Commons Sitting of 30 July 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Land Charges Registration and Searches* [356].
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 3).
Committee—Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) [336] [First Night]—R.P.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Report—Public Health (Scotland) (Kirkliston, Dalmeny, and
728
South Queensferry Water)* [327]; Elementary Education Confirmation (London)* [334]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries (West Loch Tarbert) Confirmation* [323].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PRESTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, there was one point in reference to the Bill which he ought to explain, and to which he ought to call the attention of the House, although he did not think that it was necessary the House should take any action upon it. As the House was aware, there was a stringent Act governing the payment of costs of proceedings in reference to Private Bills, and the costs of opponents were only given against promoters of a Bill where the Committee were unanimous in holding resistance to the opposition vexatious. There were certain opponents to this Bill among the ratepayers of Preston, and they appeared before the Committee, and so far succeeded in impressing their views upon the Committee as to obtain a considerable reduction in the capital asked for by the Corporation in promotion of their plan. The Committee appeared to be of opinion that the Petitioners had so far succeeded as to be entitled to their costs. At the same time, he did not know that that opinion was unanimous, or that it was the opinion of Members that the opposition was frivolous and vexatious. The Committee intimated their opinion that the Petitioners were entitled to costs, and, after some consideration, the promoters of the Bill decided not to oppose the granting of costs. In consequence a clause was inserted, without dissent, granting costs which, if it had been done against unwilling promoters, would not have been satisfactory. But, inasmuch as, after consideration, the promoters did not dissent, but practically assented to the proposal, he thought the House would consider the Committee were right in the course they had taken, and that the Petitioners were entitled to their costs.
    An Amendment made.
    Bill to be read the third time.

PETITION.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—IMPRISONMENT OF MR. JOHN DILLON, M.P.
  Moved, "That the Petition be read by the Clerk at the Table."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Petition read.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, will I be in Order in moving that the text of the Petition be embodied in the proceedings of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: That would not be a usual or a proper course to take. It may be printed by order of the Committee before whom it will go.
  MR. SEXTON: Is any Motion necessary to insure that it will be printed?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have no doubt it will be printed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: As it will be in the discretion of the Committee to print it or not as they think fit, cannot we secure its being printed by a Motion in the House that it be printed?
  MR. SPEAKER: Of course it would be competent, if the Report of the Committee is made and the Report is not printed, for the hon. and learned Gentleman to make a Motion to that effect; but, at present, I have no jurisdiction over the Committee, and a Committee must be left to exercise what discretion it may think proper.

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—TULLAMORE.
  DR. FOXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government intend to deprive the people of Tullamore of the services of a town magistrate?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the power of appointing a magistrate under the Towns Improvement Act rested solely with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and he understood it was not at present contemplated to appoint a town magistrate in Tullamore.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— ROMAN CATHOLIC STUDENTS IN THE GOVERNMENT TRAINING COLLEGE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Roman Catholic students in the Government Training College receive religious instruction from the teachers, without the guidance and control of any clergyman; and, if the vast majority of those students who have obtained situations as teachers in National schools are teaching in County Kerry?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that no Roman Catholic clergyman attends at the Marlborough Street Training College for the purpose of giving religious instruction to the students; but these students receive most careful religious instruction from the head teachers of the Central Model Schools, who are Roman Catholics, and also regularly attend religious instruction and religious ministrations in the Roman Catholic Church, in regard to which extensive arrangements exist. With respect to the concluding portion of the Question, the Commissioners state that about 30 per cent of the Roman Catholic students who left the Training College during the last five years are now employed in National schools in Kerry.

  ARMY (INDIA)—RETIRING ALLOWANCES.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE(for Mr. KING)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, (1) Under what Retiring Rules, citing the number and dates of warrants, orders, or despatches now in force, officers of the Indian Army get retiring allowances; (2) are officers residing in India excluded from the benefit of existing Retiring Rules; (3) whether the despatch of the Secretary of State (No. 407, of December 8, 1881), which related explicitly by the words of the despatch to "retiring allowances," superseded all these existing Retiring Rules for officers of the Indian Army, and come into force in July, 1882; (4) whether, and if so on what grounds, the Retiring Rules laid down in the above-mentioned despatch are

  731
  limited by the practice of the Indian Government, by an alleged order or "principle," which was in force in 1854, and was applicable to a state of circumstances which does not now exist; (5) whether the despatch of the Secretary of State (No. 407 of December 8, 1881), in Clause 15, stated that every officer of 38 years' service will be entitled to "retiring allowances" of £1,124 17 s. 6d. per annum; and, (6) whether the Secretary of State will continue to sanction the payment of such allowance to officers resident in India in a reduced currency, while paying officers residing out of India the full amount of such allowance in sterling?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): 1. The rates of pensions of officers of the Indian Army are contained in Royal Warrant, January 16, 1861; Secretary of State's despatches, No. 159, August 8, 1866; No. 252, August 4, 1881; No. 404, December 8, 1881. 2. No. 3. It came into force on July 1, 1881, and did not supersede existing Rules. 4. The Secretary of State does not admit that these Rules are limited by the practice of the Government of India. 5. The "colonel's allowance" is not, in the view of the Secretary of State, a retiring allowance. 6. The Secretary of State is not prepared to make any alteration in the Rules regarding the rates of colonels' allowances.

  ALLOTMENTS EXTENSION ACT, 1882 —THE MENDLESHAM CHARITY ESTATES.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland, Whether he is aware that the Trustees of the Mendlesham Charity Estates have advertised, among other properties to be let on lease for seven years, what is described as—
  "A messuage farm, lands and outbuildings, situate in Mendlesham, containing 38 acres, 1 rood, 24 poles, now in the occupation of Mr. James Lambert's executors,"
  and that tenders are to be sent to the Clerk of the Trustees not later than August 7; and, whether, in view of the fact that the said property is more suitable for the purpose of allotments than any other land in the parish, and that numerous labourers have made application for parts of it, the Charity Commis-
  732
  sioners will take such steps as will prevent the Trustees from acting in contravention of the spirit of "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882?"
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The land referred to does not belong to the Church and Town Estate, but is the property of the Endowed School of Mendlesham, and is, therefore, not subject to the Allotments Extension Act, 1882.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)—THE ROYALIRISH CONSTABULARY CODES, 1887–8.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether in the Constabulary Code for 1887 there are any directions respecting public meetings similar to those contained in page 269 of the Code of 1888, as approved by the Lord Lieutenant—namely,
  "Section 1112. Whenever any public meeting is announced. … it is the duty of the officer of Constabulary within whose district such meeting is to be held to be present thereat (or, if this is impracticable, to depute a head or other constable in plain clothes) for the purpose of taking notes of any inflammatory language that may be employed … This duty, however, is to be performed with discretion, and without anything approaching to parade or offensive intrusion on the part of the police. In cases where a shorthand writer is sent to take notes of a meeting, the promoters thereof should be asked to provide him with a place on the platform. If this be not accorded he must take the best position available;"
  and, if so, did the Departmental inquiry, presided over by Colonel Turner, R.M., into the conduct of the police on the occasion of the three deaths at Mitchelstown, take any, and what, notice of the intrusion of the police into the meeting with their reporter without any prior communication with the promoters of the meeting, as the Code prescribes?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Constabulary Code is a Departmental publication, intended solely for the instruction and guidance of the Force. It is not issued to the public, and I must decline to discuss its contents.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to say, with regard to the latter part of the Question, whether the inquiry appointed into the

  733
  occurrences at Mitchelstown embraced the alleged non-compliance with the terms of the Code?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that, speaking from memory, he rather thought the subject did not come within the terms of the inquiry.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—BATTERSEA PARK—DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYES.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the First Commissioner of Works, 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?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The Act which transferred Battersea Park and other Parks from the Office of Works to the Metropolitan Board of Works preserved all rights of pension to men in our employment as if they had been retained in the Public Service, the Treasury to decide in each case the amount in question. This the Treasury has done, and has informed the Metropolitan Board accordingly. It remains for that Body to take all other necessary steps.

  CONSULAR CHARGES IN ENGLAND— INVOICES FOR THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has yet received definite information from Washington as to the reason why shippers from the United Kingdom to the United States of North America are charged 2s. 6d. declaration fee on each invoice, while from Germany to the United States no such fee is charged; and, whether he is aware that in Liverpool alone the declaration fees amount to no less a sum than £2,500 per annum?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government are still in communication with the Government of the United States on this subject. We have no information as to the amount of the fees at present levied under the system mentioned.

  NAVY—ROYAL MARINE LIGHT INFANTRY—THE MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether there are any instructions regulating the duties and responsibilities of the medical officers of the Royal Marine Light Infantry; whether, during last winter, the surgeons at Eastney Barracks, Portsmouth, were aware that Comyn MacGregor, one of the probationary lieutenants under their charge, was suffering from a disease as a rule proving fatal unless timeously dealt with; whether the surgeons took any steps, directly, or indirectly, to inform Lieutenant MacGregor that it was obvious he was labouring under an insidious disease, and to warn him of his danger; whether Lieutenant MacGregor's health afterwards suddenly gave way, and, failing in consequence to pass his final examination, he has been dismissed from the Service; and, whether, if it is to be understood that it is no part of a surgeon's duty to speak until consulted, the time has come for laying down more humane Rules?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): There are full instructions for the guidance of the medical officers of the Royal Marine Light Infantry. The medical officers at Eastney Barracks deny any knowledge of Mr. MacGregor's suffering from the disease referred to, and it appears that he himself never took any steps to inform them. The medical officers would certainly not wait to be consulted if they had any reason to believe that any officer or man under their care was suffering from disease. This is enjoined by the Regulations. It is the case that Mr. MacGregor had to leave the Service from failure to pass his examination.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: Are those instructions to the medical officers open to the public?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: They are the instructions which are generally issued to medical officers of the Service, and I am not aware if they have ever been published. I am not aware that there would be any advantage in publishing them.

  ARMY (INDIA)—BENGAL STAFF CORPS —CAPTAIN J. B. CHATTERTON.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Under Secretary of State for India,

  735
  (1) Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the despatch from the Government of India, dated February 21, 1881, in the case of Captain J. B. Chatterton, which has been printed by the authority of the India Office, and also the affidavit of Surgeon-Major Powell; (2) whether the order for the removal of Captain Chatterton was issued on March 11, 1869; and, (3) whether, between the dates of the Act for the Better Government of India, August 6, 1858, and the powers afforded by the Warrant of Parliament issued during the Session of 1872, the Secretary of State for India had power to remove Indian officers without trial and investigation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): (1) No; it is not necessary to lay on the Table the whole correspondence with Captain Chatterton, and it would be inconvenient to lay an isolated document. (2) Yes. (3) The Secretary of State has always had power to advise Her Majesty to dispense with an officer's services on sufficient cause being shown.

  POOR LAW—CASE OF MRS. SARAH BURGE—COSTS.
  MR CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he knows how such a heavy bill of costs was sanctioned as occurred in the case of Mrs. Sarah Burge, now a pauper in the workhouse, Poplar; and, if these costs were defrayed by the ratepayers?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I have made inquiry on this subject, and I find that there is not, nor has there been, any pauper in the Poplar Workhouse named Sarah Burge. The case intended to be referred to is, no doubt, that of Frank Burge, respecting whom the hon. Member put a Question to me on a previous occasion. As I then stated, this man brought an action against four of the Guardians of the Poplar Union for maliciously refusing to allow him to leave the workhouse. At the trial he was non-suited by Mr. Justice Denman, who decided that there was no evidence to go to the jury, and this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The costs of the Guardians were, of course, increased by the appeal, and altogether they amounted to £355 10 s. 8d. The Guar-
  736
  dians paid the costs out of the rates; and, as the Local Government Board considered that the individual Guardians against whom the action was brought ought not to have to defray these expenses out of their own pockets, they sanctioned the payment which had been made. The defendants would have been awarded costs by the Court had not Burge sued in formâ pauperis.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— EDWARD MAHONY AND OTHERS— RATHCORMACK, CO. CORK.
  DR. TANNERasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If it is a fact that Edward Mahony, John Manley, Denis Healy, and others, who were prosecuted before a Court held at Rathcormack, County Cork, on Tuesday the 24th instant, for alleged obstruction and resistance to the Sheriff and his assistants in the discharge of their duty, on presenting themselves before the Court, and having been at the expense of bringing counsel from Cork to Rathcormack to defend them, were informed by Mr. Eaton, R.M., the only Resident Magistrate present, that the case was adjourned for a fortnight; whether the reason the Court was not constituted was because Mr. Sub-Sheriff Gale was unable to attend; why District Inspector Jones, who was, according to his admission before Mr. Eaton, R.M., aware Mr. Gale could not attend, did not inform the defendants and prevent the unnecessary expense and trouble; whether it is a fact that Mr. Gale, when speaking to one of the defendants, Mr. Edward Mahony, on Monday night, also neglected to inform him; and, whether the expense entailed by the neglect of the Crown officials will be re-imbursed by the Crown, and the officials censured?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): The statements in the first and second paragraphs of the Question are correct. The case referred to being a charge of obstructing the Sub-Sheriff was necessarily postponed in consequence of the absence of that official. He could not appear at Rathcormack because he was bound to be in attendance from day to day at the Cork Summer Assizes. The District Inspector who was prosecuting in the case had notice that the Sub-Sheriff could not attend. He made inquiries from the legal gen-

  737
  tlemen practising in Fermoy, with a view to informing them that he could not proceed with the case on the day fixed. He was not aware that the accused had employed a Cork solicitor and intended to appear by counsel. The Sub-Sheriff, Mr. Gale, is not a Government official. I cannot say what conversation he may have had with the accused persons. There is no foundation for the charge of neglect against the Crown officials conveyed in the last paragraph of the Question.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether this District Inspector had not ample time to tell the people the night before that the Court could not be held, and in that way save them great expense; also, whether it was not the fact that the solicitor for the accused occupied a whole day in driving from Cork to the place where the Sessions were to be held?
  MR. MADDENsaid, he was not aware that the District Inspector had the opportunity spoken of, or that it was possible for him to communicate personally with the accused. He communicated with the practitioners at Fermoy, one of whom he presumed would be engaged for the accused.
  DR. TANNERasked, if District Inspector Jones did not see several of the accused the night before the case was to be tried; and whether the Inspector's conduct did not amount, practically speaking, to a second fining of the people?
  MR. MADDENsaid, he did not gather that from the information supplied to him.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND) —BURGH OF CULROSS.
  MR. WALLACEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that the scheme of the Scottish Educational Endowments Commissioners for the management of the endowments in the burgh of Culross was advertised only in one newspaper, published at a distance, and in another county, and which does not circulate in Culross, and how often was it so advertised; and that, in consequence of this insufficient advertisement, the inhabitants of Culross lost their opportunity of lodging objections to the scheme with the Scotch Education Department; and, whether, in the circumstances, he can, and will, take any steps to have the scheme re-
  738
  considered by the Department in the light of such objections?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The scheme for Geddes Endowment, Culross, was advertised by the Commissioners. After it was laid before the Scottish Education Department, and before being approved, it was again advertised in four separate issues of The Alloa Journal and The Dunfermline Journal, these being the newspapers selected by the Endowment Commissioners. It is true that these journals are published in counties other than that in which the endowment is situate; but the geographical and detached position in which Culross stands makes this unavoidable. So far as my Lords are aware, there is no newspaper published in any place nearer than those selected. The advertisements by the Department were inserted on two separate occasions—first on the original scheme being sent, and again after modification of the scheme. Opportunity for lodging objections was not lost. The School Board of Culross did lodge objections against the scheme, and these were duly considered; and before their Lordships' approval was given the scheme was modified in order to meet them.

  THE SLAVE TRADE—REVIVAL OF THE TRADE IN AFRICA.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of the Prime Minister, in his capacity of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has been directed to the statements of Professor Drummond in his work on Tropical Africa, and of Mr. J. Scott Kilkie, in an article in The Contemporary Review for July, entitled British Interests in Africa, that since the withdrawal of H.M.S. Condor from the harbour of Zanzibar the Slave Trade in Africa "has been resumed with redoubled energy," and "has become more rampant that ever;" and, do Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the circumstances that led to the withdrawal of the Slave Circular in 1874, intend to take any steps for the abatement of this evil?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The writers in question consider that the Arabs of the interior believed that the withdrawal of the Lon-

  739
  don in January, 1884, implied a diminution of interest in the suppression of the Slave Trade on the part of Great Britain. As a matter of fact, the withdrawal of this particular vessel was part of a scheme for more effectual suppression; and if the Arabs had an impression to the contrary they must long since have been undeceived. If the hon. Member will look at the recent Blue Book he will find ample proof of the continued vigilance and activity of Her Majesty's cruisers.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FAIR RENTS —APPLICATION OF JAMES KEELY, CO. KILDARE.
  MR. CAREWasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state if an eviction notice under the 7th section of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," was on May 29 last served on James Keely, a tenant on the Castletown (County Kildare) Estate of the representatives of the late Thomas Connolly, esquire; whether he is aware that Mr. Keely's old rent is £97 15 s. 4d., though his valuation is only £89 10 s., but that he was unable to apply to have a fair rent fixed during the term of his lease, which only expired in April, 1887; whether Mr. Keely, in June, 1887, served an originating notice to have a fair rent fixed; whether the application was listed for hearing before the Sub-Commission which was to have sat in Naas during the present month; whether the sitting of this Commission has been postponed to December or January next, when Mr. Keely's right of redemption shall have expired, notwithstanding that the decision to be then given would affect the rent running from May, 1887; and, whether he will cause the application to be heard at once, in order to save the tenant from the confiscation by his landlord of his improvements?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that the reply to the inquiries in the first, third, and fourth paragraphs is in the affirmative. The valuation of the farm is £89 10 s., and of the house and offices £5. The yearly rent is £97 15 s. 8d. The Land Commissioners state that the case as listed for hearing at the recent Sub-Commission was not reached; but that if it be the fact that Keely was served with an eviction notice on May 29
  740
  last, as stated in the Question (of which, however, they were not aware), his case, even if reached, could not have been heard with the result of having a fair rent fixed unless he had redeemed his holding, but must have stood adjourned pending redemption. The tenant could, without doubt, have obtained a stay of ejectment proceedings upon proper terms had he applied to the Court. (Section 13, Sub-section 3, 1881.)

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SITTINGS IN LIMERICK—COSTS OF APPEAL.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that at the sitting of the Land Commission in Limerick in January last, on the appeal of Daniel O'Connell, junior, a tenant on the estate of the Trustees of Archdeacon Gould, the judicial rent of £10 fixed by the Sub-Commission was reduced to £8 10 s. 0d., and notwithstanding that the tenant was successful in his appeal, and that he and his valuator had to travel a distance of 45 miles to Limerick, where they had to remain two nights, and to employ a lawyer there, the Land Commission refused to give the tenant any costs; whether he is aware that it is the usual practice to award to the successful party the costs and expenses of his appeal, and why this Rule has been departed from in favour of a landlord as against a tenant in Ireland; and, whether, considering that this practice is calculated to deter tenants from seeking justice by way of appeal, he will suggest to the Land Commission the adoption of the practice usually followed in other Courts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that their practice as to costs has been the same from the commencement, and is thoroughly well known to every practitioner in their Court. Where either the landlord or the tenant appeals, and the judicial rent is affirmed, the unsuccessful appellant pays the costs of the opposite party. Where the judicial rent is varied on appeal, whether it be raised or lowered, no costs are, as a rule, given to either party. Exceptional cases may, of course, occur, which are determined according to their circumstances; but there was nothing exceptional in the

  741
  case referred to. In a tribunal whose duties are such as those of the Land Commission it would, in the opinion of the Commissioners, be unjust that a tenant whose rent is slightly raised on appeal should pay the appellant's costs, and likewise as regards the case of the landlord.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked, if the other tenants on the estate had declined to go into the Land Court in consequence of the treatment given to this tenant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was not aware of that.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— BALLYCOTTON PIER.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the conflict of opinion between the Cork County Grand Jury and the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, in respect to the alleged serious defects in the Ballycotton Pier, and the refusal of the Grand Jury to take over and maintain the pier, Whether he will take steps to insure that a competent engineer, independent of either of these Bodies, shall be sent to examine into and report on the condition of the work?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) asked me a Question on this subject last week, and at my request postponed the Question until next Thursday. I have asked for a special Report, and on Thursday I hope to be in a position to give a complete answer.
  Subsequently,
  DR. TANNERasked, whether it was the fact that on Saturday last, General Sankey, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Keating visited Ballycotton Pier, and in what capacity Mr. Martin was employed?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the hon. Gentleman was good enough, in answer to his request, to postpone a Question on this subject until Thursday. On that day he hoped to be in possession of all the facts.

  DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—CIRCULAR OF SIR WEST RIDGWAY.
  MR. O'KEEFFEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  742
  of Ireland, referring to the Circular issued by Sir West Ridgway, dated May 16 ultimo, to the Grand Juries and Corporations of Ireland, with view as stated—
  "To bring about a more direct connection than exists at present between the Local Authorities which strike the rates and the Governing Boards of the district lunatic asylums in support of which they are struck;"
  whether replies have been received from the Public Bodies to whom this letter was addressed; and, how soon will the Government carry into effect their expressed intention of altering the constitution of the Boards of District Lunatic Asylums in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Replies have been received up to the present time from a minority only of the Public Bodies addressed. The Irish Government are anxious to have, as far as possible, the views of all the Bodies addressed; and they are, therefore, at present not in a position to make a definite statement on the matter.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the delay of the Government in this matter, a legal difficulty has arisen, and the rates for the Richmond Lunatic Asylum cannot be levied this year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of the legal difficulty to which the hon. Gentleman refers; but I am bound to say, as the hon. Gentleman speaks of delay on the part of the Government, that the responsibility for the delay rests with the Corporation of Dublin, who have declined to make a reply.
  MR. SEXTON: The Government having declined to take any action for several months, how can the right hon. Gentleman contend that the blame rests with the Dublin Corporation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement of the facts. My point is that the Government, having made application for information to Local Bodies, one of the Bodies which did not answer was the Corporation of Dublin. The hon. Gentleman has no right to blame the Government for the delay. The responsibility for the delay rests with the Corporation of Dublin.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS ON THE VANDELEUR ESTATE, CO. CLARE.
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the eviction of Michael Connell, on the Vandeleur Estate, on Friday, the 20th instant, Colonel Turner placed two soldiers in a meadow, opposite a small gable window, with loaded guns, commanding them—"If any more gruel is thrown out of that window, fire; these orders are distinct enough;" whether, at the eviction of Widow Margaret Madigan, of Ladmore, on Tuesday, the 24th instant, in reply to the question—"If they do not come down shall we fire?" by Mr. Hill or Mr. Dunning, Colonel Turner is reported to have said, "Certainly;" whether the offences warranted such action on the part of Colonel Turner; and, whether the Government will inquire into the matter, and prevent such orders in future?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Divisional Magistrate reports that the sole ground for the allegation contained in the first paragraph is the fact that he placed two soldiers with unloaded rifles opposite the window from which hot gruel had been thrown, with directions that, if repeated, the soldiers were to point their rifles at the window. This had the desired effect. The matter referred to in the second paragraph was with a view to frighten some men into giving in who were offering a desperate resistance in a loft. As a matter of fact, the District Inspector's men referred to were without rifles, being armed with bâtons.
  MR. JORDAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the order was not given to the soldiers to point their rifles at the windows and to fire if necessary; for he himself distinctly heard Colonel Turner say it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I apprehend that the point of the answer is that the rifles were not loaded.
  MR. JORDAN: I wish to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland under what Code, civil or military, these orders of Colonel Turner were given?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no law regarding the pointing of unloaded rifles.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS ON THE VANDELEUR ESTATE AT CARNACULLA—ALLEGED VIOLENCE.
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, in gaining possession of Cleary's house, and Pat Spellassy's and James Madigan's, of Carnaculla, on the 19th instant, the Sheriff, Mr. Croker, and his Emergency bailiff's tore down their furniture, threw it into the yard, and broke it into pieces; whether he has been informed that the Sheriff was remonstrated with at Spellassy's, without effect; whether he will state the statute or authority warranting such destruction of tenants' scant chattels; and, whether, if further evictions occur, he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of such action by bailiffs?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Divisional Magistrate reports that the allegation apparently contained in this Question, to the effect that the furniture of the tenants was wantonly or unnecessarily broken, is absolutely without foundation. He further adds that the houses had been all but emptied by the tenants, and fully prepared for resistance, little being left in them beyond a few heavy fixtures.
  MR. JORDAN: As the right hon. Gentleman believes the officials and does not believe me, a Member of this House, may I ask him whether he will hold an inquiry on the spot into the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no desire to draw a comparison between the veracity of the hon. Gentleman and the officials. I may say that I believe the officials.
  MR. JORDAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman has given a most ungentlemanly reply. Will he, then, grant an inquiry? I think, Mr. Speaker, it is most undignified for a Member of Her Majesty's Government—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I rise upon a question of Order, Sir. I wish to ask, whether the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is entitled to say in this House that on a comparison of veracity between my hon. Friend who sits below me and officials in Ireland, he believes the officials in Ireland and flouts the testimony of my hon. Friend?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think that the hon. Member misunderstood the observation of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has appealed to me as to what the right hon. Gentleman said; and I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he had no desire to pit the veracity of the hon. Member against the veracity of the officials.
  MR. SEXTON: But he said he believed the officials.
  MR. JORDANrose to put a further Question on the subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I call upon the hon. Member to put the next Question. [Cries of "Don't; don't ask it!"]
  MR. JORDANdid not put the next two Questions which stood in his name on the Paper.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS ON THE VANDELEUR ESTATE, CO. CLARE—MR. T. W. RUSSELL, M.P.
  MR. SHEEHYaked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, For what special services was the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) entitled to obtain a seat on a police car to and from the evictions on the Vandeleur property, and granted the almost exclusive privilege of interviewing the evicted tenants and the members of their families, whilst the representatives of the Irish Press were only allowed inside the outer ring, and then under police charge?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Divisional Magistrate reports that the hon. Member for South Tyrone, or anyone else known to them, was given a seat upon the cars from time to time when available. The allegation that the hon. Member had any exclusive privilege of interviewing evicted tenants the Divisional Magistrate declares to be unfounded—all who were allowed inside having the same privilege. All members of the Press who made application were allowed inside. They were not under police supervision at all.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (MR. SEXTON): If the hon. Member for South Tyrone is allowed to attend evictions with the police in the capacity of a political agent, so that he may write letters to the papers afterwards, will the Irish
  746
  Government allow any other person to attend and check the statements of the hon. Gentleman?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I deny altogether the allegation that the hon. Gentleman attended as a political agent.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the representatives of The Cork Herald and The Cork Examiner were refused within the lines on the occasion referred to?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of that; on the contrary, I gather from the Reports I received that all members of the Press who made application were allowed inside.
  MR. FLYNN: If I assure you that that is not the case, will you make further inquiries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be glad to make inquiries if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—TULLAMORE GAOL—DR. BARR.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the occasion of his recent visit to Mr. Dillon in Dundalk Gaol, Dr. Barr refused to give his name when asked to do so; whether he acted similarly when he visited and medically examined Mr. William O'Brien in Tullamore Gaol; and, for what reason he thus concealed his identity?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The General Prisons Board inform me that Dr. Barr reports that on his visit to the Irish prisons he gave his name to everyone who had any right to know it, and it appeared in the books of all the hotels at which he stayed. The ground on which he refused to give his name in the instances referred to was, he states, that it is not customary for anyone inspecting prisons to give his name to prisoners; and he failed to see that any one prisoner had more right in that respect than other.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the second case. Does his answer apply to both?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know about that; but I should think it does.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked whether, in view of the fact that the Coroner's Jury who had inquired into the death of Mr. Mandeville—a jury composed of persons of various political opinions—had unanimously found that Dr. Barr, in his sworn testimony, had cast foul as persions on the other doctors engaged in the case, he would consider the propriety of the future employment of Dr. Barr by the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe Dr. Barr is a most admirable doctor and a most excellent prison official—[An hon. MEMBER: For you.]—and nothing that occurred at the inquest has in the least shaken my belief.
  DR. FOX: Was Dr. Barr selected by the Government to visit political prisoners in Ireland on account of his supposed skill in dealing with malingerers in Kirkdale Prison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Dr. Barr was not selected by myself, but by the English Prison Authorities, on my request to them to send one of their most competent officials.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the fact that this gentleman visited Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Dillon in quite an exceptional capacity, how could they be expected to submit to a medical examination when they had no knowledge that he was a doctor at all?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that Question, beyond saying that Dr. Barr did not recognize the right of the prisoner to ask his name.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: That is not the point of my Question. What I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to is that this visit was quite of an exceptional character; and I ask him how any prisoner could be expected to submit himself to an examination by a man he did not know was a doctor at all?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not quite sure that I have caught the drift of the hon. Gentleman's Question; but I may remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not customary, either in England or in Ireland, to give testimonials to a prisoner as to the merits of the doctor who is to examine him.
  MR. SEXTON: Are the House and the country to understand that the Government will do nothing to test the
  748
  solemn finding of the Coroner's Jury, upon their oath, with regard to the veracity of Dr. Barr on his oath? And if they will not do anything in that direction, I wish to ask from what Vote in the Estimates the money will come with which Dr. Barr is to be paid?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be extremely glad if there could be an inquiry by which the whole truth of this matter should be investigated to the fullest extent, and brought in the most prominent manner before the English people. So far as I am concerned, no effort will be wanting to make the truth known.

  THE INQUEST AT MITCHELSTOWN ON MR. MANDEVILLE—EVIDENCE OF DR. BARR.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has read the Report of Dr. Barr's evidence at the inquest on Mr. Mandeville; and, whether, after the statements made by that gentleman, he will consider the propriety of refraining for the future from sending Dr. Barr to visit Irish political prisoners?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have answered very fully a similar Question on this subject.
  MR. HAYDEN: The second paragraph.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already stated substantially that I see no reason to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member with regard to prisoners whom he is pleased to describe as political.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say upon what Estimates the charges paid to Dr. Barr will appear?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question, because I do not know.
  DR. KENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why an English doctor was selected to visit the Irish prisons? Were there not men of sufficient eminence and experience in Dublin for this work?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Because I am perfectly aware that any Irishman who had to perform a duty of that sort would be liable to be subjected to the severest intimidation.
  DR. KENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)— ORANGE DEMONSTRATION, CO. DOWN —MR. BROWNLOW, J.P.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Brownlow, land agent to the Lord Lieutenant, who presided at the Orange demonstration on His Excellency's demesne at Mountstewart, County Down, on the 12th instant, is a Justice of the Peace for the County of Down, and if he will state the date of his appointment to the Commission of the Peace; whether his attention has been directed to the speech of Mr. Brownlow on that occasion, as reported in The Newtownards Chronicle of the 14th instant, where Mr. Brownlow, referring to Home Rule, threatened that—
  "Whoever may submit, the Orangemen of Ulster will stand together, and as our ancestors did of old we will if necessary do now;"
  whether, as reported in that paper, he also, in introducing to the meeting Mr. Adolphus Vane-Tempest, a cousin of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, made use of the following words—
  "They (the Orangemen) had His Excellency's best wishes. He could not be here himself; but he had done the next best thing and sent his cousin;"
  whether this is the same Mr. Brownlow who was reported in The Belfast Evening Telegraph of April 12, 1887, to have said, at the laying of the foundation stone of an Orange Hall at Barnamaghery, County Down—
  "That the time was rapidly approaching when the Irish Question would be transferred from the House of Commons to arbitrament in the field,"
  and that the Orangemen should have their forces properly constituted; whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the words spoken by this magistrate at these public meetings; and, whether any Government reporter was present at either of these meetings?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Secretary to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland informs me that the gentleman named was appointed to the magistracy of the County Down in July, 1887. He
  750
  states that he has not seen the newspaper reports referred to; but that from the extracts given in the Question the speeches, if made, would appear to have been platform utterances, some of them more than a year old; that the effect of such speeches depends greatly on the surrounding circumstances, and that the case in question does not call for further notice. So far as I am aware, the reply to the last paragraph of the Question is in the negative.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Government sanctions the appointment to the Commission of the Peace of a gentleman, an agent to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, two months after he made a speech inciting to civil war?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have given the reply of the Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, and I cannot go any further.

  ARMS LICENCES (IRELAND)—CONVICTION OF JAMES LEE AT ABBEYFEALE PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 18th instant, at Abbeyfeale Petty Sessions, an emergency man, named Lee, was convicted of having been drunk while in possession of loaded fire-arms, and with having presented a loaded revolver at two young men named Walsh and O'Connell; if the presiding magistrate, Captain Massy, remarked that—
  "Those men employed by the Property Defence Association got licences for fire-arms on the recommendation of their employers, and abused those licences, and that he now saw the bad result of giving licences to men like those before him, and he did not know whether the Government would revoke them;"
  and, whether he will carry out the recommendation of Captain Massy?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have already replied to the inquiry in the first paragraph in the affirmative. The presiding magistrate states that he did not represent Lee as employed by the Property Defence Association; nor, as a matter of fact, was he. He did say that the man had abused the trust reposed in him in the granting of the licence, and also expressed an opinion

  751
  that it might be revoked. The licence is being revoked.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— ALLEGED ASSAULTS (FERMOY).
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. Thomas Barry, of Killavullen, was arrested at Clondulane on last Tuesday for remonstrating with a policeman who had assaulted him, and whether, at the same time and place, a little girl was knocked down with the butt end of a rifle; whether a man named Corcoran was assaulted by Constable Bower and also by Sergeant Kelly, and subsequently arrested for telling another man "not to be afraid, they can't arrest you;" whether William Lane was also arrested, knocked down, and beaten; whether Mr. John Condon, after being arrested, received several serious wounds from a policeman named Black; and, whether, in consequence of the alleged repeated assaults by the police in the town of Fermoy, steps will be taken to prevent their recurrence?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that the police deny having assaulted any of the persons named, or having knocked down a little girl or anyone else with a butt of a rifle. The arrests were made in consequence of the interference by these persons with the police when engaged protecting bailiffs who had made seizures for the county cess. Summonses have been issued, at the suit of the police, against each of the persons referred to.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether Mr. John Condon, when arrested, was seriously injured inside the gaol, his head being knocked against the wall, in consequence of which he got three or four wounds, and is now under the care of medical men?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather from the statements of the police that they deny having injured anyone.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of the peace of the town, prevent these organized attempts at intimidation and murder by the police?
  [No reply.]

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—APPOINTMENT OF SCHOOL INSPECTORS.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that when vacancies occurred in the Edinburgh and Glasgow centres the Senior Inspector was appointed; and, whether, on a vacancy having occurred in the Aberdeen District, Mr. Jolly, the senior on the list, and eight others have been passed over, and a gentleman who was tenth on the list, and a young man comparatively unknown, appointed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I answer the first part in the affirmative. I have, on at least five occasions, answered the second Question, and must adhere to the answers already given.
  DR. CLARK: I shall draw attention to the question on the Education Estimates.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE BARROW.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Athy Town Commissioners have passed a Resolution in which they express a general approval of the Bill for the drainage of the Barrow and an earnest desire that it may become law; and, whether he will take into consideration this expression of opinion from the locality to be benefited, and will give reasonable facilities for the discussion of the measure on its second reading?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUH): It is true that the Athy Commissioners have passed the Resolution described by the hon. Member. As the hon. Member is aware, it has been, and is, my earnest desire to proceed with the Bills—a desire only frustrated by the action of the hon. Gentleman's Friends.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman place the Barrow Drainage Bill at a proper place on the Orders and bring it forward before mid-night?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Bill had been brought forward before mid-night. There was an interesting discussion on the first reading, and a dis-

  753
  cussion on the second reading, started before midnight. In his opinion, it would be far better to see in what shape the Bills came from the Select Committee than to delay them indefinitely, as was now being done.

  EGYPT—PRESERVATION OF ANCIENT MONUMENTS.
  MR. HOWORTHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in view of the continuous and deplorable destruction of the ancient monuments of Egypt by travellers and others, and of their incomparable value and interest, it would be possible to appoint some engineer officer to make a survey of these monuments and to have custody of them in future?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The question has not been lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government; but it rests, of course, with the Egyptian Government to take the necessary measures. They have been considering the subject for some time past, but have had great difficulties of different kinds to contend with. A Special Committee has now been appointed to consider what further steps can be taken; and it has been decided to levy a small fee for seeing the antiquities, which will, to some extent, increase the sum which it is possible to devote to the preservation of ancient monuments. Sir Francis Grenfell, the Sirdar of the Egyptian Army, takes great interest in the subject, and is a Member of this Committee.

  SLAVE TRADE IN THE RED SEA— SUAKIN.
  MR. HOWORTHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any punishment has been meted out to the owners and guarantors of slave dhows at Suakin, who have been shown to be engaged in running slaves; and, whether any steps have been taken to prevent the Government lessee of the salt mines at Korvajah from shipping slaves to Jeddah, as reported on page 229 of the Blue Book recently issued on the Red Sea Slave Trade?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): All owners or guarantors of vessels have been punished who have been convicted of acts of slave trading, or of participation in them. It will be seen, on reference to page 111 of the Blue Book, that the charge referred to in the second Question was very doubtful; but that every possible precaution was being taken against slave dealing.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—THE "FROG'S MARCH."
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will consent to a Return of all cases within the last 12 months in which Special Reports have been made by the Metropolitan Police, under the Police Order of January, 1885, that they have been compelled to resort to the practice known as the "frog's march" in removing refractory prisoners; said Return to specify the name of the prisoner, date, place, and time of arrest, and removal?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I see no public object that will be served by this Return. If any prisoner is treated with undue severity when arrested he can always complain to the magistrate, and the complaint is investigated and dealt with at the time.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, he had received from the Home Office on Saturday particulars of one case to which he had drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman privately. Why was the Home Office able to supply privately information as to one case, and why was such a Return as that asked for, giving fewer particulars than were supplied to him on Saturday, not furnished to Members of that House?
  MR. MATTHEWSreplied, that out of courtesy he gave the hon. Member particulars of the case referred to for his own private information; but he did not see that the Return asked for would serve any public use whatever.
  MR. CHANNINGasked, whether the number of cases in the past year could be supplied?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he did not think he was able to give the hon. Member the numbers from memory; but there were extremely few cases. He would try to obtain the information asked for.

  LLOYD'S (SIGNAL STATIONS) BILL— COLLECTION OF SHIPPING NEWS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that considerable apprehension exists that under the Lloyd's (Signal Stations) Bill, the Corporation of Lloyd's would acquire a monopoly of collecting shipping news around the coast of the United Kingdom, and of supplying the same to the public by such channels, at such prices, whether differential or otherwise, and on such points only as they may elect, free of all State control; and, whether he can take such action as will prevent the creation of such a monopoly.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): This Question should, I think, have rather been addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I may, however, say that I am not aware of the existence of any apprehension that Lloyd's will under their Bill acquire a monopoly; and I do not consider that there are grounds for any such apprehension. It is open to any person to establish a signal station.

  NAVY (SHIPS)—H.M.S. "HERCULES" AND "SANDFLY."
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the report of The Standard correspondent in that journal of July 24, in regard to the sea qualities of H.M.S. Sandfly, to the effect that, on the passage from Portland to Berehaven in a light breeze and easy seas, while the Hercules moved with the least possible motion, the Sandfly pitched and rolled so violently that the pendulum intended to register the heeling of the vessel proved useless, as only registering 30 degrees, the Sandfly, it is reported, rolling nearly 45; that, besides such violent rolling—which caused injuries to the surgeon and others—this ship exhibited many other bad qualities; by whom was this ship designed; whether there is any difference in the draught of water of this ship as designed and as completed; and, are there any other ships of this class in the Navy by the same designer?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): No
  756
  Report has been received from the Admiral in command of the Fleet to which the Sandfly is attached as to unsatisfactory behaviour during the passage to Berehaven, or with regard to her sister vessels, of which there are four attached to the Fleet now engaged in the Naval Manœuvres. Other newspaper correspondents have commented favourably on this type of vessel; and I think there is little doubt that the statements alluded to in the Question are inaccurate.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: Will the noble Lord have any objection to give us any information he receives on the subject?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No doubt, there will be a Report on this and all vessels of a similar type engaged.
  MR. HANBURY: Will the noble Lord give the name of the designer?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I do not think it is fair to give the name of the designer, when the purpose of asking this Question is to associate him with the unconfirmed report of the behaviour of this ship.

  BURIAL LAWS—BURIALS OF NONCONFORMIST PARISHIONERS.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to several recent cases of refusal by the clergy to permit the bell to be tolled when Nonconformist parishioners have been buried in the parish churchyard by Nonconformist ministers; whether he is aware that the 67th Canon provided that—
  "When any one is passing out of this life a bell shall be tolled, … and, after the party's death, if it so fall out, there shall be rung no more than one short peal, and one other peal before the burial, and one other after the burial;"
  whether any provision of "The Buria Laws Amendment Act, 1880," gives power to the clergy to take away the right of all parishioners by the Canons, to have the bell tolled at least once before and once after the Funeral Service; and, whether he will take steps to enforce this right of all parishioners in cases where it is refused by the clergy?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am aware of the provisions of the Canon referred to; but the hon. Member has

  757
  omitted words which make it doubtful whether the Canon is not confined to those parishioners who have been tended by a minister or curate of the Church. This is not a matter over which the Civil Courts of the country, or the Secretary of State, have any jurisdiction. If any parishioner feels aggrieved, he has his remedy by taking proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether, considering the enormous expense and difficulty of trying such questions in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the consequent impunity with which the law was often broken by clergymen, the Government would give facilities for passing the Burial Laws Amendment Bill, which stood for second reading on Wednesday next, and which would effectually put an end to such scandals?
  MR. CHANNINGasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the opinion conveyed in the third paragraph of his Question was supported by a well-known manual in regard to the Burial Laws and other well-known authorities?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he thought he had answered the third paragraph of the Question. It was a matter for the Ecclesiastical Courts, and one with regard to which neither he nor the Civil Courts had any jurisdiction. He would apply for information, however, in order to enable him to satisfy the hon. Member. He was afraid the Government could not undertake to give any facilities for the discussion of a Private Bill in the present state of Public Business.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—NEWTOWNARDS PETTY SESSIONS—NON- ATTENDANCE OF MAGISTRATES.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in The North Down Herald of July 13, that no magistrate attended to hold the Petty Sessions at Newtownards Courthouse on Thursday, July 12; whether he can state the cause of their non-attendance; and, whether he will direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter, in order that magistrates may be appointed who will attend to their duties in this district?
  MR. JOHNSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies,
  758
  I should like to ask him if it is not the fact that the Grand Jury of County Down were assembled in the Courthouse at Downpatrick on the 12th of July, and that many of the leading magistrates were, therefore, unfortunately unable to attend the demonstration?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he had received no Report on this subject; but if the allegation of his hon. Friend (Mr. Johnston) was true a full answer would be given to the Question of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. M'CARTANinquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Mr. Brownlow, the agent to the Lord Lieutenant, was engaged in presiding over a meeting of Orangemen composed of the Lord Lieutenant's tenantry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had no information on the point.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) —EJECTMENT AND CIVIL BILL DECREES.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the number of ejectment decrees for non-payment of rent, and also the number of Civil Bill decrees for the recovery of rent, which have been granted at the recent sitting of the County Court in each of the following towns in the County of Down—namely, Downpatrick, Newtownwards, Banbridge, and Newry; and, how many of these decrees include the old rents of holdings in respect of which the fair rents have not yet been fixed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have received the following Return from the Clerk of the Crown and Peace in reply to this Question; and I find that in Downpatrick the ejectment decrees for judicial rent were 2, in Newtownards 17, in Banbridge 6, and in Newry 7. Of ejectment decrees other than for judicial rent—namely, on lease or from year to year—there were 1 in Downpatrick, 26 in Newtownards, 12 in Banbridge, and 20 in Newry. There were of civil bill decrees for judicial rent 1 in Downpatrick, 4 in Newtownards, 1 in Banbridge, and 6 in Newry; and of civil bill decrees otherwise than for judicial

  759
  rent—namely, on lease or from year to year—2 in Downpatrick, 26 in Newtownards, 4 in Banbridge, and 16 in Newry.

  CORONERS BILL—PUBLICITY OF INQUESTS.
  SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared, when the Coroners Bill comes before the House, to insert a clause providing that inquests shall be held in public, subject to the ordinary power exercised by the Judges of excluding the public and the Press when the evidence to be given is unfit for publication?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I am afraid it is not possible to answer the Question of the hon. Baronet directly. The question whether any alteration should be made in the law relating to the admission of the public to Coroners' Courts is one which requires to be considered together with other provisions relating to those Courts; and I am not able to say more at present than that Her Majesty's Government will give most careful consideration to the question raised by the hon. Baronet.

  DEFEAT OF THE SPANISH ARMADA— TERCENTENARY CELEBRATION—A DAY OF THANKSGIVING.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government will advise Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to appoint a Day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the providential deliverances vouchsafed to the nation in 1588 by the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and in 1688 by the events which led to the establishment of Her Majesty's dynasty on the Throne of these Realms?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I thoroughly respect the motives which have induced by hon. Friend to put this Question to me; but there are many memorable events connected with the past history of this country which afford grounds for thanksgiving by the people. It is impossible for the Government to recommend that a day of thanksgiving should be appointed with regard to each of them; and therefore I am unable to
  760
  accede to the request of the hon. Member.
  MR. JOHNSTON, in consequence of that answer, asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would advise Her Majesty to appoint a day of fasting and humiliation for the national ingratitude?
  [No reply.]

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE ADJOURNMENT—THE TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILLS.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the great amount of Business remaining to be transacted before the proposed adjournment of the House next month, and considering the discussion to which the Tithe Rent-Charge Bills are certain to give rise, he will defer their further consideration till the November Session?
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked, Whether it is still the intention of the Government to take either of the Tithe Rent-Charge Bills during the present Sittings; and, if so, whether in consideration of the considerable amount of opposition to the Bills, he will arrange to give ample Notice of the day on which they will be taken?
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked, Whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which prevails in some parts of the United Kingdom with the law relating to the payment and recovery of tithe rent-charge, and of the fact that two Bills have been introduced by the Government for the purpose of abolishing the method of recovering tithe rent-charge by distress on the tenants' property, and of relieving them from the direct payment of the charge, he will take steps to insure the passing of both Bills before the adjournment of the House?
  MR. COBBasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a feeling prevails among a considerable number of Members on the Opposition side of the House that the Business which he named on Thursday last as necessary to be completed before the adjournment cannot be got through, without unduly preventing reasonable discussion, before the end of August at the earliest; whether he

  761
  will reconsider the subject, and, for the convenience of Members, make at an early date a further statement as to the conduct of Public Business, and indicate more definitely the date of the adjournment; and, whether, having regard to the health and necessary recreation of Members, he will undertake that a period of not less than three months shall intervene between the adjournment and the Autumn Sitting?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he was unable to make any addition to the statement he made on Thursday last. He could only say that the Government felt it to be their duty to ask the House to consider the Tithes Bill before the adjournment, because they were responsible for the peace and good order of the country, and they could not discharge their duty efficiently in that respect without asking that adequate consideration should be given to those Bills. The Government would make the necessary arrangements for the period of adjournment, so that Members might enjoy that amount of recreation which was essential to them after their labours; but some regard must be had to public necessity and public interest.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEinquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman would give ample Notice as to when the Tithe Bills would be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member has been informed that the Bills will be taken, and that is all the Notice I can give him.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE ADJOURNMENT—THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of protracted discussion likely to take place upon measures which he has placed before the Employers' Liability Bill, he will consider the advisability of deferring the Report stage of the latter Bill till the autumn part of the Session?
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, he was desired by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and other Members to say that it would be convenient that the Bill should be postponed.
  MR. AINSLIEurged that the Bill should be taken before the adjournment.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that he desired to consult the convenience of all hon. Members who took an interest in the question, which was a very important one, and a great responsibility would be incurred by those who caused its postponement. But he would consider the matter, and announce the intention of the Government on another day.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE—WORK OF MEMBERS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury Whether his attention had been called to the fact that 37 Committees of this House, including Grand Committees, Hybrid Committees, and Joint Committees of both Houses, have been appointed this Session, upon which 591 Members have been required to sit, exclusive of Members added to Grand Committees for particular Bills; that, in addition, 120 Members have been required as added Members to the Grand Committees; and that 71 Members have also been required on opposed Private Bills Committees; whether this number of Members is, in all, in excess of any number ever required for Committees in any previous Session of Parment; and, whether, as Loader of the House, he will, during the Recess, consider whether it is possible to diminish the enormous strain on private Members caused by this heavy Committee work?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, the hon. Member gave the House a great deal of interesting information as to the labours of hon. Members, which, he believed, was perfectly accurate. The total of Members mho had that Session served on Committees was given at 782; but that total had several times been exceeded, and in 1882–3 it reached so high as 909. He should be very glad, consistently with the discharge of the Business of the House, to do anything to spare hon. Members; but it must be remembered that the House generally approved of the system of delegation to Committees, as tending to the quicker

  763
  and, what was far more important, the more efficient discharge of the duties of the House.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL (SCOTLAND)—FISHERMEN'S DWELLINGS.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to deal with the tenure of fishermen's dwellings in the Local Government Bill for Scotland next Session; and, whether the Committee on Small Holdings recently appointed will take evidence on the subject?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he thought the hon. Member must be aware that it would be quite impossible to state the provisions of a Bill which might be introduced in the next Session. So far as the latter portion of the Question was concerned, it was for hon. Members themselves, who were interested in the tenure of fishermen's dwellings, to tender evidence on the subject to the Committee on Small Holdings, which was a Government Committee in the proper sense of the word.
  MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the latter part of the Question.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he took no responsibility upon himself with reference to the Committee; but he should imagine the matter would be within their Reference. It depended upon the Committee whether they should meet during the present Session.
  DR. CLARKasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, though this Committee was to examine into small holdings in Scotland, there was no Member for a Scotch county on the Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the House had appointed the Committee, and the hon. Gentleman should have raised the question before; but there were several Scotch Members upon the Committee.

  LIGHTHOUSES AND LIGHTSHIPS— TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION ROUND THE COASTS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with a view to the better prevention of loss of life and property in cases of ship-
  764
  wreck, for the general advantage of the shipping and fishing industries, and for the more effectual defence of these realms in time of war, Her Majesty's Government will, during the Recess, take into consideration the provision of a complete system of telegraphic communication between the postal telegraphs and all coastguard, lighthouse, life-boat, and life-saving stations situated on the coasts of the United Kingdom?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): With reference to the better prevention of loss of life and property at sea, I can only remind my hon. Friend of the answer he received on the 16th of April last from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. In that answer it was stated that certain experiments must be continued for another 18 months; and, as that period has still many months to run, I am unable to give any further information on the subject. So far as regards the safety of this country, my hon. Friend may rest assured that any measures which, in the judgment of the Government, are necessary for security will not be neglected by Her Majesty's Government.

  THE INQUEST AT MITCHELSTOWN ON MR. MANDEVILLE—DR. BARR.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, after the verdict of the jury on the late Mr. Mandeville, that his death was brought about by brutal and unjustifiable treatment, the Government intended to suspend the official or officials responsible for that treatment; whether, after the protest of the jury against treating political prisoners as common criminals, the Government would discontinue that practice; and, whether, after the condemnation by the jury of the aspersions sought to be cast upon the medical witnesses by Dr. Barr, the Government would suspend him from his duties as Prisons Inspector?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): In my opinion, the verdict of the jury is entirely unwarranted by the facts of the case, and I do not intend to take any action founded upon it.
  MR. CHANCE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Government intend to take any steps to set aside the verdict which he considers so wholly unjustifiable?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of that Question.
  Subsequently,
  MR. CLANCY: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary, whether Dr. James Barr, who has been visiting Irish prisons and Irish gaols is the same person as the Irish Orangeman of that name who has been for years a prominent Tory partizan in Liverpool?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know anything about that yet. I know nothing whatever about Dr. Barr except in his public capacity.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—ARREST OF MR. O'KELLY, M.P.
  MR. PARNELLasked, Whether the Solicitor General for Ireland had considered the Question addressed to him last week, suggesting that the Government should assent to an application for an adjournment of the hearing of the case, so that the hon. Member might continue to attend to his Parliamentary duties until the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill had been disposed of?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I have communicated the request made to me by the hon. Gentleman to the Attorney General for Ireland, and he informs me that he will not oppose a reasonable adjournment under the circumstances.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. H. GARDNERsaid, there were two Tithes Bills before the House, and he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury to consider whether it might not be expedient to press forward the less contentious measure of the two rather than to seek to carry both?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he was sorry to put himself in opposition to the feelings of any hon. Members;
  766
  but he could add nothing to the statement he had already made.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that as there was some misapprehension, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he meant to put those two Bills through their various stages before the House rose?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I should be glad if that was done; but we will ask the House to take the second reading of the Tithe Rent Charge Bill, and the other will pass, as it is not contentious.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked, what Business would be taken on Thursday and Friday?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it would be necessary to obtain a Money Vote this week. He intended to take a Vote for the Army and Navy Estimates on Thursday, and a Vote on Account of the Civil Service Estimates on Friday.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to proceed with the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill during the present week. It would be convenient to know whether that promise would be kept?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, owing to the fact that they must have money for the Public Service, it would not be possible to bring forward the Bill this week. He might add that, in the event of the Members (Charges and Allegations) Bill not passing through Committee that evening, he should ask to-morrow for the postponement of the Twelve o'clock Rule.

  RIOTS AND DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) —ALLEGED MURDER OF JOHN FORAN.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which. I have given him private Notice. It is this—Whether he can inform the House as to the truth of the report which appears in The Pall Mall Gazette and other papers to the effect that an aged man named John Foran was murdered last Saturday evening between Tralee and Listowel; and whether he is aware of the fact, as stated, that this John Foran has for some time past been boycotted and under police protection?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): In an-

  767
  swer to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that I am afraid I cannot give any information on the subject of the Question. I have not received any intimation of the fact to which he refers; but if my hon. and gallant Friend will put a Question on the Paper I shall be happy to answer it.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I will ask the Question to-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL.— [BILL 336.]
  (Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL.— [BILL 336.]

    COMMITTEE. [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Appointment and duties of special Commissioners).
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, he begged to move the omission of the word "three" in the first line of the clause, and to insert "five." He conceived that, whatever else might be said about this Amendment, it could not be considered an Amendment to limit the scope of the inquiry. In his judgment, the number of the Commission as it stood at present in the Bill was entirely inadequate for the purpose; indeed, he suspected that the Government had at first the intention of appointing a larger number, for he could not imagine that when the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) described the Commission as one to be wholly or mainly composed of Judges, that three was the total number in his mind. He (Mr. Sexton) should say nothing about the three Commissioners who had been nominated to the House, because of two of them he knew nothing; and, therefore, he should be silent in regard to them. But with regard to the third, he was somewhat surprised he had been nominated by the Government, because the Government had recently nominated him upon another Royal Commission, and had disregarded and ignored his recommendations. In order to consider whether three was a sufficient number, they had to ask themselves what work this Commission would have to do? What was the scheme of
    768
    the Government? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was an important authority on the scheme of the Government; and at his garden party of Saturday last, when the guests were driven indoors by the rain, and listened to a speech of three columns from the host, he told them that the Commission would have to inquire into the whole conspiracy and the whole history of the Land League and the National League. Let him (Mr. Sexton) remind the Committee that since the foundation of the Land League down to the present time about nine years had elapsed; let him further remind the Committee that the Land League had existed, or that the National League did exist, in nine or 10 different countries—in Ireland, in England, in Scotland, in South Africa, in India, in the different Colonies of Australia, in New Zealand, Canada, and the British Settlements of North America, in the 31 States and territories of the United States, and in various territories of South America. The membership of the League included some millions of persons, and the scheme of the Government, as interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, was a scheme by which the Commission would be launched without a rudder or compass on a boundless ocean. The Commission would have to inquire into the acts or speeches of any one of these millions of persons during the period of nine years, or into any knowledge in the minds of any of these persons as to what other persons intended to do, or into anything which might be regarded possibly by the Commission as corresponding with any of the charges, allegations, innuendoes, suggestions, or hints conveyed in the 275 pages of rhetoric in Parnellism and Crime. He thought that this Commission, therefore, had a considerable amount of work before it—work which would certainly not be accomplished in months, but which probably would occupy a period of some years. Now, a vast deal would depend upon the issue of this Commission, more, perhaps, than ever depended before in the history of England upon the Report of any similar Body. The issue of the Commission might affect the position of leading public men upon this side of the House, or upon the other; it might affect the constitution and rela-

    769
    tions of Parties in this House; it might have a serious, if not a decisive influence, upon the future of great political questions, and even upon the relations in some degree of the people of Great Britain and Ireland. Nothing could be imagined more important, nothing could be conceived more grave than the issue of this inquiry; therefore, they should take every precaution that the Commission should be effective for its purpose. Did they do this by appointing only three Commissioners? As he had said, the inquiry, if it followed the scheme of the Government, must be protracted over several years. If one of the three Commissioners should die in the course of the inquiry, or if one of them should become incapacitated by serious illness, or any other of several imaginary causes, the whole of the vast and ponderous inquiries ranging over the acts of millions of persons in various parts of the globe would be rendered abortive in the event of a difference of opinion on a material point between the remaining two Commissioners. He appealed with confidence to hon. Gentlemen opposite upon this point, because he was satisfied they would agree with him that an abortive issue to this inquiry would be a public misfortune. In the Amendment which he presented he endeavoured to take a reasonable and, he thought, not an excessive precaution that such a misfortune should not occur. There was another reason why this Commission should be enlarged. There was a provision in the Bill by which a Commission on request was authorized to issue in order to take evidence of witnesses abroad, and it was perfectly patent that if they appointed only three Commissioners, none of them could take evidence abroad. He had already pointed out that the inquiry might range over several countries, and, if the scheme of the Government were followed out, and if the Commissioners were to grope and ferret all over the world to endeavour to find some member, or any member, of the Land League, or National League, who was guilty of complicity in crime, or who had a guilty knowledge of crime, it was evident that a good deal of evidence would have to be taken abroad, and that the bearing of that evidence would be of vital importance. It had been already pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the
    770
    Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) and others, that the House, in delegating, in respect to this inquiry concerning Members of Parliament, to others the powers which, according to historical precedent, it ought to exercise itself, had been guilty of pernicious innovation. This was strange enough, but it would be stranger still if the House, having delegated important functions to certain known persons, to certain persons named, should then allow these named and responsible persons to delegate the most important part of their duties to other persons of whom the House knew nothing. He ventured to lay down the principle that any evidence to be taken by this Commission, whether it be taken at home or abroad, ought to be taken by Commissioners who were named in the Bill. If they gave the Commissioners power to name other persons to whom to delegate their powers, those persons might be fit or unfit, and no matter how flagrant might be their unfitness, the House would have no control over their appointment or their conduct. He thought it would not be fair or reasonable to ask any Member of the House to submit himself to unknown Judges. He asked that the functions of this Commission, wherever it sat, should be exercised by men of whom the House had cognizance, and of whose appointment the House at the outset had approved. Relying upon these two reasons, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "five."—(Mr. Sexton)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that the proposal of the right hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) was one which the Government could not accept. The hon. Member had, he thought, greatly exaggerated the probable scope and range of the inquiry. There was no doubt that in the course of that inquiry questions might arise which demanded a good deal of inquiry; questions might arise which would render t necessary to procure evidence abroad.

    771
    but, at the same time, practical considerations must prevail with the Government in matters of this kind. As it was, no small embarrassment would be caused in the administration of justice in the country by the withdrawal of three Judges from their ordinary duties. There would, of course, be still greater interference with ordinary business if as many as five Judges were withdrawn for the purpose of conducting this Inquiry, and on that account alone the proposal of the right hon. Member was totally impracticable. The Government could not contemplate the withdrawal of so much of the legal force of the country, which, as hon. Members knew, was extremely limited, for a Commission of this kind. They had taken the greatest pains in the selection of the members of the Judicial Bench who would be appointed Commissioners by this Bill, and they believed them to be men of the highest judicial position, and of the greatest possible fairness and impartiality, and of the highest ability and capacity to conduct any inquiry, however difficult and complicated. When they had three men of that sort and character, they did not gain additional strength—at any rate, that was his experience—by multiplying the number of members. Every fresh mind, on the contrary, was likely to suggest fresh difficulties, fresh causes of inquiry, fresh subjects which might have to be investigated and looked up. He was persuaded that to every fair minded man the number of three was amply sufficient for all the purposes of the inquiry. The right hon. Member suggested that one of the Commissioners might die. It was quite true that the Bill did not provide for a contingency of that kind; they hoped that such a contingency might not arise, but if it did, or if one of the Members of the Commission was incapacitated by illness, it would be necessary, by a fresh Bill, to appoint a successor to fill the vacant place. That could easily be done, and the matter need give rise to no debate in the House. Then, the right hon. Member had further suggested that all evidence abroad ought to be taken by one of the Commissioners named in the Bill. That was a totally inadmissible proposition; certainly the Government never contemplated anything of the kind. They had given power to issue commissions
    772
    or requests to examine witnesses abroad, but they never contemplated that a Judge of the Superior Court should go to some foreign country in order himself to take evidence. That was totally unnecessary, but hon. Members opposite might be quite easy in their minds, they would not be committing themselves to the judgment of unknown persons. The Sub-Commissioner who went abroad would have no judicial function to perform in the matter; his function would be entirely ministerial; he would have to see that questions were put in a proper way, and in sufficient number; and he would have to record the answers faithfully, and bring back the result to the three Commissioners, who alone would have to pass judgment and give an opinion on the effect of the evidence.
    MR. SEXTONasked, what about examination and cross-examination by the representatives of the parties concerned?
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that the examination and cross-examination would be governed by the directions the Commissioners themselves would give to the gentlemen they appointed. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that when evidence was taken on commission interrogatories, previously arranged, were sometimes administered by the persons charged with the duty of taking the evidence, and that sometimes representatives of the parties appeared and asked questions before the Commissioner. Sometimes one form was convenient, sometimes the other. The matter was regulated by the well-known practice of the Courts, and the Government did not propose that the commissions issued by this tribunal should be at all different from ordinary commissions.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he confessed he was amazed at the last observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said that examination and cross-examination of witnesses abroad would be governed by the well-known practice of the Courts. The whole drift of the debate on the second reading was that the well-known practice of the Courts would not be allowed to apply to the Commission.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that what he said was that the conduct of the examination and cross-examination would be

    773
    guided by directions given by the Commission of Judges here.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the charges were charges of complicity in murder. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary mean to tell the Committee that, while everything might turn upon the examination and cross-examination of witnesses in New York or San Francisco or Australia, that examination was to be ruled, governed, and controlled by one man of whom they knew nothing at present? They must know something about the men who were to conduct the inquiries, or, if they were to know nothing about the men, they must at least know in the course of the debate what were the directions the Commissioners at home would give to the men for their guidance. He did not go beyond what he considered to be the necessity of the case when he said that the vital results of the case might depend upon the degree in which the legal representatives of the parties concerned were allowed to examine and cross-examine witnesses who came forward. The right hon. Gentlemen had admitted that there was great force in his (Mr. Sexton's) proposal, because he said that in case one of the three Commissioners died or became incapacitated it would be necessary for the House to pass another Bill. Was it not better that the Commission should be of adequate numbers now, so that the House hereafter in a probable event should not be obliged to return to the subject, and should not be subjected to all the delay and annoyance of passing another Statute. Besides, it would be extremely inconvenient, when the inquiry had progressed perhaps a considerable way, that a new Commissioner should be added to the tribunal, who might not have seen the witnesses, and who had not the same opportunity as the rest of coming to a conclusion upon the evidence. He must repeat what he had said in regard to Mr. Justice Day, he was surprised at the nomination of that gentleman. The Government appointed him two years ago to inquire into the Belfast riots. Mr. Justice Day inquired very exhaustively and closely into and reported upon the riots; but the Government from that day to this had not acted upon his recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman said that he (Mr. Sexton) had magnified the scope of the inquiry; perhaps he
    774
    would tell them in what way he had magnified it? Judging from the right hon. Gentleman's speech upon the second reading, the Commission was to inquire into every act of every member of the Land League and National League if they thought they had any reason to suppose such a member had been guilty of crime or complicity in crime. It was quite evident that this was an Irish race inquiry, for the Commission was to inquire into the relation and connection between every member of the Land League and National League and every other person in the world who might have been engaged in the promotion of outrage and crime. He did not magnify the scope of the inquiry; he and his hon. Friends had endeavoured to limit it. The Government had, however, refused to limit it, and he maintained, taking the scope of the inquiry as it was, considering its probable length, considering the importance and delicacy of the functions to be discharged abroad, that the ends of justice would not be satisfied unless the number of the Commission were enlarged according to the terms of his Amendment.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, he fully appreciated the difficulties the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had pointed out in the way of the Amendment; but the Amendment only showed that they were putting themselves and the House in an absolutely untenable position by proposing to constitute this inquiry upon the lines of this Bill. It was essential, so the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, that evidence should be taken abroad—in America and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman said there were powers in this Bill to appoint Sub-Commissioners to take evidence abroad; but had the right hon. Gentleman in the whole course of his vast legal experience ever heard of a proposition to appoint a Commission to take evidence abroad to inquire where the issue was not a civil issue at all, not a question of a bill of exchange, or of mercantile law, but a criminal charge, analogous in all respects to the subject of proceedings which would under ordinary circumstances be taken in a Criminal Court? He asserted that there was no precedent for appointing a Commission of this kind; and not only so, but that the evidence taken by the Com-

    775
    missioners would be of a most unsatisfactory nature.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he certainly had been astonished to hear it laid down from the Treasury Bench that it was to be in the power of the Commissioners to appoint a Commission or in New York or San Francisco, as was done in civil actions, and that evidence was to be taken before such Commissioner in regard to what was one of the gravest criminal charges which had ever been made. He certainly did not know, when the second reading of this Bill was being considered, that Sub-Commissioners were to be appointed to take evidence on which the guilt or criminality of any person might turn; evidence which anybody knew, if he understood anything about evidence, it was most important that the Judge who was to determine the charge should hear from the witness tendering it. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that they ought to provide a sufficiently large machinery to enable one of the Commissioners appointed under the Bill to take the evidence required to be taken abroad.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought that the Committee ought to recollect that in dealing with this Amendment they were discussing a proposal to provide a substitute for a jury. In the jury system of this country and of Ireland they provided that there should be 12 men; in Scotland, he believed, they provided a larger number, and that they took the verdict of the majority. But in the case of a substitute, where, he presumed, the decision of the majority would be taken, they only provided for a jury of three Judges. That was to say, they proposed to place the settlement of these most important and far-reaching and numerous issues, contained in the pamphlet entitled Parnellism and Crime, in the hands of two men. There was no precedent for this Commission; there was no precedent, so far as he knew, for any inquiry into the acts of individuals. He had asked at the beginning that these matters should be inquired into by a Select Committee. It would have been according to precedent; but the Government refused that, and they made the present proposal, for which, he maintained, there was no precedent, as a
    776
    substitute. Waiving the objection on the ground of want of precedent, he stated, immediately after the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) had answered his Question, that he would be willing to submit his case to the hands of any tribunal composed of honourable, able, and just men. But he confessed, coming as he did fresh from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in reply to his Question that the tribunal should be composed partly of Judges and partly of laymen, of non-judicial laymen, he was not prepared to find that the Commission would be composed of three Judges. Let them take the precedent they had in regard to other Royal Commissions. It was said that this Commission was a favour to the Irish Members. He denied that; he maintained that they, in waiving their ordinary position as citizens, and in consenting to allow an investigation which the Criminal Law did not permit before a Commission of Judges, put the public under an obligation, and the public did not put them under an obligation. Now, as he had said, let them take the precedents which existed in regard to inquiries by Commissions into the doings of organizations and of districts. But, although there were no precedents whatever for a Commission exactly like this, there had been Commissions such as the Sheffield Commission and the White boy Commission, to which reference had been made, and which were in some respects similar, all of them having had charged upon them the duty of inquiring into matters connected with organizations. He would take the Sheffield Commission as an example. It was an example which had been largely drawn upon by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite. The Sheffield Commission had merely to inquire into the proceedings in one town, whereas this Commission would inquire into proceedings throughout the United Kingdom and America. What was the composition of that Commission? [Interruption, and cries of "Order!"] Two hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches below the Gangway were speaking so loudly that he could scarcely hear his own voice. This matter might not be of importance to them, but it was to him and his country, and he must request that they would refrain

    777
    from conversation. He would endeavour to address himself as closely to the question as possible, and if his observations were not interesting to hon. Members opposite, he hoped they would conduct their conversation elsewhere. The Sheffield Commission, notwithstanding its comparatively limited scope, consisted of 11 Members, presided over by Sir William Erle. Yet they were now told by the Government that they were asking too much, because they were not satisfied with a Commission of three Judges, after the House had been informed by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that it would be composed partly of Judges and partly of non-judicial members.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): What I said was, that the Commission would be composed wholly or partly of Judges.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was willing to give the right hon. Gentleman whatever advantage was to be derived from that correction. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it should consist wholly or partly of Judges. Why should the issues in this matter—which were issues of grave importance and extending over a wider field than any that were ever before submitted to a Royal Commission—be restricted to so small a tribunal? He said it was monstrous that they should be asked to go before a Commission, and to incur all the expense of an inquiry, which at a moment's notice by the death or illness of any one of its members might be deprived of all its power of proceeding any further. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke of another Act of Parliament, but the introduction of such legislation would depend on the disposition of the Government. They did not feel disposed to place any confidence whatever in the disposition of Her Majesty's present Government, and they did not know how far, after the inquiry had proceeded for some time, the Government might desire to see it dropped. They did not know what colour might be imported into it. They did not know how far a Conservative Government might desire to have the proceedings of the Commission continue, or how far they might desire to render them abortive. He (Mr. Parnell) had said the Sheffield Commission was composed of a much
    778
    larger number of members. He would now take the Belfast Commission. The Belfast Commission was appointed to inquire into the proceedings at the riots which only lasted a few days or a week. The riots themselves were confined to a narrow area, but that Commission consisted of five Members. Yet the present Commission was to consist of three members only. The right hon. Gentleman had accused them of magnifying the scope of this inquiry. It was impossible for human ingenuity to magnify its scope. Since the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury directed attention to a pamphlet entitled Parnellism and Crime as the source from which they could derive information as to the extent of the inquiry, he had for the first time read the pamphlet. He found, whether having regard to the charges expressed or existing only in innuendo, that the field was a wide and a varied one, and that, in fact, it would be impossible for him to even attempt to magnify the scope of that inquiry. It was preposterous and ridiculous to say that the strain upon the Judicial Bench would be too great if their demand were complied with. They bad not asked for additional Judges. He would direct the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to his statement on the first reading of the Bill that they did not seek to add additional Judges, but men who were not laymen and who had had a judicial training. There could be no objection to such a proceeding as that. There were plenty of able men well qualified for the office, as in the case of the Sheffield and the Belfast Commissions, to be joined with such eminent members as the Judges. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was an unworthy argument which could not hold water, and one which ought not to have been used under the circumstances. He wished to say one word in reference to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary respecting the operations of the Commission abroad. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly said, in reply to his hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, that the proceedings of the Commission abroad would be governed by the well known practice of the Courts. With these words hot and fresh in the memory of the House the right hon. Gentleman got up, two minutes after-

    779
    wards, and denied using them. What prospect had they of entering upon discussion on this Bill when the right hon. Gentleman resorted to such an expedient? The right hon. Gentleman's words were taken down immediately they fell from his lips, and were in the recollection of the House. The right hon. Gentleman now denied that he had used them. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, had his eye on the argument most eagerly insisted upon in the debate on the second reading—the necessity there was that the Commission should not be bound by legal rules of evidence. Talking of the impartiality of the Leaders of the Government, he had been amused by reading in an evening paper that day—one of the Tory organs—that there was no longer any question of the guilt or innocence of Mr. Parnell. This organ gravely asserted that his guilt or innocence had long ceased to be a matter of contention, and that there were no two opinions as to his guilt, and that the question had simply become one as to how he could best be proved to be guilty. That was the position taken up by one of the London leading Conservative evening papers that day. Was that the position taken up by the Front Bench? If it was not their position, why did they not get up and deny it? If he was to be held responsible for everything Mr. Patrick Ford said in his newspaper in America, and a Commission was to be appointed to inquire into those articles of Mr. Patrick Ford's and not into what he had said, why should the right hon. Gentleman and his Party not be held responsible for what their organs in London immediately under their control and within their reach chose to say? Oh no; it would be said that would be very unfair, for it would not be a question of anything against an unfortunate Irishman, with all the odds against him except his own innocence, but it would be a question of the stability of Her Majesty's Government. This Commission when it went abroad would, according to the language of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that day, have to inquire into all the allegations in Parnellism and Crime. By far the larger portion of Parnellism and Crime was taken up by the doings and sayings of men abroad. If he were placed in one scale and the
    780
    sayings and doings of men in America mentioned in Parnellism and Crime were to be placed in another, his weight would be as nothing to theirs. His proceedings and doings in this country filled but a very small part indeed of Parnellism and Crime compared with the sayings and doings which were to be inquired into in America. He had no hesitation in saying that if Her Majesty's Government were honest in their statements, if they believed in their statements, if there was any sense in which the allegations in Parnellism and Crime were to be inquired into, the Commission should be directed to sit in America and take all its proceedings in America. Nearly all the witnesses to be examined were in America; in Great Britain there was no evidence to be taken, though, unhappily, the same was not the case as regarded Ireland. The major part of the pamphlet was taken up with a repetition of the newspaper articles of Mr. Patrick Ford's, and resolutions adopted at meetings held by his hon. Friend and other persons in America, and every conceivable thing that happened in America whether it had any bearing on the question or not. Therefore, he said, it was of the greatest importance that this Commission should be divided into two portions—one to cover America and the other to cover Ireland. He declined to submit the American portion of the field of investigation to some unknown barrister, unguided by any rules of legal evidence and unguided by any directions in this Bill. It would be impossible for such a barrister, no matter what his skill or what his experience might be, to be capable of the responsibility of settling the varied and important points of detail with regard to such matters of detail and principle as would come before him for decision from day to day. He would submit that the Government had not a leg to stand upon with regard to this question, and he would ask whether they were proceeding fairly by meeting this Amendment with a blank rejection?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON)said, that, till the hon. Member for Cork City rose, the greater part of the argument of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway had been directed to showing that such great powers as it was proposed to entrust to this Commission

    781
    should not be entrusted to be used abroad by any less skilled persons than Judges.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that that was not his argument. His contention was that the House ought to know what the inquiry was to be.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONsaid, that it was objected that unknown barristers might be employed. Now the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) complained that there was no representation of the lay element on the Commission.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he made no such complaint whatever.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONsaid, the hon. Gentleman certainly did.
    Several hon. MEMBERS: No, no!
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONasked for what purpose, then, were the names of the Sheffield Commissioners read Out?
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he simply mentioned that trained persons other than Judges were appointed on other Commissions to meet the argument of the Home Secretary that it would overstrain the Judicial Bench to appoint more Judges on the Commission.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSONsaid, that for one reason or another the hon. Member had made it a matter of complaint that the lay element was not placed on the Commission. [Mr. PARNELL: No.] Was it proposed that the lay Commissioners to be appointed should be sent to America to take evidence? But, he would ask, who would be better qualified to take evidence in America than trained lawyers appointed by and acting under instructions from the Judges on the Commission? The hon. Member was on the horns of a dilemma. Were the lay Commissioners whom the hon. Gentleman wished to be appointed to sit at home and conduct the most important part of the inquiry, and were the Judges to go to America? Was that what hon. Members wished? But, if it were said that there should be five Judges, he would ask whether it was reasonable that a larger body of Judges should be appointed to conduct this investigation than sat in almost any Court together? Experience showed that for unquestionable reasons so large a number as five was not required. Then it was said that the greater part of the inquiry would be conducted abroad. Was there any reason to suppose that the Judges would not
    782
    be in possession of the greater part of the evidence in this country? But if they required further evidence from America they could send skilled assistance to obtain it. On the whole, he thought that the Amendment was not supported by consistent arguments, and that the number of three Judges was sufficient to accomplish the work entrusted to them, with the assistance of Commissioners.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, the question which had been raised as far as the discussion upon the Amendment had already gone was an extremely serious one, so serious that he should like to impress on the Committee his apprehension of its seriousness. It seemed to be taken to be germane to the Amendment now before the Committee to discuss the question of taking evidence abroad, and he wished to point out that evidence could not be taken abroad under any of the circumstances which regulated the taking of evidence at home. It had been his lot in life to have acted abroad as a Commissioner and in examining witnesses before Commissioners, and he ventured to say that the taking of evidence before a Commission abroad upon charges involving murder and other felonies was a matter which could hardly have entered the apprehension of any person who desired a serious inquiry. What power had Commissioners abroad to enforce the attendance of any witness? What power was there to commit a witness who refused to answer? What power was there in America or in any other country out of the jurisdiction of the Commission—all countries beyond the seas being outside the jurisdiction of the Commission—to enforce the production of any documents or to inflict any kind of punishment for contempt? Were they upon charges of this nature to have evidence collected, they did not know how and by they did not know whom? An ordinary Commission issued by Judges was issued for the examination of special people, the grounds being submitted to the Judges on which it was not probable that the witnesses would appear before an English tribunal. If people were likely to attend them, no Commission was issued. It was only when they would not appear, or it was not expected they would obey the process of the English Courts, that a Com-

    783
    mission was sent out to examine them. Was this Commission to have the discretion whether or not it would examine certain persons?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must point out that the proper time to discuss any question of whether there should be any inquiry abroad and how it should be conducted, would be on Sub-section 4 of Clause 2, which expressly deals with that question; it is only relevant here in relation to the number of Commissioners and how that number should be detached.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, it was because he had felt that difficulty that he bad made the remark he did at the beginning of his observations, that the question was one which had been treated by both sides of the House as germane to the Amendment. He quite felt the difficulty of the matter, and when they came to the proper place,—namely, Sub-section 4 of Clause 2, he would, if no one else did, move its omission.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland had ventured to find fault with the remarks of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and seemed to think that the work to be done in America was the least important part of the inquiry. He would not enter into the question whether it was right or not to send a Commission abroad. For the moment he would assume that they were bound to have a Commission abroad. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland seemed to thick that that would be the lesser part of the inquiry. On the contrary, it was far and away the most important part of these proceedings. The main charge against them was complicity with men who had committed crime. Where were those men? At the present moment nearly every one of them was in America, and therefore the proceedings in America would form the most important part of the inquiry. The Home Secretary had said something about the manner in which the Commission would pursue its labours; but he had not been quite consistent. He had told the right hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that the evidence would be taken in accordance with the well known practice of the Courts. If so,
    784
    they would have a strong guarantee that this Commission would conduct its business in a proper kind of manner. But immediately afterwards the right hon. Gentleman qualified his statement by saying that the Commission would act upon the rules settled for it by the Judges at home. That was quite a different thing. This Commission would be held in America, and in the absence of Members of that House, and yet their innocence and guilt were to be inquired into by persons whom they did not know, and upon principles with which they were still unacquainted. Men charged with the gravest of crimes were to be left at the mercy of unknown individuals conducting their proceedings on unknown principles. There was a greater necessity for a judicial tribunal in America than in this country. Here, although they were charged, not as criminals, but as accessories, they had the protection of Parliament and of public opinion. There was no such protection in America; but the inquiry might be of a hole and corner character, and their characters and reputations would be at the mercy of a chance tribunal. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland had misrepresented the hon. Member for Cork as demanding that the tribunal should be partly judicial and partly lay. Nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who had not quoted himself accurately, had said that it would be mainly judical.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Wholly or mainly?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: That meant that other persons might be upon the Commission, but it meant someone of experience and trained in the law and acquainted with the rules of law. What his hon. Friend proposed was, that perhaps one Judge, with a lay Commission to help him, should go to America and decide what evidence should be rejected and what taken. Surely this Committee had to decide the important question of what evidence and how much should be taken, and what rejected. It had to decide what was to be the ultimate examination and the ultimate cross-examination. All these questions raised most vital points, and were they to be tried 3,000 miles away, at New York or anywhere

    785
    else, in the absence of the Irish Members? Was it not absolutely necessary to have a tribunal that would apply to its examination the strictest and fairest Laws of Evidence, and he submitted that that could only be obtained by sending Commissioners abroad in whom they had the fullest confidence.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland had said, as the reason for not assenting to the reasonable proposal of the right hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), that it would be very difficult to take more than three Judges from their judicial functions. For his own part, he thought there would be great difficulty in taking away for three or six months or a year the three proposed, and he did not precisely understand how the business of litigants was to be attended to. But the reply of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland was of no value, because the right hon. Member for West Belfast did not, for a moment, suggest that all the Commissioners should be Judges. Two Commissions had been referred to—the Sheffield Commission and the Metropolitan Board of Works Commission. It had been shown that, on the Sheffield Commission, the greater number of the Members had been laymen, while on the Metropolitan Board of Works Commission only one of the Members was a Judge—an ex-Lord Chancellor, another being an eminent barrister, and the third, Mr. Henry Grenfell, an eminent gentleman in the City. Then they had been told that they had three men of the most eminent impartiality, and they were asked who would say anything against the Judges of the land. Well, he would, for one, and he would tell them which Judge it was to whom he objected, and what the Judge had done to render him unfit to take up these duties. The Judge he alluded to was Mr. Justice Day. There was a trial at Liverpool on the 18th of——[Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he failed to see that what occurred at Liverpool had anything to do with the Question before the Committee.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, this was the line of argument he was about to take. He was going to reply to the argument that three Judges would be enough by showing what one of those gentlemen, Mr. Justice Day himself,
    786
    had said as an argument in favour of a greater number. Was that germane to the Amendment or not?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he would watch the progress of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that there was a trial at Liverpool of three Irishmen who were accused of attacking certain persons on the road, and Mr. Justice Day, in sentencing them, said that—"such a dastardly, cowardly, brutal crime could not be found in England." [Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order. How can the hon. Gentleman connect that with the Question before the Committee?
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wanted, if he could, to neutralize the proposition of the Government. Would that be in Order? If not he would be able to raise the question when the names were put. He would only add now that it was perfectly reasonable as juries consisted of 12, and all must agree that, in a Commission of this sort where the majority was to decide, and no unanimity was required, there ought to be more than three. He objected to five, and he objected to three; but he thought that five was better than three. However, there were three too many in this Commission, and from the beginning he had been entirely opposed to it, because he considered it was unconstitutional and unnecessary, and it was monstrous that the House should assent to it in order to whitewash The Times.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)said, that if they wanted more Judges the Scotch Judges were easily obtainable, and he could not understand why they should not be made available. They were under-worked; the Court of Session had not enough to do, and could spare one or two eminent Judges with great facility. He was sure, if they wanted Judges, that they could get them from Scotland.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 233; Noes 195: Majority 38.

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Aird, J.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Ambrose, W.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Baden-Powell,SirG.S.

    787

    Baird, J. G. A.

    Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Fellowes, A. E.

    Banes, Major G. E.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Barclay, J. W.

    Baring, T. C.

    Field, Admiral E.

    Barnes, A.

    Finch, G. H.

    Barry, A. H. S.

    Finlay, R. B.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Fitzwilliam, hon. W. H. W.

    Bazley-White, J.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Beaumont, H. F.

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Beckett, E. W.

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Bective, Earl of

    Fulton, J. F.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Gardner, R. Richardson-

    Bentinck, Lord H. C.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Gedge, S.

    Bigwood, J.

    Giles, A.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Gilliat, J. S.

    Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.

    Goldsmid, Sir J.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Boord, T. W.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

    Granby, Marquess of

    Gray, C. W.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Green, Sir E.

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

    Greene, E.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

    Grotrian, F. B.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Caine, W. S.

    Hall, A. W.

    Caldwell, J.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Hambro, Col C. J. T.

    Carmarthen, Marq. of

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

    Chaplin, right hon. H.

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Charrington, S.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Hardcastle, E.

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

    Hardcastle, F.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Coddington, W.

    Heath, A. R.

    Collings, J.

    Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

    Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

    Corbett, A. C.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Crossley, Sir S. B.

    Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

    Hoare, E. B.

    Cubitt, right hon. G.

    Hoare, S.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Hobhouse, H.

    Curzon, hon. G. N.

    Hornby, W. H.

    Darling, C. J.

    Houldsworth,SirW.H.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Howorth, H. H.

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

    Hozier, J. H. C.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Hubbard, hon. E.

    Dixon, G.

    Hughes-Hallett, Col F. C.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Dugdale, J. S.

    Jarvis, A. W.

    Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W.H.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Ebrington, Viscount

    Johnston, W.

    Edwards-Moss, T. C.

    Kelly, J. R.

    Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Elcho, Lord

    Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

    Kerans, F. H.

    Elliot, hon. H. F. H.

    Kimber, H.

    Elton, C. I.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

    Ewing, Sir A. O.

    788

    Knightley, Sir R.

    Powell, F. S.

    Knowles, L.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Kynoch, G.

    Rasch, Major F. C.

    Lafone, A.

    Reed, H. B.

    Lambert, C.

    Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.

    Laurie, Colonel R. P.

    Robertson, Sir W. T.

    Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Robinson, B.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Rollit, Sir A. K.

    Lees, E.

    Ross, A. H.

    Legh, T. W.

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    Leighton, S.

    Lethbridge, Sir R.

    Round, J.

    Lewis, Sir C. E.

    Russell, Sir G.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Saunderson, Colonel E. J.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Sellar, A. C.

    Long, W. H.

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

    Lowther, rt. hon. J.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Smith, A.

    Lowther, J. W.

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    Lubbock, Sir J.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Macartney, W. G. E.

    Stephens, H. C.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Stewart, M. J

    Stokes, G. G.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Swetenham, E.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Maclean, J. M.

    Taylor, F.

    Maclure, J. W.

    Temple, Sir R.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    Thorburn, W.

    Madden, D. H.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Mallock, R.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Marriott, rt. hon. Sir W. T.

    Trotter, Colonel H. J.

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

    Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

    Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

    Waring, Colonel T.

    Matthews, rt. hn. H.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Webster, R. G.

    Mildmay, F. B.

    West, Colonel W. C.

    Mills, hon. C. W.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    More, R. J.

    Wharton, J. L.

    Moss, R.

    Whitley, E.

    Mowbray, R. G. C.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Mulholland, H. L.

    Winn, hon. R.

    Muntz, P. A.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Noble, W.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

    Wood, N.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Norton, R.

    Wright, H. S.

    Paget, Sir R. H.

    Parker, hon. F.

    TELLERS.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Brown, A. L.

    Brunner, J. T.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Bryce, J.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    Allison, R. A.

    Burt, T.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Buxton, S. C.

    Asquith, H. H.

    Byrne, G. M.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Carew, J. L.

    Barran, J.

    Causton, R. K.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Chance, P. A.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Channing, F. A.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

    Bright, Jacob

    Bright, W. L.

    Clancy, J. J.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Clark, Dr. G. B.

    789

    Cobb, H. P.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Colman, J. J.

    M'Arthur, W. A.

    Conway, M.

    M'Cartan, M.

    Corbet, W. J.

    M'Carthy, J.

    Cossham, H.

    M'Donald, P.

    Cox, J. R.

    M'Donald, Dr. R.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    M'Ewan, W.

    Craig, J.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Craven, J.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Crawford, W.

    Mahony, P.

    Crilly, D.

    Maitland, W. F.

    Deasy, J.

    Mappin, Sir F. T.

    Duff, R. W.

    Marum, E. M.

    Ellis, J.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

    Ellis, T. E.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

    Morley, right hon. J.

    Esslemont, P.

    Morley, A.

    Evans, F. H.

    Murphy, W. M.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Neville, R.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

    Newnes, G.

    Finucane, J.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Fitzgerald, J. G.

    Nolan, J.

    Flower, C.

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    Flynn, J. C.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Foley, P. J.

    O'Connor, J.

    Foljambe, C. G. S.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Forster, Sir C.

    O'Doherty, J. E.

    Fox, Dr. J. F.

    O'Gorman Mahon, The

    Gardner, H.

    O'Hanlon, T.

    Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

    O'Keeffe, F. A.

    Gilhooly, J

    Palmer, Sir C. M.

    Gill, T. P.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Picton, J. A.

    Graham, R. C.

    Pinkerton, J.

    Grove, Sir T. F.

    Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

    Haldane, R. B.

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

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Portman, hon. E. B.

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

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Power, P. J.

    Harrington, E.

    Power, R.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Price, T. P.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Pugh, D.

    Healy, M.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Holden, I.

    Redmond, J. E.

    Hooper, J.

    Redmond, W. H. K.

    Howell, G.

    Reid, R. T.

    Hoyle, I.

    Reynolds, W. J.

    Hunter, W. A.

    Richard, H.

    Jacoby, J. A.

    Roberts, J.

    James, hon. W. H.

    Robertson, E.

    Joicey, J.

    Roscoe, Sir H. E

    Jordan, J.

    Rowlands, J.

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

    Rowlands, W. B.

    Rowntree, J.

    Kenny, C. S.

    Samuelson, G. B.

    Kenny, J. E.

    Schwann, C. E.

    Kenny, M. J.

    Sexton, T.

    Kilbride, D.

    Shaw, T.

    Labouchere, H.

    Sheil, E.

    Lalor, R.

    Simon, Sir J.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Sinclair, J.

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Smith, S.

    Leahy, J.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Leamy, E.

    Stack, J.

    Lewis, T. P.

    Stanhope, hon. P. J.

    Lyell, L.

    Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

    Macdonald, W. A.

    Stepney-Cowell, Sir A. K.

    MacInnes, M.

    Mac Neill, J. G. S.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    790

    Stewart, H.

    Watt, H.

    Stuart, J.

    Wayman, T.

    Sullivan, D.

    Will, J. S.

    Sullivan, T. D.

    Williamson, S.

    Summers, W.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    Wilson, H. J.

    Tanner, C. K.

    Winterhotham, A. B.

    Thomas, D. A.

    Woodall, W.

    Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

    Woodhead, J.

    Tuite, J.

    TELLERS.

    Wallace, R.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Warmington, C. M.

    Illingworth, A.

    MR. W. H. SMITH: I beg to move to insert the names of the right hon. Sir James Hannen, the hon. Sir John Charles Day, and the hon. Sir Archibald Levin Smith.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 12, after the last Amendment, to insert the words "the Right Honourable Sir James Hannen, the Honourable Sir John Charles Day, and the Honourable Sir Archibald Levin Smith."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That those names be there inserted."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had just now called attention to the proposed appointment of Mr. Justice Day as a member of this proposed Commission. He desired to point out what took place on November 13, 1884——
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I rise to ask, Sir, whether the procedure with regard to the names of these Commissioners may not be similar to that adopted in the case of the appointment of Members to a Select Committee. When we are deciding as to the names on a Select Committee—which is of comparatively small importance when compared with the appointment we are now making—we go through the names one by one. The Question from the Chair is "That A. B. be another Member of the said Committee." I hope in this case we may be allowed to have the names put separately.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There will be no difficulty whatever in doing that.
    Question "That the words 'the Right Honourable Sir James Hannen' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the last Amendment, to insert the words "the Honourable Sir John Charles Day."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he desired in connection with the name of this Judge to call the attention of the Committee to a case that took place on Thursday, November 13, 1884. It was a case in which three Irishmen appeared to have assaulted some other man on the highway, and he (Mr. Labouchere) quite admitted that in all probability the men were guilty. They were found guilty, and in sentencing them to 18 months' imprisonment Mr. Justice Day used the following words:—
    "Such a dastardly, cowardly, brutal crime could not be found in England if it were not found to be committed by men who are unfortunately imported into the country."
    ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite cried "Hear, hear;" they no doubt shared in these views of Mr. Justice Day, and thought that he had a right to make a distinction between Irishmen and Englishmen, and to make these general accusations against Irishmen. He (Mr. Labouchere), however, thought, on the contrary, that that was a reason why Mr. Justice Day should not he a Member of this Commission. Now, what were the remarks of the newspapers of that time on this transaction? Why, the leading newspaper in Liverpool he thought was The Liverpool Daily Post, and that newspaper said this:—
    "Mr. Justice Day's savage address to the three prisoners in sentencing them to imprisonment for unlawfully wounding a fourth person on the highway was not calculated to add dignity to the judicial Bench. The crime was a most brutal and unprovoked one, but there was no reason why Mr. Justice Day should father upon Irishmen all similar cases of ruffianism that occur in England."
    Then there was another newspaper which commented upon this address of Mr. Justice Day, and it was a newspaper which would no doubt recommend itself to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland on the Ministerial side of the House, The Dublin Evening Mail. That newspaper said—
    "If Mr. Justice Day had not the character of being the very stupidest Judge on the English Bench or any other Bench his remarks at Liverpool would call for some strong comment. As it is, his absurd attempts to stir up animosity against the Irish can be treated with contempt and derision."
    There was another extract of much the
    792
    same kind from the Belfast Northern Whig, with which he would not, however, trouble the House. [Cries of "Read!"] Well, it said—
    "It would be foolish to deny that Irishmen are sometimes guilty of savage crimes; but it is equally foolish, to use no harder term, for a Judge to say, in the face of English conveners of crime, that Irishmen are to be blamed for all the cowardly assaults that are committed."
    He thought he had sufficiently shown that Mr. Justice Day, sitting as a Judge upon the Bench, had not displayed that independence of judgment and that absolute impartiality in the matter of Irish crime which would entitle him to sit on this Commission. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not know what course his hon. Friends from Ireland intended to take. The matter was one which regarded them more than the English Members; but he felt it to be his duty—these extracts having been given to him and he having looked up the case—to make these facts known to the Committee in order that hon. Members might form their own opinion as to whether, under such circumstances, Mr. Justice Day ought to be put upon a Commission which was to deal with matters which involved, as the Government said, crime and outrage of the worst description in Ireland.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, he very much regretted that this discussion should have been rendered possible, and he earnestly trusted that it might very soon be brought to a close. For his own part he declined to express either approval or disapproval of the manner in which this Commission had been appointed. He would not enter into the invidious task—to one who was not only a Member of that House, but also a member of the English Bar, the almost impossible task—of criticizing and canvassing in public the qualifications of the learned Judges whose names had been submitted to the House. He wished to make it clear that for the initiation of this discussion and for whatever inconvenience and public scandal might result, the sole and undivided responsibility rested on the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government. Why had not the Government adopted the simple and rational course—before they made any public announcement of the names—of entering into private communication and negotiation with that (the Opposi-

    793
    tion) side of the House? He would undertake to say that if they had done so, a perfect and complete agreement might have been arrived at without difficulty or delay, and the names submitted to Parliament would have passed not only unchallenged, but without as much as a syllable of debate. But Her Majesty's Government had not taken that course. What had they done? They got their Lord Chancellor, without communication, so far as he (Mr. Asquith) knew, with anybody, and upon his own responsibility, to nominate the three learned Judges whose names had just been read by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith). And what was the result? Why, the result was that the Members of the House found themselves shut up between two equally objectionable alternatives. They must either, on the one hand, pursue the discussion which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had begun—a discussion open to the gravest objection and difficulty, and a discussion which, moreover, had this great drawback, that it was of an entirely academic and unpractical character, because there was no power of moving an Amendment or suggesting an alternative name. They must either adopt that course, or else they must close their lips; and, whatever they might think of the goodness or badness of the names which had been chosen, they must submit to them in absolute and unbroken silence. For his own part, great as were the difficulties of either course in the choice of evils to which the action of the Government had exposed them, he did not hesitate to say that he preferred the course of silence as the less objectionable of the two. But this he might add, in order to prevent misconception, that from compulsory silence no inference could fairly be drawn either the one way or the other, and he thought it right in these few words, which he was sure expressed the opinion of a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, to enter a protest against the course the Government had adopted as being at one and the same time unfair to the Irish Members who were immediately concerned, unfair to the House of Commons, and, most of all, unfair to the learned Judges themselves.
    MR. BRUNNERsaid, he wished to ask, as a point of Order, whether it would not be possible to leave a blank in the clause for the names, and to proceed in the discussion of the rest of the Amendments?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It would, of course, be possible to reject the Motion made that this name be there inserted.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether it would be possible to propose the name of another learned Judge in place of that of Mr. Justice Day?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the name under discussion is rejected, another name can be proposed.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that for that reason he could not agree with the eloquent remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith)—that this debate need not be entirely of an academic character, if the Committee should in its wisdom see fit to reject the name of the learned Judge to whom the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had objected. If that name were rejected, it would be quite possible for the Committee to substitute the name of another Judge in place of that of Mr. Justice Day. They could not do that without the assistance of the Government, and what, therefore, he would suggest to the Government in all sincerity was this, that they should withdraw the name of Mr. Justice Day. He assumed that to the Government, as well as to Members on the Opposition side of the House, it was a matter causing a deep feeling of pain that the qualifications of a Judge of the Supreme Court should be thus canvassed, in open Committee, in the House of Commons. He joined with the hon. and learned Member for East Fife in thinking that the blame lay with the Government; but the Government could put an end at once to the whole miserable wrangle if they withdrew this name with regard to which such strong differences of opinion existed. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) felt that very great difficulty which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but, after all, this Commission was to them—the Irish Members—a matter of life and death, and they could not afford to regard it as a thing to be regulated by etiquette. He must say he had the strongest objection to the appointment of Mr. Justice

    795
    Day as a member of the Commission. He did not want to go into private matters; but this, he thought, he might be allowed to say, that on this Commission there was not a single Judge who was known to have the smallest sympathy with the political opinions of the Gentleman they were going to try. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House laughed at that observation. Then he wanted to put this to them. Did they think it fair that a Commission which was to try Irish Nationlists should consist entirely of men whose opinions were entirely antagonistic to those of the Irish Members, the men they were to try? [Cries of "Oh!" and Laughter.] When he objected to the Commission as consisting entirely of learned Judges whose political opinions were entirely antagonistic to those of the Irish Members, hon. Members opposite scoffed at the observation. They meant that an impartial Commission must necessarily be a Commission of Judges whose political opinions were the same as their own. Now, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was sorry to have to enter into these matters, but he was obliged to do so by the conduct of the Government. He understood that one of these Judges, whom it was proposed to appoint upon the Commission, was what was known—he meant in his political opinions, and did not want to be taken as referring to the learned gentleman's action—as a Liberal Unionist, and that the political opinions of the two others was what was called Conservative. As to Mr. Justice Day, his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had read a statement of his at the trial of some unfortunate Irishmen tried and convicted at Liverpool of assault. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had not the least doubt that the learned Judge was perfectly justified in his statement that the crime that these men were found guilty of was a foul and brutal one, and that he was perfectly justified in the sentence he passed upon them. But the learned Judge had entered into an attack upon Irishmen in general. That attack upon Irishmen in general, he observed with surprise and pain, seemed to meet with the approval of an hon. Member opposite for one of the Divisions of Belfast, and of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh——
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: No, no.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The hon. and gallant Member disclaimed it—Mr. Justice Day was too anti-Irish even for him; but still an hon. Member opposite, representing one of the Divisions of Belfast, seemed to sympathize with Mr. Justice Day's wanton attack upon Irishmen in general. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had seen Englishmen tried for offences in Ireland, and sometimes for very foul offences, and if he had happened to be the Magistrate or the Judge trying them, what would be thought of his impartiality if in open Court, in passing sentence on such Englishmen, he took the opportunity of launching forth a general attack upon the character of all Englishmen? And yet that was exactly what Mr. Justice Day had done, and that was the man who was to be selected from amongst all the other Judges of the country to take a prominent part in an inquiry in the elucidation of which the political opinions of all those concerned must have a large bearing. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not wish to go into private matters; but he thought he could repeat this, as a matter of public notoriety, that Mr. Justice Day never lost an opportunity of speaking in the strongest terms of condemnation of the action of the very Irish Members whom he was now going to try. And this, further, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had been told—he hoped the statement in question was incorrect; he took the responsibility for making it, although he hoped it would be found to be incorrect—that on the occasion of the Unionist victory at Doncaster, the learned Judge received the news on the Bench, and in the most open manner manifested his delight at it. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) must say that he thought the Judge who could thus give public manifestation of his strong political convictions was the last man who should be selected to take part in an inquiry into which political convictions would very largely enter. He sympathized thoroughly with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had preceded him in his observations as to their being forced into this discussion, but the responsibility did not rest with the Irish Members. Having these convictions, they were bound to express them, and he trusted that the Government would put

    797
    an end to the unfortunate controversy by withdrawing the name of Mr. Justice Day from nomination, and making the Commission such as could be accepted by the Irish Members with respect.
    MR. FORREST FULTONsaid, that the arguments used by hon. Members opposite, and the way in which the proposals of the Government were being received by them, would make one imagine that this Bill was ex post facto legislation, introduced for the purpose of depriving the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) of those civil rights which he had for more than a twelvemonth declined to exercise, either in England, Ireland, or Scotland. He (Mr. Forrest Fulton) must say he was greatly surprised and astonished at the strictures passed upon the name of one of the learned Judges whom it was proposed to appoint upon this Commission. He could only say that he bad had the privilege of enjoying the friendship of Mr. Justice Day for many years before he sat upon the Bench. Mr. Justice Day had been the leader of his own Circuit, and, although he had been on terms of intimacy with him, he had not the faintest idea what his political opinions were. He had never heard him express any political opinion on any occasion on any subject. His (Mr. Forrest Fulton's) opinion was, that the only reason Mr. Justice Day's name had been added to the Commission was that he was a man with no political bias, and that he was of the same religious persuasion as the majority of the Irish Members. Anyone would have thought that those qualifications would have commended themselves to hon. Members opposite. What would have been said of it if the Commission had been composed entirely of members of the Protestant religion? There would have been an outcry against the composition of the Commission. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes; it would have been the subject of complaint that this inquiry was initiated and conducted only by persons whose religious opinions were opposed to those of the Irish Members. As a matter of fact, he believed that there were in England only two Judges who happened to be Roman Catholics, one being Mr. Justice Day, who had been appointed to inquire into the Belfast riots. How the hon. Member for
    798
    the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had obtained his information as to the views of Mr. Justice Day he (Mr. Forrest Fulton) could not say; but the hon. Member seemed to have obtained it in some peculiar way. It could only have been obtained by some persons overhearing conversations in which Mr. Justice Day took part. They were coming to a nice condition of things if private conversations were betrayed for Party purposes, and if a learned Judge was not to express his opinions as to whether or not certain persons tried before him deserved condemnation, or whether certain lines of action in the conduct of the affairs of the country were beneficial or the reverse.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Forrest Fulton) had prefaced his remarks with what did not seem quite relevant to this discussion. The Irish Members, in the first place, asked for a trial by their peers—that was to say, to be tried by a Select Committee of the House; and when that was persistently and wrongfully refused by the Government, their next point was still to put faith in the promises of the Government, and he hoped that some such proposal as was was now submitted would be made. The Irish Members consented to the appointment of this Commission of Judges; but having gone thus far, it was of vast importance that the House of Commons should be on its guard that the feeling and conviction did not exist in Ireland that this was to be a packed Commission of Judges. He did not wish, he was incompetent, to pass any opinion upon any of these Judges. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; but the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman behind him (Mr. Asquith) was one with which he heartily agreed—namely, that the Government had departed from the precedent invariably followed in cases of this kind in not having consulted the Front Opposition Bench, in order to prevent any apprehension or misapprehension that their action was guided by a feeling of sympathy towards one of the parties to the dispute. That was the matter which the Committee would have to regard in the face of the civilized world, that was the allegation which would be made, that the Commission had been appointed entirely from one Party. The course

    799
    the Government had taken was a most deplorable departure, as he regarded it, from precedent in such cases. If the Lord Chancellor had been such an ethereal non-political kind of individual as one might be led to imagine from the action of the Government, the Government might have escaped in the declaration that they had asked him to make this nomination; but the Lord Chancellor was as much a partizan of the Party opposite as any other Member of the Government, and he, therefore, did not think the position of the Government was in any degree better on account of the intimation given to them that the Lord Chancellor had had entrusted to him the duty of making the appointment. Many people believed that the success of this investigation of the Party opposite to the Irish Members, would be as breath to the nostrils of the Government and their supporters. There was so much hanging upon this matter in a political and Party sense that the Government should have taken the greatest care to guard their action in nominating the Members of the Commission—should have taken the greatest care to have avoided all suspicion attaching to their conduct. It was not too late to improve their course even now—if they were well advised they might without any reflection upon Mr. Justice Day, but in order that the appointment might be regarded as one that the House of Commons could give its assent to, and not only to the principle, but also to the personnel of the Commission, an opportunity should be given of consulting the Front Opposition Bench, and taking away once and for all the grave and, as he (Mr. Illingworth) believed it, the fatal objection which would lie against the Commission as at present nominated. In this way the House would be saved the trouble and misfortune of further dwelling upon the qualifications of Mr. Justice Day, or of any other individual appointed to act upon the Commission. It was clear that, even personally, this learned Judge, Mr. Justice Day, had against him a record which was not altogether free from suspicion. He (Mr. Illingworth) was very loth to go into this matter, but surely the information and the evidence given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was of a public character. Was a
    800
    Judge on the Bench to be allowed to comment in an offensive way upon the character of a whole people; and was his (Mr. Illingworth's) conduct to be called in question in raising the point in the House of Commons when it was apropos of the matter they had in hand—when it bore upon the acceptance of this Judge's name upon a Commission to try the same people he had denounced. He (Mr. Illingworth) ventured to say that knowing only this single instance, and not doubting for one moment its accuracy, he thought the Government would be well advised on the double ground in giving the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) and his Colleagues on the Front Opposition Bench an opportunity of being consulted, and of having some voice in the nomination of the Judges to form this Commission.
    MR. FINLAY&c.)said, he earnestly hoped the Government would not accede to the proposal to withdraw the name of Mr. Justice Day from this Commission. It could not be done without an imputation upon Mr. Justice Day, whose name had been brought before the Committee in this way. If any reason were wanted for the refusal to accede to the proposal now made, it would be the extraordinary reason given by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) who complained that there was not upon the Commission a single Judge who was known to entertain sympathy with the political views of the Irish Nationalist Party. Were they to appoint their Commission on that principle? This objection to the appointment of Mr. Justice Day might be regarded as a preliminary movement intended to pave the way to the proposal for the selection of some Judge who might be supposed to be in sympathy with the Irish Nationalist Party. If the hon. Member's observations did not mean that, he did not know what they did mean. He could not agree with one thing which was said by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), and it was this—namely, that the blame of this appointment rested with the Government. The hon. and learned Member said that the Government ought to have entered into communication with the Members of the Front Opposition

    801
    Bench and hon. Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House in settling the list of names; but he very much doubted if any agreement with responsible Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side of the House would have prevented the names put forward by the Government being subject to those guerilla attacks such as had been made upon Mr. Justice Day. A good deal had been said about the conduct of Mr. Justice Day in the course of the somewhat irregular discussion which had taken place. Mr. Day's remarks had been quoted——
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in Order in describing as irregular a discussion which had been conducted with the Chairman's sanction?
    THE CHAIRMANdid not reply.
    MR. FINLAYsaid, that remarks had been quoted which were said to have been made by Mr. Justice Day in sentencing persons to imprisonment in Liverpool. As to the circumstances under which Mr. Justice Day made the remarks referred to be (Mr. Finlay) knew absolutely nothing, and he did not intend, in the absence of information, to express any opinion upon them; but he would point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that there was nothing whatever in what he had said which would in the slightest degree detract from Mr. Justice Day's impartiality as a Member of this Commission. Remarks such as those it was alleged Mr. Justice Day had made would, he should think, be objected to just as much by the strongest Orangeman as by the strongest Nationalist. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) would object to them, he should think, just as much as any hon. Member sitting below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House. Under these circumstances, what colour was there for the allegation of the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) that Mr. Justice Day had a record which was not free from suspicion? He (Mr. Finlay) protested against that statement, and he submitted that it was putting the discussion in Committee on a platform to which it ought never to have been degraded. Everyone who knew the Judge whose name was under discus-
    802
    sion must be aware that he would give the fullest and fairest hearing and consideration to the case, and that both sides would receive from him absolutely impartial treatment free from every taint of political prejudice.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I very much regret that it should have been necessary in the judgment of any hon. Gentleman to raise a question as to the qualifications of the learned Judge who has been named for the position which he is to fill. I have heard statements made as to his partiality which have greatly surprised me. I gave Notice, as the House is aware, last Monday, of the three names which we proposed to insert in the Bill, and up to this moment no whisper of objection as to any of the three names has reached me. It is said that we might have consulted with the other side as to the names of the Commissioners, but it might have been a difficult matter to adjust. I may say, however, following the observations which have fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), that I believe Mr. Justice Day and the Judges whose names have been placed on the Paper have obtained the complete approval of the Bar of England and of everyone who has any judicial knowledge whatever. I never heard a whisper against their absolute and complete impartiality. It is possible that observations which may have fallen from learned Judges four years ago, or even private conversations which might take place with other persons, may be reported against them. That is possible; but it would be most injurious to the judicial establishment of this country if every word dropped by a Judge were to be brought up against him as evidence of unfitness and inefficiency in the conduct of his judicial duties. What is the conduct of Mr. Justice Day on the Bench? What has been his record as Counsel and Judge? Can anyone point to a single circumstance which attributes to Mr. Justice Day the slightest taint of partiality of any kind? For myself, I could not inflict upon Mr. Justice Day the insult of taking notice of statements and charges such as I have heard this evening, or of any gossip of any kind whatever. Let us know substantially of any failure on the part of Mr. Justice Day to discharge his duties on the judgment seat. Let us know of any expres-

    803
    sion of opinion or of feeling on the judgment seat on any matters which would have affected the confidence of the public in the finding which he will give. I believe Mr. Justice Day would not have undertaken the duties, which he was asked to undertake by the Lord Chancellor, if he had the slightest doubt in his own mind of his complete and absolute impartiality, if he felt the slightest hesitation as to his fitness to discharge the painful and unpleasant duties sought to be cast upon him. In all the circumstances of the case, and as at present advised, I cannot do more than ask the Committee to affirm the nomination, believing it to be a wise appointment, and an appointment justified by the position of Mr. Justice Day on the Bench. I repeat that I do not think that conversations or any opinions expressed by him at other times or in other places ought to disqualify him for the discharge of the most serious and important duties it is proposed to entrust him with.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I quite understand the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman feels in making any alteration in the composition of the Commission constituted by this Bill. But those difficulties make no difference in the judgment which I believe impartial men will pass upon the injudicious character of this nomination. I hope the Committee will believe that I am not saying one word against Mr. Justice Day. There is nothing further from my intention than to seem to cast the slightest stigma upon the reputation or character of Mr. Justice Day as a Judge. What the right hen. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) has just said of Mr. Justice Day on the Bench was equally true of him when he was at the Bar. His conduct was, and is, open to no reproach whatever, so far as I know. Nothing is further from my intention, in the vote which I am about to give, than to seem to cast the slightest slur on the judicial character of Mr. Justice Day. But I beg the Committee to notice this—that, according to the reiterated asseverations of the Government themselves, the inquiry into which Mr. Justice Day, among others, is going to enter, is an inquiry not of a judicial kind, Mr. Justice Day is not expected to act as he would act if on the Bench.
    804
    [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] It is not I who say it—it is your own Government who have said that this inquiry is not going to be a purely udicia1 inquiry; and therefore, if Mr. Justice Day were to act otherwise in some respects than he would on the Bench, I, for one, should not blame him. The hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) has said that he is not surprised at the guerilla attack now being made on Mr. Justice Day, and that if other names besides that of Mr. Justice Day had been proposed, with equal certainty there would have been an attack upon them. I am amazed that the hon. and learned Gentleman should make any attack of that kind when, in regard to the two names of Sir James Hannen and Mr. Justice A. L. Smith, not the slightest objection has been taken; and if you had put any other name, or a dozen other names, which could have been suggested, instead of Mr. Justice Day, we should have avoided this painful and regrettable discussion. If you had put the names of any Judges I could enumerate, the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would have been passed without a word. I only want to say one word to justify my vote. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had never heard a whisper as to any attitude of mind on the part of Mr. Justice Day which would tend to make it be believed that this was not one of the best nominations which could have been made from the Judicial Bench. A few minutes before I thought it right to put into the hands of the Government some portion of evidence on which I shall go in thinking that the nomination of Mr. Justice Day was not the happiest that could have been made. I have received information, from a source whose correctness I cannot question—from a gentleman who has had ample and peculiar means of knowing Mr. Justice Day's attitude of mind with reference to Irish affairs, and to points that are particularly likely to come before him in this Commission. I think it justifies the vote which I shall give, and which I feel to be a vote that needs justification. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; I admit it—I admit that to object to the nomination of any Judge of the land is an act which needs justification. But I think there is a considerable mass of evidence and a number of reasons

    805
    why the choice of Mr. Justice Day is not a happy one. I will venture to read this particular communication to which I have referred to the Committee. [Cries of "Name!"] I have frankly placed this communication in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I shall not give the name to the Committee, but I must ask them to take my word for it that this gentleman is a high authority. He says—
    "Mr. Justice Day is a man of the 17th century in his views, a Catholic as strong as Torquemada, a Tory of the old high-flyer and non-juror type."
    That is the impression which is conveyed to men in different parts of the country. [Cries of "Name!"]
    "He nightly railed against Parnell and his friends. He regards them as infidels and rebels who have led astray the Catholic nation. He abhors their utterances and acts; he believes them guilty of any crime."
    [Renewed cries of "Name!"] I certainly do not intend to give the name. I have given the best proof of good faith in giving the communication to the Government themselves. In the face of a feeling of that kind, which may, or may not, be a justifiable feeling, I appeal to the Committee on grounds of common sense to say whether, when your great object is, or should have been, to have had a tribunal against which a whisper could not have been raised, especially when it could have been so easy to do so, you should have constituted it in the way proposed? I submit that you have taken a most injudicious course, and I, for one, must, with great reluctance, vote against the nomination.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I do not think anyone has reason to complain of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley) has performed a task which, I am sure, was most disagreeable and unpleasant to him. But I am bound to say that when he refused to give to the Committee the name of the gentleman on whose authority the statements are made—though I quite agree that he has in the frankest manner shown the letter to the Government—I think he will feel that he has gone too far in maintaining reticence on this subject. How far it is proper for the gentleman in question to make a communication, which, I presumed, he in-
    806
    tended to be published, and which was based, apparently, entirely on private conversations in the ordinary intercourse of social life, is a matter upon which I do not wish to offer any comment; but I must say, when Mr. Justice Day finds himself to-morrow in the position of being accused of deliberately accepting a post for which he has made himself unfit by utterances of a political kind, I think he will have a right to ask—"Who is the man who has accused me?" or, perhaps, a right to ask—"Who is the man who has traduced me?" Now, Sir, the Government, in the action they have taken in regard to Mr. Justice Day, have, I am sure I need not say to the right hon. Gentleman, no end whatever in view but that of finding a Judge of absolute impartiality—a man who has never, so far as we know, mixed himself up with Party politics of any kind whatever, and a man whose conduct in his position has shown that he not only possesses that impartiality which I hope all English Judges possess, but that he possesses also that strength of character and judicial capacity which make him fit to discharge the very arduous duty to be assigned to him. And I must point out to the House the very curious confusion of thought which ran through a part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He says—"I admit that he is a judicial man when acting in a judicial capacity; but in this Commission he is not asked to act in a judicial capacity. The Commission, by your own admission, is not a Judicial Commission; and, therefore, Mr. Justice Day may naturally go beyond that strict line of impartiality which we all admit he has observed on the Bench." The right hon. Gentleman in this is playing upon the word "judicial." It is true that in certain aspects this Commission differs from an ordinary tribunal of the law; it differs in its procedure. ["No, no!"] Yes; and it is intended to differ in its procedure. But it does not differ, and it is not intended to differ, with regard to the judicial spirit, the spirit of absolute impartiality and absolute fair play which ought to preside over every act, and which, I think, will preside over every act, of every Judge concerned in the inquiry. Mr. Justice Day, being a man of honour, by accepting this post, has shown that, in his opinion, at all events, he has not ren-

    807
    dered himself incapable, by any act or any statement of his, of approaching this difficult question which he will have to deal with in an absolutely impartial and absolutely judicial spirit; and, under these circumstances, in our opinion, we should be behaving with something worse than impropriety were we not to say that we adhere to the choice that we have made, with every circumstance of deliberation, and with the utmost impartiality that it was in our power to exercise. [Cries of "Name!" "Morley!"]
    VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he wished, as a private Member, to enter an emphatic protest against the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley). The right hon. Gentleman impressed the House, and impressed it justly, with the very grave character of the vote he proposed to give, and he endeavoured to influence the vote the Committee would give by reading an anonymous letter. It was surely an anonymous letter, as far as they were concerned, if the writer's name was not to be communicated to them. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) the name of the writer of the letter. So far it was an anonymous letter, as the name of the writer had not been unfolded. The right hon. Gentleman had confided to the Government the name of the writer of the letter, but that did not absolve the 750 Members of that House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Unionist inaccuracy.
    VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he was quite content to make hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway a present of the whole force of that point. If that were a specimen of the points which this hon. Gentleman expected to make in the country, he hoped the country would appreciate it. What he wished to point out was this—that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne had put them in an utterly false position. The mere fact that half-a-dozen Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite had been put in possession of the name of the writer of this letter did not absolve the rest of the House from their duty of giving their votes in support of the name of Mr. Justice Day. He hoped the Government
    808
    would mark the attitude of the Home Rule Party towards the Unionist Party. They had only arrived at the third hour of the Committee stage of this Bill, and they had already been accused, if not directly, at least by innuendo, of endeavouring to pack this Commission. [Cheers.] The cheers from below the Gangway confirmed what he said. Well, then, the country would mark the trap the Unionists would have fallen into if they had agreed to the suggestion of the Home Rule Members for the appointment of a Select Committee. Whenever any point had been raised as to the admissibility of evidence, they would have been held up to execration as choosing for themselves and in their own interests the evidence that was to be brought forward; and if on the mere question of the appointment of a Judge, against whose character nobody had dared to say a single word, either in that House or out of it, they were to be held up to execration as packing that Commission, what would have been the language used—what would have been the vocabulary that would have been ransacked to describe the conduct of the Unionist majority of that House if the Committee had reported against hon. Members from Ireland?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Mr. Courtney, the Committee seems to suppose that there is something sinister in my refusal to give the name of the writer of the letter I quoted. I can only assure the Committee that I have nothing to conceal. I am not sure that when I give the name of my correspondent it will greatly add to the means of the noble Viscount for deciding how he will vote. Does he mean to say for a moment that his vote will depend on the name I am going to give? My correspondent was a gentleman who was a colleague of Mr. Justice Day on the Belfast Riots Commission, and a barrister, whose name is Mr. Adams.
    MR. SEXTON(who rose amid interruption) said, he should move that Progress be reported unless the Committee gave him its attention. He submitted that the noble Viscount (Viscount Wolmer) addressed his faculties very loosely to the case before the Committee. The noble Viscount had said that if a Select Committee had been appointed the Irish Members would have complained that that Committee was packed by the

    809
    Government; but the noble Viscount had forgotten that the Irish Members had agreed that if a Committee were appointed it should be composed entirely of English and Scotch Members. That would have satisfied the Irish Members. The noble Viscount had described the letter as an anonymous letter; but how could it be anonymous when every Member of the Government Bench knew the name of the writer before the names of the Judges, whom it was proposed to appoint on the Commission, were announced from the Table?
    VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, that what he had said was that the letter was anonymous to some of them.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it was not anonymous to the noble Viscount's confederates opposite, and if they had had any idea that there was anything in the name of the writer to sustain the argument of the noble Viscount—if they had had any idea that the name subscribed to the letter was such a name as would have detracted from the value of the statement contained in the document—there would have been nothing easier than for the Government themselves to have declared the name. He (Mr. Sexton) thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had that evening displayed more than usual of that audacity which was his chief characteristic. It would have been more decent—considering that a criminal charge founded on the verdict of sworn men was hanging over the Board of which he was the head—if the right hon. Gentleman had abstained from intruding in that debate. The right hon. Gentleman apparently thought it a reason for refraining from commenting on the character and mental tendencies of Mr. Justice Day by saying that this was not a Commission which would be bound by any ordinary rules of procedure. In this case, the ordinary rules of procedure would not apply. If Mr. Justice Day were really bound by those rules, it would be of less conse-sequence whether he was impartial or not; but, under existing circumstances, it would be necessary to inquire into this gentleman's qualifications, because, as now proposed, he would have no other rule to govern him except his own caprice and his own hate. It ill became the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to object to the reservation of
    810
    a name attached to a communication read to the Committee, seeing that every day at Question time in that House the right hon. Gentleman did nothing but read anonymous letters. The right hon. Gentleman traduced absent men, and questioned the veracity of hon. Members of that House on communications which were anonymous. As he (Mr. Sexton) understood the language said to have been used by Mr. Justice Day at Liverpool, if it meant anything, it meant that certain Irish prisoners—who were brought up before him as a Judge—charged with a shameful crime were not only guilty of crime, but that they were guilty of it because they were Irishmen. ["No, no!"] Yes; he said it was a crime that Englishmen would not commit, and that these individuals committed the crime because they were Irishmen. The reasoning faculty of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) appeared to be turned topsy turvey; because he said that the charge of Mr. Justice Day was a charge against all Irishmen, and that having made a sweeping charge against Irishmen as a race, he was, therefore, qualified to sit on the Commission, When Mr. Justice Day was President of the Commission which inquired into the Belfast riots, the parties appeared before that Commission by counsel, and were allowed to examine witnesses. Mr. Justice Day, however, did not allow counsel to cross-examine witnesses, except at his discretion. The First Lord of the Treasury had challenged them to refer to the conduct of Mr. Justice Day on the Bench, and he (Mr. Sexton) now did so. Mr. Justice Day said he would not allow anyone to cross-examine or examine witnesses, but would decide for himself what witnesses should be called, and he did not allow counsel to address the Court. The rights of the parties to examine were absolutely extinguished by Mr. Justice Day, so far as calling and examining witnesses was concerned. He (Mr. Sexton) did not say whether that was right or wrong; but he asked whether the appointment of this Judge on the Commission was to be considered as a sign that a similar course of conduct would be pursued. He need not follow to the end the speech of the hon. and learned Member for West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton); but he submitted to the hon. and learned Gentle-

    811
    man that the point he had raised as to Mr. Justice Day being a Roman Catholic had nothing to do with the case. The point of religion had nothing to do with it at all. Hon. Members on those Benches appealed to men of all forms of religious persuasion, including Protestants, and they said that the Home Secretary was not in the least agreeable to them because he was a Roman Catholic. Mr. Justice Day was on the Belfast inquiry. The Liberal Government of the day appointed three Commissioners, and he (Mr. Sexton) had asked that the inquiry should be judicial, and that the Commission should have a judicial head, and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) appointed Mr. Justice Day. He (Mr. Sexton) objected to the principle that Judges should be chosen because they were in opposition to hon. Members on those Benches. Mr. Justice Day had made a Report of a judicial character, which had now been issued two years, and in which he made certain recommendations, but the Government had never acted on that Report. Why had they not acted upon it? He (Mr. Sexton) said they had discredited the learned Judge by their refusal to act upon any of his suggestions, and before the House assented to the proposal for his appointment, he contended that they ought to have from the Government who appointed him an explanation of the discredit which they had thus cast upon him.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, it would have been possible for the Government to have selected from the Judicial Bench some other Judge at least as well qualified, possibly even better qualified, than Mr. Justice Day. One thing was clear—namely, that this selection was objected to by every one of the men whose conduct Mr. Justice Day was to inquire into. That appeared to him to be an extremely strong point, and he should not be surprised if Mr. Justice Day, when he saw the result of the Division about to take place, saved the Government the trouble of removing his name from the Commission.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) thought it was unfair to urge the political inclinations of Judges in a matter of that kind. The right hon.
    812
    Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had said it would be an imputation on a Judge, when once named, to change him on such an objection, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to concur in the view that it was unfair to raise an imputation on a Judge on the ground of political proclivities. But he (Mr. Bradlaugh) would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1884 his then Leader and Colleague objected to the constitution of a Court of three Judges on the ground of the politics of the Judges who had been announced in the newspapers as forming the Court, and that thereupon the constitution of the Court was changed in consequence of the objection made.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) had sneered at the hon. and learned Member for West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton) because he wished to stand well with the Bench and his Circuit. The same sneer could not be applied to him. He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) wished to say that he had had the honour of the friendship of Mr. Justice Day for a great number of years. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] And he said distinctly that he knew Mr. Justice Day a great deal better than Mr. Adams, who had written this scandalous letter. The feeling expressed in the letter was very strong indeed, and showed the personal animus of the writer, and it was not a judicial letter in any shape or form, or one to which the House could attach any weight. Although he had known Mr. Justice Day for so long and had conversed with him on many subjects, he was perfectly unaware of what his political opinions were. He had spoken with him on many questions, and he said distinctly that Mr. Justice Day was a man whom everyone honoured, and he regarded him as one of the best men who could be appointed on the Commission.
    MR. BRUNNERsaid, he had waited for a reply to the worthy speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife (Mr. Asquith). The hon. and learned Member had said it would have been far more dignified if the Government had arranged with Members on the Opposition side of the House as to the names of the Commissioners to be appointed.

    813
    The only answer to that argument was that the names were published a week ago, and not a whisper had been made against the names of the three Judges in question; but he (Mr. Brunner) would point out that if the names had been published in the papers on the authority of the Government, and if, on representations made, the name of Mr. Justice Day had been withdrawn, the Government would not have cast a slur upon the conduct of the learned Judge. They cast a slur upon him by the course they were now pursuing, and for that reason, and because they had detracted from the dignity of the House, he should vote against the Amendment.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the question to be decided by the vote they were about to give was whether the opponents of hon. Members on those Benches were to select the jury by whom they were to be tried. If a criminal charge were to be preferred by the hon. and learned Attorney General, or any other Law Officer of the Crown, against them as a whole, or individually, in an English Court of Law, the right of challenging the jury would exist for them. But the Government chose to bring them before this Commission, and at the same time they denied their right to challenge a single juryman whom they set up to try them, and Irish Members were then to be told that they must not charge the Government with jury packing. If the Government denied them the right of objecting to one of the three jurors, it was clear that they were packing the jury. It would be a packed jury, and the Irish race all over the world would know that it was a packed jury. He was not concerned with the opinions entertained by any of his Colleagues; but he grieved to say that they must be prepared, for some time at least, to find their fellow-countrymen on the opposite side of the House opposed to them. There was, however, one right hon. Gentleman opposite whom he (Mr. Leamy) would very much like to hear state his opinions on the question. He referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), the descendant of a man whose name was once familiar on Irish lips, and who had fought many battles for Irish independence. The right hon. Gentleman had always been respected by them, although he had bitterly op-
    814
    posed them in the House of Commons, and he (Mr. Leamy) asked him what he thought of the conduct of the Government, who set up that tribunal and refused to allow Irish Members the right of challenging any one of those jurymen? They had always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as an honourable opponent, and he wanted to know whether he was prepared to stand up in the House of Commons and shield The Times, by supporting the proposal of the Government, after the numerous written statements that had been made? He could easily understand that the right hon. Gentleman might not care to listen to charges made from a base source; but here was a private conversation on record, which would be just as historical as the conversation on which that letter was founded by which Ireland had learned what had led to the murder of John Mandeville.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, strong objection has been taken to the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and taken, indeed, from that portion of the House which we well know to be most hostile to Ireland. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and Cheers.] Still, I think it my duty to associate myself with the action of my right hon. Friend. The state of the case is this. My right hon. Friend was possessed of information coming from a gentleman of character and knowledge, whose expression of opinion is undoubtedly entitled to consideration, because he had been called upon to act in a highly responsible position by the Executive Government of the country, and is, I believe, without any impeachment or objection whatever from any quarter. My right hon. Friend, being in possession of that information, is challenged by the Government to vote upon the question of the appointment of Mr. Justice Day, and to perform one of the most delicate and one of the most difficult offices that was ever imposed upon a man. Was it the duty of my right hon. Friend to bury that information in his breast, to disguise it, or take care, at all events, that his Colleagues in this House should know nothing of it? My right hon. Friend thought it his duty to make it known to those upon whose responsibility, and upon whose responsibility alone, the name of Mr. Justice Day is proposed. That information was received by them, and having been re-

    815
    ceived by them they, notwithstanding, considered it their duty to pass it over, if not as a matter of no account, yet as a matter which did not relieve them from the obligations under which they had placed themselves to Mr. Justice Day. Well, Sir, it appears to me that my right hon. Friend did no more than his public duty when the Government of the day, rightly or wrongly, acting on their undoubted competency, declined to attach weight to that information—he did no more than his duty in giving it to the House. And with respect to the mention of the name, it must be recollected that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), in the course of his remarks, undoubtedly brought into question, at least as a possibility, the character of the writer of the letter; because he said that perhaps the writer was in error, and perhaps he would be found to have traduced the character of Mr. Justice Day—[Ministerial cheers]—and that is the sentiment which is readily taken up on that side of the House, and which probably finds sympathy and dissemination on this side. When the honour of the writer of the letter had so been called in question, I think my right hon. Friend acted upon the dictates of public duty in making known to the House entirely the remarkable testimony he had received. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and Laughter.] Well, Sir, it was remarkable testimony, and I am endeavouring to explain to those who laugh and cheer that they do not appear to comprehend at present what is the purpose of this debate, and what is the position in which we are actually placed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) has most justly described this as a painful, and, I will add, a most odious discussion. More than half-a-century of public life, necessarily contentious, has never once placed me in the position in which I am placed to-night. In one respect I do not share the felicity of the hon. and learned Member; he has obligations of duty or delicacy, or both, towards one of the heads of his Profession, which lead him to the conclusion that he had better abstain from any vote upon the matter, or, at any rate, that he had better refrain from expressing any opinion upon it. But that is not the position in which we stand as independent Members of
    816
    this House. We have no such excuse; we have no such plea for shrinking from what, under ordinary circumstances, would be our duty. What is the state of the case? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) proposes three names to the House, and presents those names to us for our acceptance or rejection. Either we are to accept them, or else it is said that we insult the gentlemen who bear those names. Is that a proper position in which to place us? Are we a deliberative Assembly, or are we not? I am called upon to hand over the honour and character of a considerable and indefinite number of the Members of this House to be investigated, without the safeguard of judicial rules, by certain persons, and I am told, although I am a Member of a deliberative Assembly, that if I do not accept without question the proposal of the Government I insult the persons named. I cannot escape from the duty of deliberation; I am fully responsible for the vote I am about to give. The hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) charges us, or Members below the Gangway, with desiring to obtain a Commission of our own political colour with respect to Irish policy. Is that a just charge? Is it sustained by what has taken place? The name of Sir James Hannen has been unanimously accepted by the House, and by the Irish Members, and we know perfectly well Sir James Hannen's political opinions upon this great question are entirely opposed to our own. Why, then, does the hon. and learned Member for Inverness make the charge in defiance of the evidence which was before him at the time he spoke?
    MR. FINLAY: The evidence before me at the time was that which has just been stated by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). He said that this Commission did not contain a single Member who was known to sympathize with the political views of the majority of Irish Members.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The hon. and learned Gentleman, although a most able barrister, is not a Judge. The hon. and learned Gentleman had before him not only the declaration of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, but also the fact that the name of an honourable political opponent had been accepted unanimously by the House;

    817
    and it was in those circumstances that the hon. and learned Member laid his charge.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The hon. and learned Member has quoted me as giving ground for his statement. But I had stated just before he spoke that Sir James Hannen was opposed to us in politics, and that, nevertheless, we did not object to him.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to add something to that evidence. I may be permitted to remark, looking back to the name of Sir James Hannon, and looking forward to the name of Mr. Justice Smith, that we are perfectly well aware that Mr. Justice Smith is a gentleman deliberately and determinedly opposed to our policy.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: We are not aware of it.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If the right hon. Gentleman has no such information, we, at any rate, are universally under the belief that Mr. Justice A. L. Smith is opposed to us along the whole line of politics, and, notwithstanding that, we make no objection whatever to his appointment. I say we make no objection, because I believe that to be the unanimous sentiment on this side of the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) has expressed his great regret that there has not been communication with the Leaders of the Opposition before these names were proposed. I wish to say, Sir, that we upon this Bench make no claim whatever of that character. We have no right whatever to expect any communication from the right hon. Gentleman; but we have a right, especially so when considering the delicate nature of nominations of this kind, and especially of this nomination, that the greatest care should have been exercised in the selection of the names to be laid before us, and that they should be names to which no reasonable and, I believe I am right in saying, no plausible objection could be taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland says that this is not a judicial inquiry, but that it is to be conducted in a judicial spirit, and he thinks that this is the same thing.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said the machinery differed from ordinary machinery, but that the inquiry was to be governed by judicial rules.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman, as against my statement, says that the inquiry is to be governed by judicial rules. It is not because you have refused to admit into the Bill words which would have required the observance of judicial rules—I am not taking that captious and plausible objection—what I am saying is what has been stated by my hon. Friend near me—namely, that judicial rules are a powerful aid to the human judgment and to the human mind; and men are apt more or less, even on the Bench, sometimes to be swayed by feeling and prejudice. These judicial rules are a security which every upright and intelligent Judge will value beyond all price as a means of securing him against any deviation from the strict line of justice? It is asked, has Mr. Justice Day ever gone wrong in the administration of justice? No, Sir; his practice has been, in the administration of justice, guided, guarded, and aided by those judicial rules which you refuse to make a condition of the present delicate and difficult inquiry. There is all the difference between acting in an inquiry under the cover of those rules, and acting in an inquiry where the safeguard is altogether withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, I think, said that probably if the Government had communicated with the Front Opposition Bench it would have come to nothing, and that the matter would have been associated with insuperable difficulties. I cannot admit that the matter was one of any difficulty at all. I think the probability—I do not say the certainty—is that if the right hon. Gentleman had drawn his Judges by lot, he would have done better than he has now done. I can say confidently that there are a dozen Judges or more, to no one of whom would objection have been taken. Sir, the question is not what is to be the answer to the right hon. Gentleman, when he says that Mr. Justice Day has not been convicted of any offence. Certainly not. He has not been convicted of any offence. But this is not a question of a man being unconvicted; it is a question of a man being appointed to an office of extraordinary delicacy and difficulty, in the discharge of which office he is to be deprived of the aids and safeguards under which he

    819
    has habitually acted; and what is required is that, in respect to the discharge of the duty, he should not only be without proved offence, but that there should not be any rational, nay, I would say any widespread objection, or any rational or not irrational suspicion. There ought to be no suspicion; there ought to be no possibility of objection; and if we are told that this is requiring terms too severe, my answer is that every other Judge on the Bench would have been regarded as absolutely fulfilling this objection. Now, Sir, under these circumstances. I am called upon, like others, to perform a very painful duty. I lament that Her Majesty's Government should appear to have treated this as a sort of perfunctory duty without careful, thorough, and minute inquiry. I perfectly admit that they were entitled to proceed without making any prior communication to us. That I entirely admit; but, of course, they have concentrated all the more upon themselves their full responsibility. There is the presumption brought before us that the Government must be aware that statements like those of my right hon. Friend (Mr. John Morley) and of the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and even the later statement made by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, disturb men's minds and impair the full and absolute confidence with which the name and the action of every one of those Judges should be regarded. Under these circumstances, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) that the objection taken by the whole mass of those who are to be tried is an important element in this case. Behind them, though you may think little of that here, they have a people, and behind that people, in my opinion, they have a widespread sentiment throughout the whole range of the civilized world. [Dissent.] I see an hon. Gentleman opposite toss his head. [Laughter.] That is a very convenient method of conducting Parliamentary operations. [Mr. GEDGE here rose.] I do not refer to the hon. Member for Stockport. I refer to hon. Gentlemen who think that is the proper way of conducting this discussion, and I give them one test. Let them produce to me from the whole compass of foreign literature
    820
    the name of any author of repute in any civilized land who has made an investigation, not into the Home Rule Bill, but into the relations between England and Ireland, and who comes to any other conclusion but this one—that those relations, taken in the mass, have been a calamity to Ireland and a disgrace to England. I feel that an absolute duty is laid upon me, who have no professional superiority to accuse me, to do what I can to procure justice and the certainty of justice, and to see that the administration of justice is free from criticism and suspicion; and, therefore, without at all attempting to pass any condemnation upon Mr. Justice Day, who, no doubt, is a man of character, of honour, and of competency to discharge all his legal duties, I shall give a most distinct and decided, though a painful, vote against the insertion of his name in this Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than one moment, but there is one point which I think ought to be cleared up. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) stated that the Government has had an opportunity of seeing this letter. It is perfectly true that after "Question time," when the Business of the House had already commenced, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) showed the letter to my right hon. Friend; but I should like to know at what time that letter was received? I should like to know what time elapsed before the right hon. Gentleman communicated that letter to the Government?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: As the right hon. Gentleman apparently considers me a party to its not having been communicated earlier, I may say that I saw the letter a quarter of an hour or 10 minutes ago, before it was communicated to the Government.
    MR. GOSCHEN: That is of less importance than that the Government should have seen it, if it was thought that it ought to have the slightest influence on the mind of the Government. I will assume that the latest date at which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne could have received the letter was this morning. If

    821
    the right hon. Gentleman wished to produce the slightest impression on the Government, why did he not communicate it to the Government at once? Then it would have been possible to communicate with Mr. Justice Day, if the Government had thought that the letter deserved any consideration at all. It ought to have been put into the hands of the Government in such time that the Government could have communicated with the man whom it accused. But I want to make one last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. On pressure, the right hon. Gentleman said he would give us the name. Will he, on pressure, give us the date? [Cries of "Date?"] The right hon. Gentleman refuses to say how long he has had this letter in his possession, and why he kindly placed it in the hands of the Government just after the debate began. Why did he not place it in our hands earlier? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian alluded to some dissatisfaction with the composition of the Commission on the first day when it was announced. How long after that did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne receive this communication? However, we shall know the date some day when we have no longer to deal with it in debate.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: There is no secret about this. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I received the letter about midday on Saturday last.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Under pressure the right hon. Gentleman has given the date to me. He was good enough to show the letter to us to-day. Why did he not communicate it to us earlier? It was put into our hands to influence this debate at a time when we could not communicate with the Judge. I do not do Mr. Justice Day the injustice of supposing that the letter would have influenced the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has spoken of our selection of these Judges, and he appears to be perfectly acquainted with the political opinions of Sir James Hannen and Mr. Justice A. L. Smith. I can only repeat what has been stated by the First Lord of the Treasury—that we, at least, were unacquainted with those opinions. We were unacquainted with them as we are now. While we have been sitting here
    822
    we have referred to see by whom they were appointed. They were appointed in 1882 and 1883 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: They were appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman draws a distinction between his Lord Chancellor and himself.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman said they were appointed by me. That is untrue, and it is absurd. The Prime Minister, as such, has no share in the appointment of Judges, and the Lord Chancellor is entirely responsible for the appointment. I take my share of the responsibility of our Lord Chancellor freely and willingly. But our Lord Chancellor did not, in appointing Judges, make it a condition that they should be of his own political opinions.
    MR. GOSCHEN: In 1882 and 1883, then, the right hon. Gentleman did not know the political opinions of these Judges. But you expect us to know them while the right hon. Gentleman does not. We repudiate in the strongest possible way the suggestion that we had any regard whatever to the political opinions of these gentlemen. But there was one reason why these names suggested themselves to us rather than others. It was because we considered these gentlemen to be non-political Judges. Many Judges become Judges after having been Law Officers, and many Judges have been connected with political Parties. Here are Judges not connected with political Parties, who have never been in Parliament, and who, therefore, commended themselves to us as specially qualified for these appointments. We believe that we have got Judges who are looked up to by the country at large, and we trust that the Committee will endorse that view by their vote.
    MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) says that he was not aware of the political opinions of these Judges whom he proposes to appoint as the jury to try us. I have heard the same statement from every Irish official who has ever been accused in this House of jury packing. I have heard the same statement made over and over again from those Benches opposite in reply to similar charges brought forward by us. "Oh," it is always said,

    823
    "we never knew anything about the religious and political opinions of these jurors;" but, somehow or other, it always happened that Orangemen and Protestants were put upon those juries to try Nationalists and Catholics. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman cannot now plead that he is in ignorance of the political opinions of these Judges. He now knows that the Lord Chancellor, who, he admitted, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, is practically the Representative of the Government in this matter, and has acted for them—he now knows that the Lord Chancellor has appointed three Conservative Judges to try Irish Nationalists. [Cries of "No!"] Well, two Conservatives and one Unionist. It is very extraordinary how they should have taken care, this impartial Government and Lord Chancellor, who were so absolutely ignorant of the political opinions of these gentlemen—it is very curious how they should have taken care to give the minority representation on this jury to their Unionist ally. The world will know to-morrow that it is this Conservative Government's idea of fairness that Irish Nationalists should be tried upon these charges by a jury of their political opponents.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 269; Noes 180: Majority 89.

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

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

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Aird, J.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Allsopp, hon. P.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Ambrose, W.

    Beaumont, H. F.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Bective, Earl of

    Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

    Bentinck, Lord H. C.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Baden-Powell, Sir G. S.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    Biddulph, M.

    Baird, J. G. A.

    Bigwood, J.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Banes, Major G. E.

    Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

    Barclay, J. W.

    Bond, G. H.

    Baring, Viscount

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Baring, T. C.

    Boord, T. W.

    Barnes, A.

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Barry, A. H. S.

    Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Bates, Sir E.

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

    Baumann, A. A.

    Beazley-White, J.

    Brown, A. H.

    824

    Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Caine, W. S.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Caldwell, J.

    Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Gray, C. W.

    Carmarthen, Marq. of

    Green, Sir E.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Greene, E.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Chaplin, right hon. H.

    Grotrian, F. B.

    Charrington, S.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Hall, A. W.

    Coddington, W.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Collings, J.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

    Cooke, C. W. R.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Corbett, A. C.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

    Corbett, J.

    Hanbury, R. W.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Hardcastle, E.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Hardcastle, F.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Cross, H. S.

    Heath, A. R.

    Crossley, Sir S. B.

    Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

    Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

    Cubitt, right hon. G.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

    Curzon, hon. G. N.

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Dalrymple, Sir C.

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Darling, C. J.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Hill, Colonel E. S.

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

    Hill, A. S.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Hoare, E. B.

    Dixon, G.

    Hoare, S.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Hobhouse, H.

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Hornby, W. H.

    Dugdale, J. S.

    Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

    Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

    Howard, J.

    Ebrington, Viscount

    Hozier, J. H. C.

    Edwards-Moss, T. C.

    Hubbard, hon. E.

    Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

    Hunter, Sir W. G.

    Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Elliot, hon. H. F. H.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    Elton, C. I.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Ewing, Sir A. O.

    Jardine, Sir R.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Jarvis, A. W.

    Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Fellowes, A. E.

    Johnston, W.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Kelly, J. R.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Field, Admiral E.

    Kenyon, hon. G. T.

    Finch, G. H.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

    Finlay, R. B.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Ker, R. W. B.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Kerans, F. H.

    Fitzwilliam, hon. W. H. W.

    Kimber, H.

    King, H. S.

    Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Knightley, Sir R.

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Knowles, L.

    Kynoch, G.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Lafone, A.

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Lambert, C.

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

    Fulton, J. F.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Gardner, R. Richardson-

    Lea, T.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Gedge, S.

    Lees, E.

    Giles, A.

    Leighton, S.

    Gilliat, J. S.

    Lethbridge, Sir R.

    Godson, A. F.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Goldsmid, Sir J.

    825

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Robinson, B.

    Long, W. H.

    Ross, A. H.

    Lowther, right hon. J.

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Lowther, J. W.

    Round, J.

    Lubbock, Sir J.

    Russell, Sir G.

    Macartney, W. G. E.

    Saunderson, Col. E. J.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Sellar, A. C.

    Selwyn, Captain C. W.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Sinclair, W. P.

    Maclean, J. M.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Maclure, J. W.

    Smith, A.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E

    Madden, D. H.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Mallock, R.

    Stephens, H. C.

    Marriott, right hon. Sir W. T.

    Stewart, M. J.

    Stokes, G. G.

    Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

    Sutherland, T.

    Swetenham, E.

    Matthews, right hon. H.

    Sykes, C.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Tapling, T. K.

    Mildmay, F. B.

    Taylor, F.

    Milvain, T.

    Temple, Sir R.

    More, R. J.

    Thorburn, W.

    Morgan, hon. F.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Morrison, W.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Moss, R.

    Trotter, Col. H. J.

    Mowbray, R. G. C.

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

    Mulholland, H. L.

    Vincent, C. E. H.

    Muntz, P. A.

    Waring, Colonel T.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Warmington, C. M.

    Noble, W.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Norris, E. S.

    Webster, R. G.

    Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

    West, Colonel W. C.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Norton, R.

    Wharton, J. L.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Whitley, E.

    Pearce, Sir W.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Wiggin, H.

    Penton, Captain F. T.

    Will, J. S.

    Plunket, right hon. D. R.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Powell, F. S.

    Wood, N.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Rankin, J.

    Wright, H. S.

    Rasch, Major F. C.

    Young, C. E. B.

    Reed, H. B.

    Ritchie, right hon. C. T.

    TELLERS.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Robertson, Sir W. T.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Burt, T.

    Buxton, S. C.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Byrne, G. M.

    Allison, R. A.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    Asquith, H. H.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Carew, J. L.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Chance, P. A.

    Ballantine, W. H. W.

    Channing, F. A.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Childers, rt. hon. H. C. E.

    Barran, J.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Clancy, J. J.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Cobb, H. P.

    Bright, Jacob

    Colman, J. J.

    Bright, W. L.

    Commins, A.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Conway, M.

    Brunner, J. T.

    Corbet, W. J.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    Cossham, H.

    826

    Cox, J. R.

    Marum, E. M.

    Craig, J.

    Molloy B. C.

    Craven, J.

    Morgan, right hon. G. O.

    Crawford, D.

    Crawford, W.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Crilly, D.

    Morley, rt. hon. J.

    Deasy, J.

    Morley, A.

    Dickson, T. A.

    Mundella, right hon. A. J.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Ellis, T. E.

    Murphy, W. M.

    Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

    Newnes, G.

    Esslemont, P.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Evans, F. H.

    Nolan, J.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    Finucane, J.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Fitzgerald, J. G.

    O'Connor, A.

    Flynn, J. C.

    O'Connor, J.

    Foley, P. J.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Foljambe, C. G. S.

    O'Doherty, J. E.

    Fox, Dr. J. F.

    O'Gorman Mahon, The

    Fuller, G. P.

    O'Hanlon, T.

    Gardner, H.

    O'Keeffe, F. A.

    Gilhooly, J.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Gill, T. P.

    Palmer, Sir C. M.

    Gladstone, right hon. W. E.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Philipps, J. W.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Graham, R. C.

    Picton, J. A.

    Grove, Sir T. F.

    Pinkerton, J.

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

    Playfair, right hon. Sir L.

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

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Portman, hon. E. B.

    Harrington, E.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Power, P. J.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Power, R.

    Healy, M.

    Priestley, B.

    Holden, I.

    Pugh, D.

    Hooper, J.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Hoyle, I.

    Randell, D.

    Hunter, W. A.

    Redmond, J. E.

    Illingworth, A.

    Redmond, W. H. K.

    Jacoby, J. A.

    Reid, R. T.

    James, hon. W. H.

    Rendel, S.

    Joicey, J.

    Reynolds, W. J.

    Jordan, J.

    Roberts, J.

    Kenny, J. E.

    Roe, T.

    Kenny, M. J.

    Roscoe, Sir H. E.

    Kilbride, D.

    Rowlands, J.

    Lalor, R.

    Rowntree, J.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Schwann, C. E.

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Sexton, T.

    Leahy, J.

    Shaw, T.

    Leamy, E.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

    Sheil, E.

    Simon, Sir J.

    Lewis, T. P.

    Sinclair, J.

    Lyell, L.

    Smith, S.

    Macdonald, W. A.

    Stack, J.

    Mac Neill, J. G. S.

    Stanhope, hon. P. J.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Stansfeld, right hon J.

    M'Arthur, W. A.

    M'Cartan, M.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    M'Carthy, J

    Stewart, H.

    M'Carthy, J. H.

    Stuart, J.

    M'Donald, P.

    Sullivan, D.

    M'Ewan, W.

    Sullivan, T. D.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Summers, W.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Swinburne, Sir

    Mahony, P

    Tanner, C. K.

    Maitland, W. F.

    Thomas, A.

    Mappin, Sir F. T.

    Thomas, D. A.

    827

    Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

    Wilson, H. J.

    Woodall, W.

    Tuite, J.

    Woodhead, J.

    Wallace, R.

    Watt, H.

    TELLERS.

    Wayman, T.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Williamson, S.

    Labouchere, H.

    Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

    Amendment proposed, in same page, line 13, after "and," insert "the Honourable Sir Archibald Levin Smith."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he desired to call attention to a word of very great importance which occurred in the clause under notice—namely, the word "allegations." It would be noticed that in this Bill words were introduced which were quite novel in Acts of Parliament, and the history of which, he supposed, they would hear from the Law Officers of the Crown. In a Bill dealing with very important questions, it was not at all desirable to use words with which they were not accustomed, which had not been previously used in Acts of Parliament. He was afraid they would not hear an explanation of the word "allegations" from the hon. and learned Attorney General, because he understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to take no part in the discussion of the Bill in Committee. That was a fact he (Mr. Anderson) very much b regretted; but he supposed the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), or some other Member of the Government, would explain why it was that the word "allegations" was inserted in the Bill. Let him call the attention of the Committee to the difference between the meaning of the word "charges" and the word "allegations." A charge was a thing which they perfectly well understood. A charge was a well-known term, a term which was constantly being used; it meant a distinct charge of a certain thing against this or that person. The meaning of the word was perfectly well understood, and he had proposed, as one or two other hon. Members had proposed, to accentuate that meaning by inserting in a Schedule annexed to the Bill the specific charges and the names of the persons charged. He proposed to move that Amendment in its turn, unless some other hon. Member moved it before him. Now, what was the meaning of the word "allegations?" If they took the word
    828
    in its broadest sense, they found it meant every statement made by the hon. and learned Attorney General in his speech in the late trial. Perhaps the Committee would allow him (Mr. Anderson) to illustrate what he meant by reference to one of the pages of the pamphlet in which were recorded the proceedings of "O'Donnell v. Walter." In the middle of page 92 the hon. and learned Attorney General mentioned certain charges which were brought against certain Members of the Parnellite Party, and he used this language—
    "We charge that the Land League Chiefs based their movement on a scheme of assassination carefully calculated and applied."
    Those were words which were used, he believed, in Parnellism and Crime. They contained a distinct charge. Further on in the page, the hon. and learned Attorney General continued to read from the second article headed "A restrospect—Ireland." The words the Attorney General quoted were—
    "We have no intention of cutting the throats of our friends."
    And the report of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech went on—
    "Coming to the words 'Constitutional leaders' he again drew the attention of the jury to the quotation marks which enclosed the words, and said that 'they, of course, did not refer to the persons who appeared in Parliament, but to the people who posed as Constitutional Leaders of the Land League.'"
    He (Mr. Anderson) particularly called the attention of the hon. and learned Solicitor General to the next words of the pamphlet—
    "He then read from the article Mr. Arnold Forster's description of the fruits of the Land League eloquence."
    And this was the statement read from the writings of Mr. Arnold Forster, and which, of course, would come under the term "allegations" mentioned in the Bill—
    "Three score cruel murders of men and women, with mutilations, burnings, robberies innumerable; more than 10,000 outrages committed in the short space of two years and a-half, concocted and perpetrated in the interests of a cruel and illegal conspiracy."
    Now, the Commission had only to read those words to find that there was an allegation made in the trial which came within the meaning of the Bill—not a charge against any person or persons,

    829
    but an allegation said to have arisen from certain speeches which had been delivered, and which, if this Bill passed in its present form, it would be the bounden duty of the Judges to inquire into. He had brought this out merely as an illustration of the kind of inquiry the Government proposed the learned Judges should enter upon. Under the term "allegations," it would be open to anybody to call upon the learned Judges to inquire into the murders which were mentioned by Mr. Arnold Forster, who, as an anonymous writer, had made the allegation put forward by the hon. and learned Attorney General in his speech. He (Mr. Anderson) was quite satisfied that if any one of the Judges were told of the magnitude of the task they had to enter upon under the term "allegations," they would, every one of them, refuse to serve. He was anxious, at that early stage of the proceedings in Committee, to show the door which was opened by the wording of the Bill. There would be many discussions unless the Government greatly altered their Bill, unless they formulated in it some method by which the wide range of subjects mentioned in the trial of the action "O'Donnell v. Walter" was curtailed. In the interest of justice to the persons who were to be charged under the Bill, it was absolutely necessary that there should be some specification of the charges made. He was anxious to hear what the Government had to say upon the subject; it was a subject which must be dealt with perhaps more at large in a subsequent Amendment; but, at the same time, it was one of great importance. Moreover, he would like to know who prepared the Bill? He would like to know whether the hon. and learned Attorney General prepared the Bill? He thought the Committee had great cause of complaint that upon an important measure of that kind the hon. and learned Gentleman was not to assist them in their deliberations. He presumed the hon. and learned Attorney General had assisted in the preparation of the Bill. If not, who had? He hoped the Committee would hear from somebody upon the Government Bench the reason for the introduction of the word "allegations," and that they would be told what precedent there was for it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the words "and allegations."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'and allegations' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that the Government had decided to oppose the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member had said that the word "allegations" was novel in Acts of Parliament of the sort. The hon. and learned Gentleman might possibly not find the substantive word, but he certainly would often find the word "alleged." According to the Act appointing the Commission to inquire into the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Commissioners were to inquire into the irregularities "alleged" to have taken place. Again, in the case of the Sheffield Commission, the Commissioners were to inquire into acts of intimidation, outrage, or wrong "alleged" to have been promoted, encouraged, or connived at by trades unions or other associations. That language was substantially the same as that used in the Bill. The statements in the proceedings of "O'Donnell v. Walter," and in the articles Parnellism and Crime, did not consist wholly of charges. There were, no doubt, charges, and very grave charges. He thought he had heard the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) himself say that the charges against him personally were a minute and infinitesimal part of the charges made in the articles.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he never made any such statement.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he certainly had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that was alleged about him was a mere fractional part of the charges which were made.
    MR. PARNELL: The words I used were "apart from the forged letters."
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman did not say it, he (Mr. Matthews) would say it. It appeared to him that the charges against the hon. Member were a minute portion of the allegations and statements contained in the proceedings in "O'Donnell v. Walter," and in the articles known as Parnellism and Crime. There were several other hon. Members of the House against whom charges more or less serious were

    831
    made; but there were a vast number of allegations in the articles which did not amount to charges against anyone in particular. It was proposed that the whole matter of these proceedings should be inquired into—that the whole of the statements made during the trial in the action "O'Donnell v. Walter," and in the articles in The Times, should be investigated, neither more or less. He did not know whether the hon. Member would desire him to give an illustration of the allegations which were made. If so, he would refer the hon. Gentleman to page 13 of the pamphlet, Parnellism and Crime. It was there stated—
    "We shall trace the main outlines of the movement, illustrate its principles and its working, prove that it is essentially a foreign conspiracy, and demonstrate that its chief authors have been and are in intimate, notorious, and continuous relations with avowed murderers."
    Now that, in his mind, did not amount to a charge; it stated no criminal offence known to the law, but it was an allegation, an allegation, no doubt, of a very grave and serious kind. The article went on—
    "How intimate those relations have been—who counselled, who connived at, who condoned individual deeds of blood—is yet unknown."
    There were portions of that sentence which were not charges. The charges and allegations were mixed up in the different statements, and if they struck out the word "allegations," they would appear to shut out a great deal which it was fit and proper to inquire into. He might say, once for all, in answer to this Amendment and to others of a similar kind that were upon the Paper, that the Government did not view this in the light of a trial in which, of course, different accusations were made on the one side. The tribunal was to be appointed to ascertain the truth of statements which had been made, some of them imputing, no doubt, a shade even of criminality to a great variety of persons, some of them only imputing to various persons conduct which was not, strictly speaking, criminal, but which was more or less opposed to the moral sense of other persons. There were two sorts of shades of censures suggested in the course of these proceedings, some amounting to what would be offences at law, others amounting to other species of conduct shading off in imperceptible degrees between right and wrong. The
    832
    Government would not consent to omit any part of the statements from the inquiry, neither would they add anything to what had been alleged.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had expected to hear the right hon. Gentleman quote some sort of precedent in favour of the language used in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman told them what they all knew—namely, that the word "alleged" had been used in Acts of Parliament. Of course, the word "alleged" had been used over and over again; but they did not use the word "alleged" here—they used the word "allegations." They said that the Judges were to inquire into allegations in the cases referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It was alleged that crimes had been committed; it was alleged that conspiracy had been engaged in; it was alleged that something else had been done. That was a totally different matter to what was stated here. According to the precedent of the Government, the words of the Bill ought to be—"It being alleged that certain Members of the House of Commons and others have committed crimes, have been party to crimes," and so on. He should have understood that. That would have been perfectly clear and intelligible. But they had said that the Commissioners were to inquire into certain allegations and charges made in a certain trial. It now turned out what these poor unfortunate Judges were to embark upon. The Judges had not to inquire simply into charges of crime or conniving at crime; but, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, they were to inquire into everything which was alleged during the trial of the action of "O'Donnell v. Walter." It was quite plain that the Judges would be asked to inquire into all the charges put forward by Mr. Arnold Forster; that they would be asked to inquire into the three score murders referred to by the gentleman he had named. The Home Secretary had said they meant the Judges to inquire not only into specific charges against hon. Members of the House and certain other persons, but into all the allegations which had been made. If the inquiry of the Judges was to be of any value, they must inquire into each one of the crimes which were said to have been brought about by the action of the Land League, or

    833
    else their inquiry would not be worth anything. Besides, the three score murders which were spoken of, there were 10,000 outrages. The learned Judges would have to inquire into each and every one of those outrages, or else their inquiries would be fruitless. Had the Government really considered what the result of this would be? They had talked about two years being occupied by the inquiry; but it seemed to him that, if the inquiry was to be completed, 20 years would be occupied by it. Again, he had to remark that there was no Law Officer of the Crown present. He did not consider the Committee was being treated fairly. Where was the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland? One of the Law Officers had better be sent for to confer with the Home Secretary, and see whether some blunder was not being made by the Government. It was quite possible that to-morrow they would be told that, in the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Home Secretary had gone further than the Government intended. He was satisfied that hon. Members would in time perceive that the Home Secretary was leading the Judges into a vast and boundless inquiry; and from what he knew of the learned Judges, he would not be surprised if they each said—"We will have nothing to do with such au investigation."
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he desired information from the Home Secretary as to the meaning to be attached to the words "The Commissioners shall inquire." Was it to be understood that the Commissioners were to be bound to inquire? Was it part of the duty imposed upon them that they should and must inquire, or was it intended that "shall inquire" should be taken as equal to "may inquire?" It seemed to him that if the Commissioners were to be told that they "shall," or, in other words, that they "must" inquire into all the charges, there was no need whatever to use the word "allegations." The investigation of any one of the charges made would occupy six months. Suppose a certain Member of the House was present at a meeting in New York, at which certain expressions were used which would justify anyone reading them, or hearing them, saying that that was a meeting of men to incite to the committal of out-
    834
    rages. If the Judges must examine into such things, it would be seen that such examinations would take an exceedingly long time. These charges were sown broadcast, they were literally innumerable; and what he wanted to know, before the discussion went any further, was whether the interpretations to be put upon the words of the Bill was that the Commissioners should not have any discretion as to the charges into which they were to inquire, but that, under the Bill, they were bound as a part of their duty, which they could not escape from, to examine into each and every one of the charges made.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that the words "each and every one" were not in the Bill. The learned Judges would use their discretion to a large extent in inquiring into the substance of what was alleged and charged in the proceenings of "O'Donnell v. Walter." Of course, the words were mandatory in the case of every Commission. In the case of every Commission, Commissioners were bound to inquire and bound to report; but, of course, they were left to exercise their own discretion as to what was the substance and marrow of the point at issue.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that the words were that "The Commissioners shall inquire into and report upon the charges," not such charges that they might think proper, or some or any of the charges; and what he wanted to know distinctly from the Home Secretary was whether it was to be understood by the learned Judges that each and every one—he was not now quoting the words of the Bill—that each and every one of the charges and allegations extending over a period of 10 years should be inquired into, or whether the Judges were to be in a position to take up books and pamphlets and such statements in the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General as they thought proper? Were the learned Judges to be permitted to select for themselves what they regarded as the salient points to be examined into; or were they to be in the position to say, "We have no discretion in the matter; we are bound to examine into each and every one of the charges made?" That was certainly a matter which ought to be settled before they went any further.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that under the Bill, as drawn up by the Government,

    835
    it appeared to him that the Commissioners would have every discretion. The Bill, as amended in the direction hon. Members desired, would give the Commissioners no discretion, but would require them to inquire into every charge specified in the Schedule. The hon. Members had proposed to insert in the Schedule a variety of distinct charges; in that case, no doubt, the Commissioners would have no discretion. The Government, on the contrary, had framed a Bill which left it to the Commissioners themselves to extract from the proceedings in the trial of "O'Donnell v. Walter" what they conceived to be the charges and allegations made therein. Of course, that meant the material charges and allegations. The hon. Member asked him what would the Commissioners do? His answer was, that the Commissioners would act like men of sense and of judgment, and extract the substantial charges. He looked upon these proceedings as containing one charge in substance—namely, that a so-called Constitutional Party had relied upon, rested upon, made use of, to a degree not defined, and had been the accomplices of a violent Party. Let him assume, for the purpose of argument, that complicity with murder on the part of any Member of the Parliamentary Party was proved. The Commissioners might say, "We want to know more;" or they might say "We are satisfied;" or they might say, "For the purposes of the Report we should like to know whether you can establish complicity in any other case?" On the other hand, there might be 10 cases of alleged complicity, and the Commissioners might say, "If you want to find complicity you must prove something else." The inquiry would be conducted by the good sense of men who knew what they were doing. He viewed that as only one single charge, ramifying, no doubt, in details, according to the incidents adduced in evidence—namely, an alliance amounting to complicity between two sets of people.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it appeared to be quite plain that if the counsel for "Walter and another" appeared before the Commissioners, and desired to offer evidence in support of any allegation whatever contained in the report of the trial, and if the Commissioners refused the evidence, no matter how frivolous, all the counsel would have to do would be to
    836
    turn to the Act of Parliament and say—"You are ordered by the Act of Parliament to inquire into the charges and allegations made in the trial of the action "O'Donnell v. Walter and another." This is one of the charges and allegations made, and I call upon you to hear me in regard to it, and to hear evidence." The Commissioners, moreover, would have no reply to make. They would be obliged, by the terms of their mandate, no matter what their judgment might dictate, to enter upon the inquiry. He stated, in opening the debate early in the evening, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was a good authority as to the intentions of the Government, and his prediction had been verified sooner than he imagined, because the Home Secretary used precisely the same phrase in indicating the nature of the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham used on Saturday at his garden party. The Home Secretary said that to inquire did not mean to deal merely with crime nor with criminality, but to deal with various transactions shading off by imperceptible degrees between the line of white of the blameless man and the line of black of the criminal. That was not what the public understood. The public wanted to know whether certain men in the House of Commons and out of it were guilty of crime or whether they were not. The public knew nothing and cared nothing about the Government's shades and refinements and artistic developments. If the theory of the Home Secretary was to be carried, the Commissioners would have to report by means of a coloured map. What did the public care about all this nonsense? They wanted to know if public men were guilty of crime. Let them remember how this inquiry sprang up. The First Lord of the Treasury had described the Bill as an offer made in response to a demand. The demand was that of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). His hon. Friend, as a Member of the House of Commons, asked the House to inquire and determine whether or not he (Mr. Parnell) was guilty of sanctioning or of signing letters which suggested or procured the commission of murder, or which encouraged murder. To that other charges had been added. Was it

    837
    to be thought that whilst Members of the House were waiting and whilst the country was waiting eagerly and anxiously to learn whether Members of the House of Commons were to be identified with crime or not, this Commission was to go roving over the country and over the world to ascertain whether a variety of allegations which were found scattered up and down in the articles of The Times, and in the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General, in forms of language more or less indirect, were true? That was the point. He certainly thought that the country would expect that the Commissioners should proceed upon the grave charges. When he and his Friends asked the House for some guidance as to the charges which were to form the subject of the inquiry, they were referred to the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice. The Home Secretary had quoted the Lord Chief Justice, and the hon. and learned Solicitor General, in reply to the demand for a definition of the charges, referred the House to the speech of the Lord Chief Justice, in which the hon. and learned Gentleman said they would find definitions. He (Mr. Sexton) had turned to the charge of the Lord Chief Justice to the jury in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter," and he found that the learned Judge said, in referring to the series of articles published under the title of Parnellism and Crime—
    "They run over about 60 pages, and contain a great variety of statements deeply incriminating a number of persons—Members of Parliament and persons who are not Members of Parliament, but who are well known to the world as prominent men."
    That referred to charges, not to allegagations. Those persons were accused of crime, and abominable crime. It was surely not a matter of allegation. He found that as the Lord Chief Justice came more closely to the question, and dealt with the crime which he considered to be charged against the persons affected in Parnellism and Crime, his Lordship said—
    "The charges made against them were charges of complicity with crime; that they shut their eyes when crime was contemplated, that in some cases they actually knew that murder was going to take place, and that on other occasions they were present when murder
    838
    was being talked about, and did not disavow it."
    He (Mr, Sexton) protested against the endeavour indefinitely and uselessly to extend the already almost boundless scope of the inquiry. He could not for the life of him understand why the Government clung so fondly to the word "allegations." Had they not charges enough in Parnellism and Crime? He placed the Government in this dilemma—either the allegations into which the Commission would inquire were charges, or they were not. A charge was an accusation, an allegation was only an assertion. Either the allegations were charges, or they were not. If they were charges, there was no necessity for the word "allegations," because the word "charges" covered the ground. Why was the word "allegations" introduced? It was quite plain from the debate on the second reading that the Government had already come to the belief that the letters attributed to the hon. Member for Cork were forgeries. Those letters had been the subject of very passionate accusation by The Times in the course of the last 12 months. Why did the Government push them into the second rank, because, if the letters were genuine, they would prove the hon. Member for Cork to be not only a knave, but a fool? The Government unquestionably believed the letters to be forgeries. They were not anxious to inquire into crime. They were anxious to delay the decision of the Committee. They had traded upon these false charges for the last 12 months. They had pushed thorn forward at every bye-election, through the mouths of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), and now they were anxious to put off the evil day when the electors would discover how they had been defrauded. He maintained that the House did not want, that no lover of justice wanted, that no honest man wanted, that the country did not want, that they should follow the scribes of The Times through all the various forms of innuendo and suggestion in Parnellism and Crime, but that they should simply take out the charges involving crime or criminality, and ask the Commission to come to a decision upon them, and upon nothing else.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown at the beginning of the discussion had been commented upon. Well, he noticed that whenever a Government brought in a Bill full of anamolies and proposals which could not be defended from a legal point of view, the Law Officers absented themselves, and did not come back unless someone attacked them, when they made their appearance to defend certain clauses in the capacity of advocates. No doubt, since the hon. and learned Gentleman had commented upon the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Committee would have a speech from one of those Law Officers. Though the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself was a lawyer, and one of considerable eminence, still they could not help recollecting that he sat here as a Member of the Cabinet, and not so much as a Law Officer. The right hon. Gentleman had to admit that on no similar occasion had the word "allegations" been inserted. However, in defending it he had said that certain crimes and offences had been alleged against the Irish Party—he said that murder had been alleged against certain men, and that where murder were alleged it was the substance of the charge, but that where the word "allegations" was used it might mean anything. The right hon. Gentleman had given them no specific direction as to what the word meant; but he had stated generally that it shodded down from murder to perfect innocence—a most extraordinary thing for the right hon. Gentleman to say, as it implied that perfect innocence might, as a question covered by the word "allegations," be inquired into by a Commission. Now, the ordinary military court martial was a very good tribunal in its way, though, from the point of view of law, it was the roughest and readiest Court imaginable. But a court martial never took into account such things as "allegations." It was necessary that there should be a specific charge, and it was the same, he believed, in the case of naval courts martial; and why in the present instance they should have a new
    840
    word embodied into legal inquiry, he was at a loss to imagine. He considered the proposal a most outrageous one. The Government should declare openly that their object was to try the whole Parnellite Party. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) had got up on a previous occasion, and had charged the whole Party with being connected with that which he called the Party of violence. No doubt, there was a Party of violence; but the Party to which he (Colonel Nolan) belonged had no connection with it. But what did the right hon. Gentleman's ally, The Times, mean when it referred to the Party of violence? Why, The Times meant—and it was their allegation that would be inquired into—that the word was synonymous with the American Party. The use of this word "allegations," therefore, would enable the Commission to go into the question of the connection of the Irish Members with the American Party, 99 in 100 of whom were in favour of Constitutional Home Rule, the remaining fraction, being all there was in favour of any violent measures whatsoever. The Commission would attempt to try the party of violence and the Irish Party on the same evidence and on the same lines. In point of fairness, this word ought never to be left in the Bill. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would be supported by a majority of 80 or 90 Members, and would be able to carry the word. So far as the whole Bill was concerned, if it had been proper for an Irish Member to have acted in his own individual capacity on this question, he (Colonel Nolan) should have opposed the Bill upon his own responsibility, as he believed it was used for one purpose only—the purpose for which this word "allegations" was inserted. The object of the Government was to have the Irish Party—and, through the Irish Party, their supporters and protectors, the great Liberal Party—during the Recess, pilloried before the constituencies at every Conservative meeting of the country. Attempts would be made to make capital out of them, and every act of the Irish Party would be brought forward and commented upon in order to divert the attention of the public from the extremely bad administration of Her Majesty's present

    841
    advisers. This Commission was a Godsend to the Government for electioneering purposes, and for the sake of having this political weapon the Government refrained from bringing specific charges against anyone. They knew perfectly well that if they brought specific charges, though those against whom such charges were made would be put to some disadvantages for a month or so, at the end of that time they would be able to disprove the charges. The Government knew that hon. Members would be able to meet the charges, but now they wished to establish a packed Commission—because any Commission must be considered packed when the whole Opposition had voted solid against one-third of those constituting it—which would be able to inquire into every possible allegation made by The Times against the Irish Members simply for the purpose of blackening the Opposition and keeping Her Majesty's Government in Office. In one way he (Colonel Nolan) felt a certain amount of pity and regret for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for England (Sir Edward Clarke), whom he supposed was going to support the proposal of the Government—the hon. and learned Gentleman could not help supporting it after the somewhat injudicious remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had dragged him in at this point. He (Colonel Nolan) was very sorry for him, because by his lawyer-like instincts he must be against bringing anomalies of this kind into legal procedure. The hon. and learned Gentleman would have to forget all his literary instincts—and he had shown on more than one occasion before he occupied the post of Solicitor General that he did possess such instincts—he would have to forget all these instincts in supporting the retention of this word "allegations" which was merely used for Party purposes. There was no disproving an allegation—it was too wide to attempt to disprove. He (Colonel Nolan) should look with some curiosity on a Division which he had no doubt would take place upon the retention of this word, and if none of the Conservatives showed their disapproval of its retention, all he could say was, that they were very good Party men, but that they were, at any rate, men whom he should be very sorry to be tried by if any question affecting
    842
    politics entered into the subject matter of the trial. If the question in dispute were, for instance, the ownership of a certain house, he should think the Commission proposed would be a very good one to undertake to adjudicate, but when it came to inquiring into political matters, to give a reference to a Commission of this kind with the word "allegations" in it, it would be found that the Commissioners would be guided by the tone of English society. Why, it was something of this kind—"I hope these persons will be convicted of murder." English society were not anxious to find out whether or not certain Irishmen had been guilty of murder, but they were anxious to fix the stigma of connection with Fenianism upon the Irish Members. The whole of the London Press had taken that tone. He was not speaking of Conservatives in the House of Commons, for they habitually came into contact with Liberals and Irish Members, and knew that a great deal of this talk was nonsense, but he spoke more particularly of the average Conservatives outside the House.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Before we go to a Division on this question I am anxious to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) what is his opinion of the difference of the meaning of the two words "charges" and "allegations." These two words are put in here, the most important and enacting part of the Bill dealing with what the Commissioners are to inquire into. What is the object of the word "allegations?" It must mean either the same thing as "charges" or something different. Does it mean the same thing? If it does there can be no objection to dropping it, and if it means something different, I think we have a right to demand some enlightenment as to the meaning of this word.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): I am very much flattered indeed at the anxiety displayed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to know what is my opinion on this matter. I think it is most important and just that the words "charges" and "allegations" should both be used. The object of this Amendment is perfectly clear. It is to confine the inquiry of the Commissioners to certain definite charges; and if the

    843
    Committee were to agree to strike out the word "allegations" they would go part of the way towards achieving the object of the Proposer of the Amendment, which is to require a definition to be put in a schedule of the charges which are made. The Government decline to become parties to, or to make themselves responsible for, any definition of the accusations with which the Commissioners will have to deal. [Cheers.] I am extremely glad to see that the consistency of their conduct in the matter is recognized on the other side of the House. They have said—"There is no accusation made by the Government. There are charges and allegations in these articles, under which for a very long time hon. Members have been content to rest quiet." Now it is proposed to establish a tribunal, which, in its personal composition, is I believe deserving of absolute confidence. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not say that it is so in the judgment of the hon. Members opposite; I say for myself what I believe. That tribunal is to examine into what has been said, has to examine into the charges and allegations made, and it is important that these words should be put in, for this reason—that, if the inquiry were confined to charges, at any point in the inquiry anybody appearing before the Commissioners might say, "To which charge against a particular individual is this piece of evidence directed?" It is important that that limitation should not exist. [Cheers.] It is important that that limitation should exist. [Renewed Cheers.] Those cheers are fainter. It is important that that limitation should not exist, for this reason—that there are many matters which may have to be proved, and can be proved before the Commissioners, which it is essential that they should examine into, in order that they may get to the bottom of the matter with which they have to deal, but which, at the moment the investigation is taking place, no one can point to as a charge against a specific individual. This is not a judicial tribunal—[Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear.]—I think, at least, the right hon. Gentleman might have learned the fairness of waiting until a sentence is concluded before he cheers. I was saying that this was not a judicial tribunal for the purpose of deciding a litigated question between
    844
    two parties, but a judicial tribunal for the purpose of examining matters which are of very great public importance, and which do involve the repute, in the largest sense of the word, of hon. Members of this House. It is therefore important, with these articles before them, as well as the matters which had been alleged in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter," that these Commissioners should have power of investigating every statement and allegation that has been made, and seeing to whose guilt, if to anybody's, the proof of those statements shall point, without being bound by a limitation to any specific accusation or charge.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think that the explanation we have just received is a very valuable one. It makes it quite plain why this word is put in. We are told by the hon. and learned Solicitor General that this is not a judicial inquiry against any individual.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: No; I said this was not a judicial inquiry between two parties.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If this is not a judicial inquiry between two parties why in the world is the action of "O'Donnell v. The Times" introduced? It is quite true it is not to be a judicial inquiry—that is the very pith of the whole thing.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I never said so.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No; the hon. and learned Solicitor General very adroitly avoided that point. I will show exactly what the hon. and learned Solicitor General meant. The word "allegations" is to prevent the application of any particular charge. That is a point, and a most important admission itself. Now, it is of the very essence of a judicial proceeding that evidence should be adduced and addressed to some particular charge; but the object of all this is to escape from the whole judicial character of the Bill. It is too late to adduce it in any kind of loose farrago of calumny, unrestrained by any of those principles which lie at the foundation of all justice—namely, that evidence shall be produced for the purpose of addressing it to some charge or other, and we have the confession of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the Commissioners will be at

    845
    liberty to investigate charges which no one as yet has ever seen, although in the words of the Lord Chief Justice, quoted so frequently by the Front Bench opposite, they form "a terrible indictment." "A terrible indictment" is the language of a charge and not the language of loose gossip which the Government endeavoured to impress in this word "allegations." Therefore, we have it from one of the Law Officers of the Crown that the very object of this word is to escape the principles of a judicial inquiry—to escape having to give evidence of specific charges made. The hon. and learned Solicitor General says that this Amendment is to be opposed, because it is connected with a subsequent demand to put specific charges into a schedule; but the two things are separate. You may leave out "allegations," and yet you may have specific charges in the schedule, or you may have "allegations" in the Bill with specific "charges" also in the schedule. The question is, whether the Government fairly and honestly mean to investigate certain charges against individuals or merely desire to introduce a general system of dirt throwing—of throwing promiscuous calumnies—before the Commissioners, in order that some of it may stick. Did they wish to escape the ordinary rules of procedure by which means characters are protected from slander and calumny, in order that their actions in throwing dirt may be uncontrolled? I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General will not say that the rules which long practice and tradition have discovered in English jurisprudence as being the best means of administering the law are unnecessary. Why are these rules adopted? Because experience has shown that they are the best way of resisting calumnies against which men may have no means of protecting themselves, and yet we have the confession of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that it is to escape from the application of such rules that these words are put in. I confess that until we have some better and more reasonable—I was almost going to say more decent—explanation of the word "allegations," we ought not to be a party to its appearance in the Bill.
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he could not help thinking that the Government was somewhat floundering in its definition of this word "allegations." They had had two definitions from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which he did not think tallied the one with the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said it would rest with the Judges to say what were the allegations to be inquired into—he had said that they would be taken from the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) in the recent case of "O'Donnell v. Walter." He had said that these allegations would be material to come under investigation, and he had stated also that if these charges were proved it would substantially amount to complicity with crime. Now, would it be defined in this Bill, or would it be defined in the instructions to the Commissioners what these allegations were which would amount to complicity of crime? The right hon. Gentleman also said, in answer to speeches on the other side of the House, that certain hon. Members amongst the Irish Party, although themselves engaged in the Constitutional movement, were associated with persons engaged in a movement of an entirely different character, and he mentioned in particular Mr. Patrick Ford, the editor of The New York Catholic World. But he (Mr. J. O'Connor) should like to know what amount of acquaintance with Mr. Patrick Ford would amount to complicity with crime on the part of the Irish Members. He was perfectly familiar with The New York Catholic World, and for a long series of years he knew that a list of subscriptions towards the conduct of the Constitutional movement in Ireland had been printed, whilst in the same paper from time to time were contained articles which might be construed into an incitement into the commission of outrages, or to the use of dynamite. Would hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House be held responsible for those articles, because forsooth, lists of subscriptions had appeared in the columns of that paper? Members upon that side of the House were the conductors of a Constitutional movement in Ireland. They did not guide or conduct The New York World,

    847
    nor could they help their friends in America sending their subscriptions to them through that paper. They had no control in the matter——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I fail to see how the observations of the hon. Member are relative to the Question "That these words stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, that he was of opinion that the word "allegations" ought to be expunged from the Bill altogether, or it ought to be defined. The word ought to be defined in a schedule, or if it were not he did not think it should be left for the Judges to say in what the allegations should consist. He had been about to state one case where it would be possible for misunderstanding and misrepresentation to take place. It had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in his speech, that an endeavour would be made to prove that hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House were in communication with those who incited to outrage. For purposes of illustration, he might say an endeavour would be made to show that the Irish Members had been in communication with Sheridan and Patrick Egan in 1881 and 1882, and that these men at the time were engaged in questionable enterprises. [Cries of "Order!"]] If he (Mr. J. O'Connor) was not in Order in going into this matter, he failed to see how the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could have been in Order in his speech. The right hon. Gentleman bad said that it would be established before the Commission that the persons charged in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter" had been in company with those who had incited to outrage in Ireland, and he (Mr. J. O'Connor) was endeavouring to point out that it would not be fair to leave it to the Commissioners to say whether or not Irish Members had been associated with such persons, knowing them to be criminals.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the Question before the Committee, and was not at all addressing himself to the point.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, it seemed to him that this was one of the most important points of the Bill, and he did not think it should pass without a little more comment. The comment he would make was this, that after the very frank statement they had heard
    848
    from the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) they now know where they stood. This was not a Bill to enable hon. Members from Ireland to meet any charges against themselves. "No," said the hon. and learned Solicitor General, "that is too concrete a matter; we must have something looser than that. There are many charges that can be inquired into without making a specific charge." Then do not let hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite go to their constituents and say that they had offered these Irish Members an opportunity of meeting charges brought against them. The object of this Bill was not to enable these Gentlemen to meet charges, but to compel them to stand in the pillory to receive every filthy thing which their opponents could throw at them in their contempt, in the hope that some of it might stick, and then, if they found that some of it stuck, they would formulate their charge. He (Mr. Whitbread) had said on a former occasion that he thought this a fair tribunal if the charges were defined; but the proposal of the Government was not justified. It was asking men to stand in this position and offering a temptation to bring evidence against them. The Government invited every man who was conscious of having taken part in outrage to come and give evidence—they said in effect that if such people would only come and swear hard enough against these Irish Members they would get whitewashed. He did not know any ordeal which any body of men could pass through more terrible than that which was proposed under this Bill. He (Mr. Whitbread) and his Friends were in a minority, and could not by their votes enforce their ideas of justice; but, at any rate, they would take care that neither the Government nor the country should be ignorant of what they thought of this procedure.
    MR. FINLAYsaid, he apprehended that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) could hardly have read the words that this discussion was taking place upon. Every one of the hon. Gentleman's observations would have been just as applicable if the word "charges" stood alone. But what was meant was not any charges of actual crime, but various charges which did not amount to actual crime, but still which were matters of such a nature

    849
    that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would be anxious that they and their friends should have the opportunity of full investigation into them. He protested in the interest of a full investigation against confining the inquiry to charges of actual crime at law. It had been said that knowing that certain men were criminals, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway had maintained friendly relations with them, and had received money from them. Did they or did they not desire that such matters should be inquired into? It was not, so far as he was aware, a crime; but, at any rate, it was a matter which he should think hon. Gentlemen would be most anxious to clear themselves of. Both the country and the House desired that this inquiry should be a complete one, and he was, therefore, surprised that so much time should be wasted upon this question.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was a complete answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), and whose only object seemed to be to prevent the application of law and justice to the case of the inquiry about to be instituted. Under the circumstances, he (Sir William Harcourt) was a little astonished that the Government had not made the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness one of the Commissioners. He (Sir William Harcourt) thought the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be the head Commissioner. Now, had it been proposed, or was it desired, that in any way the charge of complicity with crime should be evaded? He was astonished that the hon. and learned Member for Inverness should stand up and say that the word "charge" necessarily involved a charge of complicity with actual crime. It would be seen in Amendments standing in the name of hon. Members themselves and dealing with crimes and outrages, that they were anxious to meet all the charges which properly would be brought against them. They invited inquiry as to whether they had been guilty of the crime of murder or crimes of violence, and whether there was any truth in the charge that they had been guilty of complicity with these crimes in any form or shape, and, therefore, the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness was absolutely
    850
    in contradiction with the facts which he must be perfectly aware of. The word "charge" did not mean a charge of actual crime. It meant a charge of complicity with crime, or condonation of crime if they liked, but it meant a "charge," and a charge meant a definite accusation. That was a difference between "charge" and the vague, loose, and unjust accusations which the Government desired to bring forward under cover of the word. "allegations." [Interruption.] When the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) had made up his mind to allow him (Sir William Harcourt) the ordinary courtesies of debate, he would proceed with his observations. They were used to such conduct from Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench. [Cries of "Order!"] Yes; order was exactly what he wanted.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to declare that an hon. Member of this House is committing a breach of the ordinary courtesies of debate?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is open to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to meet that charge.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he was sure that the hon. Member for the Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was always conspicuous for his courtesy towards his opponents; and if he would use his influence with the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India to induce him to be guided by the same spirit he (Sir William Harcourt) would go on. [Cries of "Go on!"] Yes, he was prepared to go on. [Interruption.] He had to ask the Chairman if he would endeavour to procure for him a hearing?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will proceed, no doubt he will be heard.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, with that assurance from the Chairman he would go on. [Interruption.] He hoped what had fallen from the Chairman would have its effect. He thought it was high time that they should have an understanding with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). They were engaged in a discussion in which a good

    851
    deal of feeling had been introduced, and he thought it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would either use—[Cries of "Order!"]—He was in perfect Order, and if he was not, he should be glad to be told of it by the Chairman. He was going, however, to insist upon the ordinary courtesies of debate being extended to Members of that House. The objection he had been taking when interrupted was to the word "allegations," especially as it had been expounded by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. They had asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain how the word "allegations" differed from the word "charge," and the hon. and learned Gentleman had told them frankly that the word "charge" meant a direct accusation, to which evidence must be directed.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I did not say anything of the kind.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he should be glad to give the hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity of saying what it was he did say. What he (Sir William Harcourt) had said was, at any rate, the impression produced upon his mind; and, in the absence of any further explanation from the hon. and learned Gentleman he would point out that he had asked him to state the difference between an allegation and a charge, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman had distinctly said that a charge was a distinct accusation to which the evidence adduced was to be directed, but that that was not what the Government desired—that they wished for something much larger and more extensive than that. He understood from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government desired that evidence should be taken on any subject whatever, whether applicable to any charge or not. What was the answer attempted by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness? Why, he said—"Oh! a charge is something specific." Well, of course, a charge was something specific. It was the very essence of inquiry of this kind that a man's character should not be taken away unless it was by some specific charge. Unless a charge was specific, how was a man to meet it? How was a man to obtain possession of evidence to refute a charge unless that charge was specific? They made every provi-
    852
    sion for the administration of justice in this country to prevent men's characters from being traduced by all sorts of loose gossip. Let them not be told by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness that the charges must be made against particular individuals of complicity in particular crimes. That was not at all necessary. It was very easy to see exactly why the Government were not satisfied with the word "charges." They were not, as the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had said, desirous of giving Irish Members an opportunity of meeting the charges. That they would not do. What they desired was to get their political opponents into a wide net of allegation, and that he thought had been made quite conspicuous by the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and for that reason he should vote against the words in question.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST): I rise to ask the attention of the Committee for one moment in order that I may express my great regret for having put out the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) in the course of his eloquent speech. The only discourtesy of which I was guilty towards the right hon. Gentleman was that of smiling; and my smile was at least excusable in consideration of the extremely vehement manner in which the right hon. Gentleman laid down the law in opposition to the hon. and learned Member for Inverness. I dare say that, as a politician, the right hon. Gentle-is immeasurably superior to the hon. and learned Member; but he must forgive the Committee generally if they attach some importance to the legal construction which the hon. and learned Member has placed on the word "charges;" and I ventured to smile when the right hon. Gentleman laid down the law as to what the word must necessarily mean. Let mo put before the Committee for one moment what appears to me to be the real issue before us. The question is whether, by adopting this Amendment, we shall take upon ourselves to limit the scope of the Inquiry which the Judicial Commission which we may appoint may think proper to undertake; and I should like to warn the right hon. Gentleman, great lawyer as he is, that by limiting

    853
    the discretion of the Judges and confining the Inquiry within narrower limits than those included in the Bill, he may possibly be doing his hon. Friends below the Gangway a bad service by actually excluding from the purview of the Commission some of the very matters which they may desire to bring to the notice of the Commission. I do not pronounce dogmatically what construction the Judges may put upon the word "charges;" but it is possible that they may place upon it the construction which has been placed upon it by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness. Let us suppose that that is the opinion which may be formed. Then how necessary is the words "and allegations"! One of the matters which I understand the hon. Member for Cork is most anxious to bring to the notice of the Committee is, whether or not he is the author of two letters. Is the authorship of those two letters a crime? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] Certainly not with regard to the first letter. I should be inclined to think it was not. The first letter published two years ago, is, I think, beyond all question not criminal. Even if the hon. Member for Cork were proved to be the author of that letter, to be the author of that letter is not a criminal offence. Then there is a necessity for the words "and allegations." If the words were not in the Bill, it is conceivable, and not at all improbable, that the question as to whether the hon. Member for Cork was the author of the letter referred to might be cut out altogether from inquiry. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway should be so eager to shut out full and fair investigation. I can quite understand their Friends above the Gangway throwing every obstacle in the way of the Bill, but how hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who profess a desire to have a real investigation into the charges and allegations made against them, can lend their support to an attempt to limit the discretion of the Judges, I for one fail to understand.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down informed the Committee that he indulged in a smile when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was speaking. He (Mr. Illingworth) knew it was possible for
    854
    Gentlemen of the Legal Profession to be amused when other people were writhing, and it was unfortunate, when the most serious charges and a most serious condition of things were being examined, that there should be levity on the Treasury Bench. The Government were now seeking to impress the House of Commons and the country with its sense of fairness and impartiality in bringing forward this measure. But he (Mr. Illingworth) had observed that not alone in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had the conduct of right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench been somewhat out of place. Had they no feeling or consideration for those who were lying for the moment under these charges? Let the Government put on, at least, the appearance of fairness. The hon. and learned Member for the Inverness Burghs had stated that not only would hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway seek to be relieved from the charge of complicity with crime, but other charges laid against them; he said he could well imagine that they would seek to be relieved of the charge of receiving money from those who were criminals or who were charged with connection with crime. He could imagine that the National League or the Land League had received money from persons who might have been connected with crime, but that it was necessary to insinuate that they desired not to have an inquiry into such a charge passed his comprehension. Suppose that it was the duty of the hon. and learned Gentleman to take money from a man placed in the dock charged with an offence; the hon. and learned Gentleman would take that man's money, go into Court, and make the best possible defence for the prisoner. But were they, on that ground, to insinuate that because he received money from such a source he had complicity with the criminal? The idea would appear absurd to any reasonable man. The money sent to these men was to be used in political combinations. It was of the utmost importance that they should understand the meaning of the term "allegations." Suppose the term were absent, were the Judges so far a-field as to charge these Members with the things he had mentioned? It seemed to him that the inquiry was to take such a range as to be almost interminable;

    855
    and when the character of so many Members of the House was at stake, he should gladly support the excision of this term so as to confine the clause as the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) bad said, to something which should be just.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the Government professed to be impartial and neutral in this case; and while, on the one hand, they refused to put the charges against Irish Members into an intelligible form, on the other there was the further evidence of their impartiality in the fact that they permitted, encouraged, and compelled the Commission to inquire into the most shadowy allegations. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in the words of the Lord Chief Justice, had referred to this as a "tremendous indictment." But the Lord Chief Justice was then referring to the crime of murder only. He should not argue with the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) the question as to whether the authorship of the fac-simile letter published by The Times last year amounted to a criminal charge; but he would remind him that the hon. and learned Attorney General in his speech declared that the letter constituted one of the worst accusations and libels ever made and published on a public man. He doubted whether the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken of it in that way would agree with the hon. Gentleman that whether it amounted to a crime or not, the Committee should remember that the Inquiry had been ordered by the Government at the request of a Member of Parliament; and one thing would follow, even if the letter was found not to be a legal crime. If his hon. Friend the Member for Cork were found guilty of the authorship of that letter, did anyone believe that he would be allowed to continue in that House for one day more? That being an inquiry, therefore, ordered at the request of a Member of Parliament, he could not conceive that the Commission would regard the authorship of the letter of May 15 as otherwise than a charge which they were bound to investigate entirely apart from the question of allegation. The hon. and learned Member for the Inverness Burghs had referred to the receipt of money from America for political organization in Ireland; he mentioned that as an instance of what
    856
    he considered to be no charge. The source of money from persons in America for political purposes was a matter of public record; it had been acknowledged in public meetings and in the public Press. [Cries of "No!"] He said that every penny of the money handed in at the meetings of the League had been publicly acknowledged at the time. But whatever opinion hon. Gentlemen opposite held on the matter, they could not contend that what had been a matter of public record could be properly made the subject of inquiry by a Special Commission. Every Member of the House was in as good a position to form an opinion as to those moneys as he would be after the Royal Commission had met. He would conclude with the observation that the Government were going further on behalf of The Times than The Times itself wished to go. The day on which the First Lord of the Treasury put his Notice on the Paper, The Times wrote—
    "Since the proposal has been made on behalf of the Government, we may say at once that we are prepared to accept it, provided it is so far framed as to embrace the whole mass of facts in our charges."
    Not a word about "allegations." But, perhaps, in the course of those interesting interviews which had been held between the First Lord of the Treasury and Mr. Walter and Sir Richard Webster, the counsel for Mr. Walter, they had changed their minds. At any rate, The Times was willing to go before the Commission on the basis of its charges. The Times did not invite that "allegations" should be considered. He declared that the Government, having now so far committed themselves to a policy of pursuit and attempted destruction of Irish Members, had endeavoured to carry their inquiry beyond the scope of the charges themselves.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 265; Noes 200: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 247.)
    MR. R. T. REID&c.)said, he rose to move the insertion in page 1, line 18, after the word "allegations," of the words "of complicity with murder or violence." As the provision of the clause stood, it was incumbent upon the Commissioners to inquire into and report upon all the charges and allegations that were made in the course of the pro-

    857
    ceedings in connection with the action of "O'Donnell v. Walter," and there was no power, as he read the clause, to enable the Commissioners to limit themselves to any particular class of charges or allegations—whenever charges or allegations were made they must be inquired into and reported upon. That imposed upon each Member of the House the duty of investigating what were those charges and allegations, and the duty, for that purpose, of scrutinizing all the lengthy statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General on behalf of The Times in that proceeding. He had endeavoured to do that to the best of his ability, and he had endeavoured to classify the different kinds of charges and allegations, with the view of seeing what it really was that the Judges would be asked to investigate, and he found that they came under three classes. The first class consisted of charges of complicity with murder and violence, by speeches, by letters, by silence, by underhand communications with men on both sides of the Atlantic—charges made by the hon. and learned Attorney General in the course of his speech in the most definite and, at the same time, in the most vehement form. Now, these were charges which he, for one, heartily desired to see investigated; they were charges which had poisoned the political life of that House for the last 12 months or more—ever since they had been brought forward—and they were charges which were regarded by the people of the country as the only charges of any importance at all which had been made by The Times. There were other considerations connected with them. No one could conceal that they related to the most frightful form of crime; no one could conceal that the Judges were pre-eminently qualified to deal with charges of this character, both by their training and experience. They might be disposed of within a reasonable compass of time, so that ruinous costs might not be imposed on hon. Gentlemen who had to defend themselves; and it was those charges which he proposed should be the subject of investigation by Her Majesty's Judges. But there were other charges and allegations contained in the very voluminous speech of the Attorney General. It was said that hon. Members and the National League aimed at the confiscation of
    858
    landlord's property. That was laid down in the speech of the Attorney General; and it raised a very acute political contest. It had been a subject familiar in their debates during the last 18 months, whether the National League or hon. Members desired to plunder the landlords, or desired to prevent them plundering their tenants; it had been made the subject matter of several Blue Books, and of many speeches throughout the country, and he desired to point out that, if Her Majesty's Judges as Commissioners were to be expected to report on questions of that character, they would have to undertake an investigation of the Land Question in Ireland in all its length and breadth. Unless all this was considered by them, they would not be able to give a satisfactory answer on the charges made. Every reason which he had before urged in favour of leaving the first charge to the consideration of the Commissioners he would use against these charges being so left. In the first place, the country would not attach the smallest importance to the finding of three learned Judges on anything relating to the Land Question; the inquiry had to be interminable; he saw no possible means of limiting it within a reasonable compass. He was not speaking in any sense of disrespect to the Judges; but he thought that if the House put before them a question involving social and economical consideration such as he had adverted to, it was the last question on which they should be invited to express any judicial opinion. Again, when these great instruments of inquisition were set up, as they had been once in about seven or eight years, it was generally for the purpose of getting to the bottom of deeds admittedly nefarious, which both sides of the House agreed in denouncing as wicked and outrageous. Now, it was obvious that the use of dynamite or the dagger was hopelessly wicked, and had been condemned by all honest men, and the opinion he was perfectly certain was held as much on that side of the House as upon the other; but when they came to the consideration of the legality of the Plan of Campagn or Boycotting, the case was entirely different. Boycotting must be one of the most cruel and odious practices that could be conceived; but he could also understand it existing in

    859
    a comparatively innocent form, as it did in some parts of his own constituency, where it had been the subject of complaint, but he had not been associated with intimidation. Now, that second class of charges, he submitted, ought not to be in any sense introduced into an inquiry of this nature. Then there was a third class of charges and allegations which the fertile instructions of the hon. and learned Attorney General enabled him to put forward. He said that he charged the Nationalist Party with the object of separation of Ireland from Great Britain and the dismemberment of the Empire. He said—
    "It is proved up to the hilt that the Irish conspiracy is one and indivisible, and that it is manipulated in all its branches by the avowed enemies of the Empire, that it is inspired from top to bottom with the desire for complete self-separation from this country;"
    and he pictured Mr. Parnell as grasping Mr. Gladstone with one hand and Ford and O'Donovan Rossa with the other. With regard to the last sentence he (Mr. B. T. Reid) supposed that meant that Mr. Parnell was guilty of complicity with murder and violence; and if so, it involved charges of the character which the Amendment he was now proposing would not prevent coming within the cognizance of the Commissioners. But did hon. Gentlemen opposite really think that this question could be fairly submitted to a Commission in the form of three Judges—namely, whether it was true that this Irish conspiracy—that was to say, this Irish agitation—was from top to bottom moved by the desire to effect complete separation from England? Was that a question which it was possible for a tribunal such as they were setting up to investigate, or in respect of which it should be asked to report? Did any human being in the country believe that the Report would be accepted as final? It meant nothing more or less than that they were asking the Judges, who were suitable instruments for investigating crime or the participation in it, to involve themselves in the details of discussions in that House on subjects which were controversial, and perhaps the subject of a political struggle that would have hereafter to be settled. It was for these reasons that he desired to limit the words of the clause in the manner which he had indicated. As he
    860
    had said, the first class of crimes could be investigated if that Amendment were admitted; the Commissioners could inquire into and report upon charges and allegations of complicity with murder or violence. Every suggestion of connivance with fomenting or approval of murder or violence would come within the terms of the Bill. If it was suggested that hon. Members, even short of making themselves responsible to the Criminal Law, had been by direct or indirect act guilty of complicity with crime such as he had indicated, then it would remain open to the Commission to investigate the circumstance. He put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it was not their desire as English Gentlemen that when these Members of the House were sent before the three Commissioners to investigate their conduct, they should have four-fold justice. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had said the other night, they did not ask any favour, but simply fair dealing. If these hon. Members were tried before any jury of their countrymen, the Government would not be allowed for one moment to enter into any one question that had not been put forward against them; if they were sent to be tried criminally for the offence of being guilty of complicity with murder or violence, or anything of that kind, as every Chairman of Quarter Sessions knew, the prosecution would not be allowed to enter upon a political, social, or economical question; they would be allowed to enter upon nothing whatever that did not bear strictly on the charges made. Hon. Gentlemen, he was sorry to say, had suggested in the course of this debate that hon. Members on that side of the House were desirous of limiting the scope of the inquiry, and he regretted to observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary thought fit to echo that sentiment. What did they desire in limiting the scope of that inquiry? It was a most unfair and untrue charge to say that they desired in any sense to limit the scope so as to exclude from consideration those things which honest men desired to have considered. It was an unfair thing to charge them with desiring to limit the scope of the inquiry, because they desired to place upon it bounds which would make it a fair inquiry; they sought to put in the Bill such words as would

    861
    make it clear that complicity with murder and violence was the charge made by The Times and echoed by Members on the Ministerial Benches. He wished to exclude those social, political, and economical questions which were not suitable for the consideration of Judges, and therefore he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, after the word "allegations," to insert the words "of complicity with murder or violence."—(Mr. Robert Reid.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he certainly agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member just now; but when he looked through the Amendments on the Paper, he found that their object was to limit and contract inquiry. He could not, indeed, find one Amendment which had not that tendency. With reference to the arguments which had been used in support of the Amendment, he pointed out that they had all been brought before the House more than once in the discussions on the Bill, and also last year, when the Government were asked to bring all the charges made before a Special Committee. The Government had proposed to refer them to this Commission to inquire into and report in consequence of the desire expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but now he found that Amendment after Amendment was put down on the Paper with no other purpose but to limit, cut down, and restrain the inquiry, and confine it to certain particulars. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R. T. Reid) would know well that if these words were introduced objections would be taken to questions on the ground that they went beyond the terms of reference, and every moment there would be some objection taken by those who were interested in checking and stifling this inquiry. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, what the Government referred to the Commission was the whole matter that had been charged. What unfairness was there in that? The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R. T. Reid), who had not been able to find anything unfair in the reference, had conjured up certain ideas from his imagination. He ventured to say that the Committee would deny that the proceedings in
    862
    "O'Donnell v. Walter and another" would bring before the Commission such questions as the confiscation of landlord's property or capital, the payment of rent, or the Plan of Campaign. He had read these matters with some diligence, and he could only say that nothing of that sort would be referred to the Commission under the proceedings of this Act. There was no doubt that some passing allusions to these subjects might be made; it would be difficult to deal with Irish matters without such allusions. He distinctly challenged the hon. and learned Member to produce passages which referred to economical political questions or to the Plan of Campaign. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the question of Home Rule would be referred to. But would anybody read these articles with a candid and fair mind, and say that it was imputed that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway were in favour of Home Rule measures. [An hon. MEMBER: Certainly.] He had read the account of these proceedings with some care, and he could find nothing of the kind. He could hardly fancy that anyone would suggest that The Times had been so foolish as to make charges against hon. Members below the Gangway, that they had shared opinions which many illustrious Members of that House had first taught them. He did not mean to say that in the course of these proceedings there might not be some passing allusion to the history of the Home Rule movement, but he did say there was no possibility for any fair man to suggest that the question of Home Rule was made a matter of charge or allegation or complaint against a Member of that House or any other person.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the words of the Attorney-General were—"The object of the movement was, and is, the complete separation of Ireland and England."
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that was neither a charge nor an allegation that involved the examination of the Home Rule policy. But he took issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and said that no sensible Commissioners reading these articles or proceedings would trouble their heads or allow any others to trouble themselves with these economical, political, or social questions; they would put them aside in a few

    863
    moments. The hon. and learned Member wanted to confine the inquiry to complicity with murder or violence; but was arson a matter which he thought of no moment, together with threatening and intimidation, with all the horrors of the Moonlight gang? All that would be shut out by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Member would restrict the inquiry of the Commission to complicity with murder and violence, but threats and intimidation, however culpable they might be, and however much terrorism might have been created, were to be shut out. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a master of language, and he had chosen words of plausible appearance, but only with the object of strangling this inquiry. No one knew better than the hon. and learned Member that complicity with murder and violence was only half the charge. It was connivance, condonation, and collusion that were charged. It was of necessity that they should know once for all whether it was true or false that a political Party in this county was in close alliance with a Party of crime. He said it was not complicity with murder for a person to have allied himself with, or to have taken advantage of the help of, or accepted money from men who were murderers and guilty of crime in Ireland. Those were the allegations made from which hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to clear themselves, but all of which would be shut out by the Anendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that those Amendments went on one ground—namely, to confine the scope of the inquiry; but to limit the inquiry to the least, so as to shut out the matters referred to. They would be steadily refused by the Government.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had listened with astonishment to the very extraordinary statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) would exclude arson. Certainly not. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would say that arson would be included under the head of violence. If the right hon. Gentleman denied that the Commission would take that view,
    864
    all that he would say was that his idea of the intelligence of the Commission was vastly inferior to that which anyone else had conceived. Was it not trifling with the Committee to say that complicity with murder or violence would not include the crime of arson. That was a matter on which, not being a lawyer, he would not express a dogmatic opinion; but he said that, as a matter of common sense, it must be supposed that the crime of arson would not be excluded. But if the Government fancied that it would not be included, by all means let them put the crime into the Bill. No one wanted to exclude from the Bill the charge of complicity with crime, in any shape or form, on the part of any Member of the House, using the term as legally understood, and not with reference to crime as created by Coercion Acts. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Home Rule and rent movements in Ireland would not come under the Bill. But he could understand that the right hon. Gentleman would have an objection to any exhaustive inquiry into the Home Rule movement; because the first thing which would be inquired into would be the circumstance that at one time the right hon. Gentleman was not only a Member of the Home Rule body, but actually a generous subscriber to the Home Rule movement. He thought he saw the right hon. Gentleman wince under the charge of the hon. and learned Attorney General, quoted by an hon. Gentleman, that Mr. Parnell had held hands with O'Donovan Rossa on one side and Mr. Gladstone on the other. Now, the one man in this House who owed his entrance into political life to O'Donovan Rossa was the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews). Why, oven in these days of perfidious tergiversation, was it not too indecent that this Bill, charging Members with complicity with O'Donovan Rossa, should be brought into the House by a man who came into politics under the patronage of O'Donovan Rossa? He could quite understand the delicacy which the right hon. Gentleman had lest the Home Rule movement of O'Donovan Rossa should be brought into this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman made an astonishing statement; he said there was no allusion amounting to a charge or allegation in The Times with regard to the Home Rule movement.

    865
    His hon. Friend had read a sentence which, standing alone, would justify his contention that the Bill, as it stood, and the articles as written, would lead to a discussion on the Home Rule movement. What did The Times say? It said that the Irish Members and their associates elsewhere were engaged in a movement, the fundamental purpose of which was separation between England and Ireland. Was that not a political question? That was the cry by which hon. Gentlemen opposite were constantly appealing for support in the country. They said that the statement that the Irish Members and the Irish people would be satisfied with such a measure as was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was a false statement, and that what was really aimed at was separation. They said further that, even if the Irish Members did not mean separation, such legislation as was proposed by the Liberal Leader would unquestionably lead ultimately to separation. These were opinions which might be held, he did not think by rational men, but by hon. Gentlemen opposite; and he did not at all question their right to hold such opinions and to preach them, if they liked. But was it not a monstrous absurdity that matters of political speculation like these should be brought before three learned Judges for decision? In the first place, he should say they were not matters for the Judges to inquire into at all; and, secondly, that if they did decide upon them, their opinion would not be worth one penny more than the opinion of the first man he met in the street. They were experts in evidence and law, and not experts in political speculation. The Times, all through, had been preaching that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) meant separation, and had always meant separation. That statement was made over and over again in the course of the articles; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary must really not have read the articles at all, or must have read them so superficially as not to understand their bearing, when he stated that the Home Rule movement would not be brought into this matter. What justification had the right hon. Gentleman for saying they wanted unfairly to limit the inquiry? They wanted to bring into relief the charges
    866
    upon which the country was really interested. Who, in the name of Heaven, cared to debate before a Commission of Judges whether or not a certain speech delivered eight or nine years ago was or was not calculated to lead to a disturbance of the peace? If it was any satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues and his Party to think that certain speeches made by his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) hon. Friends and himself did tend to a disturbance of the peace of the country, they were perfectly welcome to that opinion; but what was protested against was that questions of inference and speculation should be sent to the Judges for the purpose of obscuring the real issue. Now, what was the real issue? It was that they had been accomplices with perpetrators of murders and violence. It was said that they wanted to shuffle out of the inquiry because, instead of letting these things, which were the real gravamen of the offences, be submerged in irrelevant and speculative matter, they wanted them to be put in the Bill, and in that way to have them enforced upon the immediate and prompt attention of the Commission. If he were to imitate the strong language of the right hon. Gentleman, he should say that the Government and The Times were running away from the real charges. He pointed out upon the second reading that the matter upon which the mind of the country was fixed was the authenticity of the letters attributed to the hon. Member for Cork. He was glad to find the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Sydney Gedge) took exactly the same view as himself, and he was more delighted still to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) also took the same view. He regretted, however, to find that the right hon. Gentleman's view slightly altered last Saturday; but then he never did expect the right hon. Gentleman to be consistent for four days in succession. The case before the House turned more upon the letters than upon any other question. So far as the general statements in Parnellism and Crime were concerned, he and his hon. Friends regarded them as so very irrelevant, very ancient, and very speculative, that up to the last two or three days he and other Members who were directly

    867
    charged in the articles never took the trouble to read them, thinking that the penny was better in their pockets than expended on the articles. For his part, he never read the articles with any attention until these debates began in the House. The country did not care about the general attacks on Irish Members; and as to hon. Gentlemen opposite, he thought that they, of all others, ought to try and take the general charges out of the scope of the inquiry, because those general charges were made years ago—were made at a time when the Irish Members were going night after night into the same Lobby with them—when they, with the aid of the Irish Members, were embarrassing the Liberal Administration of the day. Those charges were made at a time when hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been in a hopeless minority were it not for the constant assistance, both in debate and division, they received from the Members against whom these charges were made. If these charges were true, the guilt of association with the Irish Members must fall upon hon. Gentlemen opposite. The country wanted to know whether Irish Members had been accomplices in crime either by complicity or condonation; and he held that the word condonation was included in the Amendment. What was said upon this question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain)? It was true it was nearly a week ago, therefore he did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to agree with it now. The right hon. Gentleman said—"If hon. Members say, 'we shall be satisfied if you propose to inquire into the charges of The Times, into our connivance with crime, into our complicity with crime, into our condonation with crime,' it appears to me we ought not to stickle as to words. These are, I feel, the matters into which the Government want investigation, and these are the questions it would be proper to enter into." He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) accepted that statement. If condonation, in a guilty sense, was not included in complicity, his hon. Friend, he was sure, would be willing to accept an Amendment including it. What his hon. Friend objected to, and what they objected to, was that they should deluge them with a lot of charges as to the tendencies and re-
    868
    sults of their speeches, and that thereby they should drag out the inquiry and hide and obscure from the public mind the practical, narrow, and real issue—namely, whether they were or were not accomplices in crime and outrage.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he was unwilling to prolong the discussion on this Amendment, and if it stood by itself he should certainly not undertake to do so. But this Amendment appeared to him to be eminently a representative Amendment; it was evidently framed with great care and legal knowledge, and had the same object in view as a great mass of Amendments on the Paper, that object being to limit and cramp the scope of this inquiry. He was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) speak of this inquiry as absolutely without precedent. He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that an inquiry of his kind had never previously been embarked upon, because the inquiry was aimed at the conduct of individual persons. Reference had been made in the course of the debate to two precedents, to the precedent of the Board of Works inquiry, and to the precedent of the Sheffield Trades Unions investigation. No hon. Gentleman appeared, however, to have thought of a far more analogous precedent, as it appeared to him—namely, the precedent of the inquiries into alleged corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections. These inquiries concerned Members of Parliament and other persons, and appeared to him to be upon all fours with the inquiry contemplated by this Bill. He would not refer to inquiries before Election Commissioners, which had resulted in the establishment of allegations of gross corruption; he would refer to inquiries which had terminated in a sense satisfactory to Members of the House. He saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was apparently doing him the honour to take interest in what he was saying.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: You are entirely wrong.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERwas very sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby should have met with so prominent a rebuff so near at his hand, because the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) raised his

    869
    hat in acquiescence in the observation that he was paying attention to his (Mr. James Lowther's) remarks, and was immediately and promptly contradicted by his Leader. What he was proposing to refer to was the inquiry into alleged corrupt practices in the Parliamentary Election at Oxford; an inquiry which was general in its character, and extended over a very wide field. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had an opportunity of conclusively proving, to the entire satisfaction of the Commissioners, his innocence of any complicity whatever in the charges made, and he had the satisfaction of displaying to the world at large his absolute guiltlessness of anything of the kind. He mentioned that as a case where a Member of the House of Commons was enabled to clear himself creditably before a Commission of this kind. Hon. Gentlemen had repeatedly said that this inquiry, if it was conducted in the way proposed in the Bill, would lead to injustice to individuals. As a matter of fact, what those who supported this Bill wanted was that the inquiry should be complete and thorough, and that if, as they trusted, hon. Gentlemen who sat in the House of Commons could prove they were absolutely free from any share in guilt, they should have an opportunity of establishing their innocence before this tribunal. It had, he thought, been too often said that this was a question which really affected the hon. Member for Cork, and those who were more immediately associated with him. He (Mr. James Lowther) ventured to think that the quarter of the House from whence emanated just now the very candid and straightforward interruption was more interested, if possible, than the hon. Member for Cork. What was the position that the right hon. Gentleman the Member Mid Lothian and his immediate surrounding occupied with regard to this subject? He did not wish to make use of any simile which could be in any shape or form offensive, and he would venture to compare the right hon. Gentleman in this connection with a person who was following a very honourable and respectable calling—namely, that of a pawnbroker. Suppose a charge was made against a pawnbroker for having received goods knowing such goods to have been stolen. He was as-
    870
    suming that the pawnbroker was highly respectable, and could conclusively show that his antecedents were above reproach, and that he had always denounced malpractices, and that throughout his career not a single syllable could be uttered associating him with crime. But if it transpired that the person who was alleged to have brought stolen goods to his premises had been more than once laid by the heels at his instance, if it could be proved that his legal advisers had described him, acting on their instructions from him, as steeped to the lips in crime, and that throughout many years past he had pointed at that person as a person to whom the eye of the law should be specially turned, such a man would, at any rate, have an object in having his connection with that person relieved from any possible suspicion. He (Mr. James Lowther) maintained that a person occupying that position, although his antecedents were absolutely irreproachable, would very likely find himself before a disbelieving jury, and forced into a position which might enable him, if he had an entire absence of dignity, and no sense whatever of the ridiculous, to go about the country complaining that he was not allowed to wear his own trousers. He would not pursue the simile any further. What he wanted to do now was to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that if they were to go into all these Amendments, which really bad one and the same object in view, their discussions would be almost limitless. What he thought the House had by a large majority decided upon was that an inquiry should be held with a view, once and for all, of clearing up these matters. The tribunal selected was, as he thought, analogous in its main features to the tribunals which had been appointed to conduct inquiries into certain Parliamentary Elections. Those inquiries had resulted, he thought, in a manner most satisfactory to certain hon. Members of the House, and he trusted the Commission would not be led aside by any argument that departed from the broad principle of conducting this inquiry, and enabling it to be conducted in a full, free, and comprehensive manner, without any limitation whatever.
    MR. ASHER&c.)said, he agreed with what had been said by the

    871
    right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. James Lowther) that this was a representative Amendment. The discussion upon the Amendment would afford an opportunity of ascertaining what was the exact line of division between the two sides of the House with regard to the scope and purpose of the present inquiry. On the Opposition side of the House he believed there was a unanimous feeling that the inquiry to be instituted before this Commission should be for the purpose of discovering whether the allegations as to complicity with crime on the part of Members of this House were well founded or not. On the other hand, it appeared that the general desire of hon. Members opposite was to make use of this Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the political character of the movement in Ireland. If anything were wanted to establish that fact, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Lowther) would have afforded conclusive evidence in that direction, because it appeared to him (Mr. Asher) that every sentence the right hon. Gentleman uttered demonstrated that his object and desire—and he presumed that of the right hon. Gentleman's Friends also—was to use the Commission for the purpose of going into matters political rather than criminal. The right hon. Gentleman said he desired this inquiry should be complete and thorough, and he (Mr. Asher) cordially echoed that desire. But it appeared to him that the very first condition of a complete and thorough, and, he might add, satisfactory inquiry, was that they should have the limits and the scope of the inquiry properly and accurately defined. The proposal of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Reid) was that there should be added to the words "charges and allegations," the words "of complicity with murder or violence." Now, suppose there never had been any charge made against any Member of the House of complicity with murder or violence, would they ever have heard of the proposal which was at present before the Committee? Suppose the only allegations had been that they were connected with the Home Rule movement in Ireland, certain proceedings of which all right-minded people disapproved, would they ever have heard it suggested that
    872
    there should be a Commission of this nature? Was there ever a political movement of this character in any part of the world in connection with which certain matters did not occur which everybody was prepared to condemn? It was impossible for anyone to take part in any political movement which had connected with it any such proceedings without making the suggestion possible that there was some link of connection between the two extremes of the movement. But what the country—and he apprehended a great number of hon. Members of the House—desired an inquiry into was, the clear and distinct and specific charges of complicity with crime on le part of certain Members of the House. He confessed that if the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department were well founded, and if the words of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Reid) were not broad enough to include cases of arson, he should be disposed to advise his hon. and learned Friend to change his Amendment so that it would include such cases. Personally, he was quite in favour of the Commission being charged with the investigation of everything which could properly be described as crime or complicity with crime; and he had no hesitation in saying—speaking with some experience of the investigation of such matters—that the very first condition of a satisfactory inquiry in regard to a matter of this sort was that they should define specifically what the scope of the inquiry should be. If the opinion of the House was that the Commission should confine its attention to the investigation of complicity with crime, most certainly that ought to be stated distinctly in the Bill creating the Commission. The point which was raised by the Amendment was simply this—was the Commission to be constituted for the purpose of investigating charges and allegations generally, or charges and allegations of crime or complicity with crime? Charges and allegations meant charges and something which were not charges; but if they were going to stop there and not to qualify the words at all, but simply make them read as charges and allegations contained in a speech extending over several days was that fair

    873
    to the tribunal or fair to the parties who were to come before the tribunal? How could the parties possibly tell what was the thing they had to meet? The broad point raised by the Amendment was whether this Commission was to be constituted for the purpose of investigating alleged complicity with crime. If that broad doctrine were once accepted, he could hardly doubt that both sides of the House would easily agree upon words which would give effect to that view. The words which stood in the Bill in contrast to the Amendment were so vague and indefinite as to leave it absolutely uncertain what they meant; whereas the Amendment did qualify those words so as to make them plainly mean charges and allegations of crime or complicity with murder or violence. He hoped the Committee would look at this matter from a judicial point of view—that they would accept, atleast, some modification, if they did not accept the particular words of the Amendment, which would, undoubtedly, limit the scope of the inquiry to charges and allegations of complicity with crime or with violence.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I have already spoken upon this Amendment, and all I wish to do now is to take the opportunity of stating that the statement which fell from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) with regard to O'Donovan Rossa having had to do with my entrance into public or political life is absolutely unfounded.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to repeat in the most positive manner my statement that the right hon. Gentleman entered life under the patronage of O'Donovan Rossa and his party. The circumstances under which the right hon. Gentleman entered political life are these. Mr. Serjeant Barry was at the time Crown Prosecutor for the then existing Government. In the course of his speeches as Crown Prosecutor against certain Fenian prisoners he made some charges which greatly exasperated the Fenian Party. He stood for the town of Dungarvan immediately after making the charges. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews)—then an English lawyer—absolutely ignorant of Ireland, came over to Dungarvan, took advantage of the exasperation then
    874
    produced amongst the Fenians, was introduced by a Catholic priest to the Fenian leaders at Dungarvan, posed as a violent Nationalist—[An hon. MEMBER: Violent?] I use the word advisedly, for it was the strength of his opposition that got the right hon. Gentleman the full support of every Fenian in Dungarvan, and so he entered public life.
    MR. MATTHEWS: What has just fallen from the hon. Member is absolutely inaccurate. It is perfectly true that I entered political life as Member for Dungarvan in 1868. It is perfectly true that my opponent was Mr. Serjeant Barry. It is true that Mr. Serjeant Barry was counsel in a case against certain Fenian prisoners, and that he had exasperated against him the whole of those who were either Fenians or sympathizers with the Fenian movement. It is perfectly true that certain persons, not Fenians—[Laughter.]—I do not think any of them were Fenians, not one to my knowledge—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—well, I will repeat what I say, and I think I know as much about Dungarvan in 1868 as any other hon. Member. I knew every man in the constituency of Dungarvan, from my chief supporter, Lord Waterford, down to the lowest of the electorate—down to the most advanced Nationalist of the electorate. I had constant and familiar relations with persons then holding positions in the Fenian organization. I am perfectly prepared to avow every word I said, and every act I did. Those people did give me a certain amount of support in the election. They did it not—as they said most honestly in their speeches and in the Press—on account of my merits, but on account of my demerits. [Laughter.] Well, that is a slip of the tongue; I meant to say the demerits of Mr. Serjeant Barry. The instant I was elected The Irishman—which I think was an advanced Nationalist paper—described me in the contemptuous language which is commonly used by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite towards such Gentlemen as myself. For instance, they said that any stick was good enough to beat a dog with, and that I had been used as a Tory stick with which to beat Mr. Sergeant Barry. With regard to O'Donovan Rossa I never saw him, I never heard of him, and I never came across

    875
    him in any kind of way. He had nothing more to do with my election than the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he proposed, in a few words, to close the debate upon the Amendment which was now before the Committee, and those few words would be spoken more out of respect to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary than because there was any real necessity to restate the position of the Government in regard to the matter. He was somewhat surprised to hear from so fair a reasoner and political combatant as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher) the statement that there were two sides to this matter—that one side wished to confine the inquiry to considerations of crime and wrong; and that the other side wished to extend it to the discussion of political matter. That accusation was entirely unfounded. There was not the smallest desire on the Ministerial side of the House to set up a Commission for the discussion of political topics. This was not a Commission which was being instituted at the desire and wish of those who sat on the Government Benches. It was plain that this tribunal had been framed for the consideration of matters which were quite distinct and separate from the controversies of their political life; matters which involved wrong-doing of some kind or other. With regard to the Amendment, he would like the Committee to recollect that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asher) had not denied that the words of the Amendment were words of a narrowing character. It had been pointed out that they would exclude, for instance, cases of arson. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not challenge that statement, but said that if the words did exclude arson, he would be prepared to amend the Amendment so that it might include arson. There was another objection to the Amendment, and it had been admitted by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. That hon. Gentleman said that complicity included connivance with and condonation of crime. He (Sir Edward Clarke) disputed that proposition.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that what he said was, that if the words of the Amendment did not include that,
    876
    he had no doubt his hon. and learned Friend would amend his Amendment, so that it should do so.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman had waited, he (Sir Edward Clarke) would have closed his sentence by pointing out that he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) as well as the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Asher) proposed an Amendment upon the Amendment, and that therefore they both admitted that the Amendment, which the Committee was now asked to vote for, would in itself have a limiting effect. Suppose the words were amended so as to include arson, so as to make complicity include condonation of and connivance with crime. What about intimidation? That was not included in either the Amendment or the proposed Amendment to it No. 1, or the proposed Amendment to it No. 2, and the Amendment would have to be a third time amended in order to include intimidation, which, of course, was a thing which must be included if the Commission was really to deal with the series of questions contained in the articles in The Times and in the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. The speeches of the advocates of the Amendment had shown the Committee conclusively that the Amendment itself would be one which would have a narrowing effect. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asher) that this was a representative Amendment. The Government desired an inquiry into all the matters alleged in the course of the proceedings. They declined to limit the inquiry by leaving out any of the matters from the consideration of the Commissioners, and they objected to, and would resist, any Amendment the intention of which, or the effect of which, either intended or not intended, would be to limit the inquiry and exclude any such matters from the consideration of the Committee.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he quite agreed that this was a most important and governing Amendment, and as such they regarded it. It was so important and so governing an Amendment that if on the Opposition side of the House they had had the least notion or conception or shadow or idea that it would have been rejected by the majority of the House, it was probable that the second

    877
    reading of the Bill would have been a very different affair. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman on his left the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) laughed; but the right hon. Gentleman, at a critical time of the debate on the second reading, made a speech of admirable rhetorical effect, the best speech he had heard even from the right hon. Gentleman since the first speech he made in the House, which anyone who heard it would never forget. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was the turning point in the debate on the second reading. He understood—and he thought everyone else understood—the right hon. Gentleman to propose two Amendments of very great importance, the first of which was to limit the inquiry to—he used the word very broadly—murder, and crimes of violence. Many of them—those of them especially who were exceedingly anxious to have this inquiry for the honour of the House of Commons, and for the honour of public life—had been considering very carefully how the inquiry might best be limited; and when the right hon. Gentleman made the suggestion that he did make, they felt that it was worthy of his knowledge of Public Business and of the House of Commons. That suggestion was received in a manner which satisfied them that not only their side of the House, but the House of Commons as a whole, was prepared to limit the inquiry to complicity with, and condonation of, murder and crimes of violence; and they felt that all the more because this was not a question in which the Opposition side of the House, or the House of Commons generally, was interested, but it was a question in which the country at large was interested. What the country at large wanted to know was whether there was any truth in the charges; and the only charges that it cared anything about were the charges against hon. Members of the House that they had been concerned, more or less directly, with murder and with murderous crimes. If there were any other crimes, crimes real or imaginary, which required to be inquired into—and they had heard first one and then another named until at last they had come down to intimidation—could they forget that at this moment there was a Crimes Bill under which, whether justly or not, hon. Members in great numbers not only could but were
    878
    being actually punished severely for crimes of unlawful assembly and intimidation? Some hon. Members had gone still further. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. James Lowther)—who, he was sure, as a private individual, they were all very glad to welcome back again to the House—in a speech which reminded him strongly of the fact that he actually was responsible for the government of Ireland during the most critical of all periods in that country, plainly showed that he wished that the Commissioners should actually take cognizance of purely political questions as between Irish Members and men who were not returned to Parliament at all. The fact was, if the Bill were left in its present state, there would be sent to this Commission of Judges an immense mass of allegations, allegations some of which had already been read to the House, allegations which bore upon questions that everyone regarded as purely political; but if this Amendment were passed, then it would be laid down as the opinion of the House of Commons that this unusual and extraordinary step of appointing a Commission of Judges had been taken for the only purpose that the House had a right to take it—for the great and cardinal purpose of determining whether a number of brother Members of the House were or were not concerned in the crime of murder or crimes of violence. If hon. Members of the House had thought that the Commission was demanded for any other purpose, the second reading of the Bill would never have passed the House unanimously; and he would venture to say that if the House endeavoured to enlarge the scope of this inquiry beyond these charges, which were really the charges against hon. Members in the minds of all Members who believed either the writings in The Times or the speech of the hon. Gentleman which was referred to in the Bill, if the House went beyond these special charges, he would venture to say the House would not have the country with it.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had certainly paid him one of the greatest compliments he ever received in his life, for he had been good enough to tell the

    879
    House that upon an occasion he himself described as critical in reference to a measure, the importance of which he was well able to estimate, he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was fortunate enough to make a speech which enabled the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind. But for that speech it appeared doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman would have found himself able to support the second reading of the Bill. He was very glad to think that he had so much influence with the right hon. Gentleman, and he was encouraged to try his hand once more, and perhaps he might induce the right hon. Gentleman to vote against the Amendment before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not wish to chop words with him; but he wished the right hon. Gentleman and those who agreed with him would not chop his words, but quote them as they were delivered, and as they would be found reported in any newspaper. What he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) said on a previous occasion was, that it seemed to him there was a general agreement on both sides of the House as to the object of the inquiry, and nothing had been said in Committee, either in support of the Government or in opposition, that had altered that opinion in the slightest degree. He said the object of the inquiry was to find out—and he was speaking, not, of course, in legal language, but using a layman's language—to find out if hon. Members of the House and other persons had been guilty of crime, of complicity in crime, of connivance with crime, of condonation of crime, and he said it was no part of the object of the House to inquire into the Plan of Campaign or Boycotting, except so far as they were proof of complicity in crime. Now he said the same thing again, and if hon. Members could find any words that would carry out legally that meaning, which he believed was the meaning of the Government and of everyone who spoke in favour of the Bill, then they would find him ready to vote for them. But this Amendment did nothing of the kind. It proposed to confine the inquiry into charges and allegations of complicity with crime, and his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. T. Reid), who was a lawyer, went on to explain what he meant by the words. He said, by complicity with crime, he
    880
    meant by speech, by letters, by silence, and by communication with other persons here or in America. Well, but even that was not wide enough, though it was an immense deal wider than the Amendment. [Mr. R. T. REID: No.] Well, then let the hon. and learned Member put these words in, and he would show him, although he was not a lawyer, that his Amendment would not carry out the hon. and learned Member's own intention. His intention was that the inquiry should include complicity with crime by letter. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say it would be possible for the Commission to inquire into the first of the letters alleged to have been written by the hon. Member for Cork? [Mr. ANDERSON: Yes.] He did not put his question to the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson); he asked his hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment (Mr. R. T. Reid), and would take his explanation of the Amendment, and even his explanation of law, before that of the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn. The letter which was attributed by The Times to the hon. Member for Cork was a letter which certainly did not necessarily involve complicity with crime, and which could not be investigated if the charges were confined to complicity with crime; and, therefore, he said the effect of the Amendment would be to limit inquiry on a point the hon. Member for Cork said was one to which he attached prime importance. He wondered what his hon. and learned Friend meant by saying that in his Amendment was included complicity with crime by silence?
    MR. R. T. REIDasked to be allowed to explain. His right hon. Friend had fallen into a little misunderstanding, and very likely it was his (Mr. R. T. Reid's) own fault. What he said in stating his intention was, that The Times had charged the hon. Member with complicity with crime by speech, by letter, by silence, by underground communication, and so on; and what he thought he said, and certainly what he meant to say, was that his Amendment was designed to cover what he understood to be the effect of The Times' charges. That was what he meant.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend would find, when he saw the report of

    881
    his speech, that that was not what he did say. At all events, if that was what he meant to say, the Amendment would not carry out his intention, for it would exclude from inquiry a great portion of the charges made by The Times. If he did not intend that the speeches of hon. Members, letters of hon. Members, and their communications with other persons here and in America who had been guilty of crime, and their silence when silence involved condonation of crime—if he did not intend that these matters should be included, then the inquiry would be incomplete, and he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) would be no party to it. The limitation would exclude intimidation when it led to crimes such as arson and other forms of violence ordinarily understood, but not included in the legal definition. What he had to say upon the whole matter was, that the intention of the House was perfectly clear; and if lawyers could agree that any form of words could be adopted in the Bill which, while admitting to the full inquiry into all these points, incitement, condonation, and the various steps which led up to crime, and which, at the same time, would exclude unnecessary investigation into the Plan of Campaign and political agitation, however extreme, then he did not believe there would be any difference of opinion as to the adoption of such an Amendment. But, on the other hand, nothing could be more unwise than to introduce words of limitation that would prevent the inquiry being as complete and full as the country desired it should be.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he had been very unfortunate in dealing with the words of the right hon. Gentleman, because, really, the idea he had intended to convey in the Amendment was the idea to which expression had been given, or which he thought had been given, in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which he listened a few days before. Referring again to the reported words, he found that the right hon. Gentleman said, alluding to matters he desired to exclude from inquiry, he meant Boycotting, the Plan of Campaign, and political agitation—
    "Exclude these," he said, "by all means. I think matters of this sort are altogether irrelevant to the main object of inquiry. I do not see why the inquiry should not be confined to charges of real importance, affecting complicity
    882
    with crime by hon. Members, with crimes of personal violence and outrage.
    He (Mr. R. T. Reid) was very far from denying that his language was somewhat different from that of the right hon. Gentleman; but it differed in the sense that it was more comprehensive. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were "personal violence and outrage," while the Amendment referred to murder and complicity with murder or violence. He would not waste time in the discussion of mere words, but, for himself, would say frankly that, as his object appeared to be the same as the right hon. Gentleman had that night expressed, it would be a great pity if difference of language prevented their coming to an agreement on the subject. If it was the case—which he did not for a moment believe—that the Amendment was open to the criticisms—perhaps he might be permitted to say the verbal cavils of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—he was the last man to wish to exclude such an offence as arson. He did not believe it would be excluded. He hoped that it might be possible for the Government, with the assistance of their Legal Advisers, to suggest to-morrow the use of language which, while excluding what most of the House thought ought to be excluded, would not exclude matters of real crime as ordinarily understood.
    And it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL—MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN AND MR. T. P. O'CONNOR.

    CHARGE OF DISORDERLY EXPRESSION.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to call your attention to a personal incident. At the moment when the other debate was adjourned, according to the Standing Order, the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) made use of some expression of an offensive character, which he addressed to myself in the

    883
    House of Commons. He called me "Judas Chamberlain." The expression was subsequently repeated by the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar). I am very loth to take any notice of expressions of this kind, and I have often passed them over when they came from those Benches. But on the present occasion the insult was so marked that it appears to me that it is my duty to call your attention to the matter.
    MR. PARNELL: Sir, I rise to a point of Order. I wish to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has complained of an expression which he alleges was used towards himself by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, but which expression was not heard by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I can prove that the expression, or the alleged expression, was not heard by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and that he repeated it.
    Several hon. MEMBERS: We all heard it.
    MR. PARNELL: If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to listen to my point, my point of Order is that a complaint with reference to an opprobrious expression alleged to have been used by an hon. Member of this House, whether at the time you were in the Chair or not—as a matter of fact, I believe nobody was in the Chair—should be brought to your notice by a Member of this House who has heard the expression. I want to know, is it competent for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, or anybody else, to bring before you a complaint upon hearsay, which he does not know of his own knowledge?
    MR. SPEAKER: If an expression is used so that other Members of the House say that they heard it, my only course is to call upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool to say whether he did use the expression complained of.
    MR. PARNELL: My point of Order is that the complaint should be made to you, Sir, by some Member who heard the expression.
    MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to say that I heard the expression.
    MR. SPEAKER: The person most interested in this matter is the hon. Member against whom the opprobrious expression has been used, and if he brings a complaint before me while I am in the Chair it is my duty to take notice of it. I, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool whether he did use the expression?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes, Sir; I used the expression.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): On a question of Order, Sir, I wish to ask whether there is any provision for a report being made to you on what is alleged to have occurred otherwise than by the Chairman of Committees?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is immaterial. This was used during the transitional period between the Chairman leaving the Chair and my taking it. It is clearly just as improper that an expression of that kind should be used at that period as when I am in the Chair. The hon. Member for West Cavan has said that he used the expression.
    MR. PARNELL: The hon. Member for West Cavan did not use the expression.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I heard the hon. Member for West Cavan.
    MR. J. E. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham will corroborate what I am now going to say. The right hon. Gentleman seemed not to have heard the expression used by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, and he turned round to these Benches and asked—"What did he say?" and then, in answer to that question, the hon. Member for West Cavan, as I understood, said to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—"He said so-and-so." I venture to submit that the expression did not emanate from the hon. Member for West Cavan at all; it was in answer to a question from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I entirely corroborate what has just fallen from the hon. Member for North Wexford. My right hon. Friend and myself heard his name mentioned in a very loud tone

    885
    below the Gangway; but neither of us heard the expression with which it was accompanied. It was also accompanied by laughter. My right hon. Friend asked what it was, upon which the hon. Member for West Cavan said—"He called you Judas Chamberlain."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be a party to, nor do I think I should be justified, in prolonging this discussion; and, whatever may be my feelings on the subject, I admit I should not have used the expression in this House, and I now wish to withdraw it.
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. Gentleman expresses regret for having used the expression? I hope, therefore, the House will permit the matter to go no further.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes; you have rightly interpreted my language, Mr. Speaker.

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

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    DR. TANNERprotested against the Bill being read without some explanation of it being given, late though the hour was. He took serious objection to the method by which the Government tried to smuggle Bills through at the close of a Sitting. He was perfectly certain the country would not look with favour upon that attempt—for it was nothing less—to obtain money under false pretences.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, the hon. Member had evidently spoken under some misapprehension. The Bill simply gave effect to the Votes already passed by the House. It gave legal effect to the Votes in Supply, enabling the Government to use the money.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  BARROW DRAINAGE BILL.— [BILL 313.]
  (Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  BARROW DRAINAGE BILL.— [BILL 313.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
    DR. TANNERasked how much longer this farce was to continue? Night after night the Chief Secretary came to the House, and, knowing perfectly well that these Bills must be debated, yet after 12 o'clock he answered "now" when the Order was read, in order possibly that he might gain some spurious reputation for a desire to pass these Bills—[Cries of "Order!"] The Bills could not pass without discussion by Members representing constituencies interested, and that conduct of the right hon. Gentleman was most undignified for one in his position, though he was bound to admit that it was thoroughly characteristic.
    MR. MURPHYhoped the Government would give time for discussion, or else withdraw these Bills. The present Bill appeared in a version different to what Members were led to expect from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on the first reading, and it would certainly be a monstrous thing to attempt to pass it without discussion.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he was extremely interested to know what hon. Members had to say upon the Bill, and there was ample time—three-quarters of an hour—for a speech on the subject.
    MR. P. STANHOPEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, his followers, and his friends the Liberal Unionists, spoke as if there was a general agreement among English and Scotch Members on the principle of these Bills. But he (Mr. Stanhope) would venture to say they required very serious examination on the part of the House of Commons. They contained a principle which hitherto when developed, as it had been in several cases in public works in Ireland, had often resulted in serious loss to the Public Exchequer. He could not allow the impression to be created that only Members from Ire-

    887
    land were interested with these measures. It was proposed to grant over £300,000 to some parts of Ireland as a free gift, and as a first instalment of much larger sums; and yet the right hon. Gentleman, after midnight, in his usual jaunty manner, gave his customary nod, as if he alone had the authority to sanction that expenditure. Let the Government understand clearly that these Bills must be debated at great length, and that they contained a great deal of controversial matter in which not only Irish Members were seriously interested.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, as an inducement to the Government to put down these Bills for a time when they could be discussed, he might mention the fact that the Irish correspondent of The Times stated that the drift of engineering opinion in Ireland was that these schemes were radically bad.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, it was idle to assume that these measures affected Ireland only. In this instance a sum of £680,000 was involved, nearly half of it in the way of gift, the other half as a loan, which he was quite certain, seeing that the proposals were not made in a form satisfactory to Irish Members, would, in the end, be a loss to the National Exchequer. Not only Members on that side expressed opinions adverse to the policy of the Bill; the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself formulated the strongest possible objection to grants upon these lines, this recourse to the national cheque book whenever there was a question of the kind. Certainly the House would consider it was very desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should have the opportunity of corroborating these views, or show the causes that had induced his change of opinion. Nothing could be fairer than the demand for time for discussion. The House understood that these Bills were only the first instalment of a long series of measures in connection with public works in Ireland, and involving a much larger expenditure. £1,000,000 by loan or gift was a matter not to be trifled with in itself; and, moreover, it was setting up a precedent that might be fraught with dangerous consequences.
    MR. SPEAKER, interposing, said as the Bill had been objected to, and was
    888
    proposed to be deferred till to-morrow, debate now would be irregular.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  SOLICITORS' BILL [Lords].— [BILL 347.]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  SOLICITORS' BILL [Lords].— [BILL 347.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked, how it was the Bill appeared on the Paper marked as a Government Order? It was introduced in the other House by a Peer who was not a Member of the Government, and it had not been mentioned in the Government programme. He could assure the hon. and learned Attorney General that some of the clauses would meet with opposition; but what occasioned him some surprise was to find the Bill a Government measure, though the First Lord of the Treasury had given no intimation that the Government had taken it up.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, of course, he could not debate the subject-matter of the Bill; but he might explain that it was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Esher, because he happened to have the custody of the Roll to which the Bill referred. The Bill had been fully considered by the Profession of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was a distinguished ornament, and it was introduced with the approval of the Lord Chancellor.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  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, the Bill contained certain clauses known as the "mineral" clauses which had excited a good deal of opposition. These were inserted in "another place" against the wish of the promoters; and if the House would agree to take the second reading of the Bill, he would undertake that these obnoxious clauses should, so far as he was concerned, be omitted in Committee. The rest

    889
    of the Bill was mere machinery, and was not, he thought, objected to by the Government, or by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Wellington Division of Somersetshire (Mr. Elton).
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he did not think the Bill ought to be entertained at such a time.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (LOCAL BILLS) (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 351.]
  (Mr. Sexton, Mr. Murphy, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. O'Keeffe, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Peter M'Donald.)
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (LOCAL BILLS) (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 351.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, this Bill was introduced in deference to a suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a deputation that waited upon him a few days since, and it was intended to remove a disqualification that pressed hardly upon Corporations in Ireland, and the Bill applied to Corporations in Ireland a principle that for many years had been applied to Corporations in England. He would move that the Bill be read a second time.
    MR. JOHNSTONobjected.
    MR. SEXTON(who rose amid cries of "Order!") said, he had to move the postponement of the Bill till to-morrow, and, in doing so, he wished to say that if the pledge given by the responsible Financial Minister of the Government was to be thwarted by one of the right hon. Gentleman's followers he should not persist with the Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he certainly wished to keep his pledge, and to do his best to have the Bill passed. He did not know whether the Bill had been printed. Certainly it could not be expected to pass the second reading without being seen. The right hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) was correct in saying that the principle of the Bill had his approval.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—THE BLOCKING OF BILLS.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he wished to appeal to the Speaker on a point of Order. Owing to the practice which had grown up in the House of Members objecting when the Orders of the Day were read, it appeared to him the time between 12 o'clock and 1 was not utilized in the way the House intended when the Rule to close Opposed Business at 12 was adopted. He desired to ask the Speaker whether, supposing a Member who had charge of a Bill were allowed to make his statement after 12 o'clock, would that place Members who desired to oppose the measure in any worse position, or have less power of stopping Business after allowing this courtesy to a Member in charge of the Bill?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the object of the Rule referred to was to prevent Opposed Business being entered upon after 12 o'clock.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he must explain that his point was, whether a Member who objected to a particular measure would have less power to prevent it being proceeded with further, if, before objecting, he allowed the Member in charge to make his statement?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was perfectly right in his suggestion; an hon. Member would not, under such circumstances, lose his power of objecting.

  MOTIONS.
    EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1882 (BURGH OF CULROSS AND COUNTY OF PERTH ENDOWMENTS).

      MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
      MR. WALLACEsaid, his apology to the House for bringing on his Motion at an inconvenient hour was the importance of the subject in the locality interested, and the fact that the time wherein to take objection to the scheme was fast running out. He would confine his argument entirely to impugning the conformity of the scheme with the Act under which it was formulated. Into the policy of the Act he would not enter at all—he would simply ask the House to consider if the scheme before it complied with the Act.

      891
      He did not deny that, like many other schemes of the Commissioners, it did its best for secondary education, whether University or technical education, nor would he deny that this was good and necessary work, more particularly in the peculiar position in which secondary education was placed by the operation of the Elementary Education Act. But while the Commissioners had benefited education, and secondary education particularly, beyond the requirements of the Act to his mind, they had in this particular scheme, as they had in many others, forgotten to a considerable extent another most important requirement of the Act under which they drew up their scheme—that which demanded that when the founder of any educational endowment had expressly provided for the education of children belonging to the poorer class generally, or within a particular area, then the Commissioners should, so far as requisite, continue the application of the fund for the benefit of such children. The Act was clear and distinct, and, whatever might become of secondary education, these benefactions; should continue. But his contention in regard to this scheme was—and he was ready to think it was by oversight—that the Commissioners had forgotten the claims of poor children within a particular area. On the propriety of the Act itself he would not speak—he would take it as a thing "past praying for," as done, concluded, and beyond dispute; he only questioned compliance with the Act in this particular instance. He would accept this as due to accidental circumstances, and in reference to this he had questioned the Lord Advocate whether it was a fact that, owing to imperfect advertising, the inhabitants of the parish where the endowment was applied practically lost their statutory opportunity of lodging objections with the Scotch Education Department against the scheme? The Lord Advocate, of course, could only give the information supplied by his subordinates, and, to a certain extent, the information was correct. There were three advertisements, as required by the Act, in connection with any scheme framed by the Commissioners; one by the Commissioners, one by the Education Department in its central stage and another in its final stage. In regular course, no doubt, these advertise-
      892
      ments were published; but they were published in such a way that the people most interested would not, in the ordinary course of events, have seen the advertisements. The Lord Advocate said the advertisements were issued in newspapers published in the two towns west and east of the parish; but the newspapers had practically no circulation in the parish. It would be ridiculous for him to go into geographical details, nor did he know that even the Lord Advocate had any clear idea of the geography of the district; but he might as well have had a scheme interesting to South Norwood inserted in The Highgate Express or The Harrow Road Telegraph, or any local papers having no connection with the locality concerned. If the Commissioners or the Education Department had advertised in any of the Scotch papers circulating all over Scotland, such papers as The Scotsman, The Glasgow Herald, or The Scottish Leader, that circulated in every town and village, then there would have been a bonâ fide advertising of the scheme. But nothing of the kind was done, and, for all the publicity given among the people concerned, the Commissioners might as well have hung up a description of their scheme in their own dining rooms. The inhabitants of the parish did not know that such a scheme was in formation until it had been approved by the Education Department and all power of objection gone. No doubt, the managers of the endowments did receive an intimation from the Commissioners two or three years ago that such a scheme was going to be drawn up, and they did lodge objections which were taken into account; but the people of the parish were unaware until the time when the only resource open to them was a Petition to Parliament. It was a tedious subject for hon. Members generally at such an hour; but the House had a duty to perform, and he hoped, unless he was very unreasonable, hon. Gentlemen would be patient with him. His first contention was that the scheme was in the teeth of the letter and spirit of the Act. The endowment was known as the Geddes Trust, and combined with it in the scheme were the Bill's and Law's Mortifications and the Valleyfield Endowment; but these local terms had no significance for an Assembly like the

      893
      House of Commons. The principal trust in the group was the Geddes Trust. The Commissioners, in consolidating those funds, had done good work; they had saved a great deal of expense, and had accumulated a sum that under the spirit of the Act might be devoted to University or technical education. But from want of information the Commissioners had gone wrong. Take first the Geddes bursary. It was really a very good bursary of £30 a-year for students to attend the Universities or the higher seminaries for technical education, and in continuing that bursary and enlarging its scope the Commissioners had done well. But what were the conditions under which the founder established the bursary? They were four-fold; first, the holder was to be a native of the parish of Culross, his circumstances of life were to be those of poverty; he was to be born of parents unable from their situation in life to maintain him at the University; and his parents were to have lived in the parish for at least eight years. This being the terms of the deed of bequest, and the Act of 1882 declaring that where a founder provided for the education of poor children within a particular area effect should be given to the provision, how did the scheme of the Commissioners deal with the matter? They had done well in keeping the bursary at the yearly value of £30, and he did not object to its extension to technical education, though that was not exactly the founder's intention. Then the Commissioners went on to say the bursary should, first of all, be awarded after competitive examination, and this at once excluded a very large class of those whom the founder had in view. The Commissioners said there should be competitive examination among those who had been pupils in public or State-aided schools 12 months before the date of examination. There was no question of nativity or eight years' parental residence, and no condition in respect to a particular area, which was provided for in the Act and required by the founder's will. Any person from a neighbouring parish might come in and compete for the bursary, if only he could arrange so as to be called a pupil attending a public school within the parish for 12 months. There were in the neighbourhood good educational institutions, the town of Dunfermline was only
      894
      eight or nine miles off, where there was a good high school, and a youth educated there, qualifying himself simultaneously by what might pass for a 12 months' attendance at Culross, might carry off the bursary without fulfilling any of the conditions laid down by the founder. Did not this one instance prove his case sufficiently to justify the House in asking the Commissioners, who evidently had acted upon insufficient information, to take back and revise their scheme, making it conform to the Act and accord with the wishes of the founder? This was merely an initial instance. He would not deal so unreasonably with the House as to proceed with the case through all its length, breadth, and thickness; but he could show how similar errors had been committed in reference to the Bill's and Law's bursaries intended by the founders to be awarded in a similar manner, and which the Commissioners had dealt with in their similar manner, neglecting the geographical area intended to be benefited, and laying the advantages open to the whole world. Intended by the founders for the poor, these bursaries were of no use whatever to the poor. What was the use of offering a poor man, say, a £5 or £10 bursary for his son, in respect to higher education or technical education outside the place in which he resided? It was all very well for those resident in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, or a large town, where means for higher education were at hand; but what was the use of offering a poor man a small bursary, when he could not afford to send away his son to take advantage of it? The practical outcome of the arrangement would simply be that if the people in the parish would have a chance of the benefit, it would only be a chance with the people of other parishes, and probably it would be a help to the minister of the parish and others similarly situated. There happened to be two ministers in the parish he was referring to, for what reason he had never been able to discern, though he had been brought under the spiritual ministrations of both. The practical effect would be that the minister, or the doctor, the successful shopkeeper, or perhaps the postmaster, would be able to avail himself of these opportunities, and be able to send his son to a University town, or a place where he could get the benefit of technical education.

      895
      That would be a national benefit; no doubt the increase of the means of education necessarily benefited the nation, come in what shape it might; but then, he argued, that was not the intention of the founder of these donations; that was not according to the requirements of the Act of Parliament under which the Commissioners were appointed. He hoped the House would bear with him for two minutes more whilst he turned to another point out of the many upon which he could make remarks. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He did not take it upon him to protest against the impatience of the House in this matter; but he was bound to say that local charities and local endowments suffered in the House of Commons, and more particularly when they happened to be Scotch. He was perfectly well aware that, with regard to Scotch Business, Scotch Members were in the position of being despised by English Members. They had, however, long reconciled themselves to that fact. Among the numerous points that he might have adduced in connection with this scheme he would only particularize one more. If the Lord Advocate replied to him on other points, he should be able to meet him with the same brevity and conciseness as he had endeavoured to achieve in opening the case. With respect to the buildings, the land, and the endowments, that related to the consolidation and amalgamation of the different trusts, the Commissioners took power to impose certain duties upon the school board of the parish. One of these duties was that of selling one of the buildings. In order to secure a sufficient accommodation for the schooling of the parish, it was provided that the other school buildings should be enlarged so as to accommodate all the children in the parish. He regarded that as an imprudent arrangement, and as one which might have been avoided if the parish had been sufficiently consulted. It was a hard thing for the school board of a poor parish that, as a condition of accepting this settlement, it should be required to enlarge a particular building so as to accommodate all the children of the parish. It would be a hard thing even if the settlement were the best in the world. The parish was not an uncommonly small one. All the expense of making the enlargement would be
      896
      thrown upon it, and it would, at the same time, be under the duty of providing school accommodation for children in the parish who were beyond the statutory limit. He thought the Lord Advocate would bear him out in saying that under the Scotch Education Act the statutory limit was three miles, and that compulsory education could not be enforced beyond that limit. In this parish it so happened that there were a very large number of children who were more than four miles from the place where the school board, under this arrangement, would be compelled to provide school accommodation for all the children of the parish. They would still be under the obligation, however, of erecting another school beyond the three miles radius to accommodate the surplus. In conclusion, he had only to say that he was quite conscious of the difficulties under which a Member lay in trying to do justice to a matter of that kind in the House of Commons. This was, however, not his fault, but the fault of the constitution of the House in not providing for devolution. Gentlemen opposite looked with impatience at most things that concerned the interests of the people, and more particularly of the poor. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] No amount of interjection of the letter "O" would drive him out of that belief; but he thought the matter would be mended by-and-bye. It was the fault of the House itself that it should be called upon to listen to what were called "petty parochial details." He had not done justice to one-third part of what he ought to have dealt with in reference to this case. Having, however, put before the House one or two salient instances of absolute contradiction to the letter of the Act on the part of the Commissioners, he asked the House to send the scheme back to the Commissioners in order that they might reconsider it.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the Scheme for the management of the Endowments in the burgh of Culross, county of Perth, known as the Geddes Trust, Bill's and Law's Mortifications, and Valleyfield Endowment, approved by the Scottish Education Department, now lying upon the Table of the House."—(Mr. Wallace.)
      MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he wished,

      897
      in a few sentences, to reply to the remarks of the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman had given the House a sample of his objections, and he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) would merely deal with those samples. The hon. Gentleman had complained that the scheme empowered the Governing Body to suppress one of the two schools, and to make the remaining school sufficient for the educational requirements of the whole parish. The hon. Gentleman had, however, omitted to mention that this was the recommendation of the School Board of the parish. The School Board distinctly stated, in the evidence given by them before the Commissioners, that one school was quite enough for the parish. The attendance at the two schools amounted altogether to only 146 children, of whom 96 went to one school and 50 to the other.
      MR. WALLACE: Might I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I never made any objection to that at all.
      MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member objected to the whole children of the parish being included in the accommodation that the School Board were instructed to provide.
      MR. WALLACE: For one place.
      MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, the outlying population to which the hon. Gentleman had referred consisted of two groups of cottages, which could scarcely require a school for themselves. The hon. Member had spoken of the bursaries, and had observed that a bursary of from £5 to £10 would not enable a poor man to send his child to a higher school. The hon. Member had, however, confounded two entirely different things. The bursaries intended to enable poor men to send their children to a higher school were not those of from £5 to £10, but those of from £10 to £15. Those of from £5 to £10 were school bursaries, meant to enable parents in humble circumstances to keep their children at school a little longer than they would otherwise be able to do. The hon. Gentleman had also objected to the scheme so far as it affected the Geddes bursary. This bursary was of the value of£26, and was restricted to the University of Edinburgh, besides being restricted under the four different heads which the hon. Member had mentioned. But what were the facts? It was stated in evidence before the Com-
      898
      missioners that for some time there had been no proper applicant for the bursary. Culross had a population of 1,100, but the bursary was at present not held by anyone, and therefore the Commissioners had increased its value and made the conditions under which it could be obtained a little wider. Instead of continuing to confine it to the University of Edinburgh, they had made it tenable at any Scottish University, or at any technical school or College, or other place of technical or commercial education approved of by the Governors. Were the Governors people who would be likely to neglect the interests of Culross? Why, they were Culross men. They consisted of three members appointed by the School Board, two by the Town Council, and two by proprietors connected with Culross and having a special interest in some of the endowments. Unless hon. Members believed that the new Governing Body would be altogether destitute of common sense, they could not imagine that they would neglect the interests of the poor of Culross.
      MR. A. L. BROWN&c.)said, he understood that Scotch Members had been making themselves unpopular by speaking at so late an hour upon schemes of this kind. It must, however, be remembered that it was only at a late hour that they had an opportunity of criticizing these schemes and asking the judgment of the House upon them. He would merely call attention to some of the provisions of the original scheme. The money was left long ago to 12 boys and eight girls "of parents who are unable to afford education to their children;" £20 was to go as a bursary to one child of Culross parents, and so on. What he complained of in reference to all the schemes of the Commissioners was, that they took money from the poor and gave it to the rich. He did not object to devoting the money to the purpose of technical or secondary education as long as those who benefited were the poor; but he did object to the handing over to the well-to-do of money which was intended for the use of the poor. It would not be very difficult to answer the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. A. Campbell) on the different points he had referred to. The hon. Gentleman had quite misunderstood the arguments used by his hon. Friend (Mr. Wallace), but at that

      899
      late hour he (Mr. A. L. Brown) did not think he would be justified in doing anything but support the arguments of his hon. Friend.
      DR. CLARKsaid, he thought it would be better for the Scotch Members to take a general discussion upon all the schemes of this character on the question of continuing the Commission. It was useless for them to protest time after time against the proposals of the Commissioners, because they were always outvoted by Members from other countries, who knew nothing about the subject. The best course to adopt would be to try and oust the Commissioners when the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill came before the House. The Commissioners were kept in that position for the purpose of stealing from the poor and needy and giving to the rich and greedy. [Cries of "Oh!"] At all events, they were doing that, their object being to make middle-class education cheap. The question ought to be fought out on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN&c.)said, he hoped the House would not be withdrawn by the ambitious proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) from the consideration of the Culross scheme. It was his privilege to represent the burgh of Culross in that House, and he could corroborate what his hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) had said, to the effect that the proposals of the Commissioners could not have been very well understood in the locality or notified to the inhabitants. He himself never heard a word about it till last Saturday night. From what he had learnt since then he had come to the conclusion that there was a considerable amount of misgiving and fear among the inhabitants of the parish lest they should be injured by the proposal. He had seen a Petition on the subject which was signed by one or two of the leading inhabitants of Culross, and by others who were genuinely interested in the matter. The fear entertained was, in the main, that under the proposal strangers might come in and get the benefits which were intended for the people of the locality, and also that, as his hon. Friend had just said, what was meant for the poor might go to the rich. He felt perfectly
      900
      satisfied that that was not the intention of the Commissioners. His hon. Relative (Mr. J. A. Campbell) on the other side of the House had explained the views and intention of the Commissioners, and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) must say that, knowing something of the place, he was not altogether surprised that the large bursary had remained for some time dormant. For his own part, he should be content if he were led to believe, by what was stated as to the mind and intentions of the Commissioners, that, at all events, the benefits of the bursaries would be confined to those who were bonâ fide residents of the locality, or connected with the locality, and if some protection were afforded against the danger of an almost fraudulent attendance, or a nominal attendance, at school, giving the benefits of the bursary to a class of children on whom undoubtedly the original founders did not intend to confer any benefit whatever.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, he thought that if the scheme were examined, it would be found that the bursary to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite specially alluded, was one which could not be given except to a child who had attended the school for 12 months before the examination. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman, who knew Culross, could suppose that children would be sent to live there in order to have the opportunity of competing for the bursary. It would hardly pay to send a middleclass child as a lodger to a Culross family for the purpose, because the expenses thereby incurred would be practically as great as the amount of the bursary itself. It was very remarkable that, notwithstanding all the inquiries which had taken place in that House in reference to the schemes of the Commissioners, and the hundreds of schemes which had been passed by them, and were now in operation, in no single instance had it been possible to show that any such results had followed as were suggested by hon. Members opposite. In this particular case, it was a remarkable circumstance that the bursary had been standing open for years because no child had been found who was able to fulfil the conditions laid down by the founders. This rather seemed to indicate that the

      901
      natural result of the condition of the inhabitants was that they would not seek after the bursary at all, and that it was absolutely necessary to widen the basis on which it had been constituted. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) fell into an error when he suggested that the bursaries of from £5 to £10, which were not given with the object of assisting children to obtain higher education in some place other than Culross, would go to the minister's son, the postmaster's daughter, and so on. It was expressly declared in the scheme that these bursaries were only to be given under the rules fixed by the Scotch Education Department in the case of children entitled to total exemption from the obligation of attending school, and whose parents or guardians were in such circumstances as to need assistance in carrying on the education of the children.
      MR. WALLACEsaid, he had made a mistake on that point. He had intended to refer to the other set of bursaries.
      MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, that in the burgh of Culross, which had a population of 1,100, there were not so very many people who were not able to pay the school fees, and the governors were directed to expend not more than £20 yearly in paying the fees of and providing books and stationery for children who had passed the Third Standard of the Scotch Code, and whose parents or guardians were in such circumstances as to require aid of that kind, but, in the opinion of the Governors, ought not to be required to apply to the parochial board. The scheme was undoubtedly well known to the School Board of Culross. There could be no question about that, because the views of the board were placed before the Scotch Education Department, and the scheme was modified in accordance with those views. It was upon an application of the School Board, urging that the scheme should be disposed of without delay, that the Education Department approved of it, and that it was now lying on the Table of the House. It had been said that the wrong newspapers were selected in which to insert advertisements. Well, Culross was in a very isolated part of Perthshire. It was many miles away from Perthshire itself, and had no newspaper of its own. The Commissioners, there-
      902
      fore, selected the two nearest newspapers they could find. It might be true that there was only one person in Culross who read either of those highly intellectual journals. The Commissioners could hardly know that, and they could only do the best in their power. But let it be remembered that, whatever was the fact as regarded the advertisements, ample time was allowed to elapse; that the School Board was fully informed of and fully considered the scheme; that they stated their objections to it; and that those objections were given effect to. The School Board was not now complaining of the scheme. The plan was based upon the principle of making good use of funds which at present were partially unavailable, and to some extent were being squandered in consequence of the fact that there were two schools where one was amply sufficient. The scheme aimed at putting an end to that state of things, giving effect to the bursaries as they were before, and extending them as bursaries for poor children. If one of the schools was sold, the Governors were bound to give their pecuniary aid towards any enlargement of the other school that might be necessary for the purpose of making it adequate for the accommodation of the whole parish. That was the state of things, and he thought that, when calmly and fairly considered, the objections which had been raised with such a force of argument by hon. Gentlemen opposite would crumble away. It was very difficult to devise any scheme of the kind without giving rise to some objections; but he thought that the case of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace) was probably the weakest which had been brought forward upon the subject of Scotch endowments.
      Mr. WALLACEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, in the speech he had just delivered, had shown his want of acquaintance with the scheme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that under the scheme the Governors were bound to apply certain money towards the payment of school fees for poor children. The scheme, however, merely said that the Governors should have it in their power to do so. They might or might not do it, and they were very likely not to. Then the right hon.

      903
      and learned Gentleman had said that the School Board did not object to the scheme. As a matter of fact, the Chairman of the board was the first signatory to a Petition against the scheme. In the original deed it was provided that £43 per annum should be spent upon the education of poor children, whereas the scheme provided that the Governors should spend a sum not exceeding £20 yearly. £20 was not a proper substitute for £43; and, as £20 was a mere maximum, it would be competent to the Governors to spend only half-a-crown a-year, if they liked, upon that object. His own opinion was that, through want of information, a very great wrong was being done in Culross. Of course, it was a small matter to Gentlemen of very large views; but his opinion was that justice was never done unless it was done with minuteness.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 95: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 248.)

    STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, &C.
    Ordered, That the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, do sit and proceed with the Liability of Trustees Bill [Lords] upon Friday 3rd August, at Twelve of the clock.—x(Sir Henry James.)
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before Two o'clock.