefit of the discussion which had taken place on the English Bill. Ireland, he admitted, did absorb more time than the other portions of the Kingdoms; but was she more happy or prosperous on that account? He believed if they were to poll the people of Scotland, they would declare that they preferred their own position of less political legislation and less agitation than that of Ireland, with extra legislation and extra political agitation. The hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) complained chiefly on five points. Firstly, that they had had no Bill this Session dealing with trout and salmon fishing; but surely they should be able to get through until the next Session without such legislation, especially as the season was nearly over.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had referred to the fact that the promised
    1750
    Bill dealing with trout and salmon fishing had not been introduced.
    MR. CRAIG SELLAR: Then as to the Universities Bill, they were all agreed on its principle; it was merely the appointing of a Commission to reorganize the Scottish Universities, and the discussion on the second reading might be taken on a very short afternoon in the Autumn Session. As to the Burgh Police Bill, since it was conceived 10 years ago it had been undergoing perpetual discussion in Scotland and in both Houses of Parliament, having been dealt with by a Committee of the House of Commons in 1885, by a Committee of the House of Lords in 1886, and this Session by a large Committee of the House of Commons, whose total of 25 Members included no less than 20 Scottish Representatives. They might easily take the Committee stage, and he hoped they would do so, if they did no more at this period of the Session. Then the hon. and learned Member complained that they had got no Private Bill legislation for Scotland. That was a subject to which he (Mr. Craig Sellar) had paid a great deal of attention, and if any Scottish Member was entitled to complain it was himself. But instead of making a complaint, he was satisfied with the position in which the matter stood to-day. The Government took a very wise course in consulting the House of Lords before bringing in a measure and pushing it forward. They appointed a Joint Committee of both Houses, which had reported most favourably in regard to legislation, and he hoped next year the Government would introduce a Bill which would go triumphantly through both Houses. The Conversion Bill, the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, the Merchant Shipping Bill, and the Employers' Liability Bill were all important measures that referred to Scotland, and of which Scotland would get the benefit; while in addition they would get the Burgh Police Bill, the University Bill, and the Bail Bill. This discussion would do no harm. It would do good in this practical way—namely, to expedite, he hoped very materially, the time when the Scottish Secretary would be a Member of the Cabinet.
    MR. PROVAND&c.)said, with reference to the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman

    1751
    the First Lord of the Treasury in regard to long speeches, the only Scotch Member who had made long speeches in the present Session was the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald). The time of the Session had been wasted, for example, by the Bill to provide a salary for the Irish Under Secretary. The measures which had been passed as applying to Scotland as well as England were Imperial measures; but every Session there must be before Parliament a number of Bills applicable exclusively to Scotland, and unless more time was given in future Sessions for such exclusively Scotch Business, the complaints that had been made in the present debate would become perennial. He was sometimes constrained to ask himself—"What are the Parliamentary duties of the Law Officers for Scotland in this House?" Of course, the Government had at last found employment for the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) in supporting the Irish policy of the Government, but in the case of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate he hoped it was not his duty to prevent them getting any time at all for the discussion of Scotch Business. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to support them in this House as far as he could. He did not ask too much, he did not ask him to support Liberal measures, but he ought to give them assistance in getting time for the discussion of measures that had been brought forward year after year and which had made no progress whatever. There was the Bill to throw the charges of Returning Officers on the rates, which, as a matter of fact, ought to have been included in the Corrupt Practices Act. It was notorious that the charges made by Returning Officers in many parts of the country were outrageously excessive, and ought to be checked. The question was neither Conservative nor Liberal, and the charges for Returning Officers should be dealt with as in the case of School Board and Municipal elections. He should prefer that the Scotch Business intended to be dealt with on Wednesday should be postponed till the autumn, and that they should have three days at the beginning of the Autumn Session to consider Scotch Bills.
    MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, he desired to emphasise the re-
    1752
    marks that had been made by certain of his Colleagues as to the great disappointment that existed in Scotland as to their expectations in the Scottish Office. He was bound to corroborate what had already been said, that in place of Scotch Business receiving more attention since the establishment of the Scotch Office it had undoubtedly received less. He was satisfied, from information he had received from all quarters in Scotland, that until they had the official representative of Scotland in this House and until they had the Scotch Secretary in Parliament, there would be no satisfaction in Scotland in regard to the conduct of Scotch Business. With regard to the Scotch Burgh Police and Health Bill, he could not help observing that the opposition came from cities that had no interest in the Bill whatever. He was quite aware that a little part of a Wednesday was inadequate for the discussion of this Bill, but if the 500 odd clauses of the Bill were to be discussed in detail it ought never to have been sent to a Committee. Would the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate deny that legislation in Scotland was in arrears? They admitted all that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had said; but he (Mr. Esslemont) would say that during all the time he had been in the House they had got no time for Scotland whatever. During 1886 they had the Crofters Bill, but since that time they had positively had no time for Scotch legislation. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh was not wrong in saying that about three weeks was a fair allowance for Scotland in six mouths. Still, making all allowance for Imperial Business, they had never had six days. They had not had the questions brought forward that were undoubtedly in the forefront in the minds of the electors of Scotland. They had certainly listened to debates about the operation of the Crofters Act and the agitation in regard to the fishing industry in the Highlands of Scotland, but what turn had they had in the Lowlands in regard to fisheries? The Scotch Office knew that legislation was required in regard to the Fisheries. He did not confine that to the trout and salmon fisheries. The herring fisheries and the white fisheries on the coast of Scotland were a disgrace to any Government. The fishermen had not tenure

    1753
    of their houses, they had no attention paid to their mussel beds, and one of the largest industries in Scotland was totally neglected. They were told that the reconstruction of the Scotch Fishery Board was under consideration, but in 1888 they were in exactly the same position as in 1878. He made the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) a present of his appeal to the Liberal Unionist Party. The hon. and learned Member appealed to the Liberal Unionists to help the Scottish people; but the only Representative of that Party stood up and defended the Government, and told them that they had been well used, and ought to be thankful. He asked the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Craig Sellar) to go down to Scotland and make his position good under that delusion. The people of Scotland knew better. They were a moderate and law-abiding people, but they were determined that under the new Rules, where the Government had the time of the House, Scotland should not be entirely forgotten and utterly blotted out of legislation.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he should not detain the House in regard to any personal matters. He was afraid that, in the earlier part of the evening, during the speech of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace), he had intervened with some warmth, but he did so solely because mention was made of a personal friend of his own. He trusted Members of the House would not believe in such arrangements as the hon. Gentleman had suggested as possible. He would pass from this matter, and would not refer to it again. The hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) said that, in his opinion, the Lord Advocate had nothing to do. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh said something of the same kind, and he remembered that at an earlier period of the Session the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) said his only duty was to study the Order Paper of this House.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that what he stated was that the only duty he seemed to do was to study the Scotch Orders.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, these three hon. Members reminded him of three boys who sat down to consider
    1754
    what they would like to be. The first said he would like to be a railway guard, because he had nothing to do but swell along the platform, attend to the ladies, and get the tips. The other boy said he would like to be a policeman, because he had only to walk round the square and tell everybody to "move on," and then to eat cold mutton downstairs. The third boy said he would like to be a draper's assistant, for all he had to do was to roll up a ball of ribbon, make himself pleasant to very nice ladies, and to ask thorn what was the next article wanted. It was only perfectly natural that every man who had got his own work to do should consider the work of other people much easier. If, however, hon. Members had an ordinary day's work at the Scotch Office they would very rapidly change their opinion. In 1885 the incoming papers relating to Scotland amounted to 3,111; in 1886 to 4,998, and in 1887 to 6,387; and the increase upon the present year was in very similar proportion to that, so that in two years the actual amount of matter that had to be dealt with had more than doubled.
    MR. ANDERSON: Does that include the Educational Department?
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: No; he was dealing with matters that had formerly been dealt with in the Homo Office. The average per month, which, in 1885 was 325, had in 1888 been 838, or approaching three times the amount it originally was. But, of course, if hon. Members supposed that these were all put in the waste paper basket and not attended to, then practically they had nothing to do. He asked hon. Members who knew what had been done about this great Burgh Health and Police Bill, how many communications did they think had been received from all quarters of the country, and how many answers had to be sent; and how many important questions had to be considered; and how long did they think it occupied the Lord Advocate, who was supposed to have nothing to do, to attend to all that, and to be in a position to sit as the Chairman of the Committee on that Bill, and to receive the compliment that was kindly paid him at the close of the discussion there? The Government had been accused of dealing with Bills which they found in the pigeon-holes when they came into Office. He

    1755
    had thought that that was one of the first duties of a Government officer. If they found in the pigeon-holes Bills which year after year had been brought into that House, and with the strongest expressions of regret on the part of the community that these Bills had not been passed, did hon. Gentlemen mean that they should throw over important Business that was wanted by Scotland in order to run after something new? He thought their bounden duty was to take up the measures which they found in the pigeon-holes along with the assertion on the part of the community that they desired those Bills should pass, and to press them forward in order that they might be got out of the way. They took the course that was suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdeen. If this Bill was to be got out of the way, that could only be done by one process—and that was to send it once more to a strong Select Committee, and if the hon. Member for Aberdeen made that suggestion in good faith, as he had no doubt he did, he did it for the purpose of facilitating the passing of the Bill. But if a Bill of that kind had been sent on three or four occasions to Select Committees, and threshed out in these Select Committees, was it reasonable or wise to suppose that it was to be treated on the footing that it was an absolutely new Bill, and must be pressed on this Committee in the ordinary way as if it had never been threshed out before these Committees? He was sure that it would not be suggested. He appealed to hon. Members' reason and common sense and fairness when he said that no Consolidation Bill of this enormous size could ever be passed in any House of Commons or through any Parliament if every Member who thought he could possibly improve it by putting down 50 Amendments on the Paper was to do so. The thing was absolutely impossible; and if it was desired, as he knew it was desired, by the Scotch Members that the Bill should be passed—except those hon. Members who had nothing to do with it—such as the hon. Members for Edinburgh and Glasgow——
    MR. WALLACEsaid, he had never indicated any desire that the Bill should not be passed. He simply indicated a desire that it should have been fully considered in order to its being passed.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, that was so, and the hon. Member had never been ready during the Session to discuss the Bill.
    MR. WALLACEsaid, he only saw it for the first time the other day.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he was quite certain the hon. Member had seen it for the first time only the other day; but among those who had expressed their objection to the Bill being taken on Wednesday there had not been a single Member who did not represent a constituency to which the Bill did not apply. He thought they were perfectly reasonable in that, because taking no interest in it, they wished something else to be brought forward instead of it. He suggested to them, however, that, as there were other Scotch Members who were determined that this Bill should not block the way—until something was done to clear it out of the way by passing it through instead of hauling it back, they had better accept the situation. This Bill had been very fully and carefully considered; it pleased the people who were interested in it practically as it stood, with a few reasonable Amendments. If they could only make reasonable progress with it on Wednesday this enormous omnibus, which blocked the Scotch Temple Bar, would be got out of the way to the satisfaction of everybody who was interested in it and of everybody who cared nothing about it. The other measure that was proposed was the Universities Bill, and that also had been in the pigeon-holes. It had received a considerable amount of attention on the part of hon. Members and on the part of the people in the community who were interested in the Universities. If hon. Members from Scotland had preferred that the Bill should be discussed during the present Sitting, it would have been so discussed; but hon. Gentlemen had thought it was better it should stand where it was till the Autumn Sitting, that it might then receive fuller discussion than could possibly be given to it now. No doubt there were most important points connected with it that would give rise to discussion on the second reading; but, with perhaps one exception, he thought the main points did not really affect the principle of the Bill. During the whole of the discussion that had taken place, both on Saturday and to-day, there was

    1757
    one circumstance he had not heard mentioned, and that was of very considerable importance. That was, that while last year Parliament met in January and adjourned about the middle or end of September, they met this year on 9th February, and they did not propose that this Session should come to an end till the two months during which, if they followed the practice of last year, they would continue to sit had been added to the Session. At the end of the present year, therefore, practically, if the House was to adjourn next Saturday, as they all hoped it would, the Session was exactly in the same position, compared to last year, as if they had been in the month of July. With reference to the Question the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) had asked about the Clash-more case, all he could say was, that before any Question was put the matter had been attended to and was at the point of disposal, and before the House adjourned his hon. Friend would hear what the result was. With regard to the question of Procurators Fiscals, he was entirely at one with the hon. Gentleman. It was most desirable where-ever it could be accomplished, with due regard to efficiency and salary to be given, that no other employment should be held by Procurators Fiscal at all. That was his decided opinion. His opinion, also, was that in such cases that could be altered without monetary arrangements also being remodelled, as hon. Members knew was not always an easy matter where Procurators Fiscal were to be allowed to take any other employment besides that which related to his office of Procurator Fiscal, it should be of the nature, as far as possible, of what might be called public appointments, and not connected with the work of the law in any other department, or connected with agency for individuals. But these ideas could not always be fully carried out under existing arrangements. With regard to the Fishery Board, a resolution had been come to that no further Government measures should be brought forward this session except such as we were purely formal and non-contentious. They did not proceed to elaborate work that was postponed, but rather gave attention to that which was to be proceeded with. That matter, however, was being arranged, and would be brought in.
    DR. CLARK: When?
    MR. ANDERSON: Is the Bill drafted?
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: Well, it is not yet in a very artistic shape, because the moment they ascertained that no more Bills were to be brought in this Session, they did not go on elaborating it, but devoted themselves to other more pressing work. By that he did not mean that the policy was not shaped. They could do no more except use their best influence to prevent wrong being done, and remedy any that had been done. Questions had been asked him as to the Crofters Commission and the valuators appointed. Well, so far as he knew, no complaint at all had been received in official quarters in regard to the valuators.
    DR. CLARKsaid, the Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland) had called attention to the subject by a Question.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, that the Question was asked only within the last day or two, but in the regular course of Business the Scottish Office had had no complaint in reference to that matter at all, and when he answered the Question of the hon. Member he announced that the matter was one for the Commission to dispose of, and he thought from what the hon. Member said that he had perfect confidence in the Chairman of the Commission in such matters if his attention were called to it. Of course the officials at the Scottish Office and himself, as acting for the Secretary for Scotland in this House, must submit to be abused. He must submit, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had said, to be the whipping post of the Scottish Office. He sincerely trusted he would be able to bear the infliction; but all he could say was that he thought he might congratulate himself on being the subordinate of a Government that to-day had taken the generous part of standing up in this House and saying that the Government, and not the Scottish Office, were responsible. He had had no right to expect such generosity and he was extremely thankful that it was so, and all he could say was that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would not expect that his having accepted the responsibility would at all have the effect on him (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) of being more slack in the future in pressing Scottish Business on

    1759
    the Cabinet. He hoped that in the remaining portion of the Session some good, real, and substantial Scottish Business would be done, and he was sure there would not be the same ground of complaint at the end of the year that the Scottish Members had at present.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN&c.)said, he did not intend to occupy more than a few minutes, especially as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had delivered some strong observations on the subject of the length of speeches. But he thought it would perhaps have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had delivered that lecture to the House at an earlier period of the Session, because it might have enabled the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to avoid being one of the most conspicuous transgressors against the rule of brevity; for on a certain occasion that Session, in a discussion of the Crofter Question, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate certainly did not act up to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury's admonition.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I always find it more easy to make a short speech when well prepared. A speech generally gets longer when delivered on the spur of the moment.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had not detected in the speech any lack of preparation. He agreed with the decision the Government had come to as to which Bill should be proceeded with. The Scottish Members themselves met in the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate's office, and resolved that it should be the Burgh Police Bill that should be proceeded with, and he thought that decision was perfectly right. He did not blame the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate in the matter at all. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate quoted statistics to show what a busy man he was; but it was just possible that the increased number of letters which reached his office was due to the fact that the business was in arrear. They did not blame the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate at all; but they said that the Government had so contrived, either by their disposition of the time of the House, or by the Rules they had introduced, or in some other way, that the Scottish Business throughout the Ses-
    1760
    sion had been almost totally neglected. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was very sanguine about the time they would get in the Autumn Session. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) always put his tongue in his cheek when he heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak of what was to be done for them in the Autumn Session. Why, what was not to be done in the Autumn Session? The whole of Supply, all the contentious Votes for the Civil Services, the most contentious Votes for the Navy, the contentious Votes for the Army, were all to be taken in the Autumn Session. A Land Purchase Bill for Ireland was to be introduced and passed in the Autumn Session. The Tithes Bill, which would occupy time, was to be introduced and passed in the Autumn Session. The other Bills which had gone through the Grand Committees, and which had not yet been dealt with, were to be dealt with in the Autumn Session, and there was the Wheel and Van Tax. Where, he asked, was the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to find the week or the fortnight that he promised them for Scotch Business? In view of all these things, the Wednesday they were to get this week was all they were likely to get for Scottish Business this Session. Only two Scottish Members had had a longer acquaintance with Scottish Business than he had, and he did not remember a time when there were not complaints of Scottish Business, but he never knew it so bad as it was now, and he had never known the feeling in regard to it so strong. The reason for this state of things was simply because the demands on the time of Parliament had so increased of late years, that the House of Commons could not do justice to them, and when there was a pressure of competing measures, the Scottish measures naturally enough were allowed to fall into greater arrear than the others. The new Rules of Procedure—and he should not like to see them departed from—had prevented Scottish Business from getting forward. The 12 o'clock Rule did not prevent the House going forward with primary Bills, but it had a fatal effect on secondary measures; and, therefore, it drove them more and more to this state of over crowded Notice Papers, and it must ultimately drive them to one form or other of devolution. The con-

    1761
    duct of the Government and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was therefore a secondary cause altogether. He thought the present condition of things was due, in a much larger degree, to the force of circumstances, and the Rules they had been obliged to adopt, and so they were driven more and more to the conclusion that the House of Commons was incapable of conducting the affairs of all the three parts of the Empire, and that they must have, in one form or other, a general system of devolution of Business. If the House and the Government continue to refuse the proposal which had been made for a Committee of Scottish Members, then the alternative to which they would be driven, and to which the mind of the country was turning, was that they must refer to a Body sitting in Scotland the Business which the House of Commons was unable to overtake.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, that anyone who lived among the people of Scotland, and who was at all acquainted with that country, must know that the way in which Scotch Business was being treated in that House was giving rise to a strong feeling in that country, which would very soon find expression in a very formidable manner. It was only the worst enemies of the Government who would seek to defend them when their conduct in this matter was utterly indefensible. With regard to the Burgh Police and Health Bill, that was a Bill that was found in the pigeon-holes of the Government, and it was very good of the First Lord of the Treasury to take the responsibility on himself; but, so far as regarded the Bill, the Lord Advocate was greatly to blame; for although it was introduced in February, he did not call a meeting of the Scottish Members to consider it until the end of May, thus losing two valuable months, during which they might have considered it. The result was, that it only came from the Committee at the end of last week, and in those circumstances it was impossible for hon. Members to go into the Bill in the few days that were left, and therefore they made, what he thought, a most reasonable request, when they asked that it be left over for consideration to the Autumn Session, in order that the people of Scotland might consider it, now that it had been finished
    1762
    by the Select Committee. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman was in his place, he would like, also, to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to this Vote on Account, that Scotland was not treated in any proportion like England in the matter of subsidies from the Government. For instance, they gave out of the Imperial funds £40,000 to manage the charities of England; while Scotland did not get a single copper for managing her charities. Then they took £10,000 for managing a Land Commission in England. In Scotland, they had to pay for that out of their own pockets. Then there was £150,000 given to England for Local Government purposes, for which Scotland did not get a copper, but paid for entirely out of local taxation. The injustice of this was proved by two illustrations. One was, that Scotland contributed to the Imperial Revenue more per head of the population than England; and the other, that Scotland got less per head of the population in the shape of grants than England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had also contrived, in distributing local grants in aid under Local Government, to give four-fifths to England, with the result that Scotland got less per head of the population for local purposes than England. They did not require any more facts to convince them how unfairly Scotland was treated. What he objected to was this: They on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and the Liberal Unionists, of whom he was one, went in for treating each part of the Kingdom equally. Why should there not be equal treatment in such a matter as taxation? Why should a local body on this side of the boundary receive certain grants in aid, and a similar local body on the other side of the boundary have to pay the whole thing out of their local taxation? They desired equal treatment all round. The Government were keeping up, by their own conduct, the idea of separate nationalities. Why should there be what was called a Scottish day? Why should a Scottish Bill not have its chance as it went round in the ordinary way, instead of being relegated to the end of the Session, when a day would be given for Scottish Bills? There was no reason why Scotch Bills should be isolated and treated independently, instead

    1763
    of having an equal claim with English measures on the attention of Parliament. It was proceedings of that kind which caused attention to be directed to the neglect of Scotch Business. The Local Government Bill would come back to the House from "another place." When it did, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would yet see his way to treat Scotland more equally with England in the matter of grants. Did the Secretary for Scotland acquiesce in the proposed arrangement? He noticed that the Lord Advocate and the Scotch officials of the Government went into the Lobby in favour of England having four-fifths as against the proportion given to Scotland. He would ask of what use were Ministers for Scotland if they acquiesced in unequal proposals made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and went into the Lobby against the majority of Scotch Members?
    MR. A. SUTHERLANDsaid, that, in spite of the bland accents of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, experience showed that his promises must be received with caution. It was a stretch of charity to speak of the conduct of Scotch affairs. The Government had an Executive function, and they had allowed innocent persons to remain unnecessarily in gaol. If 6,000 letters were received at the Scotch Office in a year, it was only an average of 20 a-day, and letters might easily be multiplied by non-attention to business. The dual arrangement of the Secretary for Scotland and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate reminded him of another arrangement existing in Japan, where it was supposed to be necessary to divide the community into two parts, one substantial and visible, like the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and the other shadowy or unseen, like the Secretary for Scotland. In all the legislation which had been attempted for Scotland that Session, the Government had not attempted anything that was really anxiously desired by the people of Scotland. The little they had done had been of such a nature that they could not give their approval to it; but what they wanted more was such legislation as that for the protection of the small lease holders who, in his constituency, for instance, were threatened with eviction by the amendment of the Crofters' Act.
    MR. W. P. SINCLAIR&c.)said, he thought the House would be better employed by going on to the other important Business that was still before them. Everything had been stated that night about Scottish Business generally, and about its neglect. That was needed; but he thought the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had put the case distinctly, when he said that the enormous increase of Business from all parts of the country was mainly responsible for the present state of Scottish Business, and that that which pressed most heavily was that which had to be taken in the first instance, and he thought the Government had to be congratulated on having this Session applied the principle of devolution to a greater extent than ever before by the appointment of Grand Committees. He trusted that the system might be extended still more in the future, and that for the consideration of Scottish Business a Committee almost as good as a Grand Committee would be appointed. They had had such a Committee that Session, and it had passed a Bill which, if passed into law, would work satisfactorily, and probably solve some questions that had for a long time engaged attention in Scotland. They were also promised that next year they would have a Local Government Bill for Scotland, and he trusted that next Session not only that Bill, but other measures dealing with Scottish affairs would be before them, and that they would have a Scottish Session next year, as they had an Irish Session last year and an English Session this year. It would take out of the purview of the House questions dealing with purely municipal life, and leave county management for the Local Government Bill. That change would be greatly appreciated in Scotland, and he trusted the Government would take it into consideration. He asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) if, during the Recess, he could not consider whether it would be desirable to alter the Rules of Procedure in this direction, that a list should be made of Bills whose principles had been affirmed one Session, but had failed to pass, and that they should be taken up at that stage in the next Session? He did not know that such a proposal had been previously made, and he hoped the First

    1765
    Lord of the Treasury would give it his consideration.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, that the hon. Member who had just spoken was a Scottish Member; but he was an Irishman by blood, and an Englishman by residence, and he did not believe that it was to such a man that the patriots of Scotland would look for assistance in their present struggle. The House had been favoured with the speeches of two Liberal Unionists; but they were on different sides, as was only natural; for the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) was a Liberal first, and a Unionist afterwards; while the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanark (Mr. Craig Sellar) was a Unionist first, and what afterwards he did not like to say. The Lord Advocate had shown his sincerity about pushing on the Burgh Police Bill—a Bill which had never been discussed on the second reading at all—by putting it down for a time again when there should be no discussion upon it—namely, as the second Order of the Day for Wednesday, the first Order being a Bill on which there must be considerable discussion. It was said that the principle of the Scotch Universities Bill was agreed to. He would like to know what its principle was. It was a blank cheque in which he and other Scotch Members had no confidence. There was no doubt that there was a great and growing dissatisfaction in Scotland with the way in which Scottish Business was dealt with in the House; but he would have been quite content to rest the case upon the eloquent and able speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Wallace), had he not thought that that was an instance in which a Scottish Member would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if he did not associate himself with the hon. Member in the great cause he had taken up. A share of the time of the House had been demanded for Scottish Business; but what was the good of that time, when the Government only used it to defeat, frustrate, and disappoint the desires and expectations of Scottish Members? On the 21st February, almost as soon as the House met, attention was called by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to the acute distress in the Highlands, and to the fact that no remedial measure of legislation was promised by the Go-
    1766
    vernment; but what happened? 37 Scottish Members went into the Lobby with his hon. Friend, only 11 Scottish Members voted against him; but, notwithstanding that overwhelming majority of Scottish opinion, the Government from that day to now had not so much as lifted a little finger to relieve the distress of the crofters. They had, it was true, a miserable emigration scheme, and 98 families had been exported to Canada. He could not congratulate the Government on the skill with which they carried out the enter-prize, and he found that one of the paupers had £80 in his pocket, and another had £60, so that the money which was taken from the taxpayers of this country was not expended on persons judiciously selected, but on the favourites of Tory agents, whether they had money or not. In the House, Scottish Members had tried to do their best on the matter. On the 22nd of February, the Crofters' Holdings (No. 1) Bill was supported by a proportion of 3 to 1 of Scottish Members, but was defeated by the Government; and on the same day the useful and moderate Parochial Boards Bill was supported by Scottish Members in the proportion of 2 to 1, and, of course, rejected by the Government. On the 17th April, they tried their luck once more with the Crofters' Holdings (No. 2) Bill, and 28 Scottish Members voted for and 8 voted against it, including the official Members of the Government, and the Bill was also rejected in the same way as its predecessors. Legislatively and administratively, there was always the same result. If, on the Estimates, the reduction of the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland was defeated by English Members, on the 19th June, on the Ecclesiastical Assessments Motion, which was lost, 29 Scottish Members voted for it, and only 8 against it; and, in the same week, the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland would have been carried by 38 to 19 Scottish Members had it not been for the votes of English Tories. Then, when the Trawl-bag Bill was considered, a Bill which he (Mr. Hunter) himself introduced, and in which every Scotch fisherman was deeply interested, the Government did not dare to challenge the second reading; but one of their Supporters moved the Adjournment, and that was carried by the Government and their Supporters. If,

    1767
    therefore, the Lord Advocate had said—"What is the use of occupying the time of the House in discussing Scottish Bills when there is a Tory majority," he would have made a much stronger reply than what he actually did make. When a Tory Government was in power, Scotland got nothing. They could not get figs from thistles, or grapes from thorns, and no more could hon. Gentlemen opposite, consistently with their principles, pass legislation which would be satisfactory to the people of Scotland, for the simple reason that their principles entirely differed from those of the Scottish people. But when the Liberals were in power, were they entirely happy? Then, too many Scottish Members sat on the Government Bench to secure proper attention to Scottish Business, and Liberal Members from Scotland were told that they must not embarrass the Government. So it always came to the same thing in the end, and Scotland got nothing of a serious character. The result was that there were political questions of great magnitute upon which the public opinion of the people of Scotland had long ago been made up, and which were ripe for solution, though public opinion upon them in England might not ripen for another 20 years. There was the Land Question, the Church Question, the Education Question, and the Temperance Question, upon such of which Scotland was ready for legislation. How were they to get that legislative work accomplished? He believed that the time must come soon when the principle of devolution must be applied. At the beginning of the Session, the Scotch Members suggested one system, a devolution of Scotch Business to a great Committee of Scotch Members; but that was rejected. In doing that the House had rejected one kind of devolution, and another plan which they would have to look at before long was the one establishing a Legislative Assembly for Scotland, which would deal not merely with the pressing political questions, but also with the social questions which loomed in the future. Unless a radical change was at once made in the mode of conducting Business in that House, this plan must be considered. He did not complain of the absence of hon. Members from Scotch debates; what he complained of was their presence in Divi-
    1768
    sions on Scotch subjects. If hon. Members opposite agreed to a self-denying ordinance, by which Scottish Business would be dealt with by Scottish Members only, it was possible that the present system might survive for some years; but his own belief was that there would be in a very short time a demand from Scotland for a measure of Home Rule, not less than that which the House recently denied to Ireland.
    MR. W. H. SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. There was another hon. Member from Scotland wishing to address the House.
    MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, that, as their mouthpiece, he desired to direct the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to a question involving the welfare of the miners of Scotland. Last year he had the honour of introducing an 8 hours clause into the Mines Bill; but it failed to pass, and at the request of the miners he introduced a Bill for Scotland this year with the same object. That it was the wish of the Scottish miners that there should be such legislation was evident from the fact that, at the two recent bye-elections in Scotland, the candidates were pressed by the miners on the question, and Members were returned pledged to support such legislation; and he would draw the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate's attention to the fact that some Scottish Conservative Members were also virtually prepared to support the proposal. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when taking into consideration the fact that it was desired by the great body of their fellow-countrymen whose conditions of life were extremely hard and irksome, he would pledge himself or give some guarantee that during the Autumn Session the House would have a day to discuss this question, which was one vitally affecting the conditions of the daily life and the most hard-working section of the community, and the more especially when it was considered that it did not involve the question of the condition of the miners of England, for whom he could not pretend to speak. He wished to impress most earnestly upon the Lord Advocate,

    1769
    the fact that the wages of the Scottish miners were falling day by day, and that these men were now in a very much worse position than they were—not in the times of 1872—but 25 years ago
    MR. M. J. KENNYsaid, he wished to know when the reorganization of the Paymaster General's Office was likely to be effected? The question had been under consideration for about three years, and it was unfair to the public servants whose interests were concerned that a scheme of reorganization should be hanging over their heads for so long a time.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, that before the proposed scheme could be carried out legislation would be necessary. The fact was, there had not been time that Session to pass a Bill through the House.
    MR. W. A. MACDONALDsaid, he wished to draw attention to the jury-packing which prevailed at the recent Summer Assizes in Queen's County. Roman Catholic jurors had been ordered to stand aside for no cause shown, but, apparently, merely because they were Roman Catholics, like 88 per cent of the population. He had asked Questions in the House upon the subject, and had received unsatisfactory replies, and he had, in consequence, taken the greatest pains to ascertain the exact facts of the case. At the Assizes in question, the entire special jury panel contained the names of 200 gentlemen, 131 of whom were Protestants, and only 69 Catholics, and in three distinct cases out of five tried by special juries the Roman Catholic jurors were deliberately excluded by the action of the Crown. In one of those cases, a prisoner who was charged with attempting to shoot a man named William Whelehan, was convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. In another case, transferred from Kerry under the Coercion Act, a youth of about 18 was indicted for attacking and firing into a house. No one was injured and the house was not damaged, and yet the prisoner was convicted, and received the atrocious sentence of seven years' penal servitude. In another case, five young men were charged with attempting to shoot a Na-
    1770
    tional schoolmaster; and in this case, the Crown were graciously pleased to allow one Roman Catholic to remain on the jury. Of the five prisoners, four were convicted and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. There was also a case from Kerry, in which the prisoner was charged with attempting to shoot the daughter of the schoolmaster, and in this case also one Roman Catholic was allowed to be on the jury. The prisoner was convicted, and sentenced to 18 years' penal servitude. Now, it could not be said that the doctrine of chances would account for the small proportion of Roman Catholics on each of these juries. There were special circumstances, indeed, which explained the presence on the jury of the two Catholic jurors in these cases. In the first, the Catholic juror was a Mr. Redmond, who had recently been rejected at an election for the Board of Guardians, but who had thereupon been created a Justice of the Peace by Dublin Castle, so that he mignt be an ex officio Guardian. The other Catholic juror was a Mr. Dunne, whose treatment of some of his tenants had some years ago been condemned by Cardinal Moran, when Bishop of Ossory. He, too, had recently been created a Justice of the Peace by Dublin Castle, and therefore could be trusted to do anything that the Castle wanted. It might be asked, whether there were any other special jury cases tried at this Assize? Yes; there was another case, and in this there was no jury-packing; but that was, because the Crown officials knew perfectly well that upon legal grounds the case could not be sustained, and it was not, therefore, worth their while to interfere with the constitution of the jury. This kind of thing had been going on in all parts of Ireland for years, and was regarded as a gross insult by the Catholics. The jurors of the Queen's County were as law-abiding men as any in the Kingdom, and they regarded it as a grave insult that they should not be deemed worthy to be trusted with the trial of Kerry Moonlighters. If this kind of thing was repeated the Catholic jurors of the Queen's County had, he was informed, banded themselves together, determined to stand up, one and all in Court, when ordered to stand by on account of their religion, and respectfully protest against the in-

    1771
    suit offered their creed. They might be sent to prison for contempt of Court by some unjust Judge; but they were ready to suffer imprisonment, in order that attention might be called to this disgraceful system of jury-packing.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)said, he could not enter into the facts which the hon. Member had stated regarding the cases to which the hon. Member had referred, for no record of the religious persuasions of jurors was kept. As to the empanelling of the jury panel, that was prepared by the High Sheriff, over whose action the Government had no control. As to the action of the Crown Solicitor in ordering jurors to stand by, that was regulated by one of the rules drawn up by the then Attorney General in 1867, which had been adopted by successive Governments since then, and which provided that the Crown Solicitor should make preliminary inquiries as to the panel, and challenge such jurors as he considered, either through fear or owing to their trade, were not likely to discharge their duty impartially, it might happen that, acting under that rule, the Crown Solicitor might order jurors of one particular religion to stand aside, but their religion was not the ground of his doing so. [Laughter.] In the discharge of his duty under that rule, the Crown Solicitor had no right to make any inquiries as to the religious belief of the jurors.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he would gladly make the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Madden) a present of the rule. It was, however, a very curious fact that though no inquiry was made as to the religious tendencies of the jurors the result was always the same—namely, that all the Catholics were ordered to stand aside, and the majority of jurors in these cases were Protestants. The broad fact remained that jury-packing was carried on, and that objections were taken to jurors on account of their religious belief. However, he did not rise for the purpose of discussing that question. He desired to ask the Chief Secretary a question with regard to the case of Kennedy, the lunatic. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any further inquiries into the condition of that poor man with a view
    1772
    to his removal to an asylum? He also wished to ask him whether Mr. Latchford, for whom in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion there was not a ghost of a case for relief on Friday night last, had been released that day from prison on the order of the Court of Exchequer on the ground that his conviction was wrongful and illegal? The case shed a flood of light on the proceedings under the Coercion Act, for it was a case in which the magistrate refused either to increase the sentence to enable the prisoner to appeal, or to state a case, yet the Court of Exchequer at once found a point on which to release Mr. Latchford. He also wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would still defend his favourite, Cecil Roche? The last case he wished to refer to was that at Miltown Malbay. He referred to the case because he understood that one of the prisoners, Joseph O'Brien, was released on Saturday by order of the prison authorities, on the ground that he was too ill to be kept in prison. It was too probable that Joseph O'Brien had been sent forth to die; but the other men had still a month's imprisonment to undergo. He begged the right hon. Gentleman to bring his mind to bear on this case. The evidence against Joseph O'Brien was simply that he personally refused to supply a woman named Hannah Connell with a pound of sugar and an ounce of tea, and that he made the remark that she had never called at his shop before. This woman could have got what she wanted elsewhere; but she chose to call at the houses of these four men who were charged with conspiracy to induce others not to deal. There might possibly have been evidence of a conspiracy not to deal, but to convict of conspiracy to induce others not to deal, a great deal more would have to be established than a mere refusal to supply people. He had with him a copy of the depositions, and he declared on his honour that, having read them through, he could not find a particle of evidence to support the charge on which these men were convicted; yet they received the atrocious sentence of three months' hard labour, and on appeal to the County Court Judge that sentence was actually doubled. In their private capacity not a shadow of suspicion rested on these men. They were as respectable as any man in that House. [An

    1773
    hon. MEMBER: A good deal more.] He contended that there was not a particle of evidence to support the particular charge of conspiracy to induce others not to deal. He admitted, however, that there might be evidence of a conspiracy not to deal, an offence which was not punishable under the Coercion Act. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland said there was additional evidence given on appeal, but that in regard to the first hearing of the case certain pieces of evidence were left out of the depositions. What did that mean? The inference was that the magistrates left out of the depositions the most important part of the evidence. He invited the Chief Secretary to point out the evidence given on the first hearing bearing out the charge on which those persons were convicted. The only evidence given on appeal was to the effect that the people of Miltown Malbay refused to fish with Hannah Connell and her son, and that hawkers refused to buy fish from her. To assert that people were not at liberty to refuse, if they chose, to do either of those things was ridiculous. He had studied the matter, and as far as he had seen the depositions, he asserted that there was not a particle of evidence in any of the cases dealing with the particular charge of conspiracy on which the prisoners were convicted. If the facts of the case were known, there was not even a Tory platform where the audience would not give a verdict in their favour. Those cases constituted the very gravest scandals to be detected in connection with the administration of the Coercion Act in Ireland. They proved that if there was any conspiracy at all it was a conspiracy not only against the liberties but the lives of honest people, such as the unfortunate Miltown Malbay prisoners and the victims of a dozen other similar prosecutions, on the part of the landlords and the tools of the Goverment in Ireland. The Irish people were expected to respect the law and to bow down and worship the Chief Secretary and his satellites. In his (Mr. Clancy's) opinion the Irish people would not be fit for freedom if they did not despise and hate both.
    MR. NOLAN——
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. NOLAN, resuming, said, he wished to call attention to the conduct of the military and police on the day of the trial of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) in Dundalk, though the Chief Secretary, in answer to a Question which he put to the right hon. Gentleman, said that no harm had been done by the military and police on that occasion. That reply gave great surprise to the people of Dundalk. A full list of the men, women, and children injured was being prepared, and in due course would be brought under the notice of the Chief Secretary. Meanwhile, he (Mr. Nolan) wished to draw attention to some of the most brutal of the cases of injury. In one case an old man named Duffy anxious to hear the trial went to the Court House early in the morning, but was pushed by a policeman who, on the old man laying hold of the railing, brought down his bâton on the man's hand with a squashing blow, completely disabling it. A young man named Hughes was struck down senseless by a blow on the head with a baton while standing at his own door. Mr. Maxwell, who had been three times Chairman of the Town Commissioners, while endeavouring to act as peacemaker, received for his pains a thrust from a rifle, and he had since been spitting blood. A respectable woman also had her arm broken against a doorway by the force with which a policeman throw her, and a blacksmith was lying in hospital from a sabre cut in the head. He would leave it to the Chief Secretary to reconcile these facts with the statement he had made that none of the people were injured on the occasion in question. Since these occurrences the police had tried to establish a reign of terror by wholesale prosecutions on bogus charges before Removable Magistrates.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, that, while the House was engaged voting money for the government of Ireland, while his hon. Friend was bringing under the notice of the House in the person of District Inspector Supple, a specimen of the rowdy swashbuckler, entrusted with the public peace of Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thought it decent and consistent with his duty to be absent from the House. What did the Go-

    1775
    vernment mean to do in the case of Mr. Latchford, That gentleman, a Justice of the Peace, concerned himself in a Memorial to the Government, the object of which was to obtain the removal of Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., from Tralee. Some scuffle having occurred between Mr. Latchford and another magistrate, a charge, not of riot, but of assault, was brought against him, and he was sent to be tried before Mr. Cecil Roche, his private enemy. He was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for the alleged riot. To-day, when Mr. Latchford had been nearly a month in prison, the Lord Chief Baron and his Colleagues had found that there was no evidence of riot. [Mr. MADDEN dissented.] At all events, the Court of Appeal found that Mr. Latchford ought never to have been sent to prison at all. Under those circumstances, he (Mr. Sexton) wished to know what reparation the Government intended to make to Mr. Latchford for the insult they had put upon him and the outrage they had done him? In the same way it appeared that the Miltown Malbay prisoners had been unjustly convicted. And he wished further to know what course was to be taken with them? They had been sent to prison on a charge of conspiracy to compel people not to deal with others. The Lord Chief Baron and his Colleagues had laid down that in order to support a charge of conspiracy under the Coercion Act not to deal with a person, it was necessary to prove that the parties charged had exercised compulsion upon the will of others. They had held that a mere conspiracy not to deal was not an offence under the Coercion Act, and that it was not an offence at Common Law, unless a conspiracy to injure could be proved. He thought the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland would not now deny that not a syllable of evidence was produced before the magistrates in support of the charge on which they were convicted, in view of the judgment given by the Court of Appeal in the Killeagh case. One of the Miltown Malbay prisoners had been released because he was dying. How long were the other men to be kept in prison? If the Government had the least respect for the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, they were bound to release the prisoners after the judgment that had recently been delivered. He wished next to
    1776
    bring to the attention of the Chief Secretary certain facts which had come to his knowledge within the last few hours. They related to the prison treatment of Father M'Fadden, of Gweedore. Never had any man a more painful charge than Father M'Fadden in the district of Gweedore, and never had any man more nobly acquitted himself. He (Mr. Sexton) enjoyed the honour of the friendship of Father M'Fadden. He was the most gentle, amiable, and unselfish of men—a man who in any other country but Ireland would have been respected by the Government as he was honoured by the people. For standing by his flock Father M'Fadden had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment as a first-class misdemeanant. The Chief Secretary, with characteristic chivalry, then attacked him. In self-defence the rev. gentleman sent a reply to the newspapers, and immediately after the publication of his letter, the right hon. Gentleman sent a Prison Inspector to the prison at Derry to hold a kind of Star Chamber inquiry. Father M'Fadden asked to be allowed to be present at the inquiry which so closely concerned him, so that he might hear the charge and give evidence, but his appeal was refused. After the inquiry he was locked in a corridor, the key of the gate being given to a warder who was forbidden to speak to him. For exercise he was ushered into a narrow courtyard, about 12 feet broad, shut in at one end by the boundary wall, 32 feet high, and at the other by a gable end. When Father M'Fadden first saw this place, he told the warder that first-class misdemeanance was a farce, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) would not put his dog to exercise in such a place, that for the maintenance of principle and for the good of the community he would protest against this, and that if a better place for exercise could not be found for him he would remain in his cell. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) was not as courageous as he was malignant, and in the presence of that threat he did not ask Father M'Fadden to exercise in that place. Before this inquiry, Father M'Fadden, as a first-class misdemeanant, had been allowed to write letters, but since the inquiry had taken place, Father M'Fadden had been refused the right, not only of sending a letter to the Press, but of sending any letter what-

    1777
    ever. His window (which was his sole means of ventilation, and which he was formerly allowed to open) was now locked up, and, as the glass was frosted, Father M'Fadden was now left from the break of day to the coming of darkness to look at nothing but the four white walls of his cell—an experience which had deprived many a man of his sight, and might deprive a prisoner of his reason. He was not surprised to hear that Father M'Fadden had grown grey under this treatment. He desired to know whether Father M'Fadden, who had been sentenced as a first-class misdemeanant, would continue to be deprived of privileges to which, as such, he was entitled? Finally, he (Mr. Sexton) wished to draw attention to a letter that had appeared in one of that morning's papers written by the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane), in which the hon. Gentleman gave an account of some of his experiences in Tullamore Gaol under the care of Dr. Ridley. He (Mr. Sexton) had seen his hon. Friend, who absolutely confirmed every statement in that letter. His hon. Friend was confined in Tullamore, and was under the care of Dr. Ridley. In his letter he said—
    "At that time I was very ill, but would not admit it, as I wanted to force my right to private exercise as a political prisoner. Dr. Ridley begged of me several times to go into the hospital, 'because,' said he, 'if you don't they will starve you to death here.'"
    The letter continued—
    "When Dr. Ridley saw me sinking so rapidly, he said he could not give exercise, but he would give me food. On the following days he brought me some roast fowl, and on Friday he brought me three poached eggs 'to keep the life in you,' as he said himself. Finally, when I became so prostrate that I could not rise off the flags, he said, 'I must either defy the Prisons Board or have an inquest on you, and as I don't want a verdict against me for killing you I will give you exercise in spite of them.'"
    His (Mr. Sexton's) hon. Friend (Mr. Lane) took exercise that day and on the following day. He said—
    "In the forenoon of the second day Dr. Ridley came into my cell in a most excited state. He said he had 'got a terrible reprimand from Dublin' for allowing me out to exercise, that he 'had orders to certify that I was fit for punishment,' that the Resident Magistrate was to be brought in, and I was to be put in the punishment dungeon, which would certainly kill me in the condition I was then, and he asked me to go into hospital 'as the only way to escape them.' He gave me 10 minutes to think it over, and went to Alderman Hooper's cell.
    1778
    When he returned he said he had told Alderman Hooper the whole story, and that the latter strongly urged me to conform to his (Dr. Ridley's) wishes. He brought me a password from Alderman Hooper to convince me that he had sent the message. I then consented to go into hospital."
    The letter continued—
    "When I was leaving the prison I asked him how I could repay all his kindness. He said I could do so 'by letting the public know he was not the inhuman wretch the prison rules made him appear;' but he warned me not to say a word that would let the Prisons Board know that he was kind to any of us political prisoners. He told me he was in perpetual conflict with the Prisons Board about the political prisoners since he refused to be present at the forcible stripping of Mr. O'Brien, which he reported would imperil his life."
    The hon. Member (Mr. Lane) concluded his letter by stating that he knew Dr. Ridley to be a most sensitive and kindhearted man, and that he appeared to be disgusted with the brutal discipline he had to administer, and that he had no doubt he committed self destruction at the shame of having allowed himself to be bullied into the punishment of John Mandeville. Mr. Mandeville was dead and Dr. Ridley was dead. He (Mr. Sexton) charged upon the Chief Secretary the direct responsibility for the former, and for the latter's self-inflicted end. The question raised by the letter would have to be tested, and without pressing further the facts of this case, he simply asked the Chief Secretary whether he would lay upon the Table all the instructions and communications issued to Dr. Ridley by the Prisons Board while Mr. Mandeville and the other political prisoners were under his care; and, also, whether he would furnish them with written notes of the verbal communications on this subject made by the right hon. Gentleman or his subordinates to Dr. Ridley, so as to enable the House to judge for themselves the measure of the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I shall proceed to reply to the questions which have been put to me as briefly and with as little of the controversial spirit as possible. The hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) referred to a speech made on Friday last by one of his Friends, in reference to a man who became insane whilst in prison. I promised to make inquiries in the

    1779
    matter, and I did so at the earliest possible moment; but I have not yet received a reply, and therefore I cannot give any further information on this subject. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), who has just sat down, stated that the Court of Exchequer had quashed the verdict in the case of Mr. Latchford, who was prosecuted for riot, on the ground that there was no evidence of riot; but that statement is wholly inaccurate. The Court of Exchequer never dealt with evidence in the case at all. It is true that they had ordered Mr. Latchford's release. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, but they did so simply on the ground that there had been a technical error in the order of imprisonment. There was no question of law on the merits of the case involved, but a pure technicality. The next question was with reference to the Miltown Malbay case, which was tried, not before a Resident Magistrate at all, but before a County Court Judge. The case has been heard twice over, and, on each occasion, the Court decided that there was evidence for committal. It is perfectly useless to attempt to discuss the legal evidence in a case before a Committee of the House of Commons. It cannot be done. Nothing can be gained in the cause of justice, or in any other cause, by trying before a tribunal which is not judicial, a case which has already been tried before a tribunal which is judicial. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should have chosen that case as one upon which they wish to try the question of Boycotting; for a more shocking case it is impossible to conceive—this poor unhappy woman, kept three days without food by an illegal and iniquitous conspiracy. Nothing more horrible has come to light in the annals of Irish political strife. The hon. Member for West Belfast has given a graphic account of what he calls the treatment of Father M'Fadden in prison. He has informed the Committee that I have sent down emissaries from Dublin Castle, that I have held a Star Chamber inquiry at the prison, and that I have condemned Father M'Fadden to treatment which, apparently in the opinion of the hon. Member, would not have been inflicted upon an ordinary prisoner. Well, to all that, I give the most absolute contradiction. I have sent no emissary. I have not held any Star Chamber inquiry.
    1780
    I have not ordered any special prison treatment. In fact, I am absolutely ignorant of all that the hon. Member has been talking about; and I must say, in addition, that I receive with the most absolute scepticism the whole story which has been been brought before us in such detail.
    MR. SEXTON: They have appeared in the Press.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, if the hon. Gentleman had no better means of information than the Irish Press, it would account for their not being able to agree on this point. The hon. Member concluded by calling your attention to a letter from the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane), of which I have heard, but which I have not read, with regard to his treatment in Tullamore Gaol and his conversation with Dr. Ridley. I think it would have been well if these things had been said in Dr. Ridley's lifetime.
    MR. SEXTON: Yes; then you could have dismissed him.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And if it had not been said in Dr. Ridley's lifetime, it would have been well if, instead of being written in a letter to The Daily News, it had been given in evidence on oath before the Coroner's jury, so that it might have been cross-examined upon. All I can say is, having regard to Parliamentary usage, that, in my opinion, nothing can be more certain than that the hon. Member for East Cork is labouring under some delusion. He says that Dr. Ridley was told to treat political prisoners with exceptional severity. That is absolutely false. He tells a story of Dr. Ridley bringing into his cell, surreptitiously, poached eggs and chicken. Well, I do not know much of prison discipline; but I presume there is a sufficient amount of surveillance to prevent such a thing being done without somebody having cognizance of it. But however that may be, I state in the most positive manner, on my responsibility as a Minister of the Crown, that the one regulation which I have laid down, and which I insist upon being carried out, is this, that every prisoner should be treated exactly alike, without any distinction as to whether he is a political prisoner or not. A political prisoner, according to my orders, is not to be treated any better or any worse than any other prisoner, and he has not

    1781
    been treated any better or worse, so far as I have any control. The hon. Member now takes an extraordinary interest in the prison rules, and characterizes them as inhuman. It is also said that Dr. Ridley stated that he would regard himself as an inhuman wretch if he carried out the prison rules. Who made the prison rules? Was it I? The prison rules in force in Ireland at this moment are the result of a Royal Commission appointed, I think, in the year 1880 or the year 1881, which reported in the year 1884. The Ministry in power when that Commission reported were the Friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, as a matter of fact, the particular right hon. Gentleman then Chief Secretary for Ireland, whom I now see before me (Mr. John Morley), was asked a Question in that House about the new prison rules, and he stated in that House that he had carried out in detail the recommendations, or most of the recommendations, of the Royal Commission. The prison rules now in force are not my prison rules. They are the prison rules that were in force before the last Liberal Administration. They are the prison rules advised and recommended by a Royal Commission, and advocated and carried out by a Liberal Chief Secretary.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the leading point of the hon. Member's charge was, that the political prisoners under punishment—[Cries of "Order!"]—that political prisoners under punishment were deprived of the two hours' daily exercise recommended by the Commission.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have two observations to make on the interruption of the hon. Gentleman. The first is, that the prison rules in force were advocated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The second is, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends and Predecessors in Office refused, as absolutely as I have refused, to recognize any such class in existence as political prisoners. That disposes, as I think, pretty completely of the interruption the hon. Gentleman was good enough to make. Those rules, passed by Parliament and suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, are those now in force in Irish prisons; and how do they differ from the rules now in force in English prisons? They differ in one respect only—that they are more lenient and
    1782
    more in favour of the prisoner. We have heard a great deal of the food in Irish prisons. We have been told that Irish prisoners have been starved. We have also been told that in the matter of nourishment the Irish prison rules are inhuman. Is it the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite that these rules are inhuman? If so, why did not they discover it earlier, at a time when they had no concern one way or another with them, and not now, when they are interested, and want to make political capital out of them? If the Irish prison rules are inhuman, the English prison rules are doubly inhuman, because they afford a less generous diet to prisoners than the Irish rules. I say, with absolute confidence, that if our prison rules require remodelling, in order to make them less harsh, the first prison rules that ought to be remodelled are the English prison rules; and if the prison rules of the United Kingdom require remodelling, I confess I should have thought better of those philanthropists who urge an alteration, if they had urged it at a time when they did not think they could make political capital out of that contention. Hon. Members opposite say the prison rules are inhuman. They have been laid before Parliament; they have been approved by hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Several Home Rule MEMBERS: Never.] Well, they were before the House, and if they were not approved, you raised no objection to them. They have not been objected to before Parliament; they have been advocated by a Royal Commission, and passed by a Liberal Chief Secretary, and I say, in those circumstances, if any alteration is required, let hon. Gentlemen not ask me to make a special alteration in one country with regard to one class of prisoners. Let them demand an inquiry into the whole system of prison discipline in England, in Scotland, and in Ireland, with regard to every prisoner, be he who he may, and be the fault for which he is imprisoned what it may. I will not oppose them if they do; but never will I consent to draw a distinction between one class of offenders against the law and another class in the one and the same country. Neither will I be intimidated by the species of calumny to which the hon. Gentlemen opposite have given utterance this night, into modifying the

    1783
    treatment to be given to Irish prisoners who may be friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite, while I leave unaltered the treatment to be given to other offenders against the law in this country, in Scotland, and in England. I have, I think, dealt now with all the questions raised. I have nothing further to add, and I hope the House will soon consent to the Vote on Account.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I do not propose to make any remarks at this stage on what has fallen from the Chief Secretary on prison discipline. I will only say that he himself has admitted, with a nonchalance rather surprising, that he did not pretend to be versed in the prison rules. I should have thought that a Minister now in the position of the Chief Secretary, whose business or misfortune it has been to put into prison so many of his Parliamentary Colleagues, knowing that the subject of prison treatment would be brought before the House, would have made himself acquainted with prison discipline. The right hon. Gentleman and the House must not forget that the prisoners of whose treatment the hon. Members from Ireland are now complaining, though undoubtedly they have been adjudged to be offenders against the law, are for the most part in prison under an exceptional law.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is exactly the same law that prevailed under Lord Spencer's Administration.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have nothing to do with Lord Spencer's Government. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] I cannot understand why right hon. Gentlemen opposite should be so elated with that declaration. I had nothing to do with the administration of the Coercion Act of Lord Spencer, and I spoke against the Coercion Act of Mr. Forster's time in season and out of season; and when it was proposed to renew some of the clauses of the Crimes Act of 1882, I, sitting below the Gangway, gave Notice of an Amendment resisting the reimposition of those clauses. Therefore it seems to me, under those circumstances, that the cheers of hon. Members opposite are singularly misplaced. Those Gentlemen who are now in prison, and of whose treatment in prison we complain, are there under an exceptional law—a law
    1784
    which does not exist in England or Scotland, and which was passed last year, and the right hon. Gentleman speaks of English and Scottish prisoners as if they were precisely on a level with the Gentlemen in prison under the Coercion Act. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] No, they are not. Why, Sir, Mr. Dillon would not be in prison at all in their opinion, if he had been able to appeal to a jury, which he would have had if the hon. Member had made the speech in England or Scotland, and which he had a right to at the time that he made that speech in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman must really admit with his logical mind that that condition makes all the difference in their attitude towards the treatment of these prisoners; and I think the right hon. Gentleman could not employ his recess more advantageously than by inquiring into some of the details of that prison discipline as to which he avows his complete ignorance. Now, I want to say a word or two with regard to what fell from the Chief Secretary in regard to Mr. Latchford. I should think that the Chief Secretary must feel a little uncomfortable—[A Parnellite MEMBER: Oh, dear no!]—when he reflects upon what he said on Friday, and then considers the judgment of the Court of Exchequer to-day. I have not seen a printed or written report containing the terms of the judgment, and I am willing to believe that the decision of the Court of Exchequer has turned entirely upon a technical error in the form of committal. What do I care about that? Is it not the fact that Mr. Latchford has suffered one month's imprisonment, less two days, wrongfully? I ask the Chief Secretary to answer this question. Can it be denied that Mr. Latchford has suffered nearly the whole of what is now proved to have been, whether on a technical point or not, a wrongful committal? It cannot be denied. Then the Chief Secretary says that Mr. Latchford's counsel, when before Mr. Roche, did not raise this point of law upon which the form of committal has been criticized. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had access to some more minute report of what took place before Mr. Roche; but I have read all the reports in the local newspapers and in The Freeman's Journal, and I say that Mr. Latchford's counsel was not allowed to

    1785
    raise a point upon which a case could be stated, because Mr. Roche said arbitrarily, as is his fashion, that no point of law had arisen on which a case could be stated. That, however, is not the opinion of the Court of Exchequer; and, in fact, Mr. Roche gave no chance to the counsel to raise such a point. It would be useless, in the absence of documents and of what took place before the Court of Exchequer this day, to go further into the case; but I repeat that it is certain that Mr. Latchford has nearly undergone a month's wrongful imprisonment. I have one other observation to make before I sit down, and that is with regard to the character which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway give to the right hon. Gentleman—that he is tyrannical and despotic. I am not sure of that. I am not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not the opposite of a tyrant and a despot. His position is that of a Minister who, from his policy, is compelled, in every case, right or wrong, to back up his subordinates. Is it to be supposed that in the administration of this Coercion Act, which has been in force just a year—as we may suppose from the line he has uniformly taken—that there has not been a single error of judgment, not a single indiscretion, not a single miscarriage of justice perpetrated by a Divisional Magistrate, Resident Magistrate, Inspector, or Head Constable? If we are to trust to the Chief Secretary not one of those officers has made a single mistake. The Chief Secretary is right. His policy can only be carried out on condition that he supports his subordinates through thick and thin, through right and wrong. That is the misfortune of his position. The fact is, he has never admitted that the humblest subordinate has been guilty of any indiscretion, and as soon as I hear the Chief Secretary admit that on a single occasion, however minute or trifling, one of his subordinates, however humble, has been guilty of an indiscretion, however unimportant, then I will believe that the right hon. Gentleman is the master and not the servant of his own agents. The right hon. Gentleman says that the House of Commons is the last place in which judicial and police administration can be properly criticized.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not police, but judicial matters.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: They are the same in Ireland.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Well, I say that we are in a position to consider judicial questions in this House. There is not a case in which the Chief Secretary has admitted that any of these men has made a mistake. It must, indeed, be allowed that many mistakes have been committed; but how can we get the people of Ireland to respect the law or its administration when we know that the Minister of the Crown who represents the Irish Government in this House, supported by a majority, is unable to face the truth or to admit the truth? Mr. Latchford's case illustrates that among many things, and I hope, after the decision in this case, that the right hon. Gentleman will instruct Colonel Turner and others who are nominally his subordinates not to write letters to the newspapers accusing Members of Parliament and others of gross misstatements, when every statement that I, at least, have made is absolutely borne out by everything that has come to light since. I have the honour of knowing Colonel Turner. I am willing to believe that that gentleman is an excellent military officer; but Colonel Turner, deciding in situations that require a judicial or a legal frame of mind, is just as competent to do that as I am to direct the evolutions of Her Majesty's Fleet in Bantry Bay. He is entirely incompetent to deal with those minute points which arise in such circumstances. It is one of the deplorable features in the present administration of Ireland that a man like Colonel Turner, whose excellence in his own proper sphere of life I am not prepared to deny, should have these important points to settle, and that the Chief Secretary is compelled to back him up. The result, for which we are responsible, is that Mr. Latchford, among many others, has endured what is now proved to be a wrong and unjust punishment.
    MR. HOOPERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had insinuated that his hon. Colleague the Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) had written a letter to the newspapers which apparently ha would shrink from substantiating in a Court of Justice. He (Mr. Hooper) could state that his hon. Colleague was ready to appear

    1787
    before the Coroner's Court and to substantiate every word he had written. When he (Mr. Hooper) himself was in gaol Dr. Ridley came to him on the morning referred to, and said to him that he was in a state of great trouble and distress, and had got into a serious conflict with the Prisons Board. It was stated that the Board had written to Dr. Ridley saying that he had no power to give his Colleague—who had been three weeks in a cell—outdoor exercise in the circumstances, and that unless his Colleague went to the hospital he would be in a very serious difficulty. Dr. Ridley appealed to him to give his advice in that direction. He told Dr. Ridley there was a great principle involved, that a doctor should be prevented, within his discretion, from ordering the exercise he thought fit for a prisoner under his charge. He was placed in the position of having either to forego a great princple or sacrifice the life of his Friend, who was editor of his paper while the right hon. Gentleman put him (Mr. Hooper) in gaol. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the prisoners and of the food they got in Ireland; indeed, the right hon. Gentleman scoffed at the idea of political prisoners. He himself was prosecuted for publishing in his paper a report which was as legal up to three months before as anything that ever appeared in any English newspaper. He was tried on 13 different charges; he was convicted on two of them and sentenced on each; and the right hon. Gentleman did not give him a chance of appealing to a higher Court. He was sent to prison, and what treatment did he get from the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates in gaol? He was stripped of his clothes by force, required to take exercise with two criminals, both of whom had stabbed a man and one of whom had killed his victim, and required also to eat prison food and clean out his cell. He did clean out his cell, and he was ordered bread and water from that unfortunate man who was now dead (Dr. Ridley), and towards whom he entertained not the slightest animosity, for he regarded him as the victim of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He got five days' bread and water under Dr. Ridley's direction. He was sent to hospital, where he remained for 11 days, and on his return
    1788
    he was two days afterwards put on bread and water for two days more. If the right hon. Gentleman did not consider his case a political one, he did not know what case under the Crimes Act, or any other Act, could possible be a political case. But, passing from the digression, Dr. Ridley told him, in the exact words which his hon. Friend (Mr. Lane) mentioned, that he had got into serious trouble with the Prisons Board, and asked him to advise his hon. Friends to go to the hospital; and he decided, both on account of his hon. Friend's wife and children, and also on account of his very haggard and changed condition, to do so. His hon. Friend's appearance was greatly altered; he was wan, and had aged 10 years. He would not have known him in the streets in his ordinary clothes. He was now exceedingly glad that he had done so, for he believed that if his hon. Friend had been subjected for the remainder of his term to that injurious system he never would have come out of Tullamore Gaol alive. The right hon. Gentleman scoffed at the idea of his Friends being clandestinely supplied with any articles of nourishing food by the doctor; but was the right hon. Gentleman so ignorant of prison discipline as to suppose that they searched the doctors when they went into the Irish gaols? Perhaps, however, that would be the next new order which the right hon. Gentleman would issue. But would the right hon. Gentleman be astonished to hear that, while Dr. Ridley was openly carrying out the orders of the Prisons Board in his (Mr. Hooper's) case, he clandestinely offered him brandy? Seeing the effects which confinement had on him, Dr. Ridley came to him, and said—"Now, Mr. Hooper, is there nothing I can do for you? Supposing I brought you up some brandy, would you take it?" Well, that was a sore temptation to a man in his position; but he said—"No, Dr. Ridley; if I took the brandy and the smell were to be found in my cell by some other official it is not you who would be suspected, but some unfortunate warder, whose own living and that of his family depended on his retaining his situation." Would the right hon. Gentleman be astonished to hear that while Dr. Ridley was carrying out

    1789
    his orders he told him that there was not a man in that community, whatever his religion or his politics, who approved of the treatment that was given? At that same moment there was another Colleague of his in another part of the establishment—the ex-Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. T. D. Sullivan), who was in there exactly for the same offence as his, and who was treated as a first-class misdemeanant, getting his own food, wearing his own clothes, receiving newspapers, allowed to read his letters, and to take exercise for two hours by himself. What was the cause for that difference of treatment? It was not that his offence was more heinous than that of the hon. Gentleman the ex-Lord Mayor of Dublin. It was that he himself was tried by two of the right hon. Gentleman's Removables, while the hon. Gentleman the ex-Lord Mayor was tried by a magistrate as independent of the right hon. Gentleman as the Chief Baron of the Exchequer. He had not the slightest animosity against the right hon. Gentleman; the only feeling he had was one of regret that a man of his influence and abilities should descend to such a contemptible policy. He himself had been put in gaol for only doing the very acts which he was doing to-day, and he was quite willing that the right hon. Gentleman should come on again. If he had not, unfortunately, had a better constitution and a more cheerful disposition than others, the shocking treatment he had received in gaol would have made more serious in roads on his health; but he could state that there was nothing which his hon. Friend (Mr. Lane) had said in regard to Dr. Ridley but was perfectly true, and he could vouch for it on oath.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was pained to the last degree that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should have made such reflections upon the utterances of an hon. Member of that House by saying that that hon. Member had not made his statement upon oath.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but that was not the point of his objection. The point was not the question of oath, but of cross-examination.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that his observations were thoroughly to the point. He objected to the reflection
    1790
    that the word of any Member of that House was not as good as that of the right hon. Gentleman. From his knowledge of the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) in that House, and from the friendship he had shown him in Ireland, there was no Member of that House whose word was entitled to higher respect; and it ill became the right hon. Gentleman to discredit him. It was in the highest degree shameful, brutal, and infamous that the political prisoners should be treated in the same way as the villest criminals in the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might be personally humane, he might desire to do nothing irregular or harsh; but he showed a want of consideration which was extremely painful. The right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues were heaping upon themselves in one case after another such a record as must, in the long run, sink them to the lowest possible condition in the estimation of their fellow-countrymen as administrators.
    MR. JOHNSONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he bad often witnessed fierce conflicts with Chief Secretaries for Ireland; but former Chief Secretaries had exhibited decency and gravity of demeanour, which compared favourably with the levity and flippancy, the spirit of taunt and insult, now exhibited. While the hon. Member for South East Cork (Mr. Hooper) described the prison treatment which had partially destroyed his sight, his voice was almost drowned by conversation that seemed to be intentionally loud on the Treasury Bench in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer engaged. He protested against such conduct as degrading this Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary calmly argued as if the letter of the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) must be mendacious. The right hon. Gentleman taunted them with a new-born interest in prison rules, when it was notorious that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had with great difficulty secured the partial amendment of the rules by

    1791
    a Liberal Government—a task in which they were not assisted by the Conservatives, whose alliance did not extend to any interference with coercion. The right hon. Gentleman had professed ignorance of prison rules. If that was so the right hon. Gentleman was the only man in the House—with, perhaps, the single exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who would be capable of imprisoning 19 or 20 of his Parliamentary Colleagues, and then coming down to the House with a nonchalant air and declaring that he had very little knowledge of prison rules. Was it really astonishing that Irish Members should take an interest in the subject, with 19 or 20 of their Colleagues subject to those rules? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary's ignorance of the prison rules was all assumed, for he could know all about them and alter them in the case of a priest. There was no relevancy in the comparison with England, because men like Dillon were not imprisoned in England for political offences, and because the rules were interpreted in a barbarous spirit in Ireland. They would some day bring home to the right hon. Gentleman direct responsibility for all this torture he had inflicted in Ireland. Every official in Irish prisons lived in feared and trembling lest he should be dismissed for not being brutal enough. It was asked why his hon. Friend had not stated, what he had stated to-night, during the life of Dr. Ridley? He could not, for dismissal would have been the fate of Dr. Ridley if it had been known that he had shown consideration to an imprisoned Member. If the warders tried to make life more human they were dismissed by this high-minded Chief Secretary, who did not consider even such poor men too low a game. The story of Tullamore Gaol was gradually being unfolded, and would be soon better known, though the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would probably deprive the House of the opportunity of discussing it in its entirety. He had promised the shorthand writers' notes in the Mandeville inquest, but the notes would probably be delayed till the time had gone past for proper and adequate discussion, for when the right hon. Gentleman promised a Return, he was prepared to find it kept back until a space of time had
    1792
    elapsed sufficient to make the revelations less poignant to the public imagination. He was informed by his hon. Friend who had taken an honourable part in the inquiry that the shorthand writers' notes were transcribed from day to day. The right hon. Gentleman seemed self-complacent to night; that was a virtue upon which he was to be congratulated but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had seen men in his position overthrown, and he would yet see the right hon. Gentleman; overthrown also. The public opinion of this country was getting disgusted with the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman. The public opinion which had been defrauded into electing Gentlemen opposite as Members of that House was getting informed as to the proceedings and as to the real nature of the right hon. Gentleman's policy. The day would come when the people of this country would ask themselves what was the difference between torturing a man by the thumbscrew and the rack, and torturing him by starvation, confinement, and sufferings which led to his early death. He expected to live to see the day when the country would pronounce its verdict and the brutalities practised by the right hon. Gentleman in the prisons in Ireland would he remembered against him and hon. Members opposite as an ignoble and shameful chapter in the history of this country and of civilization.
    MR. JORDANsaid, that in the name of his constituents he protested against the cruel, barbarous, and brutal treatment which had been inflicted upon them by the Government. Father Gilligan had been sent to gaol for a month for holding a meeting in boats upon the Shannon. He is a patriotic priest, but he is as Christian as patriotic. He did not know what right the police had where the Sheriff, bailiffs, and Emergency men were present to attack a man who was only offering a passive resistance in defence of his own house. He protested also against the manner in which the police laid snares for his constituents. Why should a blacksmith be punished for refusing to shoe horses for Mrs. Moloney, and why should shopkeepers be punished for not supplying Mrs. Moloney and her Emergency men with goods which were their own property and which they did not require and for which the Emergency men had not

    1793
    money to pay? The police and Hannah O'Connell entered into a conspiracy to entrap the shopkeepers. In Miltown Malbay 25 publicans were summoned for not supplying the police, because by the advice of Father White they closed their houses for the purpose of keeping the Military and Constabulary sober. The right hon. Gentleman employed pimps, spies, informers, and conspirators to help on his government of the country. Men now could neither meet, nor speak, nor sing, nor cheer, nor whistle, nor pray without the intervention of the Constabulary. Finally, he protested against the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in the House; he had that evening refused to believe the statement of an hon. Member of the House; his own statements had been disbelieved, when he had stated that with his own eyes he had at Kilrush seen furniture broken and thrown out on the road side. Why should his and his hon. Friend's word be doubted? They were as truthful in private life as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary; aye, and in public life too. The right hon. Gentleman had four times within a few days branded him as a liar before that House—1st, as regards the breaking of furniture at Spellasy's house; 2nd, in reference to Captain Turner's orders to fire in a window; 3rd, in reference to the partial action of Cecil Roche as between me and Mr. Patten; and, 4th, the different version of the transaction between Dr. Counsel and Colonel Turner; and yet the right hon. Gentleman had no knowledge of the matters in question except through Emergency men. But the right hon. Gentleman was a fitting tool for the policy of exasperation which was intended and calculated to promote crime.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he had been a Member of the Royal Commission on Irish Prisons, and if the recommendations of that Commission had been carried out Mr. Mandeville and Dr. Ridley would have been living to-day. The great difference between English and Irish prisons was this—that in English prisons the medical officials and all the higher class of officials were independent; whereas in Irish prisons the medical officers and the Governors did not act upon their own judgments, but were merely tools in the hands of the
    1794
    Government of the day. Even with regard to small and minute points they were bound to take their instructions from the Executive in Dublin Castle. He had hoped that the recommendations of the Prisons Commission had changed all that; but the facts that had come to light in the cases of Mr. Mandeville and Dr. Ridley showed, unfortunately, that the system remained unchanged. He remembered being deeply shocked some years ago at the case of an unfortunate man at Waterford. This man was arrested for allowing his sheep to stray upon the public road, and was committed to prison for 14 days in default of paying some trifling fine. He was a hale, strong man, the only complaint from which he suffered being an irritating skin affection. Troubled by this and the confinement, he became violent, and the prison doctor asked leave to use a particular kind of restraint in order to control him. The reply of the Prisons Board was that the restraint suggested by the doctor must not be used, and that the man should be put in muffs and pinioned. This direction was acted upon, and the man was kept under these restraints for eight days, and very soon afterwards he died. Had the recommendations of the prison doctor been carried out, and had the Prisons Board not interfered, the man would be alive now. He (Mr. T. A. Dickson) at that Commission interrogated Mr. Bourke, Chairman of the Prisons Board, in reference to that case, and Mr. Bourke's reply was—"We (the Prisons Board) are only tools in the hands of the Government."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of what Government?
    MR. T. A. DICKSON: Of the late Government. But the right hon. Gentleman makes no point in that. That makes no difference. It was of no consequence under which Government the facts which he had related occurred. One Government was like another in regard to prison administration, and the present Government were at this moment governing Ireland through the tools transferred to them by their Predecessors. He had denounced the system when carried on by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) as he did now. His point was that the medical officers of Irish prisons were not free agents, as were the doctors in English prisons, and were not allowed to

    1795
    pursue the treatment that they thought best in connection with the prisons. It was mainly owing to that that a great deal more deaths took place in the Irish than in the English prisons, and that treble the number of cases of insanity occurred. One might as well compare hell and paradise as compare the state of things in Irish prisons with that existing in English gaols. This was what they complained of, and this was what they desired to see remedied. What they wanted in Irish prisons was a system of officials who would be under the control in every minute particular of the Executive Government.
    MR. FLYNN, after referring to the case of Dr. Magner at considerable length, contended that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary controlled all the Departments of public life in Ireland as effectually as the man who pressed the button controlled an electric machine. He contended that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, in his treatment of the Irish political prisoners, was contemptible. Whenever a communication came from the right hon. Gentleman, as in the case of poor Mandeville, to do anything, it was at once done, and all the independence of the prison doctors was taken from them. The Irish Members charged against the Government not only that they did not differentiate between political prisoners and others, but that political prisoners got by far the worst of it. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the imputation he had cast on the veracity of the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. Lane) when he saw that Gentleman's sworn testimony, as, if he did not, the want of honour would lie with him? They hoped to call the attention of the country to these matters, and he was only sorry that they were called upon to discuss them upon the Report stage of a Vote on Account, and not upon the Estimates themselves, when it would have been their duty to lay these matters in full detail before the House, the Government, and the country.
    MR. T. C. HARRINGTONsaid, it was a strange thing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—who was responsible for the present treatment of political prisoners in Ireland—should plead ignorance of the entire prison system. In that the right hon. Gentleman differed from his Predecessors in the Office, who had al-
    1796
    ways made themselves fully acquainted with the system. He considered that the Chief Secretary, or the Minister administering Irish affairs, should make himself well acquainted with prison treatment in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to wish, however, to remain ignorant of that treatment, and what they complained of was that the right hon. Gentleman, without any knowledge of the system, had on public platforms in England made declarations in comparison of the systems of treatment prevailing in the two countries. Those systems differed not so much in the rules and the scale of dietary as in the entire spirit and genius in which they were put into operation. From the evidence given before the Royal Commission, over which Lord Cross presided, it was shown that, whereas in England medical officers were enjoined to be careful and watchful of the health of the criminals and to tend them when their health broke down, in Ireland medical officers were interfered with by outside authorities and their right to send prisoners to hospital questioned. In Ireland the Chairman of the Prisons Board gave instructions to the Governors of prisons to report any medical officer who sent a prisoner to hospital unless he was suffering from some serious disease. When a prison doctor so acted his situation was not worth 24 hours' purchase. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary by public utterances on platforms had also terrified prison doctors; and so far from the right hon. Gentleman allowing freedom to the prison doctors in the treatment of prisoners, by the manner in which he had insisted on the treating political prisoners as ordinary criminals, he so terrified the medical officers that they were afraid to order proper treatment to the men confined to their charge for political offences. The right hon. Gentleman also sent to Ireland a medical gentleman who made it his function to terrify the prison doctors. The medical officer of every gaol visited by Dr. Barr assured the political prisoners under his charge that he was terrified, that he dare not order them the treatment he could order ordinary prisoners. With regard to the case of Mr. Mandeville, he (Mr. T. C. Harrington) had recently in his hands the book in which the late medical officer of Tullamore Gaol (Dr. Ridley), made his entries in regard to the treatment of

    1797
    prisoners, and in that book he found that men who had committed offences at which society shuddered and was shocked, were receiving 1½ lb. of meat per day, while Mr. Mandeville—because he would not put on the prison dress, or associate with criminals—was receiving bread and water; the only change which the prison doctor dared to make in the treatment of the latter being that, as he was suffering from diarrhœa, white bread was substituted for brown, and in this way he was treated, until his system became thoroughly enfeebled, and he died. Yet the right hon. Gentleman boasted there was no difference made in the treatment of prisoners. While the vile criminal was treated with some sort of leniency and some regard for his life, and the utmost rigour and severity were dealt out to the man who had taken an honourable part in politics against them, the Government would receive, as it deserved, the execration of the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he would not make a change in favour of political prisoners in regard to their treatment; but the right hon. Gentleman had already made that change, and had made it in a mean and sneaking fashion, because when Father Ryan, the first of the priests who were imprisoned, came to Limerick Gaol, he was asked to wear the prison clothes; and it was only on his refusal to be degraded and humiliated and stripped of his distinction as a priest that the right hon. Gentleman's conscience was smitten, and he threw the responsibility of the concession which was made in that case on the Prisons Board. It was then said that they had discovered an Act which allowed a change of treatment in regard to particular prisoners, and Father Ryan was permitted to wear his own clothes. Why was not that Act discovered and applied in favour of Mr. Mandeville? Perhaps the Government thought it would be inconvenient, when they were in negotiations with Rome, if it went forth that they had caused an Irish priest to be violently stripped of the garb of his profession.
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary reminded him of the man in the play, who was confronted with the apparitions of those who he had formerly done to death. Some seemed to be appearing before the right hon. Gentleman's imagination to-night
    1798
    —the spirits of Mr. Mandeville and Dr. Ridley—and, in terror, he had cried out, "Thou cans't not say that I did it." The right hon. Gentleman tried to shift the responsibility of the death of these men upon the shoulders of those who sat on the Front Opposition Bench. He had said that it was under a system of prison treatment established by his opponents that these men were done to death. Now, the prison system in Ireland was administered by the subordinates according to the spirit that was manifested by those in authority. They knew that the system of government in Ireland was a very sensitive one, and that every official in Ireland took his tone from those who were in authority. His hon. Friend had instanced to-night many cases which proved that to be the case. The right hon. Gentleman had accused his opponents of having done in like manner; but there was this difference between the conduct on the part of those who sat on the Front Opposition Bench and the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, that, while his Predecessors in Office, Members of the Liberal Party, restrained the acts of tyranny, the right hon. Gentleman, with a front of brass, defended every act of his subordinates. To-night the right hon. Gentleman had either given an imperfect statement with regard to the charges made, or he had made no statement at all. A very heartrending case was brought to the notice of the House a few nights ago by the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). It was that of the case of a man who lost his reason in prison, and although the right hon. Gentleman had three days to acquire information on the subject, he came down to the House that night and told them that he had received no information whatever respecting the matter. He (Mr. J. O'Connor) maintained that the House ought to insist that the right hon. Gentleman should come down prepared with information upon a matter of such great importance as one concerning the reason of one his victims. There was another case to which the right hon. Gentleman had attempted a reply. It was the case of the Miltown Malbay people. He had said that a poor woman, named Hannah Connell, was boycotted in a most flagrant manner; he had said it was a most disgraceful case of Boycotting; but he failed to announce, for the information

    1799
    of the House, what was proved at the trial of the case—namely, that the old woman swore that she was not in need of food at all, because she had a pit of potatoes to fall back upon. And not only that, but it was stated, upon most irreproachable authority, in the course of the trial, that the shop of Mrs. Moloney, her employer, was open to her for the purchase of goods. She went to the people who had been punished for Boycotting her for no other purpose than to carry out the policy of her employers. He contended that the right hon. Gentleman ought to try and perform his duties in a more consistent manner than to come down to the House with a statement in one case and with no statement in another. He had said that officials in Ireland took their tone from those in authority. They knew that very well. Those of them who had been imprisoned in very recent times knew that even the humble warder of a prison was able to indicate how the feeling was in Dublin Castle by the very manner in which he turned the lock upon his unfortunate prisoners. The very tone of his voice, the very way he looked, at once indicated the state of feeling in Dublin Castle for the moment. He (Mr. J. O'Connor) proposed, for the information of the House, to cite a case that would prove the truth of his statement. He would not take any of those glaring cases that had engaged the attention of the House not only during the course of this evening's discussion, but during the many interesting discussions that had taken place lately, and had racked the feelings of Englishmen and Scotchmen throughout the length and breadth of the land. He would cite a case that occurred in a remote town of Ireland—a case of a humble man who had suffered persecution at the hands of the subordinates of the right hon. Gentleman; he alluded to the case of that humble man, Thomas Ferriter, who lived in the remote town of Dingle, in the county of Kerry. This man had suffered no less than four terms of imprisonment during the past 12 months—in three of the cases the celebrated Cecil Roche had operated upon him. Mr. Thomas Ferriter was marked out at an early stage of the coercive régime as a victim of the police. He was a man who, like many of those who lived in remote places in Ireland, being perhaps more intelligent than their neighbours,
    1800
    opposed themselves to the petty tyranny of those police constables and magistrates who carried out the behests of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to those who defended them in the House of Commons. He (Mr. J. O'Connor) had said that during the past 12 months Ferriter had suffered imprisonment four times. Even before the Coercion Act was put into operation, Mr. Thomas Ferriter was marked out for persecution. During the Glenbeigh evictions, for merely saying to the Government reporter—"Take that down, Springer," he was brought up before Mr. Considine, the Resident Magistrate, and a Bench of landlord Justices of the Peace, and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. In December last, he was sentenced under the Coercion Act by Cecil Roche and Mr. Walsh, two Removables, for an assault upon the police. Now in England——
    MR. MILVAIN: Mr. Speaker, I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Milvain) appeared to be in a great hurry. He (Mr. J. O'Connor) did not very often intrude on the attention of the House, and he had not very much to say now. When he was interrupted he was about to say that in England, when they heard of a man having made an assault upon the police, they were prepared to see it stated that he had either obstructed a policemen, or pushed him in some way as would amount to a breach of the peace. But what did the assault consist of in the case of Mr. Ferriter? Merely this—that he closed his own door gently in the face of a head constable who wanted to force his way in without leave, without licence, or without warrant. Mr. Thomas Ferriter was quite within his right in refusing to admit the police, who came to his house without a warrant of search; without a warrant of arrest; without a warrant of any kind. Mr. Thomas Ferriter was quite within his right in closing his door; but he did it gently. For what he did he was sentenced by these two Removable Magistrates to seven weeks' imprisonment. Now, that was not the end of this unfortunate man's troubles. In January last, Mr. Ferriter was again charged under the Coercion Act with a similar offence to that of December, and

    1801
    he was then sentenced to seven days' imprisonment again by Cecil Roche, who this time was associated with Mr. Irwin. Mr. Ferriter went through that imprisonment; but the next, and most serious case, was one in which he was entrapped into an offence for which he had received three months' imprisonment. He was entrapped into the commission of the heinous crime of selling United Ireland. How was he entrapped? On the nignt of the 11th of November, a man smelling strongly of drink entered Ferriter's shop and asked for a copy of United Ireland. The mau said he was a tailor from Wexford and had come to Dingle for work. He used great persuasion to induce Ferriter, who did not like his looks, to sell him a paper. The newsagent, for Mr. Ferriter was a newsagent, put him to cross-examination, and during it his visitor informed him that his name was Tyman. After a little time, Mr. Ferriter was induced to part with a copy of United Ireland for the sum of one penny, and soon afterwards he was prosecuted for having sold the paper. In the Court House, he was confronted by the tailor from Wexford, his former acquaintance, who appeared in the full uniform of an Irish police officer. For this heinous crime, he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. What he (Mr. J. O'Connor) wanted to bring to the notice of the House was that there was gross injustice done to Thomas Ferriter on the occasion of his trial. There was absolutely no evidence given as to the charge for selling a paper containing a report of which Mr. Ferriter was prosecuted. The constable in the course of the trial said he could not swear the meeting was not a gathering for parish purposes. Mr. Ferriter pointed out that the Lord Chief Baron Pallas had ruled in a prosecution of the kind, that evidence of the meeting should be given, and Mr. Ferriter asked the magistrates, after they had passed sentence upon him, to state a case to the Court of Exchequer on the point. But the magistrates refused to state a case, though cases had been stated before under similar circumstances and continued to be stated now. The next point in Ferriter's case he wished to bring before the House was that the meeting in question was alleged to have been held at a place called Dumbeg, in County
    1802
    Clare. Dumbeg was more than 100 miles from Dingle in Kerry, where Ferriter's offence was said to have been committed. This newsvendor, in a remote and almost inaccessible part of the extreme South West of Kerry, was sent to gaol for selling to a disguised policeman at Dingle a newspaper containing a report of a meeting of a suppressed branch of the National League, alleged to have been held more than 100 miles away. Ferriter would now very soon have completed his sentence. He would go back to Dingle in Kerry, and he would there continue to be persecuted day after day. While the right hon. Gentleman continued to give his tone of acerbity and tyranny to the officials of Ireland who carried out his behests, it would be his (Mr. J. O'Connor's) duty to bring forward other cases of a similar character, in order to prove the truth of his contention. The one he started with showed that the system of Government in Ireland in all its particulars, in all its details, took its tone from those who were in authority. He wished particularly to impeach that system of organised ruffianism in Ireland which was connected with the police. Not only did he desire to impeach the police for their conduct towards the people of Ireland, but he desired for the information of the English people to lay before the House, and from the House to the constituencies of its hon. Members, the enormous cost of the Police Force in Ireland.
    SIR WILLIAM CROSSMAN: I claim to move "That the Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he would not detain the House at any great length. It was his intention to have brought under the notice of the House the influence of the Police Force in Ireland; but as he had no doubt, at that stage of Public Business, his remarks would have no effect in influencing the Government in regard to the Force, he would postpone that branch of the case until a future occasion, especially as he perceived there were some hon. Members who were very anxious to get rid of this very disagreeable subject and proceed to the next Business on the Paper. He trusted, at all events, that enough had been said that night to enlighten hon.

    1803
    Members opposite, if their minds were still open to the terrible things which had been enacted in Ireland in the name of law and order. He could not hope that the atrocities which were enacted at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman, who had shown himself capable of behaving in a disgracefully jocular manner whilst serious charges were being made, would induce him to lay a lighter hand upon those people who might be unfortunate enough to come under his censure during the course of his Office, be it long or short. This much, however, he would say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a bright ornament, and to the Members of the two Parties who so consistently supported him in his acts generally, that no matter how severe a hand the Chief Secretary might lay on the Irish people, no matter how fiercely his subordinates might coerce and trample on the Irish people in remote parts of Ireland, as he had failed to carry out successfully the forms of coercion he had applied to the Press, he had applied to public meetings, he had applied in Star Chamber processes, so also would he miserably fail to carry out his object in every clause, in every line, in every sentence, and in every syllable in that Coercion Act which was disgracefully hurried through the House by the unjustifiable use of the Closure Rule.
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsaid, he was very thankful to his hon. Friend (Mr. J. O'Connor) for dealing with the grievances of his constituents, though he candidly confessed that he would have been more thankful if he had indicated to him that he was going to deal with them that night. However, he thought his constituency represented such a large area of grievances that it was within the province of any Member of the House, on any side of the House, to delve into it, and be sure of turning up a genuine grievance. Mr. Ferriter would soon be released from prison, and therefore some hon. Members might think the case was not deserving of very much consideration. Mr. Ferriter had, however, been abominably persecuted, and it was as well that his case should be brought as often as possible before the English people. The other day, they discussed the case of Mr. Latchford, and that
    1804
    night he (Mr. Edward Harrington) was in a position to announce that owing to their intervention, that gentleman was released that morning. He and his hon. Friends challenged Her Majesty's Government, through their partizan Lord Chancellor, to interfere with Mr. Latchford's Commission of the Peace. If his Commission were interfered with, they would certainly bring his case up again in a different form. He had some personal experience of the treatment of prisoners in Ireland, for he had been twice condemned to lie upon a plank bed. He had suffered under a Liberal as well as a Tory Administration in Ireland, and he believed on both occasions he was equally innocent or equally guilty. Reference had been made to the conduct of Irish prison doctors. Those officials had always been looked upon as men whose duty it was to interfere between the vindictiveness of the Government and the delicate constitutions of men committed to their charge. He well remembered a doctor coming to him in Tralee Gaol, and saying to him, "What can I do for you?" The doctor knew him personally, and he said—"I can order you anything, I can give you anything." His reply was—"I do not want anything from you, because I should only get it as a favour." The doctor said—"Oh, I can give you anything, because I am leaving here to-morrow." He understood that that was not the basis on which he wanted to be treated, and said, all he wanted was that if the doctor stayed there, he should treat all other prisoners as he treated him. When he was released from gaol, and met the doctor outside, that gentleman was afraid to shake hands with him, for fear that he might in consequence be deprived of his position. That, he maintained, was a disgraceful position for the prison doctor to be placed in. The doctors of Ireland looked to the Government for employment, and the doctor referred to did not like to offend his political Friends. As a matter of fact, the noble Profession of medicine in Ireland had been prostituted for political purposes. In his country a prison doctor was a partizan of the Government, and he could not hold his situation for 24 hours unless he pleased the Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [4th August] reported.
  Resolutions 1 to 5 agreed to.
  Resolution 6.
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that in consequence of an appeal made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury on Saturday last, he had deferred puffing a question then to the First Lord of the Admiralty or to the Secretary of State for War. He stated on Saturday his estimate of the number of guns which would be required for the Land Services and the Navy. He estimated that there would be 160 guns above 9 inches diameter required in the next three years, and no reply was made to that from the Treasury Bench. His estimate might not be, strictly speaking, accurate; but, assuming it to be accurate, he did not see how they were to get such a large number of guns from Government Establishments. He suggested on Saturday that the Government ought to go into the market and endeavour to get the guns. He received no answer to that suggestion. They had been told, in a general way, that it was impossible for the private firms to supply these guns up to test. His contention was that if the War Office Authorities chose to go into the market for the guns, they had their own tests, and if the tests were not satisfactory they need not take the guns. What he wanted to ask of either the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War was, whether his estimate was correct. He wanted further to know how many guns were wanted to carry out the Government's programme, and how they were going to get the guns. They knew perfectly well that the Government Establishments at Woolwich, Messrs. Armstrong, and Messrs. Whitworth, could not supply the guns required, unless they quadrupled the supply they had hitherto given. The fact of the matter was that no progress had been made upon the gun question. The House had been constantly told that the guns were ordered and the authorities asked the House to have faith that the guns would be delivered. If they judged by past experience, they had no reason to suppose that the promises on the part of the War Office would be carried out. Inasmuch
  1806
  as Parliament had voted money for the defence of military ports and coaling stations, and inasmuch as the First Lord of the Admiralty had announced what guns would be required for the Naval Service, he begged the Government to tell them what they believed would be the output from the Government Establishments during the next three years.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)said, that the hon. Gentleman asked him, on the last occasion on which the Vote was under discussion, what would be the output of guns of 9-inch and over, and he insinuated that the Government Manufacturing Establishments—that was to say, Woolwich, Elswick, and that of Messrs. Whitworth, would be unable to comply with the requirements of the Navy so far as heavy guns were concerned. The number of guns which would be required above 9-inch from all Establishments now building, including both their armament and their reserve, was 81. All those guns had been ordered, and 45 ought to be delivered in the course of the present financial year. He believed that the difficulties which they had had to encounter that year would be overcome, and that the delays of which they had reason to complain would not occur again. But the hon. Gentleman must recollect that the difficulties had mainly occurred with guns of a certain calibre, and that nothing would be more unwise than to encourage private manufacturers to set up new establishments for the purpose of constructing guns of very heavy calibre. They must proceed by degrees—private establishments must begin with small guns. So far as the supply of small guns were concerned there had practically been little difficulty.
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that the noble Lord had not answered his question, which was, what was his calculation of the output of the Government Establishments during the year?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he did not understand that that was the question of the hon. Member; he understood the hon. Gentleman wished to know what the output was of the three Establishments, including the Woolwich, to which orders had been given. He had stated that of out a total of 81 heavy guns

  1807
  of over 9 inches, 45 would be delivered during the present financial year.
  MR. R. W. DUFF: They have never delivered more than 20.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be unable to understand that the delivery of the guns depended upon when the guns were ordered. These guns, having been ordered some time ago, would be delivered during the present financial year. They would come either from Woolwich or from Messrs. Armstrong or from Messrs. Whitworth.
  MR. R. W. DUFFasked, if he was to understand the noble Lord to say that the establishments which had never yet produced more than 20 guns in a year, would in the ensuing year produce 45?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he did not admit that the establishments had only produced 20 guns a-year. What he wanted the hon. Gentleman to understand was that the day of the delivery of the guns depended upon the day when the guns were ordered.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of the 45 guns he expected to receive from Woolwich, and what proportion from the outside contractors?
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that perhaps the Government would tell the House what was the capacity of private establishments for making guns? He impressed that point on the noble Lord, as he observed that the noble Lord did not seem to understand the point raised by the late Financial Secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. R. W. Duff). It would be very interesting to know how many tons of heavy guns could be turned out by Messrs. Armstrong and by Messrs. Whitworth in a year.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, that the Establishment at Woolwich had not been extended, but Messrs. Armstrong and Messrs. Whitworth had extended their establishments in the course of the last year, and were still extending them. The Government had no reason to doubt that within three years every gun now ordered for the Land or Sea Service could easily be delivered.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked, if the right hon. Gentleman could answer the ques-
  1808
  tion he put to the First Lord of the Admiralty—namely, what proportion of the guns he expected would be turned out of Woolwich?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that the proportion turned out of Woolwich was very small compared with that turned out by Messrs. Armstrong and Messrs. Whitworth. The productive power of Woolwich was small as compared with the other establishments; because, as he said the other day, Woolwich had to do all the repairs.
  Mr. MUNDELLAasked, if it was the intention of the Government to extend the manufacture or building up of guns at Woolwich; or, whether we were to be dependent on the outside trade for the construction and supply of guns? If Woolwich was to be confined mainly to the repairs of guns, from what source were we to derive our supply of heavy guns? Was it to come exclusively from Elswick and from Messrs. Whitworth? Was Woolwich going to be what it ought to be—a gun factory for building up guns, the outside trade supplying the material? If the Government would constitute Woolwich a gun factory, all would be well; for he thought the right hon. Gentleman knew that the supply of guns was only limited by the power of Woolwich to put guns together.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had asked a question he (Mr. Stanhope) answered on Saturday. There was no doubt whatever that the object of the Government was to make Woolwich a place where guns could be built up, and not where they should manufacture steel, which manufacture the right hon. Gentleman no doubt desired should remain at Sheffield. The Government looked to Sheffield for the manufacture of steel, Woolwich being mainly employed for the repair and building up of guns. Even if they were not able to get assistance from other outside firms which they did hope to get to a certain extent, there was an enormous amount of gun building at Woolwich and the two other factories which had been referred to.
  MR. MUNDELLAagain rose to address the House——
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken twice.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 7.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he would not have ventured to intrude upon the attention of the House at that stage were it not for the fact that in the second Report published by the Committee on Navy Estimates, a Committee on which he had a seat, there were several points which were altogether in antagonism to the statements which were made by the Director General of the Navy; and in the interest, therefore, of the Naval Medical Service and of the Medical Profession generally, he begged to offer a few observations. He was not able to be present when the Committee drew up its Report, because he was occupied domestically. The Committee reported that there were—
  "Exceptional advantages of pay and especially of retirement, and that the necessity of continuing these excessive advantages to future entrants deserves the watchful attention of the Board of Admiralty. The high inducements given to junior officers to retire are especially of note."
  Mr. Dick, the Director General of the Navy, stated in the plainest possible way that prior to 1881 they had very great difficulty in getting a sufficient number of applicants for positions in the Naval Medical Department, and that it was only in consequence of various reforms which were initiated that men were induced to enter the Service. Mr. Dick admitted, during cross-examination, that the Service was still 21 short; but said that at any moment they could easily get that number. Perhaps the House would allow him to call their attention to the distinct differences there were between the officers of the Naval Medical Department and the officers of the Army Medical Staff, and those differences were distinctly drawn attention to by Mr. Dick in his evidence before the Committee. Mr. Dick stated that the officers belonging to the Naval Medical Service were removed from Netley, which was their former school, to Haslar because when Naval Medical officers had been educated side by side with officers belonging to the Army Medical Staff and they were placed on board ship—when they were cabin confined and sent off to such a place as the West Coast of Africa or the Red Sea, they at once began to draw distinctions between their position and the position which their confrères in the Army occu-
  1810
  pied. Mr. Dick added that were they to allow the Naval Medical officers to be educated with the Army Medical officers there would be great grumbling, and the younger men who would otherwise enter the Service would avoid it. He (Dr. Tanner) had put down six points of distinction which he commended to the attention of the Government. In the first place, the officers of the Army Medical Staff had better pay than the Naval Medical officers; in the second place, they had more comfort; in the third place, they had more leave; in the fourth place, they had better chances of keeping up their medical knowledge, and that point had been accentuated by the Report of the Committee over which Sir Anthony Hoskins presided; in the fifth place, the men of the sick berth staff were independent of the medical officers, whereas the men of the Army Staff Corps were directly under the control and management of the Army Medical Officers Staff; and in the sixth place, there were fewer of the Naval Medical Service than the Army Medical Staff, who, when they retired, were able to enter into private practice. That the Army Medical officers received better pay was a matter of notoriety. Upon that point Mr. Dick acknowledged that if a Naval Medical man was serving in Plymouth Sound, or on the West Coast of Africa, he received the same pay, and, moreover, that the Income Tax was deducted from the pay he received when away from home. Any hon. Member who was at all conversant with Army and Navy Medical officers knew perfectly well that any officer of the Army Medical Service who was sent to the West Coast of Africa received very good pay, and that for every year's service he received a year's leave. The position of the Naval Medical Service, in comparison, was simply ridiculous and absurd. Not only so, but it was also a matter of notoriety that the officers of the Army Medical Service received double pay when serving in India, when they were in China or in the Straits they also received double pay, and when serving at the Cape of Good Hope they received Colonial allowance, which in itself was a very great increase to their pay. On the subject of leave, let him say that a Naval Medical officer was a man of business, that he had to serve in every part of the world, and that accordingly

  1811
  he must be more or less conversant with the diseases, not merely of this country, but of all lands; and, not only that, but he must be equally good at surgery as at medicine. Such a man was only allowed 14 days' leave for one year's service. But if an officer of the Department was attached to a foreign hospital—say, at Jamaica—for two or three years and then came home, he got no leave at all; because it was said he had had so many comforts on shore. Then, he sincerely hoped the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty would give them some assurance that the Naval Medical officer would be afforded better chances of obtaining improved medical knowledge. It was suggested in the Report of the Committee over which Sir Anthony Hoskins presided that great advantages would ensue if Medical officers had the opportunity between their terms of seagoing service of attending the Metropolitan or other large hospitals, where they would learn the latest additions to Medical Science. During the two or three years a Naval Medical man spent on board a ship on the West Coast of Africa, or in the China Seas, or on any of the foreign stations, Medical Science must make many advances, and he must get rusty. It would unquestionably be well if a Naval Medical officer could occasionally come to any one of the various schools which were open to medical practitioners. There were precedents for such a course. Officers in the German Naval Service, when they came home from duty, were sent to the hospitals in the various University towns; he (Dr. Tanner) had had the pleasure of studying side by side with many of them in Berlin. It was said by Mr. Dick, in cross-examination—
  "Of course, the German Naval Service is a very small service, and therefore its officers can very easily be told off to the various schools in Germany."
  But that was not only the case with the German Naval Service, but the officers belonging to the German Army, which was proportionately as large as the Navy of this country, were also told off periodically to increase their medical knowledge. It could not cost much to offer such facilities to our officers. Surely, the Medical Schools in the Metropolis would be only too glad to open their doors to officers belonging to the
  1812
  Medical Services, if the Government made overtures to them with that end. Again, if these advantages were offered to them, they would, when their period of service expired, be better able to engage in the private practice of their profession, and in that case the scale of retirement allowances need not be so high as it was at present. Furthermore, he suggested the advisability of a Naval Medical Reserve Force. It would be of incalculable benefit if there was to fall back upon a body of men experienced in medicine, and who were at the same time accustomed to the ways of the sea. An extraordinary statement was made before the Committee with regard to the Haslar Hospital for lunatics. It was said there were at present there 38 officers, and only 180 men. It seemed to him unreasonable that a hospital of that sort, intended principally for men, should be expected to accommodate such a disproportionate number of officers. He trusted to hear from the noble Lord that every effort would be made to keep up the standard of the Naval Medical Service.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)said, that the Committee certainly did not take the same view of this matter as the hon. Gentleman. Whilst they all agreed it was of supreme importance that the Medical Officers of the Navy should be capable men, and able to attend to the wants of the officers and men with whom they might be associated, they were, on the other hand, of opinion that the advantages of pay and retirement which were attached to the Naval Medical Profession were somewhat excessive. The Committee recommended that the necessity of continuing those excessive advantages deserved the watchful attention of the Board of Admiralty. Therefore, so far as pay and leave were concerned, he could not hold out to the hon. Gentleman any hope of any increase. There was no lack in the supply of candidates, and that in itself was a conclusive reason why they should not increase the Votes for these Services. The Medical officers of the Army might, in certain instances, have advantages over their brethren in the Navy; but the Admiralty proposed to appoint a small Committee to inquire during the autumn both into the Medical Service of the Army and of the Navy, and,

  1813
  so far as they could, assimilate the practices in both, though he did not think that would be done in the direction of increasing the endowments of either Service. The Committee would undoubtedly direct their attention to the points which the hon. Gentleman had raised. He thought it was proper that officers when they came home after being paid off from their ships, should have access to the large hospitals, and he hoped that some provision of that kind could be made. The Committee would also inquire whether it was possible to have a Reserve of Medical Officers. That was no easy matter. It would be no use having medical men who were not accustomed to go to sea, and on the other hand, the very fact of such men being accustomed to go to sea might not justify the country maintaining them. In regard to the Haslar Lunatic Hospital, it was no doubt true that the officers there bore an undue proportion to the men. The relatives of the officers were ready to pay the extra cost of officers coming to the hospital, and moreover, the men went to the county asylums in far greater numbers than the officers. Upon the question of the Sick Berth Staff, he had only to say it was the practice in the Navy that there should be only one person on board ship with the power to inflict punishment. It was not thought proper that the medical officer should be able to inflict punishment. The medical officers had acquiesced in the system, and no complaint had been made.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.
(Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson).
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  Clause 1 (Issue of £20,693,375 out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of year ending 31st March 1889.)
  Amendment proposed—(Mr. Jackson).
  MR. CALDWELLasked for some explanation why the Government were taking such large borrowing powers.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said,
  1814
  that the Amendment did not deal with the question of borrowing powers. The reason for the change in the figure was the addition of the sums voted in Committee on Friday and Saturday and confirmed in that day's Report.
  MR. CALDWELLasked, was he to understand that it would be necessary to borrow more in the course of the year?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, of course, borrowing would take place if it became necessary, but if meantime money came in fast enough from ordinary sources borrowing would be unnecessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Power to the Treasury to borrow).
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£2,365,400," and insert "£20,692,375."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, his remarks as to borrowing applied particularly to this clause. The Government were in the habit of borrowing money on Treasury Bills. They borrowed for three, four, and sometimes six months at a time, and at a time when they had long balances to their credit on other accounts. When he brought this matter before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) on a previous occasion, the right hon. Gentleman explained the difficulty that existed in regard to the Act of Parliament which required that the money thus borrowed in one year should be repaid within that year. But as he understood the financial arrangements, that difficulty could perfectly well be met by using other balances. He did not think that the managers of any other business concern would think of borrowing for one account while they had a large balance in hand on another account. The Government might very well take power in this Bill providing that one Department in respect to which there were large balances standing to its credit should transfer or lend to another Department in want of funds. The Indian Government had sometimes a considerable balance in hand, and the Indian Government were in the habit of lending for short periods, and the interest accruing was credited to their account. In a like manner might the

  1815
  Government get the benefit of accumulated cash balances. Now, the Bank of England had the advantage of the money standing to the credit of the Government accounts, lent the money, and pocketed the interest. There was no reason, so far as he could see, nor so far as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown in his explanation, why in this Bill provision should not be made for lending money from one account to meet deficiencies in another.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE THEASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the hon. Member bad mentioned that this question had already been brought to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if he remembered rightly his right hon. Friend in his answer explained that he had previously given close attention to the question of cash balances of the current year. This was the fact, and his right hon. Friend had considerably reduced the account standing to the credit of the Government, and diminished the amounts borrowed from time to time. He need hardly point out that borrowing upon Treasury Bills was about the most economical manner of raising money, for the average rate of interest during the year had been little more than 1 per cent. He did not think it would be possible to adopt a plan more economical than that. Then the question whether moneys belonging to the Indian Government should be mixed up with the accounts of the Home Government was a much larger question, and not to be dealt with on the present occasion. His own opinion would be distinctly against it.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood his allusion. He did not ask that the accounts of the Indian Government should be mixed up with Home accounts, he only mentioned that the Indian Government lent from the surplus funds in their hands, and what he wished to point out was that if the Indian Government could do that with their money why should not the Imperial Government do the same, why instead of borrowing money from strangers should not one Department lend to another and thereby save money. It was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been making some small
  1816
  savings, but it was very small in amount compared with what he might make. Money went into the Bank of England, and the Bank of England lent it to those who required money to meet the withdrawals from the banking accounts; the Government did not get the benefit they might get, and which the Bank of England did get.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
(Mr. Jackson, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.

  [BILL 354.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked, on the question of appointing a day for this Bill, that it should be set down for a time when it might be expected to come on. It was a very important Bill, containing matter of the greatest interest to the Metropolis, and involving an increase in the rates of 3d. in the pound.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he thought the hon. Member must see that, considering how the calculations of the Government as to occupation of time were continually upset, it was impossible to do more than postpone Bills from day to day. He hoped the Bill might come on to-morrow, for time was getting short; but he could not do more that put it off from day to day.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES) BILL [Lords].
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES) BILL [Lords].

  [BILL 290.] CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR&c.)said, the Bill was a most important one, and would, if passed into law, do a great deal of good. But there was one clause, the 3rd sub-section of Clause 3, which laid down that when the rules which the Board of Trade would have power to frame were framed, they should be laid on the Table of the House and

  1817
  submitted to the consideration of Parliament. If not objected to for 40 days these rules would become operative as law. This was the principle adopted in reference to other measures; for instance, the schemes of the Charity Commissioners and the Scotch Mortification schemes, and he had no objection to raise to it. But it seemed to him that in the first instance the rules to be laid down being of so much importance, and affecting such large interests, ought to come before the House for consideration at a more reasonable time than that at which the schemes of the Commissioners to which he had referred were usually discussed. In the framing of these original rules there was much requiring consideration, and, if there was any objection to be raised, opportunity should be given before 12 o'clock.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, he quite agreed that the rules to be formulated would be of great importance. He hoped they would be framed with the general consent of those concerned, but, of course, should there be any desire on the part of any section of the House to object to or discuss any of the rules, then a reasonable opportunity should be afforded for the purpose.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he hoped the Bill would not be taken in the absence of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. T. Sutherland), who, time after time, had objected to the Bill when the Rules barred opposed Business. It was only right that the House should have the opportunity of hearing the hon. Member's grounds of objection, and the hon. Gentleman had no reason to suppose the Bill would be taken now. He was perfectly disinterested in this remark, for the hon. Member in question was, he believed, a Liberal Unionist.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, there seemed to be consensus of opinion that that was a very useful measure, and because the hon. Member for Greenock had not found it convenient to be in his place he did not think the House should postpone its Business.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he would add further, that since the hon. Member had watched the Bill so zealously, a strong Committee had examined its provisions, and on the
  1818
  Committee the hon. Member himself acted.
  Bill, as amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill read the third time and passed, with Amendment.

WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER FACTORY BILL.— [BILL 273.]
(Mr. Brodrick, Mr. Secretary Stanhope.)
WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER FACTORY BILL.— [BILL 273.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Objection taken.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)said, he had conferred with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and others who had opposed the Bill, and they had consented to serve on the Select Committee to which it was proposed to send the Bill during the Autumn Session. He hoped the House would now allow the second reading to be taken.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he had great pleasure in hearing the hon. Gentleman's statement, but still he must persist in his objection.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 344.]
(The Solicitor General for Ireland.)
LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 344.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BIGGARobjected.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, he thought that sufficient reason had been shown for passing the Bill, and he would ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his objection. If he would not do so, perhaps the Government would take steps to secure a decision on the Bill before the Recess.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid, he would appeal to his hon. Friend not to stand in the way of what might be made a very useful measure.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, in response to the appeals of his hon. Friends, it was only right that he should say briefly what his objection to the Bill was. The only effect, as far as he could see, would be to bring a large staff of employés into Derry, Belfast, and other towns who would practically have no business to transact. If an Amendment were submitted which would give bankruptcy

  1819
  jurisdiction in small amounts to the Recorders of Derry, Belfast, and Cork, he would be disposed to consider the proposition; but to create a large bankruptcy staff in those places was preposterous; there would be no work for them to do.
  MR. SEXTON, by the leave of the House, begged to assure his hon. Friend that his fears in reference to the constitution of a large extra staff was unfounded. The staff in Dublin was very large, and part of it would be transferred.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he must maintain his objection.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

COPYHOLD ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 298.]
(Mr. Haldane.)
COPYHOLD ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 298.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, he must repeat what he had said on former occasions, that he proposed in Committee to omit the Mineral Clauses, and opportunity would be given in Committee for discussion of the one or two points that arose in connection with the other clauses.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. Haldane,)—put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

LAND CHARGES REGISTRATION AND SEARCHES BILL [Lords].
(Mr. Haldane.)
LAND CHARGES REGISTRATION AND SEARCHES BILL [Lords].

  [BILL 356.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, he hoped the House would agree to read this Bill a second time. Its object was merely to correct a blot that had been found to exist in the law governing land charges.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Haldane.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the hon. and learned Member had rightly described the object of the Bill. It supplied a deficiency in previous Acts
  1820
  of Parliament, and was designed to protect purchasers from incumbrances of which they had no knowledge.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

CHAPELS (CLONMACNOICE) BILL.
(Colonel Nolan, Mr. T. H. Healy, Dr. Fitzgerald.)
CHAPELS (CLONMACNOICE) BILL.

  [BILL 361.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. JOHNSTON, said, he objected. Considering the object of the Bill, he would suggest that it might appropriately be deferred to November 5th.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL.
  Resolution [August 4] reported, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill, That they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

  EAST INDIA (REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
  Ordered, That the several Accounts and Papers which have been presented to the House, in this Session of Parliament, relating to the Revenues of India, be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House.
  Resolved, That this House will, on Thursday, resolve itself into the said Committee.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Two o'clock.