Commons Sitting of 8 July 1890

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. (By Order.)
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. LAFONE: I beg to move, on page 3 of the preamble, to leave out lines 31 to 34 inclusive. This is an Omnibus Bill, promoted by the London County Council, and in it they seek for power to appoint five Members upon the Thames Conservancy Board. The Thames Conservancy, as at present constituted, was incorporated in the year 1857; it was further added to by an Act passed in 1867, and again by an Act of 1886. Since that year there has been no change. Bat during that time various Bills have been laid before Parliament. The late Metropolitan Board of Works sought on four occasions to have a nominee upon the Conservancy Board, but, after very careful consideration by the Committees to which those Bills were referred, their application was rejected, and they were refused a nomination, because it was considered that the then constitution of the Conservancy Board was such as to secure attention to all the interests along the waterside, and that it was not necessary for the Metropolitan Board of Works to be represented, as they had to deal with the land works, and not with the river generally. I think I am correct in saying that from the first constitution of the Conservancy Board
  1052
  there has been no question as to the way in which the Board has conducted the work assigned to it. It has carefully, watched over the interests of the Port of London, and there has been no complaint made against it. When the present Bill was before a Select Committee upstairs only one member of the London County. Council—Mr. Haggis—was examined, and all he had to say was that the County Council wished to be represented. There is no reason to doubt that it is a laudable ambition on the part of the County Council of London to desire-representation. It was originally proposed that the Council should have seven members, but the Committee cut down the number to five. As I have said, there was no evidence except that of Mr. Haggis, and he was obliged to confess that there had been no complaint of the way in which the Conservancy Board had executed the duties confided to them. If the present proposal is carried out it means this, that the upper portion of the River Thames will also require to be represented on the Conservancy Board, and, if five members are allotted to the London County Council, of course, the property on the banks of the river or abutting upon it would claim a proportionate representation, and the Conservancy would again become an unwieldy and unworkable body. Under its present constitution the Board is a workable Board, and no person can drive a single pile into the river without the sanction of the Board. Encroachments by that means are prevented, and very valuable work is done. The Select Committee has sanctioned a proposition that the County Council shall have five representatives, but, if that proposal is acceded to, those persons who have interests along the whole banks of the river will not long remain satisfied to be cut out from representation. It will, therefore, be necessary to make provision for a much larger representation than now exists. As I have said, there has been no complaint of the manner in which the present Board discharge their duties; the number of representatives is a workable number, it represents the whole of the area of the City of London, together with the merchandise, shipping, and other interests, of the River Thames and the Port o£ London. The London County Council,

  1053
  as we know, has the conduct generally of the main drainage of the Metropolitan area, and the late Metropolitan Board of Works, whose successors the London County Council are, found in the Thames Conservancy Board a most desirable check upon their proceedings. They were prevented from fouling the river, and, if the proposal now before the House to give a representation of five members of the Conservancy Board to the County Council is entertained, it means that those five members will represent the authority which has to deal with the sewage of London in the Metropolitan area generally, and who would have the power of voting for their own measures, whether they tended to preserve the purity of the Thames or not. I am afraid that the present conduct of the sewage and the management of the outflow where it is dealt with is not so satisfactory that we ought to give to the County Council increased power of voting upon any question upon which the purification of the Thames is dependent, and in addition the representatives of the Council would be both Judges, jury, and plaintiffs in their own case. That, I think, is one of the reasons why it is most inexpedient that this power should be granted to them. It is only the thin end of the wedge that is now sought to be inserted; and I trust that hon. Members will feel generally that it is not for the interest of the Port of London that this portion of the Bill of the County Council should be granted. I therefore beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 31, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "so," in line 34, both inclusive.—{Mr. Lafone.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNE: Hon. Members will be aware that I have had something to do with the conservancy of the Thames in the past, and I have therefore a locus standi in asking the House to listen to me for two or three minutes. I beg to second the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Lafone), and I do so not
  1054
  altogether upon the ground upon which the hon. Gentleman relies, but really in the interest of the Thames itself, and of all who are concerned in it, whether they are County Councils or riparian owners or other persons. I am afraid that if we consent to this proposal we shall be in great danger of making this Board of Conservancy still more unwieldy than it is now. It is already a very unwieldy body, and if we are going to add five members to it we shall only make it more unwieldy still. Moreover, we cannot add these five members without accepting the demand of other County Councils up the River Thames that they also shall be represented. I, for one, desire to see all persons who are really interested represented, because I think that the best way of dealing with the many interests relating to the Thames is to have a proper representative body, but not in the unwieldy form which the Conservancy, has had from its first institution as a Board of Riparian Commissioners, nearly 200 years ago. The proposal now made involves our giving a similar unwieldy form to the representation, and I am afraid the result would be practically to constitute a little Parliament as incapable of carrying out really good measures as other Parliaments appear to be. What I feel is that the proper way of dealing with this question is not to add five Members to-day and more Members to-morrow, but to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of the Conservancy of the Thames, and the reconstitution of the Conservancy Board on a representative basis. That is certainly what we ought to do, if we really desire to carry out the objects of the several useful Acts which have been passed. I may remind the House that the Thames is one of the most ancient highways of the Kingdom, and it is also a recreation ground for a very large section of Her Majesty's subjects. The Bill which I had the honour to introduce and to carry through this House some years ago had for its object the preservation of the Thames for the public, not merely as a place for house boats and skiffs, and for every form of rough to disport upon, but as a place of enjoyment where order is to be kept and something like decency observed. That Act has, I believe, worked exceedingly well, and I

  1055
  am bound to say of the Conservators, that as far as they, not having the moral strength of a representative body, have been able to carry it out, they have endeavoured to do so. Furthermore, it appears that the Thames, as a highway, has been admirably preserved by the Conservators, and they deserve all the credit that can be given to them for keeping its bed and the locks in good condition. They have also done their best, at any rate, to keep it pure. Below London they have had great and difficult problems to deal with, and various Acts of Parliament have placed matters very much beyond their control; but, so far as the upper part of the Thames is concerned, they have done their work well. I feel that no body of this kind, having to deal with large public interests, can in these days effectually deal with them unless it is a representative body, and a representative body in the best sense of the word. Now that we have Local Government, I am of opinion that the best form of representative government would be for every Local Authority along the banks of the Thames, through the County Councils, to have representation upon the Conservancy Board. The proper way to secure that object is not, however, to add five Members to-day and two to-morrow, but to hind the whole matter over to a Select Committee to inquire into and to advise the House as to the best plan for managing what really is the oldest and grandest highway in this country, not merely for commerce, bat for pleasure. Therefore, I second the Amendment, because I believe tint in retarding the honourable aspirations of the London County Councils to be represented in this large way upon the Conservancy Board I am enlisting the County Council itself on my side when I prefer the request that the House will give us a Select Committee to investigate the whole subject, and endeavour to place it on a proper and satisfactory footing.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: My hon. Friend who has just sat down states that he is opposed to this provision, because he thinks that all the representative bodies on the banks of the Thames ought to have a voice in the conservancy of the river. That is the very reason why the clause objected to was inserted in
  1056
  the present Bill, and if it is rejected, as my hon. Friend proposes, he will only defeat his own object, and the greatest municipality on the banks of the Thames will continue to be absolutely unrepresented. My hon. Friend says that he thinks the best mode of dealing with the question is to refer it to a Select Committee, before whom the whole of the facts can be presented, and who will present a Report to the House. But that is exactly what has been done already. The clause as it stands in the Bill is the result of the deliberations of a Committee of this House; and yet my hon. Friend suggests that the best mode of dealing with the question is to refer it to a Committee. At the same time, he refuses to endorse the decision to which a Committee has already arrived. If he succeeds in his object, London will have no voice in reference to the management of the Thames. This clause was fully discussed before the Committee upstairs, and I would submit to the House that it is a question more for the consideration of a Committee upstairs than for this House, with the great amount of work it has upon its hands. It will be remembered that the Thames passes for about 23 miles through the administrative county of the Council of London, who have the administration of the bridges and other duties to discharge in reference to the Thames. No doubt those who live in the upper part of the river have a great interest in all that concerns the Thames; but it is obvious that it is of much more importance to the residents on the lower part to control what is done in the upper part than it can to for the upper part to control the lower reaches of the river. Our interest in London, therefore, is much greater than that of those who live on the upper portion of the river. I cordially agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Cricklade (Mr. Story-Mas-kelyne) said in his speech, except in the conclusion he drew. He said that the Thames is a great recreation ground for the citizens of London. That is precisely one of the reasons why we submit to the House that the citizens of London ought, through their representatives, to have some voice in the management of the river. Can it be said that the amount of representation which

  1057
  is proposed is excessive? There will be 28 representatives on the Conservancy Board, and it is only proposed that five should be representatives of the London County Council. The point, however, that is now before the House is not as to the exact number. My him. Friend does not propose to reduce it to four, three, or two; but he says that the citizens of London, through the County Council, their own representatives, shall have no voice in the management of the Thames. I come next to the question of the River Lea. I am reluctant to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily. The circumstances which relate to the River Lea are mutatis mutandis, very much the same as those which relate to the Thames; but instead of asking for five representatives it is thought that two would afford adequate representation. In that proposal I entirely concur. The County Council accepts the result arrived at by the Select Committee, and I ask the House to support the Committee in the conclusions to which after careful consideration they have arrived.
  MR. MURDOCH: I must reiterate the complaint which was made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey as to the title of this Bill. It is entitled "A Bill for the improvement and alteration of a bridge over Bow Creek at Barking and for the acquisition and management of Brockwell Park."
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: Will the hon. Member kindly read the rest of the description of the Bill?
  *MR. MURDOCH: "And to confer various further powers on the London County Council." That is exactly what I was coming to. I find nothing in the Bill about the bridge at Barking Creek; and in regard to Brockwell Park, every Member of the House will be thankful that something should be done to preserve that open space for the benefit of the Metropolis. But when the Bill goes further and attempts, and under the guise of its provisions, to appoint upon the Thames Conservancy five representatives of the London County Council, most hon. Members will feel that they have been taken by surprise, and that attention has not been properly directed to the provisions of the Bill. I need hardly remind the House that the subject of
  1058
  the Thames Conservancy has received consideration in this House from time to time. Two Acts have been passed—one in 1864 and the other in 1866—which settled most clearly, and I believe most satisfactorily, the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board. By the Act of 1864, which was brought in at the instigation of the Board of Trade, and upon which Bill I find the names of Mr. Hutt and Mr. Peel, there were added to the Thames Conservancy two owners of shipping, one of steamers upon the Thames, two owners of lighters, and one representative of the dock owners. In 1866 a further Bill was introduced into Parliament, which was entitled "The Upper Navigation of the Thames Bill." That measure also was brought in at the instigation of the Board of Trade, and it has upon it the names of Mr. Milner Gibson, the President of the Board of Trade at that time, and of Mr. Monsell. By that Act four Members were added to represent the upper navigation of the Thames, it being felt that that interest had in former years been greatly neglected, while the interests of the lower river, and especially of London, had been over represented. We must remember that from time to time the Metropolitan Board of Works had endeavoured to get members placed upon the Thames Conservancy Board. Parliament always resisted their endeavours; and, I think, that when we want to know something about a Bill before Parliament it is only right that we should carefully study the statement of the promoters of the Bill. There are a few matters in the present statement which I should like to mention. The first is this: The London County Council, as the successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works, are anxious to have a certain share in the management of the Thames, and they say, "the County Council have extensive sewage works on the river, in connection with which considerable difficulty and costly litigation arose between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Conservancy Board, which it is believed would have been avoided"—I particularly direct attention to these words—" had there been on the Conservancy Board a Representative of the Metropolitan Board of Works." Now, what does that mean? Does it not mean that if they had had Representa-

  1059
  tives the Metropolitan Board of Works would have had a paramount influence, and would have been able to overturn the decision of the members of the Conservancy Board. Further than this, the London County Council bass their claim for representation upon the Board upon the fact that they have to maintain nearly all the bridges crossing the Thames, and certain sewage works. Now, I maintain that having these bridges over the Thames, and having also sewage works which empty themselves into the river, their interests are entirely antagonistic to those of the Conservancy of the Thames, and, therefore, it is of immense importance that they should not have members upon the Conservancy Board who may act against the other interests which that Board represents. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) has called attention to the fact that evidence was taken before the Select Committee in support of the claim of the County Council to have representation upon the Conservancy Board. But I wish to remind the House that only one witness was called—a prominent member of the London County Council—and that Gentleman, although he wished undoubtedly to make the best he could of his case, was not able to say, on cross-examination, that there was any reason or ground of complaint against the Thames Conservancy Board. I have the evidence before me, but I cannot now take up the time of the House by entering into it. If, however, hon. Members will read it, they will see that over and over again Mr. Haggis stated that there was no ground of complaint against the Thames Conservancy Board. And now there is one word I should like to say with regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Cricklade. The hon. Member was himself the means of passing a Bill through this House, which is known by the name of the Story-Maskelyne Act. That Act is one which gives very considerable powers. It deals with the use of the Thames for recreation purposes. It is an extremely useful Act, and it has enabled the Thames Conservancy Board to deal with one of the grounds upon which the London County Council claim the right of representation—that is the recreation ground—and the Conservancy
  1060
  Board have discharged their duties in that respect in a manner which has given satisfaction, not only to the riparian owners, but to those who use the Thames for recreation purposes. I trust that the House will re-affirm the decision it has given over and over again, namely, that it is against the interests of the Thames itself, and of all of ns who take a pride in the river, that certain members, representing either the London County Council or any body of that description, should be placed on the Conservancy Board at the present time.
  MR. H. LAWSON (St. Paneras, W.): In spite of the pride which the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House takes in the River Thames, the speech of the hon. Gentleman illustrates the hardship and inconvenience of the course which he is taking. The Bill was discussed on the Second Reading, and some of the points which were then disposed of are actually raised now as a reason for mutilating the measure as it has come down from the Committee. The hon. Member shows how we suffer in London from a lack of municipal experience, or he would hardly have told the House that it is an unfair thing to put general powers into a General Powers Bill such as is constantly presented by every great municipality in this country. Precedents were cited by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler), on the Second Reading of the Bill, to show that there is nothing unusual in bringing in a Bill under a title which includes all the objects set forth. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann) made that a point on the Second Reading, and as it was disposed of then, it ought not to have been raised again. It would require that Members should read through the evidence submitted to the Committee upstairs, to understand the Bill. It was very completely dealt with by the Committee. Previous Acts of Parliament dealing with Thames Conservancy have been referred to, but they were all adopted on the Reports of Select Committees, and I think it is most inconvenient that when a private Bill has undergone full consideration upstairs, and modified proposals are submitted to the House, general objections should be raised to the measure when it comes down to us.

  1061
  The hon. Member says that only one witness was called in support of this part of the Bill. Does he know why that was? It was because the Committee did not want to hear more; and not one witness was called against it. That is a specimen of the way in which the Bill is treated now. I should be loth to trouble the House with the evidence which was given, but it is quite clear that nobody is as much interested in the navigation and condition of the Thames as the people whom the London County Council represent. My hon. Friend says that they use it, and want to use it, as a great recreation ground. That was one of the arguments used by counsel in support of our claim, and it was further argued that the London County Council, as riparian owners, and as the Sanitary Authority deeply interested in the supply of pure water to the Metropolis, should have proper representation upon the Conservancy Board. The City of London is already represented. It has, I believe, no less than seven members, including the Lord Mayor. No complaint is made against the Thames Conservancy Board. The Bill is not a blow aimed at the Conservancy Board, but it is simply a claim on the part of the citizens of London for just representation in matters affecting the Metropolis. Twenty-three miles of the river go through the County of London, and at present only 1½ miles in the City of London are represented. The City with 1½ miles has seven representatives, while the County of London with 21½ miles has none. In olden times this House was content to accept the decisions arrived at by its Committees upstairs. This matter has been carefully gone into by a Select Committee, who investigated the whole question, and I believe that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Bailey), who presided over the Committee, is prepared to get up and support the decision at which the Committee arrived. Mr. Haggis, the Deputy Chairman of the County Council, stated to the Committee that there is no special grievance against the Thames Conservancy, but he pointed out that the management of the river, both above and below the Metropolis, is a matter vitally concerning the prosperity of London. That is a very sound contention, and as the Council has succeeded the body which freed or built the bridges, with the exception of the
  1062
  three which are within the City boundaries, there is good reason why they should have some control of the river. It is said that as the County Council are the Sewerage Authority in London, their interests are antagonistic to that of preserving the purity of the Thames, and that they might be unfairly employed if that body are allowed to be represented on the Conservancy Board. It is hardly necessary, I think, to point out that the pollution of the Upper Thames is of immense and growing importance to the inhabitants of London, and that they have a greater interest in preventing it than even the Conservancy Board. I will not trouble the House with anything further in the shape of argument. I am content to rest the case upon the evidence taken before the Committee. The simple fact that the Chairman of the Committee, who is known to hon. Members as one of the most fair minded men in the House, stated that the Committee did not wish to hear further evidence, ought, I think, to be sufficient for hon. Gentlemen opposite. The principle of representation on the Lea Conservancy Board is already admitted, because the Metropolitan Board of Works had one representative, and all the Metropolitan community who live in such districts as Hackney are vitally interested in securing that the Lea shall not be further polluted by the Tottenham Board and other Local Authorities. I trust that these clauses will be agreed to without a Division.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: As the Representative of a constituency which runs for 16 miles along the River Thames, I wish to say that we feel, so far as the upper part of the Thames is concerned, that our representation, instead of being too great at the present moment, is not sufficiently large. The two Acts of 1864 and 1866 went carefully into the question of local interests, and we are certainly of opinion that if an addition is-made to the representatives of the lower part of the river we shall be much injured and our interests not properly attended to. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last spoke of the sewage upon other parts of the river. Do the London County Council propose to take charge of the river all the way up to

  1063
  Oxford, or what is it that they propose to do? We consider that we are quite as able to take care of the river as any gentlemen from the London County Council, who have separate and different interests from our own. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the City of London having a large representation; but it must not be forgotten that the City of London is the Port Sanitary Authority; that it pays all the expenses; and that it has given up its dues. It is, therefore, only right and natural that it should be fairly represented, so as to balance the interests of the lightermen in the river below against the riparian interests of the owners in the upper part of the Thames. I do not think there has ever been a complaint against the conduct of the Conservancy Board. Not a single Petition has been presented against them. They have done their work to the best of their ability, and have always done what they considered to be most advantageous for the river. All that is wanted is Authority to take care of the river, and I am afraid that the Thames itself is likely to be injured if it is placed under the jurisdiction of any County Council whatever. If London is to have five Members why should not Middlesex have the same or nearly as many representatives upon the Conservancy Board, seeing that nearly as many miles of the river run through it. If the constitution of the Board is to be interfered with at all, Set every interest be properly considered, and not that of the London County Council alone. If these clauses are removed from the Bill, all the other provisions that are of value may remain untouched. Hitherto the Conservancy Board has worked very well, and it would be a thousand pities to interfere with what is doing well in order to give additional representation to the London County Council. The extra power could only be sought to cheapen the disposal of the sewage, which would have the effect of making the mouth of the Thames one vast sewer, and would operate to the detriment of trade and the health of the inhabitants.
  SIR C. RUSSELL (Hackney, S.): I submit to the House that the examination which it is possible to give to the Bill here is not sufficient to justify us in assenting to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bermondsey, and setting aside the de-
  1064
  cision of the Select Committee. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) has stated, that only one witness was called before the Select Committee in support of the claims of the London County Council, but a complete answer to that objection has been given by the hon. Member for St. Paneras (Mr. W. H. Lawson), that answer being first that the Committee expressed themselves satisfied with the grounds on which the general claim of the County Council was put forward; secondly, that no evidence against that claim was offered: and next, on the ground that the Council are supposed to represent the interests of the Metropolis, on whose behalf the claim was made. It seems to me that this fallacy runs through the whole of the arguments which have been advanced by the opponents of the measure:—They have been arguing the question as if in this matter the County Council have an interest opposed to the general interests of the community. [Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND: Hear, hear!] Apparently the hon. Member who has just sat down maintains that position, and is of opinion that the London County Council have interests in the matter which are opposed to the general interests of the community. Now, what are they? The County Council are the largest Representative Body in London; they are directly elected by the inhabitants of the Metropolis; they have jurisdiction over a frontage of 23 miles on each side of the river, and at this moment they have no direct representation on the Conservancy Board, while the City of London, with a frontage of only one and a half miles, is represented by seven Members. I will not stop to consider whether the representation of the City of London is excessive or only the proper amount of representation, but I would ask, that being the state of the case, upon what ground it can be said that the London County Council, representing such extensive interests, and charged with the responsibility of representing the wants and wishes of such a large portion of the community, can probably run counter to the general interests of the Metropolis. So far as the Metropolitan Sewage Scheme is concerned, as it at present exists, it has received the sanction of Parliament, and

  1065
  the sewage itself is discharged into the Thames very much below the part of the river which we are considering now. I submit that the claim which the London County Council has preferred to having an increased representation of five members upon the Conservancy Board is simply a proper or fair recognition of the position they occupy. As regards the River Lea their claim is, in my judgment, even much stronger. I do not know a more disgraceful history than the history of the pollution of the River Lea, and I am satisfied that if the Council had had a share in the control of the river, and possessed representatives who were directly interested in maintaining the purity of the Lea, it would not have been reduced to the shocking position which it has occupied of late years in the lower parts of the river. I submit that the claim of the London County Council to have five seats on the Conservancy Board is moderate, just, and proper, and as they have no interests which are in conflict with those of the general public they ought not to be excluded from it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I desire to speak without prejudice in regard to the London County Council. I am glad that Parliament has entrusted to them the power they now enjoy, and I have no jealousy whatever of them. As far as I am concerned, I should be glad to see their interests fully represented on the Conservancy Board, but I cannot agree with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir C. Russell). In the first place I eannot admit that this question has been fairly considered, if by that term is meant the kind of consideration which Parliament in former years bestowed upon it. I can remember being a Member of a Select Committee on the Thames which considered the Bill of 1866, carried through this House by Mr. Milner-Gibson. Before the passing of the Act of 1864, a Select Committee of this House was appointed to consider how the matter could best be dealt with, and, in 1864, a Bill was brought in, I think, by the Government of the day. At any rate, it was a Hybrid Bill, and was considered by a Hybrid Committee, before whom all the interests affected were adequately heard; the same course being
  1066
  taken in 1866, and again two years ago, when a Select Committee, appointed at the instance of my hon. Friend the Member for Cricklade, considered the reform of the traffic on the Thames, and in the following year the conclusions of this. Committee were embodied in a Hybrid Bill, and considered by a Hybrid Committee. Thus Parliament has determined, in dealing with the Thames, to treat it as a public matter, and not as one to be dealt with in a Private Bill. What has happened in this case? The London County Council, in the exercise of their judgment and discretion, have considered that they are injuriously affected by having no direct representative on the Board of Conservancy, and, therefore, in a private Bill ostensibly relating to very different subjects, they have introduced a clause to give them that representation. This was to be done by an ordinary Private Bill, by a Committee before whom only one witness was examined, and not a single word was heard from the rival interests of the Upper Thames, which possibly did not even know that the matter was being dealt with by Parliament. I myself have no fault to find with the Thames Conservancy, as at present constituted. I believe that it does its duty very well, but, on the other hand, I quite admit that there may be just arguments for the more direct representation of the inhabitants of London on that Board. At present, seven members are sent by the City, and four by certain trading interests, so that London has altogether a representation of 11 out of 23. This Bill proposes to extend the metropolitan representation to 16 out of 28. I confess that it appears to me that the proposal is not fair to the interests of the Upper Thames. What reason can there be for the representation of the London County Council upon this Board that does not equally extend to the Councils of other counties which border on the Thames? Essex, Surrey, Kent, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Wilts, and Gloucestershire. I think that in these circumstances the wisest course will be for the House to decline to adopt the proposal contained in this Bill relating to this matter, and next year to appoint a Select Committee to consider the whole question of the conservancy of the Thames In that way the House would have all the riparian and other interests fully

  1067
  awake to the necessity of taking care of themselves; complete evidence would be given in regard to the whole subject, and it would be able to arrive at a fair conclusion on a subject which has hitherto been treated as a public matter, and one which ought not to be dealt with toy a private Bill.
  SIR J. BAILEY: As Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill, I wish to say a word in the first place as to the title of the Bill. When it came before the Committee it was a Bill "For the improvement and alteration of the Bridge over Bow Creek and Barking and to confer other powers." The Committee cut out of the Bill the question of a bridge between the London County Council and a neighbouring area, on finding that the County Council had not agreed with the neighbouring area. The title of a Bill, however, cannot, I believe, be changed when it has once come before the House. I certainly cannot altogether agree with the remarks which have fallen from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as to what he says Parliament has done in regard to the Thames Conservancy, as I find that the original Conservancy Act was one of the few Acts concerning the Metropolis which was introduced as a private and not as a public Bill. In 1857 the Thames Conservancy Bill was introduced as a private Bill, and Sir E. May, in his chapter on private Bills, has pointed out that in 1874–5–6–7 Bills to give further powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works were passed as private Bills. With regard to the fact of only one witness having been examined, I may say that there had been another Bill before us, relating to the Conservancy, and we felt that we did not require much more evidence than that which had been given before that Committee. Therefore, when this Bill came before us we had no desire to hear many witnesses. The Thames Conservancy has been undergoing a perpetual change since it was first established. At first the Trinity House regulated the lower reaches, and the Corporation went up as far as Staines, while above that there was a heterogeneous body, consisting of all the authorities of the riparian counties, including Berkshire and Oxfordshire. An Act was then
  1068
  passed appointing 12 Conservators, seven representing the City of London, and five the Trinity House, the Lord High Admiral, and other interests, while, by a subsequent Act, representation was given to certain traders. When, by a later Act, representation was given to the traders, wharf owners and occupiers, ship proprietors, and so on, the control of the Upper Thames was united with that of the Thames below Teddington Lock, and four representatives were given to the upper portions of the river. An hon. Member sitting below me has spoken of the Board of Trade in this matter, and I should like to show what the opinion of the Board of Trade was. In 1867, when this matter was before the House of Commons, the Board of Trade wrote a letter in which they stated that it appeared to them to be desirable that the Metropolitan Board of Works—of which the London County Council is the successor—should be connected with and represented on the Thames Conservancy Board. That was the opinion of the Board of Trade in 1867. Since then, in the year 1888, the conservancy of rivers has been given to County Councils, and it seems to me absurd that this great municipality of London should be the only County Council not having some power of control over its own river. An hon. Member has said it is absurd to suppose that the London County Council can look after the river at Oxford, and in the upper reaches of the Thames. Then why should four Members from Oxford and Berkshire take part in the management of the tidal stream? Since the opinion of the Board of Trade was given in 1867, the Metropolitan Board of Works and their successors the London County Council have done an enormous amount of work in the valley of the Thames. They have control of the metropolitan bridges and embankments, which cost £22,000 or £23,000 a year, and upon which £2,500,000 have been spent. Most of the drinking water of London is derived from the Thames and the Lea, and surely the body which has the right to look after the health of the Metropolis should be represented on the Thames Conservancy. They have exclusive jurisdiction over a frontage of 21½ miles of the river, and I must say that I do not think any Committee upstairs could have come to any other conclusion

  1069
  than that a body having that enormous authority over the banks of the Thames are entitled to have some share in the management of that river.
  EARL COMPTON (York, W.R., Barnsley): After the remarks which have been made by the hon. Baronet opposite, I think that very little further need be said on the subject. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the House for more than a minute or two. On the part of the County Council of London, I think I may say that they will hear with pleasure the promise which has been made by the President of the Board of Trade that there will be a Select Committee on the whole question next year. I think it would be of the greatest advantage to all concerned that the matter should be thoroughly threshed out and determined. In the meantime, however, I think it would be necessary to pass the measure now before the House, in order that the London County Council may be properly represented on this particular Board. As I understand the question, the only argument against giving representation to the London County Council is that if it is granted some evil must happen to the Thames. Now, no evil can possibly come of appointing five members out of 28, and the views of the London County Council would then be properly laid before the Board.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: The City of London already possesses seven representatives.
  EARL COMPTON: I am only speaking about what is asked for in this Bill. All that is claimed is that the London County Council should have five representatives upon the Board. The hon. Member appears to foresee danger from the appointment of five Members, but I would ask what possible evil effect a small minority of five could have among 28. What harm to the river or the interests of the riparian owners could such a minority do? The only effect of acceding to the claim of the Council would be to secure that the views of the Council would be properly placed before the Board, and I cannot see why the Conservancy Board should be so very anxious not to have those views placed before them. There is one question I would like to ask, namely, whether Her Majesty's Government are unanimous in their opposition to this provision of the
  1070
  Bill? I have been given to understand that the President of the Local Government Board is distinctly in favour of it. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place at this moment, but I hope that before the discussion closes we shall have the advantage of hearing his views. At present only one Member of the Government has spoken; he has opposed the Bill; not altogether, on its merits, but in order that a Select Committee may be appointed next year. Are we to understand, from the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government wish their supporters to vote against the Bill, if it goes to a Division? As I believe that the President of the Local Government Board is favourable to the Bill, I think that he ought to give expression to his opinion, so that the Division may not be considered in any way a Party one. At the same time I know that a Whip has been issued to Members on the other side of the House, with a view of opposing this particular clause and certain other clauses which are about to be discusssd. The supporters of the Bill have had no Whip of any kind. They think the justice of the case ought to be quite sufficient to secure a large majority in favour of the Bill, of those who have listened to the Debate after the plain and clear statement of the Chairman of the Select Committee. I think that no hon. Member who heard him can have the slightest hesitation in supporting the clauses which propose to give a representation to the London County Council upon the Thames Conservancy Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's): As the noble Lord has referred to me, I feel bound to say just one word upon the subject. The noble Lord is perfectly accurate in saying that I am distinctly in favour of the London County Council being represented on the Thames Conservancy Board. Having constituted a great body like the London County Council, it ought to have something to say with regard to a river which runs through so large a portion of its district; but as to whether or not the representation proposed in this Bill is too large—whether it is adequate or inadequate I do not express any opinion, and on that question I desire to withhold my opinion.

  1071
  I think the course suggested by my right hon. Friend (Sir M. Hicks Beach) is the right and proper course. It is quite clear that if the London County Council are to be represented on the Board there will be claims for representation on the part of other County Councils through whose district the river runs; and that they also should have representation given to them. That, I take it, would be the view of the London County Council also; and that being so, I should deprecate the London County Council proceeding with these clauses this year, looking to the fact that the matter, by their own admission, is one that ought to be carefully considered by a Select Committee, with a view of settling the representation of the various interests concerned.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am glad, at all events, that we have had the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that London has some interest in the River Thames, and that Representatives of London should have a voice in its management. I am very glad to find that one right hon. Gentleman sitting on that Bench holds that opinion.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I said so, too.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Then I am glad to find that two Members of the Government have declared in favour of such representation. The question we have to vote upon now is whether we should upset the decision of the Committee which has sat upstairs. That is a very grave thing for the House to do. We hear a great deal as to the desirability of the process of delegation; but if we delegate duties of this kind, and then upset the decision arrived at, I am afraid we shall give the House more work to do than we shall escape by the delegation. On what ground is it proposed to reverse the decision of the Select Committee? I have heard none, except that the matter can be taken into consideration next year. I think it would be most inconvenient to appoint Committees and then to dispose of the result of their deliberations in this manner: The Chairman of the Committee in his business-like speech gave the reasons for the decision which the Committee has arrived at, and I have heard no arguments from the other side of the
  1072
  House which should induce us to upset that decision. Why, then, are we to overthrow the decision of the Committee? The President of the Local Government Board has alleged none. He has said, and said truly, that what this clause does, namely, to give a representation to the London County Council upon the Conservancy Board, is a proper thing. The acceptance of the representation of London proposed by the Bill does not exclude the representation hereafter of other County Councils on that Board. Nor is there any reason why we should delay doing justice to the Metropolis in the matter, because there is not yet a proposal before the House to give representation to other County Councils. It is perfectly possible to give representation to London—and London, after all, is the first interest so far as the Thames is concerned, both in regard to its trade its water supply, and its population—and to take other claims into consideration hereafter. No doubt there are other important claims, but the claim of London ought not to be postponed until other bodies make theirs. There is nothing whatever in the present proposal to exclude Parliament, if it thinks fit, from giving representation to other bodies; but the first and primary claim is that of the County Council of London, and I hope that it will be affirmed by the House.
  MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S. E.): I desire to oppose the claim of that august body, the County Council of London, in the interests of my constituents, the sailors and fishermen who ply their calling between Erith and the North Sea. They believe that their interests will be seriously affected by the adoption of Clause 22 of the Bill, and I should like to call attention to the circumstances which already exist, and of which they now complain. The London County Council, as the apostolic successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works, are responsible for the gigantic nuisance caused by the sewage work at Crossness, Barking. Sir Robert Rawlinson has stated that 150,000,000 gallons of sewage affluent are thrown into the River Thames daily. That, as was said by Lord Rosebery in his valedictory address to the County Council on the 23rd of April, was considered absolutely intolerable by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and they ordered the construction of two

  1073
  steamers to remove the sewage sludge to the Nore. It is now in process of removal, not to the Nore, but to the fishing ground of my constituents 15 miles further down. Two schemes are before the Main Drainage Committee, both of which have the utmost terror for my constituents. One, is that Canvey Island should be filled to the brim with sewage, and the other that a canal 46 miles long should be constructed through the County of Essex to take the sewage out to Foulness and Shoebury, thereby entirely destroying the oyster fisheries of the Crouch, and also probably destroying one of the few flourishing towns of Essex, namely, Southend. I do not mean to say that the County Council are not right from their point of view; and choosing the line where they are likely to meet with the least possible resistance, they propose to go to Essex. My constituents, however, are determined to oppose this portion of the Bill to the full extent of their power.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.), who was indistinctly heard owing to loud calls for a Division, said: I think it may expedite matters if I make now the remarks I intended to make upon another clause of this Bill. Parliament has decided, after great care and deliberation, to provide a Board of Conservancy for the River Thames, and I do not think that the recommendation of a Committee, who only examined one witness, ought to be adopted. The witness who was called on behalf of the County Council—Mr. Haggis—was' cross-examined by Mr. Littler, and being questioned as to whether the Council were not proposing mere theoretical legislation, he said he thought the river was more likely to be kept clear and pure by having the people of London represented on the Board than by excluding them. But with regard to the representation of the people of London, it is a well-known fact that the interests of the County Council and of the Thames Conservancy are sometimes diametrically opposed. It is said that the County Council have the management of the bridges. No doubt; but in constructing new ones and maintaining the existing bridges, it is often necessary to drive piles into the river, and the Thames Conservancy acts as a great check at present in preventing obstruc-
  1074
  tion. Moreover, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Essex (Major Rasch), the sewage of London is, to a great extent, under the control of the County Council, and if they neglect to do their duty the Conservancy Board is able to bring pressure to bear upon them. If, however, you give the Council five representatives upon the Board, you will have men who will be able to act as judges in their own case. In my opinion, the best mode of dealing with the subject will be to relegate it to a Select Committee for examination next year, as suggested by the President of the Board of Trade. The House will then be in a position to legislate carefully for all the various interests at stake.
  (4.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 191.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
  MR. WEBSTER: After the decision of the House which has just been expressed as to the further representation of the County Council on the Thames Conservancy Board, I think it is unnecessary for me to enter at any length into the arguments which can be adduced against the Council having further representation on the Conservancy Board of the River Lea. I think the whole of the question of representation on the Thames and Lea Conservancy Boards should be considered, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Cricklade, by a Select Committee of the House, and therefore I do not propose to speak at any length on the point. I fully acknowledge that the state of the River Lea is, and has been, unsatisfactory for some years past, but how the presence of another representative of the County Council upon the Conservancy Board could effect any great change in the condition of the river I fail to understand. I beg to move the rejection of that part of the Preamble which relates to the Lea, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 1, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "increased," in line 8, both inclusive.—(Mr. Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I must confess that I am surprised by the action taken by Her Majesty's Government. By the reply the Government gave to the deputation which waited upon them the other day, we understood they were prepared to support these clauses. Last night I had an interview with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and I certainly understood from him that, although he was going to move for a Committee, the Motion would not interfere with his support of the clauses we have just been discussing. Had we known that the Government were going in the opposite Lobby and going to take their supporters with them, we should have thought it necessary to issue a whip, too. The clause, however, with reference to the Lea stands in a very different position to that which relates to the Thames, and I should like to know what Her Majesty's Government propose to do in regard to it? If they are going to include an inquiry into the Lea in the reference to the Committee they have proposed—[Cries of "No!"]—I am only expressing my own opinion—it would be useless to occupy the time of the House by going to a Division on the question of the Lea. I should imagine, however, that the Committee which is to inquire into the Thames will have quite enough to do, and I can hardly think Her Majesty's Government would propose to include the inquiry into the management of the Lea. If that is the case, I hope the President of the Local Government Board will support the London County Council and will resist the present Amendment. This is a large question, and the Bill has been very carefully inquired into by a Committee upstairs. The Bill is now in the form in which it left the Committee, and I hope that, notwithstanding the Division just taken, the majority of the House will support the decision of their own Committee.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am bound to say the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Lubbock) has hardly dealt fairly with us as to what took place between himself and myself last night. The right hon. Baronet says that in the interview I had with him last night I conveyed to him an intimation that the Government were going to support the clause with re-
  1076
  gard to the Thames Conservancy. I went to see the right hon. Baronet with the view of expressing to him the contrary, and I told the right hon. Baronet that, after the interview I had had with the deputation from the London County Council, I thought it right he should know that it was extremely probable that the clause with regard to the Thames Conservancy would be opposed. I thought the right hon. Baronet understood that the object of the interview was to convey that, because he expressed his thanks to me for the intimation which I had given to him to that effect. The interview I had with the deputation of the London County Council was with reference to all the opposed clauses of the Bill. It is perfectly true I allowed the County Council deputation to infer or to believe that I was in favour of the representation of the London County Council upon the Thames Conservancy Board, but I certainly did not commit myself or my right hon. Friend, with whose Department this question more particularly lies, to an approval of the exact proposal made in the Bill. The only intimation I made was that I was in favour of that representation. This particular question, however, stands on a different footing. Something has been said about the water supply of London. If there is one river which the London people are more concerned about with regard to its purity than any other it is the River Lea. The London County Council have already got a representation upon the Conservancy Board of the Lea—a representation of one—and looking to the fact that a Committee of the House of Commons has considered that that representation ought to be increased from one to two, I shall certainly support the clause.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I only wish to say I am sorry I did not understand my right hon. Friend. I understood that the clause would be opposed, but not that it would be opposed by the Government. However, my main object was not to make any complaint, but to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the course which he proposed to take.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not propose to enter at all into the misunderstanding which appears to have arisen between the Government and their supporters on this side of the

  1077
  House, but I want to thoroughly understand the attitude of the Government on the whole question, because it is one which deeply affects the people of the Metropolis, and one which, no doubt, they will follow with a very attentive eye. By the last Division the Government and their supporters resolved that London, through her County Council, shall not have a voice on the Thames Conservancy. [Cries of "No, no!"] That is what the Vote means. Now comes the question whether the Council shall have a voice in the management of the Lea, and the President of the Local Government Board says, "Oh, yes; they shall have a voice on the Lea, but not on the Thames"
  *MR. RITCHIE: I did not vote.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If he did not, the whole force of the Government was used in the last Division—[cries of"No!"]—and the result of the Division was received with cheers by hon. Gentlemen opposite as a Party triumph. ["Who were the Tellers?"] I am stating that which is an undoubted fact.
  An hon. MEMBER: A lot of the Members for London voted against the Amendment.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes 5 and it is not merely the Government on that side, but the Government on this side who voted against it. It was really a good Unionist Division. I saw it myself. I saw that it was a question whether the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale was to be told in the Lobby against the Amendment. ["Oh!"] I have a perfect right to refer to the fact; I have a right to state that I noticed it was a question whether the noble Lord should be polled in the Division against giving London, through the County Council, a voice upon the management of the Thames. Under these circumstances, and by these influences, London has been, for the present at least, refused that voice. Whether it will ever get it in the future we do not know. Whether there will be a combination to overthrow the decision of the Committee remains to he seen. What is the use of promising A Committee if you whip up a majority to overthrow the Committee's decision? What is the use of promising a Committee on this subject if you mean to treat the decision of the Committee with the contempt with which you have
  1078
  treated the decision of the present Committee? Now, having decided against the London County Council in regard to the Thames, on what ground does the right hon. Gentleman say London is entitled to a voice as regards the Lea? If you are to postpone the question as to London till next year, why not postpone the question as to the Lea as well? He says London is not dependent upon the Thames for its water supply. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is right; but I thought a very great part—I even believed the greater part—of the water supplied to London is taken from the Thames above Kingston. I cannot understand, and it will be for the people of London to endeavour to understand, what is the ground that actuates the Government in refusing to London's representative body to-day a voice in the management of the Thames, and then coming forward and saying they are entitled to that voice in the case of the Lea.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think it would be easy to get into the space of time occupied by the right hon. Gentleman's speech a graver or a more absurd amount of Party misrepresentation. In the first place, this was not a Party Division. Two Members of the Government voted in the opposite Lobby to myself. Some Members of the Government did not vote at all. One of the Tellers for the minority was a staunch supporter of the Conservative Party, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, and the Chairman of Committees, both leading Unionists, were in the opposite Lobby to us. Secondly, we do not oppose the principle of the representation of the London County Council upon the Thames Conservancy. What we con tended for was that, before the principle was adopted by the House, the whole question of the representation of the other riparian County Councils should be considered as well. That I think the right hon. Gentleman will see, if he reflects for a moment, is the only reasonable and just course. It is not merely a matter of opinion. It is a course which the House has adopted for the last 25 years in dealing with the question of the government of the Thames. If such a Committee is moved for next Session my impression is that it is probable

  1079
  that the Conservancy Body will be so re-modelled as to include the representation of the London County Council and the other County Councils, affected as well. But of one thing I am quite sure; if this Bill had been passed this year, as it has been passed by the Select Committee, a larger representation would have been given to the Metropolitan interest out of the whole number than is likely to be given after full and impartial consideration. I have only to say now I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend in considering that the question of the conservancy of the Lea stands as it has always been regarded by Parliament on an entirely different basis to that of the conservancy of the Thames. I therefore trust that my hon. Friend behind me will not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division.
  MR. LAWSON: We do not know what the next Session may bring forth, and I should like to challenge the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that the majority of his supporters on that side did not vote against the principle of the representation of the London Council on the Thames Conservancy Board. They struck out words in the Preamble, and, therefore, under this Bill there can be no representation of the London Council on that Board for the next year, or until the House has accepted the decision of the Committee in favour of such representation which may or may not be made. The course pursued by the Government, and I speak from the view of the County Council, and not from a Party standpoint, has been rather tortuous as well as unfortunate. The President of the Local Government Board told the deputation who waited upon him that ho was in favour of all the clauses except that which dealt with juries, as to the desirability of which he was not quite certain. At the last moment, at the eleventh hour, when the Parliamentary Agent understood the Bill would not meet with opposition from the Government, or from the prominent Members of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman turns round and declares against the Bill on the ground put forward by the President of the Board of Trade. I do not know who the two Members of the Government were who voted in our Lobby, but I do not think they saw many
  1080
  of their supporters there. I am glad to think that my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard. Vincent) was a sufficiently staunch-County Councillor not only not to repudiate the Council in this House, but to tell in favour of the Bill, and I regret that the other Conservative Members of the County Council were not present to take part in the Division.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I propose to speak to the Amendment, and not to address myself to the question of the Division that has just taken place. There are a number of very delicate interests connected with the River Lea and in 1868 a Royal Commission, which considered the whole question, nicely balanced all these interests and apportioned the proper number of members on the Lea Conservancy Board to each. The number of members was fixed at 13, and care was taken to provide that no interest should be over-represented. This was confirmed by the Act under which the Lea Conservancy Board was constituted. It is possible that by lapse of time the arrangement then made may be properly disturbed, but, if so, it should only be after such a full inquiry as took place in 1868. Several times the Metropolitan Board of Works endeavoured to increase their representation on the Lea Conservancy Board, and several times Parliament refused to let them do so. We are now asked to disturb the present basis of representation merely because a Committee of four upstairs voted in favour of it. With all respect to the hon. Baronet who was Chairman of that Committee, those of us who are experienced in Committee work know that such decisions are often arrived at merely by the vote of the Chairman. The only reason that is given for the proposed change is that the representative of the County Council may be unwell or unable to be present. The same reasoning would apply to the other bodies that are represented, and there can be no more reason for giving the County Council two members instead of one than for giving the other bodies two instead of one.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) affirmed that he was in

  1081
  favour of the principle of the representation of the County Council, and did not express even a personal opinion that the representation claimed by the present Bill was an excessive or improper amount of representation. Yet the right hon. Gentleman did not vote in the Division. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach) has now made it very clear what is the real attitude of the Government on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman has informed the Committee that he looks forward to the diminution, and not the increase, in the future of the representation.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Including the remainder.
  *SIR C. RUSSELL: But he holds to the opinion that that would be too large a representation of the London County Council. So far as the representation of the other bodies is concerned, there is no division of opinion on this side of the House. We ask that all the interests concerned in the River Thames shall be represented upon the Board; but how can this question of re-modelling the Conservancy Board be injuriously affected in any way by the acceptance of the just claim now made by the County Council? As regards the question of the River Lea, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board spoke for the Government or not. It is desirable to know whether he did or did not. If he did, I will not prolong the discussion. Of course, if he was not justified in speaking in the name of the Government it will be necessary to justify the view taken by the Committee upstairs; but, for the present, assuming that he was representing the views of the Government, I do not propose to trouble the House further.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg leave to withdraw up to line 13 of the Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The omission was only moved up to line 8.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg now to move the omission of lines 13 to 18 inclusive.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must observe that lines 14 to 18 embrace matters of very wide divergence. They include the
  1082
  building powers of the County Council, and the powers relative to the supply of water and to the markets of London.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Then, with the permission of the House, I will move the omission of lines 13 to 15 inclusive. My remarks on this Amendment shall be very brief. It appears, Sir, that by these lines various changes will be made in the Building Acts of London. Some of these changes are very desirable, and if they become law will be very useful. My objection to them is that they should be introduced by means of a Private Bill. I think it is quite contrary to the practice of Parliament that such provisions should be inserted in Private Bills, and I would point out the great difficulty that will be caused to architects, surveyors, and other persons interested in buildings in London if we allow the London County Council to introduce various changes in the Building Acts through the instrumentality of a private measure. At present there is before a Committee, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan), a public Bill introduced by the London County Council. I think it would be a very proper thing if these provisions were removed from this Bill, with which they have practically nothing to do, and put into the public Bill, so that they may be discussed in all their bearings. It is an extremely inconvenient thing to have these Bills shot into the House of Commons by the County Council, with provisions in them which, if adopted, would make the legislation of this House very confusing indeed. I therefore ask that these provisions should be taken out of this Bill and referred to the Committee on the Public Buildings of the Metropolis.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "forth," in line 15, both inclusive.—(Mr. Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. RITCHIE: I hope that the House will not assent to the proposal which has just been made. I think the object of my hon. Friend in moving the omission of these lines is to cut down a Bill

  1083
  which will give the London County Council some controlling power with regard to the manner in which public buildings in the Metropolis shall be erected. I have gone carefully through all these clauses, and I have had them examined by my professional adviser; and though perhaps they may be open to some improvement, yet on the authority of the information I have received I say that every one of them is a great advance on the existing law, and I therefore hope that the House will not cut them out.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am extremely glad to hear the language held by the right hon. Gentleman. It is language too rare on the other side of the House. Public attention is a good deal occupied at present with the question as to how the time of the House of Commons is being spent. I hope it will be noted what is the subject to which Her Majesty's Government and their supporters have devoted this afternoon. There has been an attempt to overthrow, clause by clause, the decision of a Committee upstairs upon a private Bill. That is the sort of occupation which they think most fit for the House of Commons. The object is apparent. It is to cut down as much as possible—of course, I am not speaking of the right hon. Gentleman, because that has never been the spirit in which he has spoken or acted—and to refuse to the County Council, as representing the City of London, the only possible power and authority which affects the interests of the inhabitants of London. Everybody knows that that is the spirit of the opposition to this Bill. That is the spirit which dictated the Division just taken, the object of which was either to refuse the power altogether or, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said, at least to cut down the number of the County Council representatives on this body.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, but that is not what I said. I pointed out that there were already seven Members sent by the City to the Conservancy Board, and I suggested the proposed increase of members from the County Council in addition to those members was hardly fair in the interests of the Upper Thames.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I hope the House will not stray from the Amendment before it, which relates to further provisions for buildings.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If hon. Members choose to have these Debates they must not object if we take part in them. It is not we who raised this discussion. We should have been extremely glad to have assented to the decision of the Committee. We have-asked you to abide by it; but clause by clause, and section by section, hon. Members opposite have tried to defeat it. A great deal of time has already been spent on this matter. I hope that now hon. Members opposite will take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and allow the House to come to a decision on it.
  MR. BAUMANN: I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman in the somewhat acrimonious line of debate he has adopted; but I think that the President of the Local Government Board has entirely misunderstood the intentions of the proposer of the Amendment. His intention is not to cause certain clauses relating to buildings in the Metropolis to disappear altogether, but it is to cut them out of this Bill, for the purpose of tacking them on to a Public Bill called the Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment Bill. I submit that Clauses 33 and 34, which are governed by this part of the Preamble which it is now proposed to omit, might be very appropriately transferred to the Bill I have mentioned, because it deals with practically the same subject—it deals with kindred matters. I think that for the public-convenience, for the convenience of those who have to follow these Acts of Parliament, and for the simplification of the law, it would be a very desirable thing indeed to have; these clauses relating to buildings in London—which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, really have no proper place in this Bill—taken out of it and moved in the form of a new clause in the Public Bill standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet opposite. I have reason to know that some of the authorities of the House are in favour of the transposition of these clauses as suggested; and I therefore hope that the House will give a candid and impartial consideration to the change, which I, for

  1085
  one, certainly advocate in no spirit of hostility or obstruction, but merely for the convenience of the public and the simplification of our Statute Law. If the Amendment is carried, I shall put down the clauses thus cut out as new clauses to the Public Bill.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: The hon. Member said he wished the clauses to be referred to the Committee sitting upstairs on the Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment Bill; But there is no Committee sitting on that Bill. The Committee has reported the Bill to the House. I do not deny that there might be some convenience if the clauses could be incorporated in that Bill; but I am not encouraged to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member, because he himself blocked that Bill last night.
  MR. BAUMANN: I hope the right hon. Baronet will allow me to explain that I blocked the Bill in order to await the result of this discussion. If these clauses are cut out of this Bill I shall put down a Motion to re-commit the public Bill for the purpose of tacking them on to it.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: If the hon. Member really wishes that these clauses should be inserted in that Bill, surely his course last night should have been to move the re-committal of the Bill. But, exercising his rights as a private Member, he simply blocked the Bill when it came on after 12 o'clock. I am afraid that if I were to adopt his suggestion now these clauses, which everybody admit to be valuable ones, would be lost altogether. Under these circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. H. LAWSON: I am afraid that the zeal of the hon. Member for the simplification of the law will only lead to blocking Metropolitan business. If his suggestion were adopted, the probability is that these clauses would not pass into law this Session at all. I originally moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was impossible to negotiate with hon. Members opposite, who refused to allow the Committee stage to be taken. But now the state of public business is such that it is highly improbable the enemies of the London County Council in this House will allow it to pass a further stage. It
  1086
  would therefore be unwise to excise these clauses from the Bill now before us, in order to get them inserted in the other Bill.
  MR. MURDOCH: I think that in the interests of builders, surveyors, architects, and others, it would be well to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend, as it would simplify matters very much if all clauses relating to buildings in the Metropolis were to be found in one Bill. We are now discussing the London County Council Bill, but there is nothing in the title which will enable surveyors, architects, builders, and others to know that it contains clauses which affect their business. It would be far better to have all these provisions in one Bill.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have on hand at the present time a Bill consolidating the law with regard to all these matters in London, and I hope soon, by means of it, to place in the hands of all concerned a complete list of the provisions affecting them.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.): I am very pleased to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to consolidating the Bill with regard to buildings in London. I rose for the very purpose of making such a suggestion. I think at the present time, if hon. Members believe these clauses are of importance, the best plan will be to allow them to pass. To agree to such an Amendment as this when we are approaching the middle of July, and to attempt to transfer them from one Bill to another, as to which there is a strong probability that it will not pass into law, will not certainly be a wise course to pursue. It is, I think, a very ingenious mode of getting rid of the clauses altogether. Those who have a deep interest in the welfare of the Bill have nothing to gain by this proposed transference.
  *MR. R. G. WEBSTER: After the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. ["No, no."]
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: With regard to Clause 32, which exempts members of the County Council from jury service, I certainly could not imagine any men better qualified to sit on juries. It is also slightly anomalous that in one

  1087
  and the same Bill, amongst its multifarious contents, are found the County Council asking for fresh duties in one clause, and in the next exemption from those duties which, in common with the vast majority of citizens, they are occasionally called on to perform. As I understand, however, the contention is that their public duties are already very onerous, I will not propose my Amendment for the omission of that clause.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The decision just come to by the House negativing the proposal to omit lines 13 to 15 in the Preamble gives the sanction to Clauses 33 and 34, which will therefore stand part of the Bill. It is not competent, therefore, to move their omission.
  Another Amendment made.
  Bill to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  COLONIAL POSTAL RATES.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a statement showing the internal rates of postage on newspapers and printed matter in the various colonies of the British Empire as at 1st January, 1890?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The information cannot be furnished by the Colonial Office or Post Office with completeness; but if the hon. Member wishes it shall be obtained by a Circular Despatch to the different colonies. The replies will not be received during the present Session; and perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me if he thinks it necessary that such a Circular should be sent.

  CUSTOM HOUSE MESSENGERS.
  MR. J. R. KELLY (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any Memorial has been recently received by the Treasury from the established messengers at the Custom House, praying for the redress of certain grievances; and whether, if so, he will state when a reply to it may be; expected; whether the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs have recently
  1088
  decided to fill only each alternate vacancy to the first-class messengerships; whether he will state the reason for which two vacancies in such class have remained unfilled; and whether, in view of the fact that the whole of the second-class messengers entered the Service under the conditions set forth in the Treasury Minute of 1st April, 1873, giving them the right of rising to the maximum of £90 per annum, he will take the necessary steps for the carrying out of such Treasury Minute?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.): I have made inquiry, and I cannot find that the Memorial from the messengers of the Customs has been received at the Treasury. Copies of such a Memorial have been forwarded to the Treasury; but, according to the well-known rules of the Service, the signed original must be presented before the prayer of the Memorial can receive attention.

  HIRED CLERICAL ASSISTANTS.
  MR. J. R. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the greatest number of men who have been employed in any one week during the last three months upon clerial duties in the various Government Offices and whose services have been hired from both Messrs. Waterlow and Messrs. Vacher; whether such men have been paid regular daily or weekly wages by Messrs. Waterlow and Messrs. Vacher respectively, or only for the hours during which their services may have been required in the Government Offices, and whether, if he has no information on the subject, he would cause inquiries to be made on the subject; whether he can state if it is the practice of both Messrs. Waterlow and Messrs. Vacher to make a profit of from 15 to 20 per cent, on the sums paid to them in respect of the daily services of such men, and whether, if he is unable to do so, he will cause inquiries to be made on the subject; and whether the practice of so hiring men through agents for work in Government Offices is not in direct opposition to the opinion expressed in the Report of the Play fair Commission?
  MR. JACKSON: I am unable to give the detailed information as to law stationers clerks for which the hon. Member asks. I am not aware that the

  1089
  Play fair Commission expressed any such general condemnation of the practice of employing these clerks as the hon. Member attributes to it; but however that may be, the Treasury have not contemplated the permanent employment of law stationers clerks in Government Departments; but assistance of this kind must be procured for temporary purposes from time to time to meet emergencies.

  ST. GILES'S. CAMBERWELL.
  MR. J. R. KELLY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Vestry of St. Giles's, Camberwell, are acting in excess of their powers in ordering and enforcing the making of structural alterations to the drains of houses built in their district in 1877 under the sanction of their officer and that of the City Architect; and whether if in so acting the Vestry, while complying with the letter of the Nuisances Removal Act of 1855, are violating the real intent and spirit of the provisions of that statute?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's): I have communicated with the Vestry of St. Giles's, Camberwell, but I have received no such information as to the facts as would enable me to come to any conclusion on the subject. Moreover, the matter is one in which the Local Government Board have no jurisdiction whatever. I gather that the Vestry consider that they are proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Nuisances Removal Acts. I am not aware whether an order of Justices has been made in the matter, but assuming that such order has been made there would be an appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions against the decision.

  CONSTANTINOPLE HOSPITAL DUES.
  COLONEL HILL (Bristol, S.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering the grievance to which British ship-owners have been subjected, owing to the present mode of collecting the Hospital dues in the ports of Constantinople and Smyrna, attention to which was promised many weeks ago, he will now state the decision of Her Majesty's Government in respect thereto?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON, Manchester, N.E.): The Treasury have agreed to a reduction of the Constantinople Hospital Dues from ½d. a ton to 1d. per three tons from the first convenient date. No proposal for reduction of the Smyrna Hospital Dues is before Her Majesty's Government.

  LIVE STOCK AND INCOME TAX.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the ease that an owner and occupier of land can be charged Income Tax under Schedules A and B, when the only profit he derives consists in the enhanced value of his live stock; and whether increased value of live stock is held to constitute "profit" before such value has been realised?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; the owner and occupier of land may, under certain circumstances, be charged Income Tax under Schedules A and B, when the only profit he derives consists in the enhanced value of his live stock before such value is realised. If, for instance, an occupier were to hold over lambs or other stock produced in the year, the increased value of his stock must be brought into the profit and loss account. The question whether such increased value constitutes profit or not is for the District Commissioners.

  IRELAND—MR. KIRKWOOD, J.P.
  MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if Mr. William R. Kirkwood, of Killala, County Mayo, still holds the Commission of the Peace for that county, or, if he has been dismissed or superseded, what are the reasons which prompted the taking of this course?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I am informed that Mr. Kirkwood has been suspended by the Lord Chancellor from the discharge of Magisterial duties, pending inquiry and decision as to certain charges which have been brought against him with reference to the discharge of his duties as a Magistrate.

  RICHMOND DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. W. J. CORBET (Wicklow, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to an inquest held on Friday last at the Richmond District Lunatic Asylum, Dublin, into the death of Christopher O'Connor, who had for 40 years held appointments in the Criminal Lunatic Asylum at Dundrum, and had risen to the rank of head attendant, which he held for over 20 years; whether he has observed the conflicting medical evidence given at the inquest, Dr. Ashe, Resident Physician of the Criminal Asylum, stating—
  "He knew a case in which a patient's ribs gave way of their own account without any violence;"
  Dr. Nolan, Senior Assistant Physician of the Richmond Asylum, testifying that
  "the injuries could not have been sustained by a man lying quietly in his bed;"
  and Dr. Thomas Myles, who made a special post-mortem examination, deposing
  "he found the deceased had fracture of four ribs on the right side and two on the left. Three of the ribs were broken in two places, two of them, the sixth and seventh, were driven into the right lung.… From the nature of the injuries to the ribs witness concluded they were due to a great crushing force recently inflicted, and probably at the same time. Deceased could not have inflicted the injuries on himself;"
  whether he is aware that death from broken ribs is a common occurrence in lunatic asylums; whether his attention has been called to the finding of the Jury, that—
  "Death was due to the fracture of the ribs, two of which perforated the right lung, the injuries being caused by violence, and that they had no evidence to show how this violence occurred. They recommended the widow and children of the deceased to the consideration of the Treasury on account of his long and faithful services;"
  and will the recommendation of the Jury be given effect to?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums report that the newspaper statements in regard to the evidence given are misleading. There were no reporters present on the first day of the inquest, and the Inspectors are now awaiting copies of the depositions called for by them. The statements in
  1092
  paragraphs 3 and 4 appear to be correct. The recommendations of the Jury will receive consideration, but the Inspectors understand that the man died possessed of considerable property.

  THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY AND HOUSES FOR THE WOKKING CLASSES.
  MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, during the past few years, the Midland Railway Company have acquired in St. Pancras large areas under compulsory powers, and that, in consequence, 23,000 of the working classes have had their dwellings taken down, and been obliged to leave that district of London; if he is aware that, within the last few months, a total of 37 houses have been demolished in Somers Town, St. Pancras, occupied by about 325 individuals, chiefly belonging to the working classes, and that these houses were acquired by arrangement from Messrs. Salter, Issott, and Salter, and sold to the Midland Railway Company prior to the 15th of last December, the date when private Bills have to be scheduled, and that a demolition of houses which would cause the removal of nearly, it is estimated, 2,000 other residents in St. Pancras is contemplated; and whether he will cause steps to be taken that, in case of any future demolition of houses used by the working classes in St. Pancras, the provisions of the Acts are all duly enforced, and suitable dwellings are erected for those evicted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS, Birmingham, E.): I am not in possession of the exact figures showing what has been the actual result of the Bills promoted by the Midland Railway Company during the last few years. The schedule of the Bill now before Parliament shows that houses inhabited by 2,050 persons may be demolished. The Bill, however, not only provides, in compliance with Standing Orders, for the re-housing of persons displaced under the powers of the Bill, but a special provision has been inserted at the instance of the Home Office by which the usual clause as to replacing demolished working class dwellings is extended, not only to houses acquired compulsorily under the powers

  1093
  of the Bill, but to houses acquired by agreement. So far as Parliament gives me power in the matter, I will not fail to have regard to the interests of the working classes who may be disturbed under schemes promoted by the Railway Company in question.

  THE ACCOUNTANT BRANCH OF THE NAVAL SERVICE.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of officers and writers on board Her Majesty's ships, and the highest and lowest pay in each class; whether the duties are almost identical and in the largest part performed by the writers; when the last inquiry was made into the condition of the Accountant Branch of the Naval Service; and whether he will consider the advisability of abolishing the present expensive officer class of Accountants?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The number of Accountant Officers and Writers on the list on the 1st April, 1890, were respectively:—Accountant Officers, 455; Writers, 279: and the highest and lowest pay in each class is:—Accountant Officers—Fleet Paymaster, £602 5s. 0d.; Assistant Clerk, £45 12s. 6d.: Writers—1st class, £91 5s. 0d.; 3rd class, £36 10s. 0d. It is entirely a mistake to describe the duties of Accountant Officers and Writers as identical. The Accountant Officer has frequently to perform work of a highly important and confidential nature, and he is not only entrusted with the management of the official work afloat, including the duties of cashier, but he also has charge of the Ship's Steward and his staff. The condition of the Writers was the subject of an inquiry by a Committee in 1888, but no change was then recommended. The Accountant Branch was inquired into in 1869 and 1870, and some further alterations were made in 1873; and quite recently the subject has been under the consideration of the Board, with the result that it has been found necessary to increase the number of Paymasters and Assistant Paymasters.

  DEATH FROM STARVATION AT WOOLWICH.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will make inquiries as to the death by starvation of a man (unknown), on Friday last, in a common lodging house in High Street, Woolwich; whether he has observed that Dr. James Watson deposed before the Coroner that, in his opinion, the death was due to starvation, and that the Jury found accordingly; and if he has any more information as to the death by starvation of Elizabeth Barrett?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have no information as to the alleged death from starvation; in a common lodging house in High Street, Woolwich, but I will make inquiry with regard to the case. With respect to the case of Elizabeth Barrett, I have not yet received from the Coroner a copy of the depositions. As soon as it is received I will consider whether it is necessary to communicate with the Guardians on the subject. I am not at present in a position to give the House any further information respecting the case.

  "BARRY" v BALL."
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the civil action of Mr. Thomas Barry, P.L.G., against D. J. Ball, is fixed for trial on, Thursday next, the 10th instant; if he is aware that Mr. Barry is now confined in Cork Gaol as a bail prisoner for the alleged offence arising out of the proceedings in connection with which the civil action is being brought against the District Inspector; and whether the Prison Authorities will produce Mr. Barry, or cause him to be produced, in Court on Thursday, in order that he may give evidence in support of his own cause of action?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As this question appears on to-day's Paper without previous notice, I have been unable to obtain a Report on the matter of fact referred to in the first paragraph. The General Prisons Board report that the prisoner mentioned is at present in Cork Prison for refusing to give bail in respect to an

  1095
  assault, but whether in connection with the case referred to in the question they are not aware. The Prisons Board have no power to act as suggested in the last paragraph; but it is open to the bail prisoner's advisers to obtain a writ of habeas corpus, which would be at once complied with.
  *MR. FLYNN: In view of the fact that the civil action is to be tried on Thursday next, and that this man had this charge sprung suddenly upon him, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it too much to telegraph to Ireland to instruct the Constabulary Authorities to take the necessary steps to allow this man to be heard as a witness in his own civil action?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a perfectly well understood form of procedure by which this gentleman can get permission to attend.
  MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.): But might not this gentleman be saved the expense of going through that form by the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should very much doubt if we have power to do that.

  LLANCAIACH STATION.
  MR. A. THOMAS (Glamorgan, E.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take the necessary steps in order to have the recommendations of Colonel Rich carried into effect, which he made in his Report of 21st August, 1889, on the dangerous state of the Llancaiach Station of the Great Western Railway?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): Since the date of Colonel Rich's Report a new station at Treharris has been opened. The Board of Trade are informed by the Great Western Railway Company that they are waiting to see the effect upon the traffic of the opening of the new station before deciding either to improve the existing Llancaiach Station or to remove it altogether. The Board of Trade have no authority to make any requirements in the matter.

  HELIGOLAND.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before this House is called upon to assent to any
  1096
  Bill for the surrender of Heligoland to Germany, full information will be afforded as to all territorial engagements not hitherto communicated to Parliament, also as to any new responsibilities (if any) recently incurred by this country in the event of war breaking out on the Continent of Europe, and especially as to the present relations of Her Majesty to what is known as the Triple Alliance, or to the engagements for mutual support made between Germany, Austria, and Italy?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have already informed the House that Her Majesty's Government have entered into no new engagements or responsibilities, and their attitude in regard to other Powers has been frequently and plainly defined both in this and in the other House of Parliament.

  COUNTY COURT RETURNS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the usual annual Returns relating to County Courts, of Remitted Actions, Plaints, and Sittings, have not yet been presented, and when they will be in the hands of Members?
  *MR. JACKSON: I have made inquiry about this Return. I believe that really it is a Home Office Return, and it has been usually moved for by a private Member. It has not yet been moved for this Session, but I think it is just about ready, and I will endeavour to place it on the Table.

  BECHUANALAND.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what jurisdiction Her Majesty has in the Bechuanaland Protectorate; by what right, or under what Instrument, the Administrator of Bechuanaland can compel chiefs in the Protectorate to consent to the construction of a telegraph line across their territories against their will; and whether the British South Africa Company, in taking over the work of constructing a telegraph through the Protectorate from the Government, is bound to carry it out under the conditions imposed by the Charter?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Her Majesty has an inherent jurisdiction over British subjects, and has the usual authority

  1097
  possessed by a European Sovereign who assumes the duty of protecting native African chiefs against violence. Further details as to Her Majesty's powers, especially over whites, will be found in a series of Instruments executed by the chiefs at the time Sir Charles Warren visited them in 1885. These Instruments are printed at pages 45 to 48 of the Blue Book C 4,588 of 1885. The right to make the telegraph is not based on any Instrument, but on the natural right of the protecting Power to do all things essential to the safety of the protected area. The Company is, no doubt, bound to respect the provisions of the Charter in all that it does; but it is not perceived how the Company in laying a telegraph-wire can infringe any provision of the Charter.

  THE CASE OF JOHN MORRISSEY.
  MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether John Morrissey, arrested and imprisoned on the 31st March last, under an order of the County Court Judge of Kildare, is still in gaol; whether he is aware that Morrissey was arrested and imprisoned for contempt of Court in not having obeyed an injunction to remove certain huts erected on the holding of a Mrs. Kelly for the shelter of evicted tenants; and whether Morrissey was in any degree bound to carry out the injunction referred to; and, if not, whether he will take into consideration, in case Morrissey has not yet been released, the advisability of now releasing him from prison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question appears to relate to the case of Michael Morrissey, who was committed to prison on 21st March for contempt of Court, by order of the County Court Judge of Kildare. Morrissey was bound to obey the injunction. It has been open to him at any time to obtain his immediate release by purging his contempt of Court.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether, knowing the facts of this case, and that this unfortunate man is only the husband of the niece of the tenant, and has no power of obeying the injunction of the County Court Judge, the Government will interfere and order his release?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I rightly understand the hon. Member his contention is that this man has no power to purge his contempt of Court or to obey the injunction. But the hon. Member must be aware that I have no power to interfere in cases of con tempt of Court.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But the Government have already interfered by releasing the tenant and her niece. The County Court Judge only sits once in three months, and this man will have to remain in prison till October unless the Government interfere.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that three years ago the Home Secretary interfered in the case of an Englishman imprisoned for contempt in one of the Western counties?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that is an error. My right hon. Friend denies, that he did interfere.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But, as a matter of fact, the Government have interfered in this case by ordering the release of the tenant and her niece. Do the Government intend to keep this man, who has already been in gaol four months, under detention for a further period, although there is no possibility of his going before the County Court Judge for some months to come?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the Government find it part of their duty to review the sentence they will, of course, do so.
  MR. CLANCY: I may, perhaps, mention that at the last Quarter Sessions the County Court Judge was asked to release the woman and refused to do so.

  THE FINN VALLEY RAILWAY.
  MR. DALTON (Donegal, W.): I beg-to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received from the Finn Valley Railway Company a resolution of their Board, stating that they are "prepared to work the extension railway from Stranorlar to Glenties at cost price"; and whether, in view of his statement that the Government attach great importance to satisfactory arrangements for working being made, if possible, with existing Railway Companies, now that this Company have proposed satisfactory arrangements for working this extension, he will state whether the Government are prepared now to forward the Stranorlar and Glenties line?
  *MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; I received yesterday a copy of the resolution mentioned from the Secretary to the Finn Valley Railway Company. Inquiry will be made and the proposal considered, but I cannot at present express any opinion upon it.

  THE PUBLICANS' PETITION.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Walsall whether he intends to take any further steps with regard to the Petition "presented on 26th June, by the hon. Member for the Ripon Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, from inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland," in favour of the Compensation Clauses, seeing that the Select Committee on Public Petitions report—
  "That many of the signatures are in the same handwriting, that some few names are fictitious, and that a very small number are obscene, and they are of opinion that the Orders of the House have not been complied with."
  SIR C. FORSTER: The Committee of Public Petitions have found that the Petition recently presented by the hon. Member for the Ripon Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire in favour of the Licensing Clauses of the Local Taxation Bill contained 611,342 signatures. The Committee have gone carefully into the matter, and have discovered that while 7 per cent, of the signatures are in the same handwriting, others are obscene. These facts, no doubt, detract (from the value of the Petition, but the Committee are of opinion that they do not afford sufficient grounds for its rejection, especially as it was so numerously signed.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Are we to understand that 40,000 of the signatures were in the same handwriting?
  SIR C. PORSTER: I have given the hon. Baronet all the information in my possession.

  IRISH POOR RATE COLLECTORS.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM (Limerick, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to resolutions adopted by Poor Race Collectors in Ireland, with reference to the onerous duties imposed on them in connection
  1100
  with carrying out the provisions of the Franchise Act, for which no remuneration is provided; and if he can hold out any hope of remedial legislation in the near future?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The attention of the Irish Government has been called to the resolutions referred to, and, as I have already stated, I am quite ready to introduce a Bill to meet the cases of the Poor Law officials where they are at present insufficiently remunerated for their duties under the Franchise Act, if assured that the Bill will meet with the general assent of all Parties in the House. Since making that statement I have received no assurance to that effect. I am, however, prepared to bring in a Bill; but it must be understood that it can only be passed as an unopposed Bill.

  IRISH PRISON LIBRARIES.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that under the rules of the General Prisons Board a prisoner is only allowed to have one book out of the library per month, and that this rule is rigorously enforced, whether the book contains 100 or 1,000 pages; whether there is any sufficient reason for this limitation; and whether he will direct that prisoners who are entitled to have the use of books from the prison library shall be allowed to change such books as often as they may need to, provided that such permission is not abused in the sense of spending in reading time which should be otherwise employed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the number of volumes in the prison libraries is not fixed, but varies according to the average number of prisoners. New books are added to the libraries each year, as a rule. The sum allowed by the Treasury for the purchase of new library books each year is at the rate of 1s. 3d. per prisoner of the daily average number of prisoners. The annual expenditure, therefore, varies from year to year, and cannot be exactly stated without reference to the Stationery Office. It is contrary to practice to allow any books to be introduced other than those provided in the manner above described; but if special cause were shown the practice would, no doubt, be relaxed?
  MR. CONYBEARE: In view of the fact in my own experience that the prisoners find it very difficult to get books renewed, and are not able to change even small books for a whole month, I ask will the right hon. Gentleman give the Governors of gaols greater latitude in this matter?
  MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.): Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the practice in this matter in English prisons? Will he ascertain whether books are not more frequently issued in those prisons; and will he consider the desirability of more frequently issuing them in Irish prisons, so long as the prison tasks are not interfered with?
  MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.): Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions for prisoners to be allowed H complete work instead of only one volume at a time?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can only say that the practice which obtains in English prisons is similar to that in Irish gaols.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what number of volumes is as a rule contained in the gaol libraries of the Irish Prisons, how often the books are renewed, and what sum annually is spent in furnishing them; and whether, if donations of books were received from charitable persons, the General Prisons Board would allow them to be added to the prison libraries? I will also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot see his way to giving prisoners a greater choice of works, seeing that they are now mainly supplied with the lives of saints, and that such works are seldom in harmony with their religion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the frequency with which library books are issued to prisoners depends, according to regulations, on a prisoner's length of sentence find class. Those in the second-class receive a new book every month, those in the first-class, who have spent above 12 months in prison, receive a new book when required, while those in the lower classes receive only one book during two months or six weeks. The rule is generally strictly enforced; but as regards the size of the book, which is selected by the prisoner himself, if it
  1102
  turns out to be of very small size, the Governor sometimes allows him to exchange it for a larger. The present regulation is based on the principle of increasing a prisoner's privileges, by a graduated scale, according to his conduct and industry and the length of his sentence. The Prisons Board informs me that it has worked satisfactorily.

  CLONMEL GAOL.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the fact that the warders in Clonmel Gaol have to perform the following severe duties every ninth week, namely, that they commence work every morning at 4 a.m., and cease work on three days at 10 p.m., at 6.30, and 8.30 p.m. on the other days; what is the number of the staff in the said prison; what is the average number of prisoners confined therein; whether there is any special reason why the warders should have such long hours of duty; and whether he will cause such an addition to the staff to be made as will relieve them of this grievance?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that, owing to the construction of Clonmel Prison, the cook-house being detached from the main building, it is necessary that an officer should rise each morning at 4 o'clock in summer, at 5 o'clock in winter, to light the fires. The Governor, however, reports that this duty (which in other prisons where the cookhouse is under the main roof can be performed by the night guard) takes only about five minutes, after which the officer can return to his room till 6 a.m. The duty falls to each warder only one week in every 11, not as stated in the question. Only a small proportion of officers is kept on duty till 10 p.m., half the staff being allowed off duty in turn at 6.30 p.m:, and the rest at 8.15 p.m. In addition to the Governor, Chaplain, Medical Officer, and Clerk, there are 13 subordinate officers in this prison. The daily average number of prisoners for the year ended 31st March last was 94.7. The reason why the warders have very occasionally to rise at an early hour is given in the first part of the reply; but it is not the fact that the hours of duty in this

  1103
  prison are, on the whole, exceptionally long. On the contrary, the Governor, who has had experience of several other prisons, reports that he does not know of any prison where the officers have less cause of complaint on this ground or where the Sunday half-holiday, or the alternate evenings relief from duty, is more strictly observed. Under these circumstances, it is not considered necessary to increase the staff of this prison.
  MR. CONYBEABE: IS the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Derry Gaol the hours of duty were 6 a.m. in the summer and 7 in the winter. Why, in this prison at Clonmel, should the hours be longer except for duty in the cook-house?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather that that is the only reason.

  THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL.
  MR. RANKIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take into his consideration the propriety of allocating the amount which had been set apart for the extinction of licences to County Councils, for the purpose of creating and assisting a County Pension Fund for old age, established either as a separate County Fund, or carried on by the agency of Friendly Societies?
  MR. J. B. KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has considered, and, if not, will consider, the advisability of utilising the £350,000, which was to have been devoted by the County Councils to the extinction of public house licences, for the purpose of making provision for the superannuation of the teachers in all elementary schools, whether Board or Voluntary schools?
  *THE FIRST LOED OF THE TREASUBY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): In answer to the questions of the hon. Members for Leominster and North Camberwell, I can only repeat that the Government will carefully consider all proposals relative to the disposition of the Fund intended for the extinction of licences.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an intimation as to how soon the Amendments are likely to be put down?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able to give any indication at present.

  THE CENSUS.
  MR. J. KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government has considered the advisability of providing in the forthcoming Census Bill for the taking of the census quinquennially in future; and whether he will state to the House when the Censns Bill may be expected to be introduced?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: We hope to introduce the Census Bill very shortly, and I think I must ask my hon. Friend to wait until then for details as to his proposals.

  HELIGOLAND.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the 4th Article of the Capitulation of Heligoland in 1807 provided that the inhabitants should not be molested in their privileges, and that the 10th Article of Capitulation stated that it is one of the privileges of the inhabitants of the island not to be obliged to serve on board kings' ships contrary to their inclinations, and guaranteed that privilege to the inhabitants in the future; whether any time limit was assigned to this-guarantee of privileges; and whether Her Majesty's Government have stipulated in the Anglo-German Convention that Germany shall be bound to maintain the privileges thus guaranteed by England in 1807?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The provisions of the Articles are accurately stated. There is no record of any time limit. By paragraph 3 of the 12th Article of the Agreement all natives of Heligoland and their children born before the date of the signature of the Agreement are free from the obligation of service in the military and naval forces of Germany; and by paragraph 4 of the same Agreement it is provided that native laws and customs now existing shall remain, as far as possible, undisturbed.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to ask, in connection with this important question, whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay on the Table of the House the Capitulation to which reference has been made?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I will inquire if that can be done.
  MR. SUMMERS (Hadderefield): I have a Motion on the Paper for the production of the Articles of Capitulation, and I believe it is not opposed.
  MR. CHAINING: Are we to understand that the privileges guaranteed without time limit in 1807 are not restricted, and, to some extent, violated by the imposition of the time limit under the Anglo-German Agreement?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I have stated that the privileges in question are guaranteed to all persons now living, and I think we have gone as far as we could in the circumstances.
  *MR. CHANNTNG: I have one more question. In what position will those Heligolanders, who under the second section of the 12th Article of the Agreement exercise the right of option of retaining their British nationality, be placed? Will their children born after the Treaty be in the same position as the children of Heligolanders who do not exercise that option?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it must be clear to the hon. Gentleman that that is a question of a legal character, of which notice ought to be given.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the confidential Report of the Military Authorities with regard to the strategical value of Heligoland has been shown by him to the hon. Member for Preston; and, if so, whether he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of this Report, as well as Copies of those portions of the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Colonial Defences, which were instanced by Lord Knutsford on 30th March, 1885, as proving that persons of experience were of opinion that Heligoland was of strategical value to this country?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I did show the hon. Member for Preston a confidential Report by the Military Authorities relative to Heligoland, and there is nothing unusual in such a proceeding. As I said on the 26th ult., I cannot consent to lay on the Table confidential Reports of our military advisers.
  MR. SUMMERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman show this Report to other Members?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: That depends on the circumstances of the application. I have no objection, as a rule, to show confidential Reports to hon. Members when that confidence is not likely to be abused.
  MR. SUMMERS: Perhaps I may be allowed to read the following passage from a letter written by the hon. Member for Preston to one of his constituents. He says—
  "As the cession to another Power of any portion of British territory, especially in Europe, is a very important matter, I may any that, having been shown by Mr. W. H. Smith, with his usual kindness and courtesy, a confidential Report of our Military Authorities, I have no doubt whatever on that score as to the wisdom of the Agreement recently concluded."
  I wish to ask, therefore, whether the right hon. Gentleman will show this Report to other Members?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I regret that letter was written. I think that when a confidential Report is shown confidentially to an hon. Member of this House, it is an error in judgment to refer to the contents of that Report.
  *MR. CHANGING: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the second part of the question of my hon. Friend, whether the Government will adopt the usual course, where a Minister of the Crown has referred to evidence in support of his statement, of laying the evidence on the Table?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not the usual course to lay on the Table the evidence on which the Ministers of the Crown act in matters of this kind. I think the hon. Member has, in his question, put the statement of Lord Knutsford too high. What he did say was, that there were some persons who entertained a different view as to the strategical value of Heligoland, and I answered a question in the House to that effect some few days ago. There is hardly a single thing on which some person cannot be found to differ.
  MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): The right hon. Gentleman has left the question in some obscurity. I will ask whether, as the right hon. Gentleman has shown this communication to an hon. Member on his own side of the House, he intends to refuse to show it to an hon. Member sitting on the other side;

  1107
  or whether he will show it to hon. Members on this side as well?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I may ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he conceives that the error of judgment lay with the hon. Member for Preston, or with himself?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it is quite possible that the error of judgment may have lain with me, but I think also that my hon. Friend committed an error of judgment in referring in writing to a confidential Paper. I think it is undesirable that the hon. Member for Aberdeen should put to me a question of the character of that which he has asked. I have always been prepared to show confidential Papers of importance to hon. Members sitting in any part of the House. I have not drawn a distinction between hon. Members opposite and Members on the Government side; but now that this Paper has been referred to, I must exercise my own discretion as to whether or not it is right that I should show it.
  MR. CLANCY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand that, in his opinion, there are hon. Members in this House who, if shown a confidential Report, would betray his confidence?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. CONYBEARE: HOW, in the absence of this confidential communication bearing on the strategical value of Heligoland, is the House to come to any proper decision as to whether it is right for this country to give up Heligoland or not?
  [No answer was given.]

  MINING ROYALTIES.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the fact that, under the terms of the Reference to the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, the Commissioners find themselves absolutely precluded from making any suggestions or recommendations whatever; whether it was the intention of the Government in framing the terms of the Reference to preclude them from making any recommendations in accordance with the evidence which might be adduced; and, if so, why; whether it is the usual practice in appointing Royal Commissions
  1108
  to limit them to the mere hearing of evidence; and whether he will consider the advisability of at once extending the scope of the Commissioners' functions to insure that some useful and practical result may accrue from their labours?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The terms of the Reference to the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties were very carefully considered, and were communicated to Parliament before they were embodied in the Royal Warrant, and no suggestion has been made by the Commissioners that they find them to be inadequate. There is nothing unusual in the appointment of Commissions to investigate a question of this intricate character and to report the facts.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to ask whether, when the Government, moved the terms of that Reference, they intended that the labours of the Commission should be absolutely without result?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not prepared to enter into an argument with the hon. Gentleman.

  LABOUR IN INDIA.
  MR. HOYLE (Lancashire, S.E., Heywood): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the Government of India accepts, and will apply to, the regulation and limitation of the hours of labour in mines and in factories, the, principles to which Her Majesty's Government assented at the Conference recently held on the invitation of the Emperor of Germany?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): There has not yet been time to obtain a reply from the Government of India to the Despatch of the Secretary of State dealing with the labour regulations, and I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question.
  MR. HOYLE: I will certainly do so.

  INDIAN RAILWAYS.
  MR. GROTRIAN: I beg, in the absence of the hon. Member for Central Hull, to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India propose to hand over the Tirhoot State Railway to the Bengal and North Western Railway; (2) whether, inasmuch as the Tirhoot State Railway is owned by the Government of India and

  1109
  returns about 7 per cent, on the capital invested, and the Bengal and North Western Railway is a private company and returns only 2½ per cunt, on the invested share capital, he can explain for what consideration the Government of India is surrendering a valuable dividend paying investment; (3) whether the Tirhoot State Railway was to have been handed over to the Bengal and North Western Railway in March or April last, and whether the reason why the transfer was not then made was because the Bengal and North Western Railway insisted upon the Government completing the extension, then in progress, from Dur-bungah to the town of Seetamarhi; (4) whether this transfer is against the advice of the B3tigal Government, and the Government of India, and against the wish of the inhabitants (Europeans and Natives) of North Behar, through which the Tirhoot line runs; and (5) whether Government will re-consider its determination?
  *SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, but for management only, and for the purpose of securing economy and efficiency. (2) The answer to the second paragraph is that the last year's earnings of the two lines were not as stated in the question, but were for the Bengal and North Western Railway 4.18 per cent., and the Tirhoot State Railway 4.62 per cent. The division of profit between the Government and the company will be in proportion to their respective capitals. (3)The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative. (4) To the fourth paragraph, yes, so far as the Government of India is concerned. It was at first in favour of, and afterwards against, the arrangement. (5) The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Is the North Western Railway to obtain an equal division of the profits for the working of the line?
  *SIR J. GORST: I must ask for notice of that question.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Are we to understand that this line has been handed over to a company having its headquarters in London, contrary to the view of the Government of India?
  *SIR J. GORST: I have answered the question, and the hon. Member must draw his own conclusions from the answer.

  SHIP COMPOSITION.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty who is the officer responsible for the selection of the compositions that are ordered from time to time to be used on the bottoms of Her Majesty's I ships; is this officer an expert, and what previous technical experience and education has he had to qualify him for this important duty; and by whom was he appointed, for how long, and has the appointment been sanctioned by the Treasury?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD, Lancashire, Ormskirk): In reply to the first part of the question, the Controller of the Navy; to the second, the Controller is not an expert in the literal sense of the word, but he has large experience, and has the advantage of a most competent officer specially deputed to watch the result of compositions applied to ships of the Navy, and those of the Mercantile Marine. The Controller's assistant in this matter was appointed by the First-Lord in April, 1888. Treasury sanction has not been obtained.

  IRELAND—MR. T. W. RUSSELL. J.P.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any precedent for the appointment of Mr. Thomas W. Russell to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Dublin, he being unconnected by property, residence, or otherwise, with any district in that county; and, if not, why such a precedent was set in the case of Mr. Russell?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that it is no uncommon practice for a gentleman living on the border of one county to be placed on the Commission of the Peace for the adjoining county, although he has neither a residence nor property in that adjoining county.

  MAGISTRATES IN THE COUNTY OF DUBLIN.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of Catholics and the number of non-Catholics who were in ^he Commission of the Peace for the County of Dublin on the 31st August. 1886, and

  1111
  the number of Catholics and the number of non-Catholics appointed Magistrates for that county since that date?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that no official record is kept of the religion of Magistrates; but according to the Return presented to Parliament on August 27, 1886, the number of Magistrates in the County of Dublin was stated to be 339, of whom 106 were believed to be Roman Catholics, 230 to belong to other denominations, and the religion of three was unknown. Since then 53 ordinary Magistrates (not including the military officers placed temporarily in the Commission for military purposes) have been appointed for the County of Dublin, of whom eight are believed to be Roman Catholics, and the remaining 45 to belong to other denominations.

  THE TIPPERARY MAGISTRATES.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that it was appointed to hold a Petty Sessions Court at Ballyporeen, County Tipperary, on the 1st instant, and that a large number of litigants assembled at the Court House on that day in order to have their cases heard; whether it is a fact that the Magistrates did not attend, although two Resident Magistrates held a Court under the Criminal Law Procedure Act on the day before at Fermoy, within easy distance of Ballyporeen; and whether he will make inquiries, and, if necessary, give instructions that Courts shall be attended by Magistrates at appointed times, so as to accommodate the public?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that on the occasion referred to the Resident Magistrate in whose district the Petty Sessions are held was prevented from attending through illness, and as a local Justice who attends these Petty Sessions very regularly happened not to attend on that occasion, they fell through. Any public inconvenience which may have been occasioned is much to be regretted.' As regards the suggestion in the second paragraph, there does not appear to have been any reason to anticipate on the previous day that the Petty Sessions would fall through, and the Resident Magistrates who were at Fermoy left that place upon their duty there being completed. Every effort
  1112
  is made to secure that sittings of fixed Petty Sessions shall not be disarranged by reason of the non-attendance of a Magistrate.

  THE BAILING OF PRISONERS.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that on 24th June, at the Clonmel Quarter Sessions, two young men, named William Ryan and Joseph Ryan, were ordered to be released on bail; whether four Magistrates of the county, named respectively Messrs. Richard Bagwell, Gerald Fitzgerald, Albert Quinn, and Mr. Hemphill, on being applied to successively, refused to go to the prison, which was quite near, for the purpose of having the prisoners released, although the sureties produced the perfected bail bond, and although it is necessary a Magistrate should attend under the circumstances; and whether he will inquire from the above mentioned gentlemen if they declined to perform their Magisterial duties; and, if so, why?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the first Magistrate applied to declined taking bail, as he was not satisfied of the sufficiency of one of the sureties. The other three Magistrates were applied to and they declined, not knowing anything of the securities. The bail was then completed before Mr. J. V. Guery, J.P. As a matter of fact, no practical inconvenience was sustained by the prisoners, as their bail was completed about two and a half hours after the application was first made.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether the Resident Magistrate or the Magistrate in the case has the power of decision as to whether the securities are sufficient or not?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before I answer that question, I should have notice of it. My belief is that the Magistrate has power to decide.

  THE CASE OF MR. JOHN LYONS.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of Mr. John Lyons, a merchant of Portumna, and three other men, at present undergoing a sentence of two months' imprisonment with hard labour for the alleged intimi-

  1113
  dation of James Mitchell, Mitchell, when produced as a witness by the Crown, swore that he did not know any of the defendants; that they had never intimidated him, or attempted to do so, and that they had never in any way attempted to induce him not to buy Dillon's hay; and if he will consider the advisability of releasing these men from prison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As already stated in reply to previous questions, the case referred to had a careful hearing, and the evidence was fully considered before the Court of First Instance, and subsequently before the County Court Judge on appeal. On the facts of the case, therefore, there appears to be no ground to interfere with the course of the law. It is, however, of course, open to the prisoners to memorial the Lord Lieutenant in the usual way should they so desire.
  MR. ROCHE: The Chief Secretary has not answered my question, which was, "Whether Mr. Mitchell, when produced as a witness by the Crown, swore that he did not know any of the defendants, that they had never intimidated him, or attempted to do so, and that they had never in any way attempted to induce him not to bay Dillon's hay." Did Mr. Mitchell make that statement in Court or did he not?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think in answer to the previous question of the hon. Member, I declined to discuss before the House the evidence given in a case of this kind.

  THE GUARDS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been directed to the statement in the evening papers of the 7th, given on the authority of the Press Association, and if he will make inquiries as to the alleged refusal of the Guards, on Monday morning, to turn out for parade?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The reports of this occurrence given in the Press are much exaggerated. No doubt there was some dissatisfaction in the battalion at being ordered to attend a parade yesterday morning, and for a short time most of the men failed to appear on parade at
  1114
  the time fixed. The whole of them were afterwards paraded for duty, and were marched off in perfect order to their several guards and duties. Special inquiry is now being made into the circumstances.
  *MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how it happened that the War Office yesterday seemed not to have information which was in possession of the daily Press 1 I would also ask whether he can account for the seeming discrepancy between the statement which he has now made and the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place this evening with reference to the same affair?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: As to the second question of the hon. Member, I have no explanation to make, as I have not heard the statement of the Prime Minister. In reply to the first question I admit that I ought to have been informed of this occurrence yesterday. The truth of the matter is that the Military Authorities were holding an inquiry, and desired to complete it so as to give me the result. I thus came down to the House accidentally unprepared to answer the question that was put to me.
  *MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I wish to ask, with inference to the statement of the Prime Minister in the House of Lords—["Order!"] This is a very serious matter. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister seemed to attach much greater importance to this question than he appears to do? So far from trying to explain away matters—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  *MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Oh, all right.

  SIR FREDERICK CARINGTON.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Frederick Carington is in command of the armed force, organised by him for the Chartered British South African Company, that accompanies the mining expedition of that company into Matabeleland; whether Sir Frederick Carington is now an officer in Her Majesty's Service; what is the object of the armed force, and against whom is it intended to protect the mining expedition; whether Lobengula has expressed his assent to this

  1115
  inroad of an armed force into his territories; and whether, in the event of this assent not having been given, Her Majesty's Government will direct the armed force to withdraw, so as to prevent a collison between it and the forces of Lobengula?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: My answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is, No. Sir F. Carington remains in the Bechnanaland Protectorate. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. The object of the armed force of the Company, which, as I have before stated, is not commanded by Sir F. Carington, is to keep up communications between the Protectorate and the Company's settlements, and to guard Matabeleland against encroachments. Lobengula has assented to the entry of the Company's expedition into his country, and, therefore, the contingency contemplated in the last paragraph of the question has not arisen.

  EGYPTIAN DECREE AGAINST BRIGANDAGE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen the Egyptian Official Gazette, of 16th June, in which it is reported that a Decree against brigandage has been submitted by the Khedival Government to the Legislative Council, in which the following punishments against brigands are decreed, in conformity, "as set forth in the Preamble of the Decree," with the dispositions of the sacred law (rite Hanapte) in vogue in all countries depending on the Ottoman Empire: amputation of the right hand and left foot followed by capital punishment; amputation and crucifixion; amputation, capital punishment, and crucifixion; capital punishment and crucifixion; crucifixion alone; capital punishment alone; and that the penalty of crucifixion is thus defined in the Decree—
  "Two parallel and transversal bars are attached to a post at some distance from each other. The post thus furnished is fixed perpendicularly in the ground. The arms of the victim are then stretched out on the upper bar and the feet on the lower bar. Thus attached, his left breast is pierced with a lance, which is worked round in the wound until death takes place;"
  and whether Her Majesty's Government will use its influence with the Khedival
  1116
  Government to prevent the infliction of such punishments?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Decree proposed by the Khedival Government contained no such provisions, but the majority of the elected Members of the Legislative Council voted for an Amendment declaring that the law of the Koran prescribed them as the proper penalties for brigandage. This vote does not bind the Egyptian Government, and there is not the slightest chance of their adopting such measures.

  EXCISE DUTIES.
  MR. T. M. HEALT: I desire to know what steps have been taken by the Government in order to ascertain the views of hon. Members from Ireland with reference to the allocation in Ireland of the money released by the dropping of the licensing clauses of the Local Taxation Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury intend to take any step calculated to ensure a general assent to the proposals of the Government?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: When our proposals are made I trust they will be such as will meet with general consent. I cannot at the present moment say more than this.
  MR. PARNELL: But we desire to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to ascertain the opinions of the Irish Members on this matter.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: A good many suggestions have already been made from the Benches opposite.
  MR. SEXTON: Do the Government intend to make their proposals without any previous consultation with the Representatives of the Irish people?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not in a position to give an answer to the question at present. I may say, however, that I will endeavour, as far as possible, to learn the views of hon. Members.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. CAUSTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what facilities he is prepared to give for making progress with the measure relating to Water Companies' charges?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure the hon. Member must know that in the present state of business it is impossible; for me to offer facilities for any Bill.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask what Vote will be taken in Supply after the Constabulary Vote?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Vote for the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, and after that the other Votes in their order. If, however, hon. Members below the Gangway have different views, I shall be glad to hear them.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Police Bill, the following Fifteen Members, namely: Mr. Baumann, Mr. Bolitho, Mr. Burdett-Coutts, Mr. Causton, Mr. Coddington, Mr. Samuel T. Evans, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Sir Julian Goldsmid, Mr. Hoyle, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Storey, Mr. Howard Vincent, Mr. Wharton, and Mr. Whitley.
  IRISH SOCIETY AND LONDON COMPANIES (IRISH ESTATES).
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on Irish Society and London Companies (Irish Estates) have leave to hear Counsel (to such extent as they shall think fit) upon the matters referred to them.—(Mr. John Morley.)
  Address for "Copy of Articles of Capitulation of Heligoland in 1807."—(Mr. Summers.)
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
  That they have agreed to,—Working Classes Dwellings Bill, without Amendment; that they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to declare and amend the Law of Partnership." [Partnership Bill [Lards.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.

    CLASS III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £889,490, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, W.): Sir, this is the first occasion for many years that the Vote for the Irish Police has been taken at a reasonable period of the Session. The usual course for past years has been to postpone them to a very late period of the Session, when Members of this House were jaded, and when only the Irish Members were present to take part in the Debates. I think the change which has been made is a necessary one, especially as the Vote on the present occasion must give rise to many and serious questions relating to the police. I think it is impossible for anyone who has followed the course of the police in those districts of Ireland where disputes exist between landlords and tenants, not to perceive that their action during the last two years has become more arbitrary, more violent, and more insolent. I will not blame the Force itself for that. I believe it is in the main due to the impulse which it receives from head quarters. The Force is formed of the most splendid material that is to be found in Ireland. When years ago the Force was re-organised by Sir Thomas Drummond, it was converted into a highly organised and sensitive body. It was the boast of Sir Thomas Drummond that it was a most delicate instrument, which responded at once to the slightest impulse which he gave to it. But at that time he brought it into harmony with public opinion in Ireland, and made it an impartial arbiter between the different interests of that country. If its condition is changed, as at the present time, it is due to the impulse which has been given to it during the last three or four

    1119
    years by the present Government, and the present Chief Secretary. So far from being now in harfflbny with public opinion in Ireland it is distinctly not in harmony with public opinion in that country. Instead of being impartial it is of a partisan character, and is generally to be found, is always to be found, ranged on one side of the social disputes which exist in that country. I say that the change is due to the policy of the Chief Secretary, and due to his violent speeches in this House. Such a speech as we listened to from him last night produces the very worst effect in Ireland on the action of the police in every part of that country. Sir, I think the change in the attitude of the Irish Police is due to the policy and tone of the Chief Sacretary. Take as an illustration what recently occurred in the town of Tipperary, where at meetings, alleged to be illegal by the Government, a vast number of people were cruelly batoned by the police. The reasonable and proper course, if these meetings were illegal, would have been to allow the meetings to take place, and to arrest the leaders of the Party who were engaged in promoting and speaking at them. A few months ago the course taken by the Government would, undoubtedly, have been to arrest the hon. Members for Mayo and North-East Cork, to prosecute them, and obtain their conviction, and to treat them after the manner of criminals. But the Chief Secretary has ascertained by experience that that kind of policy does not commend itself to the English constituencies. As a result, there can be little doubt that the word has been given to the police in Ireland not to arrest men of this class at such meetings, but to endeavour to put down meetings by force, and by brutally batoning the people. I say this is an illustration of the kind of way in which the police are now encouraged in their violence, and also of the change of policy which has taken place. Then we come to the case of "shadowing," to which so much attention has been given already in this Debate. After the speech of the Chief Secretary it cannot be for a moment doubted that the system of shadowing is due to the Chief Secretary himself, and is imposed by him upon the police. It may be that in the past, under Lord
    1120
    Spencer, there was a certain watching of murderous criminals or persons suspected of murder—watching from a distance, which was not likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and which, for my part, I cannot doubt must be necessary under any circumstances of society. But the shadowing which has been taking place of late has been of a totally different character, different in type, and devoted to a different class of persons. We learn now, from numerous answers given by the Chief Secretary on this subject, that shadowing is of two kinds. There is, first, shadowing carried on in the shape of dogging the steps of Members of Parliament and others at some distance; but still near enough to show that they are pursued by the police. And, secondly, there is the process which may be called the heel and toe shadowing, in which an officer is at the side of the person shadowed, while another is close behind. This last system of shadowing is of a monstrous character. The Chief Secretary endeavoured to explain that English Members and visitors from England have never been shadowed in Ireland during the last few months. He said it was an hallucination on their part. What he said did take place was this. Visitors went over to Ireland and found themselves in bad company, and, being in bad company, found themselves under the same shadow as their friends. And, with his usual sneer at the hon. Member for Leicester, he asserted that no instructions had ever been given to shadow these visitors, and that it was a mistake on their part to suppose that they had been shadowed. For my part, I utterly dispute the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe it to be absolutely unfounded. It is merely an afterthought to escape from an ignominious position. I can say, from my own experience, and from information I have received from the best quarters, namely, from the police themselves, that it is not true. I do not wish again to intrude my own experience in this contemptible matter before the House; but I may say that on two occasions in Ireland I was closely watched by the police, who dogged my steps. They came within a short distance of me, and listened to what I was saying to the people by the side of the road. I. challenged the police on the subject, and on both occasions they told me that they had direc-

    1121
    tions to pursue me and dog me in this manner. My experience has been that of numbers of Members of this House, of three ladies—Lady Sandhurst and others—and of numerous people connected with various Liberal Associations, and of the gentlemen who were sent over as representatives of the Somersetshire Association by my bon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of that county. Occasionally, most ludicrous mistakes are made. I gave letters of introduction not long ago to a young friend of mine who happened to be a Tory candidate for a Tory constituency at the next General Election. He took over to Ireland with him another friend, who is candidate for another Tory constituency. They delivered one of my letters to Father Keller, and he tells me that they were both of them shadowed in the closest manner during the whole time they were in that district. I say these things are ridiculous and contemptible, and they ought to be put an end to. One of the best evidences that this shadowing is by the direction of the Government is this. When there was a deputation from the Home Rule Union to Ireland, orders were given by the Government that these particular people, connected with the deputation, were not to be shadowed, and, in point of fact, they were not shadowed, and a distinction was made between them and other persons of the same kind. With reference to the other kind of shadowing which has been alluded to in the course of the Debate, and which the Chief Secretary referred to, the heel and toe shadowing, it is of a much closer and more irritating character than that to which I have been adverting. With regard to it, the Chief Secretary endeavoured to show that it had only been carried out in the case of men who were themselves shadowing others, for the purpose of preventing them selling their cattle and sheep at various fairs and markets throughout Ireland. I frankly admit that if persons are engaged in shadowing others at fairs and markets, with a view to prevent them selling their cattle and sheep, it is a highly illegal proceeding, and the Government would be justified in prosecuting. I ask, why do they not prosecute them instead of adopting the illegal course of shadowing these men in their turn? But, without
    1122
    pursuing that matter further, I may say that the cases are by no means confined to this class. There are numerous, other cases which have occurred, in which men have been shadowed in this most abominable manner, who are not in any way connected with intimidation, or men in respect of whom there is not the slightest pretence for saying that they are engaged in practices of this kind. For instance, Father Kennedy has been shadowed in this close manner. Against Father Kennedy the only thing that can be said is that be attended two suppressed? meetings of the National League. There are many other cases of priests in different parts of Ireland who have been, shadowed in the same way. There are Father Humphreys and the three priests, of Carrick-ma-cross, and numerous others. Among other cases of shadowing of this kind, we have had at Loughrea the Tenants Defence Association collecting evidence for the purpose of that Association. The men who were collecting the evidence, together with Father Meagher, a respected priest of the district, were shadowed by two policemen in this close manner, and the police insisted upon following these men into the houses when they were asking for collections, and in taking notes of the conversation which passed. I believe I am right in saying that this kind of shadowing took place in many parts of Ireland where the Tenants' Defence Association were collecting evidence. Well, I say that the whole of this process is unprecedented, un-Constitutional, and, I believe, illegal as tending to create a breach of the peace. A very interesting and curious case of shadowing at Fermoy is reported in to-day's newspapers. The man who was shadowed at the market immediately took to shadowing the Chief Inspector of Police, and so the-three men went about, the one shadowing the other in this close manner. The Inspector told the man who was shadowing him that if he did not desist he would' be prosecuted. Whereupon the man said that if he was prosecuted, the man who was prosecuting him in turn should be prosecuted. So that it leads to an indefinite possibility of shadowing. You could have a string of men, one shadowing the other. It is really ridiculous. One of the strongest arguments against the whole process is its utter inutility

    1123
    and utter failure in achieving the purpose for which it is intended. It is absolutely certain that this process has not produced the smallest good result. I challenge the Chief Secretary to produce any case in which shadowing has been of the slightest benefit for the main object be has in view. It may have resulted in one or two cases in prosecutions and convictions, but it has had no bearing whatever in putting an end to disputes between landlord and tenants, or in putting an end to their combinations, which is the chief object of their policy. The shadowing of Canon Keller has not had the slightest effect upon the dispute between the Ponsonby tenants and their landlord. The shadowing of the Tipperary tenants has not had the slightest effect in stopping the boycotting of Tipperary shopkeepers. What strikes me most is the gross stupidity of the whole affair. The Chief Secretary may be very clever in this House, but much of his administration in Ireland is infected by a stupidity which is as far removed as possible from statesmanship. This shadowing is calculated to annoy, 'but produces no good result. It reminds me of the naughty boy in "Alice in Wonderland," of whom the refrain says:—
    He only does it to annoy,
    Because he knows it teases.
    In Ireland it is a policy of annoyance and teasing, but has no other result. Let me quote on this point a letter I have recently received from a gentleman who has been closely shadowed for a year past. Last year I brought before the House the case of a Mr. Fitzgibbon, who had been cruelly and shamefully persecuted by the authorities. He is a leading tradesman of Castlerea. He has advocated the cause of the tenants, and has acted the part of John Burns in advocating combination. But he is also a man of great moderation, and has been instrumental in effecting arrangements in all the disputes in his district. This man was marked out by the police, and was three times sent to gaol, with the grossest injustice and with the greatest indignity. A few days ago I received a letter from Mr. Fitzgibbon, describing his shadowing. The letter ran—
    "Sir, since my release from prison in July, 1889, I have been constantly shadowed by the police. Whether going to church with my
    1124
    family, or going from it, the police have been constantly at my heels. Police are posted opposite my shop, and watch every person who visits my establishment. When driving out my family on Sundays I am closely followed by a car with two policemen. Their vigilance in watching me was, I have reason to believe, just to prevent my attending meetings of our suppressed branch of the League; and, secondly, as a source of annoyance. Up to the present they have not succeeded, in a single instance, in preventing a meeting. On one occasion I found myself so closely watched that nothing remained for me but to start for the place of meeting, and see if my horse could get away from that of the police, and which was purchased specially for the object of running me down. I had no sooner got on my car than the police got on theirs, as they had the horse harnessed ready to start at any moment. There was rarely seen in this part of the country such a chase. Perhaps both of the parties should have been punished for cruelly to animals; both horses were abused. At all events, I got away, and was soon completely out of sight, and the meeting was held, the largest since the suppression of the branch."
    This is a fair illustration of what takes place. I say that the whole thing is tomfoolery. If the Chief Secretary would take one-tenth part, of the trouble which he expends in carrying out coercion and in devising and defending shadowing in endeavouring to remove the causes of dispute and effecting settlements, he would easily get rid of these disputes, and dispense altogether with coercion and all its attending nonsense. But, Sir, shadowing is but a small part of the abuses of the police. No one who has not been in the districts, where these disputes exist, can have the least idea how completely the police are masters, and yet how powerless they are. Under coercion, and in the absence of juries, they are quite irresponsible, irresponsible to public opinion, to law, to this House. They can practically send to prison any person they think fit. If the authorities choose to assume that a public meeting is illegal, and it is held in spite, it rests with the police to arrest any persons they think fit, or to baton anyone they choose; if it is a case of boycotting, they can select for prosecution anyone they like. If there is a conflict of evidence before the Resident Magistrates, the Magistrates invariably believe the evidence of the police against any number of other witnesses. They take their cue in this respect from the Chief Secretary. Some of them avow this openly. This is what one of these gentlemen said in a recent case when there was direct conflict be-

    1125
    tween the evidence of a policeman and an independent witness in a prosecution before him:—
    "The majesty of the law must, at all hazards, be upheld. He had no doubt that either the policeman or the witness for the defendant had committed gross perjury. Judge Gibson had stated in a recent case that a policeman's evidence is more reliable than the evidence of any civilian, and he quite agreed with Judge Gibson."
    He proceeded to convict the defendant. This represents the prevailing views of the Resident Magistrates; and when the case goes on appeal the County Court Judges often act on the same plan, refuse to interfere with the discretion of the Magistrates. The Magistrates only follow the example of the Chief Secretary. It was said in the Debates on the Coercion Act that there would be an appeal against its admission to this House, but the Chief Secretary has nullified that appeal by his course of action. He invariably accepts the statements of the police as gospel without inquiry or without stint. In the thousands of cases which have come before the House he has never once admitted that the police were in the wrong, never once made independent inquiry, never once apologised, or suggested a different line of conduct. He suggests sometimes a civil action against the police; but this is impossible, because identification cannot be made, and the authorities lend no assistance. If by chance the policeman can be identified and an action is brought, the whole array of Crown Counsel appear for the police, and all the machinery of the law is used to prevent a remedy. The result is, that the police are upheld in every case and become more and more reckless. It is evident that the Chief Secretary acts on principle. He knows that the police are his only support in a great part of Ireland, and that if he threw them over even when wrong he would risk losing their support and be left alone. Things go in a vicious circle. The police, finding themselves always supported or encouraged in their course of violence and insolence, go from bad to worse, the Chief Secretary eventually being led on to defend action which he, in the first instance, without doubt would repudiate and discredit. The only remedy for this state of things is a complete change in the system of the administration of
    1126
    Ireland. The police, instead of being the masters of the people, should be made their servants. That is the only safe relation of the police to any self-governing people. It is because in Ireland they had been masters of the people and not their servants that the present state of things is so unsatisfactory. The only way out of this vicious circle and system of government is that Ireland should be self-governing and should have control over her own police. I venture to think that a change is now inevitable, and, in conclusion, I would advise the Chief Secretary to recognise the inevitable character of the change that is at hand, and to prepare for it, and to recognise that there is such a thing as public opinion in Ireland. The cardinal defect of the right hon. Gentleman's whole policy is that he does not recognise any responsibility whatever to public opinion in that country. That may be seen through the whole line of his policy, vitiating every part of it—destroying his best intentions, and preventing his remedial measures. One of the greatest philosophers once said that all Government—even the most despotic—rests on public opinion. In Ireland the despotism does not rest on Irish public opinion, but on the public opinion of the majority of England and Scotland, and it is because that public opinion for the moment justifies the Coercion Act and the action of the Chief Secretary that the present state of things has arisen. The action to which I have referred is the cause of innumerable scandals and outraged public opinion in Ireland. Its only good effect is that it is bringing about a change of feeling even in England. The time cannot be far off when there will be such a complete change of public opinion in England and Scotland as will altogether overwhelm the policy of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. DILLON: The Committee listened last night to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary which might be described as having been in his best old manner. It was a speech which, in my humble judgment, if I had had no previous experience of the right hon. Gentleman, would have been sufficient to prove to everyone listening to it the right hon. Gentleman's utter incapacity

    1127
    to rule the Irish people, because it was a speech which, from the beginning to the close, exhibited a spirit of fight, of uncompromising and unbending hostility to the great mass of the people of Ireland. I am bound to say that I have too high an opinion of the intelligence of the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that he cannot now have arrived at the conclusion that his task is an utterly hopeless one, and that the task of Sisyphus was not more hopeless than that he has undertaken in Ireland. What was the upshot of the right hon. Gentleman's speech? Why, after four years, during which he has had a free hand in Ireland and has governed that country according to his own ideas, we are informed that one of the essential duties of the Irish Executive is to watch—and to watch in a way hitherto unparalleled, so far as I know, in the history of all civilised communities—the incomings and outgoings, and every movement of a great host of individuals in Ireland whom the right hon Gentleman thinks it a smart thing in this House to describe as "criminals," but whom the people of Ireland do not consider to be criminals. We have the deplorable picture presented to the public of this country—who were looking with hope to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman—that at the end of four years those of the Irish people whom the right hon. Gentleman's Government most characterise as criminals, and who are regarded as so dangerous that they must have their every steps dogged, are precisely the men who are selected by the Irish people for all positions of honour. I ask the Committee and the country whether a more hopeless case of failure in an Executive Government has ever been exhibited to the public gaze? Turning to the immediate question before the Committee, I am bound to say that this Debate takes a somewhat wide range, and extends over a very considerable field, though I think the last man in the House who has a right to complain of such a result is the right hon. Gentleman himself, because he delivered a speech not at all confined to the mere question of the duties and character of the Irish Constabulary. He traversed the whole field of Irish politics, and in the course of that considerable oration he made some very personal attacks on the Members of my Party, though at a
    1128
    later period he said that such was not his intention. I will deal, first, with a subject which I believe to be of the greatest possible importance—a subject which is manifestly of the greatest importance not only to us in Ireland, but to the Conservative Government in this, country, and that is the subject of shadowing by the police in Ireland. I notice this fact—and no one who listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman last night can for a moment deny that it is the fact—that he passed over deliberately the multitudinous charges that were brought against the police in Ireland, and brought in great detail, and confined his speech absolutely to the question of shadowing, as if no other charge had been brought against the Irish Police. I watched that very closely and noted it with a certain amount of satisfaction, because I saw clearly from the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, and the great length at which he dwelt on the question of shadowing, that this charge had struck home to the mind of the people of England, and that he knew that in Barrow and at other elections this phase of police espionage in Ireland is injuring the Government and injuring his cause. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a curious thing that shadowing had risen to such prominence of late, because it existed in times past to as great an extent as now. He declared that the invention of this as a new subject of agitation was due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who followed him in the Debate the other day, and the Chief Secretary made a very violent personal attack on the right hon. Gentleman. I venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is not serving the interests of his Party nor of his own reputation by the sneering and impudent manner which he adopts towards the right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. It is idle to pretend that 19–20ths of the people of this country, whether Conservatives or Liberals, have not got a certain reverence for that statesman—for his experience and his age—and for the Chief Secretary to adopt the insolent tone he does to, wards him is, in my judgment, not even in his own interest. But let me examine this statement. He says it is curious

    1129
    that this topic should have arisen into such great prominence, because shadowing existed to a greater extent under previous Administrations. I deny that absolutely and in toto. If the practice of shadowing ever existed in Ireland before, I ask who ought to have known of it better than myself and the Members who sit on these Benches—the leading "criminals" of Ireland? If this shadowing existed before, then all I say is that none of the Nationalists were shadowed. It must have been the gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel Saunderson) and his followers who were subjected to that treatment. But, in sober earnest, I say I know Ireland as thoroughly as any man, and am able to declare that that is a false statement, and that this shadowing is an invention of the present Government and never was practised in Ireland before 1888. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that this new topic was an invention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. This topic was introduced to the notice of the House by myself in detail for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian listened to my statement, and did what the right hon. Gentleman opposite apparently was not prepared to do, namely, believed my word as against that of the police, and his observations were made under those circumstances, I having given to the House for the first time a description of what the practice of shadowing as now carried on in Ireland is. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian waited until the Minister, who is responsible for Ireland, spoke to see if he would deny or traverse my description of the shadowing. The Chief Secretary got up, but did nothing of the kind. He accepted my description of the shadowing and defended it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian heard that atrocious practice described for the first time in the House—I challenge anyone to deny it—he waited for the Chief Secretary to repudiate it if he chose to do so; but as he did not, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian stood up and denounced it in language which will ring throughout the length and breadth of England in spite of the sneers of the Chief Secretary. The Chief
    1130
    Secretary then made an absurd charge against the Executive Governments which had preceded him in Ireland. He said these proceedings as charged by me, and which are now going on in different parts of Ireland, were practised under previous Administrations. He was challenged on that statement. He was told that that statement was absolutely untrue, without a shred of foundation, and that the only justification for it was the case of a certain Mr. Grant, who was watched in the days of the Administration of Lord Spencer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir G. Trevelyan). Well, this man Grant was watched because he was suspected of taking part in a murderous conspiracy. But was he shadowed? Nothing of the sort. When I rose and asked the right hon. Gentleman at what distance this man was followed by the police, lie replied that he did not know. He was asked whether the police who watched the man were in uniform, and again he said he did not know—and these were two most essential points. The point we complain of is not that individuals are watched. We have all been watched in Ireland—all who have taken part in national politics, for the last 10 years. We should not complain of that; but we complain that by a new and unheard of system, a policeman who is engaged in watching an individual marked out, walks by his side, keeping step with him and touching him, whilst another constable walks at his heels so closely that, if he stops, the constable comes into collision with him. If the shadowed person meets a friend and enters into conversation with him, every syllable that he utters is overheard by the police. We said that this is an absolutely new departure. It is a practice novel to all Executive Governments; an atrocity, a system of persecution of such an exasperating character as to be most likely, in the case of men of a hot temperament, to excite to a breach of the peace. Then the Chief. Secretary had the audacity to come forward and tell the country—though, the country will not believe him—that the system we now denounce was a: system in force before he became connected with the Government of Ireland. I say it was not, and it is idle and preposterous for

    1131
    him to attempt to confound in the minds of the Members of this House and the public the old system of watching which we have often protested against with the new and a thousand fold more abominable system of shadowing—a new, detestible and odious system of persecution. It is idle to compare it with watching. Everyone familiar with Irish life during the past 10 years, knows that all gentlemen or all individuals in that country who are prominent in any active agitation against the Executive Government, have been closely watched. I myself for years have been watched by policemen in plain clothes and by policemen in uniform, but I have never been shadowed. I do not know what fate may yet have in store for me; but I say deliberately that, in my judgment, if the man who in Ireland is shadowed can get a fair opportunity, and can knock down and beat the police, he is not breaking the law, because I believe that the system amounts to a constructive assault, and that the man is justified in resistance. I say we have been watched in Ireland. I deplore that system. I protest against it, believing it is the strongest sign when you are obliged to watch and dog the steps of political opponents that the Government of the country is unhealthy and wrong. I consider it to be one of the most essential differences between a free Government and a rough and tyrannical Government that, under a free Government it is never needful to dog the steps of political opponents; whilst under a tyrannical Government you are obliged to have recourse to the practice. I have been watched and have met men far away, even in Australia, who have been engaged in the operation of watching me. On one occasion in an hotel in Australia, a man informed me that he had been one of "Fletcher's boys," as they were called, and that it had been his duty to watch me, to follow me to every house I called at, to see how long I stopped, and to watch my every movement from morning to night. That is not shadowing. It is an evil, a cruel, and a horrible excrescence, which springs from the denial of popular rights; but I say that the system of shadowing, as now in force in Ireland, is without parallel in the whole history of tyrannical Government, even in Ireland. I defy the right hon. Gentle
    1132
    man to search the annals of the secret police of the Continent, since the days of Napoleon, and, to produce a single case in which a shadowing system, such as that of which we complain in Ireland, has been pursued. I believe that the time is fast approaching when the people of this country will insist upon having this stain—this disgrace—upon their character removed, and when they will say that if Ireland cannot be governed without it, Ireland shall be allowed to govern itself. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the people are engaged themselves in shadowing the police. Does not the House know that if any man in Ireland attempted to shadow as the police shadow he would at once be arrested? The right hon. Gentleman says that I was directly responsible for the appointment of certain men, who were called by the name of "vigilance men." That is absolutely false. What grounds had the right hon. Gentleman for saying so?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I do not suppose the hon. Member has sufficient local knowledge to say whether A, B, or C have been appointed to the Vigilance Committee, but I say he was responsible for a system which led to the appointment of Vigilance Committees, by which the system of boycotting is carried on.
    MR. DILLON: As to any moderate charge—
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not a moderate charge.
    MR. DILLON: No one in Ireland will deny, least of all myself, that I have for 10 years preached the practice of boycotting on certain lines which I have carefully laid down. So far as that goes I am responsible, I suppose in a secondary degree, for all the steps which have been taken for boycotting. Why I draw a distinction is this: that though I preach a certain policy to the people, I have carefully guarded that policy by certain fixed lines and rules, which I have repeatedly stated to the people from public platforms. It is a monstrous stretch of that responsibility to say that I am personally responsible for the acts of every man who chooses to call himself a vigilance man. It is perfectly preposterous. You might as well say that every publican was responsible for every man whose head was broken at a compensation meeting. I

    1133
    am undoubtedly responsible for the general policy adopted by the people in this regard; and I must say that when these people observe those lines of policy which I have recommended to them over and over again, I think they are doing a service to their own class and the country; but I utterly decline to be responsible for everything that they may say or do. But that is a matter of minor importance. What is a matter of the gravest importance is the grossly inaccurate statement which the right hon. Gentleman gave of the proceedings of the vigilance men. I want to draw attention to a practice which the right hon. Gentleman has followed from the first day of his administration, and which it is very hard to see how he can get out of now. He comes to this House and gives, with the utmost confidence, descriptions of places in Ireland and proceedings in Ireland, and generally of the machinery of Irish social life. He might as well give a description of Chinese life, for all he knows about it. For all those descriptions he has absolutely no source of information except his own police, who have now come to regard him as a convenient channel for any absurd stories they may concoct. From the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, they have come to the conclusion that the more outrageous and violent their stories are the more charmed he is to retail them to the House of Commons. He says the vigilance men go to the fairs and carry on a system of shadowing which is a great deal worse than any system adopted by the police. He says this has not been denied; but the reason that it has not been denied is because the assertion was never made until he made it in his speech. Knowing what we do of the courage of the right hon. Gentleman, we yet hardly suppose he would go so far as to make an assertion of that kind. So far as my information goes, vigilance men go to the fairs to warn people and to point out to them the stock that belongs to boycotted farms and to the Property Defence Association. People are told not to buy them, and in fact, the action of the vigilance men is exactly that of the pickets of the London Trades' Unions. When the dock men were on strike in London they had 4,000 men round the gates of the docks to
    1134
    warn off new hands, and to explain to the men their reasons for so doing. That, is just what the vigilance men do. They cannot use any violence. The police are by, and, indeed, it would be directly in the teeth of the policy which we frequently recommend if they did use violence. That is what they do, and what they will do in spite of the right hon. Gentleman. It does not differ in the slightest degree from what the dock men do in London, and it is absurd to say it does. At the time of the dock strike repeated appeals were made to the Home Secretary from the owners of the docks to denounce the conduct of their pickets, which, it was said, was monstrous and unjustifiable. It was said it was intolerable that the freedom of men who wanted to work should be protected from, intimidation at the hands of John Burns and his gang. What was the action of the Home Secretary? He took no action. The difference is, that in one case the picket was in London, and in the other he was in Waterford or Tipperary. In the latter case the right hon. Gentleman weeps showers of crocodile tears over a system which he allows to exist in London. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman in this House, amidst the thunderous cheers of the Tory Party, appeal to the country as to whether human liberty is to be so interfered with. He did it amid the cheers of the gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel Saunderson), who does not now appear in such excellent spirits as he does sometimes. I suppose the shadow of coming fate is darkening his spirit. The Chief Secretary asked, "Are men not to do as they have a right to do?" Well, if so, why did you allow the dock men to intimidate others I Why did you allow men, during the recent gas strike, to physically obstruct the entrance of men who wanted to work? You know it is the grossest hypocrisy to talk like that. The fact is, we do not have the same sort of law and justice in Ireland that you have in England. I know that if we in Ireland had done the same sort of thing that was done by the gas stokers, of Leeds, with the utmost impunity, our people would have been cut to pieces by cavalry or shot down by the Royal Irish Constabulary. It is utterly idle for the right hon. Gentleman to get up in a fine frenzy and talk about every man doing

    1135
    what he has a right to do. I say if our people are to better their condition they must be ready to make some sacrifices, and if they have not the right to combine under rules which are enforced by strong penalties, what is the liberty given them? Liberty to starve, liberty to work for starvation wages, and to be the bond slaves and the toilers of unrelenting capitalists. I say the working people of this country are beginning to see that their brothers in Ireland, under this system, which has been dubbed boycotting, and held up to execration, are doing nothing more than following in the steps of the Trades' Unions of this country, and are determined to assert the same right to inflict the same sort of penalties on people who betray their class in Ireland as are inflicted in England on those who work against the Trades' Union combinations. It is not true—it is false to say that we have organised a system of shadowing in Ireland. It is not only false, it is preposterous, because every one knows that such shadowing would not be allowed for a single hour in Ireland. I say the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's case against me falls to the ground. The Chief Secretary's system of shadowing is carried on not because of any shadowing on our part, but because the right hon. Gentleman thinks he has discovered a new and ingenious weapon by which he can torture his political opponents in Ireland. I object to this system of shadowing on several grounds. I object to it because it is a novelty, even in the bad traditions of Irish Governments. I object to it because it is an almost intolerable persecution of persons whom the underlings of the right hon. Gentleman choose to think are going to act against the law. I object to it because it is a punishment of the most horrible character, against which there is no appeal, because it is inflicted on the suspicion of any Magistrate or any police official in Ireland, and because the victim can have no hope of justice. I suppose if we were to admit for the sake of argument, that boycotting is an offence against the law, the right hon. Gentleman would not admit that his officials are absolutely infallible. The right hon. Gentleman does not contend that the shadowing is confined to those who are engaged in boycotting. I object to the
    1136
    system because it is a direct incitement to a breach of the peace. I say in the case of many individuals who are of a hot temper it is absolutely impossible to expect that they will submit to it peacefully. I believe it is illegal. I believe the constables in this respect have no more right to pursue and shadow anyone, to the actual incommoding of these persons, in the streets, than has any individual citizen. Supposing I was to bring over two of what the right hon. Gentleman would call my "shadows," and set them to watch and follow the right hon. Gentleman, night and day, so that he could not talk to his friends without being overheard, what would he say? I say we have just as much right to dog him through the streets of London as his men have to dog us in Ireland. On these matters I have yet to learn that police constables have any more right than ordinary citizens. The law does not prescribe this as part of their duty, and they have no right beyond. I have as much right to set agents to dog the steps of the Chief Secretary as he has to treat me in the same manner in Tipperary, only the consequence would probably be that the men would be arrested immediately, perhaps shot. We have a right to complain then if you pursue this practice upon our men. I want to know from the Attorney General for Ireland, and we are entitled to know, what are the legal grounds for this shadowing, and I say that the practice, if pursued, must inevitably lead to a breach of the peace. What legal right, I ask, have you to obstruct, annoy, persecute, a passenger in the street against whom no offence is alleged? I go further, and say that it has been the recognised practice of all Governments, even in Ireiand, to watch criminals suspected of crimes, but never in such a fashion. Watch them by all means, by detectives in plain clothes, who keep at a reasonable distance. But if the Attorney General can give me any precedent of any criminal charged with any crime, no matter how foul, being subjected to such a system, I should like to hear it, and I think the Committee would too. There is another point even stronger in regard to this "shadowing." The right hon. Gentleman has leaned very strongly on the argument which he has given the House

    1137
    again and again, Which is the more damnable thing, to shadow a man suspected of being a criminal, or to allow a crime to be committed? This met with a thundering cheer from the right hon. Gentleman's supporters. But the right hon. Gentleman little saw the pitfall he was dropping into. If this is a system pursued for the prevention of crime, why did he not shadow 'the moonlighters of Kerry and Clare? No; the right hon. Gentleman confines this shadowing to his political opponents, men against whom he has never been able to bring home a single moral crime; while the moonlighters of Kerry and Clare range about freely and commit crimes and escape. You may think this is an extreme statement, you may say how do we know—
    An hon. MEMBER: They are masked.
    MR. DILLON: Does the hon. Member undertake to say that because a man is masked he cannot be shadowed? Does the mask make them invisible? Really, it is delightful to get these sidelights on Irish life. They are masked! I hope some serious effort will be made to deal with this question in a proper spirit. It may be said the police do not know who the moonlighters are. Well, I know that in the days of Mr. Forster he told us the police did know, though I do not think they did, and that the police deceived him; but Mr. Forster told the House that if he could imprison them without trial he could have every moonlighter in prison in a month. Well, in the result he was not quite so successful as he predicted. But I would bring under notice a case which shows how the police acted in regard to moonlighting outrages, and I refer to the well-known case in County Clare, in which Cullinane, a spy of the police, was engaged in organising a moonlighting attack, for which he was paid by the police. All facts were revealed at the subsequent trial. The names of the men engaged were known and the men were known. Did the police shadow these men? Not a bit of it. They supplied Cullinane with money to carry out the crime and knowing all the men did not attempt to shadow them. What did they do then? They knew the crime was intended, they connived at it, they took no steps to prevent its commission, but they went out to meet
    1138
    and give battle to the moonlighters. Well, we all know the lamentable consequences. But, to use the strong language of an hon. Gentleman opposite, can any course be more damnable than that adopted, the more so that the police encouraged the moonlighters, and incited to the commission of crime. For my part, I think that no police in the world are justified in inciting to the commission of crime, even though to secure the capture of criminals. I think it is utterly foreign to the principle of police, and you never know how innocent men may be drawn into the net by your skilful tempter. It is an atrocious system, discreditable to the country, and ought to meet with the condemnation of every inst man. But here we have the fact that, while the Government seek to justify this miserable system of shadowing by the necessity of preventing a breach of the peace and detecting crime, they deliberately avoid using the system against boycotting. But, Sir, when we come to examine the effect upon the system of boycotting, we find that of all utterly futile plans adopted by any Government this the most futile. It has had absolutely no effect whatever on boycotting, absolutely none. If you doubt my word, and care for information, just go down to Tipperary, or write to any of the people there and ask if this elaborate system of shadowing has had the smallest iota of effect on the present system of boycotting. No, the absurdity of the suggestion is so manifest that we cannot, for a moment, suppose that the Chief Secretary adopted the system with any hope or expectation of preventing boycotting. No. Sir; it is pursued as a punishment for political opponents, because it is a means of inflicting suffering and annoyance upon political opponents. Against boycotting the system is futile, it has had no effect, but in the other object shadowing has been successful to a considerable extent, the right hon. Gentleman has inflicted a good deal of annoyance and suffering upon his opponents. But, Sir, it is not calculated in the long run to serve the ultimate purpose and interest of the Government, and it is totally unworthy of any Minister who intends to govern in a constitutional manner. I have already drawn attention to the fact that right hon. Gentleman yesterday con

    1139
    fined the whole of his speech to this question of shadowing, but the Debate has not been confined to such cases, many cases being brought to notice in which the police have acted with gross and wanton violence. They have burst into houses without warrant or the slightest justification, and in various oppressive forms they have been guilty of illegal action. We have had the case of Father Kennedy mentioned, and there the police, in the very teeth of a well known law, broke into the rev. gentleman's house, hustled him about, ill-treated the occupants of the house, and acted with the grossest insolence. We are often advised that in such cases, where persons have a grievance against the police, there is a legal remedy. Well, Father Kennedy took this legal means of enforcing remedy in a Court of Law. He brought an action against the police, who were defended by all the Crown lawyers. Father Kennedy succeeded in obtaining from a special jury a verdict and damages £100. But immediately the authorities moved for a new trial, and this rev. gentleman, who had already been put to enormous expense and great loss of time, had every obstacle thrown in his way in seeking that remedy the right hon. Gentleman has recommended. Up to this hour Father Kennedy has had no redress whatever; although the Judge laid down the law, and showed that the police acted' with the greatest illegality, and the jury gave damages on the facts, there has not been one word of condemnation from the Chief Secretary of their conduct, and their defence, I suppose, is paid for out of public funds. It is a significant fact that at the trial that Government legal hack whom the Attorney General is trying to force on the acceptance of Trinity College, Mr. Carson, who defended the police, when he found the case was going against him turned to the jury and said, in the hope of appealing to some political prejudice among them, "Do not make a point against the Government by giving a verdict against their police!" That is the way the people of Ireland are met if they seek their legal remedy, and I ask the Committee is it fair, is it just, is it anything but a mockery to tell the poor peasant of Ireland that if he suffers wrong at the hands of
    1140
    the police there is a legal remedy by going into the Higher Courts. Ton might as well tell him to go to the Grand Llama of Thibet. If he asks justice at the Local Courts he comes face to face with the Local Magistrate, who is the accomplice of the police, and we shall* probably find him sent to prison for having the audacity to complain. In face of those facts, I say, it is idle and an outrage on the people of Ireland to refer them for their remedy against repeated acts of oppression and of cruelty on the part of the police to the Law Courts when the Executive ought to be their remedy. The conduct of the Irish police during the last two years has-been exceedingly bad. We have had frequent cause to complain of it. The fountain head of the evil is largely to be found on the Treasury Bench. The answers, the demeanour, the tone of the Chief Secretary, when we do make complaints to him, are of such a character as to incite the Irish police to fresh acts of violence. What have we seen? During the last three years we have seen that the Irish police have murdered four or five people. There have been four Coroners' Juries' verdicts of wilful murder against them. They have dispersed meetings, they have bludgeoned and batoned hundreds of perfectly peaceful and unresisting people, and yet in no single instance, from beginning to end, have they been punished or reproved On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman reads out the first lie the police like to send him, and refuses absolutely to grant any inquiry. The result is that the police have now come to several conclusions, the first of which is that they can do whatever they like with most absolute impunity and safety; secondly, that the more offensive, the more insulting, and the more outrageous their conduct is, provided alone it is against the Nationalists, the better chance they have of promotion. The consequence is that we have in the ranks of the Irish police the demoralisation and the disorganisation which has already been described at considerable length in this House, and which, I must say, threatens that Force with the most evil consequences. That I consider a very great evil in Ireland, and, I regret to say, it is a growing evil. That demoralisation has shown itself in a great variety of ways.

    1141
    No one can visit the country without seeing it. In the districts where subsistence and extra allowances are made on a large scale they are spent on drink. The police there, owing to their long hours of duty, as well as to the intense unpleasantness of the duty, indulge in great quantities of liquor, and the consequence is that it has become quite a common thing for constables to be found half drunk and in a state of incapacity. A number of cases have been brought before this House. A case occurred the other day in Tipperary, which the right hon. Gentleman says is now under investigation. It was on St. John's Eve, in Tipperary, at nine o'clock, when a policeman left barrack and walked some distance out of the town. On his way he came to a bonfire, around which some girls were dancing. He went in amongst the girls, struck two or three of them, using the foulest language. He then went on, and the first house he came to he wrecked the windows. Then he went on to another house, and also smashed the windows. Then he went on to another house, and also smashed the windows, and made several efforts to burst the door. After completely breaking every window in the front, he proceeded to the back, where he also destroyed the windows. Having wrecked Mr. Corbett's humble dwelling, he proceeded to the house of Mr. John Tring, but here his fortunes were much less favoured. After breaking five panes of glass, the owner of the house was aroused, and rushing out of bed, he pursued the constable in his nightdress, and, with the assistance of a dog, succeeded in capturing him, and taking him to the barracks. That is a performance recently achieved by one of these guardians of law and order in Tipperary. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn the most lurid pictures of the wrecking of houses in Tipperary, when they were never wrecked at all, when only the glass was broken, but here was a case where a policeman wrecked a whole house off his own bat.
    An hon. MEMBER: By moonlight?
    MR. DILLON: Yes, by moonlight, and yet we never heard a word about it from the Chief Secretary. I think that constable is entitled to honourable mention by the right hon. Gentleman. It
    1142
    has been said, and said quite truly, that the Irish police are becoming daily more oppressive, more cruel, and more disorderly. Now, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the other day the mob marched through the streets of Tipperary, wrecking the houses of their political opponents, and throwing explosive machines about. What I should like to know is, if this be the case, where were the police? If they allowed these houses to be wrecked where they had a garrison of 130 armed polioemen for a population of 7,000 inhabitants, I ask has human experience ever heard of such a thing? I say that they ought all of them to be stripped of their clothes to-morrow, as an utterly worthless and absurd Force, if they are unable to prevent the wrecking of the houses of the inhabitants of Tipperary. The whole system is absolutely and utterly at fault, and when the right hon. Gentleman gets up to defend it in this House, he is bound to contradict himself in every second sentence. The right hon. Gentleman himself incites the police to acts of violence and cruelty by his answers and speeches in this House. He has also incited the Magistrates and all the officials in Ireland to act in an un-constitutional way by the repeated and reckless inaccuracy of his answers and statements. Only yesterday he described a most dreadful case of boycotting, which he said was a typical case in the County of Waterford, where a poor man was prevented from selling his pigs. The man Power who prevented him, he said, was now lying in gaol for shadowing this man. The man Power was arrested it is true, but he was released on appeal by County Court Judge Waters. He has not been in gaol for the last four months. That is a sample of the way in which the right hon. Gentle man goes on. He does not take the trouble to inform himself on Irish affairs, and where he has not got a policeman's story ready, he tosses out whatever first comes to hand. Our complaints in these matters are complaints about the administration of the law in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman sought to ride off on the great and oppressive powers which were taken by the Government of Mr. Forster and Lord Spencer when they were responsible for the Government of Ireland.

    1143
    But these powers were conferred upon them by the House of Commons, and cruel and oppressive and wrong as they were—they undoubtedly were wrong—every Member of the House of Commons was equally responsible for them with Lord Spencer, and Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Forster. These Gentlemen, when they ruled Ireland—although I contend that by these powers they ruled cruelly—ruled under the law, bad as the law was. But our complaint against the right hon. Gentleman is this, that many of the greatest evils of his are evils of administration of the law, and not of the law itself. One of the most acute and the most common-sense observers who ever wrote on political matters was Arthur Young, and when he came to Ireland and wrote that delightful and remarkable book on Travels in Ireland, he used an expression which has often been quoted, and which cannot be quoted too often. He says:—
    "To discover what the liberty of a people is we must live amongst them, and not look for it in the statutes of the realm. The language of the written law may be the language of liberty. The situation of the poor may speak nothing hut the language of slavery."
    Those words apply just as much to Ireland now as when Arthur Young wrote them in 1777. The language of the law in Ireland to-day is not the language of liberty. I am sorry to say it is often the very reverse, but when we come to the language of its administration we find that, in the words of Arthur Young, it speaks nothing but the language of slavery. Another complaint that we have to make against the police in Ireland is that they are not used for the purpose of preserving the peace, and that they are not used mainly for the purpose of protecting the citizens, but that they are used for the selfish purpose of one small class of the community. I will give one most curious and amusing instance illustrative of this fact. I have here the notebook of a plain-clothes constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which has come into my possession. No doubt the constable indulged too freely in stout, and lost it. At any rate it is very interesting. It appears that this constable is at present engaged, at the expense of the British taxpayer, in watching the stock which the hon. Member for South Tyrone has lent to the
    1144
    plantation tenants of the Brooke estate, for fear that the tenants should steal their own stock. Did ever anyone hear of such a thing? He has to count this stock every week lest these precious tenants should steal it. Here are entries made by the constable in reference to the clipping of sheep, and comments on various agricultural matters. Finding his duties light the constable, being of a poetical turn of mind, breaks out into poetry. So we now find that amongst the various duties of the Royal Irish Constabulary is that of contributing to the poetical literature of the land. Here is the original poem, as yet unpublished. I am prepared now to sell it for the benefit of the Plan of Campaign.
    "Tis said in merry spring
    That love is strongest on the wing,
    That Cupid wheels through flowery May
    His airy flight, his golden way
    To die in bleak December day.
    'Tis said that when the merles sing
    And cowslips in the meadows spring,
    And daisies on the lea are seen,
    And woods resume their summer green,
    And wanton lambs begin to play,
    And larks at daybreak tune their lay."
    Well, these are, I daresay, very beautiful songs, and I have no objection to a constable cultivating his poetic taste, only I think the poet ought to earn his own living. Here is another specimen on which the poet takes an amatory turn—
    "Cause why your mother knows,
    My love, My little flower of the May,
    That often, often did I love
    By this same woodland way,
    To woo your eldest sister, Kate,
    When we were young together.
    But Kate is waxing old, my pet,
    So do not tell your mother."
    Of course I have no objection to the constable writing poetry, but I do object to these men being lent for the purpose of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, unless he pays for them with his own money. The police in Ireland have attained their inflated condition simply in order that they may be the servants of the Irish landlords; and if it were not for this, coupled with the maladministration of the law in Ireland, one third of the Force would be able to do the whole of the work. I say this is an outrage on the taxpayers of this country, and still more upon the poor people of Ireland, who are thus deprived of money which might be spent for some useful purpose. Primary education is starved. Univer-

    1145
    sity education is starved. Every important department is starved, and yet we have imposed upon us the most gigantic, the most overpaid, and the most useless Police Force the world has ever seen. It is for these reasons that we oppose this Vote, and we say that the time has come when the whole matter ought to be looked into. The Police Force of Ireland ought to be reduced to the level of that of England. The people are peaceable and crimeless, if they are fairly governed, and if the Irish landlords require 10,000 armed men they had better levy the money for their pay from off their own estates.
    MR. DALTON: I think the speech we have just heard is a sufficient answer to what the Chief Secretary has said in regard to the practice of shadowing. The right hon. Gentleman gave us several instances, by way of defence, to show that a similar system had been pursued by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, but he did not take the trouble to get up his facts, and did not know those facts that are essential to make good his case. Whilst the right hon. Gentleman was giving us these, as he thought, parallel cases, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo "At what distance did the policeman follow?" And his answer was, "I cannot say" Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian asked, "Was the policeman in uniform?" Again the right hon. Gentleman replied, "I cannot answer that." I am sure the Committee will recognise that the answers to these two questions are absolutely essential, and upon them depend the value of the parallel drawn. We do not complain of ordinary watching, we do not complain of detective duty enforced everywhere; what we complain of is this new system of dogging the footsteps of innocent men persistently by policemen in uniform, an annoyance that the detective system has never caused. I hope answers to these questions will be forthcoming. Then there is another point. The Chief Secretary has stated times and times again in this House, when told that English visitors to Ireland had been subjected to this shadowing process, that this was not so. Time after time he has declared this deliberately, and has gone so far as
    1146
    to say that, if a person was thus shadowed, it was not on account of his formidable appearance, but because of his being in company with people suspected of having committed or being about to commit crime. The only people shadowed, he said, were those to whom suspicion attached. Now, in regard to that, the noble Lord the Member for Somerset got up yesterday and told the right hon. Gentleman that three of his friends visiting Ireland had been shadowed from the time they landed to the time they left. Thereupon the right hon. Gentleman thought it a proper answer to make that he did not know much about, such cases, but if the three friends of the noble Lord were shadowed it must have been because they were very suspicious-looking characters. How he can reconcile that with his previous remarks upon shadowing I cannot understand. I suppose he thought it made a telling retort in debate, but I cannot reconcile it with the statement that shadowing is for the prevention of boycotting and intimidation. Well, Sir, there is one point upon which I should like to say a few words with regard to this Police Vote, and it is a point which, in my humble opinion, appears to go to the root of the whole system of government in Ireland—the unreliability of police evidence. All the statements the right hon. Gentleman makes in the House in answer to questions, all the speeches he and his followers make in the House or in the country, are made on the strength of evidence supplied by the police in Ireland, and it is on the strength of information thus supplied he asks Members of this House to support his policy. Now we know, everybody in this House knows, that time and time again there have been conflicts of evidence here, time and time again my hon. Friends have contradicted police reports and challenged statements made by the Chief Secretary on the strength of these reports, and time and time again we have asked for inquiry to test whether we are right in our facts or the Chief Secretary in his information, and invariably the right hon. Gentleman has refused such inquiry. Under these circumstances we are justified in insisting upon the truth of our own version. Just one instance I will give from my own experience to show what I mean. A few days ago I

    1147
    asked the Chief Secretary whether the police on eviction duty at Falcarragh had marched home from the scene singing "Glory, Alleluia!" The Chief Secretary in a flippant manner said so far as he knew it was rather a good humoured song and he did not see very much harm in it if they did. He further went on to say that
    "The police did not sing except to beguile the weary time marching home, and not at the scene of the evictions."
    Now, upon that fact I have received a letter from a gentleman who has given me permission to use his name. Unlike the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, when we quote a letter we can afford to give the name of the writer to show the bona fides of the information. The Rev. Father Kelly, parish priest of Dunfanaghy, writes—
    "It is an audacious falsehood to say that the police do not sing at the scene of evictions."
    He goes on to say that the
    "Savage yelling of the police is evidently intended for no other purpose than to irritate and insult the evicted persons and their friends."
    It is a point that may or may not be of importance in itself, but, at any rate, it serves to show the untrustworthy nature of official information. Now we remember the debate upon the prohibited meetings of Cashel and Tipperary. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo gave a long description of the occurrences, and in the whole speech I do not think he mentioned a single incident to which he was not himself an eye-witness. Upon that occasion, as he is reported on June 10, the Chief Secretary said my hon. Friend had given an interesting account of the events, but that it was at variance with the official accounts furnished. Well, Sir, I do not know in what other way it could be shown that the official information was unreliable, for we who know my hon. Friend, and I think the great majority of people in the country and Members in the House, will prefer to believe what my hon. Friend says upon the evidence of his own eyes rather than the information supplied to the right hon. Gentleman. These two instances are sufficient to show my point, and I say the Chief Secretary has time and time again shown in this House that the
    1148
    information upon which he makes his statements and his speeches, which are so loudly cheered on the other side, is altogether false. Nevertheless, though there may be this direct conflict of testimony, inquiry into the truth is refused. In the only cases where it has been possible to test the accuracy of statements, in those cases where the right hon. Gentleman has been forced to submit to inquiry by Coroners' Inquests on the bodies of victims of police violence, such as the inquest upon O'Hanlon, at Youghal, the Mitchelstown victims, and the boy Heffernan, our versions given here in contradiction to police accounts have been shown, on the evidence of unimpeachable witnesses, to have been correct. That being so, then I say that so far as tests have been applied they show that we can reasonably claim that in any divergence of statement the balance of probability is against the truth of' the police reports. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has to rely on official information, and, as arising out of the conditions under which Ireland is governed, and the relations that exist between the people and the police, we know that the officials who supply him with information will take care that it is compiled with due regard to their own interests and the necessities of their case. For many of these officials the only reason for existence is a continuance of the present state of things. Change the existing relations and these men would probably lose their positions. Pay and promotion depend upon the case they can make out, and under the circumstances it is not surprising that the information supplied to the Chief Secretary is concocted with due regard to the safety of their position. It is an evil that, of course, must last as long as the present state of things. The only possible remedy is to put the officials in Ireland in the same position as similar officials occupy in this country—to make them the servants of the people, instead of, as they now consider themselves in Ireland, the masters of the people, responsible to nobody, and having no other thought than how they best may make a lucrative position more secure.
    MR. WEBB (Waterford, W.): There is, I think, no subject in connection with administration in Ireland that can be more profitably discussed than this

    1149
    Police Vote. Nothing, I contend, more contributes to separate and keep apart the people of Ireland from the people of England than the maintenance of the Irish Constabulary on its present lines. The people of England who have not visited Ireland have no conception of 'what it is, the existence among the people of this armed and irresponsible Force in every town and village, an incubus upon all civil life with no effective control over it. It is a Force which, though nominally Irish, is not Irish in feeling or tradition or any of its connections. It is among us, bat not of us. It is not a civil Force to protect us and our property in our daily lives, and to prevent and detect crime among us, for, having no sympathy with the people, its functions fail in this respect. Every means is taken to separate the Force from the people: a man is not allowed to serve in the county where he is known, and if he marries a woman from another county then there are two counties from which, as a constable, he is excluded. We do not desire anything unreasonable, and we recognise that a policeman must not be so connected with a district as to hamper him in his duties for the prevention and detection of crime, but here is a body of men set apart and beyond the feelings and opinions of all the people around them, a military Force separated from all sympathy with civil life. It is an extraordinary spectacle presented in Ireland, in many respects one of the most crimeless countries in the West of Europe—an enormous Police Force kept up at an extravagant expenditure, large sums are taken from the taxpayers, from the wages of the country, to keep up this system. It is the fact, I believe, that the Irish Constabulary are paid more than the national teachers in Ireland. Unless, indeed, you pay the men highly you cannot get them to do the work required of them, and to occupy a position hateful to the great majority of their countrymen. A great many instances of the ill effects of the present system have been brought before the Committee; but there are one or two matters to which I should like to refer. Members of the Force have no distinguishing mark upon their uniform by which they can be identified and corrected when they go wrong or exceed
    1150
    their duty. What possible objection can there be to this arrangement, which obtains in this country and also in Dublin? We have a further development of the same in the practice of removing the marks from the uniforms of men who are sent from town to do duty in the country. There can be no object in this except to prevent people having the means of any redress whenever a policeman does wrong. Hence it is the police have not that sense of responsibility which ought to attach to men in their position. Then we have these policemen taking upon themselves in the small towns of Ireland to order people to move on whenever a man or woman stops to exchange a word with friend or neighbour. Why, men can stop and talk in the streets of the great towns in this country and no one dreams of calling it obstruction of the thoroughfare. It takes an extraordinary amount of ingenuity to manufacture a crime out of the act of two citizens talking in the street. The truth is, there is more obstruction of thoroughfare in a few yards of the Mile End Road on a Saturday night than in the whole of Ireland in the course of a year. On every possible occasion the police take it upon themselves to interfere with the rights and liberties of the people. It is not so long ago that we drew attention here to the action of the police toward public collections, made on behalf of the defence of our leaders from false charges publicly brought against them. I was honorary secretary or treasurer to a section of this fund, and it came to my knowledge that the police had interfered to prevent in country villages the people from subscribing of their own free will. Well, we did not want to discourage collections in other places, for we know the people are practically at the mercy of the police, and so we made no stir in the matter; but, as a matter of fact, the police interfered even to prevent collections being made in front of churches on Sundays. Many instances might be given from the experience of men who have knowledge of life in Ireland of the irresponsible Bashi-Bazouk action of the police in Ireland, and the dread in which they are held by the peaceable and law-abiding population. I was visiting at the house of a friend in County Wicklow, and there I was taken ill, and suffered much at night

    1151
    from the incessant howling of a dog near the house. I asked if anything could be done to stop the nuisance, and I was told "no," because the animal belonged to the Police Inspector, and the case must be very extreme that should necessitate any complaint being made of him. Now this was not the case of a poor man. My friend was a member of the Society of Friends, and of good position, and yet so reluctant was he to have any possible disagreement with a Police Inspector that he would not interfere to stop the barking of a dog. This being so, what is to be done in the case of the poor people who have no backing, and are left consequently to the mercy of the police? It is very difficult, indeed, for Englishmen to conceive the position in which the Irish towns and districts are placed under a Government like this. I do not say that these men are naturally wicked beyond other men, but the position in which they are placed is enough to corrupt and demoralise them, and I have observed that corruption and demoralisation have been going on more and more during the period of office of the present Administration. Beyond this we have to complain that we are compelled to provide more money than we ought in order to keep up the wretched system of espionage that goes on in Ireland. It is not so very long ago that I attended a meeting in South Tipperary, a meeting which was in itself of so little importance that it was not even noticed in the Irish papers. It was held at a time when the ground was covered with snow, and the weather was exceedingly hard and cold, and when I reached the place I saw what seemed to be a small brigade of men drawn up on the snow with an officer in front of them as if he were commanding a body of men in the field in the face of an enemy. I ask this Committee, is it not probable that under circumstances of this kind men placed in such a position would be very likely, if the opportunity arose, to pay it off upon the people? I noticed that they had two sets of police cars and three note takers ready, so that if the meeting had been broken up into three divisions, to follow each division. On other occasions I have seen and heard of things on the part of the police which have stirred my blood. We have heard within the last few days of the
    1152
    police singing "Glory, Halleluiah!" when, coming home from evictions, and I ask the Chief Secretary whether he thinks that if there were the slightest amount of chivalry on the part of the Irish Government those things would not be put down and prevented. However, what they are doing in this way is only damaging their own cause. So far as we, the Representatives of the National Party are concerned, their conduct is all the better for us, because in acting in, this manner the Government are only hastening their own downfall. I cannot imagine anything worse than the toleration they give to the expressions of joy and hilarity on the part of the police when returning from scenes in which they have assisted in evicting poor tenants and turning them out on the roadside. Evictions, of course, may in certain cases be necessary, although I do not think they are in the large majority of the cases that have come before us; but, I ask, is it necessary that the police who are called upon to assist in these evictions should be encouraged to such a state of mind in the performance of their duties? But beyond this we constantly have cases of the interference of the police with the natural rejoicings of the people on occasions when those rejoicings can have no sinister aspect. There was not very long ago the occasion of the marriage of Mr. William O'Brien, a man who holds a position in Ireland which, amongst the Irish people, is far above that of any person in this country. The Irish people know and feel that there is no one who has done more than, he has done on their behalf. There are, I think, few men upon whom the English people look upon with so much affection and devotion as are accorded, to the hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred. The people, with a view of showing their estimation of the hon. Member, lit a few bonfires, and the police were actually employed for the purpose of putting out those bonfires, although they had practically no political, significance, and were merely expressive of the popular rejoicing on a peaceable occasion. In addition to this, we have had other cases brought before us, like that which was mentioned last night, where police were convicted by Irish Juries of murder, and yet those very

    1153
    police were singled out for advancement. But we are told in Ireland that if we only adopt peaceable means everything will be right, and yet, when we do adopt peaceable means, in cases where we have to defend our rights, our action is rendered absolutely worthless by the way in which we are met by the Governmental system. With regard to the police, I think it is a shame that the promotion attainable by the men should depend on the extent to which they can procure convictions. This is clearly an encouragement to them in bringing, perhaps, false charges against the people. There was the Crossmaglen case, in which several men were sentenced to from seven to 10 years' penal servitude, and most of us who looked into the matter believed those men to be absolutely innocent, and I think I may say that the late Lord Carnarvon was of the same opinion. The police after their conviction were promoted. In point of fact, the police are leagued against our people, whatever is said in this House on their behalf, although it may only be upon the evidence of a single individual, he is always believed, even as against the assertions made by the Members sitting on these Benches. I ask who is it that has the greatest incentive to tell an untruth? I say that in the case of Ireland it may be the policeman, and we ought to consider the fact that the graver the charges, and the more they detract from the character of our countrymen, the more sure are the Irish police to obtain advancement, as long as they stick to their guns. From our point of view, this is a most insensate policy. We are, however, always told that we have the remedy of the Courts, but we know exactly what that remedy means for Ireland. We know that, however strong may be our case, and however much money we may collect for the purpose of prosecuting it, the authorities invariably manage to wriggle out, no matter under what Administration. It used to be said that if Irishmen would only come more frequently over to England, that if there were a sort of bridge between the two countries by which communication could be made more easy, the Irish people would see that the English method of governing was right. But the fact is the direct contrary. The more we come here and
    1154
    the more we see, the more determined we are never to submit to the continuance of the existing system. At a late meeting in Hyde Park I was particularly struck with the account which appeared in the papers of an attack made upon an hon. Member of this House (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan). The people tried to pull him off his horse. The man who had thrown stones at him was pointed out to the police, and yet the English police refused to arrest him, because they were not absolutely certain of his identity. If a similar proceeding had occurred at a meeting in Ireland there would perhaps have been a dozen men shot down. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary invariably shelters himself under the miserable tu quoque argument, which is no argument at all. I think that the highest glory attaching to the statesmanship of the men who are championing the Irish cause in England is that they have changed their minds, and find that the old policy of Irish Government will no longer do. There is no doubt that in the days of previous Governments things were very weak and bad, but at the same time there was in those days the plea that the Government had no positive proof as to the opinions of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people. They had always on their side the argument that it was not proved to them what the majority of the people thought. If, however, we wait a year or two we shall have the majority on our side. Last night the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunder-son) treated us to a very stirring lesson, as to how the action of the present Government in Ireland was the result of our conduct. In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I would say this, that no matter what he says we still feel that he is an Irishman, and we may still hope that he will arrive at a different opinion in regard to this matter. Since I have been in this House the worst things I have heard said in it of the Irish Representatives have not been said by hon. Members born in Ireland, but by men who have gone to Ireland and made their living there, and have used the position they have thus obtained to-defame and deride the country in which they have been placed. We can well

    1155
    bear being told of the "mean and contemptible" position taken up by Members on this side of the House, for we know that the really mean and contemptible position taken up long ago by those Irish Representatives who, instead of listening to the voice of their countrymen, endeavoured to forward their own position and that of their friends and relatives. Whatever the present condition of Ireland is, is undoubtedly the result of long centuries of misgovernment, through which the people had been unable to express their wishes and desires. This state of things never would have existed if we had always had the same voice in the conduct of affairs as we have now in the British Parliament. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made the extraordinary proposition that if three-fourths of the people of London were against the law, as they are in Ireland, a very much larger Police Force would be necessary. No; the law would then be changed. That is very much like saying that the people of Ireland are different to those in England, or any other country. In a properly constituted country it is the people that make and sustain the law. We are constantly being told of the effects of boycotting, but it is my belief that but for the boycotting which has taken place of late years, we in Ireland should have gone back to an older and much worse system. But for some such means we would have had no hope of redress. To condemn exclusive dealing under all circumstances is unjust and absurd. Because there is a disposition to resist and rebel against what is called the law in Ireland, is certain proof that the law is wrong as it exists. Now, Mr. Courtney we are protesting against the Police Force, but anyone who knows what our desires and intentions are well know that we have no objection to a proper Police Force. I believe a proper Police Force will always, unfortunately, be necessary in any country which is to be governed. We want such a Force as you have is England, a Force under the control of the people themselves; and we believe that in Ireland, as in every other country, the Irish people will select the best men to control the police and administer every other institution of their country. We want a strong and
    1156
    honest Police Force, not a Police Force such as the present, which is maintained against the protests of the people, which in Ireland tends to confusion, misery, and breaches of the law, and which tends to separation and alienation between the two countries. (8.48.)
    MR. P. O'BRIEN (Monaghan, N.): I would ask to be allowed to say a few words in regard to my own experience—and I am sorry I am not able to give the result of that experience in the presence of more Members. The first matter I would bring under the notice of the House is the conduct of the police in the county of Monaghan. It is pretty well known that for some time, and until quite recently, there was a serious dispute going on in the town of Carrickmacross between the people of that town and the Great Northern of Ireland Railway Company. The people had a right to expect that in any dispute of this kind they should be left to themselves; but, as a matter of fact, the police were brought in, and were used on the side of the Railway Company to harass the people. One of the excuses most generally ' given by the Chief Secretary, in his most pathetic tones, is that the police are only used for the protection of the poor and the helpless. He generally draws some harrowing picture of some poor boycotted person whose treatment at the hands of his neighbours is cruel in the extreme, and he says that on these occasions the police protect the weak against the strong.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    *MR. P. O'BRIEN: The history of the dispute to which I refer is this. About Christmas, 1886, a landlord, named Shirley, evicted 12 families from their homes. A gentleman named Phelan, residing in the town of Carrickmacross, who was also a tenant of this particular landlord—a respectable manand a Justice of the Peace—visited the evicted tenants after their eviction, at a time when the place was covered with snow, in his capacity of Chairman of the Board of Guardians. His desire was to see if any, and if so, how many wanted shelter and relief. This not unnaturally displeased the landlord, and he took measures to convey his displeasure.

    1157
    He wrote several letters to Mr. Phelan, asking him why lie interfered with the tenantry. In the March following Mr. Shirley evicted 21 families—altogether 100 souls. For the purpose of getting rid of these people—who were applying to the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed—150 police were called into requisition. As a means of averting this state of things, Mr. Phelan assisted these people to fill up applications to enable them to go into the Land Court. They used his house for the purpose, and for this unpardonable offence Mr. Phelan was called on by Mr. Shirley to surrender his house, which was one of the best in the town It was not a question of nonpayment of rent. Mr. Phelan owed no rent, in fact he was, I am glad to say, then, as now, in a much better financial position than his landlord. But this was a vindictive attempt on the part of Mr. Shirley to punish Mr. Phelan. Soon after Mr. Phelan was evicted the station master of the Great Northern Railway in the town married a servant of Mr. Shirley, and forthwith he was installed in the house of this evicted Justice of the Peace. The people resented this, and they called on the Railway Company to provide another house for their servant, who was grabbing this gentleman's house. The Railway Company, who feel so warmly with Mr. Shirley and the evicting going all over Ireland, declined to do this, and the people took steps to make them surrender. They practically boycotted the company. They withdrew their trade from the company, and established a carrying system of their own, by horses, to take their goods down to Dundalk—as I think it will be admitted they had a right to do, either in Ireland or any other country. But what was the result? The Government came to the help of the landlord and the Railway Company. They lent the use of the police to harrass the people. The police took the names of people who were carrying goods and sending them, and they did everything they could to annoy and, if possible, to drive the people into committing some breach of the law—which, I am glad to say, they failed in. That was all done at the instigation of Mr. Shirley, at whose house the police put up, and at whose house the officers constantly dined. The railway Directors
    1158
    began to feel that the pressure was too much for them, they began to feel that some day they would have to face the shareholders, and account to them for a decrease in the dividend. They not unnaturally thought that they should come to terms rather than quarrel about this man's house. Just as they were about to remove the man from the place, Divisional Commissioner Cameron came up from Belfast, and then and there began to use his influence to prevent the Railway Company surrendering the house. And so the fight went on for six months more, the people in the meantime being harassed. Every man of any prominence in the town, whether clergyman or merchant, was shadowed wherever he went, but in the end—as always happens in these cases—the Railway Company were beaten. They gave up the house, and when they had done so they got back their trade. I think we have, a right to complain of this employment of the police in carrying on such useless and unnecessary work. Plainly, the Directors of this company were used by the Government for the purpose of suppressing and beating down the people, and the police were placed at their backs. Since this fight ended we might naturally have expected' that the police would have kept to police duty. It has, however, been my duty to put questions repeatedly in this House to the Chief Secretary asking him to explain why the priests of Carrickmacross have since been perpetually shadowed. The Rev. Father Callan, the Rev. Father O'Doherty, and other priests are persistently dogged from the town of Carrickmacross on Sundays to the outlying chapels, where they have to say Mass, and they are watched when they leave the chapels. It is well known that when a priest goes to an outlying chapel he has afterwards to attend to the sick calls of the district. The police are in waiting; they follow the priests up to the very doors of the people they have to attend. Some of the sick people have been so frightened by the gathering of the police around their doors that they have been almost in danger of their lives. As to shadowing in other parts of Ireland, I have been able to give some object lessons in it to the British public, which I hope will not be without effect. The description of the system drew from an hon. and

    1159
    gallant Gentleman on the other side of the House the very pithy, and, I think, true, expression of opinion that the thing was simply damnable. He referred, however, to only one instance. The thing is going on in numbers of places in Ireland. If I go to my own constituency, and attend my place of worship, I am shadowed not only up to the church but into the church. This is done to prevent me from addressing meetings, but there it fails, because if I mean to address a meeting I always do it. On a recent occasion I had to go to Clongorey, in the county of Kildare. I passed through the town, which was full of police. They did not happen to know me, and I was able to go out to a place within sight of their barracks and hold a very large meeting. The shadowing system in the county of Monaghan is quite uncalled for. It is not alleged that there is any estate there—and I am sorry to say it—in which the Plan of Campaign has been adopted. To be sure the Chief Secretary says the National League is suppressed in that county. It is suppressed in the sense in which it is suppressed in other counties—that is to say, the meetings go on regularly every week, and the League was never in such a flourishing condition as it is to day. And yet the Chief Secretary deludes himself with the idea that he has suppressed the National League. Another way in which the police are used, is to give assistance in the work of Jury-packing. It will be in the recollection of some members of the Committee that, six or eight months ago, trials in connection with the death of Inspector Martin, in Donegal, took place in Queen's County. The Lord Chief Packer of Ireland, who is now Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, was there, and he packed the jury so well that I suppose that was the principal reason why he was able to step into the second highest judicial position in the land. The police were used to assist him in packing the Jury. District Inspector Warburton prepared the way for the redoubtable packer by calling on the police in the districts from which the panel was to be made up, to tick off the names, the religions, the politics, and so on, and to state whether, in their opinion, they thought each man could be relied on to give a verdict for the
    1160
    Crown, and against Father M'Fadden and the peasants, who had been brought all the way from Donegal for this farce of a trial. I challenge the Chief Secretary, or the right hon. and learned Attorney General, to deny that the District Inspector acted as I have stated. I ask where, in the civilised world, would the police be used—at all events where trial by Jury is the rule—for such an evil purpose, as the marking off in advance, for the Crown lawyers, of the politics and the religion of the men who are sent to give a fair and impartial trial to men who are labouring under such a serious charge. It has been stated in this House that the police were in the habit of singing on their way to and from the infamous work of eviction. The Chief Secretary has denied it. I happen to have had direct personal experience of the fact, and the police not only sing as they go to evictions, but sing as they leave them. The Chief Secretary said, in apology for the police, that it was the usual thing for the military to sing while on the march. Well, I was present at the evictions in Donegal in the year 1889. The military were there, and I saw a troop of the gallant Scots Greys engaged in taking off, as prisoners of war, half-a-dozen little girls, one of whom was nine years old, and the eldest of whom was, I think, not more than 15 years of age. I thought if I had had the good fortune to have had my camera with me what an interesting object lesson would have been conveyed to the British people by the picture of these fine, brave men, who I am sure were ashamed of their work, and who, I think, would reflect honour and credit on the country if they were engaged with some equal foe, instead of being employed in turning out of their homes unfortunate people who had done them no wrong, and whose only fault was that they had endeavoured to keep the shelter of their houses over them until this House came to their assistance, as, of course, it will eventually have to do. If it is not done by the present Government it will be done by their successors, and we can see the near approach of those successors now. Well, the military did not sing either going to or coming from those evictions, but the quasi-military force, the police, when they had demolished the homes of

    1161
    the people and were marching away with District Inspector Cameron and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) at their head, did sing, and the song they deliberately selected for the purpose of wounding the feelings of the people was, "Who killed Cock Robin?" Tipperary has lately been pretty often before the House, and I think hon. Members have not heard the last of it yet. Well, then the police are used not for the purpose of maintaining law and order, but with the deliberate intent of forcing the people into breaches of the law, so that the police may have the opportunity of breaking their heads, and providing some apology for the hon. Member for South Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry) with regard to the state of things into which he has brought the town. I remember the police being brought up to Cashel from Waterford, and the numbers were taken off their collars so that they might the more freely indulge in their blood-letting propensities and there might be more difficulty in detecting them. It has been a matter of complaint on both sides of the House, from time to time, that the police are not generally numbered in Ireland, and yet, in this instance, when they were numbered the numbers were taken off, in order that the men might be free to batter the people as they pleased without running much risk of detection. When these questions are brought forward the right hon. Gentleman says we have our remedy at law, and yet he takes every precaution he can to prevent the identification of these men. I am reluctant to refer to my own case, but I am bound to do so on this Vote. I want to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the challenge I gave him some 12 months back about my treatment by the police in the City of Cork. There, too, the police have numbers on their collars, but on the particular occasion when they thought well to baton me nearly unto death, the men who had numbers were kept off the streets, and the strangers without numbers, and who could not be identified, were set to do the bloody work. The result was that I was nearly batoned to death with their rifle-butts. The Chief Secretary coolly told me then that I had my remedy in law. I challenged him then, and I challenge
    1162
    him now, to use the power at his command to get me the names of the four men who struck me, and I will try if there is to be any satisfaction to be got at law. I am afraid it is useless to appeal to him on the point, because he is more interested in hiding the police than in exposing them. But occasionally we are able to identify these men, and when they are brought before the Law Courts every ingenuity of the Crown lawyer is used to screen them, and if they are convicted, and a penalty is imposed upon them, it is very probable that the Crown not only pays the penalty imposed, but all the expenses of the trial as well. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say to-night that he will take means to ascertain the names of the men who bludgeoned me in Cork. I do not propose to occupy the Committee longer. I have only to add that if he has not learnt, something from the Barrow election, as I daresay he has, and he allows this state of things to go on, he may sometime tempt the people a bit too much, and perhaps an occasion may arise, when ho has not his forces in large numbers, en which the people will seriously revolt. I hope he will take precautions in time, and simply use the police in their proper duties, and not any longer lend them to the landlords, for the purpose of batoning people whose only offence is that they have been unable to pay their rent, people who do not desire any quarrel with the police, or anybody else, but are quite content to await the return of the Liberal Government to power, when they know they will go back to their homes.
    SIR T. ESMONDE (Dublin Co., S.): I have not the least intention to detain the Committee at any length; I simply wish to bring to the notice of the people of this country the state of things in North Wexford, my own part of that county. I have never taken any particular opportunity of attacking the Royal Irish Constabulary, because I always hoped that the men might perhaps remember that they are Irishmen, and that they have Irish hearts under their British livery; that some of them might occasionally be led to act with some kind of consideration and some kind of decency towards the people from whom they sprung. It seems to me it is owing to the instructions and

    1163
    encouragement, they have received from the Government Bench that they have forgotten themselves, that they have been behaving themselves in a manner which is a disgrace to their nationality, and, to my mind, certainly a disgrace to their manhood. Now, as to the northern part of Wexford, it was only the other day I had occasion to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland a question about a police constable, named Quigley. The answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave me was one which led everybody to suppose that my direct charge was an utterly bogus one. The question I asked was whether a certain police constable, named Quigley, of Courtown, County Wexford, had boycotted a Nationalist tailor. The constable ordered a suit of clothes from the Nationalist tailor, but subsequently withdrew his order upon the instructions of the Head Constable. I was told in this House that it was not a fact that the constable had countermanded his order, and that my charge of boycotting, which was in directly against the superior officer, was an utterly bogus charge. Since then I have received a letter from the tailor who was boycotted. He writes—
    "Sub-constable Quigley, of Courtown, called at my house for some clothes. I measured him, and took note of his peculiar taste, and named a day he should have the clothes done. He went away, and in about 10 or 20 minutes he returned, and asked me to give him back the clothes, saying, 'Give me back the clothes; Mr. Bulger, the Head Constable, has ordered me to take them away from you.'"
    Then he goes on to say that the sub-constable took the clothes away, but after three days he secretly sent them back by a man he chanced to meet. This Head Constable is at the present moment a ruler in the north of County Wexford. I believe he was originally a stable-boy in the employment of the late Earl of Granard. Since then he has risen in the world, and is now a full-blown Head Constable. He is one of the prime movers in the prosecution of the Nationalist farmers in North Wexford. I should like to bring under the notice of the Committee another case of boycotting, in which this very same constable was implicated. This is the case of a butcher, named Michael Redmond. Redmond was suspected of Nationalist proclivities. He had previously supplied the police barracks in that part of the
    1164
    county with meat, but the Head Constable went to him and told him he would rather take poison than taste his meat in future, and he would do what he could to take the police custom away from him, which he did with very great success. Several of the police barracks which used to deal with the man Redmond withdrew their custon at the instigation of the same Head Constable. If that is not boycotting I should like to know what is. The Head Constable has been instrumental in bring ingcharges against the shopkeepers, for instance, against Mr. James Redmond, butcher, against the same Mr. Michael Redmond, butcher, and against Mr. John Grey. These men were threatened with prosecution because they refused to supply certain emergency men with goods. The case against these shopkeepers was this:—Two policemen went round to the different shops of the town of Gorey, with an emergency mar called Johnson, who asked to be supplied with goods. They went in the first place to Michael Redmond, who was boycotted by the Head Constable, and Johnson asked Redmond for meat. Redmond had never supplied Johnson with meat before, and told him to go to his own butcher. He had no knowledge of the man, and knew nothing of his means to pay for what he received. The same tactics were followed in the cases of James Redmond and John Grey, and the result is that the men are now threatened with prosecution by the police for boycotting. I have another complaint to bring against another police official in County Wexford, namely, Sergeant Ferris, of Gorey. I asked a question of the Attorney General for Ireland, and the answer I received was to the effect that this sergeant, against whom a report had been made as to drunkenness by a superior officer, had been placed in a sort of Supernumerary List. In January last, this man was seen in the public streets of Gorey in a hopeless condition of drunkenness, and I believe a complaint was made against him by his superior officer. A short time after that five Nationalist farmers were, on the evidence of Ferris, sent to gaol for boycotting. In the course of his evidence against these men, Ferris swore he had never been drunk, although he had been reported to the authorities and had been carried through the streets in a drunken condition. The depositions which the sergeant made at the time, and on which

    1165
    the farmers were sent to gaol, were signed by the local District Inspector, who had previously made complaints against Ferris for drunkenness. This man, who swore lie was never drunk, and upon whose evidence these farmers were sent to gaol, was drunk to the knowledge of the superior officer who signed his depositions. I think we have a right to ask that this Crown witness should be prosecuted for perjury, and that the men who were sent to gaol upon his evidence should be released, or that, at all events, an inquiry should be held. We have a number of good specimens of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Gorey. There is, for example, a constable called Harper. On Friday, the 20th of June, Mr. James Redmond, whom I have already mentioned, and who is particularly obnoxious to the Constabulary, proceeded to the railway station. As he was going down he met e number of policemen, who were escorting a Plan of Campaign prisoner to the Wexford Gaol. Redmond, interfered in no wise, but Constable Harper ran on before him, and, just as he was going into the railway station, knocked him down without any provocation or excuse whatsoever. Redmond, who is not a strong man, was rather seriously injured, so much so that he was not able to attend to his business for the next few days. Constable Harper was beforehand with Redmond. Although he himself had done all the maltreating, he served a writ upon Redmond for assault. Nothing has been yet done to the constable. What I want to know is, whether it conduces to law and order in Ireland that members of the Police Force, individuals who are paid for the preservation of order in Ireland, are allowed to assault peaceable and well-behaved citizens, proceeding about their ordinary duties, simply at their will and pleasure, and without any punishment or any attempt at censure from those responsible for law and order. The fact is that, under the administration of affairs by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary, the police in Ireland seem to think that they can do what they like with everybody. They seem to think they are lords and masters of the country, and that no one can get up in the morning or go to bed at night without their consent. I do not know that I should be justi-
    1166
    fied in detaining the Committee any longer. I will only suggest, with all due deference to the present governors of Ireland, the desirability of maintaining real law and order, and of endeavouring to instil some small modicum of respect for law into the heads of those whom they charge with the administration of the law.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to move the reduction of which I have given notice. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo referred to the extra duties the Constabulary are called upon to perform in Ireland at present. I propose to add to the list he gave. I have to call attention to that most important fact that last winter when the friends of the tenants' cause throughout Ireland determined to raise funds for the sustenance of evicted tenants, all the efforts of the Constabulary were directed to defeating the collection. There was scarcely a county in Ireland in which collections were not made, and there was scarcely a county in Ireland in which the collections were not obstructed by the police, who even took up positions at chapel doors, taking down the names of those subscribing, and otherwise intimidating them. I read, in the course of the winter, a speech made by the Chief Secretary, in which he alleged that the collections-were made by the people by means of intimidation. The intimidation was all on the other side, and that there was no intimidation on our side is proved by the fact that not a single prosecution resulted from the making of these collections. Sir, I consider this a most iniquitous use of the Constabulary, and I consider all the men employed in this way might be dispensed with, to the greater peace and prosperity of the country. Another curious employment of the Constabulary is in the distribution of Unionist pamphlets. The Government apparently have not quite given up the idea that in the Recess they might still continue, with hope of success, to try to convert the people of Ireland to Unionist principles, and last winter these efforts took the form of circulation of Unionist literature. The pamphlet I refer to is entitled—
    "The present position of the Irish farmer under the Land Act and the advantages accruing to the tenant for the acquisition of his holding in the most favourable way possible."

    1167
    I contend that this employment of the police is illegal, and an abuse of the public money voted for police purposes in Ireland. The Government have agents enough in Ireland, voluntary agents, in the shape of various Unionist organisations for the circulation of Party literature, but they are not justified in spending a penny of the public money, or a day of a policeman's time, in the distribution of Unionist literature. The pamphlet, in the present instance, was printed without name of author or printer, and parenthetically I may remark that it is a characteristic of Unionist literature that it is published anonymously, the writers in many cases being ashamed to give their names. But a new feature has been developed in last winter's campaign of the Government, and I say that every penny of expenditure in this circulation of literature is a violation of the conditions under which the money was voted by this House. Well, Sir, the police have been turned not only into "shadowers" and distributors of anonymous literature, but they have acted as toll collectors. Last winter they collected Mr. Smith-Barry's tolls in Tipperary. On one occasion, October of last year, after the dispute between Mr. Smith-Barry and his tenants had reached an acute stage, five or six policemen, with loaded rifles and revolvers, stood at the usual Customs gaps where Mr. Smith-Barry's collectors demand toll upon stock. When the collectors were met with a refusal, the police came to the rescue of the collectors and threatened that, unless the objectors at once paid the demands, they should be arrested and carried off to the barrack, and, as a matter of fact, under the system of intimidation exercised, no less than 30 men, women, and children were arrested and placed in the lock-up of the town of Tipperary. Then, have we not heard the Chief Secretary and his predecessors repeatedly declare that police were employed at evictions simply to protect from violence the Sheriff in carrying out his official functions, and, I suppose, it will be said that the police were placed in the Customs gaps of Tipperary to protect Mr. Smith-Barry's men in the collection of tolls. But observe that there is proof that the police went much further than that; they actually themselves became toll collectors, and, in carrying out that occu-
    1168
    pation, they arrested 30 persons in a single day. I say, again, this is a new departure, an illegitimate use of the Constabulary, and that this requires defence or explanation in this House. We arraign the Constabulary system in Ireland as a system of violence and corruption. I think the Committee will have expected that some answer should have been given to the speeches of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. H. Gladstone) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cork in reference to the Charleville affair. Last year, the Committee may remember, the defence of the Chief Secretary for this assault upon the people was that the firing was a necessity, and that their lives were threatened. This was the police statement, and the right hon. Gentleman at once adopted it, and has adhered to it ever since. But, Sir, if there is any pretence that has been exploded in the Courts of Ireland it is this defence for the police on this particular occasion. The facts have been before two tribunals, before two Judges and two special juries of the City of Dublin, and in each case two points were left to the jury: Was a person in the crowd hit by a bullet; and, secondly, supposing he was hit by a police bullet, were the police justified in firing at all? Upon the first of these points the juries failed to agree, and, indeed, it was a matter upon which they might have some doubt; that is, whether the injury to the plaintiff was actually caused by a bullet or not, and, therefore, it was not necessary for them to consider the second question. But the charges of both the learned Judges, and the known opinion of the jury in the second action, leave no doubt that if the juries had been at liberty to give a finding upon the second question, they would unhesitatingly have condemned the firing of the police as an act of murderous folly. The opinion of Mr. Justice Murphy, no sympathiser with the Nationalist Party, and of Chief Baron Palles, universally recognised as an impartial Judge—and I had the good fortune to listen to one of them—was that the police fired without any justification whatever, and that if any person had been killed by the discharge of their revolvers, then that would unquestionably have been a case of murder. I should like to know, Are these expressions of judicial opinion to go for nothing; are they to be treated with as much contempt as the speeches of Irish

    1169
    Members? Are these murderers—for so in intent they were—to go scot-free, and the House of Commons to vote their salaries? Perhaps they will have promotion. I think it is our duty to put these facts clearly before the people of this country. I will now draw attention to a very flagrant and a fatal case of police violence; happily, the Charleville case was not fatal. The case of the lad Heffernan told by the police has been referred to, but with nothing like the fulness it deserves, and I may briefly remind the Committee of the facts. This case has been before a judicial tribunal—before the Coroner's Court in Tipperary—and lest to-night the Chief Secretary may indulge in one of his sneers at the Coroner for Tipperary who presided at the inquiry, I may mention at once that at the conclusion of the investigation, each of the three parties represented by the mouths of their legal advocates, declared that the Coroner had discharged his duty in a perfectly unexceptional manner. The well-known Mr. George Bolton, Crown prosecutor, and notorious throughout Ireland as a Government hack of the worst description—a man who ought to have been dismissed by? he late Liberal Government; Mr. George Bolton, who appeared for the Government—and I mention this because it may add force to the terms in which I have referred to the Coroner's inquiry—said, offering no opinion on the verdict, that in the course of a long experience "he had never known an investigation conducted with greater ability, fairness, or impartiality." Mr. Redmond, who represented the next-of-kin, testified also to the fairness of the inquiry, and in this Mr. Pinfell, who represented the constables, joined. I hope that in the face of these expressions of opinion, and from such an impartial quarter as Mr. George Bolton, we shall not hear any sneers at the verdict of the Coroner's Court. Now, what was done on that occasion? The boy was murdered, and, I take it, the taking of human life is the greatest crime known to the law. What are the facts of the case? The life of a perfectly innocent boy was taken away in the public street, where it is the right of every citizen to walk without harm, and that life was taken by those whose duty it is to protect the people. Certain facts were admitted, no attempt being made
    1170
    at denial. First, there was a disturbance in Tipperary, and Constable Tuohy was ordered by District Inspector Carter to fire a shot; secondly, that shot was fired, and killed a boy named Heffernan. Some disturbance took place, and it is said that stones were thrown, but surely that is no justification for the taking of human life. The crowd on this occasion, according to the police, consisted of only 40 or 50 persons, but the people state that the number was under 20. But, taking the estimate of the police, there were brought against this small body of 50 people, the majority of whom were proved to be boys, 20 fully armed constables; and in the utter absence of anything like provocation or justification for such an extreme act, the order was given to the police to fire on them, and the boy was killed. Because some stones were thrown, it is alleged that these 20 fully-armed men, who had 15 of their comrades suitably armed near at hand, were in danger of their lives from an unarmed crowd of 50 persons. Was there ever a more preposterous invention to gull the British public? Of the arrests made on the occasion, three out of the four were boys. The stone-throwing was described by the police at the inquest in the most exaggerated language, the use of metaphor being freely indulged in; but, strange to say, in spite of it all, not a policeman was seriously hurt; not one had to be medically treated, or left his work for half an hour. There is no mark of stone-throwing. I have since stood at the corner where the police were standing, and where they were said to have been assailed; there is a large window there which must have been smashed had the stone-throwing been anything like the description given. I daresay, if a reply is made, the use of explosives by the crowd will be relied on as the police defence; but, Sir, the evidence, when examined, shows this is a bogus story, this of the use of explosives. District Inspector Carter swore to hearing explosives in Henry Street—that was where the mob were not near the police—and he said he did not consider these explosives endangered the lives of his men. Constable Stacey also produced the only explosive found, and swore he heard a number of explosions in Church Street, where the people were. So it appears these explosives were used in the

    1171
    midst of the people and not against the police at all. The lead pipe explosive1 would not, according to the police evidence, be likely to do much harm. The explosive theory is a bogus story, and the police never defended it. It is remarkable that, on this occasion, no baton charge was ordered, no Riot Act was read, no order was given to the people to disperse—the Police Regulations were altogether ignored. These regulations require a District Inspector, when he apprehends a disturbance, to go to the Magistrate of the district or his superior officers and take advice. The truth is, that this fatal shot was fired with the most utter and wanton disregard of the Police Regulations and of all principles of humanity. In these circumstances, it was impossible for the Coroner's Jury to come to any other conclusion than they did by their verdict that the police were guilty of wilful murder. And, then, how did the Government act? For very shame's sake they were obliged to prosecute those men, but they did so in a way to shield the police and to screen the murderer in defiance of the plainest rules of justice. George Bolton was directed to prosecute, he who had so often defended the violence of the police. It was a bogus trial; a transparent humbug. Out of 120 Magistrates in Tipperary, the Government sent the case before one of their Removables, Colonel Caddell, the superior officer of Inspector Carter, the person charged. In all the annals of Irish administration there is scarcely a parallel to the scandalous abuse of the forms of justice this trial afforded. Justice has been denied, and it will be a hard matter for the right hon. Gentleman to explain how. Sir, the whole position—the very policy of the Government—is summed up in the evidence of Constable Power, of Bantry, last winter:—
    "The people were quiet. We dispersed them with our batons, and, after that, stones were thrown by the people."
    This is a compendium of the Bal-fourian method of government; to force a riot, create crime, provide occupation for the police and employment for the coercion machinery. As bearing upon the character of the police, let me read a letter which was picked up in the streets of Cork, written by a police officer to a friend, who had sent him an invitation to dinner:—
    1172
    "2, York Street, Sunday Morning.
    My Dear—, This beast O'Brien came into Cork last night, and, of course, there is no knowing what villainy he may be at to-day. I have to be over at Union Quay to watch lest anything should turn up. Will you, therefore, excuse my absence?
    "Yours, &c.
    "HENRY J. BOUCHIER."
    This is the expression used by a representative of the right hon. Gentleman in a letter to a private friend, and the very man who wrote that letter und gave an indication of his inner spirit was the very man who was placed in charge of the escort which conveyed the Member for North-East Cork to gaol. Will the Chief Secretary disclaim connection with Henry J. Bouchier? It would be interesting to see what equivalent in the English language he would devise for the word "beast." I am afraid he has not even said one word in deprecation of the action of District Inspector Bouchier nor of any of the other villains whom he employs in Ireland. I do not care to dwell upon every incident in the campaign of the right hon. Gentleman; but I am tempted to refer to the case of Father Kennedy, to which public attention in England ought to be specially* directed. In this case I hope we shall have no sneers from the right hon. Gentleman. The case, first of all, came before Judge Gibson, the Tory ex-Attorney General. The jury which tried the case was a special jury of the City of Dublin, composed of persons of all creeds and all politics. We are always told that we have a legal remedy when any outrage is perpetrated upon us. Well, Father Kennedy took the Chief Secretary at his word, and instituted an action for damages against the police. But the very first step taken by the Government was to lend the whole Crown Bar in Ireland for their defence. The Crown Solicitor defended them, the Solicitor General elect defended them, and three other Crown lawyers in Ireland took up the case. The very first thing done was to put Father Kennedy to the expense of resisting a motion to take the case before the Recorder of Cork. Father Kennedy on the 9th of February, after Mass, asked a few of his friends to meet him at his private house for the purpose of organising a collection in aid of the Tenants' Defence Association. He and his friends

    1173
    were followed by three policemen, who—and this is a significant fact—stopped on the road in order to get their rifles so as to be prepared for any amount of shooting. First, they endeavoured to enter' Father Kennedy's private grounds, and I should like to know what right they had to insist on doing that. They had no more right to enter those grounds than they have to pick my pocket. On arriving at the house, Sergeant Hyde, who was in command of this body of police, addressed Father Kennedy in terms of wanton insult. He said that he had seen a number of ex-criminals and persons who had been in gaol for attending meetings of suppressed branches of the National League, including persons whom the Recorder of Cork had, at the very time he was confirming their sentences, actually expressed his regret at finding in such a position, and had declared that they were the most respectable in the whole County of Cork. This Sergeant Hyde, addressing Father Kennedy, said he had seen a number of ex-criminals entering his grounds, and he told him that his own house would not shelter him from the Criminal Law, but that he intended to follow him, and if necessary would go into his very bedroom. Imagine any policeman in England saying that to a clergyman of the Established Church! Imagine a policeman following a Nonconformist Minister into his private grounds and into his house, telling him he had seen a number of criminals with him, and saying that not even his own house would protect him from the Criminal Law, but that he would follow him into his very bedroom! I have not the least doubt that not a single policeman would dare to do such a thing, and that if any policeman attempted to do it in the presence of the congregation of any clergyman in England, that policeman would get very short shrift. But we live in Ireland and not in England, and this outrage was not resented or resisted, as I think it might justifiably have been by the expulsion of the policemen from the grounds. The sergeant went in and interrogated Father Kennedy as to the object of the meeting in his house. The idea of asking any respectable man—any clergyman—what he was about to do in his private house in inviting a certain number of his friends to meet him! Surely it is a most mon-
    1174
    strous and intolerable idea, an idea which can only be conceived under a system in which despotism enters as an essential factor. Father Kennedy, with becoming dignity, refused to answer the question. He told the sergeant that he was in his own house, and that he had a right to do what he liked there. What happened then? Why, actually, this ruffianly policeman with his followers broke in the door and forced their way into the room in which Father Kennedy and his friends were assembled. The meeting was dispersed, of course. The three policemen with their rifles would no doubt have discharged them on the spot if it had not been dispersed. At all events, Father Kennedy thought it high time to tell them to go home. Now, an action was brought against the police as I have already stated. What was the defence? It was that they were the mildest-mannered men who ever broke a skull, and, according to them, their conversation with Father Kennedy was formed on the basis of the letters of Lord Chesterfield. But they could not deny certain facts. They could not deny that they entered the private grounds and the private house of this gentleman. They could not deny that they entered them against his will. They could not deny that they entered them on the mere suspicion that Father Kennedy was going to hold an illegal meeting. They could not deny that they shadowed him after he left Mass. They could not deny that he went to make a sick call; that when he entered the room of a dying woman they put their faces into the room while he was administering the last Sacraments of the Church, because, forsooth, they thought a meeting of a suppressed branch of the National League was being held. And notwithstanding the defence and explanations of the police—not with standing that Mr. Carson, the Crown prosecutor, urged the supporters of the Government on the jury not to score a mark against the Government by bringing in a verdict against the police—this mixed jury, composed of Catholics and Protestants, Tories, Unionists, and Nationalists, all men in the higher walks of life—condemned this act as one of illegality, and brought in a verdict with £100 damages against the police. Here is a case from which the right hon. Gen tie man the Chief Secretary cannot escape. I want to know, is he going to

    1175
    pay the expenses and the damages? We will not let him escape from the case. Here is an instance in which by the law of the land it has been declared that the police have been guilty of a scandalous act of illegality. We want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will stand by that act, and we are going to ask him to-night—I hope if anyone speaks from the Front Opposition Bench he will ask the question—is he going to pay the damages and costs awarded against the police in this case of Father Kennedy? Who, I should like to know, is paying the costs which have been incurred, and which will be incurred, in carrying the case into another Court? Is not the Government money being used for this purpose? It is ridiculous to suppose that the costs are being paid by the policemen, whose paltry savings for the last 20 or 30 years could not possibly cover the expenses of instructing three or four of the leading counsel of the Irish Bar, as has been done in this case. The Government money must have been advanced, and it must have been advanced before the jury declared that this was an act of violence and of illegality. I invite the Committee to say that the Government must not pay these damages and costs; and I assert that the House, by declaring that they shall not, will be condemning a system of violence and illegality which it is desirable should be put an end to. There is only one thing to be said, in my opinion, in defence of all this. If it is necessary that you should have your shadowings, your batonings, your firings, and your illegalities, then the only explanation is that you are carrying on a detestable tyranny which makes it requisite that you should resort to these detestable means. I can only add that the necessity for these things is not proved, and that a hundred elections like the Barrow election, if they were allowed to take place, would soon prove the declaration of our views to be correct.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C, of £874,725, for Pay of Constabulary, be reduced by £200,000."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    MR. H. HARRISON: I must confess that it is with considerable reluctance, in view of my short experience of the manners of this
    1176
    House, that I rise to address the Committee. But representing as I do the County of Tipperary, a county which has always been to the forefront of the fight in Ireland, and which is one of the counties primarily affected by the present system of police administration in Ireland, I feel that I should be failing in my duty to my constituents, who have done me the honour to elect me—almost unknown—to represent them, if I did not stand up to-night and give voice to their feelings in this matter, to enter a protest against the present r°gime in Ireland, and to give the lie in most emphatic terms, once and for all, to the absurd story sometimes circulated by supporters of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that in Ireland there exists any section of the population outside the immediate neighbourhood of Belfast who regard the policy and the administration of affairs in Ireland with anything other than extreme adversion. I do not propose to enter into matters of detail at any great length; it will be sufficient to state the grounds on which I support the reduction of this Vote. They are that I regard the present administration in Ireland as absolutely, radically, and fundamentally bad from beginning to end—from the right hon. Gentleman the head of the Irish Department down to the lowest and humblest constable in his employment. Its results are bad—and I do not believe there is any hon. Member on either side of the House disposed to deny it—though it may be urged that, under the circumstances, they may be palliated The best they can say is that it is a choice of evils. That his methods are bad, and in many cases nothing short of scandalous instances have been quoted in the course of this Debate, to show they may be multiplied almost indefinitely. But they are quite sufficient to show the spirit in which the policy of the right hon. Gentleman is conceived and carried out. It is so tyrannical and so reactionary as to be entirely repugnant to the whole spirit of the British Constitution, of which in Ireland we are supposed to enjoy the benefit, a spirit not only repugnant to the British Constitution, but as we know from our experience, obnoxious to the great bulk of the electors of this country. It is a policy against which we protest and intend to protest; against which it is our duty to live in a state of continual protest. But

    1177
    we are not now discussing so much the policy of the right hon. Gentleman as the methods by which that policy is carried out. When we come to consider the methods by which that policy is carried out, we are sometimes amazed at the clumsiness and lack of ingenuity displayed; but we presume that when an attempt is made to carry out a tyrannous system under constitutional forms of Government, it is necessary that these forms should be openly and indecently violated in many cases in order to carry out the policy. The methods which we find employed are peculiar. We find that those discretionary powers—those initiatory powers which are usually and rightly entrusted to the head of any great Executive Department—are decentralised and delegated to every incompetent and uneducated underling in the service of the right hon. Gentleman. We find that the right hon. Gentleman gives carte blanche and a free hand to every one of his servants—to the Removable Magistrates and to the police in Ireland—with the result that he himself is left in the becoming and dignified position of having to follow the lead given him by the caprice of every Removable Magistrate in Ireland, or by the truculence of every police officer. He has to follow the lead of these people; he has to adopt their actions and endorse them, and by his conduct in this House to endeavour, as far as possible, to render it impossible for us to bring home the responsibility to the proper persons for these acts. The principle upon which his underling acts in Ireland is simply this: that no supporter of the Government can do any wrong; that no opponent of the Government can do any right. In carrying out this principle we find at every turn the law strained and the administration of justice tampered with and prostituted as has been abundantly clear from the speeches of hon. Members, in order to inflict the maximum hardship and annoyance on the political opponents of the right hon. Gentleman and to shield his officers and subordinates from the just consequences and just punishment to which in many cases their acts render them liable. I confess I regret it; but the one point on which Irishmen can be taunted to-day is that there is a force numbering between 12,000 and 13,000 Irishmen to
    1178
    be found to do the duties which the Irish Police are called upon to discharge. I repeat that I regret it, and it is not one of the least among our complaints; these men are Irishmen, and for that reason I was glad when last night the hon. Member for Leeds said he had not the least wish to say anything against the Royal Irish Constabulary as a body. We do our best to believe in them. It is not, however, the men who are bad, so much as the system which has made them what they are Enlisted under promises of profuse pay, promotion, and pension, every influence is brought to bear, after they are attached to the Service, to estrange them from any sympathy with those from whom they are sprung and whom they ought to support. They are allowed to drink as much and as often as they like, and are taught to believe that perjury is a part of their profession. Brutality in the execution of their duty may be discouraged in public for the sake of decency; but in private it is a matter of congratulation, and experience shows that in many cases it is at least a sure step to promotion. They are taught that drunkenness even when on duty in the streets with deadly weapons in their hands, dealing with defenceless crowds, is simply a venial act of self-indulgence which will be overlooked so long as they are not so far overcome by liquor as to be incapable of standing up or of speaking civilly to their officers. Hon. Members may laugh, but I am not talking at random, I am talking of matters which have come under my own personal knowledge. I have seen—I have myself heard deliberate perjury on the part of the police, which I was perfectly prepared to prove to the satisfaction of reasonably-minded men. I have seen the police under the influence of drink on many occasions. I have seen them with deadly weapons in their hands in the streets of Tipperary so drunk that they could not stand up straight, and I have seen them on many occasions acting with brutality to crowds of unarmed men, women, and children. And now with reference-to shadowing. The statement that shadowing is only put into practice against those who are guilty of, or known to be connected with, crime is on: a level, as regards accuracy, with many which have emanated from the same

    1179
    quarter. I myself, when in Donegal a year ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to arrest me, was shadowed the whole time I was on my trial, but then I might have been suspected of being connected with crime; but even after I had been acquitted, after the Removable Magistrate had said there was no evidence to suggest that I was connected with crime of any kind, I did not find that, as I was walking about the streets of Falcarragh, I was released from the torture; I still found, when talking to my friends on the road, that I had always a third or even a fourth parson intervening. There was not only a detective in plain clothes, as well as a constable in uniform, behind me. As for my criminality, we have heard the charges made against the hon. Member for East Mayo by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. Let me remind the hon. Member that there are different kinds of crime as well as of gallantry. There is crime arising from sordid motives and crime arising from noble motives. There is gallantry which means facing danger when there is danger to be faced. But there is a different kind of gallantry, which consists of esconsing oneself in a safe position and giving vent to torrents of braggadocio. T can only say that I prefer being a criminal with the hon. Member for East Mayo to being a gallant Member with the hon. Member for North Armagh. That part of the methods of the right hon. Gentleman which forms the crowning piece and necessary consummation of the whole process, can be more or less summed up by saying—"let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." In the carrying out of that precept, the House and the country has been accustomed, for the past four years or so, to an organised attempt to suppress the truth and to misrepresent the actual state of affairs in Ireland. Day by day the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has come down to this House and given versions of events which have ocourred in Ireland, which, to those who know, are wholly irreconcileable with the true facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman has said, in my hearing in this House, that he only wished hon. Members to go over to Ireland to see the facts for themselves. I wish they would. We
    1180
    would welcome them with open arms, and we should welcome still more the right hon. Gentleman himself if he would only follow his own advice, and on coming to Ireland, instead of lurking in the purlieus of Dublin Castle, come down to the country and see affairs for himself, instead of confining himself to the Reports of officials, Irremovable Magistrates, and police officers. We know in Ireland, from experience and some acquaintance with Irish affairs what these official reports are worth. We know they are tainted with the source from which they spring; we know they are contaminated by the channels through which they eventually reach this House, and we know they are still further darkened and clouded by the dialectical gifts of the right hon. Gentleman who floods the House with them. I am certain that the country will forgive us if we absolutely and entirely refuse once for all to accept these official statements as in any way representing the true facts of the case. It is necessary, perhaps, to have methods of this kind in order that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman shall be carried out. But it really is carrying the matter a little too far when a Minister in his responsible position, with his responsibility to the Crown, his responsibility to this House, and, still more, his responsibility to Ireland, to those whose welfare is trusted to his care, should come down to this House and make himself the mere tool and mere mouthpiece for conveying to this House the ex parte statements of incriminated persons in Ireland. We have been told by some of those people who are so peculiarly, not to say abnormally, constituted as to combine a rational habit of mind with an enthusiastic support of the right hon. Gentleman's policy, that it is necessary where you delegate authority and certain powers to subordinates, to repose confidence in the same quarter, or that a mutual lack of confidence will spring up between leaders and subordinates, and that in consequence the whole Public Service would be disorganised. That principle, it is quite true, is a good one in the main, but that it should be carried out to the extent to which it is carried out in Ireland; and that it should be considered by the right hon. Gentleman that his subordinates can do no wrong, and that without inquiry of

    1181
    any kind, without taking any trouble to find out the facts of the case he should back the subordinates up through thick and thin, whatever they do and whatever they say, is a doctrine which, with all deference to this House, is absolutely subversive of the efficiency of the Public Service in every way, and is bound to lead to most deplorable results of all kinds. So much for the methods of the Irish government in Ireland. As to its results I have not much to say. The results are, of course, deplorable; and to those who see them everyday, who see the suffering inflicted on the helpless in Ire hind by the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, it is well nigh maddening; but it is not of that I wish to complain. The Irish people have not gone through five centuries of oppression to be beaten down now. We do not complain so much of the harshness of the law; but what we do complain of is the way in which the law is administered in Ireland, so that when the people of Ireland have adopted, as they have adopted with the most conspicuous success, methods of constitutional and legal agitation for the ventilation of their grievances, the administration of justice should be so polluted and prostituted as to undermine the whole of their confidence in the possibility of having a pure administration of justice, and in the efficacy of constitutional agitation, thus creating a distrust so great that I venture to say that it may take years of firm and good government in our Home Rule Parliament, when we get it, to establish amongst them that respect for, and that confidence and trust in, the law which are necessary in every well-governed country.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Mr. Courtney, I am very unwilling to give to the few remarks which I shall make at this stage of our proceedings anything of an unduly controversial tone. I have already spoken at some length on this Vote, and the observations I have now to make in answer to what has been said during the later portion of the Debate shall be put into as brief compass as possible. If I were disposed to criticise with severity any of the speakers who have preceded me in this Debate, certainly it would not be the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I
    1182
    listened with great interest to his first speech in this House in advocacy of a cause of which he has shown himself eminently qualified to become an ornament, and to which he is so recent a convert. If he spoke with some of the intemperance of youth, at all events he spoke with great ardour in support of convictions which I am sure he holds with all sincerity. But I would, say, before he complains of the character of the information which I have to give to the House every day at question time, that he should reflect that the Secretary for Ireland, as I have had occasion to point out to the House before, necessarily has to rely in his official answers upon the information which he has received. I understand that hon. Gentlemen do not like the information which they receive. ["No!"] There is a very simple method by which they can avoid receiving it. May I suggest, with all humility and respect, that if they cease to ask questions, they never will have their tempers ruffled by receiving information? Though it is the best I have to give them, it is not apparently sufficient to satisfy their desire for general instruction. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for East Mayo, who has made the most important speech which I think has been delivered so far in this Debate, accuses me, amongst other things, of not having dealt with the various questions raised, apart from the question of shadowing, on this Vote. Well, Sir, it is quite true that in the speech delivered yesterday, I confined myself principally to that single topic, and for this, among other reasons, that we were given to understand that it was the chief topic with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and also for the reason that the other questions which have been raised are those which have become familiar, I would almost say wearisome, to the House by constant iteration year after year, not under this Government alone, but under the, Government preceding it, The criticism is identical with the criticism of former years. The answers I have given are identical with the answers given, in former years, and I do not know that it is necessary at any great length to occupy the attention of the Committee with such general questions as the cost of the police, the numbers of the police, the numbering of the police, or, the vague, the general accusation of police

    1183
    brutality, supported by official hard-heartedness, which I have heard brought forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and so often replied to by occupants of the post which I now have the honour, and possibly the misfortune, to fill. But, Sir, I will deal with very great brevity with one or two specific cases brought forward. The hon. Member for North Cavan, who spoke last, alluded particularly to two cases—the case of the boy Heffernan and the case of Father Kennedy. The case of Heffernan is simply this: There had been an attack by the roughs of Tipperary upon the houses of those tenants of the Member for North Hunts who had bought in their interest in 1889. A series of serious riots occurred at the time. On the occasion of one of these riots two separate mobs attacked a small body of police severely, and, after a lengthened provocation, one constable was ordered by the sergeant—I think it was the sergeant in charge of the Police Force—to fire, which he did, having a charge of buckshot in his rifle.
    MR. CLANCY: It was the youngest member of the Force—an inexperienced constable.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He fired one charge, and I believe some of the buckshot struck the foot of Heffernan. Tetanus set in, and the boy died. As far as I can judge of the case, I do not put the chief blame on the police. The case went before the Coroner's Jury, and, after the Coroner's Jury returned a verdict of "wilful murder," the Superior Courts released the accused on bail. They were brought up in the ordinary course before the Magistrates, who refused the information, and the case did not proceed further. As far as I am able to judge of the case, the Magistrates decided absolutely in accordance with the evidence before them.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to state—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to interpose unless the right hon. Gentleman gives way.
    MR. CLANCY: Then, Sir, I ask leave to state that the legal representatives of the right hon. Gentleman took quite a very opposite view to that which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I fail to see how the Government or the police were to blame in this matter, in which the
    1184
    ordinary procedure was adopted. As to the case of Father Kennedy, that rev-gentleman had been twice condemned by the Court for holding illegal assemblies. He had been the author and the chief promoter of the Plan of Campaign on the Leader estate, and he was directly responsible for all the sufferings that had resulted from it, and therefore, if the police suspected him of desiring to hold an illegal assembly, they, certainly committed no serious outrage upon the character of the rev. gentleman. But this is not a matter on which it is competent to me to discuss the evidence at the trial, because, as the hon. Member must know, a new trial of the case has been ordered.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The Crown, in order to humbug this House, has ordered a new trial to take place.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A new trial has been applied for, and as the case is pending, it is not proper that this House should discuss it.
    MR. CLANCY: That is why it was done.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The next case raised is the case of District Inspector Considine. That case was raised by the hon. Member for Leeds and the hon. Member for North-East Cork. I have been told that I made many statements in regard to the character of the town and the nature of the assaults, which, have been exploded by subsequent investigation. I made them on the best information I could obtain from the Nationalist Press of the day. It distinctly stated that a large, riotous, and excited mob were assembled at the station. Apparently, according to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, it was all lies, though it was a statement made by the reporters of the Nationalist Press, that a large and excited mob assembled at the station, and that they invited the hon. Member for North-East Cork to leave his carriage and to defy the police. I am told—I do not know whether it is true—that it is stated in the Irish Press that a third trial is to be called for, and, although this was denied last night, I have no ground for believing that the statement which appears in the Nationalist Press is otherwise than accurate. At all events, until we know more about that, it would be absurd for me to give any judgment upon the matter which was

    1185
    submitted to me, namely, what course the Government are going to pursue with regard to the costs the police are subjected to in the trial. These are the chief points, apart from the matter brought forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo in reference to shadowing, on which previous speeches render it necessary for me to trouble the Committee.
    MR. W.REDMOND: What about the cases in which perjury was proved against the police when employed as note-takers?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I recollect one case brought up last year, but I am not aware that any new case of the kind has been mentioned.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Because you walked out of the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry I should have been absent a short time, and it is a most unfortunate coincidence that the few minutes I was away were those in which the House was favoured with the observations of the hon. Member. I come now to the interesting and important speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo. One of the most important parts related to the case of Grant, which was before the Committee last night. I have attempted to investigate the case since last night, and the further knowledge I have been able to obtain entirely bears out the argument I advanced previously. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian asked me three questions which were on a paper he handed to me across the Table. Those questions were—first, whether the watching policeman was in plain clothes or in uniform; secondly, at what distance did the policeman stand from the person watched; and, thirdly, whether the policeman's presence was made known to the person watched. From the information I have received the answers to those questions are these: It is certain that the watching policeman was in uniform, and that he was distant from Grant about 10 yards when he was at work, and three or four yards at other times, and that the fact that Grant was watched was purposely made known to him, and that the shadowing was relaxed in the latter part of 1883 by order of the Inspector General. Thus in all three points the case was precisely on all fours with the recent cases. I am accused
    1186
    of relying upon police evidence alone It is clear that, as Chief Secretary, when asked for details I must rely upon official sources; but when I was dealing with this question yesterday I was relying not upon official sources but upon Nationalist sources. I quoted Nationalist papers and Nationalist resolutions, or facts brought out on trials in Courts of Law. The accusation that my version was coloured by official prejudice is absolutely without foundation. Any man who has taken the trouble to make himself acquainted with what has been written in Nationalist papers, both for and against the system of shadowing and boycotting at fairs, must know that the account I gave of those transactions were not in the least degree exaggerated, but that it accurately represented the views of Nationalists themselves as to transactions for which they are wholly responsible. The hon. Member for East Mayo-admitted that he was in a broad sense responsible.
    MR. DILLON: I said I might be indirectly responsible for the adoption of boycotting, but that I could not be held to be responsible for all the acts of those men who were engaged in it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree; the hon. Gentleman is not responsible for the actions of all these men; he is responsible for the acts of those men which are undertaken in direct and perfect accord with the policy which he recommends. I do not bring forward the action of a single vigilance man which was not intended to carry out precisely the policy for which the hon. Gentleman owned himself to be responsible. What I called attention to was the following by these vigilance men of the farmers and occupants of evicted farms who attempted to bring to market the stock they raised on those farms. I showed that they were shadowed, interfered with in the execution of their lawful calling, ruined so far as it was possible thus to ruin them; and I asked the Committee whether it was not ten times more guilty and productive of ten times more misery and suffering than any shadowing for which the Government are responsible. I say I did not bring before the House cases of exceptional action on the part of these vigilance men. I brought before the House simply their action in accordance with the general policy for which the right hon. Gentleman is

    1187
    responsible. And I say that being, as he admits he is, responsible for that general policy, the cannot cast from himself the further responsibility with which I have endeavoured to saddle him. He says that these vigilance men, for whom he is, broadly speakings responsible, were guilty of no violence. They were not guilty of violence, as far as I know and, if they were, I acquit the hon. Member of having recommended the violence. I do not think he wishes that his policy should be supported by violence. But I say that boycotting is productive of more suffering than much violence, when a man, whose whole livelihood and that of his wife and children depends upon his selling the stock raised upon his farm, is prevented from selling that stock by the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Home Rule cries of "Another man's farm."] The farm which he legally occupies. That man has more to complain of than if he were the victim of a dozen common assaults, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. If not he, some of his Colleagues have openly boasted in Ireland that the suffering inflicted by boycotting is more than the suffering inflicted by shooting, and therefore it is a thousandfold more severe than the kind of violence which the hon. Gentlemen does not recommend. The hon. Member attempted to demolish the case I made yesterday with regard to boy-cotting at fairs by telling us that the policy which he recommends in Ireland in no sense differs from the policy which the Trade Unions have legally and with impunity adopted in England. I traverse that statement absolutely. Pickets in England—at the dock strike, for example—are not allowed to intimidate those that are coming into work, and if they do they break the law. If they inflict any suffering, if they threaten or coerce men who desire to obtain occupation, they are subject to legal penalties. Now, I want to know what parallel there is between the procedure of these pickets who cannot threaten, who cannot coerce, and who cannot use violence, and the procedure of the shadowers at fairs who ruin their victims, and whose object is to ruin their victims? I say there is no parallel. The version of the English law which the hon. Gentleman has given is erroneous as regards Trade Unions, and absolutely erroneous as regards shadowers at fairs. We have
    1188
    had in England a legal case absolutely on all fours with these cases in Ireland. We have had a case of shadowing at fairs and of boycotting at fairs. [An hon. MEMBER: Where?] At Salford. It was tried before an English Judge and an English jury. There was no hesitation as to the law laid down by the Judge; there was no hesitationas to the verdict given by the jury; and the Judge and the jury alike agreed that the law—not the coercion law, but the common law of England and Ireland—was distinctly violated by these shadowers at fairs. Therefore, it is not open to the hon. Gentleman to pretend that in denouncing his subordinates as criminals in this matter we are in any way relying upon exceptional Irish legislation, or that we are not simply vindicating the law common to both countries. The hon. Gentleman told us that though we shadowed boycotters at fairs we did not shadow moonlighters. He is mistaken. We do shadow moonlighters, wh°rever there is any adequate suspicion or substantial ground for believing that men are likely to engage in that criminal practice.
    MR. DILLON: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but will he just explain to the House why did net the police shadow those moonlighters in the Whelehan case, where it was known a fortnight beforehand who the men were, and what would be the place of attack?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will see that the method adopted by the police for dealing with crime must necessarily depend upon the nature of the crime and the circumstances under which it is committed. Shadowing is, in England and Ireland, often the best way to prevent crime, but it is not always. It must necessarily depend upon the circumstances of the case what course those responsible for law and order will adopt. I have been told that this Government have specially invented for their own behoof this particular method of closely following those suspected of boycotting—that they have put the system of shadowing in force in a manner which was never practised by any previous Government, or by any other Government of the civilised world. In one sense I am not prepared, and I am not concerned, to deny that statement. Show me any civilised

    1189
    country in the world which has to deal with this question of boycotting.
    An hon. MEMBER: They have all to deal with crime.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is crime. It has been declared to be crime by the Courts of England, as well as the Courts of Ireland. Show me the Government that has to deal with this particular form of crime, and when you have shown me such a country, and that it has adopted different and less severe methods for meeting it, then I admit that I stand upon my defence, and have to prove that we do not adopt an unduly severe method. But if the crime is this—a man goes to a fair and speaks to the auctioneer when the cattle of a boycotted farm are to be sold, and if he practically makes it impossible, by this and similar methods, that the cattle should be sold, then the shadowing must be a close shadowing to prevent such conversation, and it is not sufficient to follow the man at a distance of 20 or 30 yards. The character of the shadowing must depend upon the character of the crime; it is adopted to prevent crime; and I apprehend that every other Government which had to deal with a similar kind of crime would find itself driven to adopt similar methods of dealing with it. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) stated that the police were becoming demoralised. All the information which I have been able to obtain on that point directly contradicts the assertion of the hon. Member. I believe that the discipline of the Irish Constabulary was never better than it is now. I go further. I believe that for many years past, over the greater part of Ireland, the Irish Constabulary have never been in better relations with the people. I do not, of course, allude to those dark spots in Ireland where the hon. Member and his friends are specially carrying out their policy. There I admit that the police and the people are brought into constant conflict, and that the relations between the two are strained. But speaking of Ireland as a whole, I do not think that the relations between the police and the people have been better, and I am certain that there has not been a period in which the discipline of that admirable Force has been maintained at a higher level. I always regret to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite attack the Irish Constabulary, for every
    1190
    Irishman ought to be proud of that Force. It is composed entirely of Irishmen and principally of Roman Catholics, and every Irishman who values the credit of his country ought to make a point of doing full justice to a Force which under the greatest difficulties, and sometimes under the greatest temptations, has with great temper, tact, discretion; arid courage carried out the duties entrusted to it.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I will not stand for many moments between the Committee and a Division. If I thought that what the right hon. Gentleman has last said were true, namely, that the relations between the Constabulary and the people were never better than they are to day, I confess that one very strong argument against the policy of the right hon. Gentleman would lose its force. But what I want to know is, who it is that tells him this? He began his speech by making a remarkable admission, although we knew it before, that he can only know of what goes on in Ireland from what is told him through official sources.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that my answers to questions, about particular matters are, of course, drawn from official sources, and they would be worthless if they were not so drawn.
    MR. J. MORLEY: But the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that he has no means of gathering what are the relations between the Constabulary and the people beyond the monthly Reports from officials, and perhaps the word of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh. I am glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman has done me justice in regard to one point. I have never during the last four years said one word in disparagement of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Therefore, I at all events, am not open to the charge that he has thought fit to bring against this side of the House. I recognise as much as he does the enormous difficulties under which the Royal Irish Constabulary do their work, and it has, indeed, fallen to me to defend them from attacks made on them by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House which were far more severe than any which have been made

    1191
    by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. If the Force is as good as it is, this is not due to the right hon. Gentleman. If that splendid Force could be demoralised it would be demoralised by the course which the right hon. Gentleman uniformly takes in two particulars. The first is that in this House he insists upon backing them up through thick and thin, whether they are right or wrong. During the three and a half years of the right hon. Gentleman's administration there has not been a single instance in which he has admitted the shadow of a fault on the part of any member of the Force. That may be a necessity—I think it is a necessity—of the policy with which he is so unfortunately identified. The knowledge in the minds of District Inspectors, Inspectors, and the men of the Force, that no matter what they do they will be defended through thick and thin in this House against the Irish Representatives, must have a very demoralising effect. But there is another practice of the right hon. Gentleman which is equally demoralising, namely, the practice of uniformly refusing to grant any inquiry into alleged misconduct on the part of the Constabulary. This is a most fatal course to pursue in the interests of the Royal Irish Constabulary themselves. I am not going again to refer to the Belfast case. I regard my action in reference to that with satisfaction. The moment I found that charges were made against the Constabulary, I requested the attendance of the Inspector General, and I said, "Here are certain charges made against the Constabulary, we believe that these charges are unfounded, but in order to satisfy the public and ourselves, in order to satisfy the House of Commons, let us have an inquiry; from such inquiry we have nothing to fear." That was the course that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have followed. He said some weeks ago that there art; no precedents for such an inquiry. Well, I remember one which occurred some time before I entered the House, and the right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be able to identify it if he refers to the files in his Office. A certain traveller was seriously wounded by a constable in a street riot in one of the suburbs of Cork in February, 1881. It was a time of great excitement, the hon. Member for Cork having just been arrested, yet the
    1192
    Chief Secretary of that day, Mr. Forster, granted an inquiry, and a sum, I think, of £300 was awarded to the injured man. If the right hon. Gentleman had then been in office he, no doubt, would have refused it. Now, with regard to the Salford case, the right hon. Gentleman has been inaccurately informed. The two men were indicted for conspiracy at common law, and also for the offence of picketing under the Conspiracy Act of 1875. The jury returned a general verdict. If the men had been found guilty at common law, as the right hon. Gentleman said just now, they could not have been sentenced to hard labour. But they did receive hard labour, and therefore they must have been convicted under the Statute. The right hon. Gentleman must now admit that he inadvertently misled the House on this matter. Sir, upon shadowing so much has been said that I am not going to add more than a word or two. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, the Chief Secretary has given us the three required particulars in the case of Grant. It appears that the constable who followed him was in uniform, but followed him at a distance of ten yards—not as Father Humphreys was followed, with one constable at his shoulder and another at his heels. That makes all the difference. The case of Grant was a case in which the man was suspected of murder, and I, for one, admit at once the absurdity of supposing that in a country so disturbed as Ireland has been, and so rife with those dangerous elements which form themselves in bad times into secret societies, it is not the duty of the Executive Government to keep their eye on people who are believed to be bad characters. We do not deny that. What we do deny is that you have a right, that you have even a legal right, to inflict what is, in effect, a punishment on a man like Father Humphreys, on a man who has never been brought to trial, and whom you never intended to bring to trial, simply on the ground of criminal suspicion. That is a course which cannot possibly be defended, and those who are better skilled in the law than I am hold that such action on the part of the Government is a distinct breach of the law, and if it took place in any other country but Ireland, if there were in Ireland an administration in

    1193
    which the people could have the slightest confidence, I have no doubt it would be tested in law. What the right hon. Gentleman said upon the illegality of molestation by boycotters was entirely beside the point. It was an evasion of the true issue, and every argument he brought forward as to the illegality of molestation by boycotters was an argument against the legality of his own action. Well, Sir, it is very important that we should divide to-night on this part of the subject. We shall have an opportunity on other parts of the proceedings of going further into the subject, and I will only add that what the right hon. Gentleman began his speech with to-night is the strongest argument that can be adduced for the necessity of a change in the form of Government in Ireland. He began by asking hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway why, if they objected to official information, they took the trouble to ask him questions. He says the only answers he can give are official answers. Is not that the foundation of our case? Is not that system which the right hon. Gentleman says, and truly says, is inseparable from his position, a reduction of representative Government to a downright farce? The right hon. Gentleman will hear much more of that frank admission with which he was good enough to begin his speech to-night. The right hon. Gentleman has commented on the speech to which we all listened with great interest from the hon. Member who has just been returned to this House—I mean the Member for Mid Tipperary. I wonder when the right hon. Gentleman talked about the relations between the Constabulary and the people being better than they ever were, and about the success of his administration in Ireland—I wonder he does not reflect when he sees one prisoner of his after another marching by—to-day from Tipperary, yesterday from Galway, tomorrow from somewhere else, and taking the oath at this Table. That is my test. That is the test of the right hon. Gentleman's administration that I regard. When he gets one single Member returned on his side from a National district in Ireland, then I will admit he may have made some mark on public opinion—then I will admit there may be some promise of the success of his
    1194
    administration; but he has not adduced one single argument, either in his violent speech last night or in his more temperate speech to-night, which shakes the conviction with which we began the Debate.
    (11.55.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 219; Noes 291.—(Div. List, No. 177.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move that the Original Question be now put.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Original Question be now put."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    House cleared for a Division.
    MR. T. M. HEALY(speaking seated, and with his hat on): Mr. Courtney, I desire to ask you, as a point of order, whether you had put any Question from the Chair with regard to which the right hon. Gentleman has moved the Closure?
    THE CHAIRMAN (speaking seated): The Question had been already put from the Chair.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The Question put from the Chair was the omission of Subhead C, which was negatived.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question had been put from the Chair.
    (12.15.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 290; Noes 219.—(Div. List, No 178.)
    Original Question put accordingly,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £889,490, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
    (12.30.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 290; Noes 202.—(Div. List, No. 179.)
    It being after midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee to sit again to morrow.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Resolution be reported on Thursday."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask, in view of the sensational proceedings in Committee to-night, whether it is in-

    1195
    tended to take the Chief Secretary's Vote first on Thursday, and whether, with, regard to the proposal now made for the first time, and which has not received even {he approval of the Public Accounts Committee, of taking the Votes for the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant as one Vote, these two Votes will be included in one common closure, or whether we shall have the privilege we have hitherto enjoyed of a closure for each Vote? This is the first time, as I understand, that these Votes have been grouped as one. I do not know how the Chair intends to treat them; but for the sake of information I shall be glad to know what is intended, and also, in view of the number of Members who have been shut out from discussion by to-night's closure, whether the Report of this Vote will be taken first on Thursday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I think the first business on Thursday will be the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary Vote. I may point out that it is very difficult to distinguish between a Debate on the Police Vote and a Debate on the Chief Secretary's Vote, owing to the manner in which the Votes are treated by hon. Gentlemen opposite; therefore, I think that any speech which any hon. Member has been unfortunately prevented from delivering to-night will be quite in order on the Chief Secretary's Vote.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: There were two questions I asked, and perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury can give me an answer as to whether the Votes for the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary will be taken separately, or will one common closure swallow the two?
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.): I am afraid I am not an authority upon the' closure; but the salaries for the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary will be taken as one Vote as they appear on the Estimates.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give notice that I shall resist the two Votes being taken together.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

    TRUSTEES APPOINTMENT BILL [LORDS]—(No. 364.)
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    PARTNERSHIP BILL [LORDS].
    Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 373.]

    FINANCIAL RELATIONS (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND.)
    Order for appointment of Committee read, and objection taken.
    DR. CLARK: In reference to the proposed names for this Committee, may I ask is it not desirable that Scotch, Irish, and Welsh Conservative Members should be represented on a Committee of this character?
    MR. STUART RENDEL: I would observe also that the nominations do not include one Welsh Member.
    *MR. JACKSON: I can only say that the names are selected according to a method with which hon. Members are familiar, and I am only responsible for a part of them.
    Motion deferred to Thursday.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  On the Motion for adjournment:—
  MR. F. SEAGER HUNT: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information as to the conduct of the Metropolitan Police?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that the news I have received this evening from all parts of London is excellent. Not a single man has failed to go out on his duty to night, and the temper and spirit exhibited throughout the Metropolitan Police are admirable.
  DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid): Has there been any collusion, any pre-arrangement with reference to this question?
  House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock.