Commons Sitting of 24 February 1890

NEW WRITS.
For Lincolnshire (South Kesteven or Stamford Division),¨v¨ John Compton Lawrance, esquire, one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; for St. Pancras (North Division),.v. The honble. Charles Wallace Alexander Napier Cochrane-Baillie, now Lord Lamington, called up to the House of Peers.
QUESTIONS.

  DESTITUTE FOREIGNERS.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is true destitute foreigners have been inmates of our poor house at Dover and supported at the cost of the ratepayers; what was their nationality: under what circumstances were they received as inmates; have any complaints reached him as to their general habits; were British inmates compelled to associate with them; were special arrangements made for their accommodation, and, if so, how is the expense to be defrayed; can they be compelled to return to their own country; and how will their travelling expense to their own country be met?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): It is the case that a Patagonian Indian, with his mother, his two wives, and three children, were for four days maintained in the Dover Workhouse at the cost of the Union. It appears that they were lauded at Dover in a state of destitution, and were taken to the relieving officer, who gave an order for their admission to the workhouse. As to their habits, I am informed that the description of another savage tribe given by a midshipman in one of Captain Marryat's novels exactly applies—"Manners they had none, and their customs were beastly." They were placed in separate wards, and the other inmates were not required to ass data with them. The total cost to the Guardians in this matter was only
  1002
  £1 16s. 8d., and it will be borne by the common fund of the Union. The persons in question were taken away from Dover by an agent from the Consul General for Chili for the purpose of being returned to their own country, and the Guardians were informed that the Chilian Government would bear the cost.

  IRELAND—JUDICIAL LEASES.
  Mr. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many tenants in the County of Donegal who applied to the Land Commission before the 1st November 1887, to fix the fair rent of their holdings have subsequently accepted judicial leases at a rent agreed noon by landlord and tenant without adjudication by the Land Commission; and do the agreements so entered into between landlords and tenants out of Court owe, in many cases, their origin to the delay of the Land Commission in hearing applications to have fair rents fixed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Land Commissioners report that it would not be possible to furnish the information indicted in the first paragraph unless by referring to the file in each individual case where rents were fixed by an agreement, and then comparing the entire 12,027 in those cases in which originating notices were served, a work which would seriously interfere with the ordinary duties of their Department. The Commissioners can, however, state that between January 1, 1888, and January 1, 1890, rents were fixed on consent by the Head Commissioners in 27 cases where originating notices had been served prior to November 1,1887. The Commissioners have no information as to the motives which ltd the parties to agree to the rents being fixed without a trial in Court.

  THE WATERFORD ARTILLERY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is a fact that during the non-training period the battery sergeant-majors and sergeants of the Waterford Artillery are obliged to show their kits once a month, and shake out their shirts, socks, &c, side by side with the trumpeters, and in view of the non-commissioned officers and men of the

  1003
  Cavalry in the barracks; if it is usual for battery sergeant-majors of the Royal Artillery or colour-sergeants of the Line to show kits with the men of their corps; if it is true the non-commissioned officers of the corps in question made a representation on the subject complained of in 1885, to Colonel Shorthand, R.A., Commanding Auxiliary Artillery, Cork District; whether he gave orders it should be discontinued; and whether this was done while he remained in command?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STAHOPE,): Although I have telegraphed for the information I have not yet received it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put the question down again.

  LENZIE ACADEMY.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Lenzie Academy, termed in the prospectus as "a new higher grade public school," is in reality a Board school supported by the local rates and in receipt of Government grant; whether complaints have reached him that the school fees charged in class 4 of the junior department for "scripture, reading, recitation, writing, dictation, arithmetic, grammar, history, geography, drawing, singing, needlework, and cookery," are 15s. per quarter, or £3 per annum per pupil, which are practically prohibitory to the children of the working classes in Lenzie, and that there are Close on 100 children resident in Lenzie district who have to travel to other Board schools at a distance of from one to two miles further from their homes than Lenzie Academy; whether, when the wants of Lenzie district to School Board accommodation were originally sot forth, all the children in Lenzie district were included in the number of children for whose accommodation a Board school was required at Lenzie; what is the school accommodation of Lanzie Academy, and what is the average attendance; and whether the Scotch. Education Department will take steps to secure that the children in Lenzie district, for whose accommodation Lenzie Board school (termed "Lenzie Academy") was built, shall receive the benefit of the Probate Duty grant for free education in
  1004
  the compulsory standards in the school specially built for their accommodation?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I understand that Lenzie Academy is termed in the prospectus a higher grade public school. As that name would import, it is under School Board management, and it receives support from the School Rate and the Parliamentary grant. A complaint was received by the Department in October last referring in general terms to the fees as being beyond the reach of the working classes. A reply was sent stating that sanction had been given to this as a fee-paying school, only upon the assurance of the two School Boards interested in the school, with whom the primary responsibility rested, that there was a supply sufficient for all who desired them of schools suitably situated in which free places were provided. Neither in the original letter of complaint, nor subsequently, have any such particulars been received as regards fees and number of children as are given in the hon. Member's question. The Department is unable to say what lines were followed by the School Boards interested in estimating the number of children for whom the school should be built, but it is presumed that, in the circumstances of the locality, the School Boards allowed for an incrense of population. The school is sufficient for 560 children, and the average attendance for the year ended May last was 201. Any statistics showing that hardship exists will receive the consideration of the Department, but until the reasons upon which the proposals of the School Boards under the minute of 26th August last were based can be shown to be unfounded the sanction already given to these proposals cannot be withdrawn.

  IRELAND—THE CORK UNION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Local Government Board have at length consented to give the grant due to the Cork Union for labourers' cottages; and how long and for what period the grant in question has been left unpaid to the Board?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The late Board of Guardians of the Cork Union had already received out of the sanctioned loan a sum in excess of the amount re-

  1005
  quired for the houses proceeded with. Their application of November 28 for a further instalment could not, therefore, be considered without further information, which the Local Government Board applied to them for on December 11, but this information was not furnished by the Guardians. The Local Government Board are now in communication with the Vice Guardians on the subject.
  DR. TANNER: For how long a period has the grant in question been left unpaid to the Board, and what is the sum due?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The grant was applied for on the 28th of November, but the amount was not part of the hon. Member's question.
  DR. TANNER: As the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is most unsatisfactory I will put the question down again for to-morrow, and from day to day until I get an answer.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen a Report of the meeting of the Cork Dispensary Committee on the 18th instant, at which complaint was made of the action of the recently appointed Vice Guardians in stopping of outdoor relief grant of 4s. per week from a man named James Madden, who has recently lost his sight and has a wife and family dependent upon him; whether he is aware that a large number of complaints of a similar character in connection with the stoppage of outdoor relief have been made in the Cork Union District; and if he will direct the Local Government Board to institute inquiry into the matter of these repeated complaints?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I trust that the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) will take this as an answer also to his Question No. 24.
  DR. TANNER: I am afraid that I cannot do so, especially in reference to the fourth paragraph of my question, in which I ask what economy would be effected by the action of the Vice Guardians. What I desire to know is whether a remonstrance has reached the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the treatment of the poor old blind man by the recently appointed Vice Guardians to the Cork Union; whether it is true that for some considerable time past Madden has been in receipt of 4s. weekly out-
  1006
  door relief, which helped him and his wife and six children to keep out of the workhouse; whether the Vice-Guardians have recently made the following order respecting him in the relief book: "Stopped, Order Ticket for Workhouse;" what economy would be effected by such action in such a case; and whether the facts of the particular case referred to have been received by him from the Cork Dispensary Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already in substance answered the question. The action of the Guardians is undoubtedly in the direction of economy.
  DR. TANNER: Did not this poor man beg and implore to continue in the receipt of this 4s. a week out-door relief? Did he not request again and again to be allowed to live with his wife and family, and not be separated from them by being sent to the workhouse? Is it not the fact that instead of an expenditure of some £10 a year the rates will be increased to £70 in consequence of the action of the Vice Guardians?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I should think that that is not the case. The object of the Guardians was to get this man into the hospital.
  DR. TANNER: There is another part of the question which the right hon. Gentleman has not answered. Has he received any information in regard to the facts of this case from the Cork Dispensary Committee recently appointed by the Vice Guardians, forwarded by the High Sheriff of the City of Cork?
  MR. A. J BALFOUR: I have received an account of a meeting which has been held.
  MR. FLYNN: Had the Vice-Guardians any knowledge that the stopping of outdoor relief would drive this man into the workhouse, and consequently lead to a large increase of the rates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information that there has been a large increase of the rates; on the contrary, I believe that the action of the Vice-Guardians has conduced to economy.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact that the Dispensary Committee has quite recently been appointed by the Vice-Guardians, and that it is in consequence of their protest and in the interests of humanity that I have been induced to ask these questions?
  MR. A. J.BALFOUR: I do not know what reasons may have induced the hon. Member to ask these questions, but I cannot give him any further information.

  THE SUPPORT OF PAUPER PARENTS.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case tried by the Magistrates at Evesham, on Monday, 10th February, in which Charles Taylor, a labourer, of Honeybourne, was summoned by the Relieving Officer for non-payment of 37s. arrears of payment under orders to contribute 1s. per week towards the maintenance of his father and mother in the workhouse; whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence, which, abowed that Taylor had a wife and a crippled son to support, and had further had a daughter on his hands for 12 months; that Taylor's wages being 10s. a week nominally, but subject to deduction for wet weather, had averaged not more than 9s. a week; and that, for the last six weeks, Taylor's earnings had only been a total of 20s., or 3s. 6d. a week; whether he is aware that it was urged in favour of Taylor's ability to pay that he had an allotment of one and a-half acres, for which he had to pay four times the agricultural rent; whether the Bench, in condemning Taylor to pay 20s. in satisfaction of the claim and costs, stated "that they had been very lenient with him"; whether the law requires that agricultural labourers, earning 9s. to 10s. a week, should be called upon to contribute towards the support of relatives in the workhouse; and whether he will consider the advisability of transferring the appeal from Petty Sessions to the County Court, considering that the decision rests entirely on ability to pay, and that the practice of different Petty Sessional Courts varies very considerably?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have made inquiry of the Justices and have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings. It appears that two orders were made upon this man in June, 1886, to pay two sums of 6d. per week towards the maintenance of his father and mother. He fell into
  1008
  arrears of 18s. 6d. under each order. The Guardians, having made inquiry into his ability to pay, applied to the Bench to enforce payment in full. The Bench decided to enforce payment t o the amount of 10s. on each order, but not to issue process until such time as the man could pay. They came to the conclusion that his average income would be about 15s. a week. He was not at that time supporting a daughter. He occupied an allotment of about two acres, but the Bench do not know at what rent. I understand the law to be that orders to contribute towards the relief of pauper relatives should only be made on persons of sufficient ability, and that is a question of fact for the Justices to decide. I have no reason to believe that County Court Judges would decide this question with more uniformity than the Justices in Petty Sessions.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Upon what evidence does the right hon. Gentleman say that this man had 15s. a week?
  MR. MATTHEWS: That is the information the Bench of Magistrates communicated to me in answer to my question.

  MERTHYR TYDVIL WORKHOUSE.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the action of the Rev. T. L. Davies and Sister Naomi, of the Church of England, in entering the Union Workhouse at Merthyr Tydvil, on 8th February last, without the knowledge of the master, and at a time when they had expressly been told it would be inconvenient for them to visit any of the inmates; whether it is true that they were found by the master at 8 o'clock on the morning of that day at the bedside of James Bennett, who was not dangerously ill at the time, with two lighted wax candles; and whether any person has a legal right to enter a workhouse without the permission of the Guardians, and in opposition to the authority of the master?
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention had not been drawn to this matter before notice was given of the question; but I have since received communications from the Guardians and the rector of the parish on the subject. The fads appear to be substantially as given in the ques-

  1009
  tion, except that Mr. Davies, the clergyman who visited the workhouse, states that he had previously obtained the permission of the matron to attend at the workhouse at the time mentioned for the purpose of administering the Holy Communion to the inmate in question. Speaking generally, persons have no right to enter a workhouse without the permission of the Guardians; but the licensed minister of the religious persuasion of any inmate may at all times in the day, on the request of the inmate, visit t he workhouse to afford religious assistance to such inmate.

  REPORTS ON IRISH AGRICULTURE.
  MR. LANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Reports on Irish Agriculture, which are furnished to the Lord Lieutenant by the Registrar General, and subsequently presented to Parliament, are entirely prepared by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Metropolitan Police Force; what special training do Irish policemen undergo to qualify them to report on agricultural matters; has his attention been called to the Report of the police officer at Kanturk, that— "Prices are fairly high and remunerative; I attribute this to a better feeling existing in the country;" and is there any source of information on Irish agricultural matters available to the Government of Ireland other than the Irish Police Force?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Reports on Irish Agriculture issued by the Registrar General's Department are not prepared by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Metropolitan Police. The information on which these Reports are founded is collected by enumerators selected from these forces, who have considerable experience, a large number of them having been employed in this work from time to time for many years. The District Inspectors report from their local knowledge as to the probable cause to which the good or bad yield may be attributed. The District Inspector at Kanturk stated his opinion as given in the question. There are various sources of information on such matters available to the Registrar General, who, wherever necessary, communicates direct with the agriculturists themselves. I may say
  1010
  that the Return of the Registrar General cannot be described as the Report of the Government, although it is an official Return. I may also remind the hon. Gentleman that the persons employed in collecting the statistical information on which the schedule of prices of the Land Commission was based were not members of the Police Force.
  MR. LANE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the time has come when there should be some Department of the State appointed in Dublin for the purpose of looking after agricultural matters in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not at all sure that some improvement might not be effected in the direction mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

  THE IRISH TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
  MR. LANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether "learners," who have neither pay nor responsibility, are permitted to have access to the Mallow and other telegraph offices in Ireland: is it in accordance with the Rules of the Telegraph Service that such persons should deal with and learn the contents of telegrams passing through these offices in small country towns; can he explain why those learners are sent to relieve the regular staff at other stations; and whether he will consider the desirability of sending duly appointed clerks on this duty?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): At Mallow, as at other places throughout the United Kingdom, learners without pay have access to the telegraph office; but it cannot be said that they have no responsibility, as they are all required to make the official declaration before a magistrate. It is obvious that unless persons were allowed to learn the telegraph work it would be impossible for the Department to provide itself with qualified telegraphists. It is both in accordance with the Rules of the Service and with the necessities of the case that such persons should deal with actual telegrams. After the learners become thoroughly competent, and while they are waiting for vacancies on the establishment, they are employed to relieve absent officers at other places. This is economical to the Department, and it is beneficial to the learners, in that it

  1011
  affords them some emolument whilst they are waiting for permanent appointments.
  MR. LANE: Arising out of that answer, does the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that persons should be employed in learning the business in such very small places as Mallow? Is it not more desirable that they should lie stationed in the larger towns?
  MR. RAIKES: I will make inquiry, and ascertain how far that suggestion can be acted upon.
  MR. LANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with reference to the fact that within the past few years six vacancies (five for males and one for females) have occurred in the Cork Telegraph Office, and that five males and one female clerk have been drafted from country towns and railway stations to fill these vacancies, if he will explain why these vacant positions in Cork, or the ones vacated in the country towns and railway stations, were not given or offered to the "learners," who have been waiting at and performing the duties of substitutes in the Cork Office for four or five years?
  MR. RAIKES: Since January, 1886, there have been nine vacancies for male telegraphists at Cork, of which four have been filled by learners in that office and five by telegraphists from other offices. Of the five vacancies thus created at other offices, one, at Limerick Junction, was offered to a learner at Cork, who declined it; a second was not filled at all, the situation being abolished; and of the other throe two were filled by learners in the respective offices in which the vacancies occurred. For female telegraphists eight vacancies have occurred at Cork since April, 1884, and of these seven have been filled by learners in the Cork office, and the eighth by a telegraphist from Knocklong Railway Station, the vacancy there being given to a learner from Cork.
  MR. LANE: Was there no learner in the Cork Office capable of filling either of these vacancies, so that it was necessary to introduce strangers from other offices?
  MR. RAIKES: I have no reason to believe that the persons referred to were unfitted; but the individuals selected were thought to be more competent.

  GUARD ROOM AT GIBRALTAR.
  MR. MOUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the New Mole Guard Room at Gibraltar, which was closed during the summers of 1888 and 1889 on account of its unhealthy position from being over the sewer of the town, has been re-opened with the sanction of the medical authority; and whether it continuance is essential to the Service?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The New Mole Guard Room was re-opened in 1889 with the sanction of the principal medica officer, but it has been again closed a Ids suggestion. The position of this room is at the entrance to the fortress and the General Officer commanding considers a guard room necessary there.

  PRISON LABOUR.
  MR. QUILTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any prison labour is let out by tender for any sort of manufacture except mat making; and can he state in what prisons labour is let out by tender for mat making; the number of hands employed under tender in those prisons; the names of the contractors for labour in such prisons; and for how long each contractor has hired labour in the prison or prisons?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to the hon. Member's first question is that it is true that in some prisons contractors undertake to furnish materials to the prison authorities for the making of certain articles other than mats, and to take the products at a certain agreed price. This work, however, is all done in the prison, and under the supervision of prison officers. As to the hon. Member's second question, I cannot, in the interest of the Public Service, give any information beyond that which is already given to Parliament in the annual Reports of the Prison Commissioners in accordance with the Prison Act of 1877.
  MR. QUILTER: I beg to give notice that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall repeat the question again in some form or another until I get a satisfactory answer.
  MR. CAUSTON: Is it not true that these mats are sold in competition with mats manufactured outside at considerably lower prices than they can be produced by outside makers?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Commissioners have nothing to do with the sale of the mats.

  SCOTTISH ISLANDS—POSTAL COMMUNICATION.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if there be any rules as regards population or otherwise which guide the Post Office in dealing with outlying localities; whether he is aware that the Island of Tarrinsay in Harris, with a population of 60, dependent on the Post Office at Tarbert, and the Island of Heisker in North Uist, dependent on Lochmaddy, and with a population of 143, have neither of them any postal communication whatever: and whether he will take their isolated case into his consideration, with the view of granting them at least a weekly post?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the question of establishing new posts must, in some degree, be determined by the consideration whether the expenditure bears a reasonable proportion to the revenue available. In the case of the two Islands named, I regret that no arrangement is practicable for affording postal communication, except at an outlay largely in excess of the revenue from the correspondence, which is small in amount; and I may add that even now the main service to Harris and North Uist entails a heavy loss to the revenue. At the same time, I shall be happy to again examine the question raised if any persons interested should be prepared to enter into a guarantee to meet the necessary increased expense.

  SOUTH AFRICAN AFFAIRS.
  COLONEL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the dispute as to the territory comprised between the Rivers Shashi and Macloutsie, claimed by Khama, Chief of the Bamaugwate, and Lo Bengulo, King of the Matabele, has been settled, and in whose favour the award has been given?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The chiefs named have not agreed to submit their competing claims to this territory to the award of Her Majesty's Government, and its neutrality is therefore being maintained for the present under the police of the Protectorate.

  THE AMERICAN MAILS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that on every voyage during the year 1889, as well as on her first voyage in 1890, the steamer City of Paris arrived at New York from 36 to 48 hours in advance of the mail-carrying steamer, which left Queenstown at the same time with her; and will he state why Her Majesty's mails are sent by the slower steamer instead of the faster?
  MR. RAIKES: As the steamer City of Paris does not belong to either of the two companies contracting for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails twice a week from Queenstown to New York, the Post Office does not take official cognisance of her performances, though I was aware that she was making excellent passages. It is, of course, not practicable to bring within the scope of the contract every fast Atlantic steamer that may be put upon the line by a rival company. But the public can always obtain the use of fast outside steamers by specially super-scribing their letters to go by such steamers, and this arrangement works very satisfactorily. Her Majesty's mails are conveyed by the Cunard and White Star Lines of steamers under contracts approved by Parliament in June, 1887.

  COLLIERY EXPLOSION AT LONGTON.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the verdict of the coroner's jury, as reported in the Manchester Guardian on 31st January, in the case of the 64 lives which were lost through the explosion at Mossfield Colliery, Longton, on the 17th of October last, from which it appears that the jury declared the manager, Mr. Potts, was—

  1015
  "Deserving of severe censure in not personally inspecting- the mine for so long a time previous to the explosion,"
  and that the coroner, in addressing Mr. Potts, said—
  "He had systematically broken Rule 21, which required his daily supervision of the mine, and had also disregarded Rule 7 of the General Ruled, which required that he should withdraw the men from the pit in the case of danger;"
  and, if so, whether the Government propose to take any further action in the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the finding of the coroner's jury; but until I receive the Report of the counsel who attended the inquest on behalf of the Home Office I am not in a position to say what action, if any, the Government will be able to take after the lapse of time that has occurred. I am expecting the Report every day.
  MR. FENWICK: Will the Report be presented to Parliament, and will copies be obtainable by hon. Members?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I will make inquiry, and inform the hon. Gentleman.

  COUPLING APPLIANCES.
  MR. CHAINING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Returns ordered of Coupling Appliances in use on the goods waggons of the Railway Companies, and also on waggons belonging to private owners, will be completed and presented to the House?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Returns were presented on the first day of the Session.

  THE PHŒNIX PARK, DUBLIN— BAND STAND.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works are taking steps to erect the band-stand in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, promised last year; and when it will be completed?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURE (Mr. JACKSON,): The cost of erecting the band-stand in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, will be provided in the Estimates for 1890–1891, and as soon as the money is made available the work will be proceeded with.

  BANTRY HARBOUR.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether anything has been done since last Session to mark with buoys the entrance to Bantry Harbour; and whether several accidents have occurred to Her Majesty's Ships, which frequently resort to this Harbour, from want of proper marks?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): A temporary buoy has been placed at the entrance to Bantry Bay pending the supply of buoys of a more permanent character. With the exception of the first reserve ship, which is stationed there, Her Majesty's ships very rarely visit Bantry Harbour. Only one accident, and that a slight one, has happened to Her Majesty's ships in Bantry Bay for a considerable number of years past.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Does the noble Lord mean Bantry Harbour or Bantry Bay?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I presume that Bantry Harbour is Bantry Bay.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Certainly not.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: If the hon. Member will put the question down I will make further inquiry.

  INFLUENZA AT SHEERNESS.
  MR. EDWARD KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a statement which recently appeared in a naval and military journal to the effect—
  "That a sailor was lately taken from one of the ships at Sheerness suffering from influenza; that the next day he was sent in a tug to Chatham Hospital, a two hours' journey; that on the following day he died;"
  and, if this be true, whether he will take steps to insure that in the future such cases shall be treated in the locality whore they occur?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I presume that the question of the hon. Member refers to a seaman named James Goulin, quartermaster of Her Majesty's ship Wye, who was sent to the infirmary wards at Sheer-ness Barracks on the 9th of January last and transferred to Chatham Hospital on the following day suffering from influenza. This man died on the third day afterwards from pneumonia, a frequent sequence in

  1017
  the case of the present epidemic of this disease. Goulin was conveyed to Chatham in a cot on board the vessel specially fitted for the removal of the sick from Sheer-ness, accompanied by the surgeon of the Wye, who took every care of him. during the passage, and handed him over himself to the principal medical officer of the hospital. The reason why this man was removed from the barrack infirmary at Sheerness. was that the wards were overcrowded at the time with serious cases of influenza. Under the circumstances, every care seems to have been taken by the medical officers in charge of the case.

  CARETAKERS IN IRELAND.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in view of the labour which would be involved in preparing a Return for the whole of Ireland of the number of tenants made caretakers under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1887, and subsequently re-instated as tenants in full possession of their rights, whether a Return could be prepared over certain districts sufficiently large to enable an approximate judgment to be formed; and whether the Government will consent to give such a Return for the county in each of the four Provinces of Ireland in which most notices of ejectment have been served?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The suggested Return would, no doubt, be very interesting and important if it could be obtained. But I am not sure that the necessary information could be procured from any official sources. And I would point out that while the right hon. Gentleman admits the labour that would be involved in attempting in an unofficial way to collect the details, his present proposal is that the attempt should be made where the labour would be greatest. I must also point out that even were the attempt made the result would not afford a safe ground for calculation as to what had happened in other parts of Ireland, since the eviction notices are naturally highest in counties where illegal conspiracies have prevented settlements between landlord and tenant.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  DR. FARQUHARSON): I beg to ask the Minister
  1018
  for Agriculture whether it is the intention of the Government to establish an experimental station where the exact nature of pleuro-pneumonia can be ascertained, and conditions established under which inoculation can be scientifically carried out; and, failing this, whether they will contribute to the expenses of any Local Authority which will undertake to carry out these experiments?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN): In reply to the hon. Member's question, I am advised that experiments have been carried on for years in this country and abroad with the object of discovering the microbe of the disease, but hitherto without any satisfactory result. This inquiry is still being continued at the Royal Veterinary College, London. The annual Report of the Veterinary Department will contain a statement of all that has been done on this subject by scientists up to the present time. It is being prepared; and, having regard to this fact, and to the conflicting evidence given before the Departmental Committee which was appointed to inquire into pleuro-pneumonia and tuberculosis in 1888, it appears desirable to wait for the statement which I have referred to before any further steps are taken.

  IRISH LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when be will make known the result of the inquiries held by the Special Commission into the various proposed lines of Light Railways along the West Coast of Ireland, and the decision come to by the Irish Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that the information to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be ready next week, so that it may be brought before the grand juries.

  THE TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes any legislation to counteract the stringency of the 10th clause of the Tramways (Ireland) Act of 1883, so as to

  1019
  enable counties or baronies to give guarantees limited to their means?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The subject is one of interest, and is at present under consideration.

  MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the salary of the office in Armenia to which Mr. Clifford Lloyd has been appointed, and whether he has succeeded to an office and salary already existing, or whether in either respect the appointment is now or special; and whether Mr. Lloyd has been sent with a view to composing the unhappy quarrels and distractions among the various populations of Armenia?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): The salary is £700, with an office allowance of £300. He succeeded to an office and salary already existing. The answer to the second question is in the negative.

  TYPHOID FEVER AT THE CURRAGH CAMP.
  COLONEL DAWNAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that owing to a severe outbreak of typhoid fever during the autumn of 1888 a portion of the huts in the Curragh Camp were condemned by the medical authorities, and that the War Office refused the £100 then asked for the restoration of these huts to a sanitary condition, whether he can explain how it happened that the War Office Authorities quartered the 3rd Battalion Grenadier Guards in these condemned huts last autumn, with the result that there was another outbreak of typhoid fever, from the effects of which four officers of the regiment nearly died?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: There was no outbreak of enteric fever in 1888 in that part of the Curragh Camp in which the Grenadier Guards wore quartered in the autumn of 1889. In fact, only one case was reported as having originated there in 1888. During the previous months of 1889 other troops had occupied these huts without any ill-effects, and there was no ground for anticipating the un-
  1020
  fortunate result of quartering the Grenadier Guards there. All arrangements for accommodation of troops in Ireland are made by the General Officer commanding, and are subject to local considerations, with which the War Office Authorities have nothing to do.

  JUDICIAL FACTORS.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that, under the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Act of last Session, an accountant of the Court of Session is authorised to be appointed, at a salary to be provided by the Treasury, for the purpose of superintending and auditing the accounts of judicial factors and other persons therein referred to, including the accounts of trustees and judicial factors in bankruptcy cases; whether, under the Act, fees for such official work are, for the first time in Scotland, directed to be charged in bankruptcy cases, whilst no fees are authorised to be charged in the case of other and solvent estates; whether there is any good reason why insolvent estates should be charged for the services of the official accountant, whilst solvent estates should obtain such services without any charge; and whether he will consider the matter of putting both classes of estates, solvent and insolvent, on an equal footing?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: In reply to the question of the hon. Member, I beg to inform him that every estate, whether solvent or insolvent, coming under the supervision of the Accountant of Court, is charged fees which are fixed by Act of Sederunt. Cases under the Bankruptcy Acts were not so charged before the Act of last Session.

  THE NORDENFELT GUN COMPANY.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Maxim-Nordenfelt Gun and Ammunition Company are executing an order for English guns for the Government; and whether he has any information to the effect that the workmen at, present engaged on this work are foreigners who have been brought into the country to take the place of the English workmen now out on strike?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The Maxim-Nordenfelt Gun and Ammunition Company are executing an order for the Government. I have no information to the effect stated in the latter part of the question.

  EMIGRATION TO CHILI.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the representations on which a considerable number of British Subjects were recently induced to emigrate to Chili were put forward by emigration agents authorised by the Government of Chili; whether these representations have been fulfilled; and whether Her Majesty's Government will urge the Government of Chili to help these British emigrants, who are in a, state of great misery, to return home?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government are not aware in what expectations all the recent emigrants to Chili left this country; but, as I have already stated, some of them complained on their arrival that they had been disappointed. I also stated that the Chilian Government had exerted themselves to procure employment for those persons. But we cannot accept responsibility on account of proceedings of which we have no knowledge.

  THE CHIN LUSHAI EXPEDITION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether there is any truth in the statement that the Punjab coolies for the expedition from Chittagong towards Burma were so neglected and exposed on the way there that the majority of them were incapacitated by sickness before they joined; and, if so, whether inquiry has been made to fix the responsibility?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I have also to ask the Under Secretary of State whether he has yet received any reply from the Government of India as to the alleged serious mortality amongst the troops engaged in the Chin Lushai expedition; and, if so, can he make any statement as to the truth of the telegram in the Times of February 10th on that subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): I will answer both of the questions at the same time. The Secretary of State has received information from the Government of India that the statements in question alluded to in the question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy are wholly in correct, and that the sickness on the Chin Lushai expedition has been greatly exaggerated.

  STATE OF THE CROPS IN SOUTHERN INDIA.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether lie is aware that, owing to the deficiency of rain in October to December 1889 in Southern India, the collectors and other revenue officials in the southern districts of the Presidency of Madras who were absent on leave from their stations and during the Christmas holidays were, at the end of December last, recalled by the Government of Madras to their respective headquarters, to inspect personally and to report at once upon the present state of the crops in their respective districts, and what the outcome of the failure of the rains is likely to be; whether such Reports have been received by the Madras Government; and whether the Secretary of State will lay them upon the Table?
  SIR J. GORST: The statement in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is correct as regards eight districts to the south of Madras, in which up to the last week in December the rainfall of the North East Monsoon had been deficient. During the last week of December, however, there was good rain over the threatened districts; matters have changed for the better, and prospects are reported generally fair. The detailed Reports by the district officers have not yet been received by the Secretary of State.

  RAILWAY FROM CHITTAGONG TO ASSAM.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India will lay upon the Table the Despatch received by him from the Government of India in July last, recommending the granting of a concession of land 7,500 miles in extent to a syndicate of railway

  1023
  promoters, as one of the conditions for the construction of a railway from Chittagong to Assam, together with any Correspondence thereon; and whether he will state if the Secretary of State has adopted or rejected the recommendations of the Government of India?
  SIR J. GORST: In July last the Secretary of State received a Despatch from, the Government of India on the subject of the Chittagong-Assam Railway. The contents of this Despatch are incorrectly described in the question. The matter is still under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman that the contents of the Despatch are correctly or incorrectly described in the question?
  SIR J. GORST: I said that they are incorrectly described.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: As the statement has been repeatedly made, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what are the correct contents of the Despatch?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir. I cannot state the contents of the Despatch until the matter has been decided. It is not usual to give such information until a decision has been arrived at.

  HALFPENNY POSTAGE CARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg' to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what would be the estimated loss for this year to the Treasury by selling halfpenny postage cards at a halfpenny each in place of the present price?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the estimated loss of revenue would amount to about £61,000 a year.

  PERSIAN KURDS.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any confirmation of the statement telegraphed to the Daily News of the 19th instant that the Persian Kurds are being-constantly sap-plied with Martini-Henry rifles by the Turkish authorities; that more than 50,000 rifles have been issued from the different Government stores; and that the armament of the Kurds is causing-anxiety in Teheran, and alarm among
  1024
  the Armenian and Nestorian Christians, who dread a great massacre?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have received no confirmation of the statement referred to; but the British Representative on the spot has described a similar statement, which appeared shortly before it, as absurd.

  ASSESSMENT OF RATEABLE PROPERTY IN LONDON.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is necessary for occupiers to answer the questions, Nos. 4, 6, and 7, on the quinquennial "Return for the Assessment of Rateable Property in the Metropolis for the year 1890;" and, whether he is aware that improper use may be made of answers to these questions, and will the penalty be enforced if the questions are not answered?
  MR. JACKSON: About 10 years ago the number and character of the questions were modified. The Treasury cannot interfere with an Assessment Committee in the exercise of their powers to call for information; and I do not see in the questions referred to any demand for information which may not fairly be asked in the interests of the taxpayers at large.
  MR. HOWELL: If it is not possible for persons to answer the questions will the penalty be enforced?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member wishes to put another question he had better give notice.
  MR. HOWELL: It is the last part of the question of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton).
  MR. JACKSON: As the Treasury have no power to interfere with the Assessment Committee, it is obvious that there would be no power to interfere in the case of penalties.

  KILKENNY LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. MARUM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the constitution of the Board of Governors of the County and City Lunatic Asylum of Kilkenny, and also to that of the Visiting Committee of Her Majesty's Prison of Kilkenny, and that not even

  1025
  one of the names of the three representatives of the ratepayers of comity and city appears upon the lists; and whether, in view of existing vacancies in both bodies, he will have such omission rectified?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question for two or three days. Inquiry is being made.

  MALTA-MISSION TO THE POPE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Stats for Foreign Affairs whether the appointment of an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of high rank to the Pope, in connection with an ecclesiastical matter in the Island of Malta, is in any way connected with the desire of the Pope to be treated with diplomatically, as if he were a Temporal Sovereign; and if he will explain why the Secretary of State, in making this appointment, has taken a course which this country has so long refused to adopt?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The answer to the first question is in the negative. Her Majesty's Government in employing Sir Lintorn Simmons on a special Mission in regard to matters affecting the welfare of the people of Malta have not acted in-inconsistently with the abstinence hitherto to appoint a permanent representative of Her Majesty at the Vatican.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is why, in a very small affair of this kind, Her Majesty's Government has thought it necessary to appoint so high a personage as an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The matters treated of will be laid before Parliament at the close of the negotiations, and I think they will not be found to be of very small importance having regard to the size of the Island of Malta.

  IRELAND—EVICTIONS AT GWEEDORE AND FALCARRAGH—THE BATTERING RAM.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true, as stated in the Irish Times of 20th February, that evictions on a large scale are to be carried out next Tuesday in the districts
  1026
  of Gweedore and Falcarragh; and is the battering ram to be employed in the carrying out of these evictions, and is it to be worked, as in January and April last, by the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that there are evictions impending in the districts named; but there is no official information as to its being arranged to carry them out on Tuesday next. As a matter of fact, the ram was not used by the constabulary at the evictions in January and April last, and I am not aware that it is to be used at the pending evictions.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I myself, in company with others, saw the battering ram at the police barracks at Falcarragh, and that it was exercised at Gweedore by a detachment of constabulary?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not followed the hon. Gentleman's proceedings in the public Press or elsewhere. But what he has now stated to the House is not inconsistent with the fact that the battering ram was not used.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this instrument has been paid for by the landlords, and may be used by the constabulary if brought to the scene of the evictions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information.

  ARRESTS AT CLONGOREY.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the promised local inquiry enables him now to state to the House the circumstances connected with the arrests of a number of persons, including the parish priest, at Clongorey, on several days of last week; and particularly, whether the arrests were made upon warrants; what were the charges on which the arrests were made; why the prisoners were first handcuffed, and afterwards admitted to bail; and upon what legal authority a private dwelling-house was broken into by force?
  MR. CAREWhad also upon the Paper the following question: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the following statement in the Daily News of 20th February:—

  1027
  "Twenty-nine more workmen were arrested to-day in Clongorey for building houses for the shelter of evicted tenants. The arrests were effected by a force of 100 policemen, and the prisoners were brought handcuffed to Newbridge, and were detained in the Bridewell until 6 o'clock, when they were discharged under bail to appear at Newbridge Petty Sessions to-morrow week. The district has been greatly excited by these arrests;"
  whether it is a fact that on the previous day 14 other tradesmen and labourers engaged in similar work were, with Mr. Everett, their foreman, arrested and brought to New bridge police barrack; whether these men at the time of their arrest were working on land from which tenants had been previously evicted, or on land still in occupation of tenants; why were they handcuffed, or did they show any disposition to evade arrest; and, on what grounds, or by whose authority, were the forces of the Crown so employed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With the permission of the House I shall now also reply to the question of the hon. Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew) on the same matter. It is a fact that on the 19th inst. 29 labourers or workmen were arrested in the act of converting certain out-offices attached to the farm of Mrs. Kelly at Clongorey into dwelling-houses, in defiance of a precept issued by the Resident Magistrate and served at Mrs. Kelly's residence on the 15th inst. Thirteen of these 29 persons had been arrested for a similar offence on the previous day and discharged, being then cautioned not to repeat the illegal act. The persons were marched to New bridge, having refused to allow themselves to be conveyed by cars. They were handcuffed in accordance with Constabularly Regulations, an attempt at rescue or escape having been feared. As already stated, 13 of these 29 persons had been arrested on the previous day, brought to Newbridge, and discharged. These tenants were working on a farm from which, the tenant had not been evicted, as she had paid her rent, it is alleged, with the approval of the managers of the Plan of Campaign conspiracy on the property, the object being to retain the farm as an accommodation for tenants evicted in consequence of the adoption of the Plan of Campaign. The constabulary acted in pursuance of a legal order issued by a Resident Magistrate, under powers vested in him by the 23 and 24 Vict., c. 154, section 35, and
  1028
  this precept was issued on a sworn information made by the agent to the estate, who deposed to having witnessed persons in the act of committing a gross act of waste within the meaning of the Statute quoted. The dwelling-house of Mrs. Kelly was broken into in pursuance of a warrant issued by a Resident Magistrate to arrest persons who had been engaged in an unlawful assembly, and who were seen by the police inside the house. As the inmates refused to admit the police they were compelled to force the door.
  MR. MACNEILL: Was the precept served upon Mrs. Kelly as well as upon the 13 persons who were arrested?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that Mrs. Kelly was absent, and that the precept was served on her daughter.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the arrest of the parish priest?
  MR, A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; the parish priest was arrested, as he was engaged in an illegal conspiracy.

  SEA FISHERY STATISTICS.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if statistics showing the quantities of the various kinds of sea fish landed in England and Wales are now systematically collected at the ports and fishing villages along the coast, and furnished to the Sea Fishery Department of the Board of Trade; if these important Returns are at present available for the information of those interested in the different localities, and particularly for the use and guidance of the local Sea Fishery Committees to be appointed; and if these figures, indicating to some extent the localisation of the various kinds of fish, cannot be included in the forthcoming statistics of the Sea Fishery Department for the past year?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The information collected would be at the service of the local Sea Fisheries Committees and of par-ties locally interested, on these applying to the Board of Trade, who would afford every facility which may not involve disclosure of individual returns. The quantities and value of fish landed at particular ports are already shown, in the annual Return with as much detail as has

  1029
  been found consistent with not unduly swelling it. If the hon. Member will intimate to the Department what further details may be desired, the matter will be considered.
  MR. ROWNTREE: May I also ask how many applications for the formation of Sea Fishery Committees have as yet been received, and from how many County Councils and Municipal Corporations respectively; if there are any considerable portions of the East Coast of England concerning which no such applications have been made; and if copies of any Schemes for the representation of the different fishing interests affected, sanctioned by the Board of Trade, may be laid upon the Table for the information of Members of this House?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Fifteen actual applications for the formation of sea fisheries districts have been received, namely, 11 from Councils of counties or county boroughs, one from a municipal borough, two from Boards of Salmon Conservators, and one from a Harbour Authority. But in the case of proposals for combined districts, one application usually covers several counties or boroughs. The applications, or notices of intended application, which have been received cover the whole East Coast of England, with the exception of the portion between Ingoldmells Point, in Lincolnshire, and Ald-borough, in Suffolk, Norfolk being the only entire county on that coast in respect of which no application, or notice of application, has been received. An Order conferring the powers of a Local Fisheries Committee on the Southampton Harbour Board was laid upon the Table of the House last Session, An Orders for the creation of the Cornwall and Northumberland sea fisheries districts will, I hope, shortly be laid before the House, and these will show the arrangements sanctioned by the Board of Trade for the representation of the different fishing interests affected.

  THE SALFORD GAS FRAUDS.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, considering the charges of gross corruption in connection with the gas contracts of the Salford Corporation, the fact that its late engineer is now undergoing a long period of imprison-
  1030
  ment for participation in the frauds which were perpetrated, the charges that are now being made of other acts of corruption, and the accusations against members of that Corporation of complicity in attempting to condone the offences of those who were parties to the frauds, the Government will consent to the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the allegations that have been made, and the mode of contracting carried on by the Gas Committee of that Corporation?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed that a Petition of the inhabitants of Salford, praying for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into this matter, is now in course of preparation. Pending its receipt, and a more full and exact statement than I have yet had of the grounds on which the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry is demanded, the Government are not in a position to say what action on their part, if any, may be necessary.

  IRISH BUTTER.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the correspondence and articles which appeared recently in the Irish Press, alleging that the values of Irish butter are materially reduced owing to the depreciation of the standard of the brands affixed to the butters inspected in Cork Butter Market, which is regulated by the provisions of a recent Act of Parliament; and whether any Government Department in Ireland has the power to hold an inquiry into the matter and to enforce any necessary reforms?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no official information on the subject of this question. But the Trustees of the Market state that the prices of Cork-branded butter compare as favourably now as ever with the prices obtained for any other butters. So far as I am aware, the reply to the inquiry in the second paragraph is in the negative.

  REGISTRARS OF COUNTY COURTS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether any vacancy in the office of Registrar of County Courts has taken place since the passing of "The County Courts Act, 1888,"

  1031
  when the salary and fees of such office, and of the 'office of District Registrar held with it, exceed £1,000 per annum; and whether the Lord Chancellor has in any such case directed that any newly-appointed Registrar shall devote the whole of his time to the duties of his office?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sib R. WEBSTER,): I am informed that no case has yet arisen.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Samuel Thomas Evans, esquire, for the County of Glamorgan (Mid-Division).
NOTICES OF MOTION.

  IRELAND—THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
  MR. J. MORLEY: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian I desire to give notice that, on Monday next, when the First Lord of the Treasury makes the Motion of which he has given notice with reference to the Report of the Special Commission, the Member for Mid Lothian will move to omit all the words after the word "House," in line 5 of the Motion, in order to insert the following words:—
  "This House deems it to be a duty to record its reprobation of the false charges of the gravest and most odious description, based upon calumny and forgery, which have been brought against Members of this House, and particularly against Mr. Parnell, and, while declaring its satisfaction at the exposure of these calumnies, the House expresses its regret for the wrong inflicted and the suffering and loss endured through a protracted period by reason of these acts of flagrant iniquity."
  SIR C. LEWIS: With reference to the notice just given, I beg to give notice that, in the event of the Amendment just read becoming an original Resolution, I shall move to add thereto—
  "This House nevertheless deplores that, by such Report, it is further found—first, that John Dillon, William O'Brien, and seven other Members of this House were parties to a treasonable conspiracy; and, secondly, that Charles Stewart Parnell, John Dillon, William O'Brien, Thomas P. O'Connor, Timothy M. Healy, and 38 other Members of this House were parties to the criminal conspiracy described in such Report; and this House is of
  1032
  opinion that the conduct of such Members in those particulars is deserving of severe condemnation."

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I referred on Friday last to the necessity that I should be under of asking the House for facilities for Supply. I assume that the Address will be voted this evening, and that it will not be necessary for me to ask the House to conclude the debate to-morrow by any formal Motion. Therefore, I now give formal notice that at the sitting of the House to-morrow I propose to ask the House to give facilities for Supply during the week.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Will that except Wednesdays?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir; I propose to except Wednesdays.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what facilities he is going to ask for?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I propose to ask for Tuesday and Friday.

MOTION.
  IRELAND—EVICTIONS AT CLONGOREY.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    (4.25.) MR. Sexton, Member for West Belfast, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the illegal and violent course of conduct by which the Irish Executive are endeavouring to prevent the provision of shelter for the evicted tenants of Clongorey, and are thereby endangering the public peace and the lives of homeless families; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen,
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, and I do so for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the House with the expedition which the matter requires a statement of facts constituting in my humble judgment a case which the House will,

    1033
    find to be abundantly definite, and which I venture to hope, the House will consider to be urgent. I ask hon. Members of all parties candidly to consider whether the course of conduct which I shall have to describe would be ventured upon by the Government in any part of Great Britain; and, if not, whether there is any adequate reason, or any reason whatever, why such a course of conduct should be indulged in even in Ireland? The name of Clongorey is, unfortunately, not new to this House. It has been made, unhappily, too familiar. Last year, after a number of families had been evicted from their homes on this estate, a body of emergency men went to these houses in the dead of night carrying with them a stock of petroleum. They were accompanied by a force of armed police, and in the dead of night they gave these houses to the flames, and left standing in the whole of that village but one house which was required for the use of the police. That outrage sent a thrill of horror through the whole community. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he did not in express terms approve of it, at any rate did not condemn it, and to the substantial encouragement which he gave on that occasion I attribute the developments which it is now my duty to describe. I may inform the House that these Clongorey farms are simply minute strips of reclaimed bog-land obtained by cutting away the bog which forms the bed or bottom of the land after the turf has been removed. These strips of land were reclaimed exclusively by the labour of the tenants. Every penny of value which has been given to the land is the result of the labour of the tenants, who have built the houses which stand on the holdings, with their own hands. Not only are the houses erected on mere strips of reclaimed bog, the equitable value of which belongs to the tenants, but it was originally the system to allow the tenants to remain in possession of them for nothing. Not only are they strips of bog-land, but they lie lower than the adjacent river. In the year 1886, there occurred a disastrous flood, by which the tenants' scanty crops were destroyed and their farms seriously injured. The tenants applied to the landlord for an allowance—or, perhaps, I should not say to the landlord,
    1034
    because, in the case of the Clongorey estate, as in that of so many other estates which have become notorious—the landlord has lost or forfeited the right to control the property, and the right has vested in three trustees, one of whom resides in Wexford, another here in London, while a third is living in Denmark. The tenants asked for an allowance to be spent on the grass lands, and a full allowance of one year's rent, which would have gone a little way towards enabling them to cope with the misfortune that had overtaken them. The tenants were very moderate. They merely asked for an allowance of 35 per cent, on the non-judicial rents, and of 25 per cent, on the judicial rents, which claim they subsequently reduced to 30 per cent, in the first case, and 20 per cent, in the latter. The trustees offered an abatement of 10 per cent, on the non-judicial rents, and in the case of the judicial rents they refused to allow one penny, although the judicial tenants had suffered equally with the others by the flood. The Trustees, however, seemed to think that the judicial tenants had committed an unpardonable offence in having gone to Court to get fair rents fixed. As a matter of course, evictions then began; but some of the tenants who had been left in possession managed to find their way to the County Court for the purpose of getting fair rents fixed. The Judge of the County Court in that district, Dr. Darley, is a well-known Conservative, and I do not think he will resent my describing him as a strong Tory. Well, that County Court Judge, on the report of the land valuer, reduced the rents of those tenants to an average of more than 30 per cent., though in some cases the reduction was as much as 40 per cent., and in others as much as 50 per cent.; at any rate, the permanent reductions allowed by this Conservative gentleman were greater than were asked by the tenants in respect of a special claim. But the County Court Judge did more than reduce the rents; he made two suggestions to the landlord. In the first place, he urged on the landlord that these farms were poor, isolated strips of bog-land, and recommended that the tenants, who had built the houses themselves and had been ruined by the flood, should have the arrears due from them altogether extinguished; indeed,

    1035
    the learned Judge used some remarkable language from the Bench. He said: "It is absurd to tell me that these arrears can be paid;" but although he urged the landlord to extinguish them altogether his appeal was unheeded. He then made another suggestion, namely, that if the arrears were not extinguished, they should be reduced according to the scale on which the new rents had just been determined. If the Government had given to Ireland the same clause which they gave to Scotland, enabling the county Judge to deal with, the arrears and, if necessary, extinguish them, or at any rate to reduce them, Judge Darley would have wiped off the arrears due upon these miserable patches of bog-land, and I assert that it is entirely due to the Government that these miserable tenants at Clongorey are not in their homes to-day. The second suggestion of the Judge—that the arrears should be reduced —was also ignored, the landlord and the trustees refusing to take off one penny; and it is for these unreduced arrears that, in defiance of the Judgment of the Court, these wretched people have been evicted. I should also say that the County Court Judge pointed out that the tenants never had been able to pay their rent out of the produce of the land, and it was only by reason of their being allowed to cut turf from an adjacent bog that they had been able to make any payment at all. It seems a melancholy thing that not a penny could be paid out of the holdings themselves, and it is a still more melancholy thing to find that the landlord has taken away the right of cutting turf, and has thus deprived the tenants of their only means of paying rent. Well, Sir, on the 7th and 8th of the present month twelve families were evicted for non-payment of the unreduced arrears, and all hope of shelter in their own homes was taken away from them on the following day when a force of emergency men, encouraged by the acts of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, went to the scene of the evictions, cut down the roofs of the houses with hatchets and saws, levelled the walls with crowbars, and carried out the demolition of each of the houses, accompanying the work in each case with a round of cheers. The people meanwhile stood by and looked on as witnesses of this outrage and wanton
    1036
    destruction, there being among them some of the tenants who had built these houses. Nevertheless, the crowd stood by and never by act or word attempted to interfere. It is an evil lesson which the Government teaches when peaceful-ness is rewarded as the peacefulness of these poor people has been. The neighbours endeavoured to find shelter for the evicted families, and one of the tenants, Mrs. Mary Kelly—the most substantial tenant on the estate, who has paid her rates and is in possession of all the rights of tenancy—determined to make some alterations in the out-houses of her farm for the purpose of providing shelter. A number of artisans—masons, carpenters, and others—were consequently engaged from the adjoining towns, and went to the farm for the purpose of altering those out-buildings. They set to work, and the additional buildings were erected. On Saturday, the 15th inst., Mrs. Kelly was served with a precept signed by Colonel Forbes, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to read that document to the House, as the purport of it is not nearly conveyed by anything I have seen in the Press. One account of it is that it was to direct the tenant to desist from making these alterations; another is that it called on her to appear on a subsequent occasion at Petty Sessions and show cause why she should not be ordered to desist. This precept appears to me to be a very curious document. It certainly rests on the authority of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act of 1860; but the provisions of that Act are directed against unlawful waste, and the procedure of the tenant on this occasion in regard to out-houses built by herself on her own farm could not be held to be a procedure tending to produce unlawful waste; on the contrary, it would be rather to improve the value of the property, and render it worth more to the landlord. But proceedings had been initiated in the Court of Queen's Bench, and am I to be told that in this civil case, as between one subject and another, it was competent to anyone to determine the law before it had been decided by the Superior Court, and not only to call on the tenant to appear at the next Court of Petty Sessions at Newbridge, but actually to proceed to the employment of force for the purpose of compelling the tenant to desist from

    1037
    what she was doing? The tenant, perceiving that the question at issue was to be decided by the Queen's Bench, or by the Newbridge magistrates at Petty Sessions, directed the workmen to go on with their work. The men, acting on this direction, remained at work, and on Tuesday last a body of police marched out from Newbridge to Mrs. Kelly's farm. They found some 15 men at work, and arrested them all, without warrant. I have always understood that a man cannot be arrested without warrant except in a case of felony, and I suppose that even the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will hardly pretend that a felony had been committed here. The men were marched into the town of Newbridge, and having been brought before Colonel Forbes, were, after an imprisonment of some hours, discharged. Now, the question I have to ask is, why were those men arrested? I submit that the Statute of 1860 dealing with unlawful waste does not provide for arrest. It enacts that, where anybody commits what is termed unlawful waste, a precept may be issued, and that course of procedure is that anybody disobeying that precept may be brought before Petty Sessions and rendered liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one calendar month. I say that the course of procedure in this case should have been by summons, and that to proceed by arrest was, in my judgment, illegal. Why should these workmen have been arrested? They were doing a day's work, and earning a day's wages. Am I to be told that an Irish carpenter or stonemason engaged by an Irish farmer to do a day's work is obliged, before he enters upon that work, to inquire, under penalty of jeopardising his liberty, and satisfy himself as to the right or wrong of a technical legal question of unlawful waste as between landlord and tenant? That question is determinable as a matter of equity by a Court of Superior Jurisdiction. It comes to this, that an Irish workman when pursuing his day's work will ha veto go about with a lawyer to represent him. I say these men had a right to do their work, and that the operation of the precept only extended to the tenant. These 15 men were discharged in the course of the day. On Wednesday a large force of police, I believe about 100 men,
    1038
    marched out of the town to Mrs. Kelly's farm. They found 29 men at work, and arrested and handcuffed them. When a question was put to him, the Chief Secretary raised the pretence that these men were handcuffed because a rescue was apprehended. Did not the men submit quietly to arrest on the previous day? Did they not go to the barracks quietly? What substantial reason then had police to apprehend a rescue or an attempt at escape? Father Kinsella was present on this occasion at the farm. Father Kinsella is a man advanced in years; he is a man of whom very little has been heard in Irish life; he is a person of a singularly quiet, gentle, and retiring disposition—a man held in the highest esteem by all with whom he comes in contact. Father Kinsall protested against the usage to which these poor artisans were subjected, for no worse crime than doing their day's work. The 29 men arrested on the Wednesday were released on bail at 6 o'clock that evening with a caution, and to appear again at the subsequent Petty Sessions. The rising temper of the police, and the increasing audacity of those in command of them, is shown by the fact, that two men in Newbridge, who simply cheered on the Wednesday, were arrested and ordered, on bail, to appear to a charge of riotous behaviour. I now come to the third day. On that day a force of 100 police marched from Newbridge to the farm, this time with fixed bayonets—so the course of events progressed. They found the house closed. They broke into it with the crowbars of the emergency men, who are the allies of the police. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked to day why they broke into the house. He says they had a warrant. I venture to think he has been misled. Can you with a warrant break into a house where the charge is not one of felony? I am informed that the police were asked to show their warrant, and they did not do so, and, until good reason is shown to the contrary, I shall maintain that their refusal to exhibit it is sufficient proof that they had no warrant. They broke into the house, certainly. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowther), who was once Chief Secretary for Ireland, appears to be much am used by the statement I have just made.

    1039
    Does he mean to say that a police officer having a warrant for a certain purpose, can, in the execution of that purpose, break into a person's house? The police are obliged to show their warrant, and their failure in this instance to do so is a satisfactory proof that they had no warrant. The police, having broken into the house, arrested 17 working men, and handcuffed them. I must protest that this handcuffing was a wanton and cruel outrage, and I think the same view will be taken of it by men of their own class—the artisans of the United Kingdom. I think the act was not only cruel but injudicious, and the right hon. Gentleman forgets, as his subordinates appear to forget, that men of precisely the same class as those artisans who have been arrested, are now potentially the rulers of this Kingdom. Sir, I have now to give proof of the most deadly malice on the part of those in control of the police. They arrested these men after dark on Thursday evening, and, inst3ad of going by the direct way to the barracks, which is through a street deserted at that time of night, they made a detour with their prisoners through a part of the town which is always crowded at that hour of the evening. They did it for no other conceivable cause than to get among the people with those prisoners in custody. They laid about them accordingly with their batons. One man had his eyeball burst by the blow of a baton. The skull of another man was fractured, and he lies at this moment in danger of death. A respectable tradesman of the town was dragged out of his open doorway. His hat was snatched off, and then, I suppose by a natural sequence, he was knocked down and kicked about brutally. The Chairman of the Town Council was violently assaulted. In driving themselves among the people with their prisoners the police obtained a pretext for this savage assault. The prisoners were lodged in the barracks. A local solicitor asked to be admitted. Admission was refused. The men arrested on the Tuesday and Wednesday had been released the same evening. The men arrested on the Thursday were kept all night. They were herded together all night in one small room, which was without any means of ventilation. On the Friday morning the Chairman of the Town Council and two other gentle-
    1040
    men offered bail for these honest and respectable artisans. They were hurried and hustled away from the police barracks. You are very often asking for sureties in Ireland under the Statute of Edward III., but if a surety presents himself you chase him away with batons. On Friday morning a Castle Magistrate, Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald made his appearance in the town of Newbridge. Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald is a magistrate who has distinguished himself by hustling soldiers and counsel out of his Court, and when persons accused before him expressed discontent at being undefended, he commits them to prison week after week for contempt of Court. In the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork, his counsel (the hon. Member for Longford) was expelled from the Court, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork expressed his indignation at the plight in which he was left, the magistrate listened quietly on the Bench until my hon. Friend Had concluded. Then, after an absence of 15 minutes, Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald returned with an elaborate warrant, which he could not have drawn up in the time, and, in the exercise of a jurisdiction never before exercised, and never suspected to be in existence, he sent my hon. Friend to spend three months in prison. Well, the appearance of this gentleman in Newbridge, on Friday last, was signalised by a second baton charge. Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald entered the police barrack; the police sallied out with batons and attacked every one they saw; in point of fact, they acted as if the people were obliged to imprison themselves in their houses, and as if their presence in the streets was a crime. The next step was for the fourth successive day to despatch a party of armed police to Mrs. Kelly's farm; as soon as the police left the town a party of dragoons, 200 in number, marched from the barracks. They came, I assume, by the order of Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald. They were armed with carbines, and they marched with drawn sabres. They took possession of all the approaches to the town. They did not allow any one to pass in or out of that town; throughout the day locomotion was suspended; a funeral happened to come in the way, and they refused to allow it to pass over the bridge; the mourners had to go up the river bank until they came to

    1041
    a ford, over which they passed with some danger to their lives. How they contrived to get the coffin across I have not ascertained. The police meanwhile had proceeded to the farm. They found Father Kinsella, described as a dangerous person, sawing a plank. They arrested him and conveyed him to Newbridge. He was brought before Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald in the police barrack. His solicitor had applied for admission, and had been refused. The case was heard not in public, but in private. The magistrate refused. This gentleman, bred to official life in India, who would not be considered fit for any magisterial function in any part of Great Britain, is considered good enough to exercise very exceptional magisterial functions in any part of Ireland. The solicitor asked that at least one shorthand writer might be admitted to make a record of the proceedings and enable us to have some check on the system of falsehood that is continually applied to these reports in Ireland, but the magistrate refused to admit a solitary shorthand Writer. The affair went on in private. Now, I ask what was the charge against the working men? I need not ask what it was against Father Kinsella. I have read the text of the complaint. He was charged with defying and contravening the precept of Colonel Forbes, but the precept of Colonel Forbes was a precept of civil operation dependent on the ultimate decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, and it was directed to the tenant and not to Father Kinsella. It was a precept to show cause at Newbridge Petty Sessions, and before the case came before the Sessions, and before the determination of the question by the Court of Queen's Bench, the magistrate had Father Kinsella arrested for disobeying the precept. I say, that even if Father Kinsella had committed an offence in disobeying the precept, the course was to summon him for that disobedience, to cause him to appear before the next Newbridge Petty Sessions, and at that Petty Sessions, according to the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1860, the utmost penalty that could have been inflicted was imprisonment for a term not exceeding one calendar month. What course was pursued? The charge of disobeying the precept was heard in private in a police barrack. Mr.
    1042
    Vesey Fitzgerald came to no finding on the charge. Let it be legal or let it be illegal, let it, be valid or let it be invalid, Mr. Fitzgerald came to no finding on the charge, but he put it aside, and putting the charge aside, he turned to the Statute of Edward III., and under that—in reference to an act which, if it were an offence at all, was prosecutable, not before an individual, but before a Court of Petty Sessions, and if a Petty Sessions Court convicted was not punishable by a higher sentence than one month—under that statute, I say, this individual magistrate in private took it upon himself to call upon Father Kinsella to find hail himself, and to get two other sureties, to be of good behaviour. Because Father Kinsella refused to confess himself to be a rogue and vagabond by giving and finding bail under this mediæval statute —a statute long obsolete in England, and never at any time, in England or elsewhere, intended for use except against rascals of evil fame — because Father Kinsella refused to confess himself a rogue and vagabond, this gentleman, bred in India, sitting at a private police barrack, in reference to an offence only punishable by one month's imprisonment, sentenced that venerable and respected priest to go for a period of two months to Kilkenny gaol. He is in Kilkenny gaol at the present moment, and he will be there, I suppose, for the next month, if he can so long endure the ordeal. This is the extraordinary condition of society under the personal rule, as he is fond of calling it, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester. Father Kinsella, in this quiet town, in this quiet county, having been so arrested and condemned, was taken to a railway station by an escort of dragoons, and when the people assembled at the station and peacefully cheered their departing pastor, the third baton charge of that week occurred, and many persons suffered injuries. The first baton charge occurred when the police provoked it, the second signalised the entry of Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, and the third, occurred at the departure of the parish, priest. There remained to be dealt with the case of the 17 men arrested on the previous day and kept imprisoned in the barracks all night. These humble artisans—whose crime was that they were endeavouring to live,

    1043
    who were earning a day's wages for a day's work, the legality of which was beyond their capacity to settle—had been imprisoned all night and the succeeding day, when their cases came up to be dealt with. I should here state that the solicitor asked the magistrate if he would state a case for a higher Court in regard to the action against Father Kinsella, but the magistrate refused to do so. The creatures and instruments of this Act were not willing that their criminal pranks should be reviewed by any Court. Well, the magistrate took up the case of these 17 men. He refused to proceed with the hearing that day, deciding that the case should be taken on the day following. Late that night there was another riot, and 16 more men were arrested; so that, in order to prevent shelter being given to 70 poor people, old men and women and young babies amongst the number, the Government have arrested and sent to prison one respected clergyman and 70 or 80 blameless artisans. And, now, I come to a curious part of the case. On Saturday, Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald took up the adjourned case of the 17 men arrested on Thursday, and he was asked by the County Inspector to again adjourn the hearing—and let it be noted that those requests for adjournment and all those proceedings were ordered by telegram from Dublin Castle. On Friday a question had been asked in this House as to the nature of the charge against these men. Up to Saturday it had been disobedience to the precept. On Friday the batches of men arrested on Tuesday and Wednesday having been discharged, either with a caution or on bail, the magistrate turned away from the charge before him to the Statute of Edward III. and called on the men to find bail. Though the offence was one determinable by the Court of Petty Sessions, though the maximum penalty provided by law is imprisonment for one month, yet because these men refused to find bail they were committed by the will of this individual magistrate to prison for two months. On the Saturday occurred the change of front; the charge of disobedience to the precept was abandoned—the authorities seeing that if a charge could be maintained at all it could not be so maintained under that name— and the charge of "unlawful conspiracy"
    1044
    was made. On this charge these 16 men have been called upon to appear before a Coercion Court; that is to say, they are to be tried for an offence which the law declares to be not determinable by a Coercion Court but by a Court of Petty Sessions. Four batches of. working men have been treated in four different ways for precisely the same offence—if it were an offence, and I say it was no offence whatever—and after that I submit the question of the consistency and legality of the course of the Irish Government is one on which even the Member for Dover, in spite of his self-assured smile, would find it difficult to satisfy the House. I have laid before the House as definitely as I can the facts of this case. The events which I have referred to are events which have occurred within the last few days in a peaceful district of a peaceful county. The county of Kildare is a county in which the Sessional Judge and the Judge of Assize concur in congratulations to the people on the absence of disorder and crime. The last criminal calendar for the county, if I remember rightly, included just two cases, which were not cases which need alarm the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland as pointing to any danger or disorder. One was of uttering base coin and the other of petty larceny. But what evil lesson is being taught by the Government to that peaceful place? The people are being given to understand that the more peaceful, the more law abiding and patient they are, the more likely are they to be oppressed. I think it is the duty of the House and of the Members of all Parties in the House to put the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on his defence. He has been in the habit of boasting, lately in this House and elsewhere that the rule in Ireland is his personal rule. ["No, no!"] Yes, I have heard him within the last few days call the Government of Ireland "my rule," just as his subordinate, the late Viceroy of Ireland, used to call his Viceroyalty of Ireland "my reign." Discreditable as the fact may be to the House of Commons, the boast of the right hon. Gentleman is that his rule of Ireland is not the rule of the Queen or of the Constitution, or of the law as you understand it and respect and honour it in this country. His rule

    1045
    is that of a horde of unscrupulous, irresponsible instruments, who rely upon the favour of a Minister practically absolute, owing to the conduct of the majority in this House—who rely upon his favour not only to condone but to reward and applaud their worst excesses. I say it is the duty of this House to put the Minister on his defence, and whether this House discharges or disregards its duty, I think the people of England, unless I am very much mistaken—and especially at this moment the electors of North St. Pancras—will look with very particular interest to the judgment of the House upon the series of acts which I have detailed—a series of acts which, in my humble judgment, exceeded in lawless audacity the worst that has hitherto been heard of in the personal rule of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, in Ireland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that the Secretary for Ireland should be put on his defence. The Chief Secretary has not, so far as he is concerned, the slightest objection to the operation, but, on the contrary, he is always glad to have an opportunity of explaining face to face with those who intentionally or unintentionally — and no doubt the hon. Gentleman has done so unintentionally—"misrepresent the condition of things in Ireland. The speech of the hon. Member has travelled over a considerable amount of ground, and some of the observations he has made appear to me to be not altogether relevant to the issue that is now before us. He began by giving us an account of the unhappy condition of the tenants on the Clongorey estate; and I concede this much to the hon. Gentleman—that I believe the estate is a poor one, that the land is indifferent, and that, as invariably happens under these circumstances, the tenants cannot rank amongst the prosperous class of farmers in Ireland. But I fail to gather either from the speech of the hon. Member or my own reflections on the subject any ground whatever for basing on that fact the con-
    1046
    clusion that these persons should be allowed to break the law with impunity. Poverty may be an excuse for much. It is not an excuse for deliberate and organised illegality.
    MR. SEXTON: It is a reason, in my judgment, why the Government should not prevent distressed people from obtaining shelter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will deal with the question of shelter in a moment. I say that the shelter that these tenants are said to have required was owing to their having been evicted, and their eviction was itself the result of an illegal conspiracy started and fomented on the estate, by the friends of the hon. Gentleman. I fail to see that the poverty of these men was an excuse for their action, or that of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. These tenants were not rich or prosperous; but they were, at all events, well enough off to pay money into the campaign funds, and at the earlier stage of the conspiracy to offer to pay the agent, on condition that the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) was allowed out of prison. Those tenants have a right to their own opinion as to the legality or illegality, the justice or injustice, of the sentence passed on the hon. Member for North-Blast Cork; but I submit that if the legality or illegality, justice or injustice of a sentence passed by a Court of Law on any man in Ireland is a ground for some other men not fulfilling their obligations, the chaos which already exists in Ireland where the Plan of Campaign is in operation will not be easily mitigated. The hon. Member dealt with another question which I think irrelevant to the question before the House. He gave a version of the incidents which accompanied the destruction of certain houses from which the tenants had been evicted. I think the hon. Gentleman should have been more careful in his statement of the facts. I did not give police protection on the occasion of the destruction of the houses.
    MR. SEXTON: The police were there.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Policemen were there because there were caretakers there, and caretakers have to be protected by police men On account of the teaching which has always accompanied the institution of the Plan of Campaign. There were no policemen sent for the purpose of protecting the agent. The police were

    1047
    no more than were there under normal conditions protecting the caretakers, and they had no notice whatever of the proceedings which the agent proposed to take. While I absolutely repudiate every sort of responsibility for affording police protection in a transaction which I heard nothing of before it took place, I must add this general observation: that if landlords and agents in Ireland would take my advice they would be extremely sparing of ever using the methods that were employed by the agent on this occasion; but to say that the agent destroyed the property of the tenants is not to state the facts as they are. The tenants bad been evicted because they refused, in obedience to an illegal conspiracy, to pay their rents; and they having by their own fault been evicted under circumstances which prevented their taking the legal remedies which the House has provided for the protection of every Irish tenant in the improvements he has made on his holding, the holding belonged absolutely to the landlord. Whether, therefore, the landlord was right or wrong in destroying the houses, at all events he only did what he pleased with his own. The hon. Gentleman has stated that these tenants were turned out in consequence of excessive arrears being exacted from them; and he led the House to believe that they would have been ready to fulfil their obligations if the landlord had been prepared to make a reduction in those arrears proportionate to the reduction made by the County Court Judge in the rents. I have not a, full account of the transactions between landlord and tenant; but I have enough to show that that statement is not correct. I understand that last October, three years' rent being due, the agent offered to receive one year's rent, less 25 per cent, that being the reduction subsequently made by the County Court Judge in the permanent rent of those tenants. The hon. Member has quoted some statements made by the County Court Judge in respect of those tenants, implying that he thought the rents very much too high, and that the landlord was acting in a harsh manner.
    MR. SEXTON: And that the arrears should be wiped out.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can hardly believe that the hon. Gentleman has
    1048
    given an accurate version of it. As I understand it, there was a decision that there should be a stay of execution till January, and that the tenants should be allowed to remain undisturbed during that period; but that in January one year's rent out of three should be paid. January came, and the one year's rent was not paid. Therefore, I suppose we may take it that the County Court Judge, having all the facts before him, thought it was an equitable arrangement; but the tenants, acting, I presume, under the advice of the leaders of the Plan of Campaign, absolutely refused to accept the terms imposed by the Judge on that occasion.
    MR. SEXTON: The County Court Judge said it was impossible for the landlord to get those arrears; that the poor tenants had built the houses and reclaimed the land from bog; and that it was absurd to say that the tenants could pay.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But the County Court Judge ordered the tenants to pay one year's rent in January. The tenants have declined to carry out that arrangement. I come now to the action of the police and the magistrates. As I understand the indictment of the hon. Gentleman it consists of two parts. He thinks, in the first place, that the action of the police and the magistrates was harsh, and in the second place that it was illegal. The accusation of harshness rests upon the undoubted fact that those workmen were arrested and handcuffed. The hon. Member forgot to tell the House that the police had provided transport for the prisoners; that the prisoners refused to use it; that the police were inferior in number; and that the general condition of things in Newbridge justified the police in believing that a rescue might be attempted. I have more than once stated to the House my opinion that it is desirable to discourage absolutely the use of handcuffing except in cases where it is absolutely necessary, but that it must, from the nature of the case, be left to the discretion of the officer commanding to decide when it is necessary. I do not know a case in Ireland which has come to my knowledge in which the discretion has been abused. The next allegation of the hon. Member was that the police took the prisoners

    1049
    not by the shortest route but by a long and roundabout way, in order that they might have the pleasure of batoning the crowd. The hon. Member must have known that such a charge is extravagant to the verge of absurdity. It is perfectly true that the way which the police went was not the shortest, but it was by far the widest, best lighted, and most convenient; and there would have been no batoning if the inhabitants of the town had allowed the police to take their prisoners quietly before the magistrate. The hon. Gentleman told the House that one person lost his eye, and that another had his skull fractured. The information which I have received does not bear out that statement. I believe that two persons were injured; but, so far from one having lost an eye, or another having had his skull fractured, they were, I believe, going about next day. The third case of what the hon. Gentleman called brutality was with regard to the alleged action of the military in stopping a funeral. The hon. Gentleman said—and, I think, said truly—that respect should have been shown, or, at all events, that a large amount of licence might have been granted to a funeral going to a place of interment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the funeral was not going to the place of interment, but was coming back from it; and I think he will admit that simple statement of fact deprives his allegations on the subject of most of its point.
    MR. SEXTON: They had as good a right to come back as to go.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They had as good a right to come back as to go; but they went not by right but by favour. If they went through public streets, where the traffic had to be stopped for the purpose of preserving public order, they went not by right but by favour; and if they came back through streets where the traffic had to be stopped they came back not by right but by favour. The hon. Gentleman gave no reason why the favour should be extended to a funeral returning.
    MR. SEXTON: There was this special reason—that their homes lay on the other side of the bridge.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the slightest doubt that the funeral did desire to come back by the bridge. That
    1050
    is not denied; but the whole of that part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman was founded on this—that a dead body was in the funeral cortége.
    MR. SEXTON: I said I had not heard whether the corpse was there or not.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The phrase the hon. Gentleman used was that the funeral might be respected until its functions had been discharged. I apprehend that when the dead was buried its functions had been discharged. I pass now to the far more important question of the legality or illegality of the action of the police and the magistrate in the case. I understand that the first charge brought against the police was that on the first three or four days with which we are concerned arrests were made upon the precept under the Act of 1860 issued by the magistrate. On the face of it the precept entirely justified the arrests. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite will refer to the Statute in question he will see that it distinctly contemplates arrests. So far, therefore, there is no ground for complaint unless the arrests were illegal; and if they were illegal there is a summary method by which any such illegality may be punished. The arrests having thus been legally made under the Act of 1860, on the first day the men on being brought before the magistrate were cautioned and sent away, and next day they repeated the offence. The hon. Gentleman says that these labourers were; earning their bread; and he asked, were the labourers to be obliged to carry about with them a revised edition of the Statutes in order to see whether they were acting illegally or not? Well, every labourer in Ireland may assume that when he is brought before a magistrate and told his action is illegal, and further, that at the next Petty Sessions his case will be brought up for final decision, that if he persists in his action he is breaking the law. The hon. Member appears to assume that this precept has only a provisional operation, and has no binding efficacy until it is finally decided at Petty Sessions. But if the hon. Gentleman will look at the words of the Statute and the precept he will see that is not the case, and the magistrate in absolutely forbidding under the precept any further waste being committed was

    1051
    acting entirely in accordance with the law as it is now.
    MR. SEXTON: The labourers were osred to show cause. Does not that imply that the precept was a conditional document dependent on the decision of the Court?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am advised that the precept is not as the hon. Gentleman supposes — a conditional document, but an absolute document. Well, these labourers, having been arrested and having been cautioned by the magistrate, went back and repeated the offence, and, on that occasion they were bound over and let out. Some of them went back a third time, and for the third time committed the offence. Then they were bound over under the Statute of Edward III. Next, when they committed the offence a fourth time, they, or some of them, were arrested and brought before the magistrate, and they were summoned to appear before a Crimes Act Court for illegal assembly, of which, I presume, it is hardly denied they were guilty.
    MR. SEXTON: On the third occasion they were thrown into a cell and kept there all night, and finally they were sent to prison, under the Statute of Edward III.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The third time they were ordered to give bail, and sent to prison in default, and the fourth time they were summoned to appear before a Crimes Act Court under the charge of illegal assembly. What is the extraordinary criticism which the hon. Gentleman passes on this transaction? He says that for the same offence four different methods of procedure were adopted, and he bases on that an invective against the arbitrary and illegal government of Ireland. It appears to me that the action of the magistrate was the most merciful which could be adopted. On the first occasion, when the men might be presumed to be ignorant, they were warned and sent away. On the second occasion, when they must have known that they were committing an offence, they were discharged and summoned. On the third occasion they were bound over under the Statute of Edward III., and it was not until the offence was committed for the fourth time that they were summoned for illegal assembly. The hon. Gentleman has taken occasion
    1052
    to trot out ancient and somewhat threadbare observations upon the Statute of Edward III. He says that it is a statute obsolete in England, and only recently brought into operation in Ireland. That statement has been refuted over and over again. From the days of Edward III., down to 1890, that statute has been in constant use in England as well as in Ireland. [Mr. SEXTON: Against respectable people?] Against people who are expected to break the law. I will not compete with the hon. Gentleman in defining respectability. This Act of Edward III. is not obsolete; it is part of the common procedure of this country, and in Ireland there have been thousands of cases during the last 20 years in which it has been employed, and to say that we are taking down from some ancient armoury this rusty weapon of oppression is to misrepresent the best known facts of criminal legal procedure in this country as well as in Ireland. The last point which the right hon. Gentleman took exception to was the treatment of Father Kinsella. But it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the one great object of that gentleman was to be sent to prison. He was warned that his action was illegal, and he replied that he would persevere in it whether it was legal or illegal, and a man who publicly declares his intention of persisting in illegal action cannot complain if he is bound over to keep the peace. The hon. Gentleman alleges that the magistrate acted harshly in making two months' imprisonment the alternative to giving bail to be of good behaviour, because he says the maximum penalty for the offence was only one month. But what Father Kinsella was guilty of was unlawful assembly, for which, according to the law both of England and Ireland, the maximum penalty is not two months, but two years' imprisonment.
    MR. SEXTON: May I ask what was "unlawful assembly?" Was it disobedience to the precept, which says one month's imprisonment?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Father Kin-sella's offence was, I take it, open and violent defiance of the administration of the law, and a man declared guilty of persisting in an illegal course cannot complain if he is taken out of the category of respectable persons. I think I

    1053
    have now gone over most of the specific allegations of the hon. Member. Before coming to a determination in this case I would ask the House to bear in mind a fact which the hon. Member has not referred to—namely, that for three years the Plan of Campaign has been in operation on this estate. The hon. Gentleman told us that Kildare is a quiet county, and that Judges and Magistrates have exchanged congratulations on its peacefulness. No doubt Kildare as a whole is a quiet county. But in Kildare, as in other counties, there is an exception to be made in respect of those districts where the Plan of Campaign exists. There it is that you have this violent resistance to the law, there it is that you have riotous assemblies, there it is that you have the forces of the Crown brought into conflict with the people. The persons responsible for this are those who started the Plan, not those who oppose it. The hon. Member began by stating that in no other portion of the United Kingdom would such proceedings as these on the part of the executive be tolerated. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If day after day an illegal and disorderly crowd persisted in breaking the law, the law of this country would he strong-enough to keep them in order. Are we to be told that because the Clongorey estate is poor, and the tenants are not prosperous and have joined the Plan of Campaign, they are therefore to be allowed to break the law precisely to the extent they desire? It appears to mo that the magistrate acted legally when he issued his precept, and that that precept having been defied no action was open to the authorities but that which they took. I hope the House in voting upon this question will see that we are practically asked to say that the law may be broken with impunity when the law breakers are backed up by a powerful conspiracy, and that no heavier blow could be struck at the prosperity of Ireland.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I think there are few who have listened to the course of this debate who will be disposed to deny that the hon. Member who moved the Adjournment of the House was perfectly justified in the course he took, for it will be admitted that it was startling to have
    1054
    announced to the House that, under the circumstances which have been detailed, somewhere about 80 persons have been arrested, some at one period and some at another. Taking the facts as stated by the hon. Gentleman, and not contradioted by the right hon. Gentleman, it appears that there being a number of evicted tenants houseless and homeless on this estate, one of the tenants, a Mrs. Kelly by name, allowed certain alterations to be made in the out-offices attached to her farm with a view to giving some kind of shelter to these poor houseless persons. She was doing that upon a farm, which in point of law was her farm in part, and the landlord's farm in part, for it is too late in the day to deny that a tenant's farm is partly his and partly the landlord's. A number of men were engaged, and peaceably engaged, until the interference of the police, in doing what may, without exaggeration, be termed an act of mercy—erecting shelter for the houseless. Then someone on behalf of the trustees of the estate applied to the magistrate under the ill omened Statute of 18G0 for a precept forbidding such work. I do not desire to discuss this question in any narrow spirit of technicality, and I will, for the purpose of argument, admit that the grant of the precept was within the authority of the magistrate, and that under that precept the constable charged with the execution of it could lawfully make arrests. But I deny that the statute under which this precept was issued was ever intended to deal criminally with such cases as this. It was a gross abuse of the technical and literal powers given by the statute, to apply it to any such case. The Attorney General for Ireland will not deny that Section 35, under which the precept was issued, was aimed mainly at wilful waste on the part of the tenant—waste designed to injure and calculated to depreciate the property of the landlord. I will admit, for the purpose of my argument, that there was a technical right of arrest, but what was the moral justification for the arrest? What was there in the circumstances that would have rendered the ordinary proceeding by summons inadequate to the occasion, and how comes it that the force of police—it looks as if they desired to invite a conflict with the people—that the force of armed police went out for the purpose

    1055
    of making arrests upon the extensive scale they did? Now, let mo correct the right hon. Gentleman. He says Father Kinsella was charged with unlawful assembly. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the magistrate could inquire into that charge, and send a man to gaol for two months —[Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I never did say so]—or send him to gaol for any period? Did the right hon. Gentleman say that Father Kinsella was charged with unlawful assembly? Surely he did.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not intend to say so.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement of what he intended to say, but I beg to assure him he made the statement. The charge against Father Kinsella was, in the words of the precept, that he did, with the other defendants, "assemble on the premises of Mary Kelly for the purpose of proceeding with certain works, namely, the enlargement"—not the destruction or the committal of waste, mark you—"of certain out-houses." This was contrary to the precept, which laid it down that the defendants' proceedings were calculated to create a breach of the peace. Does that justifiy the proceedings of the magistrate? No, it does not. The offence charged is contravention of the precept, and J wish to know what power or authority the magistrate had to deal with any charge of unlawful assembly. Under the statute it is distinct and specific, after the service by posting of the precept, the punishment is one month's imprisonment and one month only. Ah! but why is this other proceeding resorted to? Because the magistrates know that when under such circumstances honourable men, men respected by their fellows, are called upon to give bail for good behaviour they regard it as a slur upon their character to which they ought not to be subjected. Therefore it is that resort is had to these proceedings, and this old Statute of Edward III. is misused for the purpose of inflicting a heavier punishment than the magistrate could otherwise inflict. The right hon. Gentleman says the Statute of Edward III. is in force in this country, and of course I know it is, but it has never been applied to such cases as these in England. Refer me to any case where a man holding a responsible position such as
    1056
    this gentleman did—I do not refer to the others for the moment—whose address was known, who had lived his life in the presence of his fellows, and was respected by those who knew him; tell me any case where in England a man in this position has been proceeded against under the Statute of Edward III. This statute has been often referred to, and it might be worth while to call attention to it more particularly. It would be useless to quote the old Norman French. This statute provides that in each county there shall be magistrates whose duty shall be to restrain offenders, and among other duties imposed is that of arresting all "pillers and robbers from beyond seas who have come again, and go wandering, and will not labour as they were wont." Also to arrest such as may be suspected of offences and are not of good fame, and who may be required to give sufficient surety and main prize for good behaviour. Now, I noticed there was one point in the allegations made of illegality in the action of the police and the authorities on the occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman has not adverted; I mean the breaking of doors.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I forgot that.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I say at once it is a criminal proceeding against the spirit of the statute of 1860, for there is no evidence of real waste of property, and it was an insidious method of preventing protection and shelter being given to these people. I say further, that if the arrests were lawful under that Act, they were not needed. It was a wanton disturbance of the peace to bring the police under such circumstances with such a show of armed force, when, names and addresses being well known, a summons would have accomplished the same purpose. The breaking of the doors under the circumstances was illegal. I do not know whether I differ from my learned Friends on this point, but I understand that the doors may be broken after first demanding admission and being refused, or when the person inside is under indictment or known to have committed treason or felony, or has inflicted a dangerous wound, or has escaped from lawful custody; or when a constable can hear that violence is being committed within the house a door may be broken to arrest an offender or sup-

    1057
    press an affray when the party within ref uses to open on demand. In this case there was, it seems to me on the facts stated, no power to break open the door, and in that particular there has been a violation of the law. Does anyone who has heard the right hon. Gentleman accept the justification he has offered for the handcuffing of this large number of men? I could refer to cases where actions have been brought in this country and heavy damages awarded against officers who, without full justification, of which a jury, and not a policeman, judged, handcuffed individuals unnecessarily, even when charged with serious offences. These are not small and unimportant matters, and are not so regarded in Ireland. For myself I feel little interested in discussing the mere details of what I conceive to be the despotic Government of the right hon. Gentleman. I confess I think it is to a great extent waste of time. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman may be good or it may be bad, but it is not a system which can long stand side by side with a Government supposed to be based on constitutional principles; one or the other must go. I have only discussed the details in this case because it is an instance of the absolute manner in which the right hon. Gentleman in every case stands by those whom he looks to for enforcing the laws, however brutal, however unfeeling their conduct may be, however much they may disregard the rights of private liberty. I say it is an instance, one of a great many we have had, and I think the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) for calling our attention to it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I will endeavour in the few observations I have to make to avoid discussing this matter in a narrow and technical spirit. The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a very broad issue which, to a certain extent, is an issue of law. He has referred to the Act of 1860, which he has called an ill-omened Act. It is not for me, and this is not the occasion, to criticise the Act of 1860. That Act has in its spirit been departed from in modern legislation, whether rightly or wrongly it is not for me now to discuss, but this I say, that the provi-
    1058
    sion of the Act now under discussion is as relevant to the relations between landlord and tenant now as on the day after the Act was passed. I mean the sections that provide the means of temporarily arresting proceedings complained of on the ground of waste pending the adjudication of a competent tribunal. But the broad question to which the hon. and learned Gentleman invites the attention of the House is this: he says, An Act of Parliament in this particular case has been wrested from its proper application, that it has been applied to what is not legally really and substantially within the conditions imposed by the Act. Now, with all the hon. and learned Member's research, I do not think he could have read the twenty-third volume of "Law Reports," Ireland, and if he thinks it worth while further to consider the question which has been raised by this Motion for the Adjournment of the House, I invite his attention to two particular cases in which he will find that the very action in question, the destruction or alteration of premises used as an agricultural holding by the erection upon such of what are popularly known as Plan of Campaign huts, has been decided to be a wilful and gross act of waste as between landlord and tenant. One of these cases was brought before not one of those inferior tribunals in regard to which we are accustomed to hear so many adjectives applied, but before the Court of the Vice Chancellor of Ireland.
    MR. SEXTON: One of the weakest Judges in the Empire.
    MR. MADDEN: One of these cases was brought before the Court of that most eminent and respected Judge, one of the most learned Judges on the Bench, the Vice Chancellor of Ireland. Another case was brought before the Court of the Master of the Rolls, and this last case was carried to the Court of Appeal. I do not know whether this phalanx of legal authority will be deemed satisfactory by hon. Members opposite, but at any rata it is the best that Ireland can supply; two Judges in Courts of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. If the persons who were defendants in the last instances thought that Irish Judges were affected by any kind of prejudice in regard to such matters nothing would have been easier for them than to bring their case before the House of Lords.
    MR. SEXTON: This was a case of erection of huts.
    MR. MADDEN: Alteration of premises by their conversion from a dwelling house with outhouses suitable for an agricultural holding into what are popularly known as huts. I do not think any lawyer will stand up in this House and contend that there is not a stronger case of actual waste if instead of erecting huts on the outskirts of a farm there is an actual conversion into dwelling houses of out-houses suitable for the occupation of an agricultural holding. Therefore, on the main question in which the hon. and learned Member challenges us, the decisions to which I have referred afford a complete and satisfactory answer. How does the matter stand? Allow me very shortly, and in plain English, avoiding technicalities, to tell the House what this precept means. It means that a Petty Sessions Court will be held on a certain day, and that the question of waste will come, before that Court for trial. Meantime, says the precept, you must stay your hand from the proceedings complained of, or if you refuse to do that, you must go to gaol. That is what the precept means. I do not know whether a similar proceeding exists in England. I have enough to do dealing with the laws of my own. country; but if it does, does anybody doubt that the Executive would interfere in England to prevent forcible interference with the magistrate's precept. The hon. Gentleman says there have been 80 arrests, and surely that very fact shows there was a large force brought together outside the workmen actually doing the act of waste, a considerable body of men who constituted in law an unlawful assembly committing this act of wilful waste. Is it to be supposed that the Courts of Law in England would be so weak as not to meet and punish in-stanter any such lawless defiance of the authority of a competent Court? There are plenty of remedies open to any person who feels aggrieved by an order made under the Act in question. It may be said that the Petty Sessions is not the best Court to decide cases of waste; and I am disposed to agree. Well, there is under the Act a summary procedure by which one of the superior Courts of Equity or Law can immediately be appealed to. The facts of the case
    1060
    amount to this—that with such remedies at command there was an unlawful and organised defiance of an order legally issued by a competent Court. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the Act of Edward III., and I notice that a laugh can always be raised in the House by quoting antiquated the phraseology of the Statute and the reference to "pillers and robbers," always gets a cheer from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman asks if this Act has been applied to such cases in England, I would ask him have such cases ever arisen in England.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I meant to speak of persons with known addresses and positions, such as those in question.
    MR. MADDEN: Of course I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's correction. I understood him to challenge the application of the Act to the classes of cases to which it has been applied in Ireland; but if he admits that it would be applied in England to such things as to which it has been applied by a long series of decisions in Ireland; for instance, to the non-payment of rent in 1882, by a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, to boycotting cattle and acts of that kind; if I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman admits that the Act can be applied to proceedings of this kind, I have nothing more to say on this subject. But I gathered from his allusion to the Act of Edward III. that he was contesting the application of the Act to that class of cases, rather than dealing with the comparatively trifling question of whether the offenders in this particular case might not have been dealt with otherwise if summoned. The case before the House, I would point out, is still to a great extent sub judice, bnt I must state that the institution of the proceedings is the action of the landlord, and is not due to the initiative of the Executive. The obtaining of the precept was the act of the landlord, for the protection of his private rights. The action of the Executive in the matter has been what it would have been in any other civilised country—namely, to prevent by lawful means an organised and systematic defiance of the law.
    MR. CLANCY: Those of us who are well acquainted with the cases that the right hon. and learned Gentleman

    1061
    has cited know that they are distinguished from the cases in which the House is now concerned. In the two cases before cited the point was not the enlargement of an out-house, but the erection of a large number of huts upon the land. In the first instance the erection of houses on the holding was decided to be a destruction of the agricultural character of the holding. In the case Steel v. Turner the special point was that the erection of new buildings on the holding was a breach of statutory conditions. I may also remind the House that a tenant may be restrained by the injunction of a Civil Court. The cases are totally distinct from the case under notice, which is the enlargement of a single out-house, which certainly is not a destruction of the character of an agricultural tenancy in any sense whatever, but is rather an improvement of the holding for the landlord. Moreover, the cases cited by the right hon. Gentleman apply to the civil remedies of the landlord; and the commission of waste is not a criminal offence, though, in the case before the House, the Government have made it a criminal offence. Beyond doubt this is a case to which the Statute of Edward III. was never intended to apply, and the Government have acted in defiance of the spirit of the law and the Constitution. Anyone who reads the 35th, 36th, and 37th sections of the Act of 1860, will see that they are intended in the first place to provide a civil remedy for the landlord, and if a criminal offence is established, it is proceeded with before two Justices in Petty Sessions, and, on sentence after trial, only a month's imprisonment can be inflicted. It is clear that proceedings ought not to be taken under the Statute of Edward III. A more flagrant and disgraceful misuse of the statute has never been proved, nor has any clearer proof been given of a criminal conspiracy between the Government and the landlords. The right hon. Gentleman spoke repeatedly of the violent conduct of the people arrested, but I ask, in what did the violence consist? Was there any violence in Father Kinsella's act of sawing a piece of timber? From beginning to end of the affair there was no trace of violence on the part of the accused, and the Attorney-General for Ireland ought to withdraw his imputation of violence, in order not
    1062
    to prejudice the case of the people before the magistrates. I appeal to him to do so. These people will come before Petty Sessions next week, and the magistrates will have the opinion of the Attorney-General that they have been guilty of violent conduct, and, I say, looking at that expression of opinion, and from whom it comes, the magistrates will feel coerced in their decision, unless the expression is withdrawn. But if the Attorney General has made an unwarrantable use of his position tonight, the action of the Chief Secretary in the matter has been simply disgraceful. He has used the words, "It will not be denied that these men are guilty," and after that what chance have the people when they come up for trial in a week's time? This is the most disgraceful utterance ever made in the House of Commons, though perhaps not unparalleled in the case of the Chief Secretary. We know when it was that month sentences began to be imposed under the Coercion Act, after the right hon. Gentleman's speech at Birmingham, in which he hinted at the inconvenience of appeals. This is not the only thing. The House will recollect that a funeral procession has been declared to-night to have marched along a public highway in Ireland only by favour of the Crown. I suppose the Chief Secretary's desire was that after the corpse had been buried the mourners should also bury themselves, as that would be a convenient way of getting rid of them. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman has been to exterminate—in conjunction with his allies the landlords of Ireland—all his opponents—political or otherwise. And now I have some information to give as to the Glongorey dispute. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Plan of Campaign was started on the estate by some friends of the hon. Member for West Belfast. The hon. Member for Cork and myself were the first to attend a Plan of Campaign meeting there. That was in 1887, and the meeting was not held till after the tenants had themselves resolved on adopting the Plan of Campaign, in consequence of the landlords' refusal to accept their terms. Everything had been arranged when we went down to the meeting, which was held in the presence of 200 armed policemen and half-a-dozen reporters. Why

    1063
    proceedings were never taken against my hon. Friend and myself for it has ever since been a standing mystery. On the second occasion on which the Plan of Campaign was brought into operation I went down before it was started, and I attended the meeting, at which it was resolved to again have recourse to it. The advice I gave to the tenants on that occasion was a warning to beware of what they were doing, and to be sure that they were in the right, because their conduct would be closely scrutinised in England, but when once they adopted the Plan they must stick to it. They must be sure that they had justice on their side. So much then for the charge that the Irish Members wanted the tenants to join the Plan of Campaign. But I may add in reference to my action with regard to the Clongorey estate that I regret nothing I have said or done; on the contrary, I am proud of it, because there never was a clearer case in which the tenants were right and the landlords wrong. The House has already been informed of the statement of a County Court Judge that this was a case in which the arrears ought to be entirely wiped out, and when the Chief Secretary told us to-night that the agent of the landlord offered to take one year's rent in settlement, he gave a complete misrepresentation of the nature of the offer, which was really to take a year's rent on account, leaving the arrears still standing, and the tenants in perpetual dread of eviction. The offer was not merely illusory; it was an insult and a mockery, and I should have been surprised if any body of tenants, however crushed or humiliated, could have been found to accept such terms. And to show how fairly the tenants on this estate treated the landlords, I may mention that not only did they pay this exorbitant rent as long as they were able, not only did they keep clear of combinations—criminal or otherwise— until they were forced into them by the action of the landlord himself, but it was their custom every year when the landlord had some work to be done on his land either to do it themselves or to pay men to do it. Their conduct towards the landlord was most generous; on the other hand the conduct of the landlord was marked by the grossest ingratitude on record. It was stated by the
    1064
    Chief Secretary, on the authority of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that the tenants refused to pay even the reduced rent until Mr. William O'Brien was released from prison. But is that authority worth accepting? I will give an example of the untrustworthiness of the hon. Member's statements. The hon. Member wrote to the Times that the valuation of the property on this estate was £800, while the rental was only £600; but the fact is the valuation is £555, while the rental is £1,009. The Attorney General has given the go-by to more than one of the statements made by the hon. Member for West Belfast. My hon. Friend in the first place referred to the brutality of the police on several occasions last week, and to the attacks made on the people in the county of Kildare, on many occasions since the beginning of the struggle on the Clongorey estate, attacks unparalleled for their wantonness and brutality. I will give but one instance, but I think it will suffice to show the nature of the attacks. As a brother of Mrs. Kelly was being marched to gaol, a sister walked by his side conversing with him, until one of the constables knocked her down. The district inspector gave the order to his men "If any one will not move on give them a dig in the ribs." The chairman of the Town Commissioners of Newbridge, a gentleman highly respected, was thus greeted by the inspector, "Go on now, you know what I gave you before." He was threatened not only with personal assault, but with a repetition of the month's imprisonment imposed on him on a previous occasion. The spirit which actuates this district inspector is the one which prompted Capt. Plunket's telegram "Do not hesitate to shoot," and which prompts the watchword of the Irish police of to-day "do not hesitate to swear." It is the spirit which induces the Chief Secretary to condone and defend every act of the police, however unjustifiable, and so long as he shows a willingness to do that we may be sure he will find willing instruments to carry out his orders. Now, I deliberately assert that these attempts to deprive evicted tenants of shelter constitute an abuse of a statute framed for a very different purpose, and if we could suppose that these things were to go on

    1065
    for an indefinite period, if these assaults and batonings were to continue, if we had no remedy in Constitutional agitation, then the only thing we could have recourse to would be insurrection. But it is the hope that we shall eventually got justice from the English people, the knowledge that these things cannot go on for ever, and that Constitutional means will suffice for the attainment of our rights, that induce us to keep to Constitutional means, and when at last peace comes it will be no thanks to you, for the preservation of peace is not your object. Your aim is to promote acts of violence, and I am only surprised that the people of Kildare have thus kept themselves within the law. Mr. Fitzgerald, the resident magistrate, conducts himself in a manner worthy of a Cadi sitting under a palm tree in the East. He holds his Courts and administers the law, sometimes privately, sometimes in the police barracks, and at other times in the open air, reminding one of some of the revolutionary tribunals of '98. I say it presents to the Irish people a mockery of the British Constitution, and is a public scandal. Both the right hon. Gentlemen opposite this evening have endeavoured to obscure the real issue. The Irish Members do not wish to argue the matter on mere technicalities; they are content to leave it on the broad facts which prove that landlords and the Government have combined to prevent evicted tenants from obtaining shelter, preferring that they should be on the roadside and die of exposure to the wintry weather. We intend to inform the electors of the country that a person who erects a hut for those who are homeless through being evicted, is to be treated as a person of evil fame, even though he be the clergyman of the district, and that he must give bail or go to prison. Men are now being prosecuted for performing the commonest duties of humanity, and they are being treated as felons. This is a simple fact which the people of England will be made acquainted with, and it will not be our fault if the authors of this policy are not made to rue the day when they adopted it. Finally, let me point out that in enforcing this misuse of the law the Government are employing agents who are distinguishing themselves in brutal fashion.
    MR. T. P. GILL: I think I should not be doing my duty if I did not point out a very remarkable admission made by the Chief Secretary this evening. He has practically admitted that the reason for denying shelter to the evicted tenants is that they have been tenants under the Plan of Campaign which he has for three years been trying to crush. We are now seeing the commencement on his part of a new crusade against the men whom he has hitherto failed to crush—that henceforth they are to be denied the shelter of a roof. The Attorney General has quoted a decision of the Vice-Chancellor in regard to a similar case to this. I have still another quotation to give him. County Court Judge Darley had a case before him in reference to the erection of certain huts on the Clongorey estate, but he decided that he could not interfere, as the building of the huts could not be looked on as "waste to the farm." His decision was, however, reversed by the Vice-Chancellor, and the County Court Judge in announcing that fact to his Court the other day, said—
    "On the equity side of the Court I was asked to grant an injunction, and to order the levelling of a hut or building into possession of which an individual had been put who was evicted from a neighbouring farm. I had serious difficulty in carrying out that strong power, because to my mind there was no charge that the tiling which was done amounted to waste or to such an injury to the property as to call for the interference of a Court of Law. But my decision was found fault with and brought to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor, who took a different view, and directed the case to go back in order that I should order the hut in question to be removed. I take it the Vice-Chancellor took a, general view of the proceedings, and held that they were in furtherance of the combination known as the Plan of Campaign. I am bound to act according to the view of the Vice-Chancellor, and if any case comes before me in which the proceeding is of the nature of putting up a building for the purpose of housing persons evicted from other farms—although it may not amount to waste or injury to the farm—I shall consider it a proceeding in furtherance of the Plan of Campaign, and it will be my duty to order the building to be levelled to the ground."
    Therefore, Sir, we have it in clear and unmistakable language that the crime in this case is not doing waste to the farm, or doing any acts which are technically considered to justify the interference of the law, but simply and solely the erection of the shelter for persons evicted from another farm. We are going back to the

    1067
    days of penal laws, and the only parallel I can call to mind is the law, which once prevailed in the Southern States of America, making it a crime to shelter a runaway slave. Just remember how these tenants are being treated. They are unjustly hunted out of the houses which they have themselves built; emergency men, supplied with hatchets and paraffin oil and protected by armed Constabulary, burn or level the buildings to the ground, and then it is made a crime to shelter the people who have thus been deprived of their homes. And all this is done because they have been numbers of a combination which every test applied to it proves to be just. It is the combination against which the Chief Secretary has hurled all the forces of his Coercion Act, but he has been humiliated and baffled by it, for he has not been able to-day to tell us of one single crime which has stained its history from the time of its starting in this very county of Kildare, nor has the Attorney General been able to point to a single act in the nature of a crime, according to moral law. I think we have arrived at a most extraordinary stage of the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary began by discussing a series of new crimes, and now in the fourth year of his administration, he is enabled to add another crime to his previous list, namely, the crime of sheltering tenants who have been evicted because they have adopted the Plan of Campaign. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before sitting down, if, having embarked in this course of procedure—if pinning his position to the judgment of the Vice Chancellor in the case of these huts, he intends to go on in the same way, and, in that case, where he thinks he is likely to stop? If it be a crime to enlarge an out-house in order to give shelter to evicted tenants, simply because they have been evicted under the Plan of Campaign—if it be a crime to aid such persons, where is the right hon. Gentleman to pause in the administration of punishment for this class of offences? The Vice-Chancellor has laid it down that the sheltering of those persons is a crime, because it is an act in the furtherance of the conspiracy. And we know, from what has previously happened, that it is also held to be a crime to give bread to
    1068
    evicted tenants. This being so, we have here a new principle of boycotting laid down by the Coercion Act, and the Government will now find it necessary to boycott all tenants who have come under the Plan of Campaign, treating them as pariahs in the land, and, consequently, refusing to give them either shelter or food. But I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he dreams he can by any such procedure intimidate the Irish people into abandoning these evicted tenants and leaving them without shelter or the means of existence, he must have learned very little from his three years active coercion. If there be one fact which more than another his experience ought to have impressed upon his mind, it is this, that so long as there exists, either here or in any other part of the world, Irishmen who have a single dollar or shilling in their pockets, so long will they assist in providing the necessary food and shelter for their evicted compatriots. The more the right hon. Gentleman brings his Coercion Act to bear upon these unfortunate people, the more will he find they are not to be intimidated from the performance of their patriotic duties by all the terrors of the Coercion Act. As he finds it now, so will the right hon. Gentleman find it to the end of the chapter, and although he may have to confess the deep humiliation occasioned by the defeats the tenantry have inflicted upon him, he will at length become convinced that he must go even still further in his iniquities before he will be able to strike terror into the hearts of the Irish people or induce them to abandon the Plan of Campaign.
    (7.5.) The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 196.—(Div. List, No. 8.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [12th February.] —[See page 128.]
  Main Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. A. THOMAS: Mr. Speaker, the people of Wales are dissatisfied with the condition of their affairs, and I do not think I shall have much difficulty in showing that they have cause for dissatisfaction. Ever since the annexation of Wales to England, it has been the policy of English Governments to Anglicise the Welsh people, and treat the country generally as if it were a corner of England, but after 350 years the people of the Principality are still distinct in race, language, and custom. Out of the 1,700,000 inhabitants of Wales over a million speak only the Welsh language; at the same time, I believe, above half the Welsh people are not capable of understanding conversation in English. Twenty years ago, when the Education Act was passed, I thought it would sound the death-knell of the Welsh language. I have lived to know better, and I say that, thanks to the enlightened policy of the present Vice-President of Education, not only English but Welsh is taught. I can very well remember that some 30 years ago, to use somewhat of a slang phrase, it was not thought by Welsh people in position the "correct thing" to speak in Welsh. Now, if a claim is to be established on popular consideration, one of the readiest ways is to speak in Welsh. The most successful men in the Principality, and the most eloquent, can speak with equal facility the English and Welsh languages. One of my principal reasons for bringing this question before the House is that great difficulty has arisen in the Courts of Justice because of many of the people of Wales not understanding the English language. I have here the Statute of 27th Henry VIII., cap. 36, enacted in 1536. It commences thus:—
  "Albeit the dominion, principality, and country of Wales justly and righteously is, and ever hath been, incorporated, annexed, united, and subject to and under the Imperial crown of this realm, as a very member and joint of the same, whereof the King's most royal Majesty, of mere droite and very right, is very head, King, lord, and ruler; yet, notwithstanding by cause that in the same country, principality, and dominion, divers rights, usages, laws, and customs be far discrepant from the laws and customs of this realm; and also because that the people of the same dominion have and do daily use a speech nothing like consonant to the natural mother tongue used within this realm; some rude and
  1070
  ignorant people have made distinction and diversity between the King's subjects of this realm and his subjects of the said dominion and principality of Wales; whereby great discord, variance, debate, division, murmur, and sedition have grown between his said subjects; his Highness, therefore, of a singular, zeal, love, and fervour that he beareth towards his subjects of his said dominion of Wales, minding and intending to reduce them to the perfect order, notice, and knowledge of the laws of this his realm, and utterly to extirpe all and singular, the sinister nsages, and customs differing from the same, and to bring about an amicable concord and amity between English and Welsh."
  It was further enacted that only the English language be used in all Courts of Justice, &c, and to interdict the enjoyment of every kind of office throughout the King's dominions to persons using the Welsh tongue on pain of forfeiture unless they adopted the English speech. Of course the latter part of this statute is a dead letter, but as far as concerns the language used in the Courts of Justice it is still the law of the land. Well, Sir, on many occasions we find great difficulties arise. Men are charged with high crimes and they do not know what transpires at their trial because of their inability to understand the English tongue. On the 19th March, 1889, Richard Evans, of Merthyr, was tried on a charge of wilful murder, and he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. The prisoner did not know what his sentence was, and, in his ignorance, he turned round in Court and said, "Am I to be hanged?" I will give one more case; it is rather long ago, it is true— the 24th January, 1888. I received a letter from the solicitor who was in the Court at the time. The case lasted for three days. The writer says—
  "I was present at Carmarthen Assize Court on the 24th February, 1888, when David Rees was seutenced to death by Mr. Justice Stephen for the murder of Thomas Davies on the 12th November, 1887. Every one in Court was simply amazed at the apparently indifferent demeanour of the prisoner when the dread sentence was pronounced. He was taken down, and then it was discovered that he had not understood that he was a doomed man. He asked the jailor in Welsh (he was a Welshman and understood scarcely a word of English) what was to be done with him. The jailor replied by asking him if he had not understood what the Judge said, and the prisoner said 'No.' The jailor thereupon hurriedly sent word to the Sheriff, who informed the Judge that the prisoner being a Welshman did not understand he had been sentenced to death. His Lordship at once returned into Court (he

  1071
  was about getting into his carriage, it being about 8.30 at night) and then was witnessed the most painful and heartrending scene it is possible to imagine. The Judge again repeated prisoner's the solemn words which sealed the doom, and they were translated."
  I have given these two cases, but of course there are many more recurring daily in the smaller Courts. It may be said—"Why do you not have interpreters?" We certainly have interpreters, and some of them work very well. I have a case which has been sent up to me by a friend, and I will give the House the details of it as a further illustration of my point. It seems that a Welsh farmer borrowed a sum of money from a bank on a note-of-hand, the arrangement being that he was to repay the money in three instalments. Well, when the last was paid the bill was passed to the farmer over the counter, and he went out of the bank. Subsequently, when the cashier made up his accounts, being so much short, he concluded that the mistake lay between himself and the farmer, and the latter was arrested. When the trial came off, the farmer was afraid to trust himself in the English language and asked for an interpreter, and now comes the curious part of the incident. The farmer said he paid the money and the bill was passed over the counter to him, but the interpreter translated it "snatched" across the counter. The foreman of the jury, who understood Welsh, objected to the interpretation, saying it was not correct. The case turned on that, and the farmer was acquitted. We are constantly hearing a great deal about interpreters in Wales, and there is much feeling on the point to-day, the present system in many parts of the Principality being strongly complained of. At the meeting of the Montgomeryshire Joint Standing Police Committee, Mr. A. C. Humphreys-Owen called attention to the necessity of securing the attendance of a competent interpreter at Quarter Sessions, and moved the appointment of a Committee to consider and Report on the best means of securing that object. He said everybody must have noticed the difficulty often experienced at Quarter Sessions and Assizes in the matter of interpretation of evidence given in the Welsh language. It was wrong in principle, he continued, that the police,
  1072
  who were more or less always regarded as connected with the prosecution, should be employed for the purpose. It appears that a rev. gentleman, named Ambrose Jones, in a certain case refused to be sworn as a witness unless he could give his evidence in Welsh, and he was threatened with prosecution for contempt of Court for his refusal. And here I would allude to a pronouncement which must have weight with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not say whether the rev. gentleman was right or wrong, but this is how a highly respectable Conservative journal—the North Wales Guardian—commented on the case:—
  "Although much abuse has been heaped upon the head of the Rev. Ambrose Jones, of Ruthl on, nothing more monstrous can be conceived than that magistrates speaking no welsh should have at their disposal the persons and property of Welshman who speak no English. In very many cases heard in Courts in some parts of Wales, the Court is completely at the mercy of the interpreter, and Welshmen ought not to rest content until this shameful scandal is remedied."
  I submit that this case discloses the existence of that which is nothing short of a national scandal. I hold that it is rank injustice that where three-fourths of the people speak Welsh, the business of the Courts should invariably be transacted in English. I know there are Judges who could hear cases in Welsh if required; indeed, some of them have already done so. It might not be right for me to give names, but I could do so if necessary, and show that when both parties had been n greed, the whole of the proceedings in a case had taken place in Welsh. We certainly ought to have Welsh-speaking Judges. Prisoners have a right to be tried in the language of their country. I would now refer, very shortly, to another aspect of this case, namely, the question of distress for tithes, and I maintain that the mode of distress is oppressive, while the amount of goods distrained upon is frequently greatly in excess of the amount of tithe due. Hon. Members opposite may find it difficult to accept this, but they are in the habit of forming their conclusions as to the condition of Wales, from reports they see in the English newspapers, and I must confess that if I had no other source of information than the English Press, I should also be inclined to look upon the Welsh

  1073
  as a lawless race. There have been certain tithe riots in Denbighshire, but in the very district where the disturbances have occurred, it has been the pleasing duty of the foreman of the Grand Jury at the Sessions to hand the Chairman a pair of white gloves. That I consider a good reply to people who complain at the lawlessness of the Welsh people. As to the manner in which tithe distraint is conducted, in the first place a summons is issued, then the sheriff's officer appears on the scene, and generally attaches all the crops of the farmer. Supposing there are four or five ricks, he goes and attaches them, and nothing more is heard of the case until some months afterwards—it may be five months afterwards—when the sheriff again appears. The farmer, in the meantime, has found it necessary to live, and to feed his cattle, and very rightly has used some of the hay. Action is then taken for pound breach. The Report of an Investigation Committee on this point says that distraints have been levied by agents of clerical tithe-owners, and that the cattle and goods distrained upon have been left an unreasonable time upon the farms; that action for pound breach has been taken against many farmers, and treble the original amount thus extracted from them; and that costs have been run up to an enormous extant—in one case over £98 having been paid in respect of a tithe claim which originally was £10 15s., in another case execution having been levied for £71 in respect of a tithe claim which originally was £6 17s. 6d. Other instances of exorbitant imposts and oppressive exactions are given. In one case, a farmer was sued for pound breach, whereas he had done nothing, and had never been distrained upon. In one case, that of John Thomas, Tyrhos, Cardigan, distraint was effected in March for a sum of £7 18s. 3d. due for tithe, two stacks of hay and one of barley being seized. In June, four and a half tons of prime hay, valued at £6 10s. per ton, were taken away, and no account of it has yet been received. The barley is still on the premises, and the farmer has, since the spring, been obliged to purchase fodder for his cattle. In the case of Mr. David Griffiths, Pen-Ian, Cardiganshire, the farmer concerned appeared personally to set forth his
  1074
  grievances. The amount due from him as tithe was £10 15s. 7d., and the goods seized consisted of one rick of hay, value £5; stack of hay, £10; and three stacks of corn, £24. The farmer put into consumption all the corn and part of the hay, nothing having been removed by the bailiffs. A writ was served on June 20th for £32 (that being treble the value of the original amount), under an allegation of "pound breach." The farmer consulted a solicitor, who wrote to the bailiff, and forwarded a cheque for the £10 15s. 7d., this being forwarded "in full discharge" of the original claim and costs. The cheque was accepted, and a receipt returned, and the cheque came back through the Clearing House in ordinary course, duly endorsed. The date of the receipt was June 26th. This money was paid before judgment could have been legally signed against the defendant in respect of the claim for £32. On August 18th, notwithstanding what had been done, the Sheriff entered upon the premises with a warrant for £81, and left a man in possession. The defendant, who has a large family, paid £88—the £81, with £7 costs—to pay out the execution, which he did under protest. So that he has paid £98 15s. 7d. in respect of a tithe liability of £10 15s. 7d. In another case, that of Mr. Evan Davies, Rhydwen, Crymmych Station, the sum due as tithe was £6 17s. 6d.; and, in February, distraint was levied on two cows. On the 21st May the farmer was served with a writ for £21 1s. 6d.; and because of the manner in which service was effected he considered that he was not duly served; therefore, did not consult a solicitor and take the necessary steps to resist the claim. Subsequently execution was issued against his goods for £71 7s. The Sheriff was in possession, but could not sell; and the defendant was most anxious to sell, for he wished to leave the farm, but was unable to do so because of the Sheriff being in possession. To show the amount of tithes due, and the amount of the distraint in this case generally, it will be sufficient to mention the following:—One year's tithes: David Evans, Brynllewelyn, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes claimed, £6 15s. 8d.; goods distrained, £60. David Jones, Esgergarn, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes, £1 14s. 6d.; dis

  1075
  traint, £38. Timothy Evans, Esger-fynwent, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes, £3 8s.; distraint, £100. D. T. Gilbert, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes, 8s. 5d.; distraint, £13 10s. Two years' tithes: Daniel Evans, Brithder, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes, £4 to £5; distraint, £15; distrained three times. Daniel Davis, Efynonygog, Gwernogle, Carmarthen, tithes, £3 15s. 6d.; distraint, £40.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that it is not competent for him to dwell on the Tithe Question, as it is the subject of a Bill in Parliament. Of course he can call attention to it in general terms as one of the grievances that Wales suffers from.
  MR. A. THOMAS: I will only add that if there is to be any change in the present law relating to tithes it can only be satisfactory so long as it is accompanied by a measure for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church. I regard my Amendment as a most moderate one, as, indeed, all proposals which emanate from Welsh Members are. We find that Ireland his in this House one law officer, and would possibly have two if the Government could find a seat for the second. Besides that, there is the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, and not even his worst enemy can say that the right hon. gentleman's post is a sinecure. The case of Scotland is almost more analogous to that of Wales, for she has a Lord Advocate, another law officer, and a Secretary for Scotland. The right hon. the Member for Mid Lothian, in his then capacity of Prime Minister, in 1884, speaking in reply to a deputation urging the necessity for the creation of a State Department for Scotland, said—
  "Although Wales has no separate Administration or representation of any kind in the administrative system of the country, it has many of the features and feelings of a distinct nationality, and within the last two or three years the claims of Wales for certain arrangements for its own benefit have been recognised both in laws and in administrative Acts."
  And the present Secretary for Ireland, speaking in reference to the same matter at Edinburgh, on January l6th, 1884, said—
  "It is not the measures that are most important that are passed, but the measures entrusted to the most important Minister."
  1076
  Hence, by similar reasoning, if we had a Minister for Wales we might reasonably expect better legislation, adapted to the wants of the Principality. Justice demands that some such plan as I suggest should be adopted in regard to Wales. Wales has always been loyal and law-abiding, and has ever stood by England in her weakness and in her strength. Whatever may be the fate of my proposal, certain I am of this, that sooner or later—I hope sooner—a proposal similar in terms to mine will be accepted.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of paragraph 16, to insert the words,—
  "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that more satisfactory arrangements for the administration of the affairs of Wales are imperatively required, and that a separate and independent Department of State should be created for the conduct of distinctly Welsh affairs, presided over by a Minister acquainted with the national characteristics of Wales."—(Mr. Alfred Thomas.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. P. MORGAN: In seconding the Motion, I will confine my remarks to the first part of the Amendment, namely, "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that more satisfactory arrangements for the administration of the affairs of Wales are imperatively required," and then I will endeavour to show that unless we get some such earnest of our individuality as we seek to obtain we shall have no alternative but to devise some other method by which our desires and aspirations can be realised. My hon. Friend has truly said that Wales has always been loyal. I trust it always will be loyal; but there are occasions when the angry passions of men rise to such an extent as to bring about disasters regretted by all classes of the community. I am told that the time was when an Irish Member getting up in this House found the Benches empty, as they are this evening; but now, if an Irish subject is before the House, it commands the whole attention of the House. That is what Irishmen have done for their country by agitation. I hope, as a loyal Welshman, that the Government will consider the very modest request that Wales has made. It seems to me that Wales has been the Cinderella of the

  1077
  sisters. She has been neglected in every conceivable way; but perhaps the fairy may come along, and Wales will take the lead, as Wales has done before, in the affairs of the Empire. [A laugh.] Well, Wales has taken a prominent part in the affairs of the Empire before, and I hope she will do so again. Wales is nearly unanimous in her desire for recognition. Of the 30 Members, 26 belong to the Party which at least claims to be the Party of Progress. I think the time has arrived when there should be some re-construction of our Constitution. Wales has claims for recognition beyond Ireland or Scotland, for there is no Irish. Member and no Scotch Member who can get up and address the House in his native language; at least they cannot carry on a debate or address their constituents in their native tongue, as many Welshmen can. Ireland has a Chief Secretary, and if it had not it might be in a far more disastrous condition than it is to-day. It is because I respect law and order that I sympathise with the Irish people, who have been the victims of this and every other Government. The Empire has grown too large. There are already 29 Parliaments sitting in the British Empire, which do the legislative work which this House, in my opinion, is unable to perform. We have no one to appeal to in such a case as the disaster which happened in Wales the other day. No doubt the Home Secretary gives all the attention to such matters he can, but still it would be more satisfactory if there were a representative of Wales seated on the Treasury Bench. There would then be someone to whom we could appeal in regard to the questions of the Disestablishment of the Church, the Tithes, and other matters with reference to the feelings that prevail in the Principality, and in order to bring about legislation beneficial to the country. England has five Universities, Scotland four, Ireland two, but Wales has no University. Degrees can be obtained in all the faculties in the other countries, but no degree can be obtained in Wales. Again, in Wales there are no learned societies which have a legal standing or which can give to the people degrees and other honours. Wales is certainly entitled to such a mark of recognition. Then there is no royal palace in Wales. In all the other parts of the Kingdom,
  1078
  even in Ireland, there is a royal palace The fact of the Local Government Bill being printed in the Welsh language by the Government is evidence of the necessity of some recognition of the Welsh nation. As special legislation for Wales we have had the Sunday Closing Act, and an Intermediate Education Act, which are also recognitions of Wales, and now we are asking for the1 Disestablishment of the Church, for a Tithes Bill, and other measures. Having this special legislation already granted, and desiring, as the Welsh do, further legislation, I maintain it is a very moderate request to ask that we should be recognised not as a separate nation, but as a part of the English nation having peculiar characteristics and peculiar aspirations. In asking for a Welsh Minister, we have a precedent in the recent appointment of a Minister of Agriculture. That Minister has been appointed just when the country has practically given up growing wheat, and about all he can do is to induce people to eat a few more vegetables in the shape of Brussels sprouts or something of that kind. I could have understood a combined Minister of Agriculture and Mines, who would have looked after everything relating to the land. Then we would have had someone to appeal to in reference to the sad disaster the other day, and in reference to all the mining difficulties which exist in this country; at all events we should have had some person who would advise the Government upon matters of far more importance than the mere growing of Brussels sprouts, and that sort of thing. What is the feeling in the Principality as to the point raised by the Amendment? It is that out of 30 Members, 26 sit upon this side of the House, and these 26 Members must necessarily be of one opinion. I take it that they are all of opinion that the country is entitled to recognition in the shape either of a Minister or a Separate Legislature. Let the Conservative Members too, reflect before they vote against the Motion, what may be the consequences if they vote against the Motion and determine that Wales should have no recognition either in the shape proposed by the Motion or by Home Rule which may be asked for hereafter if the request made in this Motion is not granted.
  MR. KENYON: I do not think the two speeches to which we have listened can be seriously meant. I regard them very much in the light of fishing inquiries, to find how far their colleagues and the people of Wales will go in the direction of what is called Home Rule. To use a vulgar expression, the hon. Gentlemen are waiting to see how the cat will jump. If my hon. Friends had exercised a little patience and waited another week they would have found that their speeches would have been more singularly appropriate to the festivities of St. David's Day than to the present occasion. I am rather curious to see how the Colleagues of my hon. Friends on the other side of the House will receive the Motion. I fancy they will, like a certain character, "smell the cheese but not put their noses into the rat trap." I admire the courage of my hon. Friend rather more than I admire his discretion, because I do not think there was any necessity for him to come to the House to ascertain what the feelings of the Welsh are upon this subject. He might have ascertained it easily enough if he had taken the trouble to be present at the meeting of the North and South Wales Federation, which I believe was held in Carnarvon this year. Upon that occasion there were great searchings of heart. I have not got a report of the meeting with me, but I remember that threats were thrown out upon the great Denbigh leader (Mr. Gee), and that the delegates were implored not to show their differences to the outside world, and the hon. Member for East Glamorgan was called in to pour oil on the troubled waters. My hon. Friend might, without coming to the House of Commons, have ascertained sufficiently the feelings of the Welsh people upon the question of Home Rule; that is to say, he might have ascertained it as far as this, that at any rate, whatever the opinions of some may be upon the subject, the opinions of Welshmen in the aggregate are not made up upon the matter. I thought we should have had from my ton. Friends an exposition of several national characteristics to justify the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but the deficiency of arguments in support of the Motion reminds one of the heading
  1080
  to a celebrated chapter on snakes in Hooker's work on Iceland:—"There are no snakes in Iceland." There are no national characteristics in Wales so distinct as to justify such a proposal as that made by my hon. Friend. The principal arguments relied on relate to the difference of language. That is, no doubt, a difficulty—particularly in regard to the interpretation of evidence in Court. But it is an exceedingly partial difficulty. Many parts of Wales are as English as England. In Radnorshire, for instance, you cannot find a man who can say "Dim Saesnag." In the mining districts of Denbighshire, and in a large area of Flintshire, the prevailing language is English, and the same may be said of Pembrokeshire, and of some parts of Breconshire and Montgomeryshire. The difficulty is, therefore, a partial one, and affords no reason for the sweeping suggestion made by my hon. Friend. In the matter of land tenure there is hardly any difference between England and Wales. I recently visited Derbyshire, and the Highlands of Scotland, and I would rather farm in any county in Wales than in the bleak and arid districts of Chats-worth. There is bad land in England and in Wales; there are bad farms in Wales as well as in England. I am told that 26 Members out of the 30 who represent Wales are in favour of this Motion, but I should like to see how many of them will follow my hon. Friend into the Lobby on this question. There is only one reason which might entitle the Welsh people to a different treatment and consideration from that bestowed on other parts of the Empire. The largest number of them are Nonconformists, and they think, and I think not altogether without some plausibility, that their difference of religion shuts them out from employment and possibly from consideration at Westminster. Well, I own that the Welsh may have some reason to think that their interests have not been sufficiently considered in some matters, such, for instance, as the Tithes Question. But still I hardly think that the Motion my hon. Friend has made, and the remedy he proposes, will give satisfaction to the Welsh Nonconformists, or promote the prosperity of Wales. I sympathise with national sentiment; it is a noble sentiment; but the proposition be-

  1081
  fore us is neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. It is marked by a narrow provincialism which may develop into Bumbledom or something worse. The hon. Mover can ascertain the real wants and wishes of Wales, and also the remedies which may best be applied to them. He can encourage the influx of English capital and intellect to assist the hard sound common sense of the Welsh, of which he is himself so good an example. If, instead of launching out into these vagaries, he would endeavour by these means within the pale of the Constitution to promote the prosperity of our common country, he will find both Englishmen and Welshmen on both sides of the House ready to assist him in his effort. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take what I have said in good part, and I will conclude by asking him, as an earnest of his repentance and the commencement of a better life, to at once withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I had hoped before rising to find some expression of opinion forthcoming from, the Treasury Bench, but as no right hon. Gentleman rose I feel compelled to intervene to elicit that expression of opinion. My two hon. Friends have made very interesting speeches, and have said a great many things that are perfectly true as, for example, that there are constant miscarriages of justice occurring in the High Courts from the ignorance of the Welsh language, and that the claims of Wales have not received that recognition which, as a distinct nationality, it deserves. As to the Amendment, I should like to see it cut in two. I am ready to adopt the premises of my hon. Friend without his conclusions. I do not suppose it will be denied that the affairs of Wales, with one single exception, have been neglected. On that exception I am willing to lay all stress. I refer to Welsh intermediate education. I wish to give the Vice-President of the Council full credit for having done his best with this important and, on the whole, exceedingly beneficial Act for Wales. But having done this I am afraid I must stop. Take one of the questions upon which Welshmen feel most keenly, the Disestablishment of the Church. On this question —as the hon. Member for Denbigh has admitted—there is practical unanimity among Welsh Members. Look at the Divi-
  1082
  sion List on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea last year, and you will find that out of 30 Members for Wales 25 voted in favour of, and only three against the Motion; and if that is not practical unanimity I do not know what is. If there is any strong feeling the other way there was a splendid opportunity for displaying it in the Mid Glamorgan election, occasioned by the lamented death of my late friend Mr. Talbot. The Conservatives had six weeks to select a candidate and they scoured the country for the purpose. At last they chose a certain Mr. Mortimer, but he ran away as soon as he got to the constituency, and no doubt showed his wisdom, for if he had stood the result would have disclosed the nakedness of the land. For two years my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) ballotted to get a day for this most important subject—this burning question for Wales, and not only did he fail to get facilities from the Government, but they actually took away from him the day which the chances of the ballot had given him, and he could only avail himself of the fag-end of a Tuesday evening. And now the Government meet our demand for a Disestablishment discussion by the promise of a Tithes Bill. That seems to me very much like asking for bread and getting a stone. But when I come to the second part of the Amendment I must part company with my hon. Friend. We have heard a good deal about Home Rule for Wales lately, and I am afraid we shall hear a good deal more of it if a deaf ear is turned to Welsh claims. Now, Home Rule may mean a great many things, but it does not mean this Amendment. The hon. Member for Denbigh was quite wrong when he said this movement was in the direction of Home Rule; it is quite in an opposite direction. As regards Home Rule, this Amendment is a distinctly retrograde movement ["No, no"]. I am speaking only as regards the question of Home Rule, and I will show my hon. Friend who says "No" why it is retrograde. It is not in the direction of decentralisation but of centralisation. Of course it has been said there is a precedent for the establishment of such a Department of State. We are reminded that for five years the Scotch have had a Secretary of State; we know that for a considerably longer

  1083
  period, for 90 years, Ireland has had its Secretary of State. It is said, and I admit with perfect truth, that on the whole the claim for nationality on the part of Wales is at least as strong as that of Scotland or Ireland. [An hon. MEMBER: It is more so.] More so. In one respect our claim is stronger than that of Scotland, we have a separate language, while Scotland has only an accent. As regards the claim of distinct nationality then we have as good ground as Scotland or Ireland; but I should like to ask hon. Members from Ireland what benefit their country has derived from the establishment of an Irish Secretary? In the event of this Motion being carried, and a Secretary of Wales appointed, there is only one gentleman whom the Government would think of appointing, and that is the Postmaster General. I have the greatest possible respect for the administrative abilities of the right lion. Gentleman, but I cannot help thinking that the same qualities and the same opinions which entitle the right hon. Gentleman to the confidence of the University of Cambridge would not entitle him to the confidence of the Principality of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman is as strong a Party man as there is in this House—I do not object to that, I like a good strong Party man—but we are bound to look at the matter from all sides, and I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman was appointed principal Secretary of State for Wales his efforts would be directed to setting the Church of England on its legs and doing all he could to depress and discourage Dissent. Would my hon. Friends be satisfied with that sort of recognition of the rights of Wales? For my part, I am bound to say—while wishing to avoid anything personal—that so long as Government is carried on upon Party lines we must have for the moment a Party man, who will do the best for his Party, and we are face to face with the fact that the Party opposite is represented among Welsh Members by four Members as against 26 on this side. Though I do not yield to my hon. Friends in the desire to see the just claims of Wales recognised I should prefer something like the proposal made two years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvon, that Welsh
  1084
  measures and Welsh questions should be referred to a Standing Committee mainly composed of Welsh Members. Still more should I desire that the County Councils, which are thoroughly patriotic and representative popular Bodies, should be formed into a sort of Grand Council for Wales, with legislative or quasi-legislative and administrative powers in regard to exclusively Welsh questions. I cannot help hoping that my hon. Friend will not press his Motion to a Division. It has produced a very interesting discussion, and I should be sorry to see the Welsh Members, who upon most questions are so united, present a divided front on this subject. Therefore, I venture to hope my lion. Friend will be satisfied with what has taken place, and withdraw the Amendment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The speech which has just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman brings out very plainly the contrast there is between the Resolution on the Paper and the arguments we have heard advanced by the Mover and Seconder. I do not think that any of the arguments advanced by either the Mover or the Seconder of the. Amendment really support the creation of a fresh Administrative Department for Wales; and the right hon. Gentleman has just stated that the creation of such a Department, presided over by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, and conducted on principles consonant with the views of the present majority of the House of Commons, would give no satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Welsh people want the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, the foundation of a Welsh University, and changes of that sort, but these are matters of policy and not of administration, and it is quite obvious that the remedy for the grievances of hon. Members opposite is a change in the majority of the House. You cannot expect to get from the present majority changes which they regard as mischievous in the highest degree. The interesting facts laid before the House by the Mover and Seconder really did not touch the question of admistration. The hon. Member for East Glamorgan animadverted in nounfriendly

  1085
  sense upon the administration of justice; he thought it was not satisfactory because it was not conducted in the Welsh tongue. I hope I have not misunderstood the hon. Member. [Mr. THOMAS expressed dissent. Then I was wrong; but I understood him to say, at all events, that two men had been sentenced to death, and did not know the nature of the sentence until they were informed by a friendly Welsh attorney. I understood him also that there had been bad mistakes in interpretation, and especially in one case, in which the difference was between the snatching and the voluntary handing over of a Bill, which might have seriously affected the result of a particular action. Again, I understood him to complain that it was sometimes necessary to have recourse to the police to interpret. [Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer that complaint; but I have known of cases in which both parties have desired that the police should interpret, as they were most reliable and faithful.
  MR. A. THOMAS: I took no exception personally to the police acting as interpreters. In my own experience, for many years as a magistrate, they have done so very satisfactorily. But I mentioned cases which had come to my knowledge where mistakes were made.
  Me. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member, then, was stating not his own opinions, but the opinion of anonymous prisoners. At any rate, the only inference we can draw is that he desires that proceedings in the Courts of Justice should be in Welsh.
  MR. A. THOMAS: Not totally so. I say I think it is a great injustice that a man should be tried in his own country in a language which is not his native tongue. I do not wish the proceedings in Courts of Justice to be conducted wholly in Welsh; but I say the prisoner should have the option of being tried in his native tongue.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The substitution of Welsh for English in the proceedings of Courts would require consideration on grounds which have not been named, for the change would exclude from Welsh trials English Judges and nine-tenths of the English Bar. The present Lord Chancellor, when at the Bar, for a good many years assisted justice in Wales to the universal satisfaction of the inhabi-
  1086
  tants, and he appeared to possess the confidence of Welsh suitors, who availed themselves of his services, although he could not speak Welsh. Therefore, the suggested change would involve disadvantages to suitors as well as advantages. In Welsh causes and cases there must be many English witnesses, and their evidence would have to be interpreted, possibly by the police. Again, there might be complaints of imperfect interpretation. Another topic which the hon. Member dwelt upon was that of tithe distraints, and he complained of various matters arising out of excessive distraints; but I do not think I need go into details, because the arguments obviously led up to the declaration that the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales could alone give peace and satisfaction to the country. As to the allegations of excessive distraints, the law provides a perfectly good and sufficient remedy without setting up a Welsh Minister. The case of Scotland has been referred to; but there is no analogy between the position of Wales and that of Scotland. I cannot say that, personally, I viewed with any particular enthusiasm the creation of the office of Secretary for Scotland; but still there was a good deal to be said for a Secretary for Scotland, a country which has different laws and institutions from those of England. There are differences in law and administration affecting Poor Law, lunacy, education, and fisheries, and a separate administration was convenient; but no such differences exist in Wales, which on these points is in complete identity with England. The administrative work of a Secretary for Wales would practically be nil. I have inquired what amount of correspondence relating to Wales takes place in the Home Office. The year 1889 was one of feverish activity in Welsh affairs by reason of the tithe disturbances, and yet the number of letters received at the Home Office from county and borough officials in Wales was only 209, while the communications at the Scotch Office amounted to 50,000, so that the volume of business was a sufficient justification for administrative division. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the creation of a Welsh Secretary would gratify national feeling; but I do not see how Welsh national feeling is to be gratified by the creation of a useless institution, or how

  1087
  Welsh Members are aggrieved by the fact that they have an equal right of appeal with all English Members to all the Ministers in the House. The Home Secretary is as much a Minister for Wales as for Sussex or Hampshire. It can hardly be expected that a Welsh Minister could have a seat in the Cabinet, and therefore Wales would hardly gain in this respect by having a Minister of her own. They must not expect the present Ministry to go with them in their views about Disestablishment, or on the tithe question, because these, as I said before, are matters of policy. But every Member of the Cabinet is as much bound to attend to Welsh affairs as he is to English affairs, and speaking for the Home Office, I am not conscious of the slightest difference in the mode of dealing with Welsh and English affairs. No one could desire more than I do that the traditions and the literature of Wales should be cherished; but why should that load to an administrative change which would be awkward and clumsy? I submit that no reason whatever has been adduced for setting up a method of administration which is reactionary, which would be of no good to anybody in Wales, and which nobody in Wales really wants. If the friends of the hon. Member get into power they will be able to pass those legislative changes which they so much desire, and the want of a Welsh Secretary will not prevent their doing so; while, on the other hand, if hon. Gentlemen opposite do not succeed in turning out the Party now in office, the fact of having a Welsh Secretary would in no way help them to get what they desire. There is really nothing in the absence of a Secretary for Wales which ought to aggrieve or cause any pain to sound sensible Welsh feeling, and therefore, I think that this Motion ought to be rejected.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. CUSTINGHAME GRAHAM: I wish in—
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
  MR. SPEAKER: There are 40 Members present now.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I wish, in moving the Amendment which I have put on the Paper, to call the attention of the House to the fact that this is not, in my opinion, a Party question. It is one which will meet with as much opposition from a section of the Liberal Members of the House as it can possibly do from the Conservative side of the House, and the reason is not very far to seek. These legislative restrictions, which I hope will shortly be imposed on labour by international effort, will place political parties on their proper basis—a position they are rapidly assuming in Germany; they will divide them into two parties—the workers being on one side and the middle classes on the other. Whether that is a consummation devoutly to be wished for is a point on which I will not trouble the House. You, Sir, have rightly no doubt confined the discussion within narrow limits, and consequently I am precluded from entering on certain aspects of the case, while a Bill brought in by an hon. Member dealing with an important branch of the question also prevents me touching upon that particular subject. But the limitation, I am thankful to say, enables me to make out the strongest possible case for legislative interference with adult labour, for that case is to be found in the aspect of internationalism. I suppose it is incumbent on me to show that there is some demand for legislative interference not only in this country but in the colonies as well as in Europe and America. It is often said that there is no real demand for it from the working classes in Great Britain; and hon. Members will get up and say that they have conversed with the most intelligent of the working classes among their constituents, and have found that they are opposed not only to the measure, but even to the discussion of it. And that is not to be wondered at when one knows how these conversations are conducted. Enthusiastic meetings are held on the Irish Question, at the end of which a few words are said on the Labour Question by hon. Members who themselves stand in opposition to the interests of labour because they are themselves employers. One can easily imagine the nature of the conversation on the exposition of the eight hours question from an employer's point of view.

  1089
  The hon. Member says to the intelligent workman—"My good man, there is a fellow called Cuninghame Graham, and there are others also, who wish to restrict the hours of labour and to prevent yon making good terms for yourself. If you wish these restrictions to be imposed on your labour, I suppose that I, as your Member, must vote for the Bill; but if we reduce the hours of labour you cannot reasonably expect to receive the same wages for eight hours as for ten." And the working man, who perhaps has worked for the Member ever since his boyhood, and who fears he may be thrown out of work if he expresses a different view, says, in reply—"Well, no; if my wages are going to be reduced I not think I am in favour of it." And thou when he leaves the men and meets his pal, the latter says—"Well, Jack, what did lie say? "the reply being, "Oh, the same old game. The Irish Question first; and we don't want to enter into any question of interfering in the relations between capital and labour." A proof that there is a demand in the country for legislative interference with adult labour is to be found in the increased support the movement is receiving in this House. Many more hon. Members are now pledged to the principle than there were a year ago, and this change is alone due to the pressure of their constituents. At every bye-election, too, we find both the candidates rushing forward to support the principle; for political honesty after all is an undetermined quantity. The growth of the demand is equally apparent abroad, for foreign delegates at foreign Congresses vote for legislative interference. It is well-known that when the question was first brought before the Trades Union Congress at Swansea three years ago the delegates of the working class expressed many of them marked disapproval of it. When it was put to the vote only eight delegates were found to have the courage to record their opinion in favour of it. But at the Congress at Dundee last year, in spite of the fact that there had been a delicate and skilful manipulation of the votes when a, plébiscite was taken, it was found that the votes in favour had increased to 68, and there was only a small majority against the Motion. Surely this affords some slight indication
  1090
  of the increased demand for legislative interference with adult labour. I am pretty certain I shall get the votes to-day of many lion. Members, not because they approve the principles I am advocating, but because they know their constituents will withdraw their confidence from them if they place political questions higher than social ones. Some of the trades were represented at the Conference, and some of them were not able to send delegates. It is, however, a matter of notoriety that the battle of the dockers, in which some 60,000 or 70,000 were more or less engaged, was fought primarily on this question of hours; and it ensued in this: that 62,000 men had their hours of labour reduced fron 10½, and in some instances 11½, to eight hours. It is the opinion of the men who conducted that agitation, that in order to enable them to maintain an eight hours day the restriction should have the confirmation of Parliament. I think we may take it as a tolerably conclusive fact that there is a deep-seated desire on the part of the workmen generally for a restriction of the hours of labour, and that this demand is one which is not got up by agitators, and those who speak at street corners, but has been enforced by the accredited delegates of the great Trade Unions, who have represented it to be the wish of the men on whose behalf they spoke that their case should be laid before Parliament with a view to legislative action. Let me now turn to the case of the bakers, among whom there has lately been a severe agitation, not only on the part of those employed in this trade in London, but also on the part of those employed in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and other places; and what has been the result? Why, that their hours of labour generally have been reduced to the extent of some 30 per cent. They wore united and almost unanimous, although perhaps not quite so unanimous as the gas stokers, in desiring to see that the practical outcome of their agitation, obtained by their own unaided efforts, should be confirmed by legislation. Within the last four or five months another agitation has been going on by the railway men in favour of a general restriction of the hours of labour. The right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. J. Morley) seems to differ from me, and to think that it is not the wish of the Executive of the

  1091
  railway men that the 10 hours a day which they are asking should be confirmed by Act of Parliament I am informed that their wish is as I have expressed it; but it is a question, on which it is easy to satisfy oneself, and if on further information I find I am in the wrong, I will tender an apology to the right hon. Gentleman. We have also had the tramway men uniting and agitating for a reduction in the hours of labour, and responsible men at the head of their Union tell me that they would not object to seeing the 10 hours a day, which they are claiming, confirmed by Act of Parliament. It may be argued that this is only a 10 hours question; but surely the principle remains in both cases; and if the Legislature makes up its mind to granting a 10 hours day, it may also on the same ground pass a measure adopting a day of eight hours. It has been objected that this sort of legislative interference would have the effect of driving trade from the country, of reducing the national output, and destroying the profits and capital of the employers. I have always held, both in this House and out of it, that the employers take far too great a share of the national means, and that a larger portion of the wealth created by the men, whether in railways, mines, factories, or any of the other industries, might equitably be given to labour, and that if this were the case trade would not be driven from the country, but a fair margin of profit might still be left to the employers. But if it be argued that by restricting the hours of labour we shall drive trade away from the country, I think I shall be able to show that in some industries at least this would not be the case. It will also be incumbent on me to try and show that the demand for legislative interference is as great in other countries as it is in this. It is often said, and with some show of reason, that it would be impossible for us in this country to maintain our commercial superiority if we were to shorten our hours of labour, because some foreigners are in the habit of working longer hours and are in receipt of smaller wages. All I have to say on that point is that if we are to engage in a mere race of production—if we are to urge our workmen into a sort of universal sweating struggle with other
  1092
  nations as to which can produce articles cheaper than the others, simply in order that the employers may realise great fortunes, I, for one, have no hesitation in stating that I am not greatly concerned in the result, whether the proposed reduction enables us to maintain our commercial superiority or whether it does not. But I think I shall be able to show that not only are we not the country in which most has been done to shorten the hours of labour, but we are a country in which, if we do not bestir ourselves, longer hours will be worked than in any other European country; certainly much longer hours than are now worked in America, Australia, and most of our colonies. If I succeed in making out a case on this point I think I shall have gone some distance in removing the scruples hon. Gentlemen now entertain in regard to this, to me, very plain, but to them most tortuous and difficult question. Now, what is it I am going to ask the House to do? I am not asking the House to pledge itself now and for ever to a cast-iron Eight Hours Bill, rendering it impossible for any man in any trade whatever to work more than eight hours a day. That, I admit, would be a most unreasonable proposition, and one for which I do not think the great bulk of the working men in this country are prepared. What I am putting before the House is a proposition of very different import. I am merely asking the Government, for the honour of this country and the welfare of the working classes, as well as for the national credit as a community of national reformers —because, let an Englishman be a Conservative or Liberal he always claims to be an international reformer—not to place the British representatives either at the Berne or the Berlin Conference in a different position from that of the representatives who will attend to speak on behalf of other Powers. I put it to every man in this House as an Englishman, as a man who respects and loves his own country, whether he can calmly contemplate the idea of the representatives of this country, which hitherto has constantly been showing the way in every reform, social and political, having to take a back seat among the representatives of the other European nations? I think

  1093
  hon. Gentlemen can easily imagine the sneers that would be indulged in by the foreign representatives when, having entered upon the discussion of the important question of an International restriction of working hours, the British representatives felt called upon to retire and leave the foreign delegates to carry on the discussion by themselves, It is for this reason that I have placed my Amendment on the Paper; it is because I hope to show the House there is not only a demand in this country, but a similar demand in America, and in all our Colonies, for International legislation on the subject that I desire Her Majesty's Government to take some cognizance of the invitation addressed both by the Swiss Republic and the Emperor of Germany to Great Britain to unite with the other Powers in considering this important question. It is a fact, which I think is corroborative of my argument, that we are now finding municipality after municipality, Town Council after Town Council, inserting eight hours' provisions in their projected local legislation. What, I ask, is the action of the London County Council on this matter? I believe there are Members of this House who have the honour of holding seats in that assembly, and I ask them whether on every occasion on which questions such as these have come under their discussion strong expressions of opinion have not been given in favour of the insertion of eight hours' provisions in the different local Acts springing from that Body? Gentlemen who have studied the question know that the largest Trades Union in the world is that of the Amalgamated Engineers. That Society has ramifications throughout the three Kingdoms, and if there is any combination that can do anything for the men belonging to it it may well be supposed to be that combination. Well, what do we find to be the case? That Trades Union, which comprises some 655,000 members, sent to Paris last July two delegates, in the persons of Mr. John Burns and Mr. Evelyn, who were instructed to vote for the eight hours day. Those delegates carried out their instructions in the same manner as the other delegates, and it must be remembered that they represented a class engaged in what is well known as skilled labour, and quite as
  1094
  capable of knowing their own wants and wishes as any Member of this House. I believe, Sir, I should be precluded by your ruling from even alluding to the vote of the Trades Council at Dundee with reference to the Bill introduced in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lanarkshire, and, therefore, I will not trench on that ground; but may be permitted to say that the Resolution was voted without one dissentient voice by the delegates present, and was subsequently confirmed by the 365,000 miners whom they represented on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Morley) grounds his objections to this proposal, more than anything else, upon the difficulty of regulating labour in this country when there is no demand for it in other countries, and the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has busied himself with some observations in the same sense, a similar attitude having been adopted by the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) who is not now in his place. I will endeavour to deal with the question in an International sense, and to some extent I am able, from personal observation, to afford information on this matter to the House. I was myself sent as a delegate to the International Labour Conference in Paris last year; there were practically two Conferences there. But taking the two Congresses as one they formed a complete body of nearly 1,000 working men. The discussions which took place led one day to the passing of Resolutions in favour of the International limitation of the hours of labour, and those Resolutions were practically passed unanimously. It is often said that our working classes do not wish to join the foreign working classes because their modes of procedure are different. I naturally expected that I should hear some blood and thunder and terrible speeches when I attended the Conference, but Spaniard, Italian, German, Frenchman, and American, made precisely the same class of speech that you listen to in your Trades Union hall or Radical Club on Saturday evening. They complained of the long hours of labour, and of the women of their various countries being engaged in occupations unfit for them

  1095
  They said—"Our employers grow rich and we remain poor; we are half-starved; we work long hours; we come to this Congress to get an expression of the opinion of the working classes of Europe and America upon the most important and vital of any questions with regard to which we can assemble together." While this Conference was sitting, an International Congress of Miners was being held. There was not one dissentient voice in that large representative Congress when the proposition was put that the question of an eight hours day of labour should be made the subject of legislative interference, and we find that during the last few months there has been an extensive strike of miners, and their first demand has been legislative interference in favour of the eight hours day; and similarly in the Austrian Dominions, and in the Belgian coalfields. Surely, these men know their own affairs better than any Member of any Parliament. I find I have received an ally where I least expected to find one—the German Emperor, whom no one will accuse of being revolutionary or Socialistic. His Majesty, for reasons which I do not presume to analyse, has chosen to make a most remarkable pronouncement; it may be for an ulterior motive, but I am quite content to take it on trust, and be thankful for assistance from an unexpected quarter. Far more significant is the return of 21 Socialist Members to the German Reichstag—men who belong to the Socialist Party, to which I belong myself. The first plank in the platform of these representatives is that the working day should be ristricted to eight hours. The increase in. the Social-democratic vote shows that the demand for legislative interference in the question of an eight hours day is assuming proportions far greater than perhaps hon. Members are aware. I find in a Return of three years ago that the total democratic vote was 93,000. I find last week it had risen to 116,000. In 1887, the total social-democratic vote throughout the German Empire was 774,000. I find that last week it had risen to almost a million—an increase which my colleagues and friends, Messrs. Bebel and Liebnechf, attribute almost entirely to their advocacy of the restriction of the hours of labour, because they
  1096
  have by so doing placed before the German people a tangible plank on which men of many sections can unite, instead of losing themselves amidst vague vapourings and talk of hypothetical revolutions. I wish to bring before hon. Gentlemen, and especially the Members of Her Majesty's Government, that other Legislatures have also been called upon to deal with this question. It is not two months ago that the subject of an Eight Hours' Law was introduced into the French Chamber, I need hardly say it was negatived, though it received a modicum of support, clearly showing that it shadowed the minds of the electorate of the country. In the Legislative Chamber of Holland, too, an Eight Hours Bill was introduced, though it met with a fate similar to that of the French Bill. I have received a letter from a friend in the Belgian Chamber this afternoon enclosing his speech on the introduction of a Ten Hours' Bill, which met with the fate of the Dutch and French Bills; but I presume my friend would not be deterred from introducing an Eight Hours Bill, if it was conclusively proved to him that it was desired by the working classes of the country that such a law should be introduced. I wish now, Sir, to turn to the aspect of the question in America and in our Colonies. In some of the States of America Eight Hours' and Nine Hours' Bills have been passed. In Connecticut and Pennsylvania there are special agitations in the State Legislatures to introduce the eight hours' day into those States. In those States the hours are 8½ and 9. [An hon. MEMBER: And 10 and 12hours.] That does not in any respect affect my argument. I have received letters from the leaders of the trades in those States, saying that they were applying to the Legislature to have the eight hours day confirmed, because they feel that the frequent occurrence of strikes was driving away trade and deteriorating their own social position. It is precisely because I agree with these men as to the extreme undesirability of strikes, and because of the enormous waste of energy and capital which they entail, together with the danger of social turmoil, that I advocate this International legislative restriction of the hours of labour, by which these consequences would be avoided. Turn

  1097
  ing to our own Colonies, I find that in Canada, a Royal Commission, has recently been appointed; and it has sat and delivered its Report upon the relations between capital and labour. The Commission has unanimously reported in favour of a nine hours day. I do not know whether the Canadian Government intends to take up their recommendations, but I do know that there is a keen agitation amongst the workers of Quebec for an eight hours day, and there is an equally keen agitation amongst the workmen who already work eight hours to have a confirmation of the system by the Dominion of Canada. By the authority of Sir C. Dilke I find that the workers in Cape Town, Grahamstown, and other towns of the colony are forming eight hours leagues. They are instructing their Members to introduce Bills into the Colonial Parliament, asking for the same for the working classes in South Africa as has been asked for in Germany and France. In the Australian Colonies it is a matter of public notoriety that eight hours is the normal day. In Queensland, a Bill was passed through the Lower House of the Legislature to fix the normal working day at eight hours. It was rejected, naturally, by the vote of the Upper House, just as if we passed a Bill in this House it would be met by the factious opposition of the hon. Member for Northampton, and also by noble Lords who sit in another place. I have what I consider to be much stronger evidence than this in the Colony of Victoria. I find it has become the practice in that colony for Local Authorities to insert an eight hours provision in all the contracts which they enter into. In January of last year, in passing a Tramways Act, the Parliament restricted the hours of work to eight per day. And these are not rash assertions. Anyone can verify them who chooses to do so; and if I have been wrongly informed in what I have stated I shall be in the position of Hamlet—I shall receive my shame and the odd bit. But if I am right I think I have proved conclusively that the foolish terror which exists in this country with regard to the legislative restriction of the hours of labour does not exist in Germany or France or America, and certainly not in our Australian Colonies. In New Zealand eight
  1098
  hours is recognised as the normal day; but the workers of that colony are not satisfied, any more than those in the other colonies, with, this general recognition, and are beginning to instruct their representatives to bring before their Parliament propositions for the restriction of the hours of work. If, therefore, concurrently with the agitation which I have endeavoured to show exists in this country there is one going on in Australia and America, surely all honourable and fair-minded men who wish to do justice to their fellow-countrymen will do what they can to remove the load of toil which is crushing our working classes in many instances to the ground. They will, I think, see that this international movement affords ample opportunity for meeting the wishes of the working classes. By coming to the aid of the large class who are overstrained and overworked the House will atone for many injustices in the past; and I plead on behalf of those who provide us with our hats, our hosen, our food, and even our seats in Parliament, that we may adopt the principle of restricting the hours of labour by international agreement or at least authorise our delegates to be empowered to discuss it. I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: In seconding the Amendment, I desire to say that, in consequence of the protracted length to which the debate on the Address has extended, I shall confine my remarks to a narrow compass. [Ministerial cheers.] Well, if the debate has been protracted it is because the administration of right hon. Gentlemen opposite offers so many points of criticism. But in justice to myself and my constituents I must say that though I accept implicitly the terms of the Amendment I by no means concur in the general terms in which my hon. Friend has supported it. I am by no means satisfied that there does exist a sufficiently large demand on the part of our working population for an eight hours day, or any other limit, to justify Parliamentary interference. I have made inquiries in well-informed quarters, and this is the result. Among the Lancashire cotton-spinners the preponderance of opinion is against the eight hours movement. Among the

  1099
  engineers there is a great difference of opinion.
  MR. GRAHAM: MY hon. Friend will not deny that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers gave instructions to their delegates at the Paris Conference on the subject. Those delegates were Messrs. John Burns and Evelyn.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I am not drawing my inferences from what took place at that Conference, but from entirely independent sources of investigation. At the same time, I am decidedly of opinion that the main objections which are urged against legislation for the limitation of the hours of labour, and notably the objections urged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), are not at all sufficient or conclusive. The stock argument used is that combination among the working classes is able to produce the desired result. Certainly, I have heard that in my hon. Friend's own constituency in Lanark the miners, who are in a much less organised condition in Scotland than in this country, have been able by combination to obtain—certainly in the neighbourhood of Hamilton—a reduction of the working days. It seems to me that it is quite open to the Trades Unions throughout the country to combine to secure an Eight Hours Bill if they please. I would like to observe, however, that in certain trades combination, is an absolute impossibility. In small isolated industries, or branches of industries, combination is impossible; and I know of one case recently where an attempted combination af the kind ended in disastrous results to the persons employed. It has been urged as a very serious objection to the proposal that the margin of profit secured by capital at the present time is very small in certain trades where the foreign competition is very marked. I think there is great force in that argument. If you take the cotton trade in Lancashire at the present time you find the margin of profit is very small; and if you were by a compulsory law to reduce the hours of labour there the result would apparently be that the manufacturers would be unable to carry on their production in competition with foreign countries. The object of the Amendment is to see whether we cannot by some international movement reduce the hours of labour so that a
  1100
  particular industry shall not be injured thereby. It is not an unreasonable request to make of the Government. It has received, in principle at least, the co-operation of the great German Empire. It has received the friendly recognition of, I think, most, if not all, of the great Powers of Europe; and there is no doubt a growing feeling among the working classes of this country that it is desirable to establish some more legitimate and fair apportionment of the hours of toil than at present exists among our principal industrial trades. I notice that the noble Lord opposite (Lord R. Churchill) has dealt with this question. I unfortunately did not receive from his speech on the subject the light and leading which I had a right to expect. He intimated that he was inclined to entertain the question favourably. What we want is not empty rhapsodies in favour of this proposition, but solid argument to show what we can accept and what we cannot.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of paragraph 16, to insert the words—
  "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the increasing desire of the working classes in Europe for legislative restriction of the hours of labour renders it desirable that this subject should be discussed by the representatives of this Country who are to be appointed to attend the International Conference on Labour Legislation at Berne or Berlin."—(Mr. Cuninghame Graham.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend has the inconvenience which attaches to all Amendments to the Address, which are not intended to challenge by a direct Vote of Censure the existence of the Government. It forces discussion upon the House under exceedingly inconvenient conditions. The Mover of the Amendment more than once intimated that he was confined in his remarks because important parts of the question were fixed for discussion in this House. That was a reason for not moving it at all at a time when it cannot be properly discussed. I have been a little puzzled since I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who so ably did not second the Amendment. Had I not known that he would be perfectly inca-

  1101
  pable of any such artifice of the Bar, I should have thought he had risen for the purpose of damaging the case of the Amendment as much as possible at the very earliest stage of the discussion. I would point out to the House that we do not know at present—or I do not think we do—that there is to be any Conference at all at Berlin which will deal with the question of the hours of adult labour. No doubt the Mover of the Amendment is much better acquainted with facts that have not happened than I am; but he must pardon me if I express a doubt as to the accuracy of his information respecting what the German Emperor meant by the language he used.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: The limitation of the hours of labour was one of the first subjects in the programme of the Berlin Conference put before the public by the newspapers.
  MR BRADLAUGH: I am afraid the noble Lord has not given the subject that attention which he usually bestows upon matters, for though the rescript is hardly capable of that construction, there are limiting words addressed by the Emperor to his State Council which are capable of an absolutely opposite construction. Until I have some official information on the subject I prefer not to commit the House to a declaration as to something which is to happen at the Conference at Berlin—a Conference as to which I understand no official invitation has yet been addressed to Her Majesty's Government, and certainly none has been communicated to the House. The matter is now, according to the newspapers, before the Council of State on the invitation of the Emperor, and some of the questions to be considered will, if they are considered, prevent any dealing with the hours of adult labour at all. As to the Conference at Berne, I understand from the usual sources of information that the Swiss Government, in the declarations they have issued respecting the hours of labour, have not dealt with anything but the labour of women and children. I notice that the world "adult" is omitted from the Amendment, and I am not sure what the Mover of the Amendment means by that omission. Indeed, I am not sure that he knows what he means himself, because on a previous occasion he said he would not be so unreasonable as to
  1102
  prevent any man working more than eight hours a day.
  MR. GRAHAM: What I said was that I did not propose at present to come before this House and ask for a cast-iron Eight Hours Bill, and that I merely asked the House to empower the delegates sent to the Conference to discuss the question.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Of course, I should not press on the lion. Member words which he did not mean to use; but I thought I heard him say—and I took it down at the time—that he would not be so unreasonable as to prevent any man working more than eight hours. As the hon. Member did not mean that—
  MR. GRAHAM: Or say it.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Or say it, I must apologise for the defectiveness of my memory. But I do not understand the phrase "cast-iron" Bill. Either it means eight hours or it does not. If it is more, then it is not eight hours; and if it is eight hours, why then it is eight hours. I object to language being used to people up and down the country which means one thing, and when the speaker is tackled about it is found to mean something else.
  MR. GRAHAM: I will explain to the House what I did mean.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I must really object to the hon. Member's interruptions.
  MR. GRAHAM: I have been accused with using language which means one thing at one time and another at another.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Mr. Speaker—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Mr. Cuninghame Graham.
  MR. GRAHAM: What I meant was this: I did not wish now, even if I had the power, to pass a Bill which would prevent people working more than eight hours. I wished to apply a Bill of the kind, by steps, to miners and workers in Government workshops, and then to trades and industries throughout the Kingdom which should declare themselves in favour of it,
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I am afraid that we are now much in the same place. Miners and Government workmen are shut out of the discussion to-night, because of other notices standing on the Order Book, and I do not know what is meant by proceeding

  1103
  by steps in the restriction of the hours of labour to trades and industries throughout the Kingdom. I would ask the House to note how excessively necessary it is to be careful on matters of detail. The hon. Member said that of the delegates who attended Paris one represented a Trades Union which numbers 650,000 members. The number of members of all the Trades Unions registered in the country—and the majority are registered—is nothing like that. The Trades Union of which he spoke is a very powerful one, and I think it has some 46,000 members. If you have to knock 600,000 odd off such a number, it shows that it is possible to have some carelessness of statement. Now, Sir, I trust that I have the interests of working men of this country at least as much at heart as any other Member. I have always been in favour of shortening their hours; but I have never been in favour of ruining their industries. The hon. Member said that one of the delegates at Paris was sent to represent that powerful Union, the Amalgamated Engineers. Well, he only claimed to be sent by one branch of the Union, namely, the London branch.
  MR. GRAHAM: I wish to explain. I am aware that there is no Trade Union that has 600,000 members. I must frankly confess that I made an error in the figures. I took one figure for another, and read 600,000 for 60,000; and I apologise to the Hous3 for making the mistake. As to my statement about the representation of the Amalgamated Engineers at the Conference, all I can say is that Mr. J. Burns, whom I have seen this evening, was my authority, and Mr. Burns distinctly told me that the delegates represented the entire engineering trade.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I will leave it there, only saying that, as far as my information goes, the delegate just mentioned represented his own branch, and his own branch alone. These, however, are matters of detail so trifling that one would not deal with them in this House were it not that they form part of the general exaggeration which characterises the statements made on this subject. With regard to the wording of the Amendment, I do not think it is, or ought to be, the duty of any Government to send representatives of this
  1104
  country to a Conference to discuss possible law-making in which they have no intention of taking part, and which they may intend to oppose. I thoroughly and heartily approve of the position taken up by Lord Salisbury last year: that, while willing that a discussion should take place on various topics expressly stated in which representatives of this country should join, there were two matters to which only vague reference had been made—the restriction of adult labour and the question of output—which our representatives should not be empowered to discuss. Unless the Government wilfully means to fetter this country in its industry, it would never be mad enough to give our representatives any power of discussing the restriction of that marvellous output which has carried this country so far in advance of all other nations. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that there were countries, such as the United States, where such laws, as he proposes are already in force. For my own part, I think it would have been fairer to the House if the hon. Member had utilized the Parliamentary paper laid on the table last year on my Motion and had told us that there are several States in which eight hours is the normal day except, when otherwise agreed, and others where overtime work is to be paid for as extra. But there is overwhelming evidence in the Report of the Commissioners of Labour that in none of the States have these laws been enforced, and the percentage of eight-hour day labour is less than it was 50 years ago.
  MR. GRAHAM: Quite true.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The hon. Member says quite true. If so, he should have told it to the House, instead of referring to matters which instead of telling for the Amendment, as he wished the House to believe, told against it. What does eight hours mean? Take the textile trade. The hours in that are about 56½ per week. Are you going to reduce them to 48 hours, giving the same pay for 48 as for 56½ hours? [Mr. GRAHAM was understood to dissent.] I wish you could be restricted now, if you will permit me to say so. I feel the need of asking some indulgence of the House, and I hope I may ask the indulgence of my hon. Friend. I hope he

  1105
  will permit me to complete my poor argument in any own way, because it is a subject on which I neither wish to make jokes or to administer rebukes. We owe something to the Labour Statistical Department of the Board of Trade for the information given by it; and I hope that in future all Returns will give the number of hours worked in different trades in this as compared with other countries. The hon. Member did not say whether the men whose hours were restricted to 48 were to receive only 48 hours' wages, nor did he explain how the margin of profit would enable anything else to be done, especially as in the textile trades there is said to be no sufficient margin to bear this increase. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment suggested that we should negotiate with other co an tries to keep ourselves in the same position of advantage as that in which we now are. This show a confidence in the generosity of other nations which we have not always shown to them. Do you think that the men will consent to have their pay reduced? The case of the Mover of the Amendment is that the working men are so badly paid now that life is unendurable. Are you going to take an eighth or a sixth off their wages so as to make their life still less endurable? The hon. Member said that there was, or ought to be, a margin, and that if not it did not concern him, even though the manufacturers were driven away. But if the manufacturers go the manufactures go to. It is a question of giving enough employment to a population which, crowded in big centres, sometimes becomes unmanageable when misled by thoughtless enthusiasts, who tell them that the Government should find them food and clothes. I do not know that it would be at all needful to address the House at any length on this subject, because the Mover of the Amendment has been demolished by his Seconder, were it not that I have some suspicion there are statesmen who look with favour on the hon. Member's proposal. The noble Lord (Lord R. Churchill) is entitled to rank among the statesmen of this country, and he is looking with a sympathetic eye, and perhaps with some slight favour, on the movement. In Germany the looking at the question with some slight favour has led to playing
  1106
  with it on the one hand, and repressing the movement on the other. The poor wages, the long hours and the terrific burdens of the great populations of Europe, seem to me to be due more than anything else to the pressure upon them of exaggerated armaments, which diminish the purchasing power of the wages earned by the working men, and take away a large number of men from the circle of producers, making them only consumers. One of the best courses we could adopt, if it were possible—which I am afraid not—would be to preach to the nations of Europe not to have their peace establishments higher than their war establishments used to be. It is said that in Great Britain there is a demand among working men for the restriction of the hours of labour by law. I deny it. I do not deny that there is some demand; there are demands for everything. I deny, however, that there is a general demand. I regret that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has alleged that there has been skilful manipulation of figures at the Dundee Conference. The hon. Member is well aware that out of more than 300 Trades Unions making returns to the Registrar—and there are some that are not registered—only a very small minority took any pains to vote at all, showing that the bulk of them were indifferent to the expression of any opinion upon the subject. Although Circulars were sent out to every Trade Union, only a very few replied; certainly 250 did not reply. I think that in fairness this should have been stated to the House. My own means of judging the opinion of working men has not been limited to conversations with my constituents after speeches on the Irish Question. I hear the hon. Member say that he did not specify me; but certainly there were certain allusions to factious opposition on the part of the junior Member for Northampton. I know they were kindly meant, or not meant at all. Well, both internationally and nationally for the last 25 years of my life, outside the Trades Unions—for having, I am sorry to say, never learnt a trade, I never had the right to belong to any Trade Union—I have mixed in these questions at least as much as any living man in this country;

  1107
  and I say that, even if the Trades Unions were unanimous on this subject, which they are not, you must remember that the bulk of the labourers, skilled and unskilled—I am sorry for it—do not belong to any Union. Although I cannot speak in the same familiar way as the hon. Member of the leaders of popular movements abroad, I have come across a good many of them, and amongst them M. Yves Guyot, the French Minister of Public Works, and he has given me an entirely different view from that stated by the hon. Member of the feeling in France on this question. I would ask the House to judge of the accuracy of the hon. Member's statements by one little instance. He told us that last year there were in Paris two Congresses on trade matters, but that they were practically one. Well, that is practically just what they were not. They were practically two. They would not work together, or do anything together. They both voted, for what?
  MR. GRAHAM: For an eight hours day.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: For an eight hours day for everyone? Well, that would put an end at once to the textile industries of this country. It would close at once some of our best foundries; it would close the bulk of those great works that have placed England in advance amongst the workshops of the world. It is not friendliness to the poor man to propose what you are proposing. His wickedest enemy could not do worse, for you are proposing to render impossible the industries in which many men gain their livelihood. Nor is it true that the working man's lot is unendurable, or is becoming more unendurable. There is distress, too much distress; long hours, too many long hours; but the hours are far shorter than they were when I was a lad—far shorter than they were when I commenced to be active amongst the people. The people's homes are better in the majority of instances. It is perfectly true—and I admit the great difficulty surrounding the fact—that in a huge collection of population such as you have in London you get extremes of poverty and misery that are appalling. But your eight hours will not touch that. It has nothing whatever to do with it.
  1108
  You talk of hypothetical revolution, and you tell us accurately enough that in the Marxist Party, to which you belong, this Eight Hours Question is one of the first planks. One of the features of the Marxist policy approved by the hon. Mover was the destruction of the bourgiosie. But these are vain words, or wicked words, if they are words which really mean that you can destroy one class in the interest of another in any civilised community at all, much less that you can do it here. I know more both of the workmen and their employers than the hon. Member. It has been my good fortune to hear many men of different trades speak well of their employers, and to hear them speak sympathetically of the difficulty in trade crises of carrying on large industries in which large amounts of capital are sunk. It is perfectly true that by some happy accident, or by some skilful enterprise, an employer occasionally amasses an enormous fortune; but that is the exception and not the rule, and many an owner of mills, or an employer who is engaged in some other great branch of manufacture, has to watch with the greatest care the narrow margin which enables him to conduct his business. If Parliament wore to sanction such a proposal as this, it would mean that we can regulate the conditions of labour, and regulate them better than they can be regulated between employer and employed. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Atherley-Jones) to suggest that whatever in combination the men may be able to effect between themselves it is open to Parliament to secure by process of law. My hon. and learned Friend is a good lawyer, but he is a bad legislator if that is his view. It has been urged that sanction of this kind given by Parliament helps to form public opinion. It is no part of the duty of Parliament to form public opinion on this question. It is the duty of Parliament to legislate for the prevention of crime, to prevent frauds of all kinds, to protect the weak, where they needed protection, against injury from the strong. It is the duty of Parliament to legislate where the conditions are such as to endanger life or limb. It is not the duty of Parliament to interfere between employer and employed in the conduct of their own

  1109
  business. Neither is it true that this proposal involves an international question capable of decision by an international law. The standard of comfort differs in various countries; the wages are not the same, and values are not the same. I am in favour of shorter hours of labour; but I do not believe that any Statute Parliament can pass will have the effect of shortening those hours. The hon. Member (Mr. Cuninghame Graham) referred to the Returns relating to this subject in America; but he did not quote from it, and very wisely so, because he would have had to quote exactly the opposite to what he told the House, and the test is easy, the Return is on the Table. In the Library there is that magnificent volume on Work and Wages, which forms part of the last Census Return of the United States of America; and in the Reports of the Commissioners of Labour published by the most advanced and most settled States, there is evidence, over and over again, from the men themselves that the law has failed to shorten their hours of labour that combination has done it. In one case—in the Federal Law—and in several of the State laws there has been an enactment that men should only work for a certain number of hours a day. The men themselves have rebelled against that because it shortens their wage by one-fifth per day, and they absolutely made arrangements to break the laws by making enactments for hour labour instead of day labour. They engaged to work for periods of hours at so much per hour, with special stipulations to evade the law which it is said they are so anxious for. I do not think the hon. Member dealt quite fairly with the House. He talked about eight and eight and a half and nine and nine and a half hours of labour in European countries. He surely must know, if he has taken the pains to read the Return laid on the Table of the House to which I have referred, that there is no country in Europe in which the average hours of labour are as short as those he has quoted. He must know that even if there are compulsory laws, as there are in one or two countries, those laws are evaded with the connivance of the working men. This proposal will, in my opinion, have a most de-moralising effect upon the labouring classes. Let the working men encourage a spirit
  1110
  of self-reliance, and settle their hours of labour for themselves. Parliament cannot make backbones for men who have not got them, and to legislate for the weakest and most helpless would discourage the strongest and most vigorous in the continuance of their efforts they have hitherto made, and which have advanced this country before the other nations of the world. What is the real object of these plans for the restriction of the hours of adult labour? Restriction of output. What does that mean? It means that we shall stimulate foreign endeavour in every case where foreign nations have access to raw material —and I know no case in which we have a monopoly of it—we shall stimulate them to drive us out of every foreign market in the world. If that is what the hon. Member is contending for it may be one of the weapons of the Marxist Party of social revolution; but even if I am to be denounced as factious and to be told that the whole of my constituents will vote against me, which I do not believe, I will vote for what I believe to be the benefit of the people and I will not allow any illusionary will o'-the-wisp to be danced before their eyes, which will only lead them in a quagmire from which the Marxist Party would not rescue them. I was astounded at one phrase that fell from the Mover of the Amendment. I under stood him to say that on purely economical grounds the workmen have been agitating in their Trades Unions and their clubs. I have heard that some of the advocates of an Eight Hours Bill are rather hard on those who stand on economical grounds. I am inclined to traverse the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I do not mean to say the hon. Member has been purposely incorrect, but I think he has been most unfortunate in misunderstanding the expressions of opinions of those he comes in contact with. It is true there is a Party which had its origin in Germany and which was driven to this country by the brutal coercion of some of its members some 30 or 40 years ago. It is true that that Party of social revolutionists exists; but I do not believe that its methods have taken deep root in the hearts of our people. It is perfectly true that if you go to men and say—

  1111
  "Would you like the 5s. you receive now to be paid for working half the time," you would get a vote "Yes"; and one of the advanced members of the Marxist Party, in a book sent to me this week for review, says that the hours of labour are to be reduced to a minimum of two and a maximum of five. Let the working men in their organisations, without our help, settle for themselves what they want. Our duty as legislators is, when they are unfairly treated, to speak for them here; when we find them cheated, to bring in laws for their protection; when we find their lives endangered, to legislate if we can to diminish the danger, although we can do very little in that way, and we should do very much more if we can to make them more sensible of the danger they run, and more impressed with the necessity of combining to protect themselves from the consequences of danger. It is certainly no part of our duty to regulate the conditions of labour. The Mover of the Amendment said this is no Party question. I hope it will not be. Social questions will grow fast enough in this country without their being made the battledore and shuttlecock of personal ambitions and Party exigencies. I appeal to Members on both sides of the House—do not give any hesitating vote, and do not, for fear of offending somebody at the moment, vote in favour of this Amendment unless you are prepared to go much further still, and put the clock of England back to the time when this Parliament or its predecessor did regulate the hours of labour, as was thought in the interest of employers, and failed, masters and men combining against it. If the feeling of the working classes is in favour of short hours, we shall have them; if the feeling is hostile to such, your laws ought not to go against that feeling. If you are going to shorten the hours of labour and restrict production, where will you find the new wealth that is to keep the ever-increasing millions of this country? I can understand those in favour of Revolution voting in favour of this Amendment, but I, always in favour of Reform and against Revolution, will give my vote in the Lobby against it.
  MR. BEAUFOY: I shall not for a moment
  1112
  attempt to follow the hon. Member for Northampton through his very elaborate arguments, but perhaps I may be allowed to say a very few words from the point of view of practical experience which, from an Assembly of practical men, may claim attention. I disclaim the character of a thoughtless enthusiast, but I have given careful consideration to this subject upon which we are engaged, and, having put my opinion into practical operation and in position, to give some sort of judgment as to the result. First, we are told there is no general desire on the part of workmen throughout England for any restriction of the hours of labour. To this I can Say that I represent a constituency which includes a large number of gas workers, railway employés and others with whom I am in constant communication, and I find there is a most anxious desire among those two classes I have mentioned that there should be a limitation of the hours of labour to eight hours a day. Then we are told that the result of such limitation would be a great decrease in the output of manufactures. Of course, I should be unwilling to say this might not be the case in some trades, but I may venture to give the practical result within my personal knowledge. For six months the hours of labour of my employés have been reduced from nine and three-quarter hours 'to eight hours, and the result, in this instance, has been to secure a larger output than before and to reduce the overtime by 75 per cent. I may safely say, in a general way, that the output has not been diminished, but has rather increased. I cannot say if this would hold good of all trades, but there is the result of my experience. We are told that it is no part of the duty of Parliament to stand between masters and men, and how far that may be so I am not prepared to say; but inasmuch as this Amendment only raises the question

  1113
  whether it is possible and desirable to consider the hours of labour, it would be most unwise for Government to refuse such a discussion. Many working men must be dissatisfied with the present condition of things in England; on the one hand, we have hours of unusual length and low pay, and on the other hand, we have no work at all, and the only resource left—the workhouse. From the workmen's point of view this is a matter of the greatest importance, and it would ill become the friends of labour to set themselves against a full and fair discussion.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I was rather sorry to hear the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Graham), for while I agree with his Amendment I am in the unfortunate position of being unable to agree with his speech in support of it. The Amendment is in favour of the Government taking part in the Labour Conferences at Berne and Berlin—the speech was in favour of a general Eight Hours Bill. Now, what inclines me to vote for the Amendment is this: A Committee has taken a vast amount of evidence in regard to the Sweating System, and that evidence tends to show that there are trades in this country in which work is carried on for terribly long hours. A large number of persons in London work not for 10 or 12 hours, but for 16 and 20 hours out of the 24. We have not yet had the Report of that Committee on the Sweating System, and it is probable or possible that when we do get it, it will contain some recommendation for shortening hours of labour. But if this Committee appointed by the present Government should make such a proposal, and if the Government reject the proposition now made, their hands will be tied and they will be unable to give any effect to the recommendation in the Report of the
  1114
  Sweating Committee. Taken in connection with the possible recommendation of this Committee, it seems to me the proposal of my hon. Friend is an eminently practicable one. It is a proposal that we shall try to find out if foreign workmen will agree with our workmen to limit the hours of labour. The result of such a Conference may be attended with the greatest possible benefit for the working classes, although the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who, I am sorry to see has left his place after delivering his speech, says of the proposal that from the wickedest enemy of the working classes no proposal could be worse. That is what the hon. Member says of a proposal that the working men of this country should have the opportunity of knowing if foreign workmen will co-operate for limiting the hours of labour. The hon. Member made another astonishing statement. He said, as regards labour, the only duty of Government was to protect the lives and limbs of the workers. I should have thought the duty of the State went a little further than that, and included protection for the health of labourers. But the hon. Member in his desire, I suppose, to get cheers from the other side, which he is always doing now—I am glad to see him return to his place—says the only duty of the State is to protect the life and limbs of the labourer. Would he not include protection to health?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Certainly, from diseases that may be serious.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I am glad to get that extension of the definition. Further, the hon. Member says, "You cannot supply backbone by law to the weaker members of the community." Can't you? I think the hon. Member supported the Ballot Act, which was to supply backbone to those who needed it, and nothing else. If the hon. Member is consistent in his desire to get cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite he should move to repeal the

  1115
  Ballot Act and similar legislation. Then the hon. Member said that if we reduce the hours of labour we stimulate foreign competition. Yes, but that was unworthy of the hon. Member, for he begs the whole question. We are debating an Amendment which embodies the proposal that we shall try and find out, if we reduce hours of labour here in England, whether foreign manufacturers and workmen would co-operate with us, and, by international agreement, make this reduction of hours general throughout Europe. That is in itself an important thing upon which to be satisfied, and it is a matter not disposed of by a few words from the hon. Member behind mo. The hon. Member endeavours successfully to got cheers from the other side of the House; but in spite of anything he has said, there are many Members who will support this very moderate proposition, a proposition which commits nobody to anything, and which is, therefore, in our present state of information a very excellent proposition. It is a proposition to find out if there is any truth in the statement that if British workmen reduce their hours of labour foreign workmen will take advantage of that to take the bread out of their mouths. I do not believe that foreign workmen will do anything so stupid. Generally speaking, they work longer than our people do; and I believe if we reduced our hours foreigners would reduce theirs in proportion, still keeping the relative distance. At all events, there are doubts about the matter which this proposal is intended to solve, and I hope the Government may be able to tell us that they propose to accept the invitations sent out from Berlin and Berne.
  MR. S. SMITH: I will only intervene for a few moments, and that m reference only to one particular industry—the cotton trade of Lanca-
  1116
  shire. Several speakers have referred to the effect of shorter hours on this great industry. I have been connected with the trade all my life, and have taken considerable pains to discover the length of the hours of labour in the different countries engaged in this industry. I would call attention to one matter which has not been touched upon in the discussion to-night, and that is the growing competition this trade has to meet from Asiatic labour. The trade of Lancashire has suffered immensely in the last 10 or 15 years from the growing competition of the cotton factories of India. A large business has been wrested from us, and there have been occasions when both employer and employed have suffered loss and distress through this cause. The House will realise the nature of the competition when I mention that while the Indian mills work 80 hours a week—and I may call the attention of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) to this fact—it supports the argument in his speech, to which I listened with much interest—at the present moment the Indian factories work 80 hours a week, while in Lancashire we are restricted to 56¼ hours. One result of this is that the Indian cotton trade has been growing by leaps and bounds, while our trade has been stationary in comparison. In the last 20 years the consumption of cotton in the factories of India has increased 1,000 per cent., while the increase in England has been 25 per cent. During the same period the increase in the Continental factories of Europe has been 120 per cent., and in America 130 per cent. Further, not only are the hours of labour so much longer in India, but the rate of wages is just a quarter of the rate in Lancashire. Cotton mills in India have, in several instances, paid dividends of 30 and 40 per cent., while the average rate of profit in Lancashire in the last few years

  1117
  has not been more than 3 per cent. We have in the town of Oldham 90 cooperative concerns; their accounts are published and open to public inspection, and the works are largely owned by members of the working classes, and I can say, after having studied the accounts with some care, that if you take the figures for five years back, and take profit and loss together, you will find that these concerns have not paid, on an average, more than 3 per cent. Now I ask the House, would it be possible to put any additional burden on a trade already so heavily handicapped? Remember, the hours of labour are also longer in Germany, France, Switzerland, and even in America. I went through Central Europe two years ago, and I inquired specially in all the principal towns as to the hours of labour in factories, and I found that, as a rule, those hours were from 15 to 20 per cent, longer than the hours in England—while wages was 20 to 30 per cent. less. The great difficulty in compulsorily shortening the hours of labour would be that you would cripple our foreign trade. If we did not depend upon our foreign trade, you might make a good many experiments, perhaps without very much risk; but we have a total import and export trade of 2,700 millions sterling; the life of our people, in fact, depends upon it, and we cannot afford to make such experiments with it. It is carried on under the hottest and closest competition, and no country competes with us more severely than Germany. I have very little faith in any International agreement for shortening the hours of labour being carried out. No agreement has ever been carried out for reducing the armies of foreign nations. Mutual jealously prevents any such International agreement, and so long as you have France and Germany filled with hostility to each other you cannot expect any arrangement for shortening the hours of labour being honestly carried out. I
  1118
  I believe, on the whole, the scheme is illusory and impraoticable, but I hope and believe that the influence of public opinion and the higher moral sense of the community will steadily tend to a wholesome reduction of the hours of labour. I shall rejoice to see the hours of toil lessened and the toilers get more of the product of their labour. Though I cannot agree with the hon. Member's Motion I recognise the high motives that have actuated him in his endeavour to carry out a principle that is a credit to his humanity.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSION,): Considering that the terms of the Motion contemplate particular action on the part of Her Majesty's Government abroad, it is perhaps desirable that some statement should be made on their behalf. From one point of view I think it will be conceded that this discussion will not be without its use. I would be the last to remark unfavourably on the differences of opinion which have been expressed on the other side of the House, as the question so nearly affects the welfare of large masses of the community in this country, and is one to which the attention of the deepest thinkers has been directed. It is, therefore, not surprising that men equally actuated by the most benevolent and patriotic motives should take different views. It cannot but be useful that on a question of this kind opinions should be expressed by gentlemen who have deeply studied the subject, and who have given materials for future thought and for careful consideration of this question when it comes before the House in a more concrete form. It is unfortunate that I shall be obliged to deal very restrictively in the reply which I make on the particular form of the Amendment, for Her Majesty's Government have received from the German and Swiss Governments invitations to Conferences on the laws affecting labour, and the replies to those messages cannot be communicated to Parliament until they have been received by the Govern-

  1119
  ments to which they are addressed and the consent of those Governments has been obtained to the publication. It is in no narrow or technical spirit that such reserve is maintained. It must be evident that in negotiations on such momentous questions the invitation itself might be subject to modification in consequence of views expressed by other nations. The premature announcement of the intentions of one Government might thus prejudice the interest at stake, and consequently, I think I need not offer an apology for reserving a statement as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government until a fitting time. A question has been given notice of for to-morrow, and then I hope I may be able to state what reply has been made to the German Government. Her Majesty's Government have received information to-day that the Swiss Government, in view of the proposals of the German Emperor, and of the parallel lines on which their own proposals have moved, have resolved for the present to abandon the intention of holding a Conference at Berne. But as to the Conference at Berlin, it is impossible for mo to state at present the purport of the reply made to the invitation, and I cannot but think that in those circumstances the House will not press on the Government an Amendment which would fetter their liberty of action. This I can say, that the German invitation has been replied to in no unsympathetic spirit. The questions involved deeply concern the welfare of our own population, as well as the populations of other countries, and the invitation has been considered by Her Majesty's Government in a spirit suitable to that in which it has been tendered.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: Mr. Speaker, it has been my for tune to listen in this House to many statements and explanations made by Under Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs. I have always thought there was a great deal of unnecessary pomposity and secrecy about the attitude which the Foreign Office—no matter which Party is in power—adopts on these occasions. All my experiences, however, which have been varied and numerous,
  1120
  have been put into the shade by the performance of the right hon. Gentleman who now represents the Foreign Office in this House, for although the debate has been going on for some time, and notice was given of the Amendment more than 10 days ago, the right hon. Gentleman is only able to inform the House that in answer to a question which is to be put to him to-morrow he might be able to say what reply Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Berlin. The position of the right hon. Gentleman is this. The right hon. Gentleman intimates that one word said to-night indicating the tenour of the reply which Her Majesty's Government have made to the German Government might be of the greatest possible danger to the question at stake, but he added that to-morrow he might be able to reply without any danger accruing there from. I have heard many Foreign Office answers, but I never heard one to come near that. Then the right hon. Gentleman went further and said that Her Majesty's Government had received news to the effect that the Swiss Government have decided to abandon their project of holding a conference at Berne. The right hon. Gentleman was very candid, but that information was announced this very morning in every newspaper. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the reply to the Government of Berlin had not been unsympathetic. I really do not quite know what to make of that. I can quite understand that negotiations with Foreign Powers, or matters which might at any moment cause International disputes, ought not to be prematurely made public. But this is a matter of a totally different character. On social questions of this kind, on which diplomatic negotiations have taken place before, and a certain attitude has been taken up, it does seem ridiculous that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is not instructed by the

  1121
  Foreign Secretary to tall the House frankly and plainly what has been the upshot of the invitation which has been sent by the Government of Berlin. Everyone must think that there is not the slightest rhyme or reason in concealing from the House whether the Government has adopted, with regard to the Berlin invitation, the same attitude as they adopted with reference to the Conference at Berne. From the answer of the Under Secretary, I suppose there has been a modification in the terms of the answer. I thought there would have been, and I think that this declaration might as well be made in this debate as at question time in the House. I cannot, of course, vote for the Amendment, as it is an Amendment to the Address. I regret the practice of bringing forward on the Address Motions which have no legitimate connection whatever with it, but which ought to take their chance with private Members' Motions. But, as the subject has been raised, I will put in a plea for discussion of the matter. If the eight hours movement, or a movement for some restriction of the hours of labour, is an unsound one, nothing could demonstrate its unsoundness better than Parliamentary discussion, and in a great manufacturing country like this for the Government to say they will not discuss such a subject appears to me to be the most foolish and most short-sighted attitude they could take up. I could understand the Government sending a delegate to a foreign country and instructing him to argue against such a proposal. At any rate, then, by taking such a course full information on the subject would be at the disposal of Members of Parliament and everyone else. The speech of the hon. Member for Northhampton has been a mixture of banter, rhetoric, and assertion The banter was not first class, but so far as the hon. Member himself is concerned
  1122
  it was effective. The rhetoric, too, was not first class, and the assertions were very loud and strong, and more or less appealed to the emotions. The speech called forth loud manifestations of feeling on the Government side of the House. In fact, while the hon. Member was speaking, and as I took the part of a philosophic observer, the interesting problem passed through my mind—which would be the first Member of the House to take his seat on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Northampton or the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The hon. Member for Northampton said that the Government had no right to take part in any foreign Conference on social questions unless they were prepared to legislate upon those questions. That seems to me a most untenable proposition. If they will not discuss those questions in a Conference at Berlin, they will have to do so in the House of Commons. The hon. Member has alluded to the state of affairs in America, and has said that laws regulating adult labour in that country have either been evaded or been futile, but the fact that such laws have been passed proves, at least, that they were adopted with popular assent and approval. Therefore to take up the dogmatic position that there is no demand is both childish and unsound. The hon. Member has carefully omitted all reference to Australia, to which we are bound by nearer and closer ties than we are to America, where the people are not inferior to us in ability, resource, education, or knowledge, and yet where the eight hours system has for a long time been adopted. In that very valuable work by Sir C. Dilke, Greater Britain, this passage occurs:
  "In the Australian Colonies the eight hours day prevails and is all but universal, as in the towns of South Africa the nine hours day is as far as European labour is concerned.…The eight hours day of labour has the full approbation of the whole community."
  It may be said, perhaps, that the eight hours day has been obtained by custom and

  1123
  not by law, but a further passage from the same book shows that in the Australian Colonies it is customary to insert in public Bills dealing with work carried out by Government a provision relating to the hours of labour, and that in some private Bills clauses fixing the day's work at eight hours have been inserted. Sir C. Dilke said with reference to the result of this eight hours system:—
  "In Australia the effect of the eight hours and at the Cape of the nine hours day is socially conservative—that is to say, the comfort conferred by it on the working classes prevents agitation and revolutionary tendencies."
  This was written by a student of modern history and society who did not attempt to excite public opinion for any object of his own, but wrote to demonstrate facts and facts alone. These references were worth infinitely more than the speech of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire and the fervid rhetoric of the hon. Member for Northampton.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I should like to inform the noble Lord that in my humble way I have already quoted the passages which he has read to the House.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I am glad to hear it, because a twice told tale is more likely to impress than a once told tale. Now, I will refer to the extraordinary position taken up by the hon. Member for Northampton. The hon. Member says it is not the duty of Parliament to form public opinion. How many Members of the Radical Party will support the hon. Member in that assertion? I have always thought that it was the proudest boast of that Party that the greatest reforms of the last century have all been owing to the way in which it has formed public opinion in this House. I shall be surprised if it is possible to find one Radical Member who does not express profound disagreement with that opinion. Then the hon. Member said that it was not the business of Parliament to interfere between employer and em-
  1124
  ployed for the regulation of adult labour. Why, for the last quarter of a century the operation of the laws passed in this House has been to restrict, modify, and control adult labour directly and indirectly. From the day when the first Factory Act was passed Parliament has been regulating the hours and time and operation of adult labour. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] I cannot argue with the hon. Member who dissents; I can only advise him to enlarge the scope of his studies and not to intervene rashly in the discussion of subjects of which he evidently has an imperfect knowledge. Then the hon. Member for Northampton said that it was the duty of Parliament to protect the weakest against the strongest. Have I quoted the hon. Member correctly?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: No, I said more than that; I stated what it was the duty of Parliament to protect the weakest against.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I put down the words at the time. But is the hon. Gentleman prepared to assert positively at the present moment that labour is stronger than capital?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I made no such assertion at all. I will, if necessary, repeat what I did say.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I am not perfectly clear that the hon. Member did not say that capital and labour did not respectively represent the strongest and the weakest.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I am sure the noble Lord does not intend to misrepresent what I said. Shall I repeat it?
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I prefer to rely on my own recollection. I listened with concentrated attention to everything which the hon. Member said, and I am not certain that labour with regard to capital is not occupying the relation of the weaker to the stronger. We have heard a great deal about the narrow margin of profit and the extreme danger

  1125
  of doing anything that will cut down for the capitalist the margin of profit on which he conducts his enterprise. But I have not been able to detect lately where that narrow margin exists. The income-tax and revenue Returns certainly' do not show a narrow margin of profit in trade, and we must also bear in mind the enormous number of limited companies started every day, and such matters as the dividends of railway companies, which are now very largely in excess of those of former years. Do these undertakings show a narrow margin of profit? This narrow margin of profit is a fine assertion when it is put forward, and I admit that the eight hours movement is a cutting of profits, but it does not mean a lowering of wages. I cannot, however, accept the narrow margin of profit on the assertion of the hon. Member or on the indignant assertions of the hon. Members behind me. In these social questions I believe in a sympathetic attitude. The hon. Member did not allude to the mass of unemployed in the country, and yet the mass of employed to unemployed is a feature of great social importance not paralleled abroad. Do not, therefore, let us adopt a dogmatic attitude in these social questions, but let us, for one party as well as for the other, adopt a sympathetic attitude; let us examine the demands of the labouring classes and look at the matter from their point of view, and, having done so, if we are obliged to disagree from them, let hon. Members endeavour to show their reasons for doing so by means of instructed and enlightened argument and by a total absence of anything like dogmatism.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I wish to make an appeal to the House on this question. There will be ample opportunity during the course of the Session for a
  1126
  renewal of the discussion on a much wider scale. The Government are anxious, but are unable, to take part in the discussion as freely as they would wish to to-night, and seeing that time is now so important to the interests of the country, and that it is also desirable, in the interests of the working classes, that fuller discussion should be allowed on this matter, I do trust that the House will agree at once to come to a decision upon this Amendment, and enable us tonight to dispose of the Address.
  MR. CREMER,: I do not propose to prolong the debate so as to prevent a Division being taken, but I wish just to say a few words before we go into the Lobbies, to explain the reasons why some hon. Members on this side of the House intend to vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I wish it to be clearly understood that they are going to vote for it because it simply proposes that an inquiry should take place, and that by voting for the Amendment they are not necessarily pledging themselves to the principle involved in the Eight Hours Bill. I regret that so much time has been taken up in discussing the Eight Hours Bill rather than the principle involved in the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I hops the Government will accede to the principle in the Amendment, because while I have very little faith in the good likely to result from such a Conference, it shows that we are getting on when a Monarch of a first-class power steps down from his throne into the popular arena and practically says to his subjects:—
  "I admit your grievances, and I am prepared to discuss them with you; I will do more, I will invite other Governments to assist me in the discussion of your grievances with a view, if possible, of mitigating the evils from which you suffer,"
  I think the Government ought to assent to the invitation and to reject the advice

  1127
  of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, by accepting the principle of the Amendment. The noble Lord made some extraordinary assertions. He said that the Government of this country were in a better position than any other Government to dispel any illusions on the question of shortening the hours of labour, and then he wound up with the extraordinary declaration that he should vote against the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It seems to me that the position taken up by the noble Lord on the question is utterly illogical, and I hope that the Government will not take his advice, but will accept the principle embodied in the Amendment. I admit that personally I have not much faith in the inquiry which will take place at the Conference because of the quarter from which the proposal comes. I have no particular faith in monarchs or in the prescriptions which they, from time to time, propound for the social and economic grievances of the mass of the people. But, seeing that machinery has multiplied the power of production to such extent as to render unnecessary prolonged hours of labour, I hope that the Government, will agree to take part in the inquiry which it is proposed to hold at the instigation of the Emperor of Germany.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Are we to clearly understand that the Government during the Session will give us a further opportunity for discussing this subject?
  *(12.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 198.—(Div. List, No. 9.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to; the humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty by Privy Councillors.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    SUPPLY.
    Resolved, That this House will tomorrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
    Ordered, That the several Estimates presented to this House during the present Session be referred to the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Jackson.)

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolved, That this House will tomorrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.—(Mr. Jackson.)

  TREES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 70.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday, 3rd March.

  MOTIONS.

    COMPANIES ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir William Houldsworth, Bill for the amendment of "The Companies Act, 1862," ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Hoyle, Mr. Mowbray, and Mr. Howell.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 161.]

    TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Albert Rollit, Bill to amend the Law relating to Trustee Savings Banks, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Viscount Curzon, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Sir John Puleston, and Mr. Haldane.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 162.]

    DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Albert Rollit, Bill to amend the Law relating to Deeds of Arrangement, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit. Mr. T. M. Healy, and Mr. Chance.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 163.]
    House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.