Commons Sitting of 8 August 1889

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  SUCK DRAINAGE BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the case of the Suck Drainage Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided that amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—(Mr. Herbert Gardner).
  MR. STOREY: There was a public Bill for the drainage of the Suck recently before the House. That Bill has been withdrawn, and now we are to have a private Bill considered upon the Suspension of the Standing Orders. It is a Bill of an extraordinary character. It is not, in a right sense, a private Bill at all. It was originally a public Bill, but in the process of being passed through this House it has been transformed into a private Bill, and a private Bill of the very worst type. There has been inserted in it a clause empowering the Government to hand over to private speculators a sum of £50,000 of the public money.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): No.
  MR. STOREY: As I understand the Bill, it was originally a measure to enable a body of persons who had commenced operations for the drainage of the River Suck to continue those operations. The promoters, consisting principally of landowners, obtained some years ago power to carry out these works and to obtain the money from the Government by loan. When they proceeded with the work, that happened to them which has happened to every similar body in Ireland —they found that the estimates placed before them were woefully and hope-

  741
  lessly inadequate. All the money has been spent, and now they come to Parliament for extended powers. The Government introduced a public Bill to enable them to grant £50,000 out of the public funds, but under the stress of the opposition which it met, the Bill was withdrawn, and now a clause empowering the Government to give the £50,000 has been, or is to be, inserted in the present Bill.
  MR. MADDEN: No.
  MR. STOREY: The hon. Gentleman says "No." Then how is it intended to get this money? Every one knows that if this sum of £50,000 is not given in a free grant it will be impossible to go on with the works. The money is absolutely necessary, and the Government have hit upon this excellent plan of granting it. They were conscious that they would be unable to pass a public Bill this year, and they, therefore, support this private Bill in which they propose to insert a clause guaranteeing as a free gift this sum of £50,000 of the public money.
  MR. MADDEN: No.
  MR. STOREY: Then what is the object of the clause? If this were a private Drainage Bill under which the promoters proposed to carry out the works at their own expense or under existing Acts I should not have felt it necessary to take any objection. The fact is that the promoters have begun the work; they have expended a large sum of money, and they find that the effect produced has been absolutely nil. So far it has done more harm than good, and unless they can get more money than was originally asked for the whole of their works will be useless. Clause 5 of the amended copy of the Bill issued to Members says that the costs, charges, and expenses before and after the passing of the Act shall be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament as a free grant, not exceeding in the whole £50,000.
  MR. COURTNEY: May I be allowed to interrupt the hon. Member for a moment? It is perfectly true that a clause to that effect appeared in the Bill, but it could not be inserted in the Bill until a previous Resolution had been agreed to by the House, therefore, when in the Committee the clause was struck out, and the Bill as it now appears is in pre-
  742
  cisely the form to which the hon. Member takes no objection. It is a Bill for the raising of capital, and it provides for the due representation of the persons interested upon the Drainage Board.
  MR. STOREY: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I have no doubt that the Bill, from his point of view, is an innocent Bill, but from my point of view it shows the trail of the serpent. It proposes that the Government shall have power to lend £115,000 to these gentlemen, but the Government know and the House ought to know that admittedly that sum is not sufficient for the purpose. But if this Bill passes it is intended to bring in a further Bill of a single clause empowering the Government to give an additional sum of £50,000. This may be an exceedingly clever proceeding, but it is one to which I take a serions objection, and I beg to move as an Amendment that standing order No. 84 be struck out of the Motion.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The ways of this House are extremely wonderful. About five minutes ago I went to the office of the House to get a copy of the Bill, and I found in it a clause to the effect that the taxpayers of this country are to pay £50,000 towards the expenses of this Suck Drainage. Therefore, hon. Members cannot be blamed if they have been misled and knew nothing of this clause having been struck out. I am reminded very much of what happened in the American War. Armed cruisers were fitted up, but the guns were not put on board, they were sent out from this country perfectly innocent cruisers, but they met the guns somewhere else and took them on board. That seems to me to be precisely the nature of this Bill. The Government want to smuggle this dangerous cruiser through the custom house of the House of Commons, and then put the guns on board in another stage. In that case all criticism in regard to the Bill will be evaded. The Government have learned their lesson with regard to the public Bill, and now they want to avoid criticism. It appears to me to be hardly a fair way of dealing with the matter. None of us knew of the existence of such a proposal, and it was only by accident we were warned that such a measure

  743
  was to be brought forward. So far from the Bill being an innocent measure, I look upon it as a cruiser which is to be armed hereafter, and I shall, therefore, second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "84."—(Mr. Storey.)
  Question proposed, "That '84' stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL NOLAN: This is really a very simple Bill, and although the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has called it clever, I look upon it as an honest and straightforward proceeding. What has happened is this: A number of proprietors have established the Suck Drainage Board. They have spent £100,000 and the whole value of the works will disappear and the money be absolutely lost unless something further is done. There can be no doubt that great good has been done to the low lying lands by the works already constructed. The people of the district have spent £100,000 and the Government is asked to give £50,000. The time for the hon. Member for Sunderland to raise an objection is when the Government come forward to give this £50,000 as a free grant. The hon. Member seems to think that the Government have done something dreadfully wrong in dropping a public Bill and allowing the promoters to bring in a private Bill, but he forgets that he himself offered such an amount of opposition to the public Bill that it was impossible at this period of the Session to pass it. I sincerely trust that the House will not allow the Bill, which is a perfectly innocent measure, to be rejected because the Government may hereafter be called upon to contribute £50,000.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy said that the ways of this House are perfectly wonderful. So are the ways of some hon. Members in the House. Last year when the Ulster Canal Bill was before the House the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was mainly instrumental in handing over to a private company a sum of £300,000 against the wishes of the Irish Members, and I now ask that the same measure should be meted out to the promoters of the present Bill. In this case we have a body of landowners who have already expended their own money—a good deal
  744
  of it foolishly no doubt—asking for a Government Grant. Why should they not have it? This country has robbed Ireland long enough, and it is high time that we got a little of our money back again. I fail to see why hon. Members should now be straining at a gnat after having swallowed a camel in connection with the Ulster Canal. In my opinion, this is a most excellent Bill, and it is the first time in the history of the landlords of Ireland that they have proposed to give representation to the ratepayers. During the last 90 years this country has taken 300 or 400 million sterling out of Ireland, and we are now simply trying to get £50,000 of it back again. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that unless we drain the Shannon it is of very little use to drain the Suck, but the engineers are of a different opinion, and I am ready to place my drainage conscience, if there is such a commodity, in their hands.
  THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As the House is aware, the Government originally brought in a Bill dealing with the drainage of the Suck. We have now withdrawn that Bill, and in lieu of it a private Bill has been brought in. I am aware that great objection was raised in various quarters to the Government scheme, but perhaps the same objections do not apply to this measure. A very large amount of money has already been expended upon the drainage of the Suck; a considerable number of labourers are at this moment engaged upon the works, and unless this Bill passes this Session that money will have been wasted and the works must be stopped.
  MR. STOREY: What amount of money has been spent by the promoters?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: £100,000.
  MR. STOREY: Which was borrowed from the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, borrowed from the Government. But the labourers who are now engaged will be turned off, and if at any future time Parliament should decide upon resuming the construction of these works it can only be done at a great loss. We cannot leave the works half finished without squandering the money which has been spent already. I, therefore, hope that all who have the interest of Ireland at heart will support the Bill.
  MR. PHILIPPS: The hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. Healy) complains of something that was done last Session in reference to the Ulster Canal Bill, but we supported him on that occasion, and I think it is rather hard that we should be subjected to his reproaches now. Originally four Drainage Bills were introduced by the Government this Session, and the Chief Secretary has done his best to slip one of them through. He put down a notice that they were to be referred to a Select Committee, but the Bann Drainage Bill was the only one submitted to the Committee, although the Committee took it for granted that the other three would be brought before them in due course. I cannot, therefore, understand wiry this attempt should be made to slip one of these Bills through the House when there is a Committee in existence to whom the whole subject was referred. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the Bill is not passed the money already expended will be wasted, but that will be the fault of the Government themselves, because they might have taken these Drainage Bills in the week which was devoted to the consideration of the Royal Grants. Under these circumstances, it is too bad for the Government to come forward at this period of the Session and attempt to throw on us the responsibility of wasting the money which has already been expended. I do not think that the money has been spent for any useful object at all. Most of the money which has been spent in the improvement of the Irish rivers has been absolutely thrown away. I see that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on the Bann drainage works, while the total receipts are £70 a year, and it costs £1,100 a year to keep them up. I think the House will do wisely to reject this Bill altogether.
  MR. HAYDEN: So far as the drainage operations are concerned, I believe that, since the composition of the Board was changed two years ago, they have been carried out to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned. If this Bill is not passed, the money already expended will be lost, and a large number of labourers will be turned adrift. Under all the circumstances, I think it is better that we should accept the money which the Government offer to give.
  DR. COMMINS: I wish to add my testimony to the useful nature of these works. The Bill as it stands pledges the credit of the ratepayers for the money, and it is, perhaps, the first instance in which landlords and tenants have cordially united in an effort of local government. They are endeavouring to help themselves, and have already pledged their credit to the extent of £100,000, which they will have to pay whether the money is lost or not. I believe that if the grant proposed to be given by the Government is sanctioned by this House, the whole of the money already expended will prove remunerative. I am by no means in favour of subsidies, but in this case, it is to be given in support of a well meant effort to improve the condition and cultivation of the district, in which parties of all shades of political feeling have joined.
  MR. STOREY: I should like to have your ruling, Sir, upon a point of order. Upon the Order Paper to-day, No. 21, is "Suck Drainage [Provision of Funds]: Committee thereupon." The object is to pass a Resolution for the purpose of bringing in a Bill to provide the £50,000 which is to be granted to the promoters of this Bill. What I wish to know is whether it is in order to take this Bill into consideration until that Resolution has been passed?
  MR. SPEAKER: That Resolution has no reference to the present Bill, and there is nothing out of order in taking a Bill into consideration.
  MR. STOREY: Standing Order No. 81 requires that the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means shall make a Report to the House previously to the Second Reading of any private Bill by which it is intended to authorise, confirm, or alter a contract with any Department of the Government whereby any charge upon the Imperial Exchequer may be created. And any Resolution to that effect must be circulated, with the Votes, two clear days at least before being considered by a Committee of the whole House. Although this Bill does not authorise, confirm, or alter a contract, it is a private Bill, the object and aim of which is to create a charge of £50,000 upon the Imperial Exchequer. In this case there has been no Report from the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means and no Resolution.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is nothing in the Order to which the hon. Member refers which renders it out of order to proceed with this private Bill. The question before the House is the Suspension of the Standing Orders, so that the Bill may be considered.
  MR. COURTNEY: The hon. Gentleman has cast a reflection upon the manner in which I have discharged my duty, but he has himself admitted that there is no contract touched upon in the Bill which required a Report. The Bill is absolutely independent and complete in itself. It is an ordinary Drainage Bill, and as such has passed through Committee, and is now awaiting consideration. I understand that, if possible, the Government propose to pass through the House another Bill, but it will be a totally distinct Bill, and will have the effect, if passed, of giving to this Drainage Board a grant of £50,000. It is quite evident that if that Bill does not pass the Drainage Board will be unable to complete their operations. I do not offer an opinion one way or the other. I am only pointing out that this Bill is complete in itself.
  MR. STOREY: Upon the point of order I contend that the object of this Bill is to "alter" an existing arrangement with a view of throwing a pecuniary burden upon the public.
  MR. SEXTON: It was resolved, some years ago, that in connection with these drainage works a sum of £100,000 should be expended not by the Imperial Exchequer, but by a local levy. It would, perhaps, have been preferable that the matter should have been dealt with by a public Bill, but that being imposible a private Bill has been introduced. I do not think that the House ought at this stage to disregard the opinion of the Committee to whom the Bill has been referred. If it could be shown not only that the money already expended has been wasteful and useless, but that it would be wasteful to expend more, there would be a case against the Bill, but it has not been contended that the additional expenditure now proposed will fail to make the former expenditure effectual.
  MR. CHANCE: I hope that the House will not pass the Bill. We have been informed that the measure is wholly independent in itself.
  748
  So are the letters of the alphabet. J is simply a letter and so are O and B: but JOB spells job. The provisions of the Bill are to be coupled with a grant of £50,000 out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and, therefore, they cannot be looked upon as independent in themselves. We are told that this is an admirable work, but the promoters have not afforded us an opportunity of judging whether that is so or not. The promoters say that the works will be useless if this Bill is not passed. It is not a matter of much consequence whether that is so or not, because they cannot be of any permanent advantage.
  MR. BIGGAR: We are told that if the Government give £50,000 the work already done will not be lost I presume that is on the principle of throwing good money after bad. It is further said that the works were badly managed by the old engineer, but that there is a new engineer now, and the works will be better carried out. But we have no guarantee, as far as I can see, that the new man will be any better than the old. All we know of the old engineer is that he failed, and there is every reason to suppose that the new man will fail also. I believe that the engineer was guilty of an act of great folly. Instead of commencing at the mouth of the sea, he commenced at the upper end of the Suck, with the certainty that the obstructions and floods would be far greater than they were before.
  MR. PIERCE MAHONY: Only this week I had reason to put a question to the Government in regard to money spent in connection with harbour works at Fenit, County Kerry, directly contrary to the instructions of the Lord Lieutenant, under which the ratepayers were induced to give a guarantee, and I was informed that although the Government admit the misapplication of funds in this instance, still they can suggest no remedy. Under these circumstances, until the Government can find some means of securing the proper application of money so granted I shall vote against this and every similar Bill.
  The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 49.—(Div. List, No. 287.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. STOREY: I believe that I should be in order in moving the omission of the other Standing Orders. I do not propose to take that course, but I shall divide the House against the Motion.
  The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 50.—(Div. List, No. 288.)
  Bill considered.
  MR. STOREY: I think that we, who have taken a consistent course in regard to these Drainage Bills, have good reason to complain of the conduct of the Government in persisting with this Bill, after having abandoned the Shannon and the Barrow Bills.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member intend to move an Amendment?
  MR. STOREY: I intend to move the omission from Clause 25 of the words "one hundred and fifteen," in order to insert the words "sixty-five," my object being to provide an adequate sum for the works in question, inasmuch as the Government themselves have declared that they cannot be completed under £165,000.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not competent for the hon. Member to widen the scope of the Bill by increasing the amount provided for in the measure.
  MR. STOREY: In that case it will answer my purpose just as well to move to reduce the amount.
  MR. SPEAKER: It will be for the House to consider whether such an Amendment as the hon. Member has announced would not be a trifling Amendment.
  MR. STOREY: Even at the risk of subjecting myself to your censure and to the censure of the House I propose to move such an Amendment as a protest against an inadequacy of the sum provided for in the Bill. I maintain that the real object of the promoters is to get this sum of £115,000 in order that it may afterwards be supplemented by a grant of £50,000 from the Imperial Exchequer, and, as I have said, even at the risk of subjecting myself, Sir, to your censure, I do not think that that is a proper proposition to put before the House. The Chief Secretary, in moving the Second Reading of the Public Bill, distinctly stated that the works would cost £165,000, and to give borrowing powers to raise £115,000 only must be altogether abortive, and every penny of
  750
  the expenditure will come out of the Public Exchequer. Some day it may be repaid; but if so, it will be a very exceptional experience. Unless the Government grant £50,000 in addition the works cannot be carried out. £100,000 out of the £115,000 have already been expended, and the only effect of this Bill, without the Government grant, will be to throw away £15,000 more of the public money. In the interests of the Public Purse, and altogether careless of of the estimate which the Treasury Bench may place upon my proceeding, I intend to resist this Bill as far as I can, believing that it is vicious in itself, and that the Government are attempting by a side wind to avoid a discussion of the matter. I had no intention of trifling with the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: What I said was that the House would judge whether the Amendment was not a trifling Amendment. The hon. Member moved, in the first place, to increase the amount, and he now moves to diminish it. Will the hon. Member state what his precise Amendment is?
  MR. STOREY: I move to reduce the sum from £115,000 to £100,000. I said I would do so as a matter of Parliamentary tactics, and in order to show that the financial provision in the Bill is inadequate unless it is supplemented by a free grant from Parliament. I beg to move the omission of the words "and fifteen."
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 28 and 29, to leave out the words "and fifteen."—(Mr. Storey.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and fifteen' stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL NOLAN: It is difficult to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Sunderland. I thought he was going to lend us too much money; but towards the middle of his speech he changed his intention, and suggested that we should have received £100,000 instead of £115,000. I know the hon. Member says he has made the Motion as a mere matter of form; but his mere matter of form might have the effect of throwing a large number of men out of work. Of course, it is as well the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to air his eloquence. What is the use of the hon. Member being eloquent if he has not occasionally an opportunity of airing it?

  751
  But the hon. Gentleman has majorities of 98 and 101 against him. It is perfectly clear that the House want to pass this private Bill, and by what he is doing the hon. Gentleman can only succeed in wasting the time of the House and prolonging the discussion. He has put his case very well; with such an extremely bad case, I wonder he could do so well. I can understand the House refusing Ireland money or refusing it a particular Bill; but for a small minority to prevent the Government bringing forward a proposition which they think they ought to do in justice to Ireland, is hardly treating the weaker country fairly.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the interest on the public money expended on the Shannon has been paid regularly?
  THE FIEST LOBD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): If the hon. Gentleman will give notice of his question, I will endeavour to give him an answer.
  MR. CHANCE: I have to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman upon his championship of the rights of a majority, but I think his observations would have come with better grace from a Gentleman who was in the habit of being one of the majority. I have also to congratulate him in his startling novelty. I heard with surprise the hon. and gallant Member say he was afraid the House would grant Ireland too much money. I say without fear of contradiction that that is the very first time the hon. and gallant Member has been troubled with scruples upon the point. I have never known him afraid that too much money would be granted upon these semi-charitable, and, I may say, semi-jobbing works. I do not think the Amendment is a frivolous one, and I am strengthened in that belief by the fact that when, on the Estimates, some one desires to object to the insufficiency of the amount granted, the only thing he can do is to move that the Vote be reduced.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to discuss the particular Amendment before the House.
  MR. CHANCE: That was what I was attempting to do——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CHANCE: The case of the hon. Member for Sunderland is a very simple one: it is that it is unsafe to give power to borrow £ 115,000, and he sees a lesser danger in permitting £100,000 rather than £115,000 to be borrowed. I will not say more, but simply content myself by declaring that I propose to support the hon. Member for Sunderland, whether my reasons commend themselves or not to the House.
  DR. COMMINS: There is a consideration in favour of this Bill which seems to have been overlooked. It is evidently forgotten that all these works are embankment works. The Suck runs through peat moss, and great mischief is done by it overflowing its banks. Crops are destroyed, and disease often disseminated. In order to provide against such a state of things, the works so far have been mainly embankment works. The money spent will be lost unless the works are completed. The House is called upon to make a beneficial work complete, and prevent it from being what it will otherwise be—a source of danger. In fact, if the work already undertaken is not made complete, it will be a curse instead of a blessing to the people of the neighbourhood, as an overflow, if it should happen, would be all the worse for it. It is upon this that I shall support the Bill.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: In the course of a somewhat long life spent in administration I have heard a great deal of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just told us. A great deal of money has been spent in embankment works, and no good done. I object to these works being undertaken at the expense of the taxpayers.
  MR. PHILIPPS: The hon. and gallant Member for Galway said the House was very anxious for this Bill. I do not know what there is to make the House anxious for the Bill, because this is the first opportunity we have had of discussing the Bill in the House, while no statement has ever been made on behalf of the Bill. It has been said that if a great deal more money is not spent on the drainage of the Suck, the money that has already been spent will be absolutely wasted. But then, as far as. I can understand, it is admitted on all sides that, to complete the drainage of the Suck, not £115,000, but £165,000 is required. If £115,000 is not enough

  753
  to finish the drainage of the river, I do not suppose we shall do much perceptible harm if we reduce the sum to £100,000. The hon. and gallant Member also said it is only a small minority who oppose this Bill; but let me point out that it is a growing minority. Last year one of these Drainage Bills was opposed by only three Members, but now most of the hon. Members who sit on this side go into the Lobby in opposition to this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Roscommon said that disease is generated and crops are destroyed by the overflowing of the river. But surely all these facts ought to be put before the House. Some Member of the Government should put these facts before us in an authoritative way. This Bill has been introduced in a private way, and by it we are asked to lend money for an object in favour of which not a single argument has ever been advanced by anyone in a position of authority.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Should I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in making the Motion the right hon. Member for Halifax made on July 2, 1888?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I have used a strong expression from the Chair. I remain of the same opinion; but I think it would perhaps be well to allow the House to take a Division upon the Amendment in the ordinary course before the House.
  The House divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 56. (Div. List, No. 289.)
  MR. PHILIPPS: I now beg to move the omission of Sub-section (a) of Clause 6. We have not heard a word from any Member of the Government, or from any member of the Select Committee, as to the additional value which is to be given to the lands specially benefited by this drainage scheme. If the drainage is going to improve the value of the lands specially benefited why should not these lands pay the whole expense of the scheme? Sub-section (a) charges the sum of £ 13,000, upon a certain contributory area. I do not want to be unfair. I do not want to charge the whole of the cost on the lands specially benefited, unless those lands are going to receive large benefits. Perhaps some one will tell us what was the evidence taken before the Select Committee, and at what amount the im-
  754
  provement of the lands specially benefited was assessed? Of course, if I receive a satisfactory reply I shall be ready to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 34, to leave out Sub-section (a) of Clause 6.—(Mr. Philipps.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (a) of Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CHANCE: I think that before we divide upon this Amendment we should have some explanation as to the incidence of the charges.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: May I point out that these are questions which were dealt with in Committee, and that if our private Bill legislation is to have any value, we must assent to the verdict of the Committees? It is impossible for this House to go into details and the grounds upon which the conclusions of Committees were arrived at. It must be obvious to the House that if we debate here the details of every private Bill, it will be utterly impossible for the House to conduct its private legislation and any legislation whatever.
  MR. STOREY: I think that is a fair contention to make in the case of ordinary Bills. The point we make is that we ought to have an opportunity of discussing the details of these Drainage Bills when we are called upon to give £50,000 as a free grant; but that owing to the peculiar methods adopted by the Government, we shall be prevented from discussing the details. There will simply be a clause granting £50,000 for the Suck drainage, and on that clause it will be impossible to discuss the details. We cannot permit such Bills as this to pass without opposition. As to the particular point before the Committee, our contention is similar to that we urged on the other Bill. We hold that if there are advantages accruing directly to certain lands, those lands should be required to bear the cost of the works, and that you should not go to other lands which benefit merely because they are in the locality and compel them to bear part of the expense. That is our contention, and it is a contention which, if we had been in Committee on the original measure, we should have sustained by prolonged argument. We admit the difficulty of considering these

  755
  points in a private Bill, but the blame does not rest with us; it rests with the Treasury Bench, and the Treasury Bench alone. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has not defended it, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were present he would not defend this particular provision. The only reason for its adoption is that they find it extremely hard to raise the money, and they try all sorts of Irish devices for raising it instead of adopting the old-fashioned Irish method—the method practised before Ireland was debauched by England—of making those who benefit pay for the benefit they receive.
  MR. COURTNEY: This Bill came before me in the ordinary way as an unopposed Bill, and all its details were considered. It would have been in the power of hon. Members who object to the measure to oppose it, but it was not opposed and was committed like every other ordinary unopposed private Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. Storey) may stake his head as much as he likes, but he cannot alter the fact by so doing. The hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill and the Speaker's Counsel came before me to consider the details of the Bill which were dealt with in the ordinary way. With regard to the particular Amendment now before the Committee there is a distinction drawn between lands drained and benefited and land benefited though not drained; but there is no doubt that the works under the Bill will have a beneficial effect on the slopes above the actual drainage area. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head again, whether at the principle I state or at the facts to which I have referred I do not know. I should have thought the principle commends itself to everyone, and as to the facts they were proved before me. Due notice was given of the Bill by advertisement in the district interested, and if there had been any objection to the scheme opposition would have been offered; but there was no opposition. The locality at large must be taken as assenting to the Bill, in so far as they showed no dissent. It may be impossible by arguments or facts to convince those who have made up their minds not to be convinced; but, at any rate, the conduct of the Bill before me was perfectly regular.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: This Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman says, was treated as an unopposed Bill; consequently, there was no real discussion on it. We are told that we could have opposed it at an earlier stage, but we knew nothing about it. It was smuggled through Committee. ["No, no."]
  MR. COURTNEY: Then everything is smuggled through Committee.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Opportunity was given for private individuals to oppose the Bill if injuriously affected by it, but this measure affects the pockets of the British taxpayer, which is a very different thing. The Bill has been described as a conjunction of the letters "JOB"—job—but to my mind, it is something more than a job—it is a dodge. Advantage has been taken of a private measure to get a principle through the House which could not be got through in a public Bill. These are the circumstances under which the Bill now appears before us, and I say we are amply justified in discussing its details. We had no opportunity of knowing what was going on in the Private Bill Committee; and though I have every respect for the opinion of the Chairman of Committees, I think I am not wrong in saying that when a Bill has gone before him as an unopposed Bill it is not his function to rise——
  MR. SPEAKER: I fail to see how the hon. Member's observations are relevant to the question before the House, which is that of security for the repayment of advances.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: That question is most important. I understand from the First Lord of the Treasury that no interest on the advances in connection with the Suck drainage has been paid——
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No such question was ever asked. The question put was in regard to the Shannon drainage.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Very well; I would now ask if any interest has been paid on the advances made for the Suck drainage. I am told the interest is still owing; and if that is so, I say it would be wrong to permit these people to incur new liabilities while they have not discharged their old ones.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

  757
  The money advanced has been advanced on the security of the property, that is to say, the property of the area drained, and I believe I am justified in saying that that security is quite ample in every respect.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Has the interest due been paid?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Gentleman will give me another moment I will satisfy his curiosity. Until the works have been completed or stopped—admittedly stopped—no award can be made of the charge which will come upon the different districts; and until that takes place the interest upon the sum already advanced accumulates. I am not aware that there is anything whatever unusual in that, therefore the obstruction now being offered to this Bill—[cries of "Oh!"]—well, if hon. Gentlemen do not like that word, the delay which is taking place in the passing of the Bill will delay the repayment of the money. The way to recover the money is to pass this Bill.
  The House divided:—Ayes 197; Noes 60.— (Div. List, No. 290.)
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to propose an Amendment at the end of Clause 6, which, I think, will be regarded as a very reasonable one. We all know that the interest of these advances has not been paid, but has, as it is emphatically called, been allowed to "accumulate." Under the circumstances I would move the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 10, at the end of Clause 6, to insert the words—
  "Provided that the interest on all moneys borrowed under the provisions of previous Acts, and secured on the same subjects, shall first be paid."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  COLONEL NOLAN: The Amendment is an utterly absurd one. There can be no payment until the award is made. After a drainage work is executed the engineer goes down and awards so much for each proprietor to pay. At present the proprietors do not know how much they have to pay. They cannot, therefore, pay the interest—no matter how willing they are to do so; and meanwhile all the works will be stopped, the men
  758
  thrown out of work, and all the present evils increased.
  MR. STOEEY: I should like to ask where is the absurdity of the Amendment? We are aware that there is to be an award, and that the individual proprietors will not know how much interest they have to pay till the award is made. But we do not ask individual proprietors to pay. We are dealing with the promoters of the Bill; and are promoters to come to the House and ask for loans and to be so impecunious as not to be able to pay the interest they owe? I ask the House to reflect on what they are doing. It is all very well to say that the interest for the last 10 years has never been apportioned; why if it is apportioned it will never be paid. We are going to carry this evil on still further. There will be no award until the works are completed; and who believes that they will be completed with this amount of money? In a year or two hence a further sum will be asked for, and we shall be told that until that is expended no interest will be paid. Sir, I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. We stand here determined to show the country that this is a deliberate attempt in an underhand fashion to get public money; and we do not mean to be brow-beaten by any one person, or any number of persons, or to be prevented from declaring that we intend on behalf of our constituents to resist the application of this money.
  DR. COMMINS: The observation that this is a deliberate attempt to get public money is an observation that might be applied to every private Bill the object of which is to borrow money from the Treasury. The hon. Member says he has had no opportunity of examining the provisions of the Bill; but not a thing was done to prevent any Member examining the Bill in the fullest manner. It passed through Committee in a most ordinary way, and the subject has been before us since the early days of the Session. The hon. Member has dealt with the Bill as though it were a private speculation for the benefit of private promoters, but that is not the case, as no one of them whatever will gain a penny by it— certainly not those in charge of the Bill. It is not a Bill to promote private interests, it is a Bill to support public improvements.
  MR. CHANCE: We have had from the Secretary to the Treasury what we usually do have from him, an extremely straightforward, candid, and modest explanation of the circumstances of this loan. He has told us frankly that nothing has been paid on previous loans entered into a considerable number of years ago.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know if the hon. Member understood. I said nothing had been paid because no award had been made. Until that is done it cannot be said that the money is due.
  MR. CHANCE: I quite understand. The hon. Gentleman stated nothing had been paid; not a penny had gone back to the Treasury, because, as he said, there had been no allotment of land. But what I should like to know is this: when the original loan was made by the Treasury was that transaction complete in itself, or was it contingent upon the future advance of this £115,000 more? I have heard of such a transaction generally condemned as paying interest out of capital, and these financial arrangements seem to me to be very like that of paying the interest on old liabilities by incurring new liabilities, and so we may go on ad infinitum. The Chairman of Ways and Means has spoken of this Bill having been discussed in Committee, but the only discussion it received was from the right hon. Gentleman, two other Members of this House, and your counsel, Sir; but I do not think the House will consider that discussion in that way is altogether satisfactory before agreeing to a Bill on which is to be grounded a demand for £50,000 of public money. We have it from the Chairman of Ways and Means that this Bill was smuggled through the House.
  MR. COURTNEY: No; I said that if this Bill was smuggled through the House, then every Bill was smuggled through the House.
  MR. CHANCE: I take it the logical mind of the right hon. Gentleman enabled him to see the possibility of some smuggling transaction; the idea of smuggling occurred to his mind. It was smuggled through in some sense; the Government Bill was introduced as a "bonnet" or a stalking horse, while the private Bill was preparing.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question
  760
  before the House, the amendment of Clause 6.
  MR. CHANCE: If the line I was pursuing is not open to me, Sir, of course I accept your ruling. I was led into it by the fact that an opposite line of illustration was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  MR. SPEAKER: Not upon this Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: No, not on this Amendment, but the same spirit runs through all the clauses. I will only say that in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, when he alluded to the logical consequences of this, he could not show that the action of the Government in this matter has been fair and honest.
  MR. PHILIPPS: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway says the Amendment is absurd because no money can be paid on previous Bills because no award has been made or can be made until the drainage works are complete. But I do not see how that follows, because any competent engineer knows what land he is going to drain, or he ought to know. If it is impossible for the engineer who drew up this drainage scheme to tell us what land he is going to drain and how much land is to be improved in value by the works, then I think the scheme ought not to be accepted. I would ask the Financial Secretary who has told us that interest has accrued on former loans, but is not due until the works are complete, to tell us what is the amount of interest that has accrued—I will not say is due—but what would be the amount due if the works were finished to-day? This is a question I think ought to be answered before we go to a Division.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg leave to move the adjournment of the Debate. This Bill proposes by a side-wind to provide the sum of £50,000.
  Motion made, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir John Swinburne.)
  And, it appearing to Mr. Speaker that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, he proceeded to put the Question thereon forthwith.
  The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 218.—(Div. List, No. 291.)
  Original Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 217.—(Div. List, No. 292.)
  MR. STOREY: I have another Amendment which I want to present to the critical consideration of the House. I have only got one more. It is in Clause 16. I have mentioned it privately to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I am extremely hopeful that both he and the hon. Members from Ireland will join me in asking for this change in the Bill supposing we go to a Division. Clause 16 reads:—
  "Any increase in the value of the land upon the occupiers interest, on which any annuity is charged, which shall have resulted from the execution of Works by the Board, shall be excluded in ascertaining the value of such land for any of the purposes of the Land Act (Ireland) 1881, and any Act amending the same."
  The object of the clause as I want it would be this—that the increased value of the land accruing from these works should not be taken into account in order to increase the tenants' rent in future arrangements. We did this in the case of the Bann Bill, in regard to which the Chief Secretary in Committee frankly admitted that I was right in regard to my contention, and he made the alteration desired. The Amendment which I propose brings the clause of the Suck Bill exactly into the form of the clause which has been agreed to in the Bann Bill. I submit that if that form of clause be good for the Bann Bill it ought to be good for the Suck Bill. The clause as it stands in the Suck Bill does provide that within the flooded areas increase of value shall not be taken as a ground for increasing rents hereafter; but in the case of the lands which are immediately outside the flooded areas, the improvement which will accrue to them from the works to be carried out might well be taken account of in future settlements of rent to increase the rent. That would be extremely wrong, and I think we taxpayers who have to pay £50,000 to be provided out of the Public Exchequer, should ask that whatever value accrues from these drainage works should not be reckoned by the landlords in order to increase the rents which the tenants are to pay. If that be a fair contention, and
  762
  it was felt to be unanswerable in the other case, I hope there will be no objection to my Amendment—Clause 16, page 8, line 25, after "land," to strike out the words "upon the occupier's interest in which any annuity is charged." I beg to move the Amendment.
  COLONEL NOLAN: This is really a very small matter, and I hope the Government will agree to it. The Amendment involved reaches the vanishing point, but if these people outside are benefited, it is only right that they should pay for it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is a very fair one, and I trust the Government will accede to it.
  DR. COMMINS: The Amendment provides for the valuation of the occupiers' interest as separate from the landlords', and simplifies the working of the measure very considerably.
  MR. CHANCE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. There are two classes of land which may be benefited by the change —land specially benefited without the obligation of an annuity, and land not specially benefited. As the clause is drawn, it is confined wholly to land specially benefited—that is, land upon which an annuity is charged. The land not specially benefited is within the contributory area. That land will derive some trifling advantage from the drainage works, yet it would, nevertheless, be subject to an increase of rent under this section, for the clause only excepts from increase land specially benefited. The Amendment will remove an anomaly, and will in reality do very little more.
  MR. SEXTON: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, for it would be extremely hard if the outside occupiers, who will derive an extremely small advantage, should be subject to an increase of rent hereafter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The matter is very insignificant, and I certainly, on the part of the Government, shall not offer any opposition.
  MR. COURTNEY: The intention of the promoters, as represented to me, was that no increase would be made in the future valuation of rents in consequence of these works.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Herbert Gardner.)
  MR. STOREY: I think I may appeal to the right hon. Gentleman after the evidence he has had of the objections to this particular Bill in its present shape to postpone the THIRD READING. I fear we shall be deprived of the opportunity of discussing the grant of £50,000. We have done a great deal to get the Bill through so far, and I would suggest that the Third Reading stage should be held over.
  COLONEL NOLAN: No, no; pass the Bill.
  MR. STOREY: If my hon. Friend presses the Bill, he will meet with no small opposition. What I suggest to the Government is to hang this Bill as it were between heaven and earth until he sees whether the House will or will not grant the £50,000, which is necessary for the purposes of the Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the hon. Gentleman has given abundant reasons why the House should now read the Bill a third time. We have been discussing the Bill for three hours; he and his friends have made their protest before the public and before the world against the Bill, and nothing more could be said even if we had a Debate on the Third Reading. It is obvious that it would be a useless expenditure of public time were we to postpone this Bill, which is to go to another place, and to be dealt with there according to the Standing Orders. The hon. Gentleman said they will not have an opportunity of discussing the Money Bill. If the Government bring in that Money Bill this Session there will be abundant opportunity for discussing it on its several stages, or if we bring it in next Session there will also be ample opportunity to discuss the application of the £50,000. Under these circumstances I think I shall carry with me the great majority of even the hon. Members who have supported the hon. Gentleman during the last three hours, in desiring that the Bill should be read a third time, and without further Debate, and that it should go to another place.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Sir, the Motion before the House is not for the Third Reading, but for the suspension of the Standing Orders. In the case of this most extraordinary and dangerous Bill, I do not think the Government should ask it, and I oppose this course most strongly.
  MR. PHILIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman withdrew the Bill, and we were justified in thinking that it would not be brought in again until next Session, but he has brought it in one-half a private Bill and the other half a public Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At the time I withdrew the Bill I explained the course which I intended to take.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I am sorry the newspapers did not think the right hon. Gentleman's observations worthy to be reprinted. Our opposition to the Bill has at all events been justified, for out of the Amendments we proposed the Government have accepted one. I oppose this Motion, and I shall vote against it.
  The House divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 65.—(Div. List, No. 293.)

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order made upon the 19th day of June last, for presenting to Her Majesty an humble Address that she would be graciously pleased to give directions that there should be laid before this House a Return relative to Intermediate Education (Wales), be read, and discharged."—(Mr. James William Lowther.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  VACCINATION ACTS (PERSONS IMPRISONED, &c).
  Address for
  "Return showing the number of persons who have been imprisoned or fined for non-compliance with the provisions of the Acis relating to the Vaccination of Children, distinguishing imprisonments and fines; the length of imprisonment undergone by such persons; the number of times any person has been imprisoned more than once; and of the number and amount of fines paid by any person who has been fined more than once for the above-mentioned offence since the 31st day of July, 1879 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 289, of Session 1881)."

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Seventeenth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION (FOREIGNERS)
  Report, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 311.]

  DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the Number of Divisions of the House in the Session of 1889; stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority; Tellers included; also the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions on Public Business from Private; and also the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0,141, of Session 1888)."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in the Session of 1889; with the total number of Signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0,144, of Session 1888)."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return, ordered—;
  "Of the number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1889, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of Witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Committee; also, the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0,140, of Session 1888)."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of days on which the House sat in the Session of 1889, stating, for each day the date of the month, and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and snowing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 142, of Session 1888)."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced
  766
  into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during the Session of 1889; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0,143, of Session 1888)."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they agree to certain of the Amendments made by this House to the Lunacy Acts Amendment Bill [Lords], with Amendments, and with a consequential Amendment to the Bill, to which they desire the concurrence of this House; and disagree to certain other of the said Amendments, for which they assign their Reasons.
QUESTIONS.

  ADULTERATED LARD.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a recent publication by the Agricultural Department (No. 24, of 1889), in which quotations are made from the Official Report of the Agricultural Department of the United-States to the following effect—
  "That the total Annual Exports of Lard from the United States are about 320,000,000 lbs., of which about 10 per cent are "Compound or Refined" lard; that no less than. 93,000,000 lbs. were sent in 1888 from the United States to this Country; that amongst the adulterants used in compound or refined lard, 'dead hog grease, or dead hog stearine is one of the most frequently mentioned;' that 'the term dead hog grease is used to indicate the oil or lard obtained from animals which die of disease, or are smothered in transportation or die on the way to the slaughterhouses.'"
  Whether, in view of these alarming official statements, and the possible danger to health from the consumption of an article of food thus adulterated, Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of prohibiting the introduction of the spurious substance designated "Compound or Refined Lard;" and, whether, in the event of the importation of artificial lard being still permitted, he will direct that (following the analogy of the entry of margarine) a separate entry shall be made in the Monthly Returns of the Board of Trade

  767
  distinguishing genuine lard from the artificial compound?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to prohibit all adulterations of lard, as it would require a large and expensive staff to test all imports, and there is no evidence that the bulk of such lard is other than harmless. Whilst agreeing with the accuracy of the statements quoted by the hon. Baronet, I think a closer perusal of the Report shows that the ingredients of these compounds are not so deleterious as is supposed, consisting in great measure of cotton seed oil. I learn from the Customs that they are prepared, on obtaining the sanction of the Treasury, to assign a separate heading for lardine in the import accounts of next year.

  NAVAL CHIEF ENGINEERS.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the average amount of annual pay and allowances, if any, of the Engineer Officers in chief charge of the engines and machinery of battleships taking part in the Naval Manœuvres; and, what is the average amount of annual pay and allowances, if any, of the Chief Accountant Officers in charge of the books and accounts of those ships?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The average annual pay and allowances of the chief engineers in charge of the machinery on the battleships engaged in the manœuvres is £488, and that of the accountant officers £475.

  ST. KATHARINE'S HOSPITAL.
  MR. FENWICK(on behalf of Mr. CREMER (Shoreditch): I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith if, as the representative of the Charity Commissioners, he can state whether the vacancy caused by the decease of the late Master of St. Katharine's Hospital has been filled up; and, if so, what duties the new Master has to perform; what salaries and emoluments the new Master is to receive; and, whether the Charity Commissioners are taking any steps to reform the management of the hospital,
  768
  and to utilise for educational and other useful purposes its increasing revenues?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Charity Commissioners are informed by the chapter clerk of St. Katharine's Hospital that the vacancy caused by the decease of the late Master has been filled up. The duties attaching to the office are those prescribed in the rules of the hospital, which were laid upon the Table of the House in the month of June last. The salary and emoluments of the new Master are the same as those of his predecessor. As the hon. Member was informed on the last occasion when the matter was discussed in the House, the Charity Commissioners have no power to take any steps to reform the management of the charity except upon an application from the majority of the governing body, and such application has not yet been received.

  CYPRUS.
  MR. FENWICK (on behalf of Mr. CREMER): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a reply has been sent to a memorial from the Archbishop of Cyprus and other members of a deputation now in this country, dated 19th July, respecting reforms in the administration of Cyprus; and, if so, whether he will inform the House as to the purport of that reply; whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to act on the suggestion of the High Commissioner as regards the conversion of the tribute to Turkey, by which it is expected that considerable economies may be effected in the annual payments charged on the Cypriote or the English taxpayers; whether the recommendations of Her Majesty's Treasury, transmitted last year to the High Commissioner for Cyprus, as regards reductions in the Civil Service, have been acted upon; and, whether the Government will give favourable consideration to the appeal of the Cypriote deputation for utilisation and encouragement of the agricultural resources of the island, and for lessening the additional burdens laid on the inhabitants since the occupation of their island for Imperial purposes?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): No definite reply has yet been sent to the Cyprus deputation, as their repre-

  769
  sentations are still the subject of discussion between them and the Secretary of State, with whom they are to have a further interview on the 15th inst. Her Majesty's Government are anxious to commute the tribute, and have the subject under consideration; but the matter, being an international one, is of much delicacy, and presents many serious difficulties. Economies were effected this year in the Estimates of the current year to the extent of £1,075, and it is contemplated that further economies will be effected as time goes on, with a view to carrying out the wishes of the Treasury. As regards the last paragraph of the question, Her Majesty's Government are giving their best consideration to the suggestions of the deputation on all subjects affecting the welfare of the island. Papers have been laid on the Table, and will be distributed as soon as possible, dealing with the different questions raised by the Memorial; but with reference to the concluding words of the question, I may state that since the British occupation there has been a large remission of taxation.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS AND WORKMEN.
  MR. FENWICK (on behalf of Mr. CREMER): I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether there are any workmen employed at the Houses of Parliament, or other Government works, who are paid by Messrs. Brass, the Government contractors, 4¼d. per hour; whether such workmen are frequently engaged in cleaning and painting lofty parts of the Houses of Parliament; whether the contractors are allowed 6d. per hour for such men, and, if so, why they deduct 1¾d. per hour; and whether the Government have come to any decision as to the appointment of a Committee to consider the desirability of engaging directly through their Clerks of Works all workmen employed at Government Offices, so that the amount voted by Parliament may be received without any deduction?
  A LORD OF THE TREASUEY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): There are only four men at the Houses of Parliament whose wages are as low as 4¼d. per hour, and very few elsewhere. Such workmen are not frequently, only occasionally, engaged in cleaning lofty parts of the Houses of Parliament, and that at times
  770
  when otherwise they would have to be discharged. There is no danger in the work. The contractors are allowed for these men 6d., less 16 per cent, or 5 l–25d. per hour. The present contract does not expire until March 31, 1891. The Government have undertaken before that date to fully consider what modifications it may be possible or desirable to make in the present system governing the employment of workmen in the public buildings, and the matter is now engaging attention. If it should be found that the assistance of a Committee of the House of Commons would be desirable in the investigation of the question, the Government will ask the House to appoint one in the course of next Session. But in the present position of the inquiry it is impossible to say whether it will be necessary to invite the assistance of a Committee of the House.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT.
  SIR E. PAGET: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will be good enough to state to the House the manner in which the Board of Trade propose to proceed to consider the objections of traders, farmers, and others with regard to railway rates, charges, and classification under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888; whether the hearing of parties will be conducted in public; by whom the hearing will be conducted; and when they will commence; whether it is the intention that parties may be heard at their own discretion either in person or by counsel; and whether it is proposed to deal, in the first instance, with Imperial questions involving matters of principle such as terminals and short-distance clauses; or to deal with groups and objections submitted by special classes of farmers, traders, or to deal separately with the classification schedule submitted by each Railway Company?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: A Circular explaining the procedure to be adopted at the hearing of objections, of which I will hand a Copy to the hon. Baronet, will be sent to each Railway Company and each objector, and will be given the utmost publicity. The hearings will be conducted in public by the principal permanent officers of the Department, presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Parliamentary Secretary

  771
  to the Board of Trade, who will have such expert advice as may be necessary. Parties will be heard either by themselves or by representatives, as they may deem desirable. It is proposed, in the first instance, to deal with questions involving matters of principle, commencing with terminals. Further details the hon. Baronet will find in the Circular.
  SIR R. PAGET: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the parties will be heard?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: On October 15.

  CUSTOM OFFICERS, LIVERPOOL.
  MR. J. McCARTHY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is a faet that the out-door officers of Customs at Liverpool petitioned the Board of Customs on June 13 last relative to certain travelling allowances of which they have lately been deprived; and if so, whether the officers have not yet received an answer to their petition; whether the examining officers of Customs at Liverpool petitioned the Treasury upon the same subject on June 18 last; and whether the decision of the Treasury has been made known to the officers interested; and if not, whether he will explain the cause of the delay?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The two Petitions referred to are in the hands of the Board of Customs. The question raised by the examining officers, whose Petition was sent to the Board in the first instance, is of wider scope than that to which the Petition of the outdoor officers relates. The subject of both is somewhat intricate and involves an important principle. Moreover, as some of the points have been directly raised before the Royal Commission Civil Establishments, the Board had necessarily to await the Report of that Commission before taking action in the matter. Careful consideration is now being given to the subject, and a decision may shortly be expected.

  FEVER AT GIBRALTAR.
  SIR W. BARTTELOTon behalf of Sir JOHN KENNAWAY (Honiton): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is a fact that in 11 months, in four adjoining
  772
  rooms on the ground floor in the Spanish Pavilion of Gibraltar, there have been four cases of fever, two of which have been serious cases of enteric; and whether he can give assurance that the unsanitary State of the building will be dealt with at once?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): There have been three cases of fever, of which two were enteric, in four adjoining rooms on the ground floor of the Spanish Pavilion during the last 11 months. The rooms of the lower floor have been closed; and steps have been taken for dealing at once with the sanitary defects of the Spanish Pavilion, if any remain after the overhaul it recently underwent. There has been no case of fever since June.

  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES.
  COLONEL ANSTRUTHER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the case, that the amount of annual licences payable in January by any individual be paid into the nearest Post Office, and the licences received from the Postmaster, that the amount so paid is transmitted to the General Post Office in London, and thus lost to the country in which the money was paid, whereas, should the money be paid into a county town to the collector of Inland Revenue, that then the county would receive the benefit?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Value of licences taken out at Post Offices is paid over eventually to the credit of the account of the Inland Revenue at the Bank of England, and the Inland Revenue Department, in the Quarterly Return rendered to the Local Government Board, appropriates the proceeds to the credit of the administrative county in which such Post Offices are located.

  EDINBURGH POST OFFICE.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial, dated 22nd June, 1888, and a further Memorial, dated 1st July, 1889, from certain Lower Division Clerks in the Edinburgh Post Office on the subject of temporary employment as Surveyor's

  773
  Clerks; and, if so, whether he can say about what date he may be able to state to the Memorialists if their grievance can be remedied?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The Memorials referred to by the hon. Member were duly received. I should like to explain that lists are made out periodically of officers who are anxious to be employed in giving temporary assistance to surveyors, and when such assistance is needed the officers whose names are on the lists are, provided they are considered fully qualified, selected for the purpose. After the receipt of the first Memorial the officers who signed it were informed to this effect, and that when opportunities occurred they might apply, but many of them omitted to do so when last invited. A new list for Edinburgh will be made this autumn, and the Memorialists' qualifications will then be carefully considered.

  TURIN STREET BOARD SCHOOL.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by whose authority the Turin Street Board School was occupied as a temporary barrack by the police upon the occasion of the visit of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to Bethnal Green on the 30th ultimo?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the school buildings were not occupied by the police; but, the permission of the caretaker of the school having been first obtained, some police were placed in the yard so as to be out of sight and not to attract a crowd.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the last meeting of the London School Board the statement was made by a responsible officer that authority had not been given?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of that fact.

  LEEDS POST OFFICE.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware the maximum wages, allowances, and overtime paid to stampers, town sorters, station mes-
  774
  sengers, and other out-door employés at Leeds are, in each case, less than those paid at Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dublin, and Liverpool; and if he will consider whether such inequality of payment should continue for similar services?
  MR. RAIKES: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the fact stated by the hon. Member. The rates of wages vary in different localities, as they bear some relation to the size and importance of the various offices. The office at Leeds does not belong to the same category as any of the six offices the hon. Member mentions, and I fear I cannot admit any sufficient reason for altering the present organisation.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT—ALTERATION OF BOROUGH BOUNDARIES.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that notwithstanding the provisions of "The Local Government Act, 1888," requiring the Local Government Board to hold a local inquiry whenever any representation is made to them that it is desirable to alter the boundary of any borough, several provincial Corporations have, during the present Session, introduced into Parliament Bills for the extension of their boundaries without any previous local inquiry, thereby not only imposing considerable expense on the ratepayers by a more costly mode of proceeding in the first instance than by a local inquiry, but also inflicting serious expense on landowners and others opposed to the inclusion of their property within the borough boundary, and tending, by the serious expense of appearing before a Parliamentary Committee, to deprive small landowners of the opportunity of being heard in opposition to the proposed extension; and whether, since considerable extensions of boundaries sought for by provincial Corporations have been refused by Parliamentary Committees on the ground that the land in question was of a rural character and not fit or ripe to be included within the limits of the proposed extension, facts which could have been tested on the spot at a very light expense by a local inquiry, and that landowners who succeed in opposing the inclusion of their lands within the proposed ex-

  775
  tension Lave great difficulty in recovering the costs to which they have been put, he would consider if any and what further steps could be taken to give effect to the provisions of "The Local Government Act, 1888;" and to prevent the needless expenditure of time and money incurred by imposing upon a Parliamentary Committee the consideration of a question capable of being dealt with more satisfactorily and economically by a local inquiry.
  MR. RITCHIE: It is the fact that in the case of certain municipal boroughs during the present Session Local Bills have been introduced for the extension of the borough boundaries without any previous local inquiry under the Local Government Act. These several Bills have been referred to the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills. The views of that Committee on the general question of the extension of boroughs by Local Bills are stated in the Report on the Grimsby Extension and Improvement Bill, presented to the House on March 29th last. In that Report the Committee stated, amongst other grounds for their conclusion, that the extension of the borough should be granted; that the petition for the Bill was lodged in Parliament before the County Council came into existence; that although the Act creating the County Councils had passed it did not come into active operation until after the time that the promoters took steps to obtain the Local Act; and that if they had been guided solely by the words of Section 54 of the Local Government Act, and had not come to Parliament, they, in all probability, would have had a delay of 12 months before anything could have been done. The Committee were also impressed with the undoubted fact that the promoters had already incurred a large proportion of the total expense of obtaining the Bill, and that the whole of that expenditure would have been thrown away if the Committee had declined to entertain the Preamble. As regards the second paragraph of the question, in all cases where an application is made to the Local Government Board in pursuance of the Local Government Act for a provisional order for an extension of a borough boundary, the Board will direct the necessary local inquiry,
  776
  unless they are clearly of opinon, upon the facts submitted to them, that the application should not be proceeded with. In any case hereafter in which it is proposed to obtain an extension of the boundary of a borough by a Local Bill instead of by application for a Provisional Order under the Local Government Act, it will be for Parliament to determine what course they will adopt with reference to the measure.

  LADY VISITORS TO PRISONS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the names of the prisons in England and Wales to which ladies have been appointed as voluntary visitors; and what is the number of prisons to which such appointments have for the first time been made since September, 1887?
  MR. MATTHEWS: There are 26 prisons in all to which ladies have been appointed as visitors. I shall be happy to show the hon. Member the list. Appointments have been made to two of these prisons—Devizes and Durham —since September, 1887.

  MOVABLE DWELLINGS.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is in a position to give an approximate estimate of the number of persons living permanently in movable dwellings?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am unable to give an approximate estimate of the number of persons living permanently in movable dwellings. I may mention, however, that the number of persons enumerated as sleeping in caravans and tents, and in the open air on April 1, 1881, the date of the last census, was as follows:—Males, 4,668; females, 3,901—making a total of 8,569.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the powers under Section 9 of "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885," over tents, vans, sheds, and other similar structures, for purposes of public health, have been made use of by Sanitary Authorities; whether any, and, if so, how many Sanitary Authorities have made bye-laws under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of "The Housing of the Working Classes

  777
  Act, 1885," for promoting cleanliness in, and the habitable condition of tents, vans, sheds, and similar structures, used for human habitation, and for preventing the spread of infectious disease by the persons inhabiting the same, and generally for the prevention of nuisances in connection with the same. And whether the Local Government Board have taken steps by circular or otherwise to draw the attention of Sanitary Authorities to the extensive powers at present possessed by them, under Section 9 of "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885," with regard to tents, vans, sheds, and other similar structures?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board, after the passing of "The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885," brought specially under the attention of the several Urban and Rural Sanitary Authorities the provisions of Section 9 of that Act as regards the regulation of tents, vans, sheds, and similar structures used for human habitation. With regard to Sub-section 1 of that section, the Board have no information as to the extent to which Local Authorities have availed themselves of their powers under the subsection. With respect to Sub-section 2, no bye-laws under that sub-section have been confirmed by the Board. In three instances only have bye-laws been proposed by Urban and Rural Sanitary Authorities, and these are now under consideration.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council of Education whether it has been found practicable to enforce the school attendance of children travelling with canal boats in the district to which the canal boat is registered as belonging, according to the requirements of the "Canal Boats Act, 1877;" whether, owing to difficulties connected with the enforcement of the provisions of the "Canal Boats Act, 1877," with regard to the elementary education of children belonging to canal boats, attempts had been made, apart from the special provisions of the "Canal Boats Act, 1877," to compel attendance at a school in the district in which the child for the time being may be; and whether such attempts have been protested against, and opposed by school managers and school teachers in the interests of the schools under their management?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I have no information as to the last two paragraphs of the question; but Mr. Brydone's Report, which will be included in the forthcoming Blue Book, shows that a great deal has been done to carry out the "Canal Boats Act," and that its enforcement has in many eases reduced the number of children on board the boats, and there is reason to believe that the substitution of special bye laws in respect of such children, in lieu of those of the district in which they happen to be, as is proposed in the "Movable Dwellings Bill," would be of great service.

  THE SESSIONS RELIEF ACT.
  MR. SWETENHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Mr. Justice Hawkins, in charging the Grand Jury at Birmingham on Saturday last, that "The Sessions Relief Act, 1889," directs that, when prisoners have committed offences indictable for trial at Quarter Sessions, the witnesses are to be bound over to Quarter Sessions, unless the Justices, for "special reasons," otherwise direct; that the Act did not state what these special reasons were, and did not appear to apprehend the seriousness of a man lying in gaol three or four months at the expense of the county. In that division of Warwickshire there were no fewer than 17 prisoners awaiting their trial whose offences had been committed since the 28th of June, and who must wait in gaol until between the 2nd and 10th of October, when the next Sessions would be held; and whether, in order to prevent as far as possibe the recurrence of the cruelty of keeping prisoners awaiting their trial in the manner they are being kept in the division of Warwickshire referred to, and the expense to the county, he will issue a Circular to the Magistrates' Clerks of the Petty Sessional Divisions, stating that the near approach of the Assizes as compared with the Sessions affords a "special reason" for directing the witnesses to be bound over to appear at the Assizes?
  MR. MATTHEWS: My attention had not been directed to the observations quoted by my hon. Friend until I saw his question. I should be exceed-

  779
  ing my proper functions if I issued to Magistrates' Clerks a Circular professing to give an authoritative construction of the Assizes Relief Act, 1889. It is for Justices to decide upon all the circumstances whether "special reasons" exist for sending any case to the Assizes, and I apprehend they would take into consideration, among other circumstances, the comparative proximity of the Assizes and Sessions.

  H.M.S. SULTAN.
  MR. ISAACSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any further information as to the progress made in raising the Sultan?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No news has been received since July 28, when a preliminary trial was made by the salvors of their pumps.

  SHORT SIGHT AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has yet received any reports from his Inspectors regarding the alleged increase of short sight in the children attending public elementary schools?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: As the Inspectors have no previously ascertained data upon which to form a comparative judgment upon the point, a considerable time would necessarily elapse before they could be expected to give an opinion; but the matter has not been lost sight of, and I hope it may be possible to secure some reliable information in connection with it.

  GUNS IN BARBETTE.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of first-class ironclads have guns mounted in barbette, and if these would be disabled if hit at the hole and within a few feet of the muzzle by shot of 4·7 guns when fired with the new powders; if the 4·7 guns can fire 10 shots a minute?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Six of the 19 first-class ironclads have their main armament mounted in barbette. The chases of these guns are in common with guns placed in turrets exposed to injury by shot. As to the probable effect of a shot from a 4·7 gun on the chase near the muzzle, I must refer the
  780
  hon. and gallant Member to the answer to a similar question put by him to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on Tuesday. It has not been found practicable to give the chase of these guns greater protection, but as they will usually be pointed towards the enemy they will present a comparatively small target.

  THE CALEDONIAN CANAL.
  MR. FINLAY&c): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the present condition of the Caledonian Canal, and especially to the fact that traffic is much impeded owing to the state of Loch Oich; whether inquiries have been made as to the works necessary to remedy the present position of affairs; and whether the Government will consider the propriety of taking measures, in co-operation with the Commissioners with a view to having the required works executed?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): As regards the present condition of the Caledonian Canal, the Commissioners have, within the last two years, undertaken the renewal of the lock gates, in accordance with a special Report by their Engineer Superintendent, which is appended to the annual Report recently presented to Parliament. The estimated cost of the work was £20,000, and Parliament has passed a vote of £5,000 as the first contribution towards this outlay. Owing to the severe drought this summer, the traffic on Loch Oich is much impeded, and this subject is under consideration.

  VENEZUELA.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received information that the vessel of a British subject, named Philip, of Trinidad, was chased by a Venezuelan revenue cutter, who threatened to shoot him, and made off with his boat and cargo, leaving him in a destitute condition on the uninhabited island of Patos; whether a Government official, sent to the Bocas to inquire into the facts, fully corroborated Philip's statements; and whether the Government have taken any steps to obtain from Venezuela redress for this latest outrage?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): No information of such a case having occurred has reached Her Majesty's Government.

  STATEMENTS BY PRISONERS.
  MR. SWETENHAM&c): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the divergent practice of Judges in allowing or disallowing a prisoner, who is defended by counsel, to make a statement to the jury in a capital or lesser case, some allowing it only to be made before counsel's address for the defence, and some, as in a recent ease, after a speech by counsel and evidence called for the defence, and some disallowing a written statement to be read, he will confer with the Lord Chancellor as to the desirability either of calling a meeting of Judges to decide upon a uniformity of practice, or of bringing in a Bill next Session to extend the practice prescribed by the Criminal Law Amendment Act to all indictable offences?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Her Majesty's Government have both in this Session and the last introduced a Bill which would remedy the anomalies pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend, and, although various circumstances have delayed it so far, I hope the next Session it may be passed into law.

  IRELAND—BOYCOTTING—CASE OF MELLON AND DOYLE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of John J. Mellon, Wm. P. Doyle, and Gregory Kavanagh, who were arrested in Gorey, at 8 o'clock on the morning of the 12th July, on the charge of boycotting, and detained in custody till 8 o'clock p.m. when they were brought before a Magistrate, who remanded them, accepting bail for their appearance; whether he is aware that, although the Petty Sessions clerk informed the Magistrate (Colonel Miller) that the bail bonds could be prepared by half-past 10 o'clock a.m. on the 13th, on the application of the police, Colonel Miller fixed 2 o'clock the next day as the time for taking the recognizances, and that the solicitors for the prisoners, after
  782
  having been three times refused an interview with them, was at length allowed to see the prisoners separately in presence of Head Constable M'Cormick; and whether he will give directions that prisoners detained in any Constabulary barracks will be permitted in future to have private interviews with their solicitor; whether it is a fact that these three prisoners, in spite of the remonstrance of a constable, were ordered by the head constable to be detained on the night of the 12th July in a cell about five feet by eight feet, which was in a disgustingly filthy condition, drunken prisoners having been previously confined in it; and whether steps will be taken to guard against the danger to prisoners' health likely to arise from confinement in such dens?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understood that as the 13th July was a fair day, 2 o'clock was fixed as the most convenient hour for taking the recognisances. The police did refuse to allow Mr. Scott, a solicitor, to interview the prisoners without a District Inspector's authority. Immediately upon Mr. Scott applying to the District Inspector, he gave him permission to see the prisoners, but in the presence of the police, as the men were in custody, and had not yet been brought before a Magistrate. It is not the case that any constable remonstrated with the head constable as is alleged in the question; nor was the lock-up in a dirty state when the prisoners were placed in it.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the charge made against these men has since been withdrawn?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that question without notice.

  POSTAL FACILITIES IN IRELAND.
  MR.P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he, some time ago, received a Memorial, largely and influentially signed, from a number of ratepayers resident in the parish of Kilruane, in the postal district of Nenagh, County Tipperary, and also from a number of merchants and traders in the town of Nenagh, praying that a post office for the receiving and delivery of letters might be established at Kilruane; and, whether, having regard to the fact (as set forth in the Memorial)

  783
  that this large and important district, comprising in its area 13 townlands, is several miles from the nearest post office, whereby the residents are subject to very great inconvenience, he will see his wav to have the want supplied?
  MR. RAIKES: Yes, Sir; the Memorial to which the hon. Member refers received my careful consideration; but I was unable to sanction the establishment of a post office at Kilruane, partly on account of the additional expense involved, and partly because the arrangement would have rendered necessary a change in the order of the present post from Nenagh, and excluded certain places now within that post. The letters which would be left to be called for at a post office at Kilruane only average two or three a week; and I regret that the circumstances do not admit of the Memorialists' wishes being complied with.

  COST OF DEPENDING PRISONERS.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, for payment out of moneys provided by Parliament for the defence of persons charged whose trial has been removed, have been at all put into operation, and to what extent; whether any direction under the 14th section of that Act have been given by the Lord Lieutenant with respect to persons charged and their counsel; whether the rules made under the 15th section have been construed by Crown Solicitors as tying them down to the payment of travelling expenses only; and, whether, having regard to the trial of a score of poor Donegal peasants in Queen's County, he will see that proper directions for the payment of the cost of the defence are given at once?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, referred to in the first paragraph of the question, have been put into operation. The directions referred to in the second paragraph have been given. Crown Solicitors have not construed the rules made under the 15th section as limiting payments to travelling expenses only. In addition to those payments an allowance, according to a scale approved by the Treasury,
  784
  is made for maintenance and loss of time to traversers and their witnesses. The necessary directions have already been given for the payment, according to the fixed scale, of such of the expenses in connection with the prosecution mentioned as are authorised under the Act.
  MR. SEXTON: Are we to understand that in the case of these poor men who were arrested last February, whose families have been impoverished by their long imprisonment, and who are to be kept in prison till next October, the trial has been removed to the centre of Ireland, a long distance away, and the Government are not going to pay the expenses of their solicitors?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have done my best to answer the question on the Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper, I will do my best to find out what the practice is.

  EVICTION AT ABBEYFEALE.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the eviction of William Harnett (aged 87) on Friday last, near Abbeyfeale, County Limerick, on the estate of Mr. James Esmonde, J.P., when Dr. Bolster, who attended at the request of the authorities, declared Harnett's life in danger, and ordered that he should not be removed, and the Rev. William Casey, P.P., who was present for the purpose of administering the last sacrament to Harnett, was twice forcibly prevented by order of District Inspector Rice; and will District Inspector Rice be directed not to prevent a clergyman having access to one of his parishioners under similar circumstances?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Rev. William Casey twice refused to go outside the police cordon along with the rest of the people assembled, unless removed by force. When removed he subsequently tried to force his way through the cordon. He was prevented, as there was no necessity for his presence. Harnett was not removed, his family were, but at once re-admitted as caretakers. Every consideration was shown to the tenant and his family in the carrying

  785
  out of the eviction, and Mrs. Harnett thanked the District Inspector for the kindness shown.
  MR. ABRAHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to a letter published by Father Casey, in which the rev. gentleman states that the daughter called him to administer the sacrament to her dying parent, that he was again pushed back by Mr. Wright, the Inspector, and when the Inspector seem disposed by his entreaties to allow him, a policeman with fixed bayonet rushed up and reminded him of the orders that had been given? Will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry so that Father Casey can give evidence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I see no reason for an inquiry.
  MR. MACNEILL: Had the right hon. Gentleman this case before him when he declared that the relations between the constabulary and the people had improved?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  ACCOMMODATION IN VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, if he will state the number and the names of the Voluntary Schools, where, as at Luton, the accommodation provided has been calculated on the 10 square feet basis?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The accommodation of the voluntary schools in Luton continues to be calculated for the purposes of annual grant at eight square feet. Instances of the wider computation of ten feet where the question has arisen of the accommodation to be supplied in order to cover a deficiency in a district are common, and have recently occurred at Nottingham, Swindon, and Liversedge. If I were to give an exhaustive list I should have to go back to the earliest years after the passing of the Act of 1870.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State that even the settlers in Western Australia are by no means unanimous in accept-
  786
  ing the proposed plan of responsible government; and, whether, on the contrary, he has received representations from the Albany district, in the southwest of the Colony, objecting to the proposed plan.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: A Petition, which is from the Albany district, was brought under the notice of Parliament in the Command Paper, c. 5,743, p. 31. It was signed by 90 persons. A careful consideration of it did not lead Her Majesty's Government to modify their opinion that the people of Western Australia and of the other Australian colonies are right in advising the early establishment of responsible government in Western Australia.
  MR. LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can lay before the House any further communications from the Governor of Western Australia with reference to the granting of a responsible Constitution to the colony; and whether he has received any further communications on the subject from the other Australian colonies?
  MR. W.H.SMITH: A telegram from the Government of South Australia to its Agent-General, asking him to impress on the Imperial Government the desirability of passing this Session the Western Australia Bill, has been received, and to-day a further telegram has come in from Lord Carrington, communicating an address from the members of the Legislative Assembly, New South Wales, relative to the passing of the Bill. The telegram is too long to read now, but it has been sent to the Press.

  OVERHEAD WIRES AND SPIKED WIRE FENCES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government intend to propose legislation on the subject of overhead wires, or whether the Local Authorities of urban municipalities and of counties (including the County of London) can deal with these matters under the power of making bye-laws which the Legislature has conferred on them? I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to the growing practice of erecting spiked wire fences of a character dangerous to young and old along public roads and paths; and,

  787
  whether the Local Authorities can deal with such a matter by bye-laws?
  MR. RITCHIE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to answer both these questions. In the case of some boroughs local Acts have been passed which empower the authorities to make bye-laws on the subject of overhead wires. With the exception of these cases, Local Authorities are not enabled to make bye-laws on the subject. It is obvious that no legislation on this question can be proposed this Session, and I cannot make any statement as to what may be proposed in a future Session. My attention has not been called to the practice of erecting spiked wire fences of a character dangerous to young and old along public roads and paths, and the matter is not one with which Local Authorities are empowered to deal by bye-laws.
  SIR GEOEGE CAMPBELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act and the Local Government Act?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am aware of the provisions of those Acts, but I am not aware what good government has to do with spiked wires.

  THE SCOTCH HERRING FISHERY.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the evidence led before Sheriff-substitute Fraser, at Stornoway, on the 12th June last, in the prosecution, at the instance of the Fishery Board, against Mr. George Colville, fishcurer, Stornoway; whether it is the case, as reported in the newspapers of that date, that in delivering judgment in the case the Sheriff-substitute expressed himself as follows:—
  "I conclude from the evidence led as to the impossibility of making a lot of barrels which will turn out to have the same exact capacity, that some of these 25 are even above the standard. That being so, I think it is clear that in this case Mr. Colville had no intention to contravene the law, or to do anything to cheat the foreign market. The object of these Statutes of George III. was to provide against cheating in point of size. It is clear Mr. Colville had no intention to do so. Those seized were some time exposed to the air and sun, and got affected. I think that may be held to account for the deficiency in most of them. That being so, it appears to me that the prosecutors acted rather sharply in forfeit-
  788
  ing barrels which came so very near the standard.… I therefore feel, whatever my own opinion may be, I may probably be wrong, probably I am, but I am bound to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. If this case is appealed, the High Court may see fit to reverse it decision in the case of Loudon; but with all these matters before me, I am, therefore, bound to convict Mr. Colville of a contravention of the Statute; and in terms thereof I declare the barrels forfeited;"
  and whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill to repeal those sections of the Statute 94 of 55 Geo. 3, which were enacted to meet conditions and requirements of the herring fishery in Scotland which no longer exist, and which impose on the fishcurers of Scotland antiquated restrictions that do not exist in England or Ireland, and which place them at a disadvantage in the foreign markets?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Secretary for Scotland is acquainted with the facts of the case referred to. There is no reason to doubt that the quotation in the question is a correct statement of what Sheriff Fraser said, but owing to the short notice given by the hon. Member I have not been able to ascertain this for certain. I will, however, assume that it is so. The Government have under their consideration the provisions of the Statute referred, with the view of making a change in the law regulating the size of herring barrels, should it appear on further inquiry that such a change is necessary.

  POSTMASTER OF ENNISKILLEN.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is true, as stated, that a Mr. Haines, belonging to the Wolverhampton Post Office, has been appointed Postmaster of Enniskillen, which office has been vacant for some time past; how long has this gentleman been connected with the Department; and whether he possessed any qualifications for the position; whether there were numerous applicants for the vacancy from some of the most important Irish Post Offices, and whether a number of these applicants were well qualified, and were highly recommended by their respective superior officers for the appointment; whether an Englishman was appointed Postmaster of Ballymena when vacant some months ago, and whether applications for the position were received

  789
  from many qualified Irish Post Office officials; whether it is the custom to appoint Englishmen to such public offices in Ireland; and, whether Irishmen are eligible for such promotion in England; and when, if ever, such an appointment occurred?
  MR. RAIKES: It is the fact that Mr. Haines, who was recently in the Post Office Service at Wolverhampton, has been appointed to the Postmastership at Enniskillen. Mr. Haines has been connected with the Department for 23 years, and, in my judgment and that of his immediate superiors, was very highly qualified for the position to which he has been appointed. After very careful examination of the qualifications of all the candidates, he appeared to be distinctly more qualified than any of the others. The answer to the second and third paragraphs is in the affirmative. The hon. Member is, perhaps, not aware that officers in every branch of the Postal Service are eligible for Postmasterships, and applications are received from every part of the United Kingdom whenever a vacancy is notified. I do not know that my predecessors made it a rule to appoint Irishmen to Irish offices and Englishmen to English offices, and I think that, acting in accordance with the principle embodied in the existing practice, it is desirable to make appointments in either country of those servants who are best fitted for the position. I think it will be found that the countrymen of the hon. Member will have rather more to gain than to lose by such a practice.
  MR. JORDAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable amount of discontent among all parties in Enniskillen at this appointment, and that an article condemning it has appeared in a strong Conservative journal, the Fermanagh Times?
  MR. RAIKES: I am not aware of any local dissatisfaction except that expressed in the terms of the question. I should think that if the appointment has been criticised in the local Conservative journal, it is an indication that it has not been made on Party grounds.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if in his time an Irish Postmaster has been appointed in Great Britain?
  MR. RAIKES: I hope to hold office long enough to appoint more than one Irishman to positions in Great Britain.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I may say that, in putting the question, I did not intend to insinuate that Mr. Haines was not qualified, but merely to raise the question of appointing English officials to places which Irish officials might reasonably expect to obtain.

  COUNTY ELECTORS.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the case that a Local Government elector who removes from a parish outside a municipal borough to a parish within a municipal borough, both parishes being within the boundaries of the same administrative county, is deprived of his qualification as a county elector under the provisions relating to successive occupation, in consequence of his not being qualified as a burgess of the borough, no provision being made in the Local Government Act or the County Electors Act for the preparation of separate lists of burgesses, and of county electors who may reside within a municipal borough; and whether it was the intention of the Government, in framing the Local Government Act and the County Electors Act, to impose such a deprivation upon persons so removing; and, if not, whether he will take steps to remove any misapprehension which may exist as to the state of the Law, and to secure to all persons duly qualified full opportunity of exercising their electoral rights?
  MR. RITCHIE: A person cannot vote at an election of County Councillors within a borough unless he is registered as a burgess of that borough. He can only be registered as a burgess of the borough it he has occupied during the whole 12 months immediately preceding the 15th of July qualifying premises within the borough. The successive occupation of such premises in the borough during this period will suffice, but it it is not enough that during part of the time he has occupied qualifying premises in the county and outside the borough. He need not have resided during the whole 12 months in the borough. It is sufficient if he has resided in the borough or within seven miles of it. It was not intended that a

  791
  person should vote at an election of County Councillors in a borough, unless he was registered as a burgess. Section 2 (4) of the Local Government Act expressly provides that the persons entitled to vote at the election of County Councillors shall be in a borough the burgesses enrolled in pursuance of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and the Acts amending the same.

  WESTMINSTER HALL.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, having regard to opinions expressed in this House and elsewhere, he will direct the stone parapet or bastion, lately erected by Mr. Pearson, E. A., at the south-west corner of Westminster Hall, to be removed; or, if not removed, to be lowered, so as to bring its upper horizontal moulding in a line with the upper cross bar of the iron gateway leading to St. Stephen's Cloisters, and thus restore the harmony of Sir C. Barry's design for the south end, which, if the southwest bastion be allowed to remain unaltered, is manifestly interfered with?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I understand that it is not the intention of the First Commissioner to undo any portion of the work carried out by Mr. Pearson in Westminster Hall, but I will take care that the First Commissioner's attention is called to the suggestion as to lowering the parapet, and he will no doubt consider it on his return. I have communicated with the architect, who replies as follows:—
  "The stone parapet in south-west corner of Westminster Hall is as low as is consistent with safety. The harmony of Sir C. Barry's design is not interfered with by the erection of a parapet and wall, for a new purpose differing entirely from that fulfilled by the railing on the opposite side."

  THE POLICE IN DONEGAL.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at 4.15 a.m. on 29th July, a bailiff named Wales, assisted by police, forced open the door of Mr. Bernard Reynolds, one of the tenants on the Crocker estate, in South Donegal, against whom a degree for rent had been obtained at the suit of the landlord, and that, having forced open the door, rushed into the house, and demanded from Mrs. Reynolds,
  792
  who was only partially dressed, the keys of the outhouses in which the cattle, the subjects of the proposed seizure for rent, were; and, on the keys being refused, the police and bailiff broke open the doors of the outhouses and seized the cattle; and, whether he will be able to say whether the police in thus assisting the bailiff were acting within their duty? I may say that two paragraphs of the question has been eliminated, which makes it rather poor English.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the door of the dwelling-house was not forced open by the bailiff or the police, but was opened by some one inside, whereupon they entered. The police did not break down any door, or assist in any way. They were there to afford their personal protection solely.

  THE NAVAL INSPECTION AND THE PRESS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can explain how it happened that no intimation of the postponement of the Naval Inspection was conveyed to the Commander of H.M.S. Seahorse, with the representatives of the Press on board, and that, in consequence, this ship was compelled to remain unnecessarily in the Solent for six hours during the stormy weather of Saturday last, and her passengers thereby subjected to great discomfort and inconvenience; also why it was that they were required to provide their own refreshments, while the visitors on board the troopships Serapis and Euphrates were provided with a free lunch; and whether it was with his sanction that the representatives of the Press were thus treated?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: At the time the Seahorse, with the representatives of the Press on board, left Portsmouth it was not known that the inspection was postponed. For reasons already stated it was not considered advisable to provide refreshments gratuitously for other than, the Legislature and the Corps Diplomatique.
  MR. RUSSELL: Were no other persons provided with free luncheons on board these ships?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: There were, the friends of Members of Parliament.
  MR. RUSSELL: They were not official persons, I presume? The question was not answered.

  RAILWAYS IN IRELAND.
  MR. O'HANLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has read an account in the Cavan Celt, of a meeting having been held in Bailie borough to urge on the Government the importance of constructing a line of railway between Kells and Clones viâ Mullagh and Bailie borough; and whether the Government are prepared to give any pledge that this large district will be opened up in this way within the near future?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen the newspaper report referred to. But as the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill is general in its terms and does not deal with any particular line, its application to particular districts which may be decided to come under its provisions will be matter for consideration after the Bill becomes law.

  ALLEGED OUTRAGE IN MOROCCO.
  MR. NEWNESon behalf of Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the public Press that an outrage has been committed by the Pacha of Morocco against the property of the Native Agent of the British Legation, and whether the statement is accurate that Her Majesty's Government intend to demand reparation; whether the Agent is one Bookber A1 Ganjowie, who is a notorious slave dealer in Morocco, and whether the alleged outrage consisted in the closing, by order of the Sultan, of certain houses of ill-fame owned by him; and, what is the nature of the reparation demanded by Her Majesty's Government?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No information has been received at the Foreign Office on the subject. The principal newspapers have been searched, but the statement referred to by the hon. Member has not been found.

  H.M.S. SULTAN.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of
  794
  the Admiralty when the Report of the proceedings at the inquiry into the circumstances attending the loss of the Sultan will be laid upon the Table?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Report of the inquiry held into the circumstances of the loss of the Sultan has been published in extenso in the daily Press. I did not make this Report a Parliamentary Paper, as such a course would invite this House to review the decision of Courts of Inquiry.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Will the noble Lord allow me to remind him that some time ago, in answer to a question, he promised to lay the Report on the Table?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No, I did not say that; I said I would take the matter into consideration. My reason for objecting to make the Report a Parliamentary Paper is that it would be practically an invitation to this House to review the decisions of a Court of Inquiry.
  MR. E ROBERTSON: Is there any reason why this House should not review the findings of a Court of Inquiry?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes, Sir; I think there is every reason.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: In consequence of the answer I have received from the First Lord of the Admiralty, I wish to justify myself in putting the question on the Paper in its present form.
  MR. SPEAKER: No justification is required.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: In consequence of the answer which I received, which I regard as an evasive answer, I beg to give notice that I shall take every opportunity of bringing the circumstances of this inquiry under the notice of the House.

  JERVIS'S ACT.
  MR. AINSLIE: I beg to ask the Attorney General when he proposes to amend the law in respect to offences committed under Jervis's Act (11 and 12 Vic. c. 43, s. 11), in order to prevent defaulters escaping punishment owing to proceedings having to be taken within six months of the misconduct complained of?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): In reply to the question of the hon. Member, I have to say that the matter to which the question refers has not escaped attention,

  795
  but it was not thought desirable to propose any amendment of the law until the Reports of certain Committees which are now sitting have been received. I trust, however, that I may be able to deal with the matter early in next Session.

  BEHRING SEA FISHERIES—SEIZURE OF THE BLACK DIAMOND.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government with reference to the seizure by the United States revenue cutter Rush of the Canadian vessel Black Diamond in the Behring Sea?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No statement of the facts of this case has reached Her Majesty's Government, either from the Colonial Authorities or from the master or crew of the vessel; but the Government of Canada have been asked for the requisite information.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  MR. NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the publication by several of the morning papers, on the 7th inst., of the Report of the Select Committee on Friendly societies before its circulation; and, if this has been done with the consent of the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Wigtownshire?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have communicated with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigtownshire, and he informs me that the Report of the Select Committee on Friendly Societies was not given to the Press with his consent or knowledge, although he was several times asked to do so.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SALT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if a Lunacy Law Consolidation Bill—inasmuch as it will probably contain no contentious matter—can be introduced and passed into law, in the ensuing Session of Parliament, before the Lunacy Bill of the present Session comes into operation?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In this House last week an Amendment was inserted, on Report, into the Lunacy Amendment Bill, postponing its operation till next May, with the express view of making it possible to pass a Bill consolidating the Lunacy Acts before that date. This Consolidation Bill will be laid on the Table of the other House before the adjournment this Session.
  MR. H. GARDNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider to what great inconvenience hon. Members have been put by the putting down of the Tithe Bill about 14 times. Will he fix a definite day for it, and then take it de die in diem?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am very anxious to give the House all information with regard to the course of public business. But it is not in my power to fix the time which will be occupied with the business standing on the Orders before this particular measure. It is, however, the intention of the Government to take the Tithe Bill on Monday next. As I am referring to public business, I may say that, perhaps, it may be necessary to ask the House to sit on Saturday. ["Oh, oh!"] I make this announcement because I do not wish to take hon. Members by surprise. Gentlemen who object to a Saturday sitting are well aware that those who sit on this Bench are the greatest sufferers. I believe there is a strong desire not to prolong the Session, and I think it my duty to ask the House to sit on Saturday.
  MR. G. O. MORGAN: Will the Tithe Bill be taken on Monday, whether the Irish Estimates are finished or not?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the Irish Estimates may be concluded tomorrow; if not, they may be taken on Saturday.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think he will advance business by forcing the Estimates in this way?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not use the word "force." I wish to carry the House with me. No doubt it is inconvenient to every Member to be here on Saturday.
  MR. G. O. MORGAN: If the Irish Estimates are not taken on Mon-

  797
  day, will the Tithe Bill be taken as the first Order?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It will be substantially the first Order. Sometimes it is necessary to take a purely formal Measure first. The Bill will be taken on Monday, or at the latest on Tuesday.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to proceed with it de die in diem, as it will probably last some time?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly, Sir; we propose to proceed with it until it is disposed of.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: May I ask whether, in the event of the Tithe Bill being passed, the Government will introduce a comprehensive Measure next Session dealing with the whole Tithe Rent charge Question?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have more than once stated during the present Session that it was the wish of the Government to propose a comprehensive Measure on the Tithe Question. But we found it was a more difficult matter than we had anticipated, and the Bill prepared on the subject has not been introduced. The course the Government intend to take is either to bring forward a Measure of the character my hon. Friend has mentioned or to ask the House to concur with the other House in appointing a Joint Committee to inquire into the whole question with a view to legislation at the earliest possible opportunity.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Are we to understand that the other Estimates are to be postponed until the Tithes Bill has been disposed of?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir.
  MR. LAWSON: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the second or substituted London County Council Bill will be circulated among Members; whether the County Council will have an opportunity of considering it, and when the Second Reading will be taken?
  MR. JACKSON: If the Bill has not already been circulated, it is certainly now in the Vote Office. We hope to proceed with it to-morrow night.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Are we to understand that no measure on the Paper will be taken this week before 12 o'clock, and that the Estimates are to be taken during the whole week, including Saturday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That is rather a large order. But it is the intention of the Government to adhere to the Estimates this week, and to give full time to them.
  MR. H. GARDNER: Will the proposed Commission have power to inquire into the working of the Tithe Commutation Act, 1836? And may I also ask whether the Government is in possession of any information on the subject that they did not possess two years ago, when they refused me a Commission?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing we suggest a Commission; I said a Joint Committee of both Houses.

  IRELAND—CASE OF MR. CONYBEARE.
  MR. MACNEILL: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he still adheres to his previous statements that the health of Mr. Conybeare, M.P., has not been affected by his imprisonment, and especially that his eyesight has not been injured by confinement in a whitewashed cell. I hold in my hand a letter from Mr. Conybeare, complaining of injury to his eyes, which I should be pleased to read to the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I stated that, as far as my information went, and I still state, there is no reason for any fear with regard to the hon. Gentleman's health. I have no knowledge of the communication to which the hon. Gentleman opposite refers.
  DR. KENNY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give directions to the prison authorities in Ireland to give up the absurd practice—condemned by everyone who has any knowledge of the subject—of whitewashing the cells, and to adopt some neutral colour?
  MR. MACNEILL: This is a very serious matter, affecting not only Members of this House but human beings. Will the House allow me to read Mr. Conybeare's letter? He says: "Mr. Balfour's reply to your question on Tuesday aptly illustrates the value of official replies."
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Any controversial matter should not be introduced. The hon. Member should only read such portions of the letter as refer to the health of the hon. Member for Camborne.
  MR. MACNEILL: The letter goes on to state that on the previous Wednesday my hon. Friend complained to Sir Hervey Bruce, one of the Visiting Justices. He says:—
  "If the Prisons Board have no evidence of the condition of my eyesight, it is simply because they have never taken the trouble to inquire. The doctor here, so far as I know, has never been asked; at any rate, he has never asked me about my eyes. As a matter of fact, I protest against the whitewashed cell, as I have protested ever since I came here. My general health also is bad, and I am nearly crippled."
  I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Visiting Justice forwarded a Report, and where is that report now; and do the Government know, as a fact, whether Mr. Conybeare's eyesight is impaired or not?
  MR. W. McARTHUR: Would it not be worth while—if only to satisfy the anxiety of the hon. Member's constituents—for the right hon. Gentleman to have a proper Medical Report of the health of the hon. Member for Camborne, and lay it before the House?
  MR. BALFOUR: The Medical Officer of the prison, a most competent man, has daily opportunities of seeing the hon. Member. It is his business to report to the Prisons Board should there be anything in the gaol injurious to the hon. Gentleman's health. Nay, he has ample power, without going to the Board at all, to see that such changes are made in the treatment of the hon. Member as would prevent any injurious consequences. Of course, I shall be glad to make further inquiry, but under these circumstances I think there is no reason for any anxiety.

  THE MAYBRICK CASE.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask the Home Secretary whether it is true, as stated in a great many newspapers, that one of Her Majesty's Judges was, at the termination of a criminal trial in Liverpool yesterday, followed and mobbed by a hissing and hooting crowd; whether the jurors and witnesses in the case were also hissed and hooted; and whether the prisoner, who had been found guilty of poisoning her husband, was cheered when placed in the prison van?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no official information upon the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
  800
  I have seen the statements in the newspaper, and I have read with the deepest regret that that kind of popular review of the conduct of either Judge or jury should ever be witnessed in this country.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen from the papers, or learned from any official source, whether the police, who were in great force on that occasion, either batoned or bayoneted or shot the people?

  RULES AND ORDERS OF DEBATE.
  The Order of the Day having been called for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply,
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to submit a question to you, Sir, in regard to an entry on the votes as to the proceedings yesterday in Committee of Supply. At half-past five o'clock a Division was in progress on an Amendment to reduce the vote for the Irish Constabulary. When the Division came to an end, it then being after half-past five, the Chairman did not leave the Chair according to the established rule, but put another Motion—namely, the main question on the Vote. Objection was taken to that proceeding, it being after half-past five, and the First Lord of the Treasury then rose and moved "that the Question be now put." The Chairman accepted that Motion and put the question. On being asked whether there was a precedent for that course the Chairman said there was a precedent on November 14 of last year. But there is a difference between the proceeding on the 14th of November last year and that of yesterday, because in the former case no objection was taken to proceeding after half-past five o'clock, and no objection appeared in the Report of what passed. As soon as the Division after half-past five was over the Chairman was bound by the Standing Order to leave the Chair, and after objection was taken further proceeding with contentious business ought according to the rule, as I understand it, to have been abandoned. I, therefore, wish to ask you, Sir, if you are disposed to inform the House what is the proper step to be taken by an hon. Member to have the entry on the Votes expunged where the rule has been transgressed.

  801
  I also object to the entry as being inaccurate and incoherent. The entry says—
  "It being after half-past five o'clock and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman rose to interrupt the business."
  These words are inaccurate, because the Chairman rose to put a new Motion, a further Motion—namely, the main question, and then objection was taken. I submitted that the record ought to be amended so as to make it either a faithful or an intelligible representation of what actually took place.
  MR. SPEAKER: I was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman was going to raise a point of order, and, indeed, it is irregular to do so after the business has commenced, and after the occasion on which the point of order arose. But I must respectfully decline to constitute myself a Court of Appeal from the decisions of the Chairman of Committees. The point of order raised yesterday was settled; and if any doubt lingered in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman as to the ruling of the Chairman of Committees it was within his competence to bring it before the House at the time. The Chairman is perfectly competent to decide a point of order in Committee; and I never heard of an appeal being made from the decision of the Chairman to the Speaker. From what I can see of the proceedings I believe they were perfectly in accordance with precedent and with the common law and practice of Parliament. If when half-past five is reached an Amendment to a question is then being decided by a Division, the time of the interruption, of business is thrown forward. When the first question on the Amendment is decided, the main question is proposed, and if objection is taken thereto it is quite in order to move the closure pursuant to the new Standing Order. As for the entry in the Votes I do not observe anything which is irregular. I find it states that "Mr. W. H. Smith rose in his place and claimed to move ' That the Question be now put.'" It is quite competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move that Motion, at the time indicated, and it is the form in use since the new Standing Order, "Sittings of the House," came into force. But I must protest against any reference being made to me against any decision arrived at in Committee; and I have
  802
  only entered thus far into the matter out of regard for the right hon. Gentleman and out of respect for the House generally. No irregularity occurred, in my opinion, but these proceedings were perfectly regular.
  MR. SEXTON: Of course, Sir, I bow to your ruling, and I shall take the opinion of the House on another occasion. But in the matter of the accuracy of the records of the House, you surely, Sir, are the guardian of the House. The record states—
  "It being after half-past five of the clock and objection being taken to further proceedings the Chairman rose to interrupt the business."
  This statement is inaccurate, and that part of it with respect to objection being taken is incoherent and unintelligible.
  MR. SPEAKER: I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman to see that the record is correct, but I have no reason at present to doubt its accuracy.
  MR. COURTNEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast has power to arraign my conduct in this particular, by a Motion made in the House, which is the proper step to take. What was done yesterday was strictly in accordance with the precedents which have been followed both in Committee and in the House. In the particular point to which he has called attention—as to the word "rose"—ho is perhaps justified in his remark. The exact situation may be represented in this way. The Chairman rose, and thereupon he would have left the Chair, objection being taken to further proceeding, had not the right hon. Gentleman moved that the Question be now put. The only point is that the Chairman was on his legs throughout the incident, and therefore the word "rose" is inaccurate.
  MR. SEXTON: I perfectly accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, but will he be good enough to see that the record corresponds with his narrative?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £84,062, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses and Pensions of various County Court Officers, of Divisional Commissioners and Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."
    MR. A. PEASE: The Motion which stands in my name has been described in the public press as an attack upon the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. I demur to that description of it, for it is not my intention to attack the Resident Magistrates of Ireland generally, but rather to attack the system under which they are appointed, and the manner in which the Chief Secretary administers that system. So far from desiring to denounce the whole body of the Resident Magistracy, I would have them placed in a much higher position in the public estimation, where their impartiality and independence would be above suspicion. It will be my disagreeable duty to criticise the conduct of one or two individuals, but I do not desire to attribute the characteristics of these to the whole class to which they belong. Indeed, in some parts, at any rate of Ulster, the Resident Magistrates are the only Magistrates now saturated with Orange prejudices; and at the hands of the Stipendiary there is the only hope for the Nationalist to obtain that justice which is the birthright of every subject of the Crown. It is my sincere wish to ensure a respect for constituted authority, which is now impossible. I am aware the Chief Secretary and a certain number of hon. Gentlemen opposite look upon the Mr. Cecil Roches, the Captain Segraves, and the County Court Judge Webbs—the latter of whom earned, in some degree at any rate, his preferment to his present position through being assistant author of the articles "Parnellism and Crime," and who has shown his gratitude for his preferment by doubling or increasing on appeal the sentences passed on Members of this House, and other political opponents of the Chief Secretary—I know that these men are looked upon as saviours of society. They are not saviours of society; but I believe there
    804
    have been Resident Magistrates, County Court Judges, and Judges of the High Court, who have stood between the Government and their attempt to prostitute and degrade the law for political purposes. While the Chief Secretary and a certain section of Irish officials, and those adventurers who may be described as men who bring their loyalty to market, have been engaged in working the law for their own ends, and to gratify a faction, and bringing thereby contempt upon the law, hatred upon its administration, making the rights of properly intolerable, and depriving the people of their Constitutional liberty, there have been men in Ireland who have resisted the pressure of the Castle, of the Government, and that social pressure of the ascendency class in Ireland, more potent because more insidious, there have been men who have endeavoured to give the same law to the Nationalist and the Catholic as to the Protestant and Tory. Now, we find from a Return laid before the House that all the 90 and odd members of the Resident Magistracy occupy their positions during pleasure, and whose pleasure? The pleasure nominally of the Lord Lieutenant, but the pleasure actually of the Chief Secretary. Sir, they occupy their position during the pleasure of a Party man and a Member of the Government. I imagine that in no country would such a state of things be looked upon as fair, either to the public at large or to that section of the judiciary to which these men belong, and I do not think it is fair to the Resident Magistrates themselves that they should feel that the retention of their position, and in some cases their very livelihood, depends, not upon the conscientious discharge of the duties of their office, but upon the favour of the Chief Secretary. Such a condition of service must, in the course of time, degrade the Bench in public estimation, and lead to a certain servility on the part of members of the Bench. I regard unquestioning obedience to the law the state of mind which a good Government should try to cultivate; but the present Administration, by the methods they pursue, constantly raise in the minds of the people the questions: Are the trials fair trials, are the Justices who try the cases fairly appointed, and are the authorities as

    805
    anxious to secure fair trial for the prisoners, as they are to secure the convictions of the men brought before the Courts? When a Nationalist is brought before a political opponent presiding over one of these Courts, appointed partly on account of his Party bias by a political Minister with strong Party ties, to deal with a case into which political feeling enters very largely, I say the public at large naturally ask the question, is the tribunal a fair tribunal, and is the Magistrate fairly appointed? Now, let me call the attention of the Committee to the qualification of the Resident Magistrates for their office. Of the 90 and odd Resident Magistrates I find that 27 have served in the Army, the Indian Army, or the Militia. Now, it seems to me these are qualifications that do not commend themselves to the people, having regard to the tribunals before which their leaders are brought. They savour rather of a state of Martial Law than of what we expect to see in the United Kingdom under Constitutional Law, and under the reign of what we regard as the Ordinary Law. If we look to the former avocations of Resident Magistrates as given in the third column of this Return we find some very curious qualifications set down. I will not read the names of the Resident Magistrates, but if we commence with No. 7 on this list we find the name of a gentleman who is described as having formerly been a "resident county gentleman and Honorary Secretary to the Tipperary Agricultural Society." Well, I cannot for the life of me see in what way his having been Honorary Secretary to the Tipperary Agricultural Society could be a qualification for the position of a Stipendiary Magistrate in Ireland. The next on the list is described as having "served seven years in the 8th Hussars, and afterwards in the Militia"; the next "served in the Army, and was afterwards Assistant Commissioner in the Dublin Police"; the next "served as High Sheriff in County Limerick in 1881," and "kept all terms for the Bar, but for family reasons was not called." So I might go on through the list giving the qualifications for these gentlemen holding the position they do. There is another objection I take to the system under which Resident Magistrates now act, and that is that there is a confusion
    806
    between their judicial and executive functions. Under Lord Spencer an effort was, I believe, made to prevent this confusion in the duties of the Resident Magistrates from arising, and to insure that the Magistrates who made orders in Court should not execute the decisions themselves. But now the spectacle is frequently seen of a Resident Magistrate adjudicating on a political case in Court, and then going out to give effect to the orders in person at the head of the police, and sometimes with a blackthorn in his hand, aiding the constables to baton the people. Before I have done I shall allude to some instances of this kind in respect to one Resident Magistrate; but I am glad to say that, so far as my own knowledge goes, it is the only case of a Resident Magistrate taking part in the beating and batoning of the people; there may be other cases, but they are not within my own knowledge. I may call attention to the dictum of an Irish Judge in reference to the Magistracy—it is old, but it is as applicable now as it was to the times in which it was delivered.
    "But there is one remedy that would, in my estimation, more than any other, especially contribute to soothe the minds of the discontented peasantry and thereby enable them patiently to suffer the pressure of those burdens which cannot under existing circumstances be effectually removed; I mean the equal and impartial administration of justice.… … It is not improbable that many men have crept into the Commission who, however useful they might occasionally have been, ought not to remain. The needy adventurer,—the hunter for preferment—the intemperate zealot—the trader in false loyalty—the jobbers of absentees —if any of these various descriptions are found their names should be expunged from the Commission."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): May I ask the hon. Gentleman who he is quoting from, and when and where this was said, and was it in reference to the ordinary Bench or to Resident Magistrates especially?
    MR. A. PEASE: The learned Judge was referring, I believe, to the whole Magistracy of the country. The name of the learned Judge was Fletcher. I cannot give the exact date, but he was delivering a charge to the Grand Jury in County Wexford.
    MR. W. REDMOND: In 1814.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a long time ago.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: So much the better.
    MR. A. PEASE: Well, I say some of these Resident Magistrates are unfitted by their previous training to adjudicate on the cases brought before them under the Crimes Act, and many others are equally unfitted for the executive functions they have to discharge. I have myself seen what I can only describe as the crazy ferocity of a Resident Magistrate almost bring about one of those scenes of bloodshed and brutality which are, unhappily, frequent in Ireland, events which, however much they may gratify the appetite of Tories for giving the Irish a lesson, do more to stimulate the passions of the people and to degrade the Executive, the administration of the law, and to injure the prospects of good orderly government than any other incidents whatever. In one particular instance I have in mind nothing but the good sense of the District Inspector who was at the head of a large force of constabulary and who very freely and liberally interpreted the orders he received prevented an inexcusable scene of wanton bloodshed and brutality. We had yesterday some strictures upon the conduct of the police, but I may say that, so far as my own experience goes, I have never seen the police behave badly except when they have been badly handled by the Resident Magistrates, and although the Resident Magistrates who have mismanaged the police do not form a large proportion of those whose names are mentioned in this Return, yet there have been occasions when the mismanagement of Resident Magistrates has brought about scenes that are a scandal to any civilised country. Such a scene was that at Mitchelstown, when Captain Segrave had command. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must be aware of the chronic disposition and mental attitude of some of these gentlemen towards the people at large. While travelling in the West of Ireland not so long ago, I, for the greater part of one day, had the companionship of a Resident Magistrate, and an agreeable, courteous, pleasant companion he was. In the course of conversation we got on to the question of hunting in the dis-
    808
    trict, and the stopping of hunting by the occupiers of land in several parts of Ireland, and I asked if hunting had been so stopped in the district near where we then were. He informed me that an attempt had been made, but he said—
    "We gave them a lesson on the first occasion when they tried to prevent us going on their land. We—
    and I suppose he was including other Magistrates;
    "had the men before us and we gave them—
    I forget the exact sentence,
    "but three or six months' hard labour for objecting to our riding over their land."
    Now, if there is one amusement more than another that depends upon the good will of the agricultural community it is hunting. I was shocked, not only by the account of the punishment inflicted—I cannot myself understand how it could be inflicted; I do not think it could be legally inflicted [Hear, hear! from Mr. BALFOUR]; but we have a reckless executive in Ireland who obey no law but their will—but, as I was about to say, I was more shocked by the lightness with which my companion referred to the whole proceeding and the punishment awarded to these men. I can only say of the part of Yorkshire in which I reside that if there were landlords who set themselves to level and destroy the homes of the people as some Irish landlords have, then I should say that all those engaged in agriculture would be fully entitled to take every legal means in their power to prevent these exterminators—the devastators of the country and the burners and levellers of the people's homes—from the amusement of riding over the fields of those whom they were persecuting. I say this, being myself a strong supporter of the sport. What shocked me more in the conversation with the Resident Magistrate, of whom I speak, was not so much what he said as the manner in which he said it. An incident, of which he seemed to be particularly proud, was having escorted a batch of 40 evicted tenants and their sons to Sligo, where they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment with hard labour for 12 or 18 months. I believe this gentleman to be an honourable and naturally a kindly-disposed man, but his mind appeared to me to be utterly corrupted

    809
    by the brutal system which he had been called upon to carry out for a number of years. The system was bad enough, before the Chief Secretary touched it, but the appointments made to the Magistracy since his time have been more scandalous than before. I was about to allude to Captain Segrave, but I am not quite sure whether his appointment was not made under the present President of the Board of Trade, so I pass that appointment by, and call particular attention to that of Mr. Cecil Roche. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: He was not appointed by me.] The right hon. Gentleman has told the House, however, that Mr. Cecil Roche had been advanced and promoted because he considered that his action in Ireland had deserved it. [Mr. BALFOUR: "Hear, hear."] Who was Mr. Cecil Roche? He was a gentleman who at General Election times was a lecturer and orator engaged on behalf of the Conservative Party. He was engaged by the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union as an itinerant agitator. It seems to me, therefore, that while Houston and Pigott brought their loyalty to market and sold it to the Times, Mr. Cecil Roche did very much the same thing in selling his loyalty to the Chief Secretary. But those qualities which make an administrator hated and create ill-feeling and bitterness among classes in Ireland, seem to me to be the chief recommendations to distinction in the eyes of the Chief Secretary, and a speedy and direct road to promotion and reward. In the mere figures of the convictions recorded before Mr. Cecil Roche I think we have something like a fulfilment of the prophecy held out by Mr. M. Blake, who was Sessional Crown Solicitor for Cork, and who resigned that office on the passing of the Crimes Act. In his letter of resignation he said:—
    "The nature of the procedure under the Crimes Act seems to me to deprive the Crown Prosecutor of any discretion in discriminating between the innocent and guilty—while the tribunal before which he would have to act appears scarcely to have the independence that, in my judgment, ought to characterise any Court intrusted with the liberties of the people."
    I have not been able to find out the full number of convictions in cases tried before Mr. Cecil Roche under the Crimes Act, but between March of last year and the previous August this Mr. Cecil Roche appears to have heard
    810
    charges against 90 persons, of whom he convicted 84. These facts are surely significant of the temper of the man. A learned Judge of the High Court has expressed something very like contempt for these Courts. While Captain Plunkett has found a motto suitable for the Irish Constabulary policy of the Chief Secretary, Baron Dowse has found one for the right hon. Gentleman's Coercion Courts. Yesterday he said of them—
    "I am no great admirer of these inferior Courts; it appears to me their motto is, 'I am Sir Oracle, let no dog bark.'"
    Now it will be said that in the hearing of these cases Mr. Cecil Roche had the assistance of another Resident Magistrate; but everybody knows that every Resident Magistrate has to play second fiddle to Mr. Roche, and in one case he openly denounced as too lenient a sentence passed in his presence by the presiding Magistrate, Mr. Kilkelly, who thereupon asked Colonel Turner to relieve him from the duty of sitting with Mr. Roche again. Well, Mr. Roche is promoted, and Mr. Kilkelly is removed to another district. It is impossible to review anything like a considerable proportion of the cases tried before Mr. Cecil Roche, we shall never know what the common people have suffered at the hands of Mr. Roche; but we can gather some idea of it from what has happened in the cases of Members of this House. The wicked severity of Mr. Roche is illustrated by his sentencing the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. Cox) to four months' imprisonment, on the charge of unlawful assembly, in attending a meeting in a proclaimed district and delivering a speech to his own constituents, the main burden of which was a denunciation of crime and outrage. The best comment upon the sentence is that the County Court Judge reduced it to one month's imprisonment as a first-class misdemeanant. At the risk of wearying the Committee to whom I know the reading of extracts is distasteful, I will read some passages from the speech of the hon. Member for Clare, including the incriminating language, and for this speech I ask the Committee to remember the hon. Member was sentenced by Mr. Roche to four months' imprisonment. Here is an extract from the speech delivered to his constituents:—

    811
    "I would implore the young men of Clare, and I wish my voice could reach the ears and hearts of every young man to-night, and this Lisdoonvarna case may point a moral if it cannot adorn a sad tale for them. Let them shun outrages and avoid the tempter to evil deeds as they would shun Satan himself, and if for no holier and higher motive, at least for the selfish motive of their own safety. There are foolish people in the country who think revenge should he wreaked for any petty act of local tyranny. I do not think the common sense of the country will accept their opinions and views against the opinions and views of our great leader, Mr. Parnell, or the greatest statesman of modern times, Mr. Gladstone. Wherever and whenever you meet with such men avoid and shun them, for, believe me, theirs is no good purpose. The louder they boast of their patriotism and what they are prepared to do and dare the more reason have you to shun them, for, believe me, nine out of every ten of such men are in the pay of our enemies. We have now the great Liberal Party of England at our back, with their great leader, Mr. Gladstone; we have the English democracy with us, as will be told to you in a few minutes by Mr. Conybeare. With such allies, nothing can stop or stay our march to liberty, save and except the commission of outrage, which must inevitably drive our allies from our side, and bring joy, hope, and satisfaction to the hearts of the miserable gang of coercionists—the Cullinane Balfour now in office. Hearken, then, to the advice of the great leader who never yet gave wrong counsel or advice: follow the counsel of the veteran leader of the Liberal Party, be guilty of no crime or outrage, follow the open and Constitutional agitation which will certainly bring us to the goal of our long lost right! "Adhere to the doctrines and teachings of the National League—but I forget my friends. Balfour says the League has been proclaimed in Clare. I ask you, is it? [Loud shouts "No!"] I wish Balfour were here to listen to that thundering shout; he would know the value you place on his proclamation. I beseech you all, young and old, to adhere to the Constitutional teachings ^of the National League."
    Well, these utterances are the crime for which the hon. Member for East Clare was sentenced to four months' imprisonment. Next on the list we come to the treatment of the hon. Member for West Kerry. Mr. Roche sentenced the hon. Member for West Kerry (Mr. E. Harrington) to six months' hard labour for reporting in his own newspaper a speech delivered to his own constituents, and that sentence horrified and disgusted a good many Conservatives and honest Tories, and I believe has done more to throw light on the manner in which the Chief Secretary has the law administered in Ireland than any other sentence passed under the Crimes Act. The hon. Member for the Harbour
    812
    Division of Dublin (Mr. T. Harrington), who has had no connection with the paper for years, although by a clerical error his name appeared on the list of proprietors, was for the same offence in January, 1888, sentenced to six weeks' hard labour—an infamous sentence, the appeal against which has been taken to the High Court, without, however, any day having as yet been fixed for the hearing. This is in itself a significant commentary of the High Court on the action of the Chief Secretary from the Magistrate. Mr. W. O'Brien was sentenced by Mr. Roche to six months for alleged conspiracy; and the comment on this sentence by another County Court Judge was the reduction of it to six weeks. There are other cases on the list, but I think I have quoted enough to show what treatment the political opponents of the Chief Secretary have at the hands of Mr. Cecil Roche. I should like to quote what a London Unionist paper says with regard to some of these convictions—
    "To us it appears clear that Mr. Roche, the Magistrate who tried Mr. T. Harrington's case, decided it contrary to the weight of evidence. There is an apparent vindictiveness about this prosecution which is not creditable to the Government. It will be said throughout Ireland, and with good reason, that Mr. T. Harrington has been prosecuted and convicted not because he had any connection with the Kerry Sentinel, but because he is Secretary of the Irish National League."
    Then the article goes on to say—
    "Even Irish County Court Judges are becoming ashamed of the petty and contemptible prosecutions of Mr. Balfour. Yesterday Judge Morris converted Mr. Sheehy into a first-class misdemeanant, at the same time strongly expressing himself against the infliction of degrading and humiliating punishments on political prisoners."
    This is how Mr. Cecil Roche has distinguished himself in endeavouring to pass humiliating and degrading sentences on the political opponents of the Chief Secretary, and for this he has got his reward. Now, what sort of example do these gentlemen set, one of whose functions is to suppress the practice of boycotting in Ireland? The hon. Member for West Kerry alluded yesterday to this matter of boycotting on the part of Mr. Cecil Roche. This gentleman was solicited in the usual way for his annual subscription towards Tralee races, but he declined to have

    813
    anything to do with the matter, and introduced for the first time a political element into these matters. He could not, he said, have his name associated with that of the hon. Member for West Kerry. The original letter of Mr. Cecil Roche, dated July 26th, has been put into my hand, and in this letter Mr. Roche declines a subscription on the ground that he does not feel justified in giving his support, owing to the presence on the Committee of an individual whom it was his painful duty to sentence to a term of imprisonment, and who, in his journal, systematically insulted those engaged in the maintenance of law and order. At the same time, there appears to be a letter from Colonel Turner, in which he says that under ordinary circumstances he would have been glad to subscribe, but as he saw in the list of stewards a person who had been a persistent breaker of the law and a constant traducer of the Royal Irish Constabulary, he must decline to do so. These two men, I say, are setting the example of boycotting to the country. I have always thought that even where a man has been a criminal, that having been convicted and suffered his term of imprisonment, he is to be regarded as having purged himself of his crime. I do not suppose that even Mr. Cecil Roche in his heart of hearts regarded the hon. Member as a criminal. And, now, I should like to give a few samples of the sentences passed by Mr. Cecil Roche. His sentences are the heaviest passed in any of the Coercion Courts in Ireland. In one case Dennis McNamara, of Ennis, convicted of the crime of selling United Ireland, was, on November 26th, 1887, sentenced by Mr. Cecil Roche to seven days' imprisonment. This crime of selling United Ireland appears to have been committed in every part of the country, and yet this man alone appears to have been singled out for prosecution. A month afterwards, for a repetition of the same offence, the man was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour; and not long after that for displaying in the window of his grocer's store a representation of a harp without a crown, and a shamrock with the motto, "God save Ireland" on it, he was brought up before Mr. Cecil Roche again and fined £2. Sir, the device for the display of which this man was fined
    814
    £2 is to be seen in this Chamber, and, if it were daylight, it could be seen in the stained glass of the windows. If it is a crime to display such a device in Ireland, surely it should also be a crime to do it here. Besides being fined £2, this man was subjected to a course of petty persecution. Policemen were told off to take the names of the people entering his shop, and some were permitted to ransack his little place, take away a part of his stock-in-trade, the object, obviously, being to ruin him in his business. Then a man named Brosnan was sentenced by Mr. Cecil Roche to one month's imprisonment for selling United Ireland. A man named O'Rourke was sentenced to the same term of imprisonment for selling the Cork Herald, and Pat Ferriter was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour for selling United Ireland. There are a number of other cases tried by Mr. Cecil Roche where the sentences were equally atrocious from our point of view. There was the case of Moynahan and Quinlan, who were sent to prison for one month each for "something between a boo and a laugh, in fact a mongrel laugh; "and there is the case of M'Carthy, who was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment for simply refusing to go off the footpath to make way for a policeman. Another man named Sullivan was sent to gaol for three months for "having arms in a proclaimed district," the "arms" consisting of a "heavy leaden bullet," which the man—against whom not a particle of evidence was brought—said he had seen in the road and had picked up for a marble. I could mention many other cases to show that amongst the most abominable and cruel sentences passed by any Resident Magistrate under the Coercion Act are those of Mr. Cecil Roche. But Mr. Cecil Roche has distinguished himself in another way. On a good many occasions after his wearying labours in the Coercion Court, he has taken relaxation in batoning the people. He did that at Miltown Malbay. A number of blacksmiths had been tried, or rather sentenced—for no evidence of conspiracy whatever was given—to imprisonment with hard labour, and a small crowd cheered them. The police charged the crowd, and Mr. Cecil Roche himself joined in the assault,

    815
    striking the people with his stick. Then, again, on 12st January, 1888, at Dingle, a number of men were sentenced to imprisonment for one month for laughing and groaning at the police on their way to prevent a meeting of the National League. There was the usual termination to a Petty Sessions—a number of people gathered sympathising with the prisoners—the crowd was charged, and with 30 constables, Mr. Cecil Roche cruelly attacked the defenceless people and batoned them mercilessly. Then at Rathmore, on the 11th February, a number of men had been sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour for a trivial and technical assault on the police, and as soon as the business of the Court was over Mr. Cecil Roche retired to the public street and batoned the people. I maintain that this is not only brutalising to the people, but degrading to the administrators of the law. I certainly consider that this gentleman whom the Chief Secretary has advanced and preferred on account of his services "in the cause of law and order in Ireland," is, perhaps, the worst case I could adduce. It is an illustration of the spirit and method of the Chief Secretary, and I shall ask the Committee—though I will not ask it to endorse all I have said in regard to this individual or any other individual—to support me when I move the reduction of this Vote, as a protest against the way in which this system is administered by the Chief Secretary, and against the system itself. I think that all men will in their calmer moments regard this system as one inimical to the partiality and independence of the Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland. In order to test the feeling of the Committee on the question, I will conclude by moving the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £83,062 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Alfred Pease.)
    MR. P. J. POWER: Various instances have been given by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me as to the manner in which the law is administered in Ireland. He has dealt with the action of Mr. Cecil Roche, and he has shown that a state of things prevails in Ireland which very few Members of this House could conceive.
    816
    So far as I am personally concerned— and I think I may say the same on behalf of my Colleagues in this House, and of hon. Members from Ireland generally—we should welcome heartily the appearance of English gentlemen amongst us, whatever their polities may be.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. P. J. POWERproceeded: I think if they would only go to see the country, they would better understand the question; but they must not go and stay amongst partisans on either side. I believe that if a gentleman goes there and stays at hotels, he will soon learn for himself more in connection with the Irish Question than he could gain by any amount of reading. Now, the hon. Member for York has done that. In his speech he referred to two cases which were tried before the notorious Cecil Roche. I do not propose to deal with any other cases which come under the notice of that Stipendiary Magistrate for, probably, some of my hon. Friends sitting around me, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry, who has experienced the leniency of that Magistrate, will be better able to say a few words as to his administration of justice. I desire to point out this—that nowadays in Ireland they do not go through the form of reading the Riot Act; they declare a meeting illegal and immediately order the police to baton the people indiscriminately. I have in my hands a case tried by two Magistrates, in which a number of people were accused of unlawful assembly, and that assembly consisted of a demonstration of sympathy with the families of men who had been imprisoned under the Coercion Act. Now, the constables who gave evidence in the case said that no disturbance or disorder of any kind occurred. There was merely a procession of men and carts bearing presents for the families of the imprisoned men. But it was a glaring case in the eyes of the Magistrates, and the result was that two men were sentenced to two months' imprisonment for taking part in the demonstration, and a number of other men got six weeks' hard labour for the same so-called offence. It may be ancient

    817
    history, but I should like again to draw the attention of the Committee to the action of one of the principal Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland who administered so-called justice in Cork and the adjoining counties. Every person interested in our country is, I think, prepared to admit that it is absolutely necessary, if the country is to be prosperous, that respect for law and order should exist, but we say that if you want to have order in any community, the first thing to do is to appoint capable and impartial men to administer just and even-handed law. The right hon. Gentleman when he carried his Coercion Bill through the House of Commons assured hon. Members that he had no intention whatever of interfering with the liberty of the press, but my hon. Friend the Member for the City of York has pointed out case after case in which newsvendors have been imprisoned for long terms of hard labour for selling papers which can be sold with impunity on this side of St. George's Channel. Even to-night, on my road down to the House, I bought a copy of United Ireland, which contained reports of meetings of suppressed branches of the National League. The vendor of that paper to me will certainly not be prosecuted, but people selling a copy of the same paper in Ireland are subject to prosecution. But now I wish to call attention to the case of Captain Segrave. I may be told that Captain Segrave's case is still under consideration, but may I point out that there are scores of people in Ireland who are suffering long terms of imprisonment, many with hard labour, and who have been sentenced by benches of Magistrates on which this gentleman occupied the principal position? Unfortunately we hear no expression of hope from hon. Gentlemen opposite that the persons who have been so sentenced shall be set at liberty. One of the most disastrous occurrences in Ireland was that at Mitchelstown, and at the inquest which was held in connection with it, touching the murder of the three people who lost their lives on that occasion, Captain Segrave was called as a witness, and I propose now to quote the account which this gentleman gave of himself on oath, and I will then ask the House whether they expect the people of Ireland or of any other country to respect the law which is administered by a gentle-
    818
    man of that description. Captain Segrave was first asked—" Where did you get your legal training for the position of Stipendiary Magistrate?" and he replied that he had no legal training for that position. Then he was asked, "Where did you get your military training?" His answer was, "In South Africa," and my hon. Friend who was cross-examining him on that occasion very properly remarked, "And a good place, too, to teach men to deal with an Irish crowd." It appears there was a little irony in that remark, for it was about that time that the Prime Minister had shown his good taste by speaking of the Irish as a nation of Hottentots, and therefore Africa must have been a good place to which to send a Stipendiary Magistrate in order to teach him how to deal with Hottentots. The examination continued:—
    "Q. Did you ever get a commission in the Army? A. No.—Q. Did you try? A. I did. —Q. Did you fail? I did.—Q. Did you try once more? A. I tried once more for the preliminary examination. I passed the second time.— Q. Did you try again for the Commission? A. I did.—Q. Did you fail? A. I did, but not very ignominiously.—Q How long after that did you go to the Cape? A. Not long after. I went into the Frontier Mounted Police there. I remained there a little over three years, and then left. I left the force a private. They did not seem to appreciate service there, for promotion was not rapid.—Q. Would a policeman be guilty of dereliction of his duty if he did not give your message to the County Inspector? A. I do not know. I suppose he would.—Q. Then you don't know anything about constabulary law? A. No.— Q. Had you the command of the constabulary that day? A. Yes. I was in command on that day.—Q. Did you ever see the Police Code? A. No.—Q. Were you ignorant of the instructions in the Code as to firing? A. Yes; I was.
    Now, Mr. Courtney, let me point out to the Committee that this is not the description given by one of us of this Magistrate. It is a description which he gave of himself upon oath, and when hon. Gentlemen talk to us about our want of respect for law and order in Ireland, I ask them whether they themselves could respect law if it were administered by men of this description, and whether they would think of insulting the people of this country by allowing such men to administer the English law. I could give instance after instance of the doings of this gentleman, but I shall be followed by some of my hon. friends, who have

    819
    had more experience of the way in which coercion is administered in Ireland, and to them I will leave the duty of further dealing with this topic. Unfortunately the Stipendiary Magistrates have not only our liberty in their hands, but they have likewise the levying of the taxes. Hon. Members may not agree with that, but I say it is so, because they get up riots and then bring down the police and military at enormous expense to the people, without consulting the local Magistrates. I could give a case which occurred in the city of Waterford in which the Stipendiary Magistrates disregarded the views of the entire Bench of local Magistrates—of Conservatives as well as of Liberals—who wished that a certain demonstration should be allowed to continue, as it always had been allowed —namely, a celebration in honour of the Manchester Martyrs. But the Stipendiary Magistrates disregarded the unanimous vote of the local Magistrates, and insisted that if a meeting were held it should be broken up. What was the result? The meeting was held, and a violent collision took place between the people and the police. Now, in the Debate which took place yesterday, the Chief Secretary made allusion to the trial which took place at Carrick-on-Suir, in which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork was concerned, and he gave the House the impression that my hon. Friend deliberately left the Court before the proceedings terminated. Now, I was present on that occasion, and I say that the course which was taken was brought about by the conduct of the Resident Magistrates, and was not pre-conceived or prearranged in any way. In the first instance, as we approached the Court we found that a large cordon of police had been drawn across the street, and these men placed their bayonets against our breasts as we approached them. My hon. Friend was grossly assaulted. Several times he was thrust back with the butt-end of muskets, while the hon. Member for Long ford, who was attending in his legal capacity to defend the hon. Member for North-East Cork, was also assaulted in a most aggravated form. At last we got into the Court, where the two Removables were sitting. The Court was by no means an open one, and the public were excluded. A
    820
    lady, the sister of the late John Mandeville, who was sent to an early grave by the action of the Government, sought admission, but I suppose as it was known she was in sympathy with my hon. Friend she was refused the right to enter, and it was not until my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork himself went out of the Court and insisted on her admission that she was allowed to enter. What caused my hon. Friend to leave the Court was this. A slight demonstration took place in the gallery; I have heard demonstrations more pronounced at the New Law Courts in London. The Stipendiary Magistrates at once ordered the galleries to be cleared. My hon. Friend the Member for Long ford asked the people not to make any further demonstration, and assured the Bench that if they were allowed to remain they would accede to his request. But it was of no use. The Stipendiary Magistrates insisted on the galleries being cleared. My hon. Friend said:—
    "If this is not to be an open Court, and if the people are to be batomed out of the galleries, then I also will leave with them."
    And I believe I never saw a more pronounced specimen of incapacity on the part of the Magistrates than that I witnessed on that occasion, for my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork, in spite of the order of the Magistrates, which somehow was not conveyed to the police, walked quietly away, and soon afterwards left the town. The Magistrates at once issued a warrant for the arrest of my hon. Friend, and then adjourned the Court until the following day. In that little town—in this country you would only call it a village—there were 180 armed policemen, and the Stipendiary Magistrates, finding they could not secure his arrest, gave orders for 150 additional policemen and two companies of military to be drafted into the town on the following morning. What was the result? The Court sat the next morning. The Court House was surrounded by this large force of police and military. My hon. Friend's name was called inside and outside the Court. At that time he was many miles away on his road to Manchester to address the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. But what I wish to point out more particu-

    821
    larly is that this little community was put to great expense by the action of the Stipendiary Magistrates, and this, I think, justifies my assertion that the Magistrates not only have the lives and liberties of the people in their hands, but they have also the imposing of taxes upon them. I wish further to point out that the present coercion is aimed not at crime and criminals, but at political opponents and at political organisations, and its main objects are to break down organisations which have been found to be absolutely necessary for the preservation of the lives of the people. Now, I should like to read to this Committee a statement made by the County Court Judge at Waterford. In addressing the Grand Jury at Quarter Sessions the learned Judge said:
    "I have examined the records of the past year, and I am glad to be able to tell you, as you will be glad to hear, that the amount of crime in the county and city of Waterford investigated in this Court during the year 1887 is very light—I may say insignificant. It consists of only 15 cases of the ordinary nature which require no comment from me, and considering that the population of the county and the city at the last census was 112,768, the number of 15 cases may reasonably be called small. But, gentlemen," added the learned Judge, "you have no reason to pride your selves in this county on being exceptionally free from crime. I am, as you are aware, County Court Judge for two other counties, Cavan and Leitrim, and I am sorry to tell you that the record in Waterford, light as it is, is the heaviest of the three. In Cavan, with a population of 129,000 people, there were only 14 cases; while in Leitrim, with a population of 89,000, I h-id only 11 cases returned for trial. The total of the three counties is 40 cases, and it may be observed that the cases returned for trial to Quarter Sessions do not represent the criminal state of the county. I have also obtained the number of cases returned for trial to the Assizes of each county, and I find they are fully as"——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I do not see how that is connected with this Vote.
    MR. P. J. POWER: I am endeavouring to connect it in this way: I wish to prove that there is little or no crime in the county, but that, owing to the representations of these Stipendiary Magistrates that there is a good deal of crime, we are deprived of the ordinary privileges of a Constitutional people. I will not much longer dilate upon this subject, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that, owing to the representations of these Stipendiary Magistrates, many people who are returned for trial
    822
    by these Magistrates are drafted to Belfast and elsewhere to be tried. I wish to prove that there is absolutely no need for the services of the Stipendiary Magistrates. So far from repressing crime, they stimulate it. I should like to quote some further remarks by this County Court Judge with regard to how the juries do their duty. He said—
    "I have made an examination of the criminal statistics of England and Scotland, and I find, strange to say, that the rate of convictions to committals in Waterford bears exactly the same proportion as it does in England and Wale, while in Leitrim the percentage of convictions as compared with committals is 82, and that is a greater percentage than is to be found in any part of Great Britain."
    Owing to the representations of the Stipendiary Magistrates we have been called upon in Waterford to pay a sum of over £800 for special police purposes. Now the principal Stipendiary Magistrate in my district is Captain Slack, one of the best men to ride to hounds in the South of Ireland, and that is his principal qualification for the post he holds. How does he use the extra police which, owing to his representations, are drafted into this part of the country? Many hon. Gentlemen, I know, are fond of the sport of foxhunting, but they wish to enjoy it in the ordinary way with the concurrence of the farmers and the people. But the Stipendiary Magistrates in my part of the country carry on their sport only through the assistance of these extra police, and there has hardly been a hunt lately in that part which was not followed by the police on outside cars. I think very few hon. Gentlemen sitting in this House would care to carry on their sport under such humiliating conditions. They would prefer to hunt over the land with the concurrence of the farmers and of the people. I may add that the Marquess of Waterford has never consented to hunt under these humiliating circumstances. It is only since he left, and since these Stipendiary Magistrates have been left to themselves that the hunting has been of this nature. In conclusion, allow me to say in regard to the suggestion which is often made, that the same law prevails in England as in Ireland, that I foresee one great difficulty with which we shall have to contend when we obtain the management of our own affairs, and

    823
    that difficulty is that we shall have to wean the people from the idea that the law is not even-handed, for owing to the administration of these Stipendiary Magistrates no one can possibly believe that justice is even-handed in Ireland.
    MR. WADDY: I desire to state to the House not mere theory, but, as far as I am able to do so quietly, I desire to describe what I myself have seen in Ireland, and I do so because one of the difficulties we are in in this House is this, that whenever any facts are stated or are contained in a question asked from these Benches, the answer we are invariably met with is, "According to my information it is not so." What that information is we can never ascertain, and we can, therefore, only state here over and over again, upon our honour as English gentlemen and as Members of this House, that which is within our knowledge. We believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is often deluded by the information given him, and that he publishes to the country reports which are absolutely false. This is not a wholly financial question which we are discussing; it involves an important principle connected with the system of Resident Magistrates, who are, after all, a necessary part of a system which is bad as bad can be. I am not prepared to find so much fault as some people with the Government for having Resident or Removable Magistrates; they could not get on without them. Of course, if they were carrying on Constitutional Government they would not need such weapons as these. Let us look a little at the details of this Estimate. I presume we are dealing with the items under letters D, E, F, G, and H on page 311 of the Estimates. If so, we are in this position. We have, first, Executive officers, then we have Magistrates, and both for the Executive officers and the Magistrates you are asking not only salaries and incidental expenses, but you demand also travelling expenses for Magistrates whom you call Resident Magistrates, and who naturally would not be expected to need much in the way of travelling expenses. But, as a fact, they are not Resident Magistrates; they are Magistrates sent about from one part of the country to another for the special purpose of turning the regular, the recognised, and the legally
    824
    appointed Magistrates out of their seats, in order that they may do the special work for which they are appointed, and for which they are supposed to be qualified. Why do the Government send the men up and down the country in this fashion? Why do they take two gentlemen far away from their homes to do this work? Why do they not trust it to the people on the spot? If it is because they must have men of superior capacity and with a most profound knowledge of the law, persons well acquainted with the natures, feelings, and idiosyncracies of the people amongst whom they live—if that is the reason for the appointment of these Magistrates then we can understand the action of the Government. But let us look at the qualifications of these men. There are 76 of these officials. Five of them are described as practising barristers, how much practice they ever had I do not know. In addition to that six others have been called to the bar; that they may well have been and not have got much farther. At any rate, I will assume that they got some knowledge of law before being called to the bar. Now these 11 are all out of the 76 who can be said to have had any definite and distinct legal training for this work for which they are supposed to be so specially fitted as to justify their being sent rampaging up and down the country, and turning the proper Magistrates out of their seats. 13 others of these Magistrates had been in the Commission of the Peace. Two of them had modestly fitted themselves for this work by having had previously no vocation at all, three had been specially prepared by occupying positions in connection with the collection of taxes, 27 were broken down failures from the Army, Navy, and Militia, and 22 had been in the Constabulary, thus making 49 militiamen, policemen, soldiers, and sailors.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Do not say sailors.
    MR. WADDY: I am not at all surprised to hear an hon. and gallant Member who is such an ornament to his profession say, in a piteous and beseeching way, "not sailors." Of course, they are not such sailors as he commanded; they are the failures. Yet this principle of selection is

    825
    still going on. I find on page 23 there is a very singular entry. It is—
    "Allowance to four County Inspectors at head-quarters of Divisional Commissioners, £50 per annum each, and two ditto at 10s. per day each when acting as Divisional Magistrates in the Northern and Western Divisions."
    This is not very clear, but it is not the policy of the Government to make these things clear. All I can say is that there exists a disgraceful system which must produce disgraceful results. We know beyond all possibility of doubt that the travesty of justice which takes place in this country of Ireland is simply and absolutely disgraceful. It is quite possible that some of these Magistrates desire to do what is right and proper, but it is difficult to have faith in some of them. What took place at Kilkeel only the other day? There had been a series of evictions carried out in the immediate neighbourhood, and a summons had been issued—rightly, I dare say—by the police against those who had been defending their houses. Well, some of the people imagined that they had ground of complaint against the police, and they consequently applied to two Magistrates to issue a summons. The application was refused, one of the Magistrates saying he was present at the time the offence was alleged to have been committed; he had as much to do with it as anybody. He could scarcely be expected to issue a summons against persons who had been acting with him. He, therefore, suggested that the application should be made to another Magistrate. This was done, and the summonses obtained. But when they came on for hearing the police did not attend. Of course, had an Irish Member of Parliament so acted he would have been arrested. But with the police such conduct did not matter. The cases stood over, and at the adjourned hearing two Resident Magistrates put in an appearance, presumably on the ground that the local justices were not qualified to or justified in trying offences under the Crimes Act. When the summonses came on a solicitor stood up and said he had instructions from Dublin Castle to protest against the cases being gone into. He was asked upon what ground, and he exclaimed, "What! put the Constabulary on their
    826
    trial? It is monstrous and ought not to be allowed." That reason, however, did not seem quite satisfactory even to a Resident Magistrate, and accordingly an effort was made to find another. The summons itself, which was legally issued and properly signed, was examined, and the presiding Magistrate said, "It ought to have been obtained in this Court." The explanation was tendered that it was applied for, but on the suggestion of one of the Magistrates the application was withdrawn and made in another Court. Yet the Resident Magistrate pretended to believe that this afforded a sufficient reason for not calling on the constabulary to answer the charge. He said he should dismiss the summons. It was pointed out that he must give the grounds for dismissal, but he declined to do that, and simply wrote upon the summons the words, "No rule "or "No order." Not even a witness was sworn, nor was the prosecuting counsel heard. Is that even-handed justice? Now it appears to me that the ground of complaint against the police was a perfectly good and satisfactory one. It was this, that at the scene of the evictions there were two women living, both bearing the same surname, and the battering ram was used by the police on the door of the wrong woman's house. She naturally objected and asked for the summons. If that had been heard it may have been that the Magistrate would have deemed a small fine sufficient, or even the payment of the damage actually done, but the Court refused to hear the summons, and I say that refusal was a denial of justice which no lawyer, and indeed no man of sense and honesty will attempt to defend. Now that is not a solitary case, such things occur in every direction. I have stated the facts calmly and deliberately and without colouring, and I invite an answer. These people were poor people and they could not afford to appeal. You are doing in Ireland that which is most fatal to be done in any country. You may tyrannise over people and yet not do a fatal wrong, but the one thing which must be fatal to that peace between those two countries is this: if you once saturate the people of Ireland with a conviction, that not only you do not care for them, but that you deliberately poison the fountains of justice and refuse them their ordinary

    827
    rights in a Court of Justice, it will be impossible to preserve peace. By giving the people cause to distrust your administration of justice—as I am sorry to say you are doingf— by this system of appointing Resident Magistrates who are utterly unfit for the work, but who are at your beck and call, and do not hesitate to say openly in Court that they are specially sent to try particular cases—you are preparing for yourselves or for others a harvest of hatred which may become far more like a revolution than anything which, thank God, we have seen during the last 20 years.
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: On a recent occasion I attempted to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland a case of cruelty, hardship, and injustice perpetrated on one of my constituents by a gentleman who, unfortunately for them, occupied a position of Resident Magistrate; and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman gave a distinct denial of the facts I laid before him. I now intend, Mr. Courtney, to go more fully into the case, in the hope that I may still be able to get some redress. The case I refer to is one which was tried before Colonel Waring and Mr. Meldon at Cloughjordan, County Tipperary, and it was a charge against a trader named O'Reilly, who was charged with using violence and intimidation towards one Thomas Fox, an emergency bailiff and caretaker, who was at the time in charge of a farm lately in the occupation of Mrs. Angelina Moroney and others. Mr. George Bolton, who generally takes charge of prosecutions in this county, was present, and in his statement on behalf of the Crown he said—
    "O'Reilly was manager of his father's public-house, had been for some time, and had entire control of the business."
    He continued:—
    "When this man Fox went into the shop he called him a blackguard and a bailiff, and shoved him from the house, using a considerable amount of violence. I am very sorry that this should have occurred, as this has been in the past a most peaceable district. In fact, the most peaceable portion of the county. But this is no excuse for the conduct of the defendant."
    John Fox was then examined and deposed:—
    828
    "I am a Sheriff's bailiff; I reside at Thurles; I was at Coolnagown farm on the 21st May, when the Sheriff got possession, and I was placed there as caretaker; I remained there until the 5th July, on which day I came into Cloughjordan to make purchases; I went into the public-house of Michael O'Reilly; I asked him for a bottle of porter; 'I am engaged,' said he, 'call again in an hour's time; I went away then and returned in an hour's time" he was then standing behind the counter; I asked him for a bottle of porter, he said, 'What brought you in here, you scam; d you blackguard, you bailiff?' he called me a ballad singer, too.—Mr. Nolan: May be you are a ballad singer.—Witness (continuing): He came from behind the counter and caught me by the breast and shoved me out; he then gave me two boxes of his clinched fist on the breast; I am not aware of any cause for this except that I am a Sheriff's bailiff and acting as caretaker over those lands; Constable Farrell was in the shop looking on; I then went to the police barrack; the defendant followed me over; he repeated the names again which he called me in the shop, and said if ever he caught me there again he would kick me out; I was never a ballad singer; I earn my living honestly. —Mr. Nolan: That is a slander on the fraternity of ballad singers."
    Fox was then cross-examined by Mr. Nolan, solicitor for the defence, and I think I cannot do better than quote the newspaper report. He said:—
    "I am living in this locality since the 21st May, and no person molested me, except the shopkeepers who insulted me. It is a peaceable and respectable locality. I am Sheriff's bailiff for eight years; I was a basket-maker up to that; I was not in jail.—Mr. Nolan: Did I not see you in the dock myself? You did, I was there for drunkenness, I swear that I was not drunk more than five times; I was in Nenagh jail several times; I was never in Clonmel jail; it is ten years since I was in jail; I was fined 6s. 6d. in Dundrum for being drunk; the Sheriff brought me here; I never spoke to Mr. O'Reilly in my life until the 5th June; he was leaving the shop with a book in his hand; when I left Mr. O'Reilly's I did not go into another public-house during the hour; it was not to get up the prosecution against him I went in; I went there for porter; my demeanour was not offensive to him.—Mr. Nolan: Did he not say you had a great deal of impertinence to address him the way you did while he was engaged transacting business with a commercial gentleman? On my oath he did not.—Witness (continuing): He said that if there was nobody else to do away with me he would. There was a policeman there.—Mr. Bolton (re-examined): I went into two other houses that day for tobacco; I tendered the money for the goods and they refused supplying me.—Mr. Nolan: My client is not charged with conspiracy.—To Mr, Nolan: —I got no porter that day in town.—On your solemn oath now did you? I do not want to catch you. I did, I got one pint of porter at the public-house next the barrack. It was in the evening."
    This concluded his examination, and

    829
    Constable Patrick Farrell was next examined by Mr. Bolton. He said:—
    "I am a constable in the R.I.C. stationed at Cloughjordan. He then handed in two copies of the Dublin Gazette, one the 23rd July, '87, and the other the 16th July, '87, containing the proclamation of the County Tipperary and notice thereof under the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, '87. I was in O'Reilly's public-house on duty on the 5th June; I saw John Fox going in there: I saw Michael O'Reilly in the house; he was outside the counter to the best of my recollection; Fox asked for a bottle of stout, but did not get it; he asked Michael O'Reilly for the stout. Mr. O'Reilly put his two hands on his shoulders, and told him to leave the shop, that he was a scamp or a bailiff, or something like that, and that he was interfering with his business. Fox was then quietly shored out, and I followed him to the door. Mr. O'Reilly seemed to be excited; I followed him to the door and saw him go in the direction of the barrrck. In my opinion he asked for the porter in a rather peremptory tone. There was nothing else disorderly in Fox's conduct.—To Mr. Nolan: It was about five o'clock p.m., when Fox came in, and he demanded to get porter in a peremptory manner. I would not ask it the same way myself. It would excite a man the way he asked it; Mr. O'Reilly did nothing, only put his hand on his shoulder and ordered him out; I was stationed at Thurles and I know Fox's character, which is a bad one; I heard him gay that Mr. O'Reilly came at him like a lion. There is not one word of truth in that; he did not strike him; he did not make use of the words—' I will do away with you,' which is unknown to me."
    Sergeant Shumacker was next examined, and he deposed:—
    "I am stationed at Thurles; on the 5th June Fox came to the barrack to make a complaint; O'Reilly followed him and said he was a scamp, a blackguard, and a ballad singer.—To Mr. Nolan: I do not know about his being a bad character; I found him in company with a bad character woman one night when I was stationed at Thurles; he was often up for drunkenness; Mr. O'Reilly came to the barrack to complain of his conduct.
    Therefore the evidence of the prosecutor in this case was most distinctly contradicted by the testimony of the police. But, in addition to that, we have the evidence for the defence, for Mr. William O'Meara, Toomavara, was examined by Mr. Nolan, and deposed:—
    "I was in Mr. O'Reilly's public-house on the 5th June; he (Mr. O'Reilly)) was transacting business with a commercial man, when Fox came in and asked for porter in an authoritative manner; Mr. O'Reilly told him he was engaged; Fox gave Mr. O'Reilly some back answer, and he (Mr. O'Reilly) pushed him out; I saw Fox go to the barrack; I did not hear Mr. O'Reilly say he would do away with Fox before he shoved him out."
    830
    The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and after a short absence returned to Court, when Major Waring said:—
    "We take into account the peaceable condition of the district, and will require the defendant to give bail, himself in £40, and two sureties in £20 each, or in default one month's imprisonment.
    The consequence was, Mr. Courtney, that this unfortunate man, who was the only person in charge of the establishment at the time, his aged father being very sick, had to decide whether he would go to gaol, and shut up the shop with a probable result of bankruptcy, or whether he would give bail. He gave the bail, and I now ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having heard the true facts which I have narrated, and what I believe to be a verbatim report of what occurred at the hearing, he will give his attention to the case, and take from this unfortunate man the stigma of having had to give bail when he had committed no offence whatsoever? Before I sit down, I wish to illustrate still further the class of gentlemen who act as Resident Magistrates. The circumstance I now desire to bring under the attention of the Committee occurred in the town of Nenagh, where two priests were charged before the Removable Magistrates under circumstances which naturally excited intense indignation in the district. The town, on the occasion of the trial, was crowded with people from the surrounding districts. It so happened that as usual the worst possible man was put in charge of the Constabulary on that occasion. Major Waring was placed in authority, and I propose to endeavour to describe his conduct on that day. He was observed riding up and down the town from early morning, trying to find out some excuse for batoning the people. Eventually, in the evening, when he found that the conduct of the people afforded him no opportunity of assaulting them, he detailed a force of cavalry, and ordered them to parade up and down the roadway, thereby driving all the people on to the footpaths, and while they were crowded on the footways, he (Major Waring) gave orders to the Lancers to charge on to the defenceless people, and had they not taken refuge in the shops adjacent bloodshed, if

    831
    not murder, would have been the result. This, Sir, is the conduct of one of the men in whose hands the Government place the lives and liberties of our people. It is only natural that such conduct should excite general indignation, and I have brought this case before the Committee, in the hope that it will have some effect upon the Chief Secretary, and influence him to relieve Mr. O'Reilly from this injustice done him—as also to modify his general course of action, namely, oppression of the Irish people.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: I wish to state one or two things that have come under my observation in Ireland. I was in Ireland at the time my hon. Friend the Member for North Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) was tried, and, without going into the details of the charge against him, I may say he was charged with conspiracy, and, among other things, evidence was given of meeting his friends, and it was suggested by a policeman who had been looking through a window at the time, that the hon. Gentleman appeared to be taking tea with some of his constituents. I believe the hon. Member had given advice to his constituents, such as, I hope, I should have the courage to give to mine under similar circumstances. But the particular point to which I wish to direct attention is, that the constable who gave the evidence read from a small bit of paper the names of the persons who, he said, were present at one of the meetings the hon. Member had addressed, and when asked whether he made that list out at the time he stated he had not. He was then asked when did he put the names on the paper, and he said on the previous evening. When asked what he had copied it from, he said from his book. Where was his book? was the question next put to him, and be replied, it was at the barracks. An appeal was then made to the Bench that the constable should be ordered to produce the book, and the Bench directed that it should be produced on the following day. When the next morning came, and the book was called for, the County Inspector came forward and said he had received a telegram from Dublin Castle stating that the book was not to be produced. Now, I have no great knowledge of the law; I have not
    832
    specially studied it; but I know something of the practice of the Borough Bench of Sheffield, on which I have the honour to have a seat, and I have also consulted persons of experience in this country, and I have found no one who has any idea of the possibility of such a thing occurring in England, as that a Bench of Magistrates should order a book to be produced and that it should be refused by orders from any authority. Though, of course, in this case, where the Magistrates were removable by the authorities at Dublin Castle it may easily be understood that they would not feel inclined to disobey the orders of their superiors. But I ask what would any Bench of Magistrates in England say if they were dealt with in a similar manner, no matter where the order came from? I have looked at one or two of the manuals that have been published for the use of police officers, and I find that in the manual written by Major Bicknell and which is very extensively used by the police, it is stated that—
    "If a constable refers to his notes in the witness box, it is competent to the prisoner's counsel to examine the note-book and cross-examine him on its contents."
    Now, I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether such a procedure as I have described is justified by the Code in use among the Irish police as to which I have already vainly endeavoured to obtain information from him? If that be the case we ought to know it. I asked Mr. Wellington Colomb, who is a high authority in Dublin Castle, whether this alleged right on the part of the Irish Executive had ever been brought before the higher courts, and he told me he was no: aware that it had, and, therefore, was unable to refer me to anything of the kind; but, he added, it would be exceedingly inconvenient for the Executive to produce such books. No doubt it would; but, I said, in England we do not consider the convenience of the Executive; we only consider what is just to the accused. I wish to mention another matter, and would remind the Committee that a straw will show how the wind blows. I allude to the way in which the Courts in Ireland are arranged. The police stand in a row, with their helmets on, between the Bench and Counsel, and the people, who,

    833
    although deeply interested spectators, are almost blotted from sight and almost equally cut off from sound—a thing which we in this country would he very sorry to see. I may also point out that there is in this Vote a very large sum charged for the travelling expenses of the Resident Magistrates. No less than £17,000 is put down under this head, one item of £8,200 being for travelling allowances in lieu of forage, and the other £8,800 for travelling and personal expenses. It seems to me that this is a large sum of money for these gentlemen to spend in running about the country, and as I cannot understand it, I should like to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to why these charges have run up so enormously. I find that though the salaries have actually fallen since 1886–7 from £43,000 to about £40,000, and the allowance in lieu of forage remains the same, the charge for travelling and personal expenses has increased from £4,500 to £8,800. I should be glad of an explanation of this. Besides the cost, look at the enormous waste of time that must take place while these Magistrates are racing up and down the country. I find Mr. Irwin, R.M., who is chiefly engaged about Limerick and Clare, going off by Cork and Bandon, 109 miles, to Ballinspittle, and then back again 159 miles to Miltown Malbay, and then back to Cork again. Then there is Mr. Cecil Roche. In 1886 he was making violent partisan speeches in the constituency in which I live. Now he i8 dispensing what is called "justice" in Ireland. I trace him travelling from Castleisland to Ennis, and afterwards hack again to Killarney. Each of these journies is rather more than 100 miles, which is not serious on a good English railway, but the trains are so timed on those Irish lines that each of those journies would occupy from 8 in the morning till 5 or 6 at night, and thus he must spend three days to do one day's duty. This seems to show bad organisation and arrangement. A great deal of the time so spent might be economised, and if this were done a smaller number of Magistrates would suffice. Of course, the expenditure and loss of time on the part of the Magistrates also to a considerable extent applies to the police.
    834
    I do not know how many constables have to attend upon the Resident Magistrates when they travel; but I remember when I was at Ballinasloe seeing a Resident Magistrate there attended by a little guard of honour of the constabulary, one man taking his hat box, and another his trunk, while others stood admiringly round the door as he entered the omnibus. If, therefore, all these expenses were added together they would make a very considerable sum. I will, however, minimise my remarks. [Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.] I shall not bring my remarks to a close because of those cheers, which would rather induce me to go on. [Cries of "Go on" from below the Opposition Gangway.] I do not wish to go on. All I will say in conclusion is that, I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, first, as to why and how, if the law be the same in the two countries, a telegram from Dublin Castle privileges a note-book and prevents its being produced; and, secondly, why the Resident Magistrates do not stay and administer the law in their own districts instead of running about all over the country at an immense cost to the taxpayers?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has asked for information on two specific points and with regard to one of those points—namely, the travelling expenses of the Resident Magistrates, I think the same point was taken up by the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, and I hope to be able to offer explanations which, if not wholly satisfactory to them, at any rate ought to satisfy the Committee. A criticism was passed by the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of the Vote on the fact that under the present system in Ireland executive and judicial functions are vested in the same individual. Now, it is the particular desire of the Government to prevent in any case the same Magistrate having to carry out both official and judicial functions in respect of one transaction, and in order to effect that object it may obviously be necessary to bring into the district of one Resident Magistrate another Resident Magistrate who has had nothing to do with the case on which he is asked to adjudicate.
    An hon. MEMBER: No.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, it is a general rule. Of course, the Magistrate who is brought in from the outside has to travel, and he sometimes has to travel by branch lines, a fact of which complaint is made on the ground of the length of time consumed. The other point made by the hon. Member had reference to proceedings of which he appears to have been an eye-witness on the occasion of a trial, proceedings which he has said are without example in this country. How, what were those proceedings? A certain public document was regarded as privileged, and was not therefore produced in Court.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: No, no; it was not a public document, but the policeman's notes about the case.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The report which appeared in the Freeman's Journal states that Mr. Carson said he found that those books were confidential documents for the use of the superior officer, and were therefore privileged.
    MR. LEAMY: What was the date?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What does it matter about the date? It is a report of the particular case to which attention has been directed and appeared in the Freeman's Journal.
    MR. LEAMY: Read the whole report then.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the hon. Gentleman really expect me to follow the example of the hon. Member who sits near him and read the whole of this report?
    MR. LEAMY: Yes; I expect you to read the whole of it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order; the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to interrupt. He must reserve what observations he has to make until he addresses the Committee.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. J. Wilson) gave me no notice that he intended to call attention to this matter, and when it was referred to I immediately endeavoured to obtain the best information in my power, and I believe the information I have obtained refers to the case which was alluded to by the hon. Gentleman. As I have stated the report appeared in the Freeman's' Journal, and the words were that Mr. Carson said he found that those books were privileged documents.
    MR. LEAMY: You are only stating what Mr. Carson said.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That was the contention of counsel in the case, and——
    MR. LEAMY: I rise to a point of order. Is it not a fact that——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. LEAMY: I rise to order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! the hon. Gentleman is quite under a misapprehension as to what is a point of order. It is not a point of order to correct a statement made in the course of debate. The hon. Gentleman must reserve what he has to say until the proper time.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, when an hon. Member rises in his place and says he wishes to speak to a point of order, he is not entitled to state what that point of order is before you stop him?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman says I have misapprehended what he rose for, that is so.
    MR. W. REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman has not raised the point yet.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can only say on the question of whether an hon. Member can rise on the plea of order whenever he wishes to correct a statement which he deems to be inaccurate, that if I were to adopt that practice, then I should be so constantly rising to points of order that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be able to get through many of their speeches without interruption. Turning again to the point we were discussing before the hon. Member interposed, I will read not merely the remark of Mr. Carson but that which precedes it in the Freeman's Journal, which is to the effect that the police constable was recalled and cross-examined as to the notes he took on the night Mr. O'Kelly was at the place mentioned and asked to produce his note-book. Mr. Carson objected that this was a confidential document, the entries in which were made for his superior officers, and that it was therefore privileged. Now, this is an incident which the hon. Gentleman opposite thinks could only happen in Ireland and for which there is no precedent. The hon. Gentleman is clearly deriving his legal knowledge from what happens on the Sheffield bench—doubtless an excellent though narrow legal school—but I can assure him that for official

    837
    documents to be regarded as privileged is a perfectly familiar practice in the English Courts.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: But that does not extend to a policeman's pocket-book.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: So much for the two points dealt with by the hon. Gentleman. I now pass to the most important speech in this debate. I refer to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for York (Mr. A. Pease) who moved the Amendment for the reduction of this Vote. Although that speech was delivered to an almost empty House the hon. Gentleman went into a great many important and interesting circumstances with which it will be proper that I should attempt to deal in some detail. The hon Gentleman appears to have derived his impressions as to the Magistrates of Ireland from the speech of a certain Judge Fletcher delivered in the year 1814. I have not the least doubt that that learned Judge made remarks which were extremely appropriate to the occasion, but they are certainly not appropriate to a Vote for the Irish Resident Magistrates at the present day, inasmuch as they were delivered more than 70 years ago, before the system of Resident Magistrates was invented, I think the hon. Gentleman should have made himself better acquainted with the institution he attacks, before quoting the remarks made by a Judge who lived in the year 1814. The hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, perfectly bonâ fide in relating the anecdotes he has given to the Committee; but I think he went to Ireland in a very credulous spirit The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have taken sufficient pains to sift the evidence, and that is all the more serious, when I reflect on the kind of charges he has hurled against the Magistrates. The hon. Gentle man's manner was as quiet as that of any speaker I have ever heard in this House, but his language was as violent as any I ever listened to. There is hardly any crime of which he did not accuse the Resident Magistrates.
    MR. A. PEASE: I directly repudiated from the beginning to the end of my speech that the attack I made was against the whole body. I attacked the system under which they are appointed
    838
    and the manner in which it is worked by the Chief Secretary.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I fully acquit the hon. Gentleman of the charge of attacking the whole body, but he did undoubtedly hurl charges against members of that body. He accused them of grossly corrupt administration of justice, and I say that that is not an accusation to be lightly made against a judicial body, and that the hon. Gentleman ought to make himself better acquainted with the facts before coming here to prefer such a charge. He stated that these Magistrates acted on suggestions from the central Government, and upon intimations received from Dublin Castle. Sir, not only is that charge absolutely false [cries of "Oh," from the Opposition Benches]—I say, absolutely false, but the hon. Gentleman had not a particle of evidence in support of it [renewed cries of "Oh!") not a single particle, I say that charges of this kind, which involve not merely the honour of the Resident Magistrates, but the honour of every official connected with the Government of Ireland, is not one that ought to be made lightly by one who occupies the position of the hon. Member. There are, no doubt, other hon. Members of this House from whom accusations of this kind fall so glibly that when making them they hardly realise the gravity of what they allege; but I am unwilling to see the hon. Member associating himself with those to whom I refer, or adopting the reckless methods with which they are familiar. The hon. Gentleman has made himself very merry over the qualifications of these Resident Magistrates, and he read out from a printed Return that has been laid before Parliament the various avocations which those Gentlemen pursued before they were placed in the offices which they now hold. Now, the vast majority of the Resident Magistrates have not been appointed by me, nor by a Conservative Government, but by a Radical Government. The House may take it from me that the enormous majority of these men, whose qualifications the hon. Member for York has denounced, were appointed by those of whom that hon. Member is proud to reckon himself the faithful follower. It appears to me that if we adopt the same method of procedure with regard to Members of Parliament

    839
    as has been adopted by the hon. Gentleman respecting the Resident Magistrates some very singular deductions might be made. I presume that the qualifications of Members of Parliament are not less important than those of Resident Magistrates. In their hands lies not merely the whole legislation of the country, and a great deal of its administration, but apparently also the revision of all the judicial sentences passed in Ireland; and therefore the qualifications required in them are not smaller than those required for a Resident Magistrate. Well, if I were to take the book with which we are all familiar, and to read out the antecedents of the House generally, and treat them in the manner the hon. Member treated the antecedents of the Resident Magistrates, I could, if it were worth while, bring out more ridiculous results than the hon. Gentleman has done. As the hon. Member for York has thought fit several times to quote the opinions of the Superior Courts, I may call his attention to the opinion on this very point of Mr. Baron Dowse, who said yesterday:—
    "As far as I am concerned I would rather have a Resident Magistrate with whose legal capacity the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied than a Member of Parliament with whose legal capacity nobody is satisfied."
    I think there is a great deal of wisdom in the learned Judge's remark. Then I pass to the next point made by the hon. Member for York. The hon. Gentleman, to prove his case against the Resident Magistrates, quoted a private conversation which he had with one of that body, whose name he did not give. I do not know what view that Magistrate may have of the use to which the hon. Gentleman has put a private conversation which had all the privileges that ought to appertain to private conversation, which obviously was never intended to be quoted in this House, and the accuracy of which there is no opportunity of testing if the hon. Member's version of it is incorrect. I am sorry that the hon. Member for York of all persons should have lent himself to a proceeding of that kind; and the more so because on the face of it his account of the conversation appears to be inaccurate, since he said that the Magistrate told him that he had put persons in prison for three or
    840
    six months for the offence of trying to stop other persons from hunting over their land. That is an extravagant and absurd statement. It is perfectly legal to prevent people from hunting over your land; and we are to be told that that ridiculous sentence was actually given, and that it was never thought worth while by anybody to bring that sentence before a Superior Court and have it quashed and the Magistrate who passed it discredited. The hon. Gentleman also commented with much severity on the light tone in which the Magistrate described having escorted to gaol certain prisoners who were sentenced to 12 or 18 months' imprisonment. Why, those men who were sentenced to 12 or 18 months' imprisonment were not tried before a Crimes Act Court, as the hon. Gentleman appears to think.
    MR. A. PEASE: I said they were escorted to Sligo, and I ought to have added to undergo their trial at the Assizes.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I rather fail to understand what the accusation is. Apparently we are asked to condemn absent men, Resident Magistrates in Ireland, because one of their body in a private conversation did not speak with sufficient gravity of the duty of escorting to their trial certain men who were afterwards condemed by an Irish Judge and jury to 12 or 18 months' imprisonment for a very brutal and horrible offence.
    MR. A. PEASE: I am unwilling to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; I did not use the conversation which took place between the Resident Magistrate and myself as in any way an accusation against that particular Magistrate, or against Magistrates in general, but as an illustration of the disposition and attitude towards the people of many of those gentlemen.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation; but I confess my inability to see how that affects the argument. We are asked to condemn the Magistrate because he did not speak in a sufficiently solemn tone about escorting men to be tried for a very brutal offence before a Judge and a Jury. Surely this is sufficiently absurd. Then the hon. Gentleman went on from generalities to discuss particulars, and the particular

    841
    subject which he chose for discussion was the merits of Mr. Cecil Roche. This, he said, was the worst case of Irish misgovernment. Let us examine the case. The hon. Gentleman described Mr. Cecil Roche as an itinerant agitator. He did not state, however, that Mr. Roche was appointed and twice reappointed by Lord Spencer as Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act, and we know on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan) that in selecting Sub-Commissioners, Lord Spencer had special regard to the judicial fitness. Then the hon. Member mentioned as an example of the iniquity of Mr. Cecil Roche the sentence passed upon the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. Cox). The sentence of four months was passed by two Magistrates, of whom Mr. Roche was one. The hon. Member for Clare appealed to the County Court Judge, who diminished the sentence to one month, and made him a first-class misdemeanant. This is said to be the worst case. But, amazing as it may seem, the hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to examine what passed at the trial before the County Court Judge. In diminishing the sentence the County Court Judge said:—
    "The Magistrates, when the sentence was originally inflicted, were probably justified by the state of the country at the time in imposing the term of four months."
    In view, however, of the altered state of things, he reduced the sentence. So that the County Court Judge entirely acquitted the Magistrates of having in-any way exceeded the duty imposed upon them. This is one of the worst cases and one of the worst Magistrates which the researches of the hon. Gentleman have enabled him to discover. Then there is the case of the hon. Member for Kerry. I do not intend to discuss that case again, for we had a long Debate upon it on the Address, but I would remind the hon. Member of this. His accusation is that Mr. Cecil Roche exceeded his magisterial duty in passing the sentence of six months on the hon. Member for Kerry. It was an appealable sentence, and if the hon. Member had supposed that the County Court Judge would reverse the sentence of this unjust Magistrate no doubt he would have appealed. The fact that he did not
    842
    is a conclusive proof that Mr. Roche was not acting upon any inspiration derived from the Castle, but that he passed a sentence which, in the opinion of the hon. Member for Kerry and his Friends, would have been upheld by the County Court Judge on appeal. The third example given by the hon. Member for York had nothing whatever to do with the judicial work of Mr. Cecil Roche, and I do not know how it is relevant to the Vote before the Committee. It appears that Mr. Roche and Colonel Turner were asked to subscribe to some races in Kerry. They declined to do so, and the reason given was that the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. E. Harrington) was on the Committee, and in their opinion he had used, and was in the habit of using, in his newspaper language against them and the police which made it impossible for them to take an active part in supporting any institution with which the hon. Member was nearly connected. That is not a subject on which I think it my duty to pronounce any opinion, because it is not connected with the discharge of official duties. But to say that they were not to give a vote for Resident Magistrates in Ireland because Mr. Cecil Roche and Colonel Turner objected to subscribe to some races which are managed by a gentleman who in their opinion is in the habit, through his newspaper, of describing them and the police as cowards, liars, and uniformed bloodhounds I think is rather really absurd.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: I ask the right hon. Gentleman now to specify, and not shield himself behind Roche and Turner, where I ever referred to the police in the language he describes
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said I have on the best authority.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: What is your best authority? [Here the hon. Member moved in a threatening manner from his seat to the Gangway in the direction of the right hon. Gentleman, but immediately afterwards returned to his place.]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I believe the right hon. Gentleman was reading an extract from a letter. [Cries of "He did not," and uproar.]
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Get Balfour to keep quiet, or else we will make him.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to use such language.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: He made an insulting gesture, Sir. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: It will be impossible to maintain any degree of order unless hon. Members co-operate with the Chair, and attempt to restrain the feelings which they may not unnaturally entertain. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to quote the expressions of some other persons. [Cries of "No!" and loud cries of "Order!"] If it was language of his own, then undoubtedly he ought to give his authority.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Courtney, you are quite right. With regard to what the hon. Member described as an insulting gesture, it was not in the least intended——
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: Menacing gesture.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, menacing gesture. [Cries of "Menacing and insulting."] I assure the hon. Member for Kerry that, as far as I am concerned, I have not the slightest desire to insult him by any gesture of mine. It is not my habit to insult anyone by any gesture.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: We have too much of that.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order order!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I stated to the House was said with the view of describing the motives which, I understood, and I know for a fact, did actuate the two gentlemen in question—namely, that they believed that the expressions which I have quoted to the House were used by the hon. Member with regard to them and the police, and I do not know that anything more can be said on the matter.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, in fair play, to give his authority. I will apologise to you, Sir, for the heat I displayed. I do not think it is shameful of me to apologise; but allow me to explain that I understood the gesture of the right hon. Gentleman to be a menacing and insulting gesture, and that gesture I was on the point of resenting by bringing the right hon. Gentleman below the Bar. [Loud laughter, interruption, and cries of "Order!"] With regard to the expression "uniformed bloodhounds," if
    844
    it has appeared in my newspaper those men cannot be in any uncertainty about it, for it is in print; if it appeared in a speech of mine it is in print. Where did the right hon. Gentleman see it? It is not in these gentlemen's letters, for I hold copies of those letters in my hand. I ask him, where does he get that extract?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I told the hon. Member that I got the views of the two gentlemen I have quoted—Mr. Roche and Colonel Turner—on the best authority; but when I said the words "uniformed bloodhounds," "cowards," and "liars" were used in the journal which is associated with the hon. Gentleman's name, I do not think the statement is so intrinsically absurd that it should bring down upon me the wrath of the hon. Member, because hon. Gentlemen are aware that the epithet "murderer," which is even stronger than either of the expressions I have referred to has certainly been applied to me.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to establish his character for veracity, to specify the authority on which he states that I ever called the Irish Constabulary "uniformed bloodhounds," or that I ever called him a murderer.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I despair of making my meaning clear to hon. Members.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Give your authority.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never accused him of calling me a murderer. With regard to the descriptions of Mr. Cecil Roche and the police the hon. Member asks whether they had been made by him.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: What is your authority?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I stated was, that that was the impression of Mr. Cecil Roche and Colonel Turner when they refused to subscribe to the Kerry Races.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman must answer me when I ask him to specify the authority on which he made that statement. I think before his goes one inch further we ought to know that. I hold in my hand copies of the letters from those men, and they have no such accusations as he has stated. If that accusation is contained in any private

    845
    telegrams or letters I ask him to rise in his place and say so. I claim that he shall not stand up in this House and——
    THE OHATEMAN: Order, order!
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: Well, Sir, I am satisfied to let the House and the country judge of his veracity in this matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Sir, if I have misrepresented the feelings and reasons of Mr. Cecil Roche, I have undoubtedly been guilty of a want of accuracy; but how have I wronged the hon. Member for Kerry? I have not misrepresented those feelings, and it is those feelings alone that are in question.
    MR. E. HARRINGTON: The words! I claim that the right hon. Gentleman shall give his authority.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not at all entitled to make any such claim. The right hon. Gentleman has made a representation as to the state of opinion of these two Magistrates, Colonel Turner and Mr. Cecil Roche; to them, undoubtedly, he is responsible for that representation; but he is not responsible to the hon. Member so as to be compelled to verify his statement.
    MR. SEXTON: In the interests of the order of Debate—[Loud cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SEXTON(addressing Colonel Saunderson): I told you my opinion about you once before.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will address the Chair and complain of any specific act of disorder he will be listened to; but he must know that when he addresses an hon. Member across the House the maintenance of order is not possible. I do beg the hon. Member to address the Chair.
    MR. SEXTON: When a Member who has insulted me before in this House interrupts me in a disorderly manner, it puts my patience to too severe a strain.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Mr. Courtney, I rise to order——
    THK CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sexton.
    MR. SEXTON: In the interests of the order of Debate, which appear to me to be gravely imperilled by the language of the right hon. Gentleman, to say nothing of the gesture, I humbly
    846
    submit to you, Sir, that the imputation he made at the Table was this—that Colonel Turner and Mr. Roche had complained to him that in the journal conducted by my hon. Friend he described the police as "uniformed bloodhounds." I think it would be in the interests of the order of Debate, and would commend itself alike to all parties, if you were to request the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he is in possession of evidence that any such language was used by the Gentleman in question.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I regret very much that such grave language should be used. [Interruption.] If hon. Members cannot restrain themselves it is impossible for me to go on. I regret that such language should be used; but it is used on the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible, not to this House, but to the gentlemen to whom he attributes it in conveying his impression of these motives to the Committee.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am extremely sorry to have raised this storm; but I believe hon. Gentlemen will not doubt my word when I say that the last thing I should have expected was that indignation would have been exhibited at my remarks, since the violence of the language habitually used by hon. Gentlemen and the Nationalist Press is matter of common notoriety. Surely in the columns of United Ireland and other papers language not less violent has been freely used. Nay, in many cases language exceeding this in violence has been used, and it never occurred to me that I should be interrupting the harmony of the evening's proceedings by calling attention to it. But I pass from that to make a mild protest against the use of the word boycotting by the hon. Gentleman opposite. It is not boycotting in the Irish sense of the word to refuse a subscription of a few sovereigns to the fund of a race meeting, and, as used by the hon. Member, the phrase is misapplied, and he misleads himself and everyone who accepts his version of the facts. But I ask the Committee, in concluding a speech which has been lengthened by the interruptions to which I have been subjected, I ask the Committee, is the broad indictment brought by the hon. Member for

    847
    York sustainable? I have examined and refuted point by point the specific charges he has made, and if we survey the subject generally is there anything to sustain the hon. Member's accusation? There is a broad, simple, and conclusive test of the action of these Courts, and that is how their decisions have been treated by superior Courts. We have had every opportunity of applying this test, for there have been an enormous number of appeals. I believe in 1888 there were 201 appeals from the decisions of Resident Magistrates under the Crimes Act, and of these only 19 were reversed. In the half-year from January 1 to June 30, 1889, there were 121 appeals, and of these only 10 decisions were reversed. Therefore in 18 months from January 1, 1888, to June 30, 1889, there were 322 appeals against the decisions of the Magistrates, and in 29 cases only were the decisions altered, or only 9 per cent of the whole. I am speaking in the presence of many lawyers, and I have the Chief Baron on my side when I say that is a record that cannot be approached by any other Court of First Instance in the world. The Chief Baron has pointed out that the enormous proportion of decisions sustained by Courts testifies to an impartiality no man can doubt, and is conclusive proof that the Resident Magistrates are not open to the accusations made against them. That being so, the hon. Member for York and others were guilty of bringing forward unjust accusations against men, who, under circumstances of difficulty, imperfectly appreciated by their accusers, and of which the hon. Member with experience derived from the Sheffield Bench has no conception whatever—have carried out their duties in a manner that need make no man ashamed who has the interests of justice at heart. Technical reasons have now and then been brought up to show that the Courts ought not to have come to the decisions they did; but it has never been maintained that the defendants were not guilty of the offences with which they were charged, or that the innocent have been subjected to punishment. That being so, the House ought to reject by a large majority an Amendment which is intended to call in question the action
    848
    of the Resident Magistrates in that which, after all, is the most important of their functions—namely, the pure and impartial administration of justice.
    MR. LEAMY: I do not know what are the more important functions of these gentlemen, whether it is giving judicial decisions or in ordering the police to baton the people; it is not very easy to discriminate between the two functions. The right hon. Gentleman found some fault with me this evening for interrupting him while he was making a statement in respect to what was said by the hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Pease) in referrence to the incident that occurred on the trial of my hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon. The right hon. Gentleman was quoting from what was supposed to be a report of the trial, but he took care to read only that part which told in his own favour. Now that I do not think is a straightforward way of dealing with the House, but I suppose it is more or less characteristic of him, and his allusion to "uniformed bloodhounds" is sufficiently recent on our memories. The right hon. Gentleman said that this note-book which has been referred to was not produced because it was a privileged document, and he went on to say they are never produced. But what are the facts? On the first day of the trial the note-book was called for and the Magistrate ordered its production on the following morning. But on the following morning the book was not produced, and the reason was because in the meantime instructions had been received from Dublin Castle. Now, the Solicitor General for England, without caring to inquire into the character of this note-book, gave his assent to the statement that it was a privileged communication. But the police officer admitted that he had used the book for the purpose of refreshing his memory while giving evidence, so I maintain the counsel for the defence was justified in calling for it. I think before giving his opinion the Solicitor General might have waited till he knows what happens in an Irish Court of Justice. I do not know who is instructing the Chief Secretary now, but he appears to have a crowd of instructors legal and otherwise. But I think it will be found that my

    849
    contention is a right one. At another prosecution which took place at Castlereagh, and in which I was counsel for the defence, a policeman was ordered by the magistrate to produce a note-book under precisely similar circumstances, and the point has been raised, I believe, before Chief Baron Palles, and in his judgment a note-book of the kind was declared not to be privileged. The Chief Secretary, in referring to the speech of the hon. Member who began this discussion, complained that he had referred to private conversations which had taken place between himself and a Resident Magistrate, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be shocked that the hon. Member should have made use of such a conversation in the House. But what has the Chief Secretary to say in reference to a recent police circular sent round to all the police stations in the country, advising the police to seize upon innocent strangers from England and give their information of the right sort in reference to evictions? What does the right hon. Gentleman say to that? The Chief Secretary went on to say that it was quite untrue that men have ever been sent to gaol for preventing hunting over their lands. On this point I should like to refer to one instance within my own knowledge. Waterford is a great hunting county, and it used to be hunted by Lord Waterford. In the beginning of the land agitation in 1880 or 1881, the people of the county objected to allowing the hunt to go over their land, and they assembled and they did no doubt brandish sticks, and I believe some stones were thrown. Now, this was the first occasion on which the tenants asserted their right to say that no one should hunt over their land, and these men were brought up before a Magistrate charged with unlawful assembly. Of course the Magistrates were too cute to charge them with simply obstructing the hunt; they were charged with unlawful assembly, and? Captain Stack, an intimate friend of Lord Waterford and other members of the hunt, sentenced the men to terms of imprisonment from two to three months. This was on Christmas Eve, and a peculiar thing in connection with this trial was that the warrants were filled up before the sentences were pro-
    850
    nounced. The defending counsel happened to pick up one of the warrants, and when he asked for an explanation he was told—"Of course we are only having them ready." This prosecution, however, killed hunting in County Waterford. I speak as a Waterford man within the hearing of other Waterford men. I will say that if there had been a Magistrate of common sense on the Bench, and with a genuine interest in hunting and at the same time recognizing the tenants' rights, hunting might have gone on to this day in County Waterford, and Lord Waterford would be a happier, merrier man than he is to-day. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of administration as being the most important duty incumbent upon Resident Magistrates. What has he to say of the conduct of Divisional Magistrate Cameron or Divisional Inspector, I believe he is called—I really cannot distinguish these grand titles? When the evictions took place on the Olphert Estate last January, will the House believe that one morning, about 4 o'clock, the agent found that some tenants had re-entered the house from which they had been evicted, and immediately got the aid of some 20 of the Irish Constabulary, visited the house, knocked at the door, and, not being admitted, went at once to the Magistrate and swore that the house was being forcibly held against him? Divisional Inspector Cameron then appeared on the scene and the door was opened by a woman, the house was then taken possession of by the police and used as a temporary barrack for which a shilling was paid to the agent. Is that the conduct of a Magistrate who wishes to act impartially between the people and the police? There have been other and similar cases; on one occasion the Inspector broke open a house in the early hours of the morning and found it occupied by a poor old woman, cowering over the embers of a fire, and in every case of this kind where warrants were issued by the Magistrate and executed by the police, prosecutions were afterwards instituted, but were dismissed for want of evidence. The Chief Secretary has explained why Colonel Turner and Mr. Cecil Roche refused subscriptions to the Tralee Races. The letters from these gentle-

    851
    men enclosed in one envelope have been put into my hands. The letter from Colonel Turner is to the effect that while under ordinary circumstances he should have been glad to subscribe to the races, he declined to do so because upon the list of Stewards was the name of a person who was a persistent breaker of the law, and a constant traducer of the constabulary and their officers. The second letter says—
    "I am in receipt of yours of this date applying for the usual subscription, but I regret to state that I do not feel justified in subscribing to the Tralee races this year, owing to the presence on the committee of an individual whom it has been my painful duty to sentence to a term of imprisonment, and who systematically insults those who are endeavouring with me to preserve law and order in this country."
    [Cheers.] I welcome the cheers uttered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I tell hon. Members that these letters will be read from hundreds of platforms in Ireland, and if they are not greeted with cheers like those given by hon. Members opposite, at any rate the advice which will follow the reading of the letters will be received with cheers. That advice will suggest to the people to take a leaf out of the book of the Resident Magistrate in the matter of boycotting political opponents. In Ireland people often seek for a neutral platform on which political opponents may meet, but if this is to be the course of action adopted by the Resident Magistrates, the Irish Members and those who support them will find many opportunities of seeing that their political opponents shall not have as much favour in non-political matters as has hitherto been extended to them. I, for one, believe that boycotting is a perfectly justifiable weapon. I know that last night the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that it had been invented by our Party. As a fact it was not invented by our Party, for it was practised against our people many years before they adopted it. Now I wish to make a few observations upon another point. The Chief Secretary has quoted a statement made by Chief Baron Palles. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would quote all the statements made by learned Judges. He has also quoted a statement by Baron Dowse, but he has only quoted the statements which tell in his favour. Now, we have the case in which
    852
    the Resident Magistrate pronounced sentence on Dr. Tanner, and the Superior Court have quashed that sentence on the ground, I understand, that these two Magistrates who, according to the Lord Lieutenant, were acquainted with the law, did not know the law. We surely ought to have some explanation on this point from the Chief Secretary. It would appear that Dr. Tanner declined to recognise the jurisdiction of the Magistrate who tried him, and because he held their Court in contempt, these men who did not know the law, and who, as we now know, illegally sentenced him to a month's imprisonment, are held to be empowered to call upon the hon. Member to give securities to keep the peace, and they adopted this course because they well knew that he would prefer to remain in gaol for three months rather than give such sureties. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been in the habit of getting up here and saying Sligo —
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  SUPPLY [7th August]—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Resolution reported.
  SUPPLY [7th August]—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £889,371, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
    Resolution road a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: Owing to the application of the Closure last evening I was prevented making a few remarks on this Vote, which I had been anxious to make, and which I had risen more than once for the purpose of making. The Chief Secretary for Ireland has delivered two speeches in the course of the Debate on this subject. The first was, if I may be permitted to

    853
    say so, in his best possible style—his own peculiar style. But the second was in his worst possible style. He does not shine in a conciliatory attitude at all. He was in admirable form in his first speech; indeed, his form was so admirable that when he sat down he was appealed to by his Colleagues, and especially by the right hon. Gentleman who leads this House, and who always treats his opponents with courtesy, to withdraw, and apologise at the first opportunity for the most insulting observations which he addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. He did apologise for the observations, but he did not appear particularly to like the performance. I naturally, as an Irish Member, have closely observed the Chief Secretary's conduct since I have been a Member of this House, and I am bound to say that I have never seen one single trace of that good feeling and magnanimity which is generally supposed to be characteristic of the English gentleman. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who received the Chief Secretary' apology yesterday will, should he have occasion to visit Ireland during the Recess, exercise more than ordinary caution, because I am perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary only gets a chance he will make the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford pay dearly for that apology. The right hon. Gentleman took great credit because, as regards some particulars, over which he said he had special control, with regard to police expenditure, he had effected a reduction, and he attributed that reduction to the improved state of the country under the Coercion Act. I do not attribute it to that. I attribute the reduction to the fact that there have been fewer evictions during the past 12 months. Why have there been fewer evictions? Because there are fewer properties on which the landlord and tenants are in conflict with one another. And why are there fewer properties on which there is this conflict? Not because of the administration of the Coercion Act by the right hon. Gentleman, but because
    854
    there has been a system pursued by the Nationalist Party in Ireland with the express purpose of leading to settlements between landlords and tenants. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to dispute the fact that the Plan of Campaign has led to more settlements between landlords and tenants in Ireland than anything else. Whereas last year the Plan of Campaign was in operation on about 140 estates in Ireland, now it is only in operation on about 30. What have become of the 110 estates? Why, Sir, the fact is that the Plan of Campaign has led to a settlement on these estates, and there the landlords and tenants are no longer in conflict. But for that the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to any credit; indeed, he has done his best to prevent settlements being brought about by the Plan of Campaign. Nor is credit due to Members who, like the hon. Member for South Hunts, have gone out of their way to prevent these settlements. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is particularly proud of his statistics with regard to boycotted persons in Ireland. I do not attach much importance to statistics produced by the Irish Government, because I happen to know something of the way in which they are collected. If the Government want crime to rise up, up it goes. When they want it to occur, it does occur; and when they want undetected crimes to multiply, they do multiply at the mere nod of the head of the Chief Secretary. Boycotted persons in Ireland are fewer now, because there are fewer estates on which there is a conflict between landlord and tenant. The Plan of Campaign has stopped the conflict on a large number of estates, and therefore there is no longer any necessity to boycott certain persons. I said, Mr. Speaker, that when it was the desire of the Irish Government that the statistics of undetected crime should go up, that result was easily obtained. I am not in the habit of making statements without having some ground for them, and I intend to quote three cases in which the police apparently failed to make any effort whatever to detect crime, although they had every warning that it was likely to occur. There is a certain agent in the South of Ireland who made himself very

    855
    unpopular. One Friday night a boycotting notice of a very violent character was posted on a gate about four miles from Listowel. This boycotting notice appears to have been the only one posted on that night, but the fact that it was posted came to the knowledge of the agent during the following day, and he immediately came to the conclusion that the notice had been posted up by mistake, and that a great body of similar notices would be posted up on the following night. He sent information to the police of what had occurred, and told them what he believed was likely to occur. Though they were cautioned to watch carefully during the Saturday night and Sunday morning, and though the Police Barrack is in the Square of Listowel, there was scarcely a house in the square which had not one of these notices posted upon it, and the person who posted them, having more than he cared to dispose of, threw the remainder of the bundle of notices into the police barrack-yard. The police, although warned, never detected the person who posted these notices. In the same district there was a farm from which the tenant had been evicted, and the agent had reason to think that, on a certain night, the crops would be removed from the farm, which was in the possession of a caretaker. He informed the police what he expected would ensue, and upon what night it was likely to be done. As a fact, on that very night the crops were removed and the police detected nobody. In the same district, during the same summer, the police were informed that an effort was to be made within the next few days to drive away and kill a number of cattle belonging to an unpopular person. The effort was made; the cattle were driven away and killed, and nobody was detected. Thus you have three cases in a small area of four or five miles, in which the police, although warned that outrage was likely to take place, failed to detect anyone committing it. And yet for these men, who so fail in their duty, this Committee is asked to pay close upon two millions a year. We have grave reason to believe that the police are at the bottom of many outrages. They know that their living depends upon the continuance of outrages, and therefore, so far from try-
    856
    ing to prevent them, they wink at them. We shall not forget the case which occurred in the Castle Island District, in which a policeman, having by accident shot in the legs a man whom he was engaged in protecting, subsequently broke a pane of glass and tried to make out that an outrage had been committed. It was proved afterwards that he had done this and he was dismissed from the force. The Chief Secretary has said he was anxious in regard to the case of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork, to so arrange his trial that he would be able to take part in this Debate. But I venture to suggest that he did not take the steps which he could have taken, in order to prevent my hon. Friend making a useless journey to Ireland. I should also like to know why he had my hon. Friend arrested at the Cork Railway Station. Why could he not have summoned him instead of arresting him? He says he prefers the system of summoning, but that he feared that the hon. Gentleman would not attend on summons, and therefore was compelled to issue the warrant. I venture to assert he had no reason whatever to believe that my hon. Friend would not attend upon summons, because on the last occasion on which he was summoned he obeyed the summons. But as he preferred the method of arrest, why did he not also arrest the Member for East Cork, who was named jointly in the same summons with the hon. Member for North-East Cork. Both hon. Members were on the railway platform when the one was arrested, and I should like to know why the Member for East Cork was not arrested until the following day. I contend the Government deliberately arrested the hon. Member for North-East Cork at a crowded railway station, and at a perfectly unnecessary time, in order to provoke a riot. We believe they wanted to provoke one, and we have every reason for believing that the police expected one, because a constable actually warned two ladies who were on the platform to get to a particular point, because, he said, there they would be safe. And then again, with reference to the events at Charleville, we learnt yesterday for the first time, that the Police Inspector had received an injury to one of his arms. My hon. Friend the

    857
    Member for North-East Cork, whose statement on that point I should prefer to rely upon, said that in the railway carriage he again and again after they left the station challenged the police to point out any injury which anyone had received, and the only answer that could be made was that the District Inspector pointed out to him a dent in his helmet. This was not an injury to the head, nor was it an injury to the arm; it was simply a dent in the helmet. The right hon. Gentleman was asked yesterday if an order was given to the police to fire on the crowd at the railway station. His answer was, "Yes, I believe so." Apparently, he did not take the trouble to inquire specifically as to whether the order was given. Does he consider the lives of Irishmen of so little importance that he does not think it necessary to do what I venture to say would be the first thing done in a similar case in this country—namely, to inquire as to whether the police were ordered to fire, or not? I should like to point out that the hon. Member for North-East Cork has clearly and distinctly stated that the policemen fired without orders, and without the knowledge of their officer. My hon. Friend said he told the Inspector to ask his men and he asked them all round the carriage, not knowing that they had fired, and two admitted that they had done so. Will the right hon. Gentleman still maintain that there was an order to fire? I say it is perfectly monstrous that when the police fire on the people in Ireland the right hon. Gentleman, who is really responsible for the act and who makes himself doubly responsible by the carelessness with which he treats it, will not take the trouble to inquire whether an order to fire was given or not. There is a strong case for inquiry. If this had occurred in England no Government would have dared to refuse an inquiry. In the Debate yesterday the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Sir W. Foster) referred to the manner in which he was followed by the police. The hon. Member was staying with me at that time. I did not accompany him because the property he was going to visit belonged to a gentleman with whom I had been on terms of friendship for some time, but the description brought back by the hon.
    858
    Member of the state of the property induced me to do what I had never done before, and will never do again—write to the owner and offer to go down there myself and see whether I could be of any use in bringing them to equitable terms. What were the thanks I got? In reply to my friendly letter I received a cold and formal reply, saying that my letter had been forwarded to the agent, Mr. O'Brien. A few days afterwards I received a letter from that amiable gentleman, saying he had had forwarded to him my letter, and learnt from it that two friends of mine (Sir W. Foster and Mr. Schnadhorst), notorious as disturbers of the peace, had visited the property, and, with the impertinence usual to the Saxon ignorance, had ventured to pronounce an opinion on the matter. I commend that term "Saxon ignorance" to the right hon. Gentleman. It is from one of his violent supporters. After that I took the first opportunity of visiting the property myself and of getting more Englishmen to visit it. I was fortunate in securing a good many other visitors. The result is that there is no dispute between the landlord and tenants on that property to-day. The Plan of Campaign has won a victory there. The evicted people are back in their homes and the tenants are living in peace. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how we stand exactly in Ireland as regards meetings. It is often represented in this country that meetings can go on anywhere in Ireland unless they are to be held in furtherance of "the conspiracy called the Plan of Campaign." A meeting was suppressed by the police at Bective Abbey in the County of Meath. There was no Plan of Campaign in operation there. When I asked a question in this House about it, the answer I received was that the meeting was held with the object of preventing farms being taken, and that the holding of it would have been an overt act in the general conspiracy now existing with that object. So that we have got on a step further. It is no longer the Plan of Campaign, but a general conspiracy all over the country for preventing people taking farms from which tenants have been unjustly evicted. That is a very serious change. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that every man in Ireland has not a

    859
    right to refuse to take land from which another man has been unjustly evicted? If so, let him say it in plain language. Let us know where we stand. I have always seen the importance of this point. The very first time I spoke to tenants in Ireland, I told them that their very strength lay in this particular, and that if they could not keep up the feeling in Ireland, that no one should take land from which another had been unjustly evicted, they would not win the battle, and would not deserve to win it. I have repeated that over and over again. If it is illegal, why has not the right hon. Gentleman prosecuted me for it? I will repeat it again, and in doing so I shall be only following up the advice that was practically given in this House by Members of the Government, when, in the autumn of 1886, we called attention to the danger of evictions, and the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Attorney General for Ireland, said there was no danger of evictions, because the Irish landlords were not fools and that it would not pay the landlords to turn their tenants out. General Buller was sent over to Ireland during that autumn, and he gave evidence before the Royal Commission. His statement was that when the landlords could not let their farms, then they were forced to consider the question of rent. Under these circumstances we are justified in treading in the footsteps of these gentlemen—one adorns the Bench, and the other graces the British Army.
    MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the hon. Gentleman are not relevant to the Constabulary Vote.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I will draw my remarks to a close, but in doing so I want to allude very briefly to the remarks with which the Chief Secretary concluded his speech yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman said that we complained that the police in Ireland were used to buttress up the property of the few, and he asked us if we considered the property of the few less sacred than the property of the many. Certainly not. But there is a dual ownership of farms in Ireland.
    860
    The right hon. Gentleman forgot that point.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Dual ownership has no reference to the Constabulary Vote.
    MR. PIERCE MAHONY: The right hon. Gentleman distinctly stated that we complained that the police were used in Ireland for the purpose of buttressing up the property of the few. As regards the land in Ireland, the few have no property which is not shared by the tenants—the landlords and tenants are now joint owners; but I will not pursue the subject. The Chief Secretary concluded by alluding to what he called the absence of our Liberal friends during these Debates. I hope he notices that they have not been absent to-day. I think we may well feel our friends the Liberal Members have good excuse at this period of the Session for taking a little relaxation, and I am very much surprised, and I am also very thankful to them for attending in such large numbers. But the success of the cause in which we art working does not depend upon any party in this country. We rely on our own resources, we rely on the Irish people, we rely on a people who are not only in your very midst, in every large centre of population, but who are present in large numbers in every colony of this Empire, and who form a most important portion of the population of the greatest country the world has yet seen—the United States of America.
    DR. FITZGERALD: This Vote involves a large amount of the taxpayers' money. It has been rushed through the Committee with great haste and by means of the Closure. I feel, therefore, that a few remarks from me will not be out of place. The sums set forth in the Vote are said to be necessary, but the Irish Government have shrunk from answering the grave and specific charges which we have made against individual members of the police force, and what is graver still, they have

    861
    refrained from answering our charge that they themselves have stimulated the police force to those crimes against the people in Ireland of which we now complain. I consider I am singularly fortunate in rising to speak now, because I see the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) in his place. The other night the hon. Gentleman related some very interesting historical facts—facts which we have been endeavouring to place before the people of this country for a good many years—and he did it so lucidly and well I think, that now, as it were, in the evening of his somewhat chequered and unfortunate political career, the thanks of the Irish people and their representatives are due to him. The hon. Member told us of the good old days when the predecessors of those men with whom he is now in alliance were enabled to drive from their homes the peasantry of Ireland in order to make room for Scotch adventurers, to the good offices of whom we are indebted for the lustre which the hon. Member casts upon this assembly, and for the damage which he invariably does the Party opposite, with whom he has had nothing to do, but to whom he actually belongs. I am also fortunate in seeing the Solicitor General for Ireland in his place, who, on a former occasion, when the Lord Mayor of Dublin made the specific charges I am about to repeat, proudly described himself as the spokesman of the Irish Government. On that occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman invited my right hon. Friend not to discuss the question of the assault upon the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien), and the question of the wounding of the man at Charleville, and the question of the arrest of the hon. Member for North East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), because, as he said, "the Government have no official information, and you as well as ourselves will be at a great disadvantage." From where did the hon. and learned Gentleman await information? From the source from which the hon. Member for South Tyrone derives his, which information has been shown in a law court recently to be absolutely untrue—information from the bailiff, from the landlord, from the emergency men, and lastly from the policemen, who are in alliance with the
    862
    Solicitor General for Ireland and his party. But we forced the hon. and learned Gentleman to make some reply. He asserted that the railway station was a nice quiet place whereat to effect the arrest of the hon. Member for North East Cork, upon a day when the whole county and town of Cork was astir. When he made that statement I saw a bilious smile pass over the faces of his supporters. I am at one with the hon. Member for South Tyrone, because, after the lamentable event which followed the arrest of Father M'Fadden—the death of Inspector Martin, but which undoubtedly lies at the doors of the Irish Government—it is trifling with the House of Commons, and is an insult to the Constitution, for a responsible Minister of the Crown and a lawyer to make such a statement. On that occasion the hon. Member for Monaghan was assaulted. He received some injuries which have since prostrated him, and which will probably shorten his days. The hon. and learned Gentleman hinted—but afterwards withdrew the hint—that a rescue of the hon. Member for North East Cork had been attempted by the hon. Member for Monaghan. When, immediately afterwards, the Chief Secretary came into the House, and was proceeding to repeat the assertion, what was the learned Gentleman doing? Not looking over the fusty pages of the Acts of Edward III., but pulling the Chief Secretary by the coattail, and trying to prevent him making the ridiculous assertion which he himself had just partly withdrawn. The hon. Member for Monaghan was assaulted by the police force, of whose conduct I now complain. We heard the other night the Chief Secretary parading before the House, and really before the country, the amicable relations which exist between the police and the people of Ireland. I knew what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I knew by the corner of his eye what he had ringing in his ears. He was replying to the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) and the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), which speeches showed that Englishmen can belong to a Party and still maintain their spirit of justice and fair play. The fact is the police force of Ireland is not a police

    863
    force; it is a band of armed men who are under the control of an unfortunate clique of pauper landlords, who in turn control the action of the Irish Government. The first blight has fallen upon their cornfield in the shape of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington. A regular famine will undertake them before long. The people of this country will cut them adrift from their pauper landlords. Then, Sir, we will have the police in our hands, to use them, not as you have used them, for the purpose of crime and outrage against the people, but with that forbearance and moderation which is becoming honest and honourable men.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: I rise, Sir, to move the Adjournment of the Debate. We have now carried on this discussion for an hour past midnight, and it really amounts to a prolongation of the Debate we had last night on the Vote for the Constabulary, which was brought to an untimely and, I think, unprecedented end last night. I will not stray into matters that would be out of order, but I think I may go so far as to say the discussion was brought to a close in an unprecedented manner. But with reference to my Motion for Adjournment. I wish to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I presume, is in charge of the House for the Government, to the Resolution under which we are now proceeding, and which was passed on April 30 last. Now, when that Resolution was passed, I think it was thoroughly understood, and I think pledges to the effect were given by the right hon. Gentleman who moved it and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who supported it, that in exempting Report of Supply from the 12 o'clock Rule, the Report should only be taken after 12 o'clock on exceptional occasions, and when there was any desire on the part of any section of hon. Members to discuss any question on the Report, then the exemption should not be put in operation. It was emphatically stated then, on behalf of
    864
    the Government, that the only object in passing the Resolution was to prevent the use of the individual "I object" after 12 o'clock. I think, seeing the desire of hon. Members below the Gangway to continue the discussion, we may fairly claim the fulfilment of this pledge, and that the Adjournment should be agreed to. I make this appeal to the First Lord, who, I see, is just now entering the House, and I hope he will not resist my Motion.
    Motion made, and (Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. John Ellis.)
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am exceedingly reluctant to oppose this Motion; but I think it must be allowed that, after two nights' discussion, continued, as it has been, this evening, the matter might now fairly be disposed of. Some regard must be had to the necessary progress of business, and at this period of the Session I do not think it desirable that we should adjourn this discussion over another day. I think I may in reason ask the House to come to a decision on the Vote. [Cries of "No!" and "Certainly not!"] It is really necessary that the money should be voted.
    MR. HALLEY STEWART: There are many of us who have been engaged on Select Committees, and who have been at work for 13 hours, and surely, under the circumstances, having the prospect of a Saturday Sitting in view, we may, on the ground of fatigue, fairly claim an Adjournment of the Debate now.
    MR. SEXTON: It would be well, when the right hon. Gentleman makes what he considers a conciliatory proposal, that his followers on the other side should assist him by abstaining from interruptions which caused imitation on this side, feelings that have already been more than sufficiently strained this evening. As the Member for Nottingham has said, Parliamentary tradition is entirely on the

    865
    side of Adjournment. This Rule was intended to prevent an expression of individual objection staying proceedings when there was a desire to go on. I must say that with the prospect of a Saturday Sitting in view I have little inclination to go on with the Debate now. But I think before we proceed any further the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary may give us that information we have sought so long in vain, and tell us out of what fund the charge for the battering-ram has been defrayed.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is out of order on a Motion for Adjournment.
    MR. SEXTON: I only wish to suggest that the Chief Secretary should make the Debate on the Vote artistically complete by giving us an answer to this question.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I shall not be in order in entering at length into this matter, but perhaps I may just mention, as a matter of personal explanation, that as the cost of the battering-ram is defrayed out of no public fund at all, the matter is entirely out of my control, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the information he desires.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. O'DOHERTY: It has come to my knowledge, examining these accounts, that under the head of Law and Justice there is expenditure which really should stand in the accounts of the Royal Irish Constabulary to the extent of £10,000 in the present year.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a question that may be raised afterwards; it cannot be raised in the question of adjournment.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: Then, Sir, I only desire now to support the Motion for adjournment.
    MR. SEXTON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow us to proceed with the point desired to be raised, and will withdraw his Motion for adjournment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I may allude more fully to the point I mentioned just
    866
    now. In a discussion of this kind all the details of the accounts should be put before us that we may fairly estimate the increase or the decrease of expenditure and know the reasons for the one or the other. But there is a sum of £10,000 included in the Vote under the head of Law and Justice on account of travelling expenses, which really should come under the Vote for Constabulary. I think it is only right to call attention to this, and I have a strong objection to the system by which a Vote granted by the House for one purpose can be diverted to another. I think that the Auditor General's notes should be followed up in some way. I know this is a matter of detail, but I really think it is of little use our attempting to discuss these accounts if it is possible that an amount can be smuggled into one Vote when the expenditure is really under another head. I will not enter into the matter now, but it is a financial point that I think ought to be raised. I am satisfied that if we go carefully through the Law and Justice accounts, there is an amount of £10,000 in them that should be in the Constabulary Vote.
    MR. BLANE: I ventured to say when the House was in Committee on this Vote that the Chief Secretary ought to give some explanation of the demand made for such an immense amount of money under this head. In the time of Sir Robert Peel the total amount of the Constabulary Vote was £437,000. In the year 1860–1 we find the Vote was £653,000, and now it has risen to the sum total of £1,439,371, and, possibly, if the system to which my hon. Friend has just referred is carried out to any extent, to a million and a half. There are a number of items in these accounts that require to be proved, money provided for half pay troopers and a class of mud-stranded Admirals, men who, unfitted for the services for which they were trained, are by this means enabled to earn further sums by dragooning the people. We see how the Vote is swelled by the increase in the pay of District Inspectors, who, some years ago, were well paid at

    867
    £120, and who now receive £250, and, with their total allowance, nearly £1 a day. This, I think, is a monstrous charge. When the pay was £120, the appointments did not go begging at all, and I think the officers were a better class of men than they are now when we give them pay equal to that we give a man who commands a regiment in its full strength and has to face enemies and take all the chances of loss of life, while these constabulary officers have little to do but hunt down Members of Parliament. When we consider the cost of living in Ireland and the average wages among the people, we must consider that all grades are overpaid, and especially when we compare the scale with that of the police in the Metropolis, where living is so expensive. Where a constable used to get £60, he now gets in pay and allowances nearly double that amount, with a chance, too, of getting a share in the large amount voted for extra pay and travelling allowances. The other day I drew the attention of the Chief Secretary to a police outrage committed in my County (Armagh), and I mentioned the circumstances in which certain constables wantonly fired at and made bullet holes in fishermen's boots, and I desire to ask again are these men to be prosecuted? The Chief Secretary said that I did not furnish him with the names, but I may say that the men to whom the boots belonged were Joseph and John Robinson, and another man whose name I think is Fox. But even when we give the fullest details we do not get any satisfaction. I hold that such offenders should be prosecuted with more severity than ordinary civilians, for they are the men who should show example of obedience to the law. The Constabulary Code says that arms are to be entrusted to the Constabulary to be used with prudence and humanity, but what prudence or humanity is there in the conduct of these policemen, which I described in Committee? The duty of the Government is to prosecute, not to defend, in such cases. But this can be said, that no matter whether we have a Tory or a Liberal Government, we have the same class of men in Dublin Castle where the headquarters of the police are situated. I ask the right hon. Gentleman now to give facilities for
    868
    justice to be done in the cases which have been referred to.
    MR. COXopposed the Vote.
    MR. CONWAY: It is much to be regretted that we have not had a Local Government Bill for Ireland, similar to the one which has been passed for Scotland, for I believe that, had such a Bill been passed, the cost of the Irish police would have been very materially reduced. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has drawn a comparison between the cost of the Metropolitan Police and the cost of the Irish Police; but he failed to take into the comparison the cost of the police in the remainder of England, and therefore I venture to suggest that the contrast he drew was not a fair one. There is no other nation in the world which presents such a picture of Government as is presented in Ireland. What are the police of Ireland? The Chief Secretary bragged about them being the best possible force, physically and militarily speaking. But did he not consider it was a degradation to his own nation, when he enunciated such a proposition? You brag about your freedom and your flag which sustains liberty and gives relief to the slave, and yet, in Ireland, you are holding down your people by the help of the police. The details which we have had during the last two or three days of police administration in Ireland ought to induce the right hon. Gentleman to take the helm of reform instead of lolling on the Front Bench in an attitude which is a disgrace to any Minister.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must not make personal remarks of that kind.
    MR. CONWAY: When one is addressing the House he naturally expects to meet with some attention; but when I am met with sneers and guffaws, such as the right hon. Gentleman indulges in, of course I do resent it. I say this Vote requires further explanation. The right hon. Gentleman stands in his place and contrasts the Metropolitan Police with the Irish Police; it is not a

    869
    fair contrast, for he ignores the police of the rest of England, and, therefore, I say the Chief Secretary is simply sitting at ease and blowing bubbles in the air. Our time is not wasted even at this hour of the morning in impressing facts about the police on the minds of the English people. When we see a million and a half of money spent upon a Police Force which is not used for police purposes, I say we have great reason to complain. The sooner we can get rid of the present police system, and bring it within the scope of Local Government, the better it will be both for the English and the Irish people.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to have further particulars as to the eviction of Mr. Molony at the instance of a Reverend gentleman living at Windsor, in England. The legal question raised in this case has been determined, but I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman by what power or authority he gave the Sheriff of the County of Limerick the use of a force of 60 men to put this Mr. Molony out of the holding the rent of which he had paid? This case affords an illustration of the manner in which the Sheriffs and landlords in Ireland have the forces of the Crown placed at their disposal. I again demand to know by what authority the police were used for this work? Six months ago I brought this matter before the House, and I was refused an answer as the case was then sub judice. Since then we have cast the landlord in damages, and, therefore, I again ask the Chief Secretary by what right sub-Sheriff Hobson used 60 policemen in order to turn this man out of the house for which he had paid the rent? Why do our Sheriffs and our landlords get police protection when they are doing an illegal act? How can you expect the people of Ireland will respect your Government if you allow your armed forces to engage in this work?
    MR. SEXTON: I think I am entitled to ask for information as to whether a prosecution is to be instituted in the case of the four constables who, according to the testimony of my hon. Friend the Member for North
    870
    Armagh, committed a most inexplicable outrage in that county, and destroyed a boat, by means of which a number of poor men earned their living? Also, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why a force of 10 men took up a post near the residence of my hon. Friend the Member for East Clare and acted as an army of occupation there?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the last question asked by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite I have not the facts before me at present and cannot answer it. As to the hon. Member for East Clare the hon. Gentleman had been guilty of several illegal actions, and accordingly the police were interested in his motions. But I should think it improbable that they camped out in his garden. With regard to the case instanced by the hon. Member for Longford, it is the business of the police to provide protection for the Sheriff if he applies for it. The police cannot inquire into the merits of every case before acting, because that would convert them into a judicial body. As to the question put by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, a warrant has been issued against one of the men referred to; and no exception will be made in favour of policemen any more than other members of the community.
    MR. COX: With regard to Police-constable Robinson who gave evidence against the hon. Member for Louth and myself, is he to escape with impunity? Is it not a fact, indeed, that he is on the list for promotion?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
    MR. COX: I am assured for a fact that that is so.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  INTERPRETATION BILL [LORDS.] (No. 364.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like—as I understand this Bill is to be put down for Saturday—to know what business it is intended to take on that day. Also, under what con-

  871
  ditions the Saturday sitting will be held? I think it is most inconvenient that we should have to sit on Saturday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot definitely answer the hon. Member's question in the absence of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury. Saturday sittings may be avoided if satisfactory progress in business is made during the week.
  MR. SEXTON: The First Lord of the Treasury hinted for the first time to-night that there would probably be a Saturday sitting. I think the business of the Session could easily be wound up without the necessity of Saturday sittings if reasonable conciliation were employed towards hon. Members from Ireland. At any rate, the Government may very well postpone the question of Saturday sittings until next week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow the matter to stand over till to-morrow, when the Leader of the House will be in his place, I will undertake to place the views of hon. Members before him.
  Second Reading deferred to this day.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Returns ordered—
  "Of the number of Private Bills introduced and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session of 1889, classed according to the following subjects; Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigation; Roads and Bridges; Water; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Ports, Piers, Harbours and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Divorce; and Miscellaneous.
  "Of all the Private Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, which, in the Session of 1889, have been treated as Opposed Bills; specifying those which have been classified in Groups by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills; together with the names of the Selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each Selected Member has served; the Bills the preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed; the Bills referred back to the Committee of Selection, or to the General Committee on Railway
  872
  and Canal Bills, as having become unopposed, and the Bills withdrawn, or not proceeded with by the parties.
  "And, of all Private Bills which, in the Session of 1889, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0,139, of Session 1888)."—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECURITIES.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the Classified Amounts of various Government Securities held by the several Government Departments and other Public Offices on the 31st day of March, 1889 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 130, of Session 1888)."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 312.]

  WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL. (No. 363.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES (PASSENGER TICKETS) BILL. (No. 251.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  CATHEDRAL CHURCHES BILL. (No. 124.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  MEDICAL ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 277.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  CHILDREN INSURANCE PREVENTION BILL. (No. 245.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Two o'clock.