Commons Sitting of 21 March 1889

NEW WRIT.
For Middlesex (Enfield Division), in the room of the Eight Honourable William Pleydell Bouverie, commonly called Viscount Folkestone, now Earl of Radnor, called up to the House of Peers.
QUESTIONS.

  PARCELS AND REGISTERED LETTERS.
  MR. BARTLEYasked the Postmaster General when the scheme for the collection of trade charges on the delivery of parcels and registered letters will be carried out?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I have submitted my proposals on this subject to the Treasury, and am now awaiting a decision.

  THE BOUNTY SYSTEM.
  MR. WATTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could state approximately the loss through depreciation or the abandonment of estates in Her Majesty's West Indian Colonies through the adoption of the bounty system by other countries, and the consequent loss of trade to Great Britain; and, whether, having regard to the uncertainty existing pending the ratification of the Convention by Parliament, he could name a probable date by which the Bill will be submitted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): I regret that I have no statistics which would enable me to give the hon. Member the information asked for in the first part of his question; as to the second part of the hon. Member's question, I must refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury on the same subject a few days since.

  FIARS' PRICES.
  MR. DUFFasked the Lord Advocate if, under the existing Statutes regarding the striking of fiars'
  366
  prices, it was competent for the Sheriff of the county to accept affidavits made and countersigned by a Justice of the Peace, and so abate the great inconvenience of compelling personal attendance at the county towns when the fiars' prices are struck; and, if the Sheriff has not got the power, would he amend the law in the direction indicated?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): According to practice, witnesses personally attend at the Fiars' Court in all the counties except Argyllshire, in which county the evidence is taken on commission by Sheriff Substitutes or Justices of the Peace. I think, however, that, under the existing law, it would be competent for any Sheriff to accept affidavits, although it is obvious that the weight to be given to evidence untested by examination in Court would, in each case, be for the Sheriff and Jury to determine.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  EARL COMPTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government have received certain resolutions passed at a meeting held by the London Railway and Canal Charges Association, and of Affiliated Associations, protesting against the "increase of maximum charges" proposed by the chief Railway Companies in the classification and schedules of rates deposited with the Board of Trade, in accordance with Section 24 of "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," and against the "excessive and unfair" terminal charges which the Railway Companies propose to add to their maximum rates; whether the case quoted by the chairman of that meeting is correct—that, in one schedule, where the distance is four miles—
  "The present rate charged for coal was 1s. a ton, which was also the maximum rate, and the new maximum rate proposed, including terminals, was 5s. 3d. per ton."
  What answer has been returned to the above-mentioned protests; and, what time would be allowed for further protest to be sent in?
  SIR E. BIRKBECKalso asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now prepared to state whether he will extend the time within which, under the Rules of the Board of Trade, objections may be sent in to the

  367
  Classifications of Merchandize and Schedules of Maximum Rates submitted by Railway Companies under Section 34 of "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888"?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,): I presume the noble Lord refers to the Railway and Canal Traders' Association, from whom I have received copies of Resolutions objecting to the proposed classifications and schedules of the chief Railway Companies, in which the phrases quoted are used. I have, however, not seen the observations of the Chairman. The Resolutions are under consideration, and the Executive of the Association have had an opportunity of explaining their views upon them. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, and a similar question which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk, and which at my request he has postponed for some days, I may say that I have been reluctant to extend the time allowed for sending in objections to the proposed new classification and rates, because any such extension will make it quite impossible that the matter can be settled this year. But I have found so general a desire for an extension of time among traders and agriculturists in all parts of the country that, feeling the importance of full consideration of a matter which has to be settled once for all, I have decided to extend the time for eight weeks—namely, to June 3rd.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask if the President of the Board of Trade can give any idea as to the costs an individual trader might incur in lodging objections and taking procedure, as provided by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, to protect his interests; and whether, in view of the unanimous opinion expressed at all the meetings held throughout the country, the Government will now agree to extend the time for lodging objections, which was fixed by the Act to expire on April 9 next, to June 9 next?
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: As far as the Board of Trade are concerned, no costs need be incurred by any person making objections with which they are empowered to deal. It is obviously impossible to give any idea as to the costs which may be incurred
  368
  by persons lodging objections with the Railway Commissioners.

  THE POLICE.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that, on the 21st January, Alfred Smith, of 4, Emerald Street, being aroused by cries of "murder," came out of his house, and found Police Constable Kendal beating a young man; whether Alfred Smith, to prevent serious result, took away the policeman's truncheon; whether, on 29th January, Alfred Smith was for this fined 12s. and costs by Mr. Vaughan, on a charge of obstructing the constable; whether Alfred Smith was further summoned, on 7th February, for detaining the truncheon, and whether such summons was, after careful hearing, dismissed by Sir J. Ingham, the truncheon having been shown to have been laid on the doorstep; whether Alfred Smith was now sued in the County Court by the Receiver General of the Metropolitan Police for £1 2s., as the actual value of such truncheon; whether he would state the price per truncheon really paid by the Government; and whether these repeated proceedings had been taken with his consent?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he has no knowledge of the fact stated in the first paragraph. A man assaulted P. C. Kendal and another constable, and has been fined by the Magistrates for these assaults. Smith took away the policeman's truncheon, and was fined as stated in the third paragraph. The Chief Commissioner is not aware that the truncheon was laid on the doorstep. The summons mentioned in the fourth paragraph was dismissed on the 7th February, the learned Magistrate remarking—
  "That he did so because the police were unable to prove that the truncheon was in the possession of Smith when the summons was applied for, and that the proper course was to sue Smith in the County Court."
  Accordingly Smith has now been sued in the County Court for the value of the truncheon—namely, 2s., and for £1 damages for illegal detention of the same. The price of the truncheon was

  369
  2s. The sanction of the Secretary of State was not asked for, nor was it necessary with reference to any of these proceedings, which were all taken in the ordinary course of law.

  ARMY STORES AT WEEDON.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War what was the quantity of the various small arms and tents in the warehouse of the Government Army Stores at Weedon recently destroyed by fire; what was the quantity saved; and, whether, judging from previous stocktakings, and the fact that it was full in nearly every department, there was between £90,000 and £120,000 worth of Government property in the building?
  *THE SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): At the time of the fire the Weedon warehouse contained about £130,000 worth of stores, consisting mainly of tents, swords, and lances. About £62,000 worth of these were destroyed.

  RICHMOND PRISON, DUBLIN.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War what precautions were taken, and what alterations were made in the sanitary arrangements of Richmond Prison, Dublin, between the time when it was disused as a prison and the time when it was first occupied by troops, when it was so disused by prisoners and when it was first used by troops?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE said: The Richmond Prison was vacated by prisoners on the 31st of March, 1888, and occupied as Wellington Barracks by troops on the 28th of September following. During the intervening half-year all water-closets and drains connected with them were removed from the interior of the building and replaced by earth-closets outside. Windows were enlarged, and additional provision made for ablution and cooking. The sanitary arrangements were concurred in by the medical authorities. These works having been carried out, I authorized the use of the buildings as a barrack for temporally purposes.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether, when those barracks were taken over by the military authorities, any sum was paid to the Civil Service?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; I believe not.

  THE MACCLESFIELD SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the trial of the actuary or clerk who embezzled the funds of the Macclesfield Savings Bank, at which trial the Judge, in passing sentence, severely commented upon the carelessness and negligence of the trustees and managers; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Government will order an inquiry under the Act of 1887?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Before the hon. Member's question appeared on the Paper, the Treasury had received a report from the National Debt Commissioners calling attention to the defalcations at the Macclesfield Savings Bank, and recommending that an inquiry should be held under the Act of 1887. The Treasury are of opinion that an investigation is called for by the circumstances, and the Treasury Solicitor will be instructed to make an application to the High Court to appoint a Commissioner to hold a local inquiry, as was done in the case of the Cardiff Bank.

  CAPTAIN SEGRAVE, R.M.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries were made as to the antecedents of Mr. Segrave, and his competence to fill a judicial office, on his appointment as a Resident Magistrate in October 1886; were the Irish Government aware that Mr. Segrave had three times failed to obtain by examination a Commission in the Army, and that on two of these three occasions he had failed to pass a qualifying examination; and, were the Government aware that in September 1885 Mr. Segrave's services in the Cape Forces had been dispensed with, as appears by the Cape Gazette, he having been previously placed under arrest for the embezzlement of money belonging to soldiers under his command?
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I am obliged to the hon. Member for asking me this question, as it gives me an

  371
  opportunity of stating that any responsibility rests with me, and not at all with the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. I can only speak as to the circumstances of that appointment from my recollection of a matter which took place two and a half years ago, but I am quite sure that I gave very great personal attention to the inquiry into the testimonials which must have been produced by Captain Segrave, both by letter and oral, and I referred the testimonials to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration with regard to the judicial qualifications of Captain Segrave. Of course the points referred to in the second and third paragraphs of the hon. Member's question were not in any way brought under my notice. On the contrary, Captain Segrave was recommended to me as a Roman Catholic gentleman, whose claims to such an appointment had been favourably looked upon by Lord Aberdeen, and whose record of service at the Cape was a good one. If the statements in the second and third paragraphs are true, it is obvious that I was deceived.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked whether the testimonials were genuine?
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Yes, Sir, they were perfectly genuine.
  MR. MAC NEILL: No forgeries?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the papers, including the testimonials and correspondence, connected with this appointment would be laid on the Table?
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I have already stated that I only speak from recollection. My difficulty is that testimonials are never, as I believe considered as official documents. They remain with the Chief Secretary, to whom they may be addressed, and I have been unable, after careful search, to lay my hand on those documents.
  MR. JOHN ELLISasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date a communication was first sent by the Colonial Office to the Government of Cape Colony respecting the charges made in this House on 19th December, 1888, against Captain Segrave, R.M., and the date on which any reply was received from the Government of Cape Colony?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The first communication made by the Colonial
  372
  Office to the Cape Government was sent by the mail on the 4th of January, that being the first mail which left after the 29th of December, on which day the Secretary of State was requested by the Irish Office to make inquiry into the allegations made against Captain Segrave. Not receiving a reply from the Cape Government, the Secretary of State, at the request of the Irish Office, telegraphed on the 16th, and again on the 19th, and yesterday the following reply was received—
  "Cape Town, March 19th.—Referring to your telegram of the 16th of March, Ministers inform me that Lieutenant Segrave was in July, 1885, dismissed from the Cape Infantry for gross neglect and breach of trust."
  An hon. MEMBER: "Remember Mitchelstown!"
  SIR W. HARCOURT: In the absence of the Chief Secretary, I will ask the First Lord of the Treasury the question which I asked the other night, whether in this Vote on Account is included the salary of Mr. Segrave, who, I believe, was the magistrate at Mitchelstown.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will be in his place in a few minutes, and will be able to answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman.

  THE OUTRAGE ON MR. AND MISS CREAGH.
  MR. COX,asked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether the police had made any arrests in connection with the outrage on Mr. and Miss Creagh, near Quin, on Sunday, 10th inst.; whether it was a fact that the entire police force of the district, numbering eight constables, were, at the time the outrage was perpetrated, stationed at the gates of Clooney Catholic Church, within less than one mile of the scene of the outrage—and, if so, would he inform the House with what object the police were posted there; whether his attention had been directed to the letter of the Rev. D. A. Hogan, C.C., Honorary Secretary Quin and Clooney National League, in the Freeman's Journal of 15th inst., denouncing the outrage on behalf of his parishioners; and whether, in view of this statement, the police had reason to believe that the outrage was agrarian.

  373
  Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that an indignation meeting had been held in the parish to denounce the outrage upon this gentleman?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Constabulary Authorities report that so far no arrests have been made in connection with the firing upon Mr. and Miss Creagh. It is not the fact that the entire police force of the district was engaged as alleged in the second paragraph. The men of one station attended Clooney Chapel as usual, and after Divine Service remained a short time, as placards had been posted announcing that a collection would be made in aid of the Indemnity Fund by the local branch of the National League, which was suppressed as an illegal association. Clooney Chapel is not less than one mile as alleged, but it is two miles from the scene of the outrage. I understand that the letter referred to did appear in the newspaper. The police have reason to believe that the outrage was agrarian. As a matter of fact, this has been the third occasion on which Mr. Creagh was tired at since he evicted a tenant in 1871.

  THE ROBERTTOWN BOARD SCHOOL.
  MR. WOODHEADasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the inspector of schools for the district had on two successive years reported that the Board School at Roberttown, Liversedge. Yorkshire, does not afford sufficient accommodation for the children in attendance, and whether the Board has been threatened with a withdrawal of the grant if the accommodation be not increased; whether the plans prepared for the enlargement of the building, with a view to obtaining a loan, were submitted to the Education Department in September last, and provisionally approved by them; whether the plans have since been returned to the Board, with an intimation that, unless the additional accommodation proposed to be made were reduced by 26 places, the sanction of the Department would be withheld; whether the Board thereupon ascertained, and reported to the Department, that the proposed reduction would effect a saving of only £18, and would also occasion serious inconvenience as
  374
  regards the mixed department, and, therefore, asked the Department to reconsider its objection to the proposed plans; whether it was in consequence of the representations of the Vicar of Roberttown that the Department has withdrawn its approval of the plans, and continued to insist on the proposed reduction of accommodation; and whether, in view of the fact that the inhabitants have, in public meeting, expressed their approval of the Board's plans, and of the proposed expenditure, the Department will, for the sake of a saving of only £18, involving the sacrifice of 26 places, continue to insist on an alteration of the plans before sanctioning a loan?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART-DYKE, Kent,): The facts as stated in the first three paragraphs are correct. The Department are not prepared to admit that 26 places would cost only £18 or that the reduction would cause inconvenience. The reduction of the places was caused not by the representations of the Vicar, but by the fact that the school, including the enlargement now sanctioned, would supply sufficient accommodation. The last paragraph rests upon a misapprehension. The Department have no power to sanction a loan for building on the security of the Rates, unless, to use the words of the Statute, they are satisfied that the amount of accommodation is required for the educational wants of the District. The Department are not satisfied of this, and therefore they cannot alter their decision. But the School Board are themselves at liberty, without the sanction of the Department, to spend what they please out of the Rates.

  CATHOLIC MAGISTRATES.
  MR. LANEasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether it was a fact that there was no Catholic Magistrate resident in the Petty Sessions of Castlemartyr; upon what grounds did Lord Bandon recommend Messrs. Green and Dring to the Lord Chancellor to be lately appointed to vacancies on the Bench in this district; is Mr. Green an Englishman, having no property in the district; does Mr. Dring own any property in the district; were the names of some suitable

  375
  Catholic gentlemen submitted to Lord Bandon for those vacancies; and whether, as there was not a single Catholic Magistrate in the contiguous Petty Sessions Districts of Youghal and Castlemartyr, he would recommend the Lord Chancellor to favourably consider a direct memorial from each of those districts?
  MR. MADDEN: I am informed that in 1881 a Roman Catholic gentleman who resided in Castlemartyr was appointed to the Commission of the Peace for County Cork. This gentleman now resides temporarily elsewhere, but during the last two years he has attended Petty Sessions on several occasions. Messrs. Green and Dring were in 1881 recommended for the Commission of the Peace by Lord Bandon, on the ground that they were fit and proper persons to be appointed. I have no information as to whether Mr. Green was or was not an Englishman, but the fact of his being an Englishman would be no disqualification. Mr. Green resides in the district, and is possessed in right of his wife of landed property there. Mr. Dring is the only son and heir of a gentleman 80 years of age, and possessed of an estate in the district. Mr. Dring acts as his father's agent and manager. I have no information as to whether the names of any Catholic gentlemen were submitted to the Lord Chancellor, but the desire of Lord Bandon is simply to secure the appointment of fit and proper persons.

  THE PONSONBY ESTATE.
  MR. LANEasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether the Cork Grand Jury had given the Land Corporation £175 for the alleged malicious burning of some mud-built houses on the Ponsonby Estate, the amount to be levied off the parish of Clonpriest; whether he would inform the House why compensation was granted to this association and not to the owner of the property; was the house occupied at the time of the burning by emergency men and police; and did one of the policemen claim and receive a sum of £22 10s. from the Grand Jury fur money which he alleges he lost in the fire?
  MR. MADDEN: I understand that the Cork Grand Jury have given the Land Corporation £175 for the burning of houses on the Ponsonby Estate, the amount to
  376
  be levied off the parish of Clonpriest, and that no compensation could be granted to the owner of the land, as he made no application. The Land Corporation were at the time in occupation of the houses in question. The house was occupied by police and emergency men at the time it was burned; one of the policemen claimed and received £22 10 from the Grand Jury for a watch and money which he lost in the fire.
  MR. LANE: Were the Land Corporation asked if they were the owners or tenants of the property or had any interest, and did they decline to answer?
  MR. MADDEN: I have no reason to believe that there was anything illegal in the transaction.
  MR COX: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the extent to which the Land Corporation was interested in the matter.
  MR. MADDEN: No.

  FAIR RENTS.
  MR. LALORasked the Solicitor General for Ireland, in view of the fact that in the Abbeylaix Union many hundreds of originating notices to fix fair rents, which were served in September and October 1887 under the Act of that year, have not yet been heard, and in view of the fact that many landlords are still exacting the old rents can he say when the Sub-Commissioners will sit in that Union to hear these cases?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Land Commissioners inform me that a Sub-Commission sat in the Abbeyleix Union in September last, at which sitting nearly one hundred of the cases in which notices were received from 22nd August, 1887, were dispased of. The total number of cases unheard in the Uuion at the present date, including those not disposed of at that sitting, is 352. The Commissioners are at present unable to fix the date of the next sitting, having regard to the claims of other districts.

  CYPRUS AND THE TURKISH TRIBUTE
  COLONEL BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the statement he made in the House on the 26th November, 1888, it was the intention of the Government, during the present Session, to make any arrangement

  377
  for the commutation of the Turkish tribute paid by Cyprus?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not in a position to add anything to the statement which I made on the 26th of November, to which the hon. Member refers. Diplomatic as well as financial considerations are involved which surround the question with a variety of difficulties.

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND.
  MR. JOHN ELLISasked the Solicitor General for Ireland how often the Lord Chancellor had sat in the Irish Court of Appeal within the past 12 months in cases in which Divisional or Resident Magistrates were parties; whether the decision of the Appeal Court in each case was in favour of the magistrate; and was there any precedent in England for a Member of the Cabinet sitting as Lord Chancellor in the Court of Appeal in cases of like nature?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Lord Chancellor of Ireland is, under the Judicature Act, the statutable President of the Court of Appeal. This Court has no jurisdiction in criminal cases, and can only hear cases conversant with civil rights. The Lord Chancellor, like all his Predecessors, has fulfilled his duty by sitting in the Court in all cases which come before it. It would not, I submit, be proper to make inquiries of the nature suggested in the first and second paragraphs of the question. The nature and result of the cases which come before the Court can be ascertained by any person who desires it by means of the reports which ordinarily appear in the public Press. As regards the last paragraph, I have to state that the Lord Chancellor of England invariably presides in the House of Lords, without regard to who may be the parties to the cases which come before him, and (when his other duties permit) in the Privy Council and Court of Appeal.

  THE MURDER OF INSPECTOR MARTIN.
  MR. JOHN ELLISasked the Solicitor General for Ireland what number of persons arrested by the constabulary in the Gweedore district for alleged complicity in the murder of District Inspector Martin have since been released; in how many of the cases was the arrest made by warrant; and against how
  378
  many of them had there been information sworn?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary authorities report that 44 persons have been arrested in connection with the murder of District Inspector Martin. Twenty-three of these were subsequently released, of whom, however, two have been rearrested on further evidence. None of the arrests were made by warrant or on sworn information, but on private information received by the police.

  DUBLIN BARRACKS.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Secretary of State for War when the Report on the Sanitary Condition of Dublin Barracks, recently laid upon the Table, will be accessible to Members?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: There were several large plans connected with this report which delayed its completion; but he (Mr. Stanhope) hoped it would be out before many days.

  RESULT FEES.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBETasked the Solicitor General for Ireland if it was a fact that the Commissioners of National Education had refused to pay result fees to Mr. James Ryan, of Trooperstown National School, Rathdrum, county Wicklow, for giving instruction in agriculture, on the ground that such instruction was given both within and out of the ordinary school hours; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to award the fees for the work actually done?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that it is a fact that result fees have been refused in the case in question, on the ground that the instruction had been given, contrary to rule, partly outside of school hours. The Commissioners have no power to award any result fees under the circumstances.

  EXCISE DUTY.
  MR. CAINEasked the Under Secretary of State for India (1), if it was true that there is a large brewery established at Poona by Messrs. Meakin and Co., and that under a Government Resolution, No. 34, 5th January, 1886, the malt liquor brewed in this firm is

  379
  exempted from the payment of any Excise Duty, and that, under Government Resolution, No. 1,652, 2nd March 1886, a wholesale licence was granted to Messrs. Meakin and Co. for the sale of their malt liquors in Bombay for a fee of 50rupees; (2), if it was true that there are in all 68 other wholesale licences in the town and island of Bombay charged sums varying from 100 to 1,000 rupees; (3), why was it that Messrs. Meakin and Co. pay no Excise Duty, and obtain a wholesale licence on exceptionally favourable terms; (4), were the malt liquors brewed by Messrs. Meakin and Co. the same as those described as "Government porter, of 11 per cent strength, and Government ale, 11·7 per cent strength, of proof spirit," on page 12 of the Report of the Bombay Abkari Commission, 1885; if not, can he state what is the alcoholic strength of Meakin's beer and porter; (5), was any other firm of brewers in India exempted from the payment of Excise Duty; (6), whether his attention had been called to the statement on the same page of the Report, that the tax on toddy was 6 rupees on 40 gallons in 1885, and that its alcoholic strength increases 5 per cent in 24 hours, and is he aware that large quantities of toddy are consumed freshly drawn from the tree, in which state it is entirely free from alcohol; (7), was he aware that the Duty on imported malt liquors is only one anna per gallon, while that on toddy, whether alcoholic or not, is an average of two annas per gallon; (8), was he aware that there is a widespread feeling of discontent all over the Bombay Presidency with regard to these inequalities of taxation, which found expression in the evidence given before the above-mentioned Commission, and that the Report of the Commission recommends an assimilation of the Duties on malt liquors and toddy; and (9), was it the intention of the Bombay Government to carry out this recommendation by raising the Duty on imported, and the Excise on malt liquors manufactured within their jurisdiction?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST,): (1) (2) (3) and (5). No exceptional favour is shown to Messrs. Meakin and Co. Malt liquor is not charged with Excise Duty in Bombay, nor, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, in any other Province of India.
  380
  Messrs. Meakin's wholesale licence is for malt liquor only. The licences with which theirs is compared are for wines, beers, and spirits. (4) The Secretary of State cannot identify the beer and spirits mentioned as Messrs. Meakin's, nor does he know the precise alcoholic strength of their liquor. (6) (7) and (8) The Secretary of State is aware of the facts stated. (9) The Secretary of State has not been informed by the Governor of Bombay whether it is their intention to raise the duty, and establish an excise, on malt liquor.
  In reply to a further question,
  *SIR J. GORSTsaid the Secretary of State was not able to identify the particular ale and porter mentioned in the report.
  MR. CAINE: Do not the Government buy their ale and porter from Messrs. Meakin and Co.?
  *SIR J. GORST: I must have notice of that question.

  THE SUBMARINE COMPANY'S EMPLOYES.
  MR. PINKERTONasked the Postmaster General if he could state whether the Submarine Company's, employés would be placed upon the permanent establishment or not when that Company's telegraphs were taken over by the Government?
  *MR. RAIKES: In reply to the honourable Member, I have to state that most of the Submarine Telegraph Company's employés will be placed upon the permanent establishment when that Company's telegraphs are transferred to the Post Office.

  PARLIAMENTARY PRINTING.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary to the Treasury how it happened that the printing of the House was done on such terms as to be almost beyond the endurance of man; and, if Her Majesty's Government could see their way to introduce an Eight Hours' Clause into all contracts for printing done for the House?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I presume that the hon. Member refers not to the printing of the Votes and Proceedings, but to the printing of Reports and Papers.

  381
  This is done under a contract which, in accordance with directions given by Resolutions passed by the House of Commons in 1882 on the recommendation of a joint Select Committee of both Houses, was submitted to competition in 1886. There is always great pressure at the opening of the Sessions of Parliament, owing to the amount of printing required for Accounts and Papers, and especially for the Estimates. I do not think that so long as the system of making contracts by open competition is maintained, the Government can interfere between contractors and their workmen, either by insisting on an eight hours' rule, or in any other manner.
  MR. HOWELLasked whether the hon. Gentleman admitted that the work was done under intolerable circumstances?
  MR. JACKSONdid not admit that. In the answer which he gave the other day he said that the printers had been working under great pressure, and almost to the utmost of their endurance. He believed that to have been the fact, but from, circumstances over which he had no control, he did not think it could be remedied under the present system.

  THE INLAND REVENUE.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to abolish the office of Collector of Inland Revenue at Great Winchester Street, in the City of London, and to transfer the main portion of his duties to the office of the Receiver General at Somerset House; if so, what increase of staff will be necessary in the latter office; is it intended to raise the salary of the Receiver General; will any officers be retired on pensions as a consequence of the abolition; if so, how many, and what will be the total annual charge for their pensions; what is the net saving, if any, which will be effected by the change; what is the amount of Excise and Income Tax now collected annually at Great Winchester Street; and, have representations reached him that great inconvenience will be caused to persons in the City and East End who have hitherto transacted their business at that office?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: A plan is now under the consideration of the Board of Inland Revenue for transferring a part of the work at present done in the office of the Collector of Inland Revenue, at Great Winchester Street, to the Receiver General. The scheme involves no increase of staff, though it may involve a transfer from one office to the other. No question has been raised of increasing the salary of the Receiver General. If the scheme is adopted, no officers will be retired on pensions in consequence of it. It is impossible as yet to say what would be the amount of the saving; but, of course, the scheme will only be adopted if it leads to economy. The amount of Excise and Income Tax collected at the office in question was about £2,800,000 for the year ending the 31st of December. No representations have been made to me that inconvenience will be caused by the proposed scheme. There will still be an office in Great Winchester Street, and an official authorized to receive taxes, though part of the work now done in the office might be transferred to the Receiver General.

  TRADE WAGES.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDSasked the Postmaster General whether his attention had been drawn to the case of George Hotson, Harry Johnson, George Graves, and Samuel Andrews, recently employed in the leather department of the Postal Telegraph Stores in Gloucester Road, Regent's Park, who received notice to leave their employment in consequence of having notified to Mr. Montgomery, the yard foreman, that they were working under the minimum wage of their trade; whether it was a fact that the wages received by them at the time was 25s. and 26s. for 54 hours' labour per week; whether Henry Hunt, who was preparing the work for them at the time, and expressed his sympathy with their object, had since received notice to leave; whether it was a fact that Mr. Montgomery, the yard foreman, is in receipt of a Government pension of £1 per week, and a weekly salary of £3 10s. as yard foreman; and whether he would see that in future the workmen employed in this department are paid the minimum rate of wage of the trade society of 28s. per week?
  *MR. RAIKES: Two of the four men first mentioned by the hon. Member, viz., Hotson and Johnson, were taken over from the late contractor's service, at their own request, at their existing wages of 25s. a week. Within a week they applied for 26s. a week, and were informed that any increase must depend upon their skill and industry. They then resigned. Graves, who had been employed for about three months at wages of 26s. a week, also resigned. Andrews' services were discontinued because he had not proved a satisfactory workman. The hours of labour assigned to all these men, who are leather stitchers, were 54 a week. It is believed that the regular trade wages for this class of work are 25s. a week, and a large number of men have applied for employment at this rate. As regards Hunt, who did superior work, and received wages of 28s. a week, I find that he had given much dissatisfaction by his late attend-dance, and his services were, therefore, dispensed with. Mr. Montgomery, the yard foreman, has an army pension of 19s. 4½d. a week, and is in the receipt of a salary from the Post Office of £160 a year. As regards the last question, I beg to say that, while it will always be my intention to pay fair wages for work done, it would not be consistent with my public duty to pledge myself to pay any particular rate of wages to workmen employed in the Post Office Factories.

  IRELAND—PRISON DISCIPLINE.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he was able to state to the House the names of the Gentlemen whom he is going to appoint to investigate the rules of prison discipline, with a view to their modification in certain cases; and, whether, pending their Report, he would see that no prisoner in Ireland undergoing a sentence for offences against the Criminal Law and Procedure Act will be punished by solitary confinement or bread and water diet for the non-performance of menial offices, or for refusing to take exercise with criminals found guilty under other Acts?
  *MR. MADDEN: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on behalf of the Government on the subject of this
  384
  question; but I may say the Government are in communication with representatives of the English, Scotch, and Irish prison departments with the view of forming an opinion on the points raised in the speech of the Chief Secretary on Wednesday. With regard to the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question, it is not the view of the Irish Government that Crimes Act prisoners, as such, are entitled to any relaxation of prison rules.
  MR. O'CONNOR: Will the inquiry be conducted entirely by writing, or will evidence be taken?
  *MR. MADDEN: I am unable to give an answer to the question, but the whole matter will receive careful consideration. I am not able to say yet what the course of procedure will be.
  MR. O'CONNOR: Are we to understand that no change will be made in the condition of the prisoners in Ireland pending the result of the inquiry?
  MR. MADDEN: I have not stated that no change will be made pending inquiry.
  MR. SEXTON: Have the Government yet resolved to apply Section 11 of the Act of 1887 to the whole of the inquiry including the treatment of Mr. William O'Brien?
  *MR. MADDEN: The right hon. Gentleman will kindly give me notice of the question.

  THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Postmaster General why the allowance for risk money to the officers of the travelling post offices in Ireland when dealing with registered letters, which the Postmaster General stated, on the 4th December, 1888, he had granted, was not yet paid, and if he intends paying back money for the two years he has had it under consideration?
  *MR. RAIKES: The reason of the delay to which the hon. Member refers is that, in order to introduce uniformity of treatment, inquiry has to be made into the work of every travelling sorter in the United Kingdom. But I can promise that, before long, payment shall begin to be made and that when made it shall date on, and from, the 1st of December last.

  EAST AFRICA.
  MR. JAMES MACLEANasked the Under Secretary of State for

  385
  Foreign Affairs if any memorial has been received from British-Indian subjects of the Queen in East Africa praying that they may be compensated for losses caused by the disturbances in the German Protectorate; and, if so, what action the Foreign Office has taken thereupon; and, if it is proposed to lay whatever correspondence has passed upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): A Memorial from British-Indians in East Africa was received by telegraph on the 12th of October, praying Her Majesty's Government to take early measures to stay further loss upon their trade and destruction to their property. It contained no request for compensation. There is no correspondence on the subject which could usefully be laid.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Cannot the right hon. Baronet say whether in view of the admitted loss to British subjects the Government are making any inquiry to ascertain if any course can be taken to protect them?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir. What Her Majesty's Government do is to warn British subjects on the coast of any pending event which may render their residence there dangerous, but they cannot possibly guard them against acts of war with which they have nothing to do.

  ARMY AND NAVY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of England are severally represented on the Committee of Inquiry as to the pay, status, and conditions of service of Medical Officers of the Army and Navy, but that neither the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland nor the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland have been accorded any representation on the Committee; whether the President and Council of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland have requested to be allowed to nominate a member to serve on the Committee, and have represented that the College received its charter for the purpose of providing a sufficient number of properly educated surgeons for the service of the Army; that it has fully carried out that function, and that the omission to provide representation
  386
  for the College on the Committee is felt as a slur upon the College, and threatens' injury to the interest of the several medical schools of Ireland; and that they wish to be represented when the important questions come to be decided by the Committee which will affect the interests of the Army Medical Officers who have been educated and qualified in Ireland; and, whether, having regard to this state of facts, he will allow to the two Irish Colleges the same representation which has been given unasked to the two corresponding English institutions?
  MR. MURPHYalso asked, whether representatives of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians of England are severally appointed to the Committee of Inquiry into the pay, status, and conditions of service of the Medical Officers of the Army and Navy; whether the Council of the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, have applied that a representative from that College should also be appointed to the Committee; whether a very large proportion, if not a majority, of the Medical Officers of the Army were educated in the Irish schools; whether representations have reached him that a refusal to comply with the request of the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, will be considered as a slur upon the position of the Irish as compared with the English Colleges, to whom representation on the Committee was conceded unasked; and, whether the inequality will be removed by appointing at least one representative from the medical profession in Ireland?
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not said that each of the two English Colleges has a representative on the Commission while no Irish College has any. Is there any person on it who is a direct representative of any interest in Ireland?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: One Member is appointed by the Royal College of Surgeons in England, and the other by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question at all. Is there any one on the Commission who directly represents any Irish interest?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: In reply to another question I propose to give all the names.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table copy of the Bill for giving responsible government to Western Australia, which was read a second time in the West Australian Legislature at the instance of the representatives of the Government; and, whether, since there has been a dissolution in West Australia, the Secretary of State will undertake not to re-introduce the Bill till this House has had an opportunity of considering the question of alienating upwards of a million square miles of land comprised in the West Australian Territory?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Her Majesty's Government cannot consent to lay on the Table the Bill as read a second time in the late Legislative Council of Western Australia as its provisions are probably now undergoing some alterations. The new Legislative Council was to assemble about the 15th instant, and no doubt the Bill has been already introduced. It would not in any case be possible for Her Majesty's Government now to direct the withdrawal of the Bill. There is, however, no question of alienating a million square miles of land; since it has been decided that if responsible Government is introduced, Her Majesty's Government is to retain control over the Crown lands within the greater half of the Colony. I may again remind the House that Imperial legislation will be required before the Colonial Act can come into operation.

  DUTCH CATTLE.
  MR. RANKINasked the Vice Chamberlain whether it was true that an Order in Council had been made for the free admission of Dutch cattle into Great Britain, which said Order is to come into force on the 1st of June; whether the Privy Council are perfectly satisfied that no foot and mouth disease or pleuro-pneumonia exists in Holland; and, if so, how long that country has been perfectly free from those contagious diseases; whether those diseases are prevalent in Belgium and Germany, and, if so, what precautions have been taken by the Dutch Government to
  388
  prevent their re-introduction from those countries, and from thence to Great Britain?
  THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN (Viscount LEWISHAM,): In accordance with the fourth paragraph of the fifth schedule to the Cattle Diseases Act of 1878, the Privy Council have passed the order referred to admitting Dutch cattle and sheep without being subject to slaughter at the port of landing. The Netherlands Government have satisfied the Privy Council that pleuro-pneumonia and foot and mouth disease do not exist in that country. The last case of the former was reported in 1887 (a solitary case), and of the latter in 1885. These diseases are reported to exist in Belgium and Germany; but the importation and transit of animals from other countries are prohibited by the Netherlands Government.

  STAFF PAYMASTERS.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for War why Chief Paymasters are, under some alteration of rule, now to serve five instead of three years in unhealthy climates such as Hong Kong, and Staff Paymasters only four years in fine climates like Ceylon and Singapore?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: By a regulation issued last year the tour of foreign service for departmental executive officers was increased by one year, so that Staff Paymasters who used to serve three years in Ceylon, China, &c., would have to serve four years. At the same time the administrative departmental officers were placed under the rules applicable to the general staff of the Army, which involve a tour of five years' service.

  BERMUDA AND HALIFAX.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Postmaster General whether any steps had yet been taken or decided upon in reference to laying a submarine cable between the British Atlantic fortress of Bermuda and the British fortress of Halifax; and, whether it was intended to restore direct postal communication by British ships between Halifax and Bermuda; and, if not, in either or both oases, what are the reasons?
  *MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Government

  389
  have decided to lay a cable from Halifax to Bermuda. According to information which I have received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Legislature of Jamaica has agreed to grant a subsidy to a line of steamers running between Halifax and Kingston, and calling regularly at Turks Islands and Bermuda. I understand that the service commenced last October.

  THE COAL MINES REGULATION ACT.
  MR. PICKARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case tried on the 4th instant before the West Riding Magistrates, Wakefield, Yorkshire—namely, Naylor and Company v. John Hudson, in the course of which it was stated by a witness named Hudson "that no person was in attendance at the pit bank during the night shift;" also that he had complained of the absence of the engineman; and that on one occasion, after repeatedly ringing the bell calling the engineman, he had to wait between two and three hours before he could get out of the pit; whether, under these circumstances, there has been a breach of the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887; and if so, what course he proposes to take in relation to the same?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: The whole circumstances were before the magistrates. The proceeding was by the owners for damages against a miner for having absented himself from work without notice. The defence was that he was justified in doing so because the owners did not observe the Act, inasmuch as there was no engine man in attendance. It appeared that the engine man was at home; but his house was in communication with the pit bottom by signal. The Magistrates apparently held that the Act had been observed, and found for the plaintiffs. I think the matter should be investigated afresh, and in a more direct manner, and I have instructed the Inspector to institute a prosecution with a view to test the question.

  COAL WEIGHING.
  MR. PICKARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has had a memorial from the Better Bed miners of the Bowling Coal
  390
  and Iron Company, Bradford, Yorkshire, praying that the "mineral gotten by them shall be truly and duly weighed in accordance with 'The Mines Act, 1887;'" whether he is aware of the fact that although the men petitioned to have their mineral weighed according to the Mines Act of 1872, such provision was never put into operation, and whether, under the circumstances, he will give immediate instructions that the mineral gotten at this firm shall be "duly and truly" weighed, in accordance with the desire of the workmen and the spirit of the Act of 1887?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received the memorial referred to, signed by eight of the workmen employed at this colliery. Fourteen years ago a petition to the same effect was presented by the workmen at these collieries, but under the circumstances of that time was not entertained. In accordance with the answer which I gave in this House last week, I propose to inquire into the circumstances of the colliery, and after ascertaining the views of the miners as well as of the owners, I shall be in a position to decide whether I ought to revoke the exemption now in force.

  THE GWEEDORE PRISONERS.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether it is a fact that the Governor of Derry Gaol refused to allow the female prisoners from Gweedore, arrested on a charge of alleged complicity in District Inspector Martin's murder, to wear warm wraps on the journey between Derry Gaol and Letterkenny, which had been provided for them by friends; and whether he will give directions that the prisoners should not be deprived of this warm clothing when travelling between Derry Gaol and Letterkenny next Saturday?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Governor of the Prison reports that he did refuse to allow certain articles of clothing sent to the prisoners to be worn by them, as he considered it would interfere with their identification, but that he has permitted them to receive warm clothing similarly sent. The General Prisons Board have instructed the Governor that if the wraps referred to are intended for the purpose of warmth they should be allowed to the prisoners while travelling,

  391
  to be removed if necessary at the end of the journey.
  MR. SEXTON: Under the Prison Rules has the Governor any power to interfere with the clothing?
  MR. MADDEN: As I have stated, the Governor has been instructed to allow warm clothing to be supplied to the prisoners.

  POLICE PASSES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Solicitor General for Ireland with reference to the issue of passes by the police in certain districts of Donegal, and the statement that persons are not molested when found without such passes, whether he was aware that Patrick Curran, Magheragallon, and Connell M'Bride, Ardnagappary, were arrested by the police whilst engaged at their work in gathering seaweed, and having been detained until the tide had washed away the seaweed, were then released, and police passes given to them; that Charles Gallagher, of Ardnagappary, and his son, on their way to their work as fishermen, were challenged by the police, and called upon to produce passes, and not being in possession of passes, were prevented from going to their work; and, what is the meaning of these proceedings?
  *MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary authorities report that it is not the case that either Patrick Curran or Connell M'Bride was arrested by the police while engaged in their work of gathering seaweed at places in Donegal, or that they were detained until the seaweed had been washed away. On the contrary, they were merely questioned for a few moments by some of the police, and, at the men's own request, were given passes by Head Constable Mahony. Charles Gallagher and his son were not prevented from going to their work so far as the police are aware.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not a fact that people are liable to be stopped by the police and asked whether they have passes, and if they have not passes that they are liable to be arrested?
  *MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; I do not gather anything like that from the information I have.
  MR. O'HEA: Is it not a fact that persons following their ordinary avocations have been arrested
  392
  and placed under surveillance and espionage, and that passes have been given by policemen to persons to enable them to go to the market town on their ordinary business?
  *MR. MADDEN: I have no information leading to any such conclusion.
  MR. SEXTON: I must press the question. This district is in a state of war. I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to clear the matter up, and to state under what circumstances these passes are given and what is the position of persons who have no passes. What questions were put to the men by the police?
  *MR. MADDEN: I have given all the information I have received for the purpose of answering the question. As to the general allegation, that persons are unable to pass along the road without passes, I am informed it is without foundation.
  MR. O'HEA: Under the impression that we are living under a British Constitution, I ask the hon. Gentleman why the liberty of the subject is encroached upon to such an extent as to supersede the right of travelling along the Queen's Highway?
  DR. CAMERON: May I ask whether, as Mr. Wilson (Member for Holmfirth) has been shadowed by detectives, the Government will be good enough to-order him to be supplied with a police pass?

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION IN SCOTLAND.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate if it is within the knowledge of the Scotch Education Department that the school accommodation in the parish of Ochiltree, Ayrshire, has for a number of years past been deficient, and what steps the Department proposes to take to enforce the direction which it conveyed to the Ochiltree School Board on the 21st June, 1888, that sufficient school accommodation should be provided in some situation which shall be convenient for the children of parents connected with the Trabloch Colliery?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Scotch Education Department has been in communication with the School Board of Ochiltree on the subject of the school accommodation which, as their Lordships believe, is admitted to be required, but the question is complicated by a dispute

  393
  between the School Boards of Ochiltree and Stair as to the respective obligations of these Boards. The Chief Inspector visited the district on th 9th of January, and on his recommendation a proposal was revived under which the Colliery Company were to give the use of certain houses for a temporary school. The Department were, however, informed by the School Board only on the 11th of March, that this offer was withdrawn, and that the School Board would not have to look out for another site. The Board were urged on the 15th of March to come to a decision as to this as quickly as possible, and my Lords will use every effort to press the matter forward.

  MR. COMMISSIONER GREER.
  MR. LEAasked the Solicitor General for Ireland if he was now able to answer the question put to him on 1st March in reference to a decision of Mr. Commissioner Greer, whereby it was decided that a certain class of leaseholders are excluded from relief under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887"; and what steps the Government would take to amend its provisions, so as to admit such leases within the operation of the Irish Land Acts of 1881, 1887, and 1888?
  MR. MADDEN: I have ascertained that a decision was give a by Mr. Greer to the effect mentioned in the question. Notice has been given by the hon. Member for South Antrim of a Bill which is, I am informed, intended to provide for the class of cases to which the question relates.

  CARDIGAN BAY.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any hydrographical survey of Cardigan Bay has been made since that of 1836–9; whether a resurvey of Cardigan Bay is being, or soon will be, undertaken; and whether notice of future re-surveys can be given to the Sea Fisheries Committees which will be formed under "The Sea Fisheries Act, 1888"?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Instructions were given last month for a re-survey of Cardigan Bay being undertaken this summer, no complete survey having been made of that
  394
  locality since 1838. The Admiralty will be glad to afford information to the Sea Fisheries Committees as to any surveys that take place or are contemplated round the coasts of the United Kingdom, and for that object the Hydrographer will receive instructions to acquaint the Board of Trade with the surveys that are proceeding.

  RUSSIAN STATISTICS.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct Her Majesty's Representative in Russia to report on the method and value of the statistics and investigations relating to the social condition of the people made by the zemstvos or provincial assemblies of Russia?
  SIR. J. FERGUSSON: If the hon. Member will refer to Parliamentary Paper, No. 30, (Commons) 1884, page 33, he will find an interesting report on the functions and working of these Provincial and District Councils. There is also a further short report on page 23 No. 11, (Commons) 1885.

  THE CROFTERS COMMISSION.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND (Sutherlandshire)asked the Lord Advocate who is responsible for the appointment of assessors to the Crofters' Commission; on what principle the recent appointments have been made; and whether, in making such appointments in future, care will be taken to appoint assessors in whom the Crofters have confidence?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Commissioners are responsible for those appointments. I understand that the Commissioners endeavour to secure the services of men of skill, possessing such qualities as will command the confidence of both parties to the proceedings.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT.
  CAPTAIN HEATHCOTEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he was now able to say whether the certificates sent to the Home Office entitled Caleb Johnson, Joseph Brindley, and James Lloyd, to receive second-class certificates under Section 80 of "The Coal Mines, &c., Regulation Act, 1887?"
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir. Certificates of service have been granted to each of these men.

  CIRCULARS AND BOOK PACKETS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General whether circulars and book packets are prohibited from being posted in unsealed envelopes at the book packet rate in the United Kingdom; and whether he is aware that this privilege is enjoyed by the inhabitants of the Continental countries?
  *MR. RAIKES: My answer to both the questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. I may explain that printed circulars in unsealed envelopes from the Continent are admitted into this country at the book-post rate, in consequence of the provisions of the Postal Union, which makes this course obligatory. So far, however, as regards the Inland Post, it is considered of much importance to maintain a distinction in the outward appearance of letters and book-post matter, in order that the latter may be readily picked out for examination when necessary; but, apart from this, my Predecessors have been advised that an envelope having any inclosure in it is, to all intents and purposes, a letter.

  THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDSasked the Postmaster General whether it is a fact that the estimate for overtime in the Savings Bank Department for 1888 was very much exceeded; whether, although upwards of 300 clerks have been and are now working for 12 hours each day, the work is at the present time much in arrears as compared with last year; and what steps he proposes to take in order to remedy this continual arrears of work in that Department?
  *MR. RAIKES: The Estimate for extra duty for the year 1888–9, viz., £8,500, will be considerably exceeded when the year closes on the 31st instant. The annual account to the 31st December, 1888, has to be rendered to Parliament before the 30th April next. This account is not in arrear, and will be presented within the proper date. The question of meeting the rapid growth of business of the Savings Bank is engaging the attention of the Government.

  THE NILE AND TRAFALGAR.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would be good enough to inform the House if any, and what, alterations have been made in the construction of the hulls and disposition of the guns of the Trafalgar and Nile from the original designs; whether the bows have been or are intended to be strengthened for ramming warfare, or whether the fore and after ends of both vessels are, as in the case of ships of the Admiral class, wholly without protection; and whether it is a fact that the full speed coal-endurance of those vessels barely exceeds three days' steaming; if so, whether he considers this class of battle ship (and of which Parliament is to be asked to construct more) capable on an emergency of leaving with safety their coaling base, whether at home or abroad?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The only alteration of any importance in the Nile and Trafalgar from the original design consists in the increase of side plating over the central battery to four inches. The alterations in armament are the substitution of six 4·7 in. quick-firing guns for eight 5in. guns in the central battery. The bow and stern of these ships are unprotected by vertical armour for a length of about 60ft. No change has been made or is intended in the construction of the bows of these ships, which is such as to render them thoroughly efficient for ramming purposes. For continuous ocean steaming for long periods the estimated full speed is about 15 knots, and at this speed the ships can steam with full bunkers for eight days, or at 10 knots for 27 days.

  MR. SEGRAVE, R.M.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he would have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Government Gazette of the Cape of Good Hope, published Friday, 4th September, 1885, in which the following entry relative to Mr. O'Neil Segrave, R.M., appears:—
  "Head Quarters, Colonial Forces,
  "King William's Town,
  24th August, 1885,
  "Colonial Forces Order, No. 281.
  "His Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has been

  397
  pleased to approve of the following alterations, &c. in the Colonial Forces:—
  "No. 2 Cape Infantry Regiment.
  "Lieutenant O'Neil Segrave's services are dispensed with from 31st July, 1885.
  "Herbert Watson Major, gentleman, to be Lieutenant, from 1st August, 1885, vice Segrave, whose services have been dispensed with.
  "By Order,
  P. Kenion Ffolliott, Lt. Colonel,
  "Military Secretary, Colonial Services."
  BARON H. DE WORMS: In answer to a question put to me by the hon. Member for Mid-Cork on the 19th instant, I read to the House the official notification in the Cape Gazette of the 20th July, 1885, that Lieutenant O'Neil Segrave's services had been dispensed with. That notification was repeated in the Gazette of the 31st August, as set forth in the hon. Member's question, and I therefore do not see any advantage in laying the Gazette on the Table of the House.

  THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the date of Inspector Littlechild's visit to Dr. Gallagher and John Daly in Chatham Prison; and if the minutes of the interview between these prisoners and Mr. Soames or Pigott can be furnished to the solicitors for the defendants before the Special Commission?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Chief Inspector Littlechild visited Daly in Chatham Prison on the 20th of February. He did not visit Gallagher. If the solicitor for any of the parties before the Special Commission will subpœna the Deputy Governor to produce his minutes of any interview at which he was present, no obstacle will be placed by the Government in the way of their production.
  SIR W. HARCOURTasked whether no evidence had been communicated except on supœna by official persons to the prosecutors in this case; and whether the other parties could not be allowed to see the documents relating to the interviews?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that there would be no objection as far as he was concerned to a solicitor seeing the documents for the bonâ fide purposes of a trial, but the right hon. Gentleman would be aware that he must not set the precedent of divulging, merely for
  398
  the purpose of inquiry, the details of interviews which took place between a prisoner and another person in the enforced presence of a warder.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if Inspector Andrews, an officer from Scotland Yard, visited America since the passing of the Special Commission Act; and if his business there was connected with the charges and allegations made before the Royal Commission?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; to the second in the negative.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentlemen state whether Inspector Andrews saw Le Caron?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware at all whether he did or not.

  WELSH SUNDAY CLOSING.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention had been called to the following remarks made by Mr. Justice Grantham, in his recent charge to the Grand Jury of Glamorganshire:—
  "His experience confirmed all that had been referred to lately as the experience of the police in the various counties of Wales. Wales had been made an experimental station for the purpose of testing the question of Sunday Closing, and he was glad that this was so, as it had enabled the question to be threshed out in a practical way. It fortified the opinion expressed by many that the Sunday Closing Act would not be a success."
  And if Her Majesty's Government will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, and will oppose any legislation to establish Sunday Closing in other parts of the United Kingdom till such Committee has made its report?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONalso asked whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been drawn to the following remarks of Mr. Justice Grantham, as reported in the Western Mail of 15th March, on the subject of Sunday Closing in Wales:—
  "There is no doubt about it at all that there is less drunkenness where there is more drink than there is where there is more teetotalism. Wales has undoubtedly been made a sort of experimental station for the purpose of testing this question. But we must do something else, try something else, find out something

  399
  else, before we can prevent the amount of drunkenness which undoubtedly is very serious in this country."
  And whether the Government are prepared to give effect to these remarks?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I wish to ask whether it is a fact that the Act prohibiting the sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays throughout every part of Scotland, passed in this House in 1853, has been in force since 1854 with satisfaction to the community at large; and, whether a similar law has been in existence affecting Ireland since 1878, and that a Select Committee of this House which sat last Session to inquire into the working of the Act reported that—
  "None of the evils which were predicted by some persons as likely to ensue from the passing of the Act have been proved to have arisen to any appreciable extent,"
  and recommended the continuance and extension of the Act?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Government are of opinion that, in view of recent experience as to the operation of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales, inquiry into the working of that measure will be desirable; and they have it under consideration in what way the inquiry had best be conducted, whether by Special Committee or by Royal Commission.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when such Committee or Commission is appointed, he will take care that the Committee is not packed in the same manner—[Cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the same law applies to supplemental questions as to that of questions put on the Paper, and the form of the hon. Member's question would not be admitted upon the Paper.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that this Commission or Committee will not have an undue proportion of Members who have been previously pledged to carry out legislation against the sale of intoxicating liquors?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think it is hardly necessary to state that the Government will take care that every interest is represented.

  FISHING BOARDS.
  MR. ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government
  400
  Board whether persons appointed by the County Council to act on Fish Conserving Boards will enter on their duties forthwith, or on the expiration of the period for which their predecessors have been chosen?
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: The persons appointed by the County Councils to act on Boards of Conservators of Fishery Districts will enter upon their duties at the expiration of the year for which their predecessors have been appointed respectively.

  TITHE RIOTS IN WALES.
  MR. THOMAS ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has obtained any report of the serious conflicts between the police and the people at Penygarn, Cardiganshire, yesterday, in connection with the collection of tithes?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have written to the Chief Constable asking for a report, but none has reached me as yet.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the Secretary of State for War when the Committee of Inquiry on the Army Medical Department would begin its labours; and whether he could state its composition to the House?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The Committee has held a preliminary meeting to-day. The Earl of Camperdown is Chairman of the Committee. The Navy is represented by Admiral Hotham, C.B., medical interests by Dr. Graham Balfour and Mr. N. C. Macnamara, and and the hon. Members for Wigtownshire, Portsmouth, and Leicester have also joined the Committee, the hon. Member for Portsmouth being the Army representative; and I propose to add one more civilian Member.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: why not strengthen the Committee by putting on it a medical officer of personal experience in connection with the services?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: It has been thought that the medical officers in the Services had better give evidence, and that they should not be put in the position of judges.

  CROFTER EMIGRATION.
  MR. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether the Government had received

  401
  any further Report with reference to the crofter families emigrated last year; and whether he can state the total number of persons emigrated to date?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: There is no further report since I answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helen's, and there were no special circumstances requiring any. The number of persons emigrated is 193.

  FATHER M'FADDEN.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is it a fact that Father M'Fadden and the other prisoners, to the number of 38, charged with an alleged complicity in the murder of District Inspector Martin, were last Saturday further remanded by the magistrates till Saturday, 23rd March; how many times have Father M'Fadden and the other prisoners been remanded by the Magistrates from 3rd February, the date of their arrest, till the present time; is he aware that, on each magisterial investigation and remand, the prisoners are conveyed by special train to and fro between Derry Gaol and Letterkenny, a distance of over 20 miles; is the special train ordered by the Government, as stated by County Inspector Hayes to the hon. Member for South Donegal; if so, under what heading in the Estimates will this expense be included; is he aware that, on Monday, 4th March, Mr. Hamilton, R.M., in the presence of three of the Members of Parliament for the county Donegal, at Letterkenny, censured the conduct of the Government in asking for these repeated remands, and only consented to give a remand till the following Thursday; could he explain the reasons which have induced the same Resident Magistrate to grant several remands since that time; and will Father M'Fadden and the other prisoners, if not discharged but returned for trial next Saturday, be precluded by these delays from standing their trial at the present Assizes?
  MR. WOODALL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I wish to ask him if it is true that Father M'Fadden has been remanded seven times and taken backwards and forwards from Derry to Letterkenny and from Letterkenny to Gweedore?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member for Hanley without notice. The answer to the question on the paper is that the prisoners arrested in connection with the murder of District Inspector Martin, though not to the number of 38, were remanded on Saturday until March 23rd. There appear to have been, in all, three or four remands. The prisoners were conveyed by special train. The cost will come under the Constabulary Vote. Mr. Hamilton, R.M., did not censure the Government, but expressed an opinion that another remand should not be asked for without evidence being given. The Resident Magistrate since granted a remand no doubt because he thought there were grounds for so doing. The prisoners, if not returned for trial before Saturday next, could not, I understand, be tried at the present Assizes.

  MR. HORNE, R.M.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Home, R.M., has recently been promoted from being a third class Resident Magistrate to a first class Resident Magistrate; whether he was so promoted over the heads of his seniors, and over how many seniors; when and on what grounds was the promotion made; and how long was Mr. Home engaged in collecting the evidence which has been used by the Times before the Special Commission?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Horne was promoted to the first class of Resident Magistrates in succession to the late Mr. Warburton, who died on the 2nd of December, from which date the promotion took effect. He was thus given 37 steps in seniority. The promotion was made in recognition of the signal public services of Mr. Horne in connection with the detection of criminals, both before and since the passing of the Crimes Act. I may mention especially, among recent instances, the conviction of the murderers of Patrick Quirke, of the assailants of John Lane, who was fired at and wounded in November, 1887, and of the persons who were convicted for shooting the schoolmaster Robinson and his daughter in March of last year. In all these cases the criminals

  403
  were brought to justice mainly through the action of Mr. Horne.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does promotion by 37 steps mean that this gentleman has been promoted over the heads of 37 other persons?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I apprehend it does mean that.

  THE MEMBER FOR HOLMFIRTH.
  MR. JOHN ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division (Mr. Wilson), whilst taking a walk with Mrs. Wilson in the neighbourhood of the Gweedore Hotel, on Saturday, 16th instant, was persistently followed about by two armed constables; whether, when the hon. Member shortly after took a car for a drive with Mrs. Wilson, three armed constables mounted another car and persistently followed them for some time; and what was the object of this police supervision?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the question. Information had been received by the police on Saturday, the 16th, that a meeting of the National League would be held in the Gweedore district, where it had been proclaimed under the Crimes Act of 1887, at which English Members of Parliament would be present. A patrol was directed to ascertain the whereabouts of the intended meeting. The hon. Member on his arrival in Gweedore was not known to the police, but as soon as it was ascertained who he was, and that he had apparently no intention of addressing any such meeting, no police supervision was exercised.
  MR. J. ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman send immediate instructions to the police to allow Mr. and Mrs. Wilson reasonable freedom of movement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was not aware that the house of Mr. Wilson's car-driver was entered in the night time by Sergeant O'Mahony and the man cross-examined as to Mr. Wilson's movements.
  MR. JOHN ELLISasked whether instructions would be immediately sent ordering that Mr. Wilson should have reasonable freedom in his motions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR,said he gathered that the hon. Member had reasonable freedom of motion as soon
  404
  as it was seen who he was. He had given the fullest information in his power.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid his information had been received direct from Mr. Wilson by telegraph.

  THE RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT, 1888.
  MR. AINSLIEasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888 gave any opening to Railway and Canal Companies to increase the minimum distance fixed by their respective Acts, and if the present attempt made by them to do this, as in their revised scale of rates, is not ultra vires; and if existing: agreements between them and traders will remain in force after the new scale has received the sanction of Parliament, or if they will become null and void and necessitate fresh agreements?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The view of the Board of Trade is that, in settling the maximum rates which railway companies are to charge, if the intention of the Act is to be carried out, they must determine the maximums chargeable for short distances; and that, consequently, proposals with this object do come within the intention of the Act. But though the railway companies propose, the disposal rests with others. I am unable to answer the latter portion of the question; agreements must be determined by the Courts of Law.
  MR. AINSLIEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the main point of the question—namely, whether the Act afforded an opening for the increase of charges?
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I have endeavoured to explain the position in which the matter stands. I think it is competent for the railway companies to make such a proposal, but the disposal will rest with other persons.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. DE COBAINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the great pressure on the time of Parliament, as evidenced by the fact that its Sittings last year only concluded upon Christmas Eve, he is prepared to take immediate steps to deal with the subject of questions put on the Notice

  405
  Paper of the House, with a view to the limiting of the time thus consumed, by recommending that questions of local and minor interest be dealt with by written reply from the heads of Departments to which they may relate; that only those which are of a grave or Imperial character shall be accorded a public response during the Sittings of the House; and that in no case shall consequential questions without notice be considered entitled to a public answer?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not surprised, looking at the hour we have reach (4.50), that the question is raised by my hon. Friend. It is one that has often been under consideration, but I am not, as at present advised, prepared to take the steps he suggests, as there would be great difficulty in deciding what were questions of local or minor, and what of a grave or Imperial character. Some authority would have to be charged with the responsibility of settling this point, and his decisions would, I am afraid, often fail to meet with the approval of hon. Members. I personally am averse to making any changes in the Rules of the House, unless painful experiences have shown them to be absolutely necessary for expediting the transaction of public business. But I am not by any means sure it will not be necessary to make further Amendments of our Rules and Orders.

  THE COLWICH CHARITIES.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther), whether, in the month of June, 1887, an official inquiry was held by Mr. Inspector Goode into the proposed re-organization of the Colwich Charities; whether at such inquiry it was agreed by all parties that the number of persons to form the Committee for the future distribution of the charities should be seven, namely, the Vicars of Colwich and Great Haywood and the Earl of Lichfield, and four others to be elected by the ratepayers; whether it is the fact that, when the scheme came down from the Charity Commissioners, it was found that it provided for two ex-officio and three co-optative members, whilst the parishioners were only to be allowed to elect four members, thus giving the majority to non-elected
  406
  members; whether the parishioners of Colwich rejected this altered arrangement; whether, notwithstanding repeated applications, the scheme as originally agreed to has been delayed 18 months; what is the reason of this delay; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to have the matter proceeded with at once, and completed in accordance to the expressed wishes of the ratepayers of the parish of Colwich?
  MR. J.W. LOWTHER: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As to the second question, a proposal was made in the sense indicated, as to the composition of the body of Trustees, and no objection was taken by those then present. The answer to the third question is in the affirmative. The number of co-optative Trustees has been fixed at three, with a view to the more efficient administration of the charity over the several outlying areas into which the ancient parish of Colwich has been divided. As to the fourth question, an objection to this portion of the Commissioners' scheme has been received from a section of the parishioners, and has been duly considered. As to the fifth and sixth questions, the delay which has arisen is due to local causes and to the difficulty of defining the areas to be benefited. As to the seventh question, the scheme will shortly be established, in which several of the recommendations made to the Commissioners will be embodied. I desire to point out to the honourable Baronet in reference to his second, fourth, and seventh questions, that the Commissioners are responsible for the scheme, and that no agreement of any two or more sections of the parishioners can preclude the Commissioners from exercising their discretion as to the details of the scheme for the benefit of all parties interested.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY ADMINISTRATION.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will invite the Royal Commission now sitting to inquire into Naval and Military Administration, presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale, to present an interim

  407
  Report to Her Majesty containing a digest of the evidence given before the said Commission, both oral and written, up to the close of February last, with a view to the same being laid before Parliament, in order the better to enable Hon. Members to judge of the sufficiency or otherwise of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for an increase to Her Majesty's Navy, in accordance with precedents, as in the case of the Report of the evidence taken by Royal Commission on the Education Acts presented in March 1888?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The inquiry of the Royal Commission on Naval and Military Administration is approaching completion, and it is undesirable to interrupt their proceedings for the purpose of framing an ad interim Report. A large portion of the evidence received is of a highly confidential nature, and could not in any way be made public. It is to be remembered also that the terms of the reference to the Commission relate to the administration of the Naval and Military Departments, so that the result of their inquiry will have no bearing upon the naval proposals of Her Majesty's Government.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES.
  MR. PICTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether it has usually been the practice to charge the Board of Trade with business relating to Sugar Bounties; and whether the Government has called for, or received, any Report or opinion from that Board on the subject of the pending Convention; and, if so, is there any objection to lay that Report or opinion upon the Table of the House?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The negotiations with foreign countries on the subject of this Convention were conducted according to usual practice by the Foreign Office. Any communications from the Board of Trade on the subject are included in the papers which have already been presented.

  FOREIGN JOURNALISTS.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the fact that a police officer, giving his name as Inspector W. Melville, of the Criminal Investigation Department, called, on
  408
  Saturday the 2th instant, at 9, Sutherland Place, Bayswater, the residence of two Armenian gentlemen named Broussali and Sevasly, being the manager and editor respectively of the journal Haiasdan, published in London in the French and Armenian languages, and addressed to the people of the house a number of inquisitorial questions regarding MM. Broussali and Sevasly's habits, movements, and associates, the names and description of persons calling on them, &c., they being at the moment absent, and obtained from their apartments a copy of the Haiasdan; whether this policeman, on being asked what his justification for these inquiries was, answered that he came on behalf of the Turkish Government, and added that the last number of the Haiasdan (which contained reports of the sufferings of the Armenian Christians) had caused great dissatisfaction in Turkish official circles; whether the Turkish Government made any, and what, application to the Home Office on the subject of the journal entitled Haiasdan; and, whether, if the facts are as above suggested, this domiciliary visit took place by the order of the Home Secretary, or of any, and what, official of the Home Department?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is a fact that Inspector Melville called at the place named on the day in question. I am informed that it is not true that inquisitorial questions were asked. The inspector's object was simply to ascertain whether the gentlemen resided there and published the newspaper in question. Both gentlemen were in their rooms at the time. The copy of the paper was given to the inspector by the landlady. The inspector informed the landlady that he knew nothing whatever to the prejudice of either gentleman, and he made no reference whatever to the Turkish Government, or to Turkish official circles. The Turkish Ambassador made inquiries as to the publisher and printer of the paper in question. Thereupon the Foreign Office requested the Home Office to ascertain, for their own information, whether the paper was still published in Paris, or, as stated in one of its issues, in London. The Home Office then instructed the police to make the necessary inquiries, and Inspector Melville, with this object, called upon the landlady in the manner stated.
  MR BRYCEasked whether it was the practice to place the Metropolitan Police at the disposal of a foreign Government?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, the police were in no sense placed at the disposal of foreign Governments. An inquiry was made by the Foreign Office of the Home Office, for their own information.
  MR. BRYCE: The Turkish Government applied to the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Office applied to the Home Office, which ascertained certain facts.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, the information obtained was for the satisfaction of the Foreign Office. Of what took place between the Foreign Office and the Turkish Ambassador he knew nothing.
  MR. BRYCEgave notice that he would call attention to the matter.

  CAPTAIN SEGRAVE, R.M.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will now ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, with the knowledge of the facts with which he is now acquainted through the Colonial Office as to the conduct of Captain Segrave, he intends to-night, on the Vote on Account, to ask for the salary of that gentleman, who, I believe, was the presiding magistrate at Mitchelstown?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As soon as I received the information I, of course, telegraphed over to Dublin, and Mr. Segrave has been suspended.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact of a person being a discredited Colonial servant necessarily unfits him for the post of Resident Magistrate in Ireland?
  MR. SEXTON: What further evidence is the right hon. Gentleman waiting for, beyond the declaration of the Colonial Office, before he dismisses this gentleman?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I prefer not dismissing an officer until I have full documentary evidence. As soon as Government receive proof that Mr. Segrave is an improper person to discharge the duties of a Resident Magistrate he will be dismissed. I am not going so far as to indicate to the public that, because a Resident Magistrate in Ireland happens to be unpopular with hon. Gentlemen opposite, therefore he is not to receive the same meed of justice which would be extended to any other officer.
  MR. O'HEA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, on a recent occasion, in answer to the advocate of an accused party before him, Captain Segrave being President of a Crimes Act Court, said he was, "in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant, a gentleman with sufficient legal attainments to carry on the business of the Court?"
  No answer was given.
  MR. SEXTON: Sir, we have been attacked, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the answer given to the House by the Colonial Under Secretary, that Mr. Segrave was dismissed from the service of the Cape Government for gross misconduct; and whether he is still to be continued in the Public Service?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Segrave is only kept in the Public Service in this sense, that he is not allowed to perform any magisterial duties, and he does not receive any pay. As soon as full information is received on this point, of course he will be dealt with in the ordinary way.

  IRELAND—CROWN PROSECUTIONS IN 1879.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Crown briefs in agrarian and conspiracy trials since 1879 are still in existence; whether the panels upon which many Catholic jurors are ordered to "stand by" by the Crown since 1879 had been destroyed; whether the various petitions of the Invincible, Patrick Delaney, were still extant; and whether, if any of the foregoing were in the possession of the Government, the advisers of the parties before the Special Commission would be allowed access to them for the purpose of their defence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have already said more than once, I cannot answer questions of this kind across the floor of the House. The proper course is for the solicitors for any of the parties to make application in the usual manner to the Irish Government for such documents as they may desire.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I want to know, Sir, whether the Crown panels are still in existence, as Catholics, as a matter of fact, have been excluded from the juries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry the hon. and learned Member should have taken the opportunity of putting a Question to make an unfounded charge, but I think he will see that the matter is one in which I cannot give him the information asked for. The hon. Member had better make his own application.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In my own defence I will apply.

  THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there are now any Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin policemen or officers in London on subpœna from the Times; and whether any will be allowed to return to London until they shall be wanted for examination?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that there are no members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and no officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary in attendance in London. There are, I am informed, three members of the Constabulary in London who have been subpœnaed by the Times. A letter has been addressed by the police authorities to the solicitor for the Times requesting him to state the necessity for the purposes of the Special Commission of the continued attendance of these witnesses, and the matter will be considered on receipt of his reply. The Government are anxious, in the interests of the Irish administration, that as few members of the Constabulary should be withdrawn from duty as possible; but they certainly would not take upon themselves the responsibility of declining to allow members of the force to attend in London if they thought their services were required for the purposes of the Commission.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why, if the Irish authorities can dispense with these men, are the Irish Police Forces not considerably reduced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already explained that it is a source of inconvenience to the Irish Government; and, as to the reason these men are detained here, I am not aware what it is. As I have told the hon. and learned Member, the solicitor of the Times has been asked whether there is a real necessity for their remaining in London.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Commission adjourned for a fortnight, but three members of the Irish Constabulary remain in London. Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell us whether he has got their rank, and where they are stationed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a communication has been sent to Mr. Soames by the police authorities asking that these officers should be sent back?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer that question.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether District Inspector Seddall has been recently in London in the interests of the Times, and can he state the date of his arrival and departure; whether he was in daily attendance at the Commission Court; whether he was examined before the Commission; and, if not, can he inform the House what this officer was doing during his stay in London?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that District Inspector Seddall has not been recently in London. He attended early in the proceedings on subpœna to give evidence if required. He was not in daily attendance at the court, as he was informed that he would receive notice of examination. He was subsequently recalled for duty in Ireland, without having been called upon for examination. His sole business in London was attendance in obedience to the subpœna as a possible witness.

  NATIONAL DEBT REDEMPTION BILL.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER:: May I ask what course the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to take with regard to the Bill for the redemption of the Consolidated and Reduced Three per Cent Stock?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I shall be very glad if I were permitted to move the Resolution of which I have given notice, so that I may introduce my Bill for the redemption of the Consolidated Three per Cent and Reduced Three per Cent Stock, as the Bill can then be printed and distributed by Saturday. But if there is any opposition on the part of any considerable

  413
  number of Members I shall mot desire to press it.

  MR. O'BRIEN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary if he would now say ii Section 11 of the Irish Prisons Act of 1887 would be applied for the purpose of holding a public inquiry into the treatment of Mr. William O'Brien in prison; and, if so, how soon that inquiry would be held?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: An inquiry is being held, but I think it is impossible and improbable that it can be of a public character. I do not know that that was ever contemplated. After that inquiry is concluded I shall lay the result on the Table of the House, and when that has been done it will be for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and others who think with him, to say whether they desire any further inquiry. I will then consider whether a further inquiry should be granted, though I do not think it would be a good precedent to do so.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: When will these statements be presented?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious that they should be presented as soon as possible. The investigation is not absolutely concluded yet, and until that is done the papers cannot be presented.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Section 11 of the Act of 1877 does not exclude publicity, and is he willing that the parties concerned should appear by counsel, so that they may have the ordinary means of testing the witnesses by cross-examination?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The inquiry is being held in accordance with ordinary and unbroken precedent. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is justified in coming to the conclusion that the evidence taken in the inquiry will be unworthy of credence.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the inquiry suggested to him a week ago has already been held?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; the inquiry the right hon. Gentleman asked for has not been held, nor is it going to be held. He asked for an inquiry which would have formed a most inconvenient and injurious precedent, and
  414
  under the circumstances I did not carry out his suggestion; but I did order an inquiry under the ordinary practice of the Prisons Board. The result of that inquiry will be laid before the House, and it will be for the House to determine what view they take of the evidence.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: By whom is the inquiry being conducted?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By a prison inspector. I think it is Mr. Joyce.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has Mr. O'Brien been examined before this inquiry?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course the inquiry cannot be regarded as concluded until Mr. O'Brien has been examined.
  MR. SEXTON: Can he appear by counsel; has he been informed of the names of the witnesses against him; and will he be allowed to cross-examine them?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe not. I have ordered this inquiry under the ordinary method, and I believe it is not part of the ordinary method of such inquiries that there should be cross-examination of the witnesses. Mr. O'Brien will be examined, and the result of the inquiry laid before the House.
  MR. CONDON: Will the Visiting Justices of Clonmel be examined before the inquiry?
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If their evidence is directly material, I presume they will.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Will Mr. O'Brien be made acquainted with the evidence of the other witnesses given against him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the evidence of the other witnesses will be given for or against Mr. O'Brien. The inquiry will be held under the ordinary practice, and the usual course will be followed.
  MR. CONDON: Who is to determine whether the evidence of the Visiting Justices is relevant or otherwise?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose, Sir, the inspector who conducts the inquiry.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Mark Hanbury Beaufoy, esquire, for Lambeth (Kennington Division).
MOTION.

  JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to amend and extend the Law relating to Judicial Factors and others in Scotland, and to unite the offices of the Accountant of the Court of Session and the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor Gensral for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 166.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Question again proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,729,203, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890."
    [See Page 256.]
    Debate resumed.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I rise for the purpose of making some observations relative to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whose salary comes under Clause 2. We have been asked by the First Lord of the Treasury how it is we did not accept his offer for a day in order to discuss a Vote of Censure. The answer is perfectly simple—it is because every day we discover some new fact; and that it would be most irrational for us to move a Vote of Censure, although I dare say it will come in good time, until we have got complete material for our case. This very day I have put a question on the Paper for the Chief Secretary, to ask him whether it is true that the notes of the private inquiry held by the County Court Judge Curran into the circumstances of the Phœnix Park murders were communicated to the Times, and, if so, by whom? In the remarks I made in moving my Amendment about a month ago, I ventured to ask the Government if it was true, and, if so, upon what principle, that officers of the Irish Government, in receipt of public pay, had been employed as collectors of
    416
    evidence for the Times; whether Resident Magistrates assisted, or were present, at that collection of evidence; and, whether any Crown Solicitor was employed as a paid agent in the inquiry relating to crime in his own county? I propose to-night to press the question, which I then informed the Government it would be our duty to bring before the House. The Chief Secretary himself has told us from time to time he has not followed the proceedings of the Special Commission with any close interest. I confess this is an announcement that we may be surprised at; and I should have thought that a Minister who, probably more than any other, fired the train, might have curiosity enough to look at the after explosion. But, as the Prime Minister himself, apparently, does not read the proceedings of the Special Commission, I do not know why the Chief Secretary should. And the Prime Minister himself does not think he is wanting in magnanimity, to put it in no other way, in going before the public and declaring he does not know, in spite of the withdrawal of the letters by the original promulgators of them, and in spite of the words used by the President of the Special Commission on the last day of the Court, whether those letters are, or are not, forgeries. These are the particular things on which I shall come to close quarters with the Chief Secretary. On the 7th or 8th of this month—I believe it was the 7th—the Chief Secretary said—
    "I understand the Royal Irish Constabulary have not been employed in collecting evidence, except in relation to the evidence they were prepared to give before the Special Commission, nor have they paid money to or taken proofs of witnesses."
    Now, the Committee will not, I hope, think it tedious if I test that deliberate statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary by a few facts disclosed before the Special Commission. Prom the evidence given by Head Constable Irwin, Michael Roche, a witness named Iago, James Buckley, Andrew Coleman, and other witnesses, it is clear that police constables, were employed in collecting evidence; so that when the Chief Secretary for Ireland states that the Royal Irish Constabulary had not been employed in collecting evidence, except in relation to what they themselves proposed to give,

    417
    he was singularly ignorant of what had been going on. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that—
    "When a witness was called, be he connected with the Irish Government or not, it was his business to review in his own mind all such information that he had got and to confirm it in every possible way."
    The boy named Walsh who was examined before the Commission on the 15th of December last, stated that he was sent for by District Inspector Alan, of Swinford, and that in the course of conversation the district inspector said he did not know what would happen to him about a certain insurance fraud in which the lad had, or was alleged to have, been implicated. Do the Committee realize what conduct that was on the part of the inspector, and does the Chief Secretary for Ireland conceive that it was the right or the duty of the inspector to confirm evidence which he was collecting in this way by threatening the lad? The Home Secretary on the previous day, in a very imposing manner, said that it was the duty of great officers of State to constitute themselves the servants of justice and truth. I wonder whether the Chief Secretary, in sanctioning or overlooking and condoning conduct of that kind, considers that he is making himself and the Government to which he belongs the servants of justice and truth. I am informed that the district inspector was never called to contradict the statement of the boy Walsh. And now about the money. The Chief Secretary has stated that the Government have not paid money in connection with these matters. I cannot prove that they have; but I would ask the attention of the Committee to the evidence of the informer Thomas O'Connor. This witness stated that he received a letter from Houston, from the chief office of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union in Grafton Street, asking him to call upon Sergeant Donaldson, who would give him a railway ticket, and tell him where to go. He wanted to know what were the relations between Sergeant Donaldson and Dublin Castle and Houston. Can it be denied that, although Donaldson did not give the witness money, he did give him what was an equivalent? If it cannot, the observation of the Chief Secretary is unfounded and cannot be defended. I now come to two cases which are, to my mind, the most
    418
    serious of all. The first is the case of Delaney; and, dark and sombre as has been the history of English government in Ireland, I do not believe that there has ever been a more sombre incident than this. Delaney, as everyone is aware, was a man who was sentenced to death for being concerned in the Phœnix Park murders. The death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life. He was asked about evidence to be given before the Commission in the first week of January, and he was then seen in Maryborough Prison by Mr. Shannon, Mr. Soames's agent. Mr. Shannon produced a letter of introduction from someone, telling Delaney that he could usefully give him—Mr. Shannon—information. The note said, and said falsely, that Mr. Shannon was a Crown official. Delaney said that if he had not understood that Mr. Shannon was a Crown official he would have refused to say a word to him. Mr. Shannon, in that interview with Delaney in Maryborough Prison, referred to a statement which had been made to Dr. Barr, of whom we have heard to-night; but Mr. Shannon took a fresh statement. The statement made by Delaney was made in the presence of the governor of the prison, but Delaney testifies his belief that the conversation was not heard by him. Shannon in the prison took Delaney's statement down, and then was guilty of the gross enormity of administering an oath to him which was wholly unlawful, and then making Delaney swear to the statement he had made. He had no more right to administer an oath than I have to administer an oath to the right hon. Gentleman. This was a monstrous proceeding, and was absolutely unlawful. I do not think anything of the kind was ever done before. Will the Chief Secretary defend that transaction? It is said by the Government that alt they did was for the elucidation of the truth. This proceeding looks far more like subornation of perjury than the elucidation of the truth. What was the position of Delaney at the time? He was in prison under a sentence of perpetual imprisonment. He had nothing to look forward to but a dark and horrible future. In order to support the cause of justice and elicit the truth, you go to a man of that kind, and take evidence on oath from him which you are to use in trying to blacken the

    419
    character of the Irish Members. Then there is the case of Head Constable Preston, who visited Tracy. The Home Secretary said very honestly, and with a candour which we admire and are grateful for, that Head Constable Preston paid these visits as the representative of Mr. Soames, and on his written application. The Chief Secretary, on the other hand, said that Head Constable Preston acted on his own authority, and paid the visits at the prisoner's request, and the Chief Secretary added that the Government were not cognizant of what Head Constable Preston did. The only way of reconciling these two versions is by supposing that the Irish Government had placed Head Constable Preston entirely at the disposal of Mr. Soames. Instead of being the servants of justice and truth, they seem to have installed Mr. Soames as the master of justice and truth. What business had Head Constable Preston to go to Mr. Soames at all? The Chief Secretary says it was quite natural that he should go to Mr. Soames. Yes; it was natural if it was taken for granted that Preston came to London to do the work of Mr. Soames. It was natural if Preston had been taught that his permament master at Dublin Castle and his temporary master in Lincoln's Inn Fields were the same, had the same objects, and had put to sea in the same boat. The Chief Secretary admitted that Captain Plunkett has been 54 days in London and 54 days absent from his duty. He admitted that Captain Slack has been 60 days in London and 60 days absent from his duty. What were they doing 54 and 60 days in London? Were they coaching the Times lawyers, or were they prompting, directly or indirectly, the hon. and learned Gentleman who was described in these transactions as pursuing at one time a little private practice, and who at others figured as a sort of Public Prosecutor? I dare say we shall be told that Captain Plunkett was here in order to guide the agents of the counsel in the Kerry evidence, but they had given directions to put Mr. E. Harrington into gaol for six months for publishing a speech in which he incited and urged the men of Kerry to give him what evidence they could to guide him in instructing counsel as to the Kerry cases. So anxious were they to elicit the truth that they kept Captain
    420
    Plunkett here for 54 days, and Captain Slack for 60 days. The Chief Secretary has said that the length of time these and other persons subpœnaed by the Times were kept in London was a great inconvenience to the Government, against which the Government had more than once strongly protested on more than one occasion. To whom did the Government complain? [Mr. BALFOUR: To Mr. Soames.] Then that shows that Mr. Soames had had placed at his unfettered disposal these two important magistrates. I want to know upon what theory of the proceedings of the Special Commission these two magistrates were kept so long in London? Upon what theory did the two Irish constables Gallagher and Faussett receive and obey orders from Shannon to watch Pigott? I suppose I shall be told this was a mere private transaction. Everything in connection with the Commission, as far as the Government are concerned, wears the air of a private transaction. Le Caron, a paid spy of the Government, was the private correpondent of Mr. Anderson. Sir Richard Webster is the Attorney General, and he is also the private counsel of the Times. Pigott was a witness before the Commission, but, as a private friend of the Government, he was admitted into Chatham Prison to see the prisoner Daly. The First Lord of the Treasury was the private friend of one of the parties to this great cause. Houston is the paid secretary of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union, but he also figures as the independent gentleman who finds the money to buy the forged letters. I presume we shall be told that Mr. Horne, the Resident Magistrate, who has been employed in examining papers and calculating statistics for the use of the Times, did so merely in a private capacity and in the interests of truth and justice. The police constables were on the same footing. We cannot accept that double capacity. We cannot allow that these constables and these Magistrates who were employed in getting up the case of the Times may do things in one capacity and then defend their action in another. The Irish Government have done far more than take the neutral attitude which they pretend. The Irish police were called to prove the seizure of documents in various places. The fact of the seizure could

    421
    only have been learned from official sources, and the questions put by the counsel for the Times show that he was aware of the character of the documents and the date of the seizure before the evidence was given. The same observation applies to the seizure of copies of the Irish World in various parts of Ireland. I suppose the Chief Secretary will say that the Government were bound to give all the information in their power to the Special Commission. I am not disposed to quarrel with that contention. I agree that the Government were bound to give information to the Commission when asked by the Commission. But the Government are not bound to shield the accusers from exposure, which, if the charges they make prove to be false, will lay those accusers open to civil or criminal proceedings. They are bound not to allow their agents and officers to interfere until and unless they are called upon by the legally-constituted tribunal; and even then the activity of the agents of the Government ought to be strictly limited to the purposes and the matter for which they are sent before that tribunal. If the Chief Secretary and his colleagues had been sincere in the professions they made at the time of the passing of the Special Commission Act, that they would observe a rigorous neutrality, they could not have adopted the attitude they have taken. They professed then a desire to give the persons incriminated an opportunity of clearing themselves; they insisted again and again that the proceedings were not a Government prosecution in any sense; in no sense was it a criminal trial at the suit of the Crown; it was a process between alleged libellers on the one hand and alleged criminals on the other. If so, will the right hon. Gentleman say on what principle or maxim of administration agents of the Irish Government, from the highest rank to the lowest, have been allowed to engage in active participation on one side? If it is the duty of the Government to give the Commission all the information they can, they ought to have taken a very different course; they ought to have claimed an independent position before the tribunal. If the Commission is to be regarded as what the Home Secretary described it to be—namely, a great State inquiry—the Government ought to have
    422
    claimed a locus standi of their own before the Commission; the Irish Government ought to have presented its own material in its own way, and it ought not to have done as it has done; it ought not to fight a furtive, a clandestine, and a sinister battle against its own political opponents behind the backs of private persons who are on their trial for a false and malicious libel.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Courtney, I think we have more than once complained of the procedure of the Opposition respecting the action of the Government in regard to the Special Commission. The Opposition have, for the most part, confined themselves to a process of interrogatory in the House and of assertion out of the House. The plea for not moving a Vote of Censure is that information is wanting on which to found it. But this modest demeanour and careful reticence with regard to any accusations which cannot be proved has not been exhibited outside the House. The right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), and others who sit beside him, have not scrupled to assert that Houston was the accomplice of Pigott, that the Times was the accomplice of Houston, and that the Government was the accomplice of the Times. A more shocking, a more scandalous, a more unfounded calumny was never uttered by people who are engaged at the very moment in protesting that no crime is so shocking as that of libelling your political opponents. Why, they revel in libel; libel is their daily bread. The right hon. Gentleman cannot go to a public meeting without making these charges that he now applauds from that bench, for not even the meanest of which is there a shadow of proof. Of these charges, the least important is the alleged complicity of Mr. Houston with Pigott, but you have never dared to prosecute even that charge, though Mr. Houston appeared in the box and requested to be cross-examined on the point. That is my first complaint against the procedure of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. My second complaint is that it would have been far more decorous if they had refrained from commenting on the proceedings of the Commission while the Commission was still sitting. The right hon. Members for Derby and

    423
    Newcastle have made comments and criticisms upon the evidence given before the Commission, and this is to be deplored. Whatever their motive may have been, no impartial outsider can put upon their speeches any other interpretation than this—that they desire to discredit in the House of Commons the evidence they are unable to shake in the place where it was given. [Ironical laughter.] At all events, they did not attempt to shake it. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Name!] The evidence I have; more particularly in my mind is that of Le Caron. I have no objection whatever to this method of procedure by question and answer; but if it were possible for questions to be addressed to others than those who now sit on the Ministerial Bench, the results obtained might, perhaps, be still more interesting and fruitful. I have never been able to understand why it was that, after Pigott had stated on the Friday to the Member for Northampton that he was a forger and a liar, no steps were taken to watch him or to arrest him. I confess my curiosity has been greatly aroused by the letter which appeared in the Times this morning from Mr. Anderson as to those unknown documents to which such passionate allusion was made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Derby. There is another question about which I should like to have information—information which would be as valuable to the Commission and the country—how it has come about that witnesses have been intimidated.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must endeavour to keep the discussion within certain limits, and the question now before the Committee is the conduct of the Irish Government.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I at once recognize the propriety of your ruling, Sir; but there is a great temptation to wander far afield in dealing with charges so recklessly hurled at the Government. Now, in criticizing the attitude of the Government towards the Commission, the right hon. Member for Newcastle has laid down principles of his own. What are the principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman? He says that we ought, as I understand him, to have adopted an impartial attitude—a matter in which we are of course all at one—but then the right hon. Gentleman implies that by "adopting an impartial
    424
    attitude" he means that we ought to have abstained as a Government from giving any information or allowing any person connected with the Government to come forward and state what he knew.
    MR. J. MORLEY: That is not what I said. I said that they were bound to place their agents at the disposal of the Commissioners, when asked by the Commissioners.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back to the particular provisions of the Bill constituting the Commission and the precedents for it, he will see that the position taken up by the Government is a right one. That Bill was based upon the precedent of that appointing the Commission to inquire into the rattening case at Sheffield. [Mr. T. HEALY: No.] It was closely—I believe exactly—framed upon that measure. [Mr. T. HEALY: Nothing of the kind.] I confess my own anticipation was that the Commission would employ the method adopted by the Sheffield Commission, and would themselves call such evidence as they desired, and ask for such information as they thought material. For what were no doubt excellent reasons, upon which I am not entitled to comment, the Commission thought that the aims of the investigation could be better and more fully attained by treating the matter as a trial between two parties, one of whom made and the other of whom rebutted allegations. The Commissioners having adopted that attitude, what was the proper line for the Government to take? I thought over the matter to the best of my ability, and the line we determined to take, at all events for the present, was not to volunteer information to the Commission or the parties, but to supply, as far as we could, what the parties appearing before the Commission might apply for, providing always that the information was of that kind which we could supply with a due consideration of the public interests. I perfectly admit that in doing that we may not have gone far enough, but the right hon. Gentleman thinks we have gone too far. We decided to adopt an impartial attitude—[Ironical laughter]—well, I will leave out the word impartial if you object to it, and say the negative attitude of waiting to supply information, as far as

    425
    we were concerned, until it was required Now, is it possible to conceive of an; other course that could have or ought to have been adopted by the Government Does the right hon. Gentleman think that we ought to have absolutely told everybody concerned—the representatives of the Times and those of hon Members below the Gangway—"We have nothing whatever to do with supplying information to anybody;" that we should have put an absolute veto upon any police officer giving any evidence? With information at our disposal which might assist in enabling the Commission to come to a decision, ought we to have kept ourselves entirely in the background and allow the parties to fight it out themselves? I think that is a wholly untenable position, though I understand that it is the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The questions which we have had brought before us by the right hon. Gentleman are whether the Government have favoured one side more than another; are they guilty of partiality; and, above all, are they or any person in the service of the Government guilty of those darker crimes which the right hon. Gentleman does not hesitate to impute—namely, of attempting to tamper with witnesses, to bribe and suborn them?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I did not say that the Government themselves had directly suborned witnesses, but that by their connivance at the interview of Shannon with Delaney they were not providing for the elucidation of the truth.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had deferred these accusations with regard to the accuracy of the evidence given before the Commission until the Commissioners themselves had given their decision. Let the Committee recollect, with regard to these charges of illegitimate and partial use of information at the disposal of the Government, that ample opportunity has occurred or will occur before the Commission to investigate the matter. Mr. Soames has been in the box, and he could have been cross-examined as to the sources from which he obtained his information It was open to any of the four or five learned Gentlemen in the House who appear for the defence to have done their best to elicit the information;
    426
    but they refrained from making any kind of cross-examination with regard to any malpractices. The interpretation I put upon their conduct is a natural interpretation; it is that Mr. Soames is an honourable gentleman, and has done nothing in the past of which he need in the slightest degree be ashamed. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has called my attention to four or five specific cases. On some of these I have not been able to obtain information—I know nothing about Burke, of Clonbur, or Sergeant O'Brien, who brought a witness over. Nor do I know anything about the ticket which is alleged to have been given by Sergeant Donaldson, though I may say that, as far as I understand it, giving a ticket appears to be a perfectly innocent transaction. But the point upon which the right hon. Gentleman has chiefly dwelt is the case—which I have heard described as most monstrous—that not only was Mr. Shannon admitted to the prison to see Delaney, but that he took advantage of the permission to administer an oath—an illegal oath. In the first place I will point out that, as I am informed, Mr. Shannon had a perfect right to administer an oath. Mr. Shannon himself has been put in the box and cross-examined on this matter. But whatever Mr. Shannon did, whatever his malpractices may have been, it is perfectly absurd to make the Government responsible. He was the solicitor of the Times, not the servant of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has asked about the action of Head Constable Preston with reference to Tracy. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have fully grasped the fact, which I have myself stated more than once in this House, that the whole investigation with regard to Tracy had no reference to the Times case, but had reference to information which Tracy himself volunteered to the police in the first instance. Tracy subsequently refused to complete his information; but, even in its imperfect form, I hope it may enable the Government to get at the root of some very serious crimes in the West of Ireland. Tracy is a man who I believe has been implicated in a large number of the most shocking and criminal operations that have occurred in that part of the country. He volunteered, for reasons of his own,

    427
    to give information to the police; that information he would not complete, having been restrained probably by illegitimate influences, and in visiting him Head Constable Preston was only fulfilling what was unquestionably his duty, to get to the bottom of these dark transactions. I am informed that this had no reference to the case of the Times, but was simply an investigation carried on by Preston for the detection of crime. It is perfectly true—and I do not deny it—that an investigation into crime in Ireland may have great relevancy to the inquiry by the Commission. I do not deny that at all, but I say that the detection of crime was his primary object, and one which would have existed had there been no Commission hearing evidence. Then the right hon. Gentleman has asked me questions about Captain Slack and Captain Plunkett. It must surely have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that these gentlemen were over here on subpœna, and that they were obliged to stay as long as the subpœna lasted. Had they attempted to go away, I presume the Court would have interfered to prevent them going away. I wrote as strongly as I could to the authorities of the Times—I think in October or November—saying that the Irish Government were being put to great inconvenience by the number of constabulary and magistrates who were being brought over as witnesses, and on account of the time they were detained. On behalf of the Times, MR. Soames said they would do their best to minimize the evil, and I believe they have done so; but their best has not been very good for the Irish Government. As to the case of Mr. Harrington, respecting whom the right hon. Gentleman makes the absurd allegation that he was put in prison to prevent him collecting evidence for the defence, let meremind him that if the Government had allowed Mr. Harrington to go on offending against the law on the ground that he was occupied in collecting evidence for the Commission, does not the right hon. Gentleman see that they would have been guilty of a gross neglect of their public duty? Why did not Mr. Harrington appeal? If he had, he would immediately have been let out on bail, and he would have had two or three months, at all events, to continue
    428
    the investigation in which he was engaged, and which the right hon. Gentleman says was disturbed by his arrest. As a matter of fact, he did not appeal, and personally, therefore, did not rate his own services very high. So much for Mr. Harrington, Captain Slack, and Captain Plunkett. The right hon. Gentleman went into a case which he characterized as still more shocking and scandalous. He alluded to the action of District Inspector Alan in connection with the witness Walsh. Walsh, it is true, was a witness for the Times, but it was not in connection with the evidence he was afterwards asked to give that he was dealt with by District Inspector Alan. The dealings that Inspector Alan had with Walsh had reference to an inquiry under Section 1 of the Crimes Act of 1887, in connection with a local Land League which had been guilty of very gross malpractices. Walsh was a most important witness in that inquiry, and it was owing to his evidence that their malpractices were checked. It was in reference to that inquiry that the interview occurred, and District Inspector Alan positively and absolutely denies that he ever held out the inducement to Walsh that the right hon. Gentleman suggested—namely, that Walsh should not be proceeded against for fraud in Liverpool. That story seems to fail on the face of it, for what power had District Inspector Alan over proceedings that were to take place at Liverpool? The whole contention is not only denied by the Inspector himself, but it is absurd on the face of it. District Inspector Alan was simply concerned in an inquiry under Section 1 of the Crimes Act in which Walsh was concerned, and it was in relation to that inquiry, or to a possible prosecution in consequence of that inquiry, which led to admirable results, that this conversation took place. The Inspector assures me that he held out no inducement or threat whatever to Walsh.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector did not deny Walsh's statement.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He denied it to me.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The statement was made on oath.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Inspector could not, of course, be called to give evidence on that point. As far as I was

    429
    able to take notice of the right hon. Gentleman's interrogations, these are the main points on which I am able to tell him anything; but I want to know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks is the principle which should regulate the action not only of constables and Resident Magistrates, but of every good citizen? It is the bounden duty not merely of the police, but of every man who has relevant evidence to give, to give it. There is this limitation, and this limitation only, with regard to constables and officials under Government—that they are, of course, bound not to make any disclosure of confidential matter which might be detrimental to the Public Service. Subject to that limitation, and that limitation alone, I would never suggest in public, or order in private, that any man should be restrained from giving what aid and assistance he could to the Commission. What have these men done except to give evidence? If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can prove that one of these men has attempted, as they say, to suborn witnesses, to pervert justice, or to conceal facts relevant to the defence, then pass what condemnation you please upon them, and I will concur in it. But, beyond the loose accusations which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) has scattered about, there is not a particle or a tittle of evidence to show that any one of these men has so far transgressed his duty or has been concerned in so scandalous and disgraceful a proceeding. In my opinion every encouragement should be given to the police to say what they know of the difficult matters now being inquired into. It is an inquiry not only of enormous magnitude, but of enormous difficulty. It deals with secret societies; it deals with crime; and not only have the police necessarily more information on those subjects than any other class of the community, but there is a special necessity for their giving it. It must be remembered that in Ireland it is the habitual and melancholy practice to intimidate witnesses. Instances may easily be found of wives refusing to give evidence against the murderers of their husbands because they were afraid to do so, and when secret societies and crime are being dealt with, this habitual intimidation reaches a point which renders investigation
    430
    a matter of the most extreme difficulty. If the information the police are able to give in this matter were stopped in any way, if they are prevented from doing their best to enlighten the Commission, the difficulty under which the Commission labours will necessarily be doubled, and I would urgently suggest to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that, by the course they are pursuing in this matter, they convey the impression—an unjust one, no doubt—that they desire to burke inquiry. I will not imitate the Member for Derby and attribute motives to my opponents; but the whole method of the procedure of Gentlemen opposite in the House and the whole tone of their speeches out of the House must lead and has led many not unimpartial persons to belive that they would desire to see all the evidence at the command of the Government abstracted from the Commission, and that there is nothing they would rejoice in more than to see that avenue to the truth absolutely closed up; to see those who in certain branches of the investigation are the most competent to give information reduced to silence by their criticisms. I do not know that I have anything more to say upon the subject. So far as I am concerned, I will do everything in my power to aid the inquiry before the Commission, whether that aid be given through Mr. Soames to the Times, or through Mr. Lewis to the other side, or direct to the Commission at the request of the Commissioners themselves.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It is very remarkable that the Chief Secretary, by getting up to defend himself from the charges made against him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), should have so far misapprehended the questions addressed to him and the charges made, that throughout the whole of his speech he has never attempted to meet any one of them. He began with observations which you, Mr. Courtney, were obliged to point out to him were irrelevant, and he then proceeded to meet a number of charges which had never been made, and then to suggest that the doctrine for which we contend was one for which we have never contended at all. That was the whole substance of the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Now the right hon. Gentleman is not an unintelligent man, and I think he might

    431
    have apprehended what he had to answer. Therefore, I make one more attempt to explain what it is we charge against him and the Government. This Commission was appointed under the pretence—[Cries of "Oh!"]—yes; I call it a pretence—under the pretence that it was a tribunal to enable Irish Members to clear themselves. What have the Government done ever since? They have been employing every method in their power to make it impossible for the Irish Members to clear themselves. I will proceed to give my reasons for making that statement. The Chief Secretary has over and over again stated that Irish constables and magistrates and other officials took no part at all except to appear on their subpœnas. Of course, I do not charge the Chief Secretary with saying intentionally that which is not a fact. He says that he knows nothing about it; no doubt that is perfectly true. When interrogated as to the presence of the Irish officials in London, the Chief Secretary said they were here simply on subpœna, and solely for the purpose of giving evidence. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have had so little communication with the Attorney General that he does not know what a subpœna is. He seems to imagine that when that fatal document is delivered a man must attend for months until he is called; but I will tell the Chief Secretary that, if he ever receives a subpœna, he may tranquilly remain at home until he receives an intimation from the solicitor that his attendance is wanted the next day or the day afterwards. But we all know that that was not what Captain Plunkett and Captain Slack were kept here for. They remained here because they were doing service for the Times, and because the Times did not choose that they should go away. The Chief Secretary, in his jaunty way, gets up at that box and denies things and states things which are directly the opposite of the truth; and, owing to this spirit of recklessness and carelessness of statement, official statements have, in my opinion, been deprived of value to an extent which I never before heard of. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, step by step, followed up the statements of the Chief Secretary, and showed that they were absolutely unfounded; but of all the charges made against him the
    432
    Chief Secretary only referred to one—that as to Tracy, who was visited by Preston. What is his account of that? The right hon. Gentleman said that that had nothing to do with the Times—that Tracy's offence had no relation to the inquiry or the Times, and that Preston's visit to him was not paid in connection with the Times.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I did not say that.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: No! I think I am in the recollection of the Committee. Statements are made here in the hearing of hon. Members, and are to be remembered. When a man in the position of the Chief Secretary for Ireland makes a statement here, we all remember it.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I distinctly said the reverse. I said that, no doubt, it was secret crime in which Tracy was involved, and that, like other secret crime, it had a bearing on the Commission. But the primary object was an inquiry under a section of the Crimea Act.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Then I will take that statement. It has been distinctly stated by the right hon. Gentleman's Colleague the Home Secretary that Preston visited the prisoner on two occasions as the representative of Mr. Soames. Was I not right, then, in asking whether there has ever before been a Government whose official statements are so little entitled to credit? What are we to say in the face of such flagrant denials? In administering the Crimes Act, administering exceptional laws and dealings with such a proceeding as the Special Commission, what position are we in when the Chief Secretary for Ireland gets up and makes a statement of the kind in the presence of a Colleague who sits beside him who has stated that it is not the fact? That is the position the Government are in now. Why do not they cross-examine one another? Yet this is the only case which the Chief Secretary has endeavoured to grapple with, and as to the others, he said he knew nothing about them; but that did not prevent his denying the facts a few weeks ago. The Chief Secretary asks—why was there no cross-examination of Houston as to his connection with Pigott? Does he not know? It was because Houston burnt the correspondence.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman cannot go into that matter.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Then I will abstain from following it up further. The right hon. Gentleman says our position is that we desire no evidence to be given, and especially no official evidence. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. That is not our position at all; we are of opinion that all the evidence which would elicit the truth should be given before the Commission; but, if the Government are to give it, they ought to give it upon their own responsibility under the guarantees which belong to the responsibilities of a Government. They are not to use the whole machinery of the Government without accepting the responsibilities of the Government. If the Government had desired to act in an impartial manner they would have placed the documents before the Commission and not given them into the hands of unscrupulous partizans. This is a most material matter, and it deeply affects the character of these proceedings. If this had been in form as it was in substance a criminal prosecution, then the very principle of a criminal prosecution is that the accused persons shall be made acquainted beforehand with the evidence intended to be brought against them. If the Government had intended to deal fairly with the defendants as well as with the Times, they would have taken care that that evidence should not have been sprung upon those defendants, or dealt with as unscrupulously as it was dealt with. This is the conduct of the Government. If the contention of the right hon. Gentleman is a true contention—that what they were doing for the Times they would do for the other parties—if they had said, "We have nothing to do with private faction; this is a State inquiry"—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate the distinction I have pointed out. What we are now discussing are questions relating to administration of the Irish Government.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; I am charging against the Irish Government that they used that evidence unscrupulously and unfairly against the defendants and in favour of the Times newspaper. I say, if they had intended to use it fairly, they should have dealt in
    434
    the same manner with the defendants, who should have known what constables and Resident Magistrate were doing. They should have placed Resident Magistrates at the disposal of Mr. Lewis as well as Mr. Soames. Why not?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They could subpœna them.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; subpœna them—subpœna Captain Plunkett! They might just as well subpœna the Chief Secretary or the Prime Minister, who still believes in the forged letters. Really, I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman uses that as a serious argument. There never, from first to last, has been the smallest intention to deal fairly with this evidence. It has been collected for one party, and for one party alone, and it has been collected by the agents of the Government, from the Attorney General downwards. That is our charge against the Irish Government. We do not complain that evidence should have been collected bearing in any way upon those transactions. Our charge against the Chief Secretary and the Government is that the evidence has been most unfairly dealt with; that it has boon dealt with exclusively in the interests of one party; that it has been offered to—nay, thrust upon—one party alone. I have heard it said—and I should very much like to know whether it is the truth—that the Times newspaper, at a very early period of those proceedings, declared that unless they had the support of the whole machinery of the Government they would not go on with the case; and I should very much like to know whether it was in view of that terrible threat on the part of the Times, that they would withdraw from those accusations, that that machinery of the Government was placed at the disposal of the Times newspaper? It looks uncommonly like it. There never was an instance where anybody professing to be a private plaintiff had anything like the disposal of official resources which has been so conspicuously displayed in this case. It may be said that this is a State inquiry—a public prosecution. Well and good; if that is so, the Attorney General is in his right place. But, if that is so, it ought to have been conducted in a totally different manner and under totally different safeguards, and we

    435
    should not then have had the shocking scandals, which in my opinion, have defamed the administration of justice, such as we have had exhibited. That is the charge we make against the Irish Government—a charge the Chief Secretary has not attempted to meet.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST,): The right hon. Gentleman opposite has delivered one branch of the attack against the Chief Secretary, and he has warned us that there is a second to be delivered against the Attorney General. I do not think those intimations will have much effect on the House, for I doubt if there is any sensible man who does not consider that the first attack has proved an utter fiasco. The arguments and reasons have been furnished to the House by the right hon. Member for Newcastle, and the eloquence and elocution by his Colleague; and what does the whole thing amount to? For what purpose has the business of Parliament been interrupted? For what purpose has this debate been conducted as if it were a debate on the whole Estimates of the year, and Department after Department, and Minister after Minister, subjected to strong and violent attacks by the right hon. Gentleman? For what purpose is it that the right hon. Gentleman, who once held the responsible position of Law Adviser to the Crown, has thought it decent, inside the House and outside too, to discuss the proceedings of a tribunal which is still sitting, and to endeavour to prejudice the conduct of a case now pending before the Judges? So long as he could only throw a little dirt at Her Majesty's Government, or make a little political capital, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly reckless whether he interfered with the course of justice or not. I do not want to confine myself to general statements. I will give the Committee two examples of the sort of way in which the right hon. Gentleman has thought it decent to deal with the case which is now pending. He was extremely eloquent because the names of witnesses ware not given to the parties before the Commission. Did the right hon. Gentleman remember that in that comment he was finding fault with the decision of the Commission itself, and that the Judges had expressly decided that names should not be given for fear the witnesses might be tampered
    436
    with? We have, therefore, the spectacle of the Judges solemnly deciding in the Royal Courts, and the right hon. Gentleman the temporary Leader of the Opposition and a former Law Officer endeavouring to induce the House of Commons to discredit the Government and the Chief Secretary for Ireland because they had not done what the Commission decided against. Here is another example. One of the witnesses before the Commission was Captain Plunkett. In the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made a few minutes ago he conceived in what estimation Captain Plunkett's evidence was likely to be held, and he intimated in the very strongest way he could that Captain Plunkett's evidence was worthless and not to be believed. I am certain that so gross a violation of legal etiquette would never have been committed by an ex-Solicitor General unless he was utterly blinded by party passion, and unable to appreciate the situation. I have said that the reasons for this attack have been furnished by the right hon. Member for Newcastle. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and it seemed to me that a more insignificant and trumpery set of accusations against a public Department I have seldom heard, and they certainly do not excuse the delay of the House, or the interruption of public Supply business. What did it all come to, supposing all the accusations which the right hon. Gentleman had raked together were true and accurate? That a few officials of the Irish Government had shown a little too much zeal in furnishing information, ["Oh, oh!"] I am not addressing myself to the right hon. Gentleman or to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite; I am addressing myself to hon. Members who are influenced by reason and argument. I know that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite would think any trumpery accusation made against the Government good enough to cheer; but those who desire to have some real grounds will hardly agree that so extraordinary a course as that which has been taken is justified simply because a few officials in the Irish Office may have been influenced by a little too much zeal. Outside the House we hear different language. We hear of subornation of perjury, and, to do them justice, hon. Members below the Gangway opposite,

    437
    at least, are consistent with their declarations out of the House; but why does not the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to the House, make those accusations against the Government which he is so ready to make in Lambeth Baths?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: If we have time enough I will do it.
    SIR J. GORST: Yes; we had a promise from the right hon. Member for Newcastle that he would make those statements when he had had time to collect the facts. But does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby always wait for facts before he makes his statements? The right hon. Gentleman is not absolutely innocent of making reckless statements. He spoke about the Chief Secretary for Ireland and his recklessness and carelessness of statement, but a very short time ago the right hon. Gentleman himself told the House the most extraordinary cock-and-bull story about the Times having refused to go on with the case without the support of the Government. Where is the evidence of that? What is the good of the right hon. Gentleman making statements of this kind, unless you give some authority for them? Of course they may be useful in debate. I know the real object of the tactics being pursued. The senior Member for Northampton, who always lets out the object of the course he takes in Parliament, says that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are engaged in trying to identify the Government with the case of the Times. They charge the Government with not being impartial. They say that from the first impartiality was a pretence. I challenge support of such a statement, when you say that a body of honourable men are guilty from the beginning of fraud and pretence.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I mentioned the Prime Minister by name.
    SIR J. GORST: If we have not been impartial in the case, let right hon. Gentlemen opposite at once bring for-forward proofs and a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government. Do this now, instead of relegating it to a later period of the Session. No! you will not do that, you range about, attacking first one Minister, then another, and endeavour to get some trivial contradiction from a Minister on which you can found an eloquent denunciation. These
    438
    tactics are very useful to an Opposition, but this is not the way in which the business of the House and of the country can make progress. We are engaged in passing a Vote in order that the Government of the country may be carried on; but the intelligent foreigner, who is supposed to sit in the Gallery of the House, would never guess we were engaged on anything so trivial or formal. This year it has pleased the Leaders of the Opposition to turn this ordinary and formal proceeding into an occasion for proposing, not one Vote of Want of Confidence, but for successive attacks on successive Departments of the State. The proceeding is extremely irregular, without precedent, and extremely inconvenient, and I venture to say that it will recoil upon its authors, who, in their extreme zeal in trying to damage the Government, will probably end in inflicting considerable damage upon themselves.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to move the reduction of the salary of the Chief Secretary by £500, and I do that for the purpose of presenting a definite issue to the Committee on which a vote may be taken. I was very much astonished that in addition to matters of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he had no knowledge, he should have so carefully ignored or omitted several special matters which certainly required his attention, and upon which I will take leave to refresh his memory. There are one or two points also that arise out of questions answered this evening upon which I should specially like to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation and justification. We have had it, that untried prisoners in Ireland are now being taken in inclement weather distances of twenty miles and refused the use of warm clothing sent by friends, without any sort of reprimand from the Chief Secretary to the official who was responsible for the refusal, although in so taking them it was in itself a severe punishment for prisoners yet untried. We have had it in answer to a question, that without any kind of reprimand from the Chief Secretary passes are issued by the Constabulary in districts in Ireland, as if martial law prevailed in those districts, and as though the Constabulary had any kind of right to use any such passes under any circumstances

    439
    at all. We have had it this evening that the Chief Secretary having placed a Resident Magistrate in a position where his conduct led to loss of life, and knowing that this Magistrate was charged in this House months ago with conduct of a disgraceful character, and having the means within his own hands of instantly satisfying himself by reference simply to an official gazette whether or not there were grounds for the accusations, he continued him in a position of authority until recently, and has only suspended him to-day or yesterday on overwhelming evidence, official documents of a Government Department having been brought to his knowledge. If these charges stood alone—though they are very small compared with the terms of the indictment presented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley)—they would justify the reduction I propose. The memory of the right hon. Gentleman failed him, or his notes were not enough, for he did not deal with the case of Mr. Horne, the Magistrate, on whose conduct he had been expressly challenged, and of whom we have evidence to show that he acted as though he were expressly an agent for the Times, and who has been promoted either in consequence of or in spite of the help he has given to the Times. The Chief Secretary complains with warmth that we have not scrupled to assert that Houston was the accomplice of Pigott, that the Times was the accomplice of Houston, and that the Government was the accomplice of the Times. I will restate the case. I do not know how far my restatement will have the concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think it will fairly represent it. The Government have always felt bound to support the Times, their ally, because of the blind support the Times has given to the Government; that the Times has been the willing provider for Houston, furnishing to him large funds for what might or might not be fact, but which they were ready to hope would be fact, in order that they might destroy the political opponents of the Chief Secretary; and that Houston, if not the original suborner of perjury, paid money to an amount that could not under any circumstances have been justifiable to a person whom he wanted
    440
    to speak the truth, and after he knew the tainted character of the evidence of the man who was to be called, be allowed that man to go into the box knowing that he was going to commit perjury, and gave no warning, as an honest counsel in a criminal prosecution should, to the Court and the advocates on the other side of the dangerous and tainted character of the evidence going to be presented. If the Government were not the accomplice of the Times, then accomplice will want a new definition in any new dictionary that comes into being. If the Times was not an accomplice of Houston, it certainly willingly employed Houston to discover or manufacture evidence in order to destroy the political reputation of a number of men whom it had already recklessly charged with assassination, and printed documents as though they were real, without the slightest inquiry into their authenticity. The Under Secretary for India used the expression about all three being in the same boat, and I think we shall find that they are in the same boat, and will be drowned in the sea of public indignation before these matters close. The Chief Secretary complains of the bitterness of the attack made upon himself, and he said the right hon. Member for Newcastle ought to have refrained from commenting on the proceedings of the Commission while the Commission was sitting and has not reported. But there is one incident before the Commission that has finally closed and determined an incident upon which the presiding Judge said no Report of the Commission could make the case stronger than the abandonment of the forged letters. Our accusation is, that at a time when the Government did know—they could not help knowing from confessions to their own officials and Houston, who was acting with them—of the character of Pigott, they went on with their dealings with that man, hoping that the issue of his evidence might be to blacken the character of the Member for Cork and his friends. One astounding question was put to the right hon. Member for Newcastle by the Chief Secretary. Why, he asked, were no steps taken to watch Pigott after he had admitted his letters were forgeries, and his statements lies? Steps to watch Pigott! Why we had it in evidence before the Commission that

    441
    steps were taken to watch Pigott by persons controlled by the Irish Magistrates and the Irish District Inspectors who were in London. Police under the control of the Chief Secretary were told off to watch Pigott; but when they knew that he was a liar and forger, they ceased their watching, and allowed him to escape from the country. That is the case which I take leave to present against the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in express answer to the inquiry he made. Then the right hon. Gentleman says the Government have adopted in connection with this Parnell Commission an attitude of impartiality. Well, all I can say is, that they have carefully concealed their impartiality, and we can only judge them by their acts as we know them. They seem to have pursued the most one-sided course it was possible to pursue. After it was know that Pigott's evidence was tainted, and after he himself had informed the Attorney General that it was dangerous to put him in the box Pigott was allowed to go into Her Majesty's prisons to see men—
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing about that.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: He ought to have known. If with his police here in England under his control, reporting to him, watching Members round this House, he is ignorant on grave matters of this kind, their ignorance is a crime. Remember the argument of the Government against the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lothian, namely—
    "You cannot have Home Rule in Ireland because certain Home Rule Members are criminals—we will establish a Royal Commission, and have a full investigation into this subject."
    At one time they were ready to lend the Attorney General himself to aid the investigation, but when the Commission is established, they allow tainted witnesses to go into prison to see men confined there for the term of their natural lives.
    *MR. A. J. BALFLOUR: The hon. Member can use what argument he likes, but the accusation he is now making has nothing to do with the Vote before the House. I have no control over English prisons.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: The right hon. Gentleman must be blamed if he allows men in prison in England to be visited
    442
    in this way by his own constabulary. This attack, personal to himself, I submit is pertinent to the reduction I have moved. The right hon. Gentleman asks "Have we favoured one side more than the other?" and my answer is, "Yes, you have kept from the persons accused matters of great gravity that might have tended to show their innocence." If in an ordinary criminal court you charge a man with murder there is no counsel engaged for the prosecution who would dare to withhold from the counsel for the defence or from the Court and Judge matter which he knew, if made public, would invalidate the evidence on which the man would be convicted. It would be considered disgraceful and monstrous, and yet that is the disgraceful and monstrous position in which I am seeking to put the Chief Secretary by the acts of his agents. His magistrates take down evidence, and they either tell him of it or do not tell him of it, but, in either case, they could not have occupied themselves in this business without his knowing it, unless he entirely refrained from attending to the duties of his office. It is almost impossible, unless he was blind, that Horne and others could have acted as they did without his knowledge. These people, though receiving public pay, acted as though they were simply the agents of a private person. If the right hon. Gentleman had been actuated by any shadow of fairness, it would have been impossible for Shannon to go into the gaol at Maryborough and administer an oath to Delaney. The right hon. Gentleman actually said that Shannon had a right to administer an oath to Delaney.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I never justified the action of Shannon. All I said was that I did not think the administration of an oath on the part of Shannon was illegal.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: The fact that Shannon is a Commissioner for the Administration of Oaths—if he holds that position—does not entitle him to administer the oath except in cases where the statement may become usable in Court or in legal proceedings. It is utterly illegal for him to administer an oath to a person making a statement which, by no possibility, under any circumstances in the world, would ever

    443
    have been used as evidence against anybody. If the right hon. Gentleman had no control over Shannon, he at least had some control over the Governor of the gaol in whose presence the oath was administered to Delaney. Is it possible for oaths to be administered to convicts in prison under the control of the right hon. Gentleman without responsibility attaching to anybody? and in the case of Delaney, it must be remembered that the oath was administered in order to inspire terror, the man being given to understand that the inquiry was a State inquiry into the conduct of the Queen's enemies in America and elsewhere. If this is impartiality, it must be spelled without the first two letters in dictionaries which may be prepared in the future. Then, could the right hon. Gentleman have been blind to the fact that constabulary witnesses were being detained in London for purposes other than that of giving evidence? Could he have been blind to the fact that District Inspector Seddall, who was detained in England, was never called upon to give evidence, but was occupied the whole time in getting up evidence for the Times? Did not Walsh declare that District Inspector Alan, in extracting information from him, had terrified him by holding up accusations of frauds and offences committed in the place where he was living? The right hon. Gentleman may say that he did not know these things, but my reply to that is, that ignorance on the part of the Government on matters of this kind is a crime. I say, when we see tainted witnesses permitted to visit prisoners in gaol, when we see agents of the Times getting permission to visit prisoners, when we find police constables and district inspectors endeavouring to frighten criminals into making statements, we have a right to say that the Government have not acted impartially, but have availed themselves of every weapon, however poisoned, in order to stab the reputation of their political antagonists. The Under Secretary of State for India (Sir J. Gorst) asks why the business of the country should be interrupted by this discussion, and my reply is, that it is for the purpose of making the circumstances of the case as I have described them perfectly plain. This is the only opportunity of doing so. If the Government had declared their desire to make reparation
    444
    to the Irish Members whom they had assailed, we should I hope, have treated them as generous foes, but when, on the contrary, only a grudging word of apology is extorted from one Member of the Government under pressure, and at the same time they are giving the whole strength of the constabulary to watch this and watch that, to terrify this and terrify that, yet let a rascal escape who might have betrayed them, if detained, we say we are bound to delay this Vote. I agree with the First Lord of the Treasury that this is a question not for the Government, but for the country, and to the country we say that in no other kind of debate could we obtain an opportunity of singling out each. Member of the Government by himself and pointing out each offence separately. We intend to do this upon the present Vote, I, upon the question of the Chief Secretary's salary, and other Members on this side upon other items, and whatever defence the Government may have to make, they may rest assured that the electors will be prepared with their verdict long before the Special Commission shall have separated.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the item of £7,000 for the Chief Secretary's Office he reduced by £500, part of the salary of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
    MR. LEAMY: I should like to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland, who, I see, is about to leave the House, how it is that Mr. Shannon, a Commissioner to administer oaths in the High Court of Justice of Ireland, was entitled to administer an oath in an English prison—as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary declares it to be his belief that Shannon did not act illegally in administering the oath.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): It was in Ireland he administered the oath.
    MR. LEAMY: Then I have been under a misapprehension, but I question Mr. Shannon's right, as a Commissioner of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, to administer an oath, even in Ireland, as he has done. It is said that the Government acted impartially between the Irish Members and the Times; but it has been proved up to the hilt that police officers and constables have been collecting evidence which they took to Mr.

    445
    Soames's office. Why did they give copies of the evidence to Messrs. Lewis? It is a foul misuse of language to say that the Government have been acting impartially, and it is proved day by day that they are up to the neck in complicity with the Times. There is another point upon which I want information, and that is with reference to the issue of passports by the police to people going through Donegal. How many of these passports have been issued? Has the Chief Secretary condemned the practice? Are they being issued now, and how long will they be continued? This is an attempt to bar the roads, and to compel men who may not be agreeable to the police to go to them for passports. This shows how far things in Ireland have gone beyond the lines of the Constitution since the Chief Secretary came to govern the country. What, I ask, would be thought if in Wales the peasants and miners were prevented from going to their work unless they had obtained passports from the police? How England would ring with it; but because these things are done in Donegal, the Government think they are perfectly justified in their action. Ireland will have to put up with it for a time, but I am convinced that when the impartial feeling of this country comes to be expressed upon the action of the Chief Secretary, these small points, which are not now considered worthy of notice by the right hon. Gentleman, will be recollected. We on these benches have fought bigger men than the right hon. Gentleman. We have fought single-handed against the two front benches combined without being discouraged or defeated, and now that we have the English people with us, we know that we are marching on to triumph, even if Lord Salisbury sticks as close as he says he will to his office, his majority, and his money. As to the majority, the people will live when that has passed away, and we are content to trust to the verdict that they will give.
    MR. W. REDMOND: What gave rise to the Commission first of all was that certain charges were made against Irish Members of complicity with crime, and on Conservative platforms that complicity was openly asserted and maintained. The Government, instead of putting the Irish Members upon their trial in a Court of
    446
    Justice, satisfied themselves merely by making insinuations, and that I hold was absolutely dishonest. They knew they could not connect us with crime, and yet, though they were afraid to try us and attack us in the ordinary course, they did not cease to insinuate that we were connected with crime. And, the next best thing, they inspired the proprietors of the Times with the happy idea of anonymously attacking the Irish Members, and so, day after day, for a considerable time, anonymous articles appeared in the Times affecting to connect the Irish Members with the perpetration of crime and outrages. Upon those articles the Times and the Tory Party and the Government continued to trade, and then when the articles were found to be so silly that they had no effect on the people of England, a deliberate attempt was made, at the instigation of the Government, as it will undoubtedly and unquestionably be proved, to load the dice in the political game against the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), by causing letters to be forged and published in the Times. Now, the Government attempt to say that they had nothing to do with the production of these forged letters. But it will be remembered that the Government refused to give the hon. Member for Cork a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry, and that every possible obstacle was thrown in the way of the Irish Members when they demanded a proper tribunal to have these things tried. It was only when they were forced to do something that the Special Commission was appointed—a Special Commission in many respects contrary to the desires of hon. Members on these benches. And then the Government said they were going to remain perfectly impartial, and they showed their impartiality by giving their Attorney General to the Times to conduct its case. Now, from the very first moment that the Attorney General, a responsible Member of the Government, became connected with the Times' case, it was impossible to deny that the Government was on the side of the Times. But the Government was not satisfied with giving the services of the Attorney General. They did not even keep up the semblance of impartiality. But not satisfied with this, the Chief Secretary has again and again attempted

    447
    to explain away the charge that the police had been deliberately engaged in getting up and manufacturing evidence for the Times. A few days before the Commission adjourned a case occurred which has not been mentioned here tonight—that of the witness Coffey, who is now in prison for contempt of Court. His story was that, instead of his going to the police to offer evidence, the police came pestering and bothering him in order to get up some story—that, in fact, a police constable called on him and invited him to give evidence, and promised that if he did give evidence against the Parnellite Party, he would be rewarded beyond his greatest expectations, and that he would not be allowed to suffer. I say that it is absolutely true that the police are going about Ireland doing everything in their power to intimidate people into manufacturing evidence, and more than one witness has acknowledged in cross-examination before the Commission that he was waited on by the police, and asked whether, if he got money, he could not give evidence. It was only by chance that the witness Coffey had stated what he had, viz., that he got £115 for telling a story of the wildest improbability, for which there was not the slightest foundation, and that in addition to the £115 he was brought over to London and kept for a long time. Nearly every one of the witnesses brought by the Times to substantiate the charges of crime and outrage in Ireland had been directly intimidated by the police, many of them being men over whom the police had some hold, or who had had offers of money as an inducement to give evidence. The Chief Secretary has stated that the police brought over to London were only waiting here till called on their subpœnas to give evidence; but if he had read the evidence given before the Commission, he would have seen that at the Inns of Court Hotel numbers of policemen and police-sergeants, with two Resident Magistrates, were engaged in a large room, drilling, so to speak, the witnesses as to their evidence, and I can, if necessary, give the names of those who took their evidence down. Thus we find that the Irish police, instead of merely waiting to give their evidence, have actually been employed by the Times at the Inns of Court Hotel
    448
    and other places in getting up evidence, and giving instructions to the witnesses. From beginning to end of this black and disgraceful plot the Government have been up to their necks in the Times swim, not only inspiring and helping the Times in the publication of its articles, but making the police roam round the country endeavouring to intimidate people into coming over to tell atrocious lies against us. Moreover, they are to blame for allowing Richard Pigott to escape. The right hon. Gentleman has said he was surprised that no steps had been taken by us to guard Pigott. Why, Mr. Pigott was from the first held up to us as a most important witness for the Times, and one with whose evidence they could not dispense. It never entered into our heads that the Government would allow him to escape, or that they would not maintain a careful watch over him to prevent his getting away. But, after the second day of his cross-examination, when it was evident he had perjured himself and forged the letters, and had thus compromised the Government—the Attorney General having said before Pigott was examined that he had inquired into the anthenticity of the letters, and would be able to prove them up to the hilt, finding the sort of man with whom he had had to deal—would if he had had any regard for his own honour or for that of the Government—
    MR. CHAPLIN: Order, order!
    MR. W. REDMOND: Or of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincolnshire.
    Several Hon. Member: Order, order!
    MR. W. REDMOND: I am very much in order. I have great respect, Mr. Courtney, for you, and if you call me to order I will bow to your ruling, but I care nothing whatever for the right hon. Member for Lincolnshire—
    MR. CHAPLIN: Mr. Courtney, I rise to order, and would ask you, Sir, whether any Member of this House is entitled to impute dishonourable motives or want of regard for honour to any other Member of the House?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's language is certainly somewhat strong, but I cannot say that it amounts to a breach of order.
    MR. W. REDMOND: The right hon.

    449
    Gentleman the Member for Lincolnshire has sat here longer than I, but he does not know so much about order as I do. I will now continue what I was saying when interrupted. As soon as it was known that Pigott could not support his original statement, and after he had got I do not know how many hundreds of pounds from the Times and Lords This and That, and from others all over the country—as soon as he had told Mr. Soames that he could not stand cross-examination, and when everyone had reason to believe he had swindled the Times and the rest of them out of their money—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am at a loss to see how the hon. Member is going to make this relevant to the subject under discussion.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I think, Sir, you will acknowledge that I am in order when I say my object is to prove that Pigott's escape was with the connivance of the Royal Irish Constabulary, men who were set to guard him, and over whom the Chief Secretary has control. In whose interest, I ask, did Pigott escape? Was it in the interests of the defendants? Certainly not. Why, on the last day of his appearance in Court his cross-examination was going splendidly in their favour, and then he suddenly disappeared, although supposed to be guarded by two Royal Irish Constables. Had the case not been one of a forger and perjurer, who had swindled the Times out of £2,000, but rather of some unfortunate Member of Parliament who made a speech in Ireland protesting against evictions, and against whom there was but one-tenth of a shadow of the guilt laid to the charge of Pigott, would he have got to Paris or Madrid with so much ease? No; he would have been arrested before he had got ten yards from the Courts of Justice, and lodged in Scotland Yard. We have heard a good deal about the alertness of the Irish detectives in arresting Irish Members of Parliament; but we are told that Pigott escaped, because, forsooth, our side did not take steps to detain him. I say it was the business of the Chief Secretary to have prevented Pigott's escape, and it was a lucky thing for the right hon. Gentleman, and for everyone concerned in this vile plot, that Pigott did disappear. It would be interesting to know whether Pigott would
    450
    have committed suicide if the Times agent had kept faith with him, and given him the money he asked for. Had this been done, we might have had the whole story of the truth of the matter, and have heard how Pigott was bribed by the Irish Government and the Times into coming over to support the case got up against the Irish Members. Under these circumstances, I think that for cool—I do not want to use an unparliamentary expression—for cool audacity, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that we are chargeable with Pigott's escape because we did not guard him, is unequalled. It was the business of the Government to have prevented his escape, and he would not have escaped had it not been that his escape was opportune and convenient for the right hon. Gentleman and those who have acted with him in this matter. All over the country, from north to south and east to west, the Chief Secretary has done and caused things to be done which have brought him into a notoriety never enjoyed by any other Chief Secretary for Ireland. What I have to complain of particularly is the changing of the venue in certain cases. My friend the Member for Sligo referred to what is going on in Donegal, where martial law prevails; where positively a man cannot lay himself quietly in his bed without the fear of being visited by a party of soldiers, and where no man can walk the road without being asked for his pass by some miserable, half-illiterate sub-constable, who has been put into the position because he has made himself objectionable to the people. What do you do? Instead of giving the people a fair trial, you send prisoners from Fermanagh to a place like Enniskillen, where you deliberately cause juries to be packed. What took place the other day? It was rumoured that Father M'Fadden and the other prisoners taken for the death of this Inspector of Police, were to have the venue changed to Enniskillen. What takes place in Enniskillen? The Orange drum is beat, and all round Sub-Grand Masters and Grand Masters of the Orange Association summon their lodges. Orange magistrates, Orange grand-jurors, Orangemen of position in the county, come to this Orange meeting, and they speak in terms of the utmost violence of the unfortunate death of District Inspector Martin. They

    451
    speak of the atrocious character of those who caused his death, and at the end of all this oratory they wind up with the significant information to their audience and to the people of the country not to forget that these men are to be tried by a jury in the town of Enniskillen. As soon as that information is given, the Orangemen disperse to their homes, and carried the information through the county. In that way the feelings of the Orangemen have been worked upon, and you may be quite sure that if Father M'Fadden and the other prisoners are to be tried at Enniskillen, there will be a jury jolly well packed, and in all probability half a dozen of these unfortunate men, who I am sure never saw District Inspector Martin, will be hanged. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary take notice of this Orange feeling, and will he issue orders to these Orange Deputy Lieutenants and Justices? "Will he follow the example of his predecessor, who, when I brought a similar case under his notice, that of an Orange magistrate leading 300 men in military array against a peaceful meeting which I was addressing, struck him from the Commission? Again, I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman particularly to the claims for compensation made by certain people in Ireland for alleged injuries. A miserable man—a Head Constable in the County of Wexford—said that his eyes were injured, and that he could not see to work, though immediately after cross-examination he was able to take notes and write down the addresses of persons! This man has got £500 compensation, and I think a more atrocious piece of robbery than that was never perpetrated; and I take the liberty of advising the people of that district most earnestly to resist if money is levied for such a purpose as this. It really means that if a constable behaves with special atrociousness in Ireland, and he gets a scratch or a crooked look, he will be rewarded by the grant of £500. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, with his usual attention to public affairs, has gone out. I certainly think, after the specimen we have had to-night of his conduct, that we ought to reduce his salary by one half, or three-quarters at least. [The Chief Secretary for Ireland here returned.]
    452
    I am glad to see that the threat of a further reduction has brought the right hon. Gentleman back. I want to know specifically about these' two cases—first, the Orange meeting in Enniskillen; and, secondly, the compensation of these men. And, thirdly, will he give us the names and addresses of the two wretched Irish constables who were sent to guard Pigott in Anderton's Hotel, and who allowed him to escape? Will the right hon. Gentleman take any action to bring these men to justice? Imagine what a great deal of trouble would have been spared if these two-constables, instead of winking at Pigott's escape, had arrested him. The right hon. Gentleman has got to account for the conduct of these two policemen. But not all the waters of the Atlantic will wash them clean. They are steeped up to the eyebrows, in connection with the Times, in this atrocious business. In all the transactions between England and Ireland, a viler, a blacker, or more atrocious plot was never heard of. Not only the Attorney General, but the Prime Minister, a nobleman—well, I do not know whether he is a nobleman or not—has not acknowledged he was wrong. The Prime Minister and everybody else, down to the Attorney General and the very smallest clerk in the office of Mr. Soames, solicitor to the Times, should confess and clear themselves. [Laughter.] Yes; and I certainly would advise the Attorney General to confess and make a clean breast of it. Unless from the Prime Minister down to the smallest clerk in Mr. Soames' office they acknowledge they were wrong, they will go down to history as men engaged in the greatest and vilest plot ever heard of.
    An hon. MEMBER called attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present. On the House being counted a quorum was found to be in attendance.
    MR. MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, upon the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary the question of the whole administration of Ireland can very properly be raised, because the entire machinery of Government is under the control of the right hon. Gentleman. The highest, as well as the lowest, of the Irish officials take their instructions from the Chief Secretary. It is not at all necessary that he should

    453
    issue instructions in the Gazette or by circular, because no secret society in the world conveys its wishes to its Members so surely and secretly as the hon. Gentleman conveys his wishes to his subordinates. The right hon. Gentleman, replying to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, has to-night indulged in a great many strong epithets—epithets which struck me as being rather of the fishwife character; but the Chief Secretary scarcely attempted to meet the serious charge brought against him, the police force, and the magisterial party in Ire land, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle submitted to the House a long list of instances taken from the evidence given before the Royal Commission, which proved beyond the possibility of dispute that Irish Resident Magistrates, Divisional Magistrates, and police have been for a considerable period engaged, not only in giving information to the Times, but in collecting evidence. The Chief Secretary only attempted to deal with two of the charges made, allowing the rest to go by default. He dealt with the case of the visiting of Tracy by Head Constable Preston, and the case of the visiting of Walsh by Inspector Alan. The right hon. Gentleman denied that Alan tried to influence Walsh by telling him that a certain prosecution in connection with a criminal fraud upon an insurance company would not be proceeded with against him if he would come over to England and give evidence for the Times. The Chief Secretary scoffed at the suggestion, because, he said, it was not in the power of the Inspector to promise Walsh immunity in respect of an offence committed against a Liverpool insurance company. But it must be remembered that the offence was committed in one of the western towns of Ireland, and that it was in that place and not in Liverpool that the prosecution in respect of the offence would have taken place. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman on that point, therefore, was utterly worthless. It is perfectly notorious in Ireland that the whole machinery of the Government—the whole of the police and magisterial forces—have been engaged in assisting the Times, not merely doing it in a legitimate way, but going the greatest
    454
    lengths they can, in order to induce people to give evidence which would be adverse to the Irish Members, and to the other persons charged by the Times. The Chief Secretary has laid down a proposition that it is the business of the Government to supply all information in their possession for the purposes of this investigation. All that is quite true, but it must be borne in mind that the object of this inquiry is to consider charges and allegations made by the Times newspaper against certain Members of this House and others. It must be assumed that when the Times made the charges and allegations they had some foundation for the charges and allegations they made, and, therefore, I submit it was not the business of the Government to go beyond giving the Times whatever information they asked for. It was not the business of Government to volunteer information to the Times—to volunteer evidence which the Times could not possibly know anything about at the time they published their articles. Now let me refer to the evictions which have taken place at Falcarragh, and to the resistance made by the people at those evictions, resulting in the trial at Enniskillen before Judge Johnson, It was proved at the trial that the bailiffs who were employed to execute the decrees of possession were not the ordinary bailiffs who had been hitherto, under all previous Acts of Parliament, employed in similar circumstances. I have been told that under the Act of 1887 a landlord, when he has got a decree of possession, is entitled, contrary to the practices under all previous legislation, to appoint his own bailiff. That may be good law, but I submit to the Solicitor General for Ireland that it is a most inexpedient thing that such a proceeding should be encouraged. In the case I refer to, it was proved that a most disgraceful and scandalous scene took place at the evictions. At the present time there are certain people, a kind of freebooters, engaged in carrying out evictions. These men do not go in the professional manner that ordinary bailiffs employed by a sheriff would do, but they go like a pack of freebooters in an enemy's country, and behave themselves accordingly. The men employed in the Falcarragh evictions were not satisfied to take the houses by

    455
    assault, or by any other of the methods employed by regular bailiffs, but they commenced a cannonade or fusilade with stones at the houses whenever the people presented themselves at the windows. The result was that many people were seriously hurt. Her Majesty's mail cart happened to be passing by and a passenger was struck by a stone thrown by an emergency man. The passenger applied to the Resident Magistrate for redress, but that gentleman refused to take any action in the matter. I mention this in order to urge on the Government the desirability of acting upon and enforcing the suggestions that Judge Johnson made at the trial. He said, in passing sentence on the prisoners, that, when charging the Grand Jury, he was under the impression that the writs had been addressed to the Sheriff, instead of to obscure and irresponsible persons; and he expressed a strong opinion that in all such cases it would be most desirable that the writ should be addressed to the sheriff of the county. The reason of this opinion was quite obvious. I hope that, although landlords are quite within their right in employing these men, when the forces of the Crown are applied for in order to assist in carrying out evictions, the Government, under such circumstances as those I have narrated, will consider the very wise suggestions of Judge Johnson, and will hesitate before they send the military and police, and thereby give their sanction to such disgraceful and outrageous proceedings as took place at Falcarragh. I pass now to questions relating to what is called the material interest of the country. When the Government came into power a few years ago, one of the great planks in their platform was a Local Government for Ireland, similar to English Local Government. In addition to that, Ireland was to have a great scheme of public works. Years have passed, and the only outcome of the promises of the Government has been a scheme for drainage, which was brought in last year by the Chief Secretary in the form of Private Bills. It is true, they were read a first time, but no serious effort was made to get them passed. The fact that objection was raised to the Bills being taken after 12 o'clock at night was made a great handle of in the country. No less a personage than
    456
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself spoke of the alleged obstruction of business, and pointed out that the Irish Members were responsible for the absence of the material development of Ireland. I characterize that as an utter and hollow sham, because, when the Bills were introduced, they were not introduced with the intention of their being passed. I believe that the Bills were utterly inadequate and insufficient for the object they were supposed to have. In my opinion they were merely intended as a sop to the people, who were expecting the Government to fulfil their pledges. As a matter of fact, the introduction of the Bills has had a very injurious effect upon the material development of Ireland. There are, at the present time, in force in Ireland some very useful Drainage Acts. They are capable of great improvement, no doubt, and would be improved if the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Public Works were carried out. But since the Government promised legislation in a direction opposite to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the result is that, whereas in former years certain work was being done every year, under the existing Drainage Acts, since the Government intimated their intention of legislating in respect of drainage, the whole of the operation of existing Acts has been suspended. While no new legislation has been passed, the existing Acts are now practically at a standstill. The whole scheme of the Barrow Drainage will be a fiasco, and when it is perfected the public and the Government will wish that it had never been commenced. Only quite recently the scheme was condemned at a public meeting in the Queen's County. I submit that, for all practical purposes, it is out of the power of anyone to properly criticize the scheme before the Committee of this House or of the House of Lords, and to submit that the Bill can be much more satisfactorily dealt with on the Second Reading in this House, where the opinions of many persons acquainted with the subject can be taken. I trust that we shall have an opportunity of considering it on the Second Heading, and that we shall not be treated as we were last year by the Chief Secretary throwing the scheme at us after 12 o'clock at night, and telling us that if

    457
    it was not discussed then it would not be considered at all. With regard to the general policy of the Chief Secretary, I contend that it has been a complete failure. Even those who sympathize with the Party with which the right hon. Gentleman is connected in Ireland, and who originally used to be loud in their praises of the heroic action of the right hon. Gentleman, have learned to considerably modify the eulogistic terms in which they speak of him. The condition of things between the people and the police is infinitely worse than it ever was in the whole of my experience—a result directly to be attributed to the policy of exasperation adopted by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I think it the duty of English Members to take part in this discussion, seeing that the matter is one which affects us all. The Police Force of Ireland is paid for out of the National Exchequer; therefore I think it is the duty of English Members to criticize the action of the Chief Secretary with regard to that force; and I am bound to say, from the close examination I have been able to give the subject, I have come to the conclusion that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter has been completely destructive of the interests of the country. The Ministry have their own policy with regard to the Government of Ireland and we have ours, and it is for experience to show which is right; but the position of affairs has lately very much widened by the indiscriminate use of the Irish Police in connection with the Special Commission now sitting in the Strand. If it has come to this—that the Police Forces in this country are to be used for the purpose of attacking and blackening the characters of Members of this House—I do not know who is safe. The Government stand charged with using the Executive Forces of the Crown for the purpose of blackening the character of a Party in this House; and it is not enough to say they have not succeeded in it, for, as a matter of fact, the result has been to blacken themselves instead of their opponents. Worse than this, the conduct of the Chief Secretary has been completely demoralizing to the Police Force itself, for what can be more demoralizing than to use the
    458
    Police Force to advance a cause which is founded upon forgery and perjury? The whole thing is demoralizing, not only to the cause itself, but to the people governed. The Police Force of Ireland has cost us an enormous sum of money, and this comes home to the people of England. I, for one, object to my constituents being charged to keep up a system such as the Chief Secretary is now carrying out. His policy is irritating to the people. The object of a Government should be to cement the people to themselves and to the law; but the policy at present guiding the Irish Administration is exactly the reverse—it is one which irritates the people; and history shows us that more Empires have been wrecked by maladministration of that sort than by any obstinacy on the part of the people. So far as the Amendment before the Committee is concerned, I cordially support it; and if I have any fault to find with it, it is that it is too modest, and does not propose to reduce the salary of the Chief Secretary by a sufficient sum. I should have preferred the Amendment if it had proposed to reduce the right hon. Gentleman's salary by half the amount, for, even with half his salary, I should hold he was overpaid for his present misgovernment of Ireland. I trust that the effect of this discussion will be to alter the position in which we stand in respect of the use of the forces of the Crown in Ireland. I am convinced that if the people of England only knew how their money was being squandered in this respect in order to support the Irish landlords and an oppressive Administration, that the Chief Secretary would not occupy his present position ten minutes longer. If the country were polled to-morrow, unquestionably to-morrow would be the last day of the existence of the present Government. Evictions have been carried out in Ireland which have resulted in the death of persons evicted, and I maintain that the conduct of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is stained with crimes like that. I maintain that, for one man who has died in Ireland from any attempt to break the law, ten have been killed by evictions. On behalf of my constituents, I declare that we object to the use of the forces of the

    459
    Crown at these evictions, and for backing up the Times in its policy of forgery and lying.
    MR. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has referred to the man Tracy in an insinuating manner. Well, if he had any charge to make against the man, or if there was anything behind what he was saying, the proper course for him to have pursued was to have put his facts before the House like a man. I do not know that anyone has ever been worse treated by the Irish Office than I myself, with regard to papers seized in my house. I was subpœnaed to produce certain papers, and I had not got them, as they had been destroyed. Many of them were of no value, and even these that were of value were not my property, but the property of persons who had corresponded with me, so I thought it my duty to destroy them. But the Government did not destroy the copies they had, and as soon as the Special Commission was opened they were produced for the use of the Times' lawyers. I do not say that the Government were not justified in their action—at all events in producing some of these letters, if they threw light on the inquiry, but in giving up these private documents the Government should have submitted them to the Judges, and not to the Times, to be garbled and used in any manner the Times' counsel thought proper. There was any amount of whispering in the Court about the seriousness of the matter in my letters; and the Attorney General, in his long, dull, stupid speech, which was a hybrid between a churchman's and a lawyer's, made an enormous deal of the matter. The Attorney General in this way fished to see if he could get informers to prop up the case of the Times by making accusations for which there was not a scintilla of foundation. I say, Sir, that conduct such as this is calculated to bring not only the Government into contempt, but the law of the land. There was nothing in the case against me, except evidence which the Attorney General extracted from perjured informers, and which would not have been listened to even by a Dublin jury. If the Government were anxious that a fair investigation should be made, why did they not call the Resident Magistrates and others from the district in
    460
    which I live, whom they brought over to give evidence on behalf of the Times, to give evidence as to my character and antecedents. The Attorney General shelters himself behind his brief, but he got his brief from himself; and if he had looked at the matter as a man of honour, surely he would have seen that there was no foundation for the infamous charges made against my character. With regard to another matter last August I received an invitation from my constituents to go down to the district of Portumna. The complaint was raised that there were no efforts being made to get up subscriptions for the defence of those who were being prosecuted by the Times before the Commission, and, having a desire to address my constituents on the subject, I went down to Portumna. As we were acquainted with the practices of the Constabulary in connection with popular demonstrations in Ireland, we came to the conclusion that if our meeting were advertised there would be a Proclamation from Dublin Castle to prohibit it. The result was that we decided upon sending round a circular to the people to the effect that I intended to address a meeting in the open air at the chapel; and as the police were in the habit of resorting to the chapel yard on Sunday, though the meeting was in one sense private, it was public so far as the police were concerned. There was not time for a Proclamation to come down from Dublin Castle forbidding the meeting. Well, the meeting was held, and we intended to talk about the magistrates and the Chief Secretary and the Government, and all that, without the slightest interference on the part of the police. We also should have introduced the question of subscriptions to meet the Times' charges. Now, if that had been kept in the background we should not have been molested, and the police would not have violated law and order as they did. No sooner, however, did I get on the platform than Mr. Reid, the District Inspector, and his police came up, armed to the teeth, with a dreadful look on their faces, and disturbed us. I asked if he had got any order from Dublin Castle to stop the meeting. I said we had a perfect right to hold the meeting; but, said he, "If you are not off the ground in a short time I will let you see."

    461
    Of course we had to yield to the argument of hard steel, and we then proceeded with our procession, break, cars, and band into unproclaimed Tipperary, where we had, instead of the small gathering we originally contemplated, a monster meeting. Now I would ask the Chief Secretary, or the civil, quietly-speaking Solicitor General, whether the tactics pursued by the police are not only inefficient for their own purposes; but, remembering the condition of things that exists, are they not likely to lead to scenes of bloodshed? We hear much of outrage and assassination and incitement to violence, and many a hasty word uttered on a platform is referred to in this House; but if the account were fairly balanced, I think the danger of incitement would not be found on our side. There was another instance. Father Cohen's car was to be sold for rent, and I, with my hon. Friend the Member for South Tipperary, decided to have a demonstration, and obtain the means for giving the reverend gentleman a new car. Accordingly a meeting was announced. On this occasion Mr. Reid took the precaution to write to Dublin, and so we had the usual Proclamation with "God save the Queen," and here let me say how I regret that the name of the highest lady in the land should be so continually dragged into these proceedings. You cry out often that Her Majesty's Writs will not run. What does that mean but that Her Majesty's subjects object to extermination? Well, this time we had a Proclamation staring us in the face, but it stated that no meeting should be allowed to disturb the sale, and so we determined there should be no disturbance. The sale was over, and then we decided in a Constitutional manner to hold our meeting and express our sympathy with Father Cohen. But Mr. Reid came to the front again, talked about illegality and proclamations; and, though we argued the point, in the result we yielded to the bayonet argument on his side, and once again formed procession and headed for Tipperary, this time not so for off. We started, but on reaching the bridge we found our further progress barred by a line of police with bayonets. There we were, a peaceful procession of people about to express our sympathy with a local priest, acting perfectly legally, not insulting or meddling with any human being, doing
    462
    as the law required, going into an unproclaimed district; but there on the bridge were the fixed bayonets before us. O'Connor and I walked on in front. Mr. Reid, the District Inspector, came up in great haste, there was some whispering and "colloguing" among the police, and then we were allowed to pass. And so we had a demonstration ten times more effective than if we had been allowed to carry out our original intention. I do not know if the Chief Secretary has any explanation of these things and I do not much care. You may hear him speak for hours in this House; but go to Galway and you will see the state of the facts which I have described, but in mere outline, the skeleton. If I were to go into the subject of evictions, and show you how the whole efforts of the Government are directed against these poor mountaineers, to turn them out of the homes their own efforts have made comparatively comfortable out of a desert waste—if I were to go into that and show you how these homes are torn down, how Her Majesty's soldiers, the Scotch Fusiliers, with bagpipes playing, go about levelling these homes, doing all this in the name of the Queen—if I went into this, I should also say that, though all the laws made since the time of Moses, though all the powers that ever ruled mankind, though all the writers that ever wrote, said differently, the people are right in defending their homes.
    MR. FLYNN: In the course of the debate this evening the attention of the Committee has been called in a very marked manner by the forcible speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle to the manner in which the Irish police have been placed at the disposal of the managers of the Times, and not only the police, but Resident Magistrates and all the paraphernalia of law and order in Ireland. As so much has been said and so well on the matter, I will not detain the Committee with my observations upon it at any length. What I have to say is by my calling attention to the manner in which, directly and indirectly, the forces of the, Crown in Ireland, and more especially the Resident Magistrates and the Constabulary, have used those who have endeavoured to collect and bring forward

    463
    evidence on behalf of the defendants in the celebrated Times case. My hon. Friend (Mr. Harris) has referred to Galway, and to meetings called for the purpose of collecting subscriptions for the defendants, and the manner in which these meetings have been ruthlessly suppressed by the Constabulary; and one might have thought that, if only to preserve an outward show of decent impartiality, the police in such instances would have received censure from the Chief Secretary. But the same thing, and that in a much more offensive manner, has occurred from time to time in County Kerry. We hear much declamation about equal laws and equal justice; but what can the outraged peasant of Kerry think of a system which to his knowledge from reading, and from his personal knowledge of local events, places the whole machinery of the police unreservedly at the disposal of Times' agents, while, on the other hand, meetings to promote subscriptions for the support of the defence of their own Members against the charges made by the Times are dispersed? Before the House adjourned at Christmas the conduct of officials in County Kerry was brought before the notice of the Chief Secretary. I regret to say mention of Kerry has been frequently before the Commission, and a number of outrages have been referred to in the evidence of Resident Magistrates, Commissioners, or whatever they are called. The information given was brought forward under circumstances of great suspicion, into which I will not now enter, but of which we may hear something when the Commission re-assembles. Upon the real or alleged outrages in Kerry the Times case appeared very strong; but when my hon. Friend (Mr. Harrington), who now lies under the barbarous sentence of six months' imprisonment, directed, in association with friends who know the localities, inquiries to be made and information to be collected relative to the issues before the Commission, the persons they employed in this duty were hunted by the police from place to place, arrested in many instances, and sent to prison. Three young men from the town of Killarney on a Sunday morning were engaged in collecting evidence for the purpose I have described. They carried with them certain tabulated forms to be filled up with reference to such debates
    464
    as rentals, valuations, the value of improvements made by the tenantry, and other matters relevant to the inquiry now proceeding. From house to house these young men were followed by the police, and at last, while they were engaged in taking down information in the house of a tenant, the police insisted upon entering. The tenant endeavoured' to prevent the trespass, and the young men explained their business; yet, notwithstanding, these young men were arrested on the spot, taken to the nearest police barracks, and on the next morning sent to gaol. We asked for an explanation of the circumstances here, and after that process of interrogation, which Conservative papers call "badgering Ministers," we had the satisfaction of a declaration that the papers taken from these young men would be restored, and that if no other charges were formulated against them they would be released in due course. There were really no charges whatever, though there was the usual attempt to trump up a charge of intimidation. It was, however, perfectly clear that the business of these men was collecting evidence as to the condition and treatment of their countrymen; but we have never heard from that day to this that the Chief Secretary has caused any inquiry to be made into this matter, no word of apology to the men unjustly arrested, or of censure for the police who behaved in this way. All that was done was the return of the papers seized. Does not the Committee conceive that police intimidation of this kind may go a long way to provoke violence in Kerry? If the Irish Administration had any conception of the elementary laws of administration, they would have instituted a searching inquiry into such matters when brought to their knowledge, and have given specific orders to the Constabulary not to interfere with, except to facilitate, the work upon which these men were engaged. Similar things have occurred in other parts of Kerry, and persons engaged in collecting evidence have found it necessary to receive what is equivalent to that passport which now obtains in Donegal giving to the local police an explanation of their mission and satisfy the official mind of their bona fides. Is not this a scandalous condition of things, another proof—a negative proof—

    465
    added to the positive proofs brought forward—that the Government, instead of acting impartially, have used all their energies to support the Times, whenever it was possible, to burke and stifle inquiry, and to prevent the elucidation of truth on the evidence brought before the Commission?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I was very much struck by an observation of the Chief Secretary in defending the action of an Irish Inspector with regard to charges made against a man named Walsh, and he defended him on the ground that Inspector Alan discovered evidence connected with Walsh in the course of a secret investigation held under the 1st section of the Crimes Act. Now, the moment I heard that, my mind was directed to finding out what amount of accuracy his statement contained. I remembered that there is a provision in the Act requiring the publication in the Dublin Gazette of quarterly Returns showing the number of inquiries held under the 1st section, the place where held, the hours of inquiry, the number of days occupied, the number of summonses issued, the names of witnesses examined, the number and names of persons committed for contempt, and the result of such inquiries. I therefore assumed that, as the Act is only two years old, the law would have been complied with. But will the Committee believe that the advocates of law and order—the gentlemen who proclaim their anxiety to give us the letter of the law—for the two years the Statute has been in force have never complied with the law? Here is the Dublin Gazette pure as a virgin of all information on the subject of secret inquiries during the last two years. We are, therefore, unable to check the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the inquiry, and may assume that no such inquiry was held, or else we must assume that the law has not been complied with. We spent months or weeks over the Secret Inquiry Clause, of which, I daresay, Mr. Courtney, you have painful recollection, and at last we got the Government to assent to certain provisions on this subject; but I have searched the Gazette, and as I say, I find no record. Then I may ask the Committee, if we have a Government that will break a Statute like this, which is
    466
    in the public mind and before the public eye, what may these proceedings be in private which we have no means of checking, what illegality may they not commit in furthering the interests of a gentleman like Mr. Walter and a journal like the Times? That is a subject which no doubt will be foundation of inquiry later on. I turn now to other matters in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I will take this case of Walsh as a sample of the veracious, the candid manner in which the right hon. Gentleman deals with a subject before the House. He said it was out of the power of the District Inspector in any way to intimidate the witness Walsh in connection with the secret inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman dragged in by the hair and horns—so to speak. He said it was impossible for Inspector Alan to intimidate Walsh, though he said Walsh confessed that he was a fraudulent person; that he had been guilty of various thefts and embezzlements; that it was quite impossible that the Inspector, Alan' could offer the man any guarantee of immunity, because he was an Irish District Inspector, and the crime was committed at Liverpool. Will the Committee believe there is not a shred of foundation for that statement? It is true that the head office of the insurance company who would be the prosecutors was in Liverpool; but it would be a new doctrine of law to say that a man was to be tried in Liverpool for an offence committed in Ireland because the company against whom he committed the offence had their head office in Liverpool. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman got that idea into his head through having had so much to do with changes of venue. The right hon. Gentleman is not a bit abashed or ashamed; and, of course, hon. Members below the Gangway opposite are as proud of him as ever. Well, if Members on this side were detected day after day, and night after night, in making statements which turned out on examination to be without foundation, Irish constituents, who are accused of sending men into this House without regard to their honour and character, would, I believe, quickly dismiss such a man from his position. The right hon. Gentleman has no apology to offer or mitigation to suggest, but rides off on the statement, which, he said, showed

    467
    that the right hon. Member for Newcastle must he wrong, that District Inspector Alan told him so; and here someone said why was he not called on the point? Whereupon the right hon. Gentleman, receiving inspiration from that distinguished fount, the learned Attorney General, said: "He could not be examined on the point because it was not relevant to the issue." Then, what becomes of the statement that we could have examined Mr. Soames as to the way in which he got up his evidence? I myself tried to cross-examine Mr. Soames, and was at once met by the chief ally of the Times on the Bench—namely Mr. Commissioner Smith!—["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must withdraw that remark.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I respectfully submit that I am not speaking of any Judges of the land, but of Royal Commissioners. ["Withdraw!"] They are Royal Commissioners appointed by Statute, and are not even mentioned in the Act as Judges. They are mentioned in this way—"Sir Archibald Levin Smith, or Sir something Smith, and Sir something Day." ["Order!" and "Withdraw!"] These Commissioners have not the power of sentence possessed by the Judges, and I respectfully suggest that I am entitled to deal with them as Commissioners. But, of course, I will withdraw if you, Sir, rule that I am out of order. ["Withdraw!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw the remark.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I will do so without any more words, and will say that I was at once met by Mr. Justice Smith with the inquiry, "How is that relevant to any issue?" In the same way I meet the suggestion of the Chief Secretary when he says that we could have cross-examined Mr. Soames as to how he got up his evidence. I meet him in this way, "How, and in what way, is this relevant to the issue?" The Committee must remember that the witness Walsh stated that he was compelled by Sub-Inspector Alan to come forward to give evidence against the local priests in County Mayo, because, if he did not, he would be prosecuted for felony and fraud. In fact, there was not a single witness who came forward for
    468
    the Times, of the informer class, who was not either an ex-highwayman, a man who had suffered penal servitude, or was excused from doing so by the police. The Irish Secretary has, I believe, given an answer on that point. He says the fact that they were unable to obtain evidence was owing to the melancholy state of Ireland. Well, according to the Treasury Bench, Ireland is always in one of two conditions—it is always either in a melancholy condition or a condition of great prosperity. If they want to show how the Crimes Act is working, then Ireland is happy, prosperous, and contented. Her Majesty's Judges are being presented with white gloves all over the country, people are settling down, cattle are a pound a head dearer, and the banks have two millions more of investments; but, on the other hand, if we want Local Government, or any concession from the Ministers which will benefit the country, then Ireland is in a most terrible condition—a most melancholy condition. When we say, "Why do not you get proper and suitable evidence?" Ireland gets into a "melancholy condition!" I should have thought that, under the right hon. Gentleman's wise administration, Ireland would have thrown over all its evil practices, and that the law once more would have re-asserted itself in all its majesty, and that, with the power and intelligence of such Resident Magistrates as Captain Segrave, whose firmness, courage, and independence are above all praise, intimidation had been for ever laid at rest. But, oh! that is not the case at all. For the purposes of the Times' inquiry, intimidation is so rampant that the widow of a murdered man is afraid to come forward to face a murderer; that is the result of two and-a-half years of this administration. One-sixth of the period of 20 years' resolute government has expired which was to restore Ireland to the golden rule, and yet these are the extraordinary admissions which come from the Front Bench opposite. I trust the Liberal Unionists will take note of this admission—that law and order have absolutely no friends in Ireland except the police. Probably, this is an admission made by the right hon. Gentleman in one of his unguarded moments—probably, the Committee will do well to correct the Chief Secretary's speech of Thursday by the Chief Secretary's

    469
    speech of Monday; and, probably, if the Committee could remember what the right hon. Gentleman says on Monday, it would come to the conclusion that his speech on Monday requires no reply from us. It is because the Committee and the House has a knack of forgetting on Monday what was said on Thursday, and of forgetting on Thursday what was said on Monday, that it is necessary for us to make these exposures in this House. So much for the Walsh part of the ease. With regard to the Shannon incident, the Irish Secretary stated that he was no more responsible for Mr. Shannon than any Member on the Opposition side of the House. Is that true or not? Who admitted Shannon into Maryborough Prison? Did he get in over the wall? The right hon. Gentleman gave him the order to see the convict Delaney, who had been sentenced to death and reprieved, and who was also an ex-highwayman, and therefore the most suitable witness for the Times. Shannon saw Delaney and administered the oath to him. Oh, Sir, the value of the oath of Delaney! What a sweet savour it must have had under the nostrils of the Attorney General! I am sure the suggestion that Shannon should get Delaney to give the additional sanctity of an oath to his statement emanated from the pious brain of the Attorney General. There was in it that touch of purity, that determination to do everything that was noble and becoming to the Leader of the Bar. If we could only probe this matter, we should find, I am persuaded, that Shannon took into Maryborough the Family Bible of the Attorney General. Shannon had access to the prisoner Delaney; when, however, I tried to see Mr. W. O'Brien in Clonmel Gaol, I was refused admission. But then Mr. O'Brien had the misfortune not to be an Invincible, and, not being a Times witness, I and a solicitor, also a Member of this House, were refused permission to see Mr. O'Brien for the purposes of his defence until the matter attracted the attention of Mr. Baron Dowse. That was fair play, fair dealing, and impartial conduct on the part of the Chief Secretary in the right hon. Gentleman's own opinion, but it is not so in mine. I now pass from the Shannon incident. The House will remember the splendid way in which the Irish Secretary gets over
    470
    all his difficulties. He certainly has adopted most unfair tactics in this House, his manner of getting over his difficulties being altogether without precedent—a manner in which I have never seen any official try to get over difficulties before. He says, "Bring your charges," and when we cite four or five different cases, the right hon. Gentleman selects the most trivial, and gives a sort of reply to it, more or less indifferent, and then says, "With regard to the other cases, I know nothing about them." That is the style of the right hon. Gentleman. He does not even take the trouble to get up his facts with regard to these Irish cases. Surely it is due to his character as a statesman that he should treat these matters in a more solid fashion. Surely he should give more value for the handsome salary he receives—though, of course, we know that it is on this side of the House that all the paid agitators sit. We are sure on this side of the House that the £5,000 a-year the right hon. Gentleman draws is always dropped into the poor-box. I maintain that we are entitled in these cases to a distinct answer with regard to the charges we bring, and it is in the ability of the right hon. Gentleman to give these answers that we can test his statements as to the desire of the Government to give real assistance to the Special Commission. We have asked how it is that the police have provided for their informers first-class and third-class railway tickets; and it is fair to ask, if it is only the function of the police to assist in bringing forward cases, why do they make themselves the caretakers and pilots of the Times' witnesses? The Times' informers are as much personally conducted to the Royal Commission Court as a party of Cook's tourists are by those who take them round to see the sights. What, then, comes of this pretended impartiality on the part of the Government? The trick about subpœnas does not avail in the case of Mr. Home, the Resident Magistrate, who has just been promoted 37 steps at a time for taking down the statements of witnesses as the Times proofs. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary a question today about Mr. Horne—as to his promotion—and the right hon. Gentleman was careful to answer one portion of the

    471
    question and omit the most important part of it. May I now ask him for an answer? In addition to asking over how many of his seniors Mr. Home had been promoted, I asked how long was Mr. Home engaged in collecting the evidence was used by the Times before the Special Commission, but to that the right hon. Gentleman did not deign to give any reply. You cannot talk about subpœnas in the matter of Mr. Home. Here is an Irish Resident Magistrate, with a salary of £500 or £600 a-year, who is said to be of great value for the purposes of the detection of crime in Ireland, engaged in London preparing evidence for the Times. Now I rejoice to think that Mr. Home has been so successful in detecting crime; but is the Strand or Fleet Street a "disturbed district"? Is the Inns of Court Hotel a proper venue for the exercise of Mr. Home's great ability? Was it to take down the Times' proofs that he was brought over? As far as I can recollect, the evidence for the Times began on the 21st of October, but Mr. Horne was in London long before that time, and I should like to know when Mr. Horne did come? This system of issuing hundreds of subpœnas—throwing the net over all the Irish police barracks—is a transparent farce and humbug. I say you are defiling the avenues of the law and abusing judicial processes by bringing over these men on subpœna, and then never calling them or attempting to call them. You say, "Oh, they were brought over in obedience to subpœna!" But my answer is, the way to test that would have been for the right hon. Gentleman to give me the Return I asked for. I asked for a Return showing the number of policemen who had been brought over from Ireland, the number called, and the time those who were not called remained in London. That would have put the right hon. Gentleman to the test, but it was refused. Mr. Home might have been here on subpœna, but the subpœna was humbug, and I charge upon the Attorney General that he must have been concerned in a direct deception when he directed a whole series of subpœnas—["Order, order!"]—if, having issued those subpœnas, there was no intention of calling the witnesses.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. E. WEBSTER,): I
    472
    never directed a single subpœna to be served.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to know who advised the proofs? If the Attorney General did not direct the subpœnas to be served he failed in his duty, and did very little for the £1,500 he got on his brief. Who directed the subpœnas to the Irish constables? It is the duty of someone to advise the proofs, and, so far as I know, that duty is supposed to fall upon the senior counsel in the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman says he did not do that. Who, then, brought over these constables? How long were they here? If there was no intention of calling them, why did not the Irish Secretary take some steps to see that judicial process was not being abused in this way? Mr. Soames issued a circular, in which he informed the Times' witnesses that they would be served with subpœnas when their attendance was required in London. Why was that circular not sent to Captain Plunkett and Captain Slack? Now, in the month of March, the Government are very anxious that it should not be supposed that they are rubbing skirts with the Times, and would have us to understand that they are conducting business on the water-tight compartment system. They wish us to believe that the Government have nothing to say to the Attorney General, and that the Attorney General has nothing to say to the Government. Captain Plunkett, Mr. Andrew Reid, the Inspector General of Constabulary, told me on one occasion, had been in London for several weeks past. I asked him, "Does not his attendance here dislocate the public service?" and his reply was, "Oh, yes, it does, and we wish he were back in Dublin." Hon. Members will find that in the Blue Book relating to the incident which took place one night here in the Lobby. Fearing that Captain Plunkett was dying of ennui while here in London and found time hanging heavily on his hands in the evening, I was anxious that he should return to his official duties in Ireland, and so I asked how long Captain Plunkett had been absent from his duties, whether his pay continued during his absence, whether arrangements similar to those made with other

    473
    persons subpœnaed by the Times, that witnesses should have notice when they were required, bad been made with him? The Solicitor General for Ireland, in reply, stated that, with the exception of a short interval, Captain Plunkett had been in London since the 22nd October; his examination, be it remembered, not taking place till February, so that at least one-third of the £1,000 a-year you are going to vote him to night be has no right to, as he was acting for and paid by the Times all the while. The Solicitor General for Ireland also said Captain Plunkett's pay continued during his absence, and it was unnecessary to give Captain Plunkett instructions; that the Government were most anxious to have him back in Ireland; but he was bound to remain in London in obedience to his subpœna, and the time of his examination was a matter over which be lad no control. This was before the discovery that Captain Plunkett's absence was a source of embarrassment to the Irish Government; that embarrassment was not discovered until the discovery of the Pigott frauds. It will thus be seen that so far back as December the attention of the Government was called to the needless absence of Captain Plunkett from Ireland, and to the fact that in the case of other Times' witnesses there was a notification that they need not attend until notice was sent. Why was not a similar course pursued with regard to Captain Plunkett? He was being kept here against the will and in spite of the wishes of the Government, just about as much as Le Caron was called in spite of their wishes, both of them having been subpœnaed and called by the Attorney General, who, if be bad not wished to have them here, would have refused to cause the Government the embarrassment which the Irish Government suffered by the absence of Captain Plunkett. When be was at last called Captain Plunkett had not a word to say, and if he said very much we should have published about him a letter that is not forged, and Captain Plunkett's continuance in the Public Service after the publication of that letter would have been about as precarious as that of Mr. O'Neill Segrave after the Government first learned what had happened in his case. But I will pass from this subject. Captain Plunkett may go back and earn his
    474
    thousand a-year as far as I am concerned. I now come to Captain Slack. He was here for 60 days, and if anyone will turn to the evidence given by him and Captain Plunkett he will see that the pretence that these persons were really wanted for any genuine purpose is all nonsense, because the amount of the evidence they gave was nil—at any rate it contained nothing relevant to the issue. What they were here for was to put pressure on the Constabulary officers and privates, and also for the purpose of aiding in getting up the proofs wanted by the Times, just as much as Mr. Home was here for the purpose of directing the Times' proofs. With regard to the case of the man Tracy, the Chief Secretary says this man was visited by Head Constable Preston in Millbank Prison on a letter from Mr. Soames, and he gives as the reason for this visit that Tracey had been concerned in most serious and abominable crimes in Ireland. Now, if Tracy had been concerned in such crimes, why was he not tried for them? The Chief Secretary is probably under the idea that the man Tracy is in Millbank under sentence. Nothing of the kind; be could walk out of prison to-morrow were he so minded. The fact is that he is there of his own free will, and is kept there, in lavender, by the police, fed by them, and supplied with luxuries by them. Let us see what are the facts. What is the abominable crime Tracy has committed? Will the House believe that Tracy has been for months and months in prison in Ireland, at first in Sligo, and then in Belfast, where there was ample opportunity for the Irish Government to send Head Constable Preston to him, and finally in Millbank? And for what has he been in gaol all this time? He is in gaol because he refuses to find a £5 bail to be of good behaviour. And why was be called on to find a £5 bail? He was never brought before any Court, and never sentenced. If he were, I challenge the records of that Court. I challenge the production of the summons to which he appeared, and the sentence to which he was subjected. He was brought before one of the Resident Magistrates in a police barrack in secret, a pretended trial was gone through, and the man was committed to gaol with his own connivance, the imaginary £5 bail having

    475
    been put upon him so that the police might have him under their thumbs at the time they might want his evidence, he being in the meantime supported in luxury, as far as a gaol affords luxury, in the matter of food, reading, and so on. That is the case of the man Tracy. What, then, becomes of the Chief Secretary's suggestion that Preston visited him in Millbank because his bosom was the repository of the darkest secrets of Irish crime? What ground is there for the suggestion that any attempt has been made to tamper with Tracy on the part of the Irish Members? Who was to tamper with him? Was he not under the Government lock and key? Nobody can get access to a prison except Shannon and Pigott—I beg pardon—and Mr. Soames. Who was it that was tampering with Tracy? I submit we are entitled to information on that point. For my part, I never heard of Tracy until about a month ago, and then I heard this man was placed under a pretended bail of £5, in secret, in a police barrack—the law providing that such cases should not be heard except in Petty Sessions, when the ordinary magistrates are able to sit. The Government raise up a tribunal when they want one just as a jury-mast is raised on board ship, and after a pretended trial and an imaginary bail, the man, in connivance with the Government, goes to prison. This man, I presume, is really an informer. I know nothing of him, except that I believe him to be as arrant a rascal as ever breathed, who has drawn money from the Times and is trying to draw money from us—which be will not get, as we are not such fools as Mr. Soames. That is the story of the man Tracy, and I ask what becomes of the charge that he was being tampered with by us; and what becomes of the suggestion that he was visited by Preston for some purpose connected with the detection of Irish crime? What, then, was Head Constable Preston doing in London? He was here for months, and you will to-night be voting his salary for doing duty for the Times. If we could only have brought forward one case of this kind, we should have proved up to the hilt connivance between the Government and the Times; but instead of one we bring forward scores, and they are met by the Irish Secretary saying be knows nothing about them. It is curious how
    476
    retentive the Irish Secretary's memory is on some points, and how absent it is on others. I remember the other day I asked him a question about Inspector Webb, who had been kept here three or four months. The right hon. Gentleman is able to get all sorts of information when it is intended to cast a slur on a Member of this House, the Member for North Fermanagh, whom he described as "courting under a false name." How clear the right hon. Gentleman's information was upon that point. The right Gentleman thinks these are the ways and means of getting him a reputation for candid statesmanship, and to make his rule and government popular in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has no ambition in this House and no ambition in Ireland except a policy of exasperation. His whole demeanour in this House and his whole policy in Ireland is planned and contrived with the view to exasperation. His statements in this House and his refusals of information are all of a piece, and whenever he cannot give any explanations, his excuse is simply, "I know nothing whatever upon the subject." I ask the House to consider whether, if this was any English, or even any Indian matter, this kind of manner would be tolerated? This House a century ago impeached its Ministers in India, for wrongs done on Indian subjects, and did not think it beneath it to occupy days and days, and months and months, and years and years, in a scrutiny of the misdeeds of its subordinates in India. And when we bring forward, not, it is true, charges of theft and charges of peculation, not charges of stealing mere cash or filthy lucre, but stealing from us our good name—when we expose the mean devices by which your policy is sullied, you have nothing to say except "I do not know"; and different newspapers have no other explanation to give the constituents except that Ministers are being badgered. Poor Ministers! If Ministers do not like being badgered, they have an easy remedy. Let them dissolve. I can promise the Chief Secretary that if he takes the opinion of the country on the question of his being badgered, he will never be badgered more. If he dislikes the operation, it is wonderful how simple is the cure and the remedy. And I now, Sir, invite him to address himself,

    477
    with some other means than of putting forward the plea of ignorance, to the serious allegations of the Member for Newcastle; and, if he is unable to do so, I ask the House with what seriousness, with what face, with what reasonableness, can you ask us here to-night to vote the salaries of men who are implicated and "mixed up" with transactions as shady and as disgraceful as any that have stained the records of your action with the unfortunate people of the country of Ireland?
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down appears to think that I object to what he calls being badgered—that is, having questions asked me from time to time; but he is entirely mistaken. I have always found that operation exceedingly agreeable. I do not know that I have very much to add to what I have said at all since I troubled the Committee last. Still, I think it only courteous to make some reply. The hon. Member for Northampton has moved to reduce the Vote for my salary by £500, and the chief ground for that reduction is that I am involved in this conspiracy with the Times and the publication of the forged letters. One piece of evidence for this is that I was responsible for allowing Pigott to make visits to a convict imprisoned for a long term for some dynamite or other crime. That question may be a very proper one to raise, but not against me, because Pigott did not visit a prisoner, directly or indirectly, in any prison under the control of the Irish Government. If anybody's salary is to be reduced for this proceeding it certainly is not mine. The hon. Member for Northampton, or some other hon. Member who spoke below the Gangway, appears to think that the Government are in some sense responsible for the escape of Pigott, because they alleged Pigott was under the charge of Irish policemen, who must have relaxed their care or he could not have escaped. That was a counter stroke to the question I put to the hon. Member for Northampton or others, as to how it came about that if Pigott confessed on Friday evening that he was a forger and perjurer, the persons to whom he confessed took no steps to have Pigott watched or arrested? What is the value of that
    478
    counter-stroke of the hon. Member for Northampton? The Irish constable of whom he spoke he appears to think had some power of legal supervision over that man. That is not the case. As I am informed, Pigott had to pass to and from the Court day by day to give his evidence, such as it was, and in order to protect him from annoyance or mobbing a request was made, I suppose by Mr. Soames, but, at any rate, by nobody connected with the Irish Government, to the subpœnaed constables that they would do what they could to prevent Pigott's being mobbed or insulted. It was in no official capacity that they did that, nor had they the slightest right of any sort, kind, or description to watch Pigott when Pigott did not want to be watched. If he ought to have been watched, it was not the Irish constables who ought to have watched him, and the question still remains unanswered, how it came about, when Pigott confessed on Friday evening that he was a forger and perjurer, that no steps were taken to put the English—not the Irish—police on his track, and take care that Pigott did not escape.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: There is the case of Shannon, in Maryport Gaol. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman—
    *MR. BALFOUR: I was going to say a word about Shannon, partly in connection with the hon. Member for Northampton, and partly in connection with the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Then the hon. and learned Member asked a question with regard to Captain Slacke and Captain Plunkett—I was about to say insinuated, but it does great injustice to the style of the hon. and learned Member to say that he ever insinuates: he does not stick at the broadest assertion. He told the House that the whole of that course of issuing subpœnas to Irish magistrates and constables to give evidence was all humbug. They were wanted not to give evidence, but to come to London to supervise witnesses; and he stated, when the Irish Government protested that they were put to great inconvenience by the absence of so large a number of constables from Ireland, that they were also humbugging. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that if he had been responsible for law

    479
    and order in Ireland—an extreme hypothesis—the hon. and learned Member would have found it quite as inconvenient as I did to be deprived of the services for so long a period of so large a number of Irish constables. All I can say is, that the request of the Irish Government was not only fervent, but genuine. I am informed that they were kept because, from day to day, those who had the conduct of the Times' case intended to call them, though I presume incidents occurred in the course of the trial which prevented them giving their evidence. The hon. and learned Member must be aware of the fact that it is not always in the power of counsel to know at what period the services of particular witnesses may be required, and it was on account of that delay, for which certainly I, whose salary it is now proposed to reduce, am not responsible, that the services of those gentlemen were so long required in London. The hon. and learned Member told me that I admitted that Alan could not be cross-examined upon the action he had taken in regard to Walsh, and said, of course, the same rule applied to Mr. Soames and other persons who might have been called. I feel some diffidence in contesting a legal point with the hon. and learned Member, because the hon. and learned Member is a lawyer and I am not, but I am given to understand that, although it would have been impossible to call Alan for that purpose, still, when Mr. Soames got into the box and offered himself for examination and cross-examination as to the method in which he got every piece of evidence laid before the Court, it would have been entirely competent for the hon. Member for Longford, or any other hon. Members engaged in the case, to have subjected Mr. Soames to the very closest cross-examination as to the methods by which he obtained the evidence which he submitted to the Court. Then, Sir, the hon. Member was very indignant about the action taken with regard to Tracy, and said he had never heard of him. That is very likely. But Tracy was a man who had been well known to the police for a long time. I do not mean to insinuate by that that he was a man who ought to have been known to the hon. Member, but what I meant to point out is, that Tracy has been engaged, as the Government
    480
    know from many sources, in the commission of serious and organized crime in the West of Ireland. I repeat what I have stated before, that Tracy volunteered information in Ireland to the police on the subject of crime to which he had been a party, implicating also other persons. Soon after that he was denounced in the neighbourhood of the prison in which he was confined as an informer. Thereupon he was removed to Belfast, and the police attempted to obtain a fuller confession from him. He was removed at the suit of the Times to London, but it was in pursuit of the inquiry begun at the instance of Tracey himself that Head Constable Preston acted as he did. That appears to be a clear and lucid statement. As I understand, there would have been no harm in Preston's visiting Tracey on behalf of the Times, But, as a matter of fact, Preston did not visit him on behalf of the Times, or for the purpose of forwarding the Times' case, but for the purpose of making further investigation into the important matters with regard to which Tracy had already given partial information. I admit, of course, that the permission to make the visit was given on the application of Mr. Soames. Not only has the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary stated that in this House, but I have stated it myself also.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tells us what Tracy was in gaol for? And for how long?
    *MR. BALFOUR: I believe he was in prison in default of finding bail in connection with a charge of intimidation and threatening life.
    DR. TANNER: The Primrose League?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt.
    *MR. BALFOUR: Now I come to the case of Shannon and his visit to Delaney, a matter which has been brought before the Committee both by the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. The hon. Member for Northampton has admitted that I was not responsible for Mr. Shannon's actions, since Mr. Shannon was in no way dependent on the Government, either of Ireland or England, but he appears to think that I ought to have

    481
    my salary cut down £500, because when Mr. Shannon did visit this man in gaol he administered an oath to him, and behaved in a manner that did not meet with the approval of the hon. Member for Northampton. Now I do not know how far Mr. Shannon was justified in administering an oath. I believe that although it might not have been an illegal oath, it might have been improper, but it was not administered by my direction, or by a servant of the Irish Government, or even in the hearing of any servant of the Irish Government. I have not inquired into these details. I think it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle that the Governor ought to have been in hearing, and that therefore the Governor was responsible, but I am given to understand that it is not always necessary or usual that interviews should be in the presence of a warder in Ireland. I would remind the Committee that when application was made by the solicitor of Patrick Molloy, who was charged with perjury, for permission to see without the presence of a warder M'Caffery, Delaney, and Mullett the permission was granted by the Prisons Board, and therefore, if the precedent was bad, it at all events applies impartially both to persons who are supposed to be in the interest of the Times and to persons who have certainly shown that they were not in the interest of the Times. I would next deal with the parallel drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford between the treatment he received when he desired to visit Mr. O'Brien in gaol and the treatment of Mr. Shannon when he wished to visit Delaney in the convict prison. I would remind the hon. and learned Member for North Longford that he was rather ungrateful in his allusion to this point. The prison rules, as I understand, are in England tolerably precise in this matter. A prisoner may see his solicitor or his solicitor's clerk with regard to a suit pending, but the hon. and learned Gentleman was neither a solicitor nor a solicitor's clerk.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Permission was refused to his solicitor to see him.
    *MR. BALFOUR: I am speaking not from book, for I have not inquired particularly into this matter, but I think the
    482
    hon. Gentleman is wholly misinformed on this point, for I have no doubt that every facility was given to Mr. O'Brien to see his solicitor or his solicitor's clerk with regard to any case pending. But that is not all. This refusal to allow any one but the solicitor or the solicitor's clerk to see Mr. O'Brien at Clonmel was relaxed when Mr. O'Brien got to Tralee in favour of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, and I think that it is most ungrateful, when the hon. and learned Member, so far as I know, was the only counsel for a prisoner ever admitted to see that prisoner, that he should taunt the Irish Government with undue harshness in that respect.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It was only done after the attention of the Government had been directed to it by Baron Dowse.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see how that affects the case. It is not the function of the Irish Judges to say who shall see a prisoner or who shall not. Whether rightly or wrongly, the hon. and learned Member, as far as I know, is the only counsel who has been allowed to visit an Irish prisoner in prison under the same conditions as Mr. O'Brien. I am speaking without book; it is possible, though I am not aware of it, that there might be another Member of the House equally fortunate.
    An hon. MEMBER: I was visited in prison by my counsel.
    DR. KENNY: Mr. Carew has been visited by his counsel.
    *MR. J. O'CONNOR: I had a private interview with my counsel while I was in prison.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to have the particulars of these visits, because all persons in prisons have a right to be visited under certain conditions, and the question is whether those were made by the counsel as ordinary visitors or as counsel. ["As counsel."] Then I begin to fear that the ordinary prison rules in Ireland are relaxed in favour of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I was not aware of the circumstance, and I do not know that I particularly regret it. I think I have gone through the main points brought forward, and I hope—
    MR. HEALY: How about the breach of Section 1 of the Crimes Act.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman must be mistaken on

    483
    that matter. I have no doubt that the returns are made in strict accordance with the law. I will inquire.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I will put a question about that on the Paper.
    *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By all means. I hope the Committee now begin to realize on how very flimsy foundation accusations as grave as were ever made against public men have been freely used in the country by responsible statesmen. It is bad enough that such accusations should be made, and made without any shadow of ground whatever, but that they should be made in the very same breath when those Gentlemen are complaining of the iniquity of bringing false accusations against your political opponents appears to me to add an additional tinge of darkness to a page already sufficiently dark in the history of the present Opposition.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should not have risen had it not been for some observations of the right hon. Gentleman, from which I gather that, instead of separating himself from one of the most indecent incidents in the career of his relative the Prime Minister, he is rather anxious to follow the very mean lead which that nobleman has given to the country. The right hon. Gentleman meant his words to be understood as implying the same insinuation as the Prime Minister's—namely, that the forgery of these letters is not yet conclusively proved. I think that the bringing forward of these forged letters as a charge was infamous enough, but I describe it as more infamous, more mean, more dishonourable to persevere in the insinuations that those forged letters are genuine after the Attorney General has been compelled publicly to humiliate himself by withdrawing them, after the Times itself has withdrawn them, and after the Judges selected by the Attorney General—for when the hon. and learned Gentleman was asked to consult with the Front Opposition Bench on the point, he refused to do so—after the Judges themselves have described them as so palpable forgeries that it was not worth while even to add an interim report. I think the country will sufficiently judge—aye, the Government will not give the country the opportunity of judging, because, whenever the country has had the opportunity, it
    484
    has given its judgment in a way you do not altogether like. I say I think the country will judge of the honour of men like the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister, of the decency and the fair play of the Chief Secretary, who still endeavours to galvanize into life the forged letters of the suicide Pigott.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw the last phrase, which is not in order.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: What is the phrase?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The statement that the Chief Secretary was still endeavouring to galvanize the forged letters into life.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I was alluding to the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister. The Chief Secretary has joined himself to the Prime Minister in galvanizing those forged letters into life.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that phrase.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: With regard to the Prime Minister, I am afraid, Mr. Courtney, I cannot withdraw it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I again call on the hon. Member to withdraw it.
    MR.T. P. O'CONNOR: I withdraw it with regard to the Chief Secretary, but with regard to the Prime Minister I cannot. I desire to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will assist me in keeping order. I beg hon. Members on both sides below the Gangway to do so.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to call the Chief Secretary's attention to the fact that he has more than once insinuated that Pigott's flight was procured by hon. Gentlemen on these benches. Does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate that suggestion? [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly.] Then I want to know what the Chief Secretary meant by asking how it was that when Pigott made a confession of forgery and perjury on Friday night no means were taken to procure his arrest in England. There were two people. [An hon. MEMBER: Labouchere.] The hon. Member below the Gangway opposite gives articulate and open expression to the covert insinuation of the Chief Secretary. Is the hon. Member below the Gangway

    485
    right who says that the Member for Northampton was the person to whom the Chief Secretary pointed? Or is the Chief Secretary right, who indignantly repudiates any such suggestion? If the right hon. Gentleman did mean the Member for Northampton, he ought not to have confined himself to insinuation, but to have spoken openly. If he did not mean the hon. Member for Northampton, I am afraid he must have meant Mr. Shannon or the Times. But the Chief Secretary seems to be ignorant of the most elementary facts of the case. It was not on Friday that Pigott made his confession, but on Saturday; and it was made not only to the hon. Member for Northampton, but also to Mr. Shannon, one of the solicitors for the Times. Now anybody who read the letter of the 11th of November, in which Pigott as plainly as language could convey it said that his evidence would not bear examination, must have known that Pigott was a forger, and would prove a perjurer if put into the box. On Saturday Pigott confessed, not only to the Member for Northampton, but also to Shannon, and the difference between the two confessions was that Shannon compelled Pigott to make an affidavit with regard to his confession. Why did he want an affidavit? If he believed the confession to be true, he had only to wait till Tuesday for confirmation of Pigott's statement in the witness-box. Why, then, did he insist on an affidavit? It was because the affidavit would be used when Pigott had escaped. It is therefore perfectly clear, from this fact alone, that on the Saturday before Pigott's flight Shannon knew that Pigott intended to fly, and took good care to facilitate it. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has said that Pigott was not watched by the police. Again, the Chief Secretary is ignorant of the elementary facts. The police swore that they watched Pigott, not only in coming and going to the Court, but in the hotel, and on one occasion followed him into the streets. The most singular part of the whole transaction is, that Shannon felt himself so allied with the Government, he had the police so much under his control, that he actually ordered Irish constables to watch Pigott. That is a pretty state of things for a strictly impartial and just Government, anxious for truth and
    486
    justice to prevail. They allow a whipper-snapper of a solicitor to order the Irish police about as if he were the Inspector General of the Constabulary. Then the Chief Secretary has not said a word about Inspector Horne, who was proved, by Constable Irwin, to have been in the Inns of Court Hotel superintending the witnesses—drilling, and examining, and cross-examining them, and preparing them for the Attorney General. Was Home then under subpœna? If so, why was he not called and examined? Again, we have not a word from the Chief Secretary with regard to Walsh. The Under Secretary for India commented, with forensic indignation, on what he called the indecency of a former Solicitor General—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby—interfering with the proceedings of a judicial tribunal. Let us apply the principle to the speeches of the Government. A man called Walsh was examined, and maintained his statement that he was intimidated by a deputy inspector, called Alan, into making a certain statement. Alan was not called before the Court, and yet he had made a private communication to the Chief Secretary—made a private communication with regard to his attempt to make a witness before the Commission commit perjury; and the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit, upon that communication, to charge the witness examined before the Commission with perjury. And he made that charge, above all, against a witness who was a member of the troop of informers and scoundrels who constituted the witnesses of the Attorney General. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us an answer to our charges in regard to Shannon. He says, "I am not responsible for him." Who is responsible for what takes place in the gaols of the country? He has told us nothing about the visits to Nally and Mullett. We are informed we shall have an opportunity of eliciting all these facts from witnesses before the Commission, but how are we to get them from witnesses who are not produced? how are we to learn from these men that Shannon went into their prison cells and attempted to bribe them by promises of liberty into becoming perjurers, and, perhaps, forgers? The Chief Secretary says that the Government are simply

    487
    anxious for the elucidation of the truth, and that they are libelled by the attacks on them as being the allies of the Times. The right hon. Gentleman said that libel is our daily bread. That was a most unkind remark for the right hon. Gentleman to make in the presence of his colleague, who has made a good deal of daily bread by publishing the forged letters of the Times. If the right hon. Gentleman will spare a little time from his occupation of boycotting libel literature, and from the reproduction of the forgeries of the Times, the reproach would come more effectually from the Treasury Bench. The Government say they stand impartial between the two sides in this case, and are only anxious for the truth. Well, if they have a witness, it was surely part of the truth to know his antecedents, so that those who are attacked by his evidence may have some opportunity of testing his credit. Supposing that this had been a criminal trial, and that the Attorney General had been prosecuting for the Government in name, as he had in this case prosecuted in reality, what would he have had to do? Badly as the hon. and learned Gentleman had acted in the whole business, I think he would have shrunk from the honourable traditions of a Crown prosecutor and not have pursued the course in a criminal case that he had adopted in this case. No Judge would have allowed him to spring on a prisoner in the dock—
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Sir, I rise to order. I wish to know if the hon. Member is in order in what he is saying?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am reluctant to interfere with the hon. Member, but I am bound to say that the argument that he is pursuing is not relevant to the Vote before the House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Allow me, Sir, respectfully to point out that I have been dealing with the statement of the Chief Secretary that the Government had stood impartial between the Times on the one side and the Irish Members on the other. But I bow to your ruling. The Chief Secretary says that the Government had acted with impartiality; but if the Irish Members had been prosecuted by the Government they would have been presented with the names of all the witnesses. Did the
    488
    Chief Secretary instruct the police constables even to give them the names of the witnesses who were to be brought against them, or did they tell them that Delaney had been sentenced to five years' penal servitude for highway robbery? Were they informed as to Le Caron or the other witnesses who were to be brought against them? Not a word, not a whisper, not a syllable did they hear of those witnesses who were to give that most damaging evidence—most damaging evidence if true. I know that the distinction between truth and falsehood is not very clearly grasped by many people. The names of those people were not given to the accused, and yet the Chief Secretary calls that standing impartially between the two sides in the case. The Chief Secretary and the Government went into that business with the Times; they went into it to win; and they did win by it until the calumnies and forgeries were exposed. Probably some hon. Members now in this House have got into Parliament through these calumnies and forgeries. The Government have elected to stand or fall with the Times; and now the Times and its cause and its forgeries have crumbled to dust; and the Times will drag the Chief Secretary and the Government down with it.
    The Committee divided.
    While the House was being cleared for the Division, Mr. Chamberlain walked across from the front Opposition Bench to the Treasury Bench, where he entered into conversation with Mr. Ritchie. This was the signal for derisive cheering from below the Opposition Gangway. Various cries rose indistinctly above the cheers, and Mr. W. REDMOND shouted, "You are in your right place now."
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have noticed repeated irregularities during the evening on the part of the hon. Member for Fermanagh, and if he persists in this conduct, I shall have to order him to withdraw.
    MR. W. REDMOND: With very great respect, Sir, I ask you to point out in what respect I have been disorderly. I am totally unaware of it. I must say I think the charge most unjust.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 211; Noes 275.—(Division List, No. 37.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to move that we do now report Progress.
    *MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall not oppose the Motion. I wish to point out that we have now reached the second night of the debate, and I shall have to ask the House to-morrow to come to a decision on the Vote on Account.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Mundella)—put, and agreed to.
    Progress reported.

    WATS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1888 and 1889, the sum of £131,059 14s. 2d. he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

  NATIONAL DEBT REDEMPTION.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,

  1. "That it is expedient to authorize the redemption of the Consolidated Three per Cent Annuities, and the Reduced Three per Cent Annuities, and the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the necessary amounts to pay off the principal sums payable to holders of such Stocks.

  2. That the sums required for such redemption he raised by the creation of Two and Three-quarters per Cent Consolidated Stock, or by borrowing for a limited period, the principal moneys so raised and the interest thereon being charged on the Consolidated Fund.

  3. That all expenses incurred in carrying out such redemption of Stock, and for providing for the payment of dividends in certain cases, as well as additional remuneration to the Banks of England and Ireland, he charged on the Consolidated Fund.

  4. That provision he made for carrying out the arrangements necessary for such redemption of Stock."

  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: At an earlier period of the evening I said that if these Resolutions were taken to-night it would bind no one, but simply enable me to bring in a Bill which should be printed and show the measure which I shall ask the House to pass. The Committee will be aware that the amount of Consols and Reduced left outstanding after the Conversion
  490
  of the National Debt had taken place amounted to about £41,250,000. Of that sum upwards of £5,000,000 are now held by Government Departments, and there is a further sum of £6,000,000 standing in the name of the Paymaster-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 investments in the Post Office Savings Banks. With regard to these a special arrangement will be proposed. This would leave about £29,000,000. There is in the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt and other resources which will be available before the 6th of July a sum of about £6,500,000. My plan is to pay off the whole on the 6th of July, with the one exception I have mentioned, in accordance with the notice given on the 6th of July last. The task is a heavy one, but I think it is by no means beyond the resources of the Government, and it will be more convenient both for holders of Consols and for succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequer that a determined effort should be made to pay off the whole on the 6th of July, rather than proceeding by various instalments. I shall ask the Committee to be good enough to give a very free hand to the Government, so that the Government may be able, according to the price of Consols or the facilities of the money market, to carry out this operation to the greatest benefit of the State. On former occasions it was impossible to define in advance the terms on which the money could be raised. As this is a liability which has been undertaken, it is clear that considerable latitude must be given to the Government in order to raise the funds which will be necessary for paying off the amount of Consols still outstanding. I should propose that powers should be given to raise Two-and-Three-Quarters per Cent. Stock, the same as that into which Consols generally have been converted, or to raise a portion of the amount by Treasury bills or by Exchequer bonds, or by whatever means may be most available in the market at the time. The Bill will speak for itself, and when the Second Reading is taken by the House I shall, of course, be prepared to make a fuller statement than at present; but the Bill will be in the hands of Members in about two days' time, and the House will then see the full particulars.

  491
  The few words I have addressed to the Committee, however, will show the general aspect of the case. I trust that, as the conversion of the 500 millions sterling has been carried out with success, and in terms not injurious to the State, though some people consider the terms were rather too hard on the holders of Consols, confidence will be shown me as the representative of the Government in carrying out the balance of this very large operation.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to explain that I put down a notice of opposition to this Motion in the interest of certain trustees, and I thought the matter ought to be threshed out at the proper time—not at 25 minutes to one in the morning. It is not because of any remonstrance from Her Majesty's Government, but in consequence of a request which was addressed to me by a hon. Gentleman that I withdrew opposition on the present occasion.
  *MR. H. FOWLER: As the proposal of the Government is one most conducive to the public convenience, I hope there will be no objection to taking the Resolution to-night.
  *MR. MUNDELLA: I suppose we are right in concluding that the right hon. Gentleman has control of the whole amount except £29,000,000?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have stated that there are in the hands of the Government £5,000,000, in the hands of the Receiver General of the Supreme Court of Judicature £6,000,000, and invested by trustees of savings banks £1,000,000 or £2,000,000. The Government have not such absolute control over these two latter sums as they have over money held by the Government Departments, and they will propose special arrangements in regard to them. The Government will be prepared to pay not only £29,000,000, but £35,000,000 if necessary, but we stand committed to pay off by the 6th of July every Consol holder who presents his Consols before then.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  TRUSTEE SAYINGS BANKS.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee be reappointed to inquire into and report on (1) the administration of Trustee Savings Banks under
  492
  "The Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1863"; (2) The powers, duties, and liabilities of the Trustees, Managers, and Officers of Trustees Savings Banks; (3) The relations of Trustee Savings Banks to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and other Offices or Departments of the Government, so far as these relations affect the internal management of the affairs of the said Banks; and(4) The alleged assumption by certain Trustee Savings Banks of designations calculated to mislead depositors.
  That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members—namely, Mr. Barbour, Mr. Bartley, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir John Dorington, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Brodie Hoare, Mr. Howell, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Kenrick, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Mowbray, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. David Thomas, Mr. Whitley, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)

MOTIONS.

  ASSIZES RELIEF BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Gully, Bill to relieve the Courts of Assize from the trial of persons charged with offences triable at Quarter Sessions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gully, Mr. Addison, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Dugdale, Sir Matthew White Ridley, and Mr. Wharton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 167.]

  FOOTPATHS AND ROADSIDE WASTES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Bill for the better protection of Footpaths and Roadside Wastes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Bryce, and Mr. Story-Maskelyne.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 168.]

  TOWN HOLDINGS.
  Ordered, That the Committee on Town Holdings do consist of Twenty-five Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Arthur Acland, Mr. Amherst, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Baumann, Mr. Beadel, Mr. Biggar, Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Channing, Mr. Stormonth Darling, Mr. Thomas Ellis, Sir John Whittaker Ellis, Mr. Elton, Mr. Lewis Fry, Dr. Fox, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Heath, Mr. Knowles, Sir Henry James, Mr. Compton Lawrance, Mr. Macartney, Sir William Marriott, Mr. James Rowlands, Viscount Wolmer, and Colonel Nolan.
  House adjourned at quarter before One o'clock.