Commons Sitting of 9 June 1890

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the agricultural statistics published in the Times of 10th January, 1890, showing the decline in the cultivation of wheat, and also in the numbers of live stock in the United Kingdom between 1869 and 1889; to what cause such decline is attributable; if it has taken place in Germany, France, Russia, America, or any foreign country; and if it is proposed to take any steps in the matter?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): My attention has been called to the statistics published in the Times of January 10th, 1890. They appear to have been taken from the Agricultural Returns, and, with some minor exceptions, are in the main correct. The Returns do show a very serious decline in the area devoted to the cultivation of wheat since 1869, to the extent of 1,437,000 acres. With regard to the number of live stock, sheep have declined 14 per cent., but cattle, on the other hand, have increased 13 per cent., and pigs, 29 per cent., the increase in the two latter classes exceeding in importance the decrease in the number of sheep, which I believe to be due, among other causes, to the losses which were suffered from liver-fluke in the three years following 1879, and which have never yet been recovered. The decline in wheat is due to the heavy fall which has occurred in the price of that commodity. What the fall in price is due to is a matter of opinion. Some people, I believe, attribute it entirely to foreign competition and to greatly increased facilities of transport and production; others, again, to causes connected with the currency. I believe myself that the fall in the price of wheat may be attributed in part to both of these causes, though in what proportion it is, I appre-

319
hend, impossible to say. There does not appear to have been any decline in Germany, France, or Russia, while in America, up till recently, there has been a great increase. I am not aware of any steps which it is in my power to take to encourage a larger production of wheat in this country.

HOME FOOD SUPPLY.
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if any calculation has been officially made by his Department of the period of time over which the quantity of wheat and flour usually in the United Kingdom would suffice for the food of the people at the existing rate of consumption, in case foreign supplies were stopped by war, blight, or other causes; and if any reserve of grain has been formed by the State for use in such eventuality?
MR. CHAPLIN: No official estimate of the nature referred to has been prepared by the Board of Agriculture, or, as far as I know, by any other Department of the Government. The quantity of wheat and flour in the United Kingdom at any given date varies considerably, according to the period of the year. After harvest the supply is, of course, considerable; at the present time it is probably much less. It has been estimated by persons engaged in the corn trade that a consumption of 480,000 qrs. per week is required at the present time. Possibly seven times this amount may be in stock or undelivered. To this must be added the grain now in passage to the United Kingdom. The calculation of these several amounts is to a great extent, of course, a matter of conjecture. No reserve has been formed by the State.

ENGLISH REPRESENTATIVE AT THE VATICAN.
MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any appointment or authorisation has been made of a representative of this country at the Vatican; and what is the nature of the agreement made with the Pope respecting mixed marriages at Malta?
THE UNDERSECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFF AIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): 1. No such ap
320
pointmont or authorisation has been made since the termination of Sir Lintorn Simmon's Special Mission. 2. The Agreement has been laid upon the Table very recently, and I have also explained it in detail.

THE INDIAN POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in spite of the instructions of the Secretary of State for India in 1879, to the effect that no one except a native of India should be appointed to posts in any branch of the Administration in India of Rs. 200 and upwards, except so far as the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay are concerned, on reference to himself and with his sanction, and that of the Viceroy from other parts of India, there are in the Post Office Department a large number of Europeans occupying posts designated for natives of India; whether his sanction was given, or that of the Viceroy, in each instance, to the several appointments; and whether he will state why natives of India were not appointed to these offices, seeing that identical positions in every presidency and province are filled by natives of India?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Secretary of State has had no explanation on this subject, but inquiry is being made.

THE CANTONMENTS ACT (INDIA), 1889.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government will lay upon the Table, and cause to be distributed, copies of "The Cantonments Act (India), 1889," and of any Rules which have been or are proposed to be made under Section 26, Clause 21, and Section 27, Sub-sections 2 and 4 of the said Act?
SIR J. GORST: The Act and the Rules are both in the Library of the House, but if the hon. Member cares to move for copies of them, such copies can be laid on the Table as an unopposed Return.

THE INDIAN FORESTS DEPARTMENT.
SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under, Sec-

321
retary of State for India what consideration practically is being given to the recent request by the Officers of the Indian Forests Department for the assimilation of their Leave and Pension Rules with those of the Public Works Department?
SIR J. GORST: This is a matter which was under discussion by the Secretary of State and the Government of India, when the consent of the Govern-was given to the proposed Committee on the grievances of the uncovenanted servants of India. The Secretary of State can take no further step till the House of Commons has determined whether the Committee shall be appointed.

KASHMIR.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India when the Papers relating to Kashmir, stated on the 18th of February to have been recently received from India, and early publication of which was then furnished, will be presented to the House; and whether the Secretary of State will state what condition he wishes to insure in Kashmir before he gives the Maharajah the opportunity of governing his State "in a way which will be a benefit to his subjects and to neighbouring countries as well," which it was stated the Government of India would be prepared to facilitate?
SIR J. GORST: The Papers relating to Kashmir are now before my noble Friend the Secretary of State, and will be immediately presented to the House—I have little doubt before the expiration of the week. The hon. Member asks mo what condition the Secretary of State wishes to insure in Kashmir before he gives the Maharajah the opportunity of governing his State in a way to benefit his subjects and neighbouring countries. The condition which the Secretary of State wishes to insure in Kashmir is one of just and upright government in the interest of the people of the State.
MR. BRADLAUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of people of Kashmir are of opinion that the only way to secure the state of things which the Secretary of State desires is the restoration of their lawful ruler and the withdrawal of all improper interference?
SIR J. GORST: No, Sir, there is no reason to suppose that the majority of the people of Kashmir entertain any such opinion.

THE BENGAL MEDICAL SERVICE.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to answer the question as to the circumstances under which Kali Krishna Bágchi and two other surgeons on the Bengal Establishment have been dismissed from the Service; whether it is the fact that, in accordance with the rule governing the promotion of assistant surgeons, Kali Krishna Bágchi, after 14 years most satisfactory service, applied for examination at the septennial examination in Calcutta in May last, and two other assistant surgeons, after a lesson term of service, applied for the like examination; that such examination took place, and all were declared to have satisfied the examiners; that the Inspector General of Hospitals addressed questions to the Principal of the Medical College, and received assurances that every safeguard against foul play had been taken, and the examination conducted under adequate supervision; that, nevertheless, the Inspector General called upon Kali Krishna Bágchi and two others to undergo a supplementary examination prepared by himself; whether this course was in direct contradiction to the Regulations affecting medical examinations in India, the Examining Board alone having power to examine medical officers; whether Kali Krishna Bágchi and two others, having, on the ground that the proceedings were an imputation on their honour, and contrary to the Regulations, refused to submit themselves to the supplementary examination, were summarily dismissed for wilful disobedience of orders; whether the head of a Department can thus summarily dismiss officers against whom no charges of misconduct are made or inquired into, in view of the fact that the Rules of the Government Service in India state that Indian
"Subordinates are not to be dismissed merely in consequence of unfavourable opinions entertained towards them by their superiors, or for slight reasons, but on proof only of tangible-delinquency in such matters as fraud and dishonesty, continued and wilful negligence, and all offences involving disgrace";

323
and whether he will give instructions that the order for the dismissal of these officers shall be cancelled, and will direct an inquiry to be instituted into the whole circumstances, in which full opportunity will be given to the officers concerned to answer any charges which may have been brought against them?
SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second is in the negative. The facts are not correctly stated in the question. The examination was a compulsory one, failure to pass which involved dismissal. The three assistant surgeons were never declared officially to have satisfied the examiner. The Inspector General, whose duty it was to decide whether they had passed or not, was not satisfied with their answers, and ordered them to answer further questions. This was not inconsistent with any existing Regulations. The assistant surgeons having, after explanations and warnings, persisted in disobeying the orders of the Inspector General were suspended from office in the first instance, and their dismissal was finally confirmed by the Government of India, to whom the matter was referred by the Government of Bengal. The Secretary of State sees no reason to interfere.
MR. BRADLAUGH: Have the regulations set out in the Circular Memorandum of the 15th of September been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State?
SIR J. GORST: I think that is the date of the Circular, but I am not prepared to pledge myself to anything with regard to it without notice.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I will again draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the matter.

THE EASTERN TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.
MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with a view of improving and cheapening communication between the different parts of the British Empire, the Government will consider the advisability of buying the cables of the Eastern Telegraph Companies, or of laying new cables to compete with those already in existence?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I have been asked, by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to enter upon the wide question, involving as it would international negotiations, of buying up the cables of the Eastern Telegraph Companies, nor is it certain that their acquisition by the Government would lead to the desired results. But the Government would be glad if the labours of the International Telegraph Conference now sitting at Paris should have some result in the direction indicated in the question of the hon. Member.

ENGINEER OFFICERS.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that at the recent examination of candidates' for Engineer officers, a candidate who was informed that he had failed by 100 marks short of the minimum has since been accepted; and whether he will state if this acceptance arises from an insufficiency of qualified men amongst the competitors, or from what other cause?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The standard fixed at the examination this year was higher than that of last year. As the number who passed the higher standard was insufficient, six of the candidates who came up to last year's standard were entered in addition.

THE POSTMEN'S TRADE UNION.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that while notices of religious and other meetings are allowed to be shown on the Notice Boards in the Post Offices, the notices of the Postmen's Trade Union have been removed by the officials; and whether he will undertake that in future the announcements of the Postmen's Union shall have the same advantages as other notices of an un-official character?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): So long as the Association to which the hon. Member refers conducts its operations in defiance of regulation, I shall certainly not allow its notices to appear

325
on the Official Notice Boards. Where such notices have been put up without authority, they have been removed with my approval.
MR. C. GRAHAM: That is no answer to my question. I must press for an answer to the first part of the question.
MR. RAIKES: Will the hon. Member kindly repeat it?
MR. C. GRAHAMread the first paragraph of the question.
MR. RAIKES: My answer is, yes.
MR. C. GRAHAM: I am sorry, but I fail to see any answer in the reply of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. RAIKES: I shall be glad to repeat my answer if the hon. Gentleman did not catch it. What I said was that as long as the Association to which the hon. Member refers conducts its operations in defiance of the Regulations, its notices will not be allowed to appear on the Official Notice Boards. Where such notices have been put up without authority, they have been removed with my approval.

MEETING OF POSTMEN.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether an overseer from the London Western District Post Office was employed officially to attend a meeting of postmen on 16th May, in order to take the names or numbers of postmen who attended such meeting; and whether this overseer was taken from his ordinary duties to perform this work, or whether he was paid extra for it; and, if so, to what amount?
MR. RAIKES: No, Sir.

ISLE OF SKYE.
MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that considerable hardship is occasioned to litigants, compulsory officers, defaulting parents, and others in the Island of Skye, from having to travel great distances to attend the Sheriff Court at Portree; and whether he will order the revival of the former custom of the Sheriffs holding quarterly Courts at Uig, Dunvegan, Broadford, and other centres of population?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I have to inform the
326
hon. Member that the matter he directs attention to in this question is at present receiving my attention.

SCOTCH MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to a sum of £74,500 which appears in the Votes for Civil Services for the current year under the head of "Medical Officers of Health and Inspectors of Nuisances," whether any similar grant is made to Scotland, where sanitation appointments are compulsory, while it is optional in England; and whether in the inquiry promised this matter will be taken up and the anomaly removed?
MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The item of £74,500 to which he refers does not appear in the Estimates for the current year. It appeared in the Estimates for 1888–89 for the last time, and an analogous item was continued for Scotland till the year after. Both grants have now disappeared under the Local Government Acts, and in both cases an equivalent has been given in the form of licences.

THE ORDNANCE SURVEY OF SOUTH WALES
MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture why, according to the official Report of the Ordnance Survey of 1889, no progress has been made in the publication of the new one-inch sheets Ordnance Survey of certain parts of South Wales, including the most densely inhabited portions of Glamorganshire; and if he would explain the reason of this delay, and state when such publications may be expected to be issued?
MR. CHAPLIN: I am informed that it is not the case that no progress has been made in the publication of the new one-inch sheets of the Ordnance Survey of certain parts of South Wales. Five sheets of the new one-inch map of South Wales have been published in outline with contour lines. But owing to the pressure of other work connected with the completion of the maps of England on the larger scales of 25 and six inches to a mile, comparatively small progress

327
has been made in the publication of the new series of the smaller map on the scale of one inch to a mile. Attention has been directed to the matter with the view of expediting, so far as may be practicable, the publication of these maps. I am sorry that I am unable to say when the sheets of South Wales will be issued.

TELEGRAMS AT KILNALECK.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he could state what sum of money was received for telegrams despatched from and to the office at Kilnaleck, in County Cavan, during the past year; what was the extra cost occasioned by the telegraph to Kilnaleck during that time; and what sum of money has been demanded from the guarantors, and for how many years are they still liable?
MR. RAIKES: The Kilnaleck office was opened for telegraph business under a guarantee of £39 a year for seven years from the 7th May, 1889. The guarantors are, therefore, still liable for six years from that date. The receipts for the past year amounted to £18 10s. 8d., and the difference between that sum and £39, namely, £20 9s. 4d., has been demanded from the guarantors. The value of received telegrams is not in any case taken into account. The extra cost for the year is represented by the amount of the guarantee, namely, £39.

AGRICULTURAL VALUATION.
MR. CHAINING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has now considered the representations repeatedly made in the past year by leading practical agriculturists, and by various bodies representing agricultural interests, as to the unsatisfactory working of the present system of agricultural valuation and the failure of existing laws to adequately protect the interest of tenant farmers in their improvements; whether he is aware that, by an Act passed last year, the procedure under "The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883," has been amended by the adoption of the principle of arbitration by a single referee; and whether, having regard to the generally recognised necessity for amending existing laws, he will Mr. Chaplin
328
endeavour to secure facilities for the Second Reading of the Agricultural Holdings Bill and other Bills dealing with these questions, with a view to refer them to a Select Committee?
MR. CHAPLIN: It is within my knowledge that the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1883, has been amended in the manner referred to in the question, and I am quite aware that in that and in some other respects it is quite possible that the Agricultural Holdings Act for England might be amended with advantage. But no representations have been made to the Board, and I have no information of my own which leads me to believe that tenant-farmers are unable under the existing laws to secure the fair compensation for their improvements to which they are fully entitled. On the contrary, as far as I can learn, I believe there never was a time when the attainment of that object was more entirely within their own control than it is at present. In reply to the third paragraph of the question, the hon. Member must know perfectly well that in the present state of public business, when the available time of the Government is already counted by hours, it would be impossible for me to secure facilities for the discussion of the measure for which he is responsible, which deals with a great variety of very important matters, and some of which are of a controversial character. With regard to the other Bills to which he refers, I may remind him that I have already done my best to secure the Second Reading of one of the Bills, which deals with an admitted grievance, and on which there appeared to be no difference of opinion, namely, the Bill of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wirral Division of Cheshire (Colonel Cotton). This, however, to my great regret, was prevented by the opposition of the hon. Member himself. I venture to hope that he may be persuaded to withdraw his opposition and allow my hon. Friend's Bill to become law during the present Session. With regard to the question of valuation and the other matters arising out of or connected with it, they are now under consideration.
MR. CHANNING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to the extension of the Bill of the hon. Member for the Wirral Division in accordance with the

329
Amendment I have placed on the Paper; and will he consent at the earliest possible period to the appointment of a Committee to go into the whole question of agricultural valuation and the other questions dealt with in the Bill to which I have referred?
MR. CHAPLIN: I am afraid that I cannot add to the reply I have already given to the hon. Member. I must ask him to give notic3 of any further question.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State fur the Home Department the numbers of the Metropolitan Police employed on special duty, or diverted from the performance of their ordinary duties, on account of the Epsom races?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Chief Commissioner that he sees grave objections to making public the details of police arrangements on particular occasions, or the numbers of police who tire detached from their ordinary duties on such occasions as Epsom races. I must therefore ask the hon. Member, in the public interest, not to press me for this information.
MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of police officers of each rank, namely, Inspectors, Sergeants, and Constables in the Metropolitan Police Force, who have been pensioned within the last 12 months who have respectively completed 15, 20, and 25 years' service?
MR. MATTHEWS: The Commissioner of Police has furnished me with the Return asked for, and I shall be happy to show it to the hon. Gentleman.

THE ZAMBESI RIVER.
SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the results of the survey of the mouths of the Zambesi River, which was made last year under the direction of the Admiralty, will be published?
LORD G. HAMILTON: No complete survey of the mouths of the Zambesi was made last year. Her Majesty's ship stork, however, when entering the
330
Chinde mouth of the river, noted the sounding and sent in an incomplete sketch of this entrance. In default of a survey this sketch was published in March last as a chart. A "notice to mariners" containing all the information then in the possession of the Admiralty had been previously issued in October, 1889.

SIERRA LEONE—MR. COPLAND CRAWFORD.
MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies how many days Mr. Copland Crawford remained in prison in Sierra Leone after he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for causing a native servant to be flogged to death; what was the date of his arrival in Liverpool, and also the date of his final release; and whether any decision has been arrived at concerning his claim to a pension?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): It appears from the records connected with the case that Mr. Crawford had undergone imprisonment since 11th April, 1889. The trial ended on 20th July. On 29th July the officer administering the Government reported that, on the advice of a Medical Board, he had caused Mr. Crawford to be handed over to the custody of the police for safe detention in the colonial hospital. He left Sierra Leone on 8th August. Therefore, after conviction he remained in prison nine days, and in the colonial hospital in custody 10 days. He arrived at Liverpool on 24th August, was at once examined by Dr. Ross and Dr. Beamish, and immediately released. His employment at Sierra Leone was only on a temporary engagement for six months, which expired on 11th March, 1889, before the time when he was brought to trial. I There is, therefore, no question of any claim to pension or gratuity of any kind; but I may add that no pension could, under any circumstances, be awarded to an officer convicted of felony and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

CROFTERS IN WEST ARDNAMURCHAN.
COLONEL MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether

331
the Crofter Commissioners have fixed Tobermory as the place for their Court when holding the inquiry into the condition of the Crofters in West Ardnamurchan; if so, how the Crofters (many of them aged) are to reach Tobermory, and who is to pay for their subsistence when attending the Court; and whether he will consider the advisability of holding the Court as Kilchoan, where there is a decent hotel, and which would be easily reached by the people concerned?
MR. J. P. B. BOBERTSON: The Crofter Commissioners fixed on Tobermory as the most suitable place for hearing the cases of the West Ardnamurchan crofters after they had communicated with the factor on the estate, and also with the agent for the crofters, who both agreed that this would be the most convenient place to hold the sittings.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS IN SCOTLAND.
MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is lawful for Parochial Boards in Scotland (should they deem it expedient) to appoint a Roman Catholic chaplain in poor houses in Scotland, and to allow him a suitable remuneration; or whether it is illegal to appoint as chaplain any person other than a clergyman of the Established Church?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question until Thursday.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
LORD H. BRUCE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Housing of the Working Classes Acts (Amendment) Bill, as also the Housing of the Working Classes Acts (Consolidation) Bill, will be printed?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I believe that both Bills will be in the Vote Office to-day.

THE MUZZLING ORDER.
MR. NORRIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture in what districts the Muzzling Order for dogs has
332
been rescinded; if he can state the number of cases of rabies during the past year; and whether it is proposed to' continue the Muzzling Order in the Metropolis, and if statistics prove that if it were extended for six months to the whole Kingdom the disease would entirely disappear?
SIR H. ROSCOE: May I ask whether it is not the fact that the registration of dogs has signally failed in the Continental cities where it has been adopted; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will re consider his decision as to replacing muzzling by registration?
MR. CHAPLIN: Yes, Sir; I am aware of both of the facts referred to by the hon. Member; but I must remind him that the Order which has recently been made by the Board of Agricult tre— substituting a collar for the muzzle— only extends to those districts in which we have reason to believe that the disease has ceased to exist. In reply to> the question on the Paper, the Muzzling Order has been modified in those parts of Essex, Herts, Kent, and Surrey, which are outside the Metropolitan Police District. The number of cases of rabies, during last year was 340. The Muzzling Order has never at any time been extended to the whole Kingdom, and there are no statistics to show what the effect of the Order would be if it were made; universal. From the progress made already, I anticipate that rabies may be effectually dealt with without any necessity for so stringent a measure.

WINE FROM RAISINS.
MR. CHILDERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been drawn to the recent discovery on the Continent of a method of making wine from raisins, giving much better results, than wine making from grapes; whether this has led to the imposition in France of a heavy Excise Duty on raisins; and if he can lay upon the Table Papers upon this subject?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have no detailed information on the subject of the manufacture of wine from raisins, or of the reasons for the imposition of a heavy Excise Duty on them; but a

333
Report has been called for from the Commercial Attaché to the Embassy in Paris.

BRITISH EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the attention of the Prime Minister has been directed to the fact that the House of Representatives of the United States has passed, practically without amendment, the proposals for the imposition of enhanced and prohibitory duties upon the importation of cutlery, tin plates, iron hoops, linen goods, and other articles of British export; and if, having regard to the disastrous effect the approval of the Bill 'by the Senate must have upon the trades of Sheffield, the Midland Counties, South Wales, and Belfast, Her Majesty's Government will adhere to the view expressed on the 6th ultimo, that the free import system in the United Kingdom precludes the instruction of Her Majesty's Minister at Washington to represent to the American Government the injury the proposed legislation is calculated to do to the industry of a friendly Power, which gave last year a free market to £95,000,000 worth of competing American goods?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have not yet received a copy of the Tariff Bill as it passed the House of Representatives but we have heard by telegraph that it underwent no important alterations. In reply to the second question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I can only say, as I have done before, that it would be impossible to object to such legislation because it is founded on a protective policy. Our free admission of foreign manufactures generally rest on the adoption of a contrary system.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES) ACT.
CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the notice given that the operation of the Rules drawn under the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Act of 1888 would take effect from the 1st of November next, how long prior to that date would notice be given to shipowners and the
334
public as to what appliances have been sanctioned under those Rules?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I have laid the Revised Rules drawn under the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Act upon the Table of the House this day, and the public, therefore, can procure copies of them at once.

SCOTCH FARM SERVANTS.
MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience which is caused to farm servants in Scotland by the absence of uniformity in the dates fixed for their removal from their houses; and whether he will introduce a measure to remedy this inconvenience?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The existence of the inconvenience referred to in the question of the hon. Member has been represented to me, and the question will have my immediate consideration.

THE REGULATION OF RAILWAYS ACT.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been made to the Board of Trade under Section 6 of "The Regulation of Railways Act, 1868"?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: None, Sir.

CHURCH PROPERTY AND REVENUES.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the first portion of the Return of the Property and Revenues of the Church of England and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, promised this month, will be printed and distributed?
MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that they are now engaged in correcting a draft of this Return, and they hope to have it ready for presentation before the end of the month.

THE UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT.
MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish University Commissioners, who are understood to have already taken much

335
evidence on the question of the changes to be introduced into the conditions attaching to the Chairs in the Faculty of Divinity, propose to present at an early period the Special Report to Her Majesty upon this matter, which they are directed to make by the Universities (Scotland) Act of 1889?
MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Since the hon. Gentleman gave notice of the question, I have not been able to obtain an answer from the Commissioners.
MR. BRYCE: I will repeat the question next week.

SOUTH AFRICA.
MR. ERNEST BECKETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since negotiations with Germany respecting the delimitation of frontiers and spheres of influence have been open, the Germans have pushed forward their agents and emissaries into regions to the North and rear of the territory belonging to the South African Company; whether Germany is bound by the Treaty of 1886, and by the pledges given by Prince Bismarck to Sir E. Malet in 1887 not to occupy or permit operations in these regions; and whether the Government will make it a condition of resuming negotiations that the status quo shall be strictly maintained, and that no advance on one side or the other shall be sanctioned or recognised while negotiations are going on?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have no information of any German expeditions to the North and rear of territory belonging to the South African Company. The engagements of 1886 and 1887, which have been, and are, respected by the Germans, related to territories in which the British and German East African Companies were interested. It is understood between the two Governments that, while negotiations are pending, the status quo shall, as far as possible, be maintained as regards territories under discussion.

PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.
MR. PTCKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the failure in many cases to comply with
336
the provisions of the 5th section of "The Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879," which direct the clerks to Justices, &c., to transmit to the Director of Public-Prosecutions a copy of all depositions and other documents relating to any prosecution withdrawn or not proceeded with within a reasonable time; will he state the average number of cases during the last five years in relation to which depositions and documents have been transmitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions in accordance with the above provision, and also the number of cases in which the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken action thereon; and is there any instance of a clerk to a Justice or to a Police Court having been proceeded against according: to law for failure to comply with the foregoing enactment?
MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; my attention has not been called to any failure in this respect. The duties of the Local Authority and of the Director of Public Prosecutions respectively are laid down in the Regulations framed in pursuance of the Acts of 1879 and 1884, and approved by Parliament. Between August, 1884, and the 1st of March, 1890, the number of cases which were withdrawn or not proceeded with, and in which information was sent to the Director, is 206. Of these, nine were taken up by the Director. The Director informs me that be is not aware of any such proceedings having been taken as are referred to in the last paragraph.

POST OFFICE EMPLOYÉS.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the law forbidding employers of labour to fine their employés applies to the Postmaster General in relation to postmen; and whether the Postmaster General has legal power to fine Post Office employés either in money or by imposing extra duty without pay?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): Apart from the Truck Acts and certain special Trade Statutes, which have no application to the hon. Member's question, there is not, so far as I know, any Statute or Rule of Law forbidding the Postmaster General or any other employer of labour to impose fines or make deductions from wages for misconduct or breach of rules.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will state what restrictions the Postmaster General has legal power to impose upon Post Office employés when not on duty; and whether he will state whether the Postmaster General has any legal power to interfere with postmen for attending' public or trade union meetings when not on duty?
SIR R. WEBSTER: It is not possible to answer the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, as it raises a mere abstract question of law. The Postmaster General can make such rules as are in his judgment necessary for the proper fulfilment of their duties by the persons employed by him, and is entitled to dismiss from the service those persons who are not willing to conform thereto.
MR. C. GRAHAM: I should be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman could give me a more definite answer. A man without any wish to infringe the law may sometimes do so in ignorance.
SIR R. WEBSTER: I would gladly give the hon. Member any assistance in my power; but the matter is not one that can be more definitely stated in answer to a question.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING IN LONDON.
MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the new Electric Light Companies in London are legally empowered to disfigure the streets, and greatly increase the risk of fires, by putting their wires overhead instead of underground?
SIR R. WEBSTER: In reply to the hon. Member, under the Electric Lighting Acts of 1882 and 1888 powers are reserved to the County Council and to the Board of Trade for regulating and controlling the cases in which overhead wires may be used, and in my opinion these powers are sufficient. The information before me does not tend to show that overhead wires increase the risk of fires.

COUNTY COURT REGISTRARS.
MR. BRAD LAUGH: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether any arrangement has yet been formally determined on by the Lord Chancellor, by which Registrars of County Courts, whose income amounts to £1,000 per year, are
338
required to devote their whole time to the duties of the office?
SIR R. WEBSTER: I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that any appointments made since the County Courts Act, 1888, where the salary is sufficient to obtain a fit and proper Registrar it has been made a condition that the Registrar shall not practice as solicitor and notary, and arrangements of the same principle will be made in the case of any existing Registrar who may consent thereto. I need not point out to the hon. Member that by the provisions of Sections 25 and 45 of the Act of 1888 the rights of Registrars holding appointments at the time of the passing of the Act were preserved.
MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the Lord Chancellor consider £1,000 a sufficient salary?
SIR R. WEBSTER: As far as I am informed, the Lord Chancellor states that £1,000 a year is quite a sufficient salary, and I think that even a smaller sum would be sufficient.

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.
MR J. KELLY: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he can state the reason for which three Judges have lately been sitting in one of the Divisional Courts of the Queen's Bench; whether, for the last 10 years, the practice of three Judges so sitting together in banc has been abandoned; and whether the return to the old practice is intended to be general, and so to cause further delays in the trial of the actions in the Queen's Bench Division?
SIR R. WEBSTER: Before answering the question of my hon. and learned Friend I must respectfully protest against the suggestion implied in the last paragraph, that the practice is intended to cause delays in the trials of actions in the Queen's Bench Division. Nothing, in my opinion, has ever taken place to justify such a suggestion. The formation of a Division Court of three Judges is due to important representations made two years ago, on the part of the Bar and the Incorporated Law Society, to the effect that it was desirable that application for new trials should be dealt with by Courts composed of three Judges. Prior to the present sittings, various causes, especially the absence of two of the Judges on the Special Commission, and

339
the illness of several others, have rendered the formation of such Courts impossible; but I understand that, when practicable, the hearing of cases of the kind by Courts so composed is intended to be general.
In reply to a further question by Mr. J. KELLY,
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid: I am aware that there is a feeling among many members of the Bar on the subject; but whether it represents the majority or not I am unable to say.

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can indicate any time at which he will take the Second Reading of the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I regret that I am not able to name a day for the Second Reading of the Bill: but I hope that it will be possible to take it very shortly.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, inasmuch, as on 20th May he stated
"If it becomes necessary for the Government to make proposals for a further extension of time, then the views of the Government with regard to the future progress of business may be properly put forward,"
and on the 23rd May he made such a proposal without giving the views of the Government, he will now, for the convience of the House, make such a statement as to business as he did on the 17th June, 1889, when making a similar Motion to that carried on the 23rd May this year?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to answer this question to-day. I hope to be able to make a statement in the course of a few days.

IRELAND—THE POLICE AND MEETINGS IN ENNIS.
MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it be true, as reported in the Press, that at a meeting held in the house of
340
Mr. Dennis M'Namara, in Ennis, on Tuesday last, to make arrangements for a demonstration to demand a public inquiry into the treatment of John Daly and other Irish prisoners in England, that a police sergeant interrupted the proceedings and took the names of those present; and, if so, by what authority the policeman in question entered this private house, and what, if any, was his legal right so to do?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Constabulary authorities report that the meeting referred to was not held in a private residence, but in Mr. M'Namara's public house. The police had reason to suppose that it was an attempt to hold a meeting of the local branch of the National League, which was declared to be unlawful in that district. Upon being informed by one of the leading members of the meeting that such was not the case the police left the premises.
MR. COX: May I ask how, not having a licence, Mr. M'Namara could have a licenced house?
[No answer was given.]

MR. M'ENERY.
MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed by the Prisons Board to the following Report made by Dr. Moorhead, Visiting Justice, Tullamore Gaol:—
"23rd May, 1890.
"Mr. M'Enery complains that yesterday he was reduced 15 marks by the chief warder for not having sufficient work done, that he has been suffering from dyspepsia in the prison, for which he is at present under medical treatment, and that consistent with his condition of health he is as industrious as he possibly can be. In view of the fact that Mr. M'Enery is at present under medical treatment for a very disabling disease, dyspepsia, I would recommend to the authorities that his task work be suspended until such time as his health is restored; "
and whether, having regard to the fact that by medical authority Mr. M'Enery's health is affected, and that he has still over seven months' imprisonment to undergo with hard labour, for publishing a newspaper article, he will direct special attention to his condition?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that it is the case that the prisoner mentioned was deprived of 15 marks for idleness, the medical officer of the prison having then reported that there was nothing in his condition to prevent him from performing his work. The medical officer now further reports that the complaint of the prisoner is of a slight nature, and that there is absolutely nothing in his condition to prevent him from performing his task. There does not appear to be anything in the case calling for special attention.

RAILWAY FROM GALWAY TO CLIFDEN.
MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if any decision has been arrived at by the Government with regard to the construction of the line of railway from Galway to Clifden, approved of by the Royal Commission; and, if so, when will that decision be carried into effect?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): No decision has yet been arrived at by the Government with regard to the construction of a railway from Galway to Clifden.

INCOME TAX (IRELAND).
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will agree to the Return as to Income Tax (Ireland), which stands on the Paper for to-day?
MR. GOSCHEN: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question for a few days.

THE CAPITATION ALLOWANCE IN IRELAND.
MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the case that the Commissioners of Irish National Education, in a communication addressed to His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Dublin, and dated 13th December, 1888, stated that they had agreed to submit to the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury for their sanction a proposal of the Standing Committee of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland, to the effect that the Capitation
342
allowance, which stopped at schools of 15 in average attendance, should be extended to schools of from 10 to 15 in average attendance; whether, in a further communication to the Archbishop in March, 1889, it was stated that the proposal had not received the sanction of the Lords of the Treasury; whether a deputation from the Standing Committee had waited on him (the Chief Secretary) last January, to point out the importance which the Committee attached to the proposed extension of the Capitation allowance, together with the smallness of the amount necessary for carrying it out; and whether, in consideration of the improved financial position of the Treasury, there was a prospect of the requisite sanction soon being obtained?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend is aware that the question to which he refers is one not without difficulty, and it is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

EVICTIONS AT FALCARRAGH.
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, within the next few weeks, 39 families are to be evicted from the Stewart Estate, at Falcarragh, and six families from the Swiney Estate, in the same district, and whether more than GO families are about the same time to be evicted from the Olphert Estate; whether the forces of the Crown will be employed in the carrying out of these evictions; and is Falcarragh to be included in the congested districts for which special provision is contemplated under the Land Purchase Bill through the agency of the Board to be created by that measure?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Sheriff has applied for protection to carry out evictions on the Stewart and Swiney Estates to the extent stated in the first paragraph of the question. No application has been yet received in regard to the Olphert Estate. The forces of the Crown will not be employed in carrying out the evictions; but they will be present in compliance with the requisition of the Sheriff to afford him and his officers protection should the occasion arise. Falcarragh is within the con-

343
gested district contemplated by the Bill.
MR. MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the question, namely, whether Falcarragh is included in the congested districts under the Land Purchase Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
MR. MACNEILL: AS a matter of policy, to say nothing of humanity, will not the right hon. Gentleman see the propriety of arresting the employment of the forces of the Crown until the benevolent schemes of the Government can be put into operation?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not a matter of policy or humanity, but simply of upholding the law.
MR. MACNEILL: Am I to understand that the Government have no option in the matter, and that they are obliged to employ the forces of the Crown in battering down the houses of these poor tenants?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no ground for believing that the kind of resistance the hon. Gentleman alludes to will be made by the tenants against the sheriff, who will simply act in the performance of a duty imposed on him by a Court of Law.

ASSAULTING THE IRISH POLICE.
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a case in which five men were, a few days ago, charged before two Resident Magistrates at Portumna with assaulting two constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary, named M'Gowan and Grady, and two emergency men, named Kingsbury and Dobson, who swore that they had been way-laid and assaulted by the accused, Constable Grady being compelled to discharge his rifle in self-protection, and which case was, notwithstanding the positive swearing of the constables, dismissed by the Magistrates, the evidence for the defence being that the constables and the emergency men were under the influence of drink, and had attacked the accused; and whether these constables are still to be permitted to return to their positions, or whether any steps will be taken by the Government to mark its sense of their conduct?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am making inquiry, but have not yet received a Report.

ASSAULT AT MILLSTREET.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any inquiry is being made into an assault upon a poor woman and her husband, named Sullivan, who were way laid and dreadfully beaten near Millstreet, County Cork, on Tuesday night last, the 3rd instant, on their way home, and, after being attacked and wounded, struggled into the house of a post boy named Buckley, who in consequence was stoned by the gang; whether he is aware that the Sullivans were medically treated in the Millstreet Union Hospital by Dr. Leader, who refused to give a certificate to the effect that Sullivan's life was out of danger; whether many similar assaults have taken place near Millstreet daring the past year; whether the police have arrested and brought to justice any of the gang notoriously implicated in this and other similar recent outrages; and whether steps will be immediately taken to ascertain who are the employers of the gang?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question until to-morrow.
DR. TANNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how many police are now stationed in and about Millstreet?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that there are stationed in the town of Millstreet one District Inspector, one Head Constable, and 19 men, and that there are two huts, each four miles distant from Millstreet, having a party of five men each.

IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Michael O'Brien, Freyhanes, Mullagh, County Clare, did on the 14th April last send three of his children to Annagh (8528) National School, and if on the same day they were ordered to leave "for want of room," and did they leave; whether on the 15th April he sent four of his children to Mullagh (3928) National School, and if they were informed on the 16th April that "they could not be

345
permitted to remain there"; whether, on appealing to the Commissioners of National Education on the 18th April and 3rd May, he was informed by them on the 8th May that "there was another school (Coore) conveniently situated for his children to attend"; whether Coore School is two and a half miles from O'Brien's residence, Mullagh one and a half, and Annagh only half a mile distant; whether there is sufficient accommodation in both Annagh and Mullagh Schools for O'Brien's children; whether, according to the Rules of the Commissioners of National Education, O'Brien may insist on having his children taught at the most convenient school; and will steps be taken to inquire into and remedy this matter?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that it appears O'Brien's family had regularly attended Coore School until about 12 months ago when an attack was made upon that school, without any ground for complaint against the teachers, this school being efficiently conducted. The manager of the other two schools mentioned has declined to receive the children of O'Brien, as these schools are already overcrowded. The Commissioners do not see anything in the case calling for action on their part.
MR. JORDAN: Was it competent for the manager, according to the Rules of the Commissioners, to refuse to receive the children?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather that there was no violation of the Rules of the National Board.
MR. JORDAN: What is the number of children attending these schools?
MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.): And what is the limit of the area allowed for each child?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot answer these questions without notice.

DONAGHADEE HARBOUR.
MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has yet received any official Report as to the present condition of the harbour at Donaghadee, County Down; and if any steps will be taken to render it safe for vessels calling there?
MR. JACKSON: Yes; I have received a Report upon the condition of this
346
harbour, but I only received it within the last day or two, and have not had an opportunity of considering it.
COLONEL WARING: Did the Inspector who went down to Donaghadee make any inquiry, and what soundings did he take?
MR. JACKSON: It was not necessary for any Inspector to take soundings. He would be able to see at once the condition of the harbour.

SLAVERY ON THE CONGO.
MR. A. E. PEASE: T beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the shipment of labourers from Zanzibar to the Congo, amongst whom are large numbers of slaves, has been brought under the-notice of the Brussels Conference with a view to its being investigated; and, if not, will immediate steps be taken towards this end?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: The functions of a Conference are not judicial, and it is not probable that the President would permit the discussion of matters not involving international agreements on the subject of the Slave Trade.

THE INDIAN COUNCILS BILL,
MR. BRADLAUGH: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury after what hour to-night he will not take this Bill?
MR. W. H. SMITH: The Bill will not be taken after 10 o'clock.

PURCHASE OF LAND, &c. (IRELAND) BILL—MR. SPEAKER AND INSTRUCTIONS.
MR. J. MORLEY: I think, Sir, it will be for the convenience of the House if you would now allow me to put to you a question concerning the first Order of the Day— whether you would now think fit to state to the House your view of the Instruction that I have put on the Paper with reference to that Order?
[Mr. Morley's Instruction was as follows:—
"On Motion for going into Committee on Purchase of Land and Congested Districts-(Ireland) Bill, to move that it bean Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision for the creation of Local Authorities, whose assent shall be necessary to-the imposition of any liability upon Local Revenues for the purposes of this Bill."]
MR. SPEAKER: The original Motion for the Instruction put down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman I thought was out of order, and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to modify that and to put upon the Paper the Instruction as it now stands. I have had communication by letter and personally with the right hon. Gentleman, and I beg to acknowledge the impartiality with which he put forward his views in support of the Instruction now on the Paper. I have informed him that my difficulty has been as to the vagueness of the Instruction, both in regard to the power of limiting the Debate under its terms and the vagueness of the Instruction as affording no definite guidance to the Committee when they come to discuss clauses for the purpose of carrying it into effect. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to explain the definite purposes with which he put the Instruction on the Paper; and it then occurred to me that the purposes which he wished to carry out under the Instruction might possibly be in the power of the Committee to effect without the necessity for an Instruction. Before, however, informing him of that view I communicated, as I thought it my duty to do, with the Chairman of Committees, who would have jurisdiction in the matter, and I am at liberty to say that right hon. Gentleman told me that in Committee it would be permissible for the Committee to introduce Amendments and clauses carrying out the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman as specified by himself. These objects are the creation either of a separate authority or of a composite body composed of Boards of Guardians, Grand Juries, or Presentment Sessions to watch the interests of the locality for fear lest liabilities should be incurred under the provisions of the Bill which it might be unwise to saddle on those localities. They would watch the interests of the localities, and they would, if they thought the bargain a bad one in individual cases, have the power of vetoing the transaction. These are the specific objects, I believe, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, and I believe these objects might be carried out by Amendments or clauses in Committee. Under these conditions, and with that explanation, I have to say that the Instruction would be irregular, but
348
only irregular inasmuch as it would seek to empower the Committee to do that which in my opinion, and in the opinion, I may add, of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, it has perfect power to do.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Perhaps, Sir, you will allow me to put to you, not so much for immediate answer as for consideration, a question which arose, not out of the reply you have been good enough just now to give from the Chair, but out of the whole circumstances connected with Instructions which have recently occurred. They evidently show, what I think I am pretty well aware of in other ways, that there is a great uncertainty in the minds of many Members and very great obscurity on the subject of Instructions to Committees as to what can and what cannot be moved. I would ask you, Sir, to be good enough to consider whether it would be expedient to order a search to be made in the records of this House and a list to be prepared and circulated for the information of the House of the various Instructions to Committees that have been moved at various periods during the present reign. I do not know whether you will think fit to reply at the present moment; but, if not, I would request you to take the matter into consideration.
MR. SPEAKER: I have naturally, within the last few weeks, given special attention to the whole subject, and if the right hon. Gentleman and the House will permit me I would like to state my views as explicitly as I can to the House. I have searched the precedents connected with Instructions. The House will, perhaps, be best put in the possession of my views on the subject when I say that there is a very vast and material difference between Instructions to a Committee and an Amendment on the Second Reading of a Bill, or of a Resolution on the Second Reading of a Bill which traverses the principle of the Bill. When a Bill has been read a second time the House has assented to the principle of the Bill. In the last few years a Standing Order has been passed stating that when the House is prepared to go into Committee the Speaker is to leave the Chair without Question put; but there is a reservation made with regard to Instructions to the Committee. It

349
would be obvious to the House that if an Instruction moved on that occasion "were to traverse the principle of the Bill, or go so far outside the limits and scope and framework of the Bill as to set up an alternative scheme, or a counter proposition to the Bill, that would virtually be a Second Reading Debate over again. It would be an Amendment to the principle of the Bill, and would therefore reduce to a minimum, and would nullify altogether, the provision which the House has passed in the Standing Order, which states that, when the House is prepared to go into Committee, I should leave the Chair at once without any Question put. There is nothing in the precedents, I believe, which go beyond an Instruction of this nature— an Instruction to amplify the machinery of the Bill to carry out the general purpose and scope of the Bill within the general framework and idea of the Bill. There is no Instruction that I am aware of—certainly not since the alteration in the Standing Order—which could be construed into the traversing of the principle of the SECOND READING of a Bill. I may be permitted to add that I attach importance in a high degree to the whole question of Instructions. It is no matter to me what Government is in power; but I say it in the interest of any body of gentlemen who may constitute the Government of the day, and I say it in the interests of every private Member who may have a Bill before the House, that if what I think, and I unhesitatingly say, is an abuse of Instructions, be carried much further, I believe it will be fatal to the transaction of business, not only by the Government, but by any individual Member who may be in charge of a Bill. I hope the House will forgive me for having spoken very frankly on the matter. I have no other interest at heart than the transaction of business in this House, and I believe the House will agree with me that various Instructions to carry out the principle of a Bill constitute a very different category altogether from Instructions by which it is sought to traverse the principle of the Bill and so resume the Debate which, in my opinion, ought to be settled on the conclusion of the Second Reading.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will kindly consider the
350
question I ventured to address to you with regard to the searching of the records and the production of the various Instructions.
MR. SPEAKER: I think it would be rather an unusual proceeding for the Speaker to search for precedents and have them laid before the Members of the House. I should be happy, I am sure, to give every information in my power to the right hon. Gentleman, and I should be happy to lay all the precedents before him. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be content with that.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Perhaps it would be better that I should submit a Motion for the production of these precedents.
MR. J. MORLEY: After what has-passed it is not improbable that MR. Speaker will leave the Chair on the first Order. I should like to ask whether the Government intend to proceed with the Bill this night?
MR. W. H. SMITH: We do not intend to proceed this evening with the Bill beyond going into Committee, and after the Speaker has left the Chair I shall move to report Progress.
MR. J. MORLEY: What business will be taken to-morrow?
MR. W. H. SMITH: We shall take the Local Taxation Bill to-morrow.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I was not in the House when the Speaker gave his ruling. I have an Instruction on the Paper on the Land Purchase Bill, but I do not know whether the Speaker has said anything about it.
MR. SPEAKER: That Instruction is quite out of order, and quite beyond the scope of the Bill.

ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES BILL.—(No. 243.)
Bill reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 215.]
Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 331.]

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and being returned;—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890.

2. Merchant Shipping Act, 1890.

MOTION.
  IRELAND-CONDUCT OF POLICE IN CASHEL AND TIPPERARY.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    Mr. DILLON, Member for the Eastern Division of the County of Mayo, rose in 3iis place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the imminent and daily increasing danger to the public peace by reason of the violent and un-Constitutional action of the police and Magistrates towards the people in the districts of Cashel and Tipperary; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
    MR. DILLON: Before I attempt to lay before the House the facts of which we complain in connection with the action of the Magistrates and the police at Cashel and Tipperary, I must briefly allude to the events which led up to those occurrences. The House is probably aware that two meetings were announced to be held at Tipperary and Cashei on the 25th and 27th of last month. These meetings were called by public placard, and full and long notice was given of the object, which was to give me a welcome on my return to Ireland and to hear addresses from Members for the County of Tipperary. As far as I am aware, no other object was stated on the placards, and I must say that I think it still lies with the Chief Secretary to state to the House on what grounds those meetings were proclaimed. As I understand, the law at present in
    352
    Ireland is precisely the same with regard to putting down meetings as it is in England, and, if that is so, it has been decided over and over again that proclamation by the Executive does not constitute a meeting illegal, but the Executive which issues the proclamation must prove to a Court of Law that it is justified in doing so. The mere ipse dixit of the police is not sufficient justification. But I am informed that the only cause alleged by the Chief Secretary in justification of the proclamation was that in his opinion the holding of those meetings would have a tendency to increase boycotting and intimidation in Tipperary. I may be wrong, but I believe that that forms no justification under the Common Law; on the contrary, the Executive must be furnished with sworn evidence that the holding of the meeting would be sufficient to cause a person of ordinary fortitude to be placed in terror of his life or of bodily danger. For my own part, I am prepared to contend that these meetings were legal all along, even after the proclamation was issued, and that no justification whatever existed for the proclamation. In answer to a question the Chief Secretary, before the Whitsuntide Recess, said that the increase of what he called outrages—things which are easily manufactured in Ireland— during the months of March and Apr was the ground for proclaiming thil meetings. But there was an open-ai public meeting at Tipperary in April last, and the result is that the districlt has been more quiet than it was before it, as far as my information goes. If that is true, it is grossly inconsistent and unfair to fall back upon facts which occurred before those meetings as justification for prohibiting the later meetings. At all events, chough we had this evidence that the previous open-air meeting had not led to an increase pf violence, these two meetings were proclaimed late on the Saturday. That is a custom on the part of the Executive of which we have great cause to complain. The meeting had been placarded a fortnight, yet Dublin Castle delayed issuing the proclamation till a few hours before it was to be held. My hon. Friends and myself, believing the meetings to be legal, and knowing that it had been laid down by the Judges in Blunt's case that the

    353
    Executive have no power to make a meeting illegal simply by proclaiming it, determined to go clown to Tipperary, and, by way of protest, hold a meeting as far as we prudently could. I have always taken up the position that if a meeting thus proclaimed were illegal it is our duty to go to the spot and address it, but if the Police Force was overwhelming to advise the people to disperse, in order to prevent bloodshed and disturbance. Well, we did go down to Tipperary, with the object of addressing the meeting if we could. At Limerick Junction—the nearest station to which we could get on Sunday morning, about three short miles from Tipperary—we found between 1,000 and 2,000 country people, and, by some oversight of the authorities, who are in the habit of making these mistakes, there were only about 20 policemen present. The police served us with copies of the proclamation, but we said that we did not consider it illegal, and proposed to hold a meeting, which we did. We appointed a Chairman, addresses were delivered, and a resolution was passed. The police very properly refrained from disturbing the peace, and, although they mixed freely with the people, and were rather offensive, no violence was done to them, and they were in no way injured. These 20 men were entirely at the mercy of a large crowd, yet they were in no way injured. After addressing the meeting I drove into Tipperary, leaving Mr. O'Brien and some others. On reaching Tipperary I found the entrance to the new square barred by a heavy cordon of police, who refused to allow us to pass. Two Resident Magistrates were present, and the square was held by about 200 police. While I and four I other Members of Parliament and a local priest, Father Humphreys, were discussing the situation, with no people near us, and with no weapons in our hands, I heard Captain Caddell say first to a heavy body of police, "Draw your batons, men," and then "Charge and clear those fellows out." Twenty policemen then drew their batons and charged upon five unarmed men, but broke their ranks as they came up to us, and did not strike us, although the two Magistrates told them to close their ranks. After passing, the police were re-formed, and the Magistrates seemed to become
    354
    rather ashamed of their conduct, for they ordered the men to put up their batons. I saw that to attempt a meeting in the square would lead to disturbance and bloodshed, and thought it best to lead a body of people out into the country, so I walked a few miles, followed by a Magistrate and a body of police. We did not get leave to hold our meeting, so we simply had a long walk on a fine summer afternoon. We were not further interfered with. In the interval Mr. O'Brien had arrived on a drag with some friends. I propose to describe what passed from the columns of the Irish Times and the Dublin Daily Express. When Mr. O'Brien drove into Tipperary he was at once stopped by the police, but the latter, when informed that there was an Englishman on the car, allowed it to pass. Then we drove on until we reached the top of the hill leading into the main street—William O'Brien Street. There we found we were not immediately followed by the police, and my hon. Friend stood up to address the people, and a large crowd collected round our drag. Then, according to the description given by the Irish Times, the police, led by County Inspector Stevenson, suddenly rushed upon the crowd and commenced to baton the people. Be it observed that, according to the account of this Tory newspaper, and in accordance with the actual fact, there was no call made upon the crowd to disperse, which is the proper method to pursue. The newspaper account, from which I am quoting, says some members of the police force used the butts of their rifles on the heads of the people, several of whom were knocked down and injured; free fighting was carried on in one corner, while the people fled on the other side. Mr. O'Brien called out to the Inspector not to kill the people, and Mr. Harrington and others cried out to the people to take refuge in the houses. The newspaper correspondent saw one young man, who was standing a mere spectator of the scene, struck on the head by a policeman in a mechanical sort of way, the policeman then passing on to the next man. The mother of this injured young man, a poor deformed boy he was really, uttered a wild yell and rushed after the policeman, whom she clutched by the throat with

    355
    such vehemence that half choking he fell to the ground. Well, I am bound to say I think the mother did perfectly right. Very likely, if very shame does not deter the police, she will be summoned for assault before Mr. Caddell, who does the double work of batoning the people in the streets and punishing them from 'the Bench. In another instance a respectable young gentleman, well known in the town, received a severe blow and was knocked under a car. I mention these things as showing the scandalous, disgraceful laxity of discipline on the part of the police. Now I turn to an account which, if they will accept any account but that of the police, the Government ought to accept, the report in the Dublin Express. This report says that Mr. O'Brien's remarks were interrupted by the appearance of a break filled with police being driven furiously up the hill, and those of the crowd who saw this Med in all directions. Observe, the people fled, they did not offer resistance. The account goes on to say that, doubtless, others who were listening to Mr. O'Brien would also have fled had escape been possible, but before they could disperse the order to charge was given and the police with drawn batons were upon them, the Government shorthand writer taking part in the chase. There were cheers for Mr. O'Brien, shouts of defiance at the police, and a few stones were thrown, though they injured no one, and some 20 persons were knocked down by the charge. Now recollect that at the moment the batoning commenced there was no resistance to the police. One young man being struck knocked the constable down, and the two rolled over together. Will that man be prosecuted for assault? It is an important point, because, though he lawfully defended himself as any Member of this House might if attacked in the street, if he is brought before this Magistrate he will be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. The people, says the Express, were terror-stricken, but several were wise enough to judge that getting among the newspaper reporters they had the best chance for their skulls. This is the description given by the Unionist newspapers, and before I proceed further, let me say, it is idle for the Chief Secretary or anyone who represents the Government to read
    356
    us reports concocted by those very policemen whose conduct we stand here to challenge, let the right hon. Gentleman produce independent witnesses as we have. I have given the evidence of two witnesses who certainly are not prejudiced on the Nationalist side. There, is, further, the evidence of Mr. Byles, an English Pressman. He describes the assembling of a crowd of about a thousand persons in the manner I have mentioned. Then he says the police rushed upon the people, batons drawn, and keeping no order, and, filled with a spirit of malice and revenge, began striking at all within reach. It is a peculiarity of the conduct of the Irish police that they invariably pursue and strike the flying people, a mockery and outrage upon keeping order. This correspondent says one stone was thrown, but he was told a policeman threw it, and that is true, it is corroborated by other accounts. Now, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to defend the action of the police? If he is, he must be prepared to face the adverse opinion of the country. If he denies these facts, he must do so in a very different way to the manner in which he denied the facts of Mitchelstown. Up to this hour the statements he over and over again has repeated, statements to which I have given direct contradiction on the faith of my own eyes, have never had the corroboration of any single independent witness. Well, so much for the proceedings at Tipperary on that day. I shall have more to say of the permanent-state of things, and the policy carried on there before I conclude, but I now proceed to allude to what took place at Boherlahan and Cashel. The police have a system of watching the leaders of the Irish Party, and, wherever we go, the police follow us on a car. I have seen them outside my hotel in a car with horses yoked. I have seen them as I went to bed, and I have seen them shivering there in the morning. Yet, so inefficient are they, or so stupid are their officers, that when we want to get away unobserved we do so, quite easily. We evaded the police force, we turned a corner and they lost sight of us, and it is a fact to note, that not a man, woman, or child would give the police a word of information to direct them to our whereabouts. Not all your power and all your secret service money

    357
    could bribe or bully a Tipperary peasant into telling where we were bidden, behind a hedge. We saw the police gallop by full speed, but we escaped that Monday night, and on the following morning, no doubt, the country was scoured by police and cavalry, telegraphed for from Cahir. The Rock of Cashel was occupied by 10 constables, and from thence and from every eminence around the police swept the country with field glasses and telescopes, and at every cross-road within a circuit of three miles was a picket of mounted police or dragoons—nice work, certainly, for dragoons! In spite of all these elaborate precautions, which must have cost the taxpayers of this country a considerable sum, we held our meeting down by the banks of the Suir, within half a mile of their outposts. Of their movements our scouts gave us all information, but the police were unable to discover us. We held our meeting when we received information from our scouts that the police and cavalry had evacuated Boherlahan, and we drove into the village, where we found a gathering of country people—40 men, perhaps, and some 60 women and children, together with 10 policemen. We undertook to hold a small meeting, a very small one, but still we thought we might as well improve the shining hour. The police declared the meeting illegal, but we said: "You have not sufficient force to disperse the meeting, we consider it legal, and as it is feasible we shall not disperse." The sergeant, who was completely "off his head "—I think I never saw a man in such a fright—did not well know what to do. Ho threatened to break up the meeting by force. I remonstrated with him and said, "You cannot, you have not sufficient force, and your attempt will only lead to a dangerous riot." "Well," ho said, "I shall have a largo force hero in a few minutes." "All right," I said, "when that force comes we will disperse, and you, as a sensible man, if you have any sense, should wait until that force comes and a Magistrate with it, and you will be rid of responsibility." Even while I was giving this advice, with the object of preserving the peace, a policeman gave me a violent push and tried to throw me down. It was an anxious quarter of an
    358
    hour. I kept between the people and the police, pushing back violently any of our people who were inclined to be noisy or violent; and yet, while I was talking with the sergeant, a policeman struck at me with his baton. These may appear trivial things to some hon. Members, and I only mention them as showing the utter disorganisation of the police. What is to be said of a policeman who, when no violence is offered, strikes at a Member of Parliament who is exerting himself to preserve the peace? Of course, the policeman had no order to strike, and when we remember the conditions of the position we see the utter recklessness and demoralisation of the police; for there is not the slightest doubt that if I had been struck down there would have been a rush of the people and a bloody, terrible riot which the police would have been utterly unable to control. Our people would have suffered severely, for the cavalry would have been on the ground— ns they did come very soon, and very glad I was to see them, for the situation was getting unpleasant. If I had been struck down there would not have been the slightest justification for the action, and the bloodshed which would have followed, the blood of our people, as well as of his comrades, would have been on the head of the police. In England, if such a case had arisen, I would have taken the number of the constable and would have summoned him before a Court. I should have looked for justice, and I have no doubt I should have obtained it. But you will not put any number or mark upon a policeman's uniform in Ireland by which a man may be identified. Why is this, unless you are ashamed of the work they are doing t If there is any class of men who ought to be identified, it is the police in Ireland, who are constantly in situations where the sense of responsibility ought to be pressed upon them, and the knowledge that they could be identified would be a wholesome check. I could not identify the man; and even if I were able to do so, the result of a summons would be that the charge would be heard before the man who is the officer of these police, who was in command of men who committed unprovoked outrages upon Nationalists in Tipperary. This officer (Mr. Caddell) is a kind of Pasha in the district; he distributes justice from

    359
    the Bench, and he orders baton charges in the streets. So to summon a policeman for assault or for any other offence, is a waste of time and money. At this Boherlahan meeting the police three times tried to break it up, and three times Mr. O'Brien and I interposed between the police and the people; and, but for our exertions, the police 'would have been attacked, and there would have been serious injuries inflicted on either side through the idiotic unprovoked conduct of the police. The next instant a police car was seen approaching, containing four policemen, and the police driver lashed the horse into full speed, and drove right into the crowd composed mainly of women and children. I saw the shaft of the car strike a woman on the breast, and, but for two men striking the horse across the face with blackthorn sticks in order to cause the animal to rear, and then seizing the reins—but for that the car would have been driven into the midst of the people, and there is no knowing how many would have been knocked down and injured. Is that the way to conduce the suppression of a public meeting when the people are excited? I was relieved when a Magistrate and 30 dragoons appeared in sight. The very instant the police saw the dragoons they, in the most cowardly, dastardly, black-guardedly manner, and without any provocation, began striking the people in all directions, to show, I suppose, their courage and energy in the presence of their officer, and feeling safe with the presence of the soldiers. The dragoons rode down to the spot, and the adjutant called on the people to disperse. There was no order to charge. I suppose there was a fear of a remonstrance from the British officer. The people dispersed at once. But hero is another instance of the spirit actuating the police. I was standing behind the dragoons who had ridden past me, and I saw the driver of the car who had tried to drive over the people jump off his car, and, without any order, draw his revolver. He stood like a brave man with a line of soldiers between him and the people who were dispersing, and three times he raised his revolver with his finger on the trigger. I was as near to him as I am now to the hon. Member in front of me. He was in no sort of
    360
    danger, yet he tried to take aim between the line of horses. Now, this is an indication of the spirit and temper that exists in the force, a dangerous spirit, which, if not checked with strong reprobation, will assuredly lead to serious bloodshed in the future. It is part of the design to goad the people from that peaceful policy which you know will be successful ultimately. After this incident, ending in nothing worse than a few cut heads, we drove on to Cashel. On the road the dragoons rode close behind our cars in order to prevent the people from following. At the entrance to the town of Cashel we were met by the Resident Magistrate in charge of Cashel, Mr. Shannon. This gentleman, I may remark, is a brother to Mr. Shannon, who conducted the case for the Times so successfully, and has now fled to America. This Magistrate, who had been directing baton charges in Cashel during the day, seeing us with our escort of dragoons, shouted in the most aggressive tone, "Bravo, Bruen! We have batoned them like hell in Cashel to-day." Such is the tone and temper of the men in charge of the police. We dismounted from our cars at the hotel, and close by were some dozen people, mostly women, who had taken refuge from baton charges in an archway leading into the hotel yard; and when I stepped off the car these people crowded around me and began shaking hands, crying, "God bless you!" and at that moment the police were ordered to charge and clear the people out. Now, what offence had these people committed? Is it to be laid down as the law in Ireland that for the people to shake hands with a Member of Parliament is a punishable offence? I say, from the evidence of my own eyes, there was no other offence; there was no attempt to hold a meeting; there was not even a cheer. A cheer, we know, is a serious offence; and one man raising a cheer may be subjected to a baton charge and a broken head. I stood before the police and called out, "What is it you want the people to do? Tell me and I will get them to do it. Are they to be bludgeoned because they shake hands with me?" Now, I attribute it not to my appeal, but to the fact that 20 dragoons were looking on that the Magistrate said, "Well, men, put up your batonsand shove

    361
    them out of that." Now, I ask why, on what ground do Magistrates, entrusted with the delicate duty of preserving the peace, behave in this way? We, whatever our sins may be, are trusted by the people. We may be scoundrels of the deepest dye, but we have more power over the people than you have. Is this the way to preserve the peace, to incite to tumult by insulting every Irish Member who comes among the people? I will give another instance to show the spirit prevailing. After we got into the hotel, Mr. O'Brien went to the telegraph office at the other end of the town to end off a message, and immediately he was followed by 10 dragoons and about 40 policemen in charge of a Magistrate. I, looking out, felt some amusement at the proceeding, and determined to see the result, and followed my hon. Friend. Thereupon, my Magistrate—I say my Magistrate, and I mean the Magistrate specially interesting himself in my movements—and a force of police and dragoons escorted me, and so we had a double procession down the street. We reached the telegraph office, and while we were inside, the imposing force of police and military formed a hollow square in front to prevent an address being delivered from the steps of the house, a thing we had not the slightest intention of doing. Mr. O'Brien went up the street, and I returned to the hotel escorted as before. In the street, at corners and along the walls of the houses, ready to bolt into the houses, a few people were scattered; and, as I passed, these people raised a feeble cheer. Without any warning a charge was ordered by Mr. Shannon. Now, what offence was committed? The people ought to be warned that they are not allowed to shake hands, to cheer Members of Parliament, or to groan for Mr. Balfour on pain of having their heads broken on the spot. If any persons, men or women, venture to groan, they are rushed upon and batoned at once; and it is laid down by the police themselves that this is unquestionably an offence. In this case the charge was ordered for the offence of an isolated handful of people. I turned to the Magistrate and said, "Will you be kind enough to inform me what it is you want the people to abstain from doing, and I will tell them and
    362
    obtain their acquiescence?" And the Magistrate replied, "I will give you no information." I then asked, "Do you decline to give me the information which will enable me to aid you in preserving the peace?" And the Magistrate replied, "That is accurate." He said this in a manner which was grossly offensive. On these facts the following questions arise: First, is it legal to attack a peaceable meeting, even although it has been proclaimed, without due warning sufficient to allow the people to disperse? Secondly, when no attempt has been made to hold a meeting, is it legal to charge and baton small groups of people who are doing nothing but cheering or shaking bands with Members of Parliament? Thirdly, when a crowd of people is charged by the police, when no resistance is offered and people fly as quickly as they can, is it lawful to pursue them, to knock them down, and to baton them? The Executive Government are bound, if they have any degree of care for the peace of the country, or any regard for their own position, to give specific answers to these questions — definite answers that will act as a check upon their officials in Ireland. The unhappy people of Ireland live under conditions which it is almost impossible for the people of England to realise; under a centralised police system such as the English people had never come in contact with, a system so allied with the Magistracy that the people have no hope of remedy in the Courts of Law. This House is the only place to which the people of Tipperary can look for any remedy, and it is because they hope to receive a considerable amount of sympathy and support from a large Party in this House that we do not now hear of those serious and violent outrages which used to be so frequent in Ireland. I now have a word or two to say in regard to the so-called explosives. The Times, evidently determined to keep up its reputation for veracity, speaks of bombs exploded amongst the police for the purpose of clearing a way through them. This is childish nonsense. Let the Chief Secretary produce a single policeman who has received a scratch. With the exception of one or two attempts to injure buildings, which were made a long time before meetings were ad

    363
    dressed by English Members of Parliament, there has been no use at all of what could be properly described as explosives. What have been used were mere crackers or squibs, which produced a report something like that of a pistol-shot, made of short lengths of gaspipe with a little powder in them, made and thrown for the purpose of creating alarm, by mischievous boys over whom politicians could exercise no control whatever. The police have been good enough to show their museum of explosives to Mr. Byles, of the Bradford Observer, who found that six out of 10 were short lengths of gaspipe, whilst the seventh was a champagne bottle, and the most serious of all was the hub of a wheel which had been exploded in a a narrow street and had brought down some guttering. The tenants knew nothing about these things, which are only such explosives as are let off by boys in the streets of New York every Fourth of July; and that the storm about them was a ridiculus mus is shown by the fact that the Dublin Daily Express concluded its description of a canister that had contained gunpowder by saying that—
    "Of course no danger could accrue from the explosion, but it is evident that it was placed there for the purpose of alarming and causing annoyance to the police."
    By the very testimony of avowed enemies no harm was intended. A more serious matter is the intolerable practice, continued from day to day, of "shadowing" Members of Parliament. I, Sir, have had an unfortunate experience of being shadowed by the police, and I remember having met in Australia a man who had been engaged in this kind of duty, but who is now happily converted. He described to me the whole process of shadowing a Member of Parliament, and the process is this: The Member is watched from a distance by two or three men employed on this particular duty. They take note of every person who speaks to him or to whom he himself may speak. They watch every house he goes into, and lake down the number of people in that house, or who enter it while he is there. That is the system which is being pursued in Ireland. I think it is a very odious system, but it is one that has been followed in Ireland for many
    364
    years. The present Government have, in point of fact, invented a system of shadowing which, I venture to think, is not equalled by anything which takes place in Russia. We had a conversation the other day as to some words uttered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, which had been grossly diverted from their true meaning. The right hon. Gentleman was sneered and scoffed at for saying what he did not say with regard to the condition of things in Ireland, as comparable to what is taking place in Siberia. But I do not hesitate to say that we have in Ireland a state of things which, if they were described as taking place in Odessa or St. Petersburg, would raise a howl throughout this country. Well, what have you done in Ireland? In Tipperary, the parish priest cannot leave his home without being "shadowed" by two officers, one of whom walks by his side and the other close behind him, and insists upon hearing the conversation between the priest and anyone he speaks to in the street. This infamous and unparalleled process is inflicted on the mere ipse dixit of the incompetent, insolent, and most objectionable Magistrate who has been sent down to take charge of the district. Mr. Caddell is inexperienced and incompetent, and yet anybody can be subjected to this intolerable system on Mr. Caddell's mere suspicion. Not every one could submit to such persecution all day long without losing their temper; it is not in human nature to stand such a system. The public peace is daily and hourly put in danger, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is responsible for whatever does occur. There was a case brought before Mr. Caddell where a policeman was charged with assaulting a civilian. Three respectable witnesses swore to the assault, which the policeman denied. Though the policeman's evidence was unsupported, Mr. Caddell dismissed the summons, and fined the complainant £1 costs. Another case decided by Mr. Caddell was that of a man charged with assaulting his "shadow." He was a respectable farmer who had come into town, and was immediately shadowed by the police, and very shortly afterwards was arrested by his shadow on a charge of assault. He was brought before the same Mr. Caddell, and the charge was that he

    365
    attempted to trip up the policeman and shove him off the path. Three independent witnesses swore that the alleged assault could not have been committed without their seeing it, and that they did not see it. When the case was before him Colonel Caddell said "Why were you following Mr. Hayes that day?" The complainant replied, "I believed he was on the street for the purpose of boycotting some shopmen." Whereupon Colonel Caddell said that the case was one in which he had very little doubt, as he had the sworn testimony of the constable that he had been tripped and nearly fell, and was shoved off the path by the defendant, of whom the police had stated they had information that he was a person taking part in the diabolical business of boycotting. Persons like the defendant, he added, were acting against the rescripts of their Church, and, therefore, he had no hesitation in convicting the defendant. I wish the House to mark this reference to boycotting, about which there never was a tittle of evidence given before the Court. Nevertheless, this gentleman has no hesitation in convicting a defendant against the sworn testimony of three respectable witnesses, because he thinks he was engaged in boycotting, when no such question was really before him. A more glaring instance could not be given of the way in which men like this are in the habit of dispensing justice in Ireland. Mr. Caddell evidently has no idea how to behave in a Court of Law. He is a daily and imminent danger to the peace of the district, where the police are drinking, and acting in the most irregular, undisciplined, and irresponsible fashion. They are encouraged in the belief that, whatever they may do, they will not be held responsible, and that their unsupported story will be accepted without any inquiry by the right hon. Gentleman. Although the Irish Members have used strong language with reference to the late Mr. Forster, and although they felt bound to stuggle against his administration, yet Mr. Forster was not the man who would have gone down to play lawn-tennis in a remote part of England when he had issued orders which, for aught the person who issued them knew or cared, might lead to results infinitely more disastrous and disgraceful than
    366
    those which stained the square of Mitchelstown with blood. I forget where the right hon. Gentleman was when he heard of the Mitchelstown murders, but he might have been engaged in the same kind of thing, and I say that this is not the way in which the people of Ireland ought to be treated. While this state of things exists in Tipperary, while the police and the people do not speak to each other, there is no hope for the preservation of the law; and the responsibility for all these misfortunes and troubles lies on the head of the Executive, who encourage the police and the Magistrates to pursue these evil courses. The heavy duty lies on the House of securing that the police of Ireland shall not be encouraged to act in the horrible way I have described; that they shall not be taught that they have no responsibility to the people; and that they shall have those wholesome restraints imposed upon them which are applied in every other country of liberty. The police should be made to know that the men who speak in the fullest way the voice of the people of Ireland will at least be listened to when criticising the conduct of the police; and that when the, police resort to violence, an inquiry will follow, at which civilian evidence will be listened to. Until that is done it is idle to hope that either the police or the Magistracy will be able to secure the confidence of the Irish people. I beg to move "That the House do now adjourn."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Dillon.)
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has confined himself, for the most part, to an account in detail, which I shall have to traverse, of recent affairs in Tipperary, and he has indulged in none of those general attacks upon the Government which are familiar on occasions of this sort. He did, however, criticise my conduct in not having been present in Dublin at the time the meetings in Tipperary were held. I can only say that I took every possible precaution and made every arrangement for pro-

    367
    viding that there should be an adequate force of policemen on the spot—[An hon. MEMBER: Murder]—so that if any untoward event occurred at all events the responsibility should not rest upon my shoulders. The hon. Member drew a distinction between the attitude of the present Government and that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite some years ago.
    MR,. DILLON: I merely drew a distinction between the conduct of Mr. Forster, who attended personally in Dublin when a great crisis took place, and the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman apparently does not draw any distinction between the conduct of the present Government and the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and in that he is, I think, strictly in accordance with historical accuracy. Though I do not in the least wish to go back upon the unhappy incidents which occurred in Ireland between 1880 and 1885, I could, if it were worth while, read extracts from the contemporaneous criticisms of Nationalist Members—criticisms not cheered by the Liberal Party when they were sitting on this side of the House, precisely parallel to, though couched in more violent language than, the criticisms passed upon us and upon the police in Ireland by the hon. Gentleman to-night. Now, Sir, this question necessarily divides itself into two branches. In the first place, we have to ask whether the general arrangements of the Government for suppressing the meeting were prudent, and whether the police acted with judgment and moderation; and, in the second place, we have to inquire whether the Government were justified in proclaiming the meetings to be held in Tipperary and Cashel? The questions are entirely distinct. I deal with them in their order. The hon. Member for Mayo said that if we meant to proclaim the meeting at Tipperary we ought to have proclaimed it sooner. He said we had ample notice of the character of the meeting, and that, nevertheless, we did not post our placard till the day before the meeting was to be held. He farther told us that the objects of the meeting were defined as being to
    368
    welcome him and his Colleague the hon. Member for North-East Cork, and to hear addresses from the Members of Parliament for the county. On all these points the hon. Member is, I believe, in error. I recollect that in the Debate just before we separated for the Whitsuntide holidays much stress was laid by hon. Members from.' Ireland on the fact that we proposed to interfere with a meeting to be held by Members for the purpose of addressing their constituents. But there was not a word, as far as I am informed, in the placards posted in Tipperary about the Members for Tipperary or any other-Members of Parliament except the two Members whom I have just alluded to. The placard, which was posted OK Friday, May 23, was as follows:—
    "Great meeting at Tipperary on Sunday next, the 2oth inst., Messrs. J. Dillon, M.P., and W, O'Brien, M.P., will deliver addresses."
    [An hon. MEMBER: IS that all?] That is all, according to the copy of the placard which has been furnished to me, and if that be correct, as I believe it is, even the flimsy pretext of an address-to constituents has been abandoned, and judiciously abandoned, by those who were responsible for the arrangements on that occasion. The hon. Gentleman says that long notice was given to us of the intention to hold the meeting, and that we gave no notice to him, to his Colleagues, or to the people of Tipperary, that we were going to stop, it As far as I can make out no> placard was posted in Tipperary announcing the meeting until the Friday afternoon, at the earliest. Questions on the subject were put to me in this House on the Thursday by the hon. Member for West Belfast and the right hon Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, and I then made the following statement:—
    "I have no very full details of the objects of the meeting before me, but certainly if an, open-air meeting is to be held in Tipperary in-its present condition, and if inflammatory speeches are likely to be made, it would undoubtedly lead to intimidation, and any such, meeting must be stopped."
    That was very fair notice given on the Thursday, and more explicit notice still was given on the Friday. So much for the first accusation brought against the Government by the hon. Gentleman, that we, in accordance, as he was

    369
    good enough to say, with our habitual practice, had delayed proclaiming the meeting, in order, if possible, to provoke a conflict between the police and the people. Although it was known that no meeting would be permitted, nevertheless, knowing that, and knowing the character of the scenes which experience, and, unhappily, long experience, in Ireland, has shown attend these abortive attempts to hold proclaimed meetings, the hon. Gentleman and his Friends took upon themselves the grave responsibility, in the face of the proclamation, of engaging in a course of conduct which might have led, though happily it did not lead, to a serious, nay, a dangerous conflict between the police and the people. The hon. Gentleman has given us, in great detail, a narrative of the events in Tipperary and Cashel. I will frankly admit, and I dare say he expects, that the account I have received of these transactions differs vitally and fundamentally from that which he has thought it his duty to lay before the House. I am informed that the meeting at Limerick Junction did not exceed 300 or 400 persons, and that it consisted almost entirely of those who came by special train, with the addition of a few of the leaders of the hon. Gentleman's Party resident in Tipperary; and I think probably the police were well advised, in these circumstances, not to interfere with the meeting. Then the hon. Gentleman has given us an account of what happened to himself and his friends in Tipperary. Judging by what he states, it would seem that the police entertained themselves during the day in pursuing flying men, women, and children, into their shops and houses, that baton charges were resorted to without provocation, and that no attempts were made by the people to injure the police. According to the picture drawn by the hon. Gentleman the whole transaction consisted of the hon. Gentleman on one side attempting to preserve order, and the police on the other attempting to disturb it. Well, Sir, I do not think that picture has even the elements of plausibility about it. The hon. Gentleman must have been perfectly aware that his presence in Tipperary, under the circumstances, was the very worst way of keeping the peace and protecting the people that
    370
    could well be devised. I do not believe that any baton charge took place unprovoked on that occasion. Stones were thrown at the police, and then they undoubtedly——
    MR. DILLON: I understood it was customary in this House to accept an hon. Member's word. I stated that I was charged myself while standing with live Colleagues in conversation, and while we were doing nothing. Yet the right hon. Gentleman, without quoting any witness, deliberately gives me the lie across the floor of the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather from your not rising, Sir, that you are of opinion, as I think wall be obvious to every man listening to me, that in giving my version of what I believe to be the facts I am contradicting the hon. Gentleman, but I am in no Parliamentary sense giving him the lie. I believe he has given to the House statements which he believes to be true. At all events, I am entitled to hold that opinion.
    MR. DILLON: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be of opinion that he is entitled to say that what I have stated as an eye-witness he does not believe. I have only stated that which came under my own eyes; yet the right hon. Gentleman says he does not believe it, and quotes no evidence and no authority in support of his assertions.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman appears to me to put a curious construction upon that rule of courtesy which forbids one Member of the House to give the lie to another. I had not the slightest intention of doing so. I do not believe the hon. Member meant to mislead the House, although I do believe that, as a matter of fact, he has done so. There is nothing unparliamentary or offensive in saying that. I am but stating my own personal convictions, based upon such a study as I have been able to give to the subject. If that statement be in opposition to that of the hon. Gentleman, I want to know why I should be precluded from giving it to the House. The hon. Gentleman referred to a baton charge, as I understood him, when he and five other persons alone occupied the square in the Market Place at Tipperary. I have not the least doubt that the hon. Gentleman had no concern

    371
    whatever in stone-throwing, but I believe I am right in saying that every charge of the police in Tipperary that day was provoked by some outrage of the character of stone-throwing. I desire to conduct this controversy with courtesy towards hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am bound to state to the House what I believe to be the truth. The hon. Gentleman has given what he believes to be the truth.
    MR. DILLON: I know it to be the truth.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And when the whole case has been surveyed the House will be in a position to judge between us. We have had some sensational accounts given of police charges, in which it is said a woman was struck by a baton, and in which a cripple was knocked over the head by a policeman. I saw these statements in the newspaper, and I have done my best to inquire what foundation there is for them. There was a woman struck, not by the police, but by a stone thrown by the crowd, but as to the cripple I can find nothing whatever about him, and I believe him to be imaginary. I do not think the hon. Member gave, us this statement as an eye witness. Then the hon. Gentleman gave us an account of what happened at Cashel in very much the same strain as his narrative of what happened at Tipperary. So far as I can make out, no meeting was held in Cashel itself. There was a meeting held at a place about 11 miles off, called Barrys-ford, and a meeting which was attempted to be held between that place and Cashel was at once dispers3d. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the police charged before any provocation was given, but he is misinformed on a very material point.
    MR. DILLON: I was struck myself.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not assert that the hon. Gentleman had not been struck. As I understand, the police did not charge till one of them had been struck with a blackthorn. The police were a small body, and they were quite right in taking the initiative; but there does not appear to have been on that occasion any serious injury inflicted on the crowd, nor, I am happy to say, on the hon. Gentleman himself. Then the hon. Gentleman was good enough to prophecy that my defence would, chiefly rest upon the bombs, and
    372
    he gave us an account of these bombs, which throws a strong light on the very peculiar condition of Tipperary.
    MR. DILLON: I said that I had gone into the museum in which the police had collected what they called the explosives which had been thrown in nine months, and of these there were only two which had been thrown since the month of April, and they were nearly all of a perfectly innocent character.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that in the course of the agitation conducted by the hon. Gentleman and his friends a practice had grown up of throwing bombs, or, as he is pleased to describe them, squibs; some of them of a character, according to the hon. Gentleman's own confession, capable of seriously injuring houses, and therefore presumably capable of injuring any person in them. I have looked at some of these interesting implements for securing the freedom of Ireland, and the most innocent of them can hardly be described as a squib. Any Member of this House—for instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who should find himself in the position of having one of these interesting instruments thrown across his path by boys, if boys they were—would think that they were exceeding the licence usually allowed to boys in England or Scotland.
    MR. DILLON: Has any one been hurt?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: So far as I know, nobody has been hurt. If the criterion of innocence in method be the absence of fatal results, I can point with satisfaction to the fact that in the transactions of Sunday and Tuesday last no one was seriously hurt, and claim, on the hon. Member's own showing, that the action of the police is not open to serious adverse criticism. But let me tell the House what these so-called squibs are. The most innocent of them were those thrown at the police on Sunday week last, and against which, so far as I know, no public remonstrance was offered by the hon. Gentleman or his friends.
    MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentle-makes a direct charge against me. I had been driven off the square by a police charge, and I could not open my mouth. In the name of Heaven, how could I remonstrate in these circum-

    373
    stances? When I offered to keep the peace they would not allow me to do so.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has declared he has great influence with the people, and is prepared to tell them what to do. These bombs were not thrown for the first time on Monday week, but three or four months ago, and I have heard no protest——
    MR. DILLONrose.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member will pardon me. He has already interrupted me a good deal. I say these bombs were not thrown for the first time on Monday week. Upon the hon. Gentleman's own showing, some of them, and the most dangerous, were thrown many weeks, and some of them many months ago. Has any word of public remonstrance come at any period from any of the Irish Members as to the use of these weapons in Tipperary? The most innocent of them, those, namely, which were used on Monday week, and which were then thrown in the direction of the police, were composed of two or three inches of lead pipe fastened up at one end, filled with powder, and plugged at the other end. I do not say that these weapons would necessarily prove of a very destructive character, but I still think that very few Members of this House would regard with equanimity that the streets through which they had to pass were strewed with them. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" "Strewed."] Hon. Members do not do me the honour to listen to what I say. I did not say Tipperary streets were strewed with such thing's; but if these are innocent things why should the streets not be strewed with them? As a matter of fact, I believe hon. Members would take a very different estimate of the character of these bombs were they the persons against whom the instruments were directed. But much more formidable weapons than these lead pipes have been used. I have seen another of these implements was the axle box of a cart wheel with the two ends closed by thick iron plates and screwed together with a long rivet. This was filled with powder, and a fuse was placed in it. The hon. Gentleman tells us that this was done with the object of injuring buildings, and not in-
    374
    dividuals. Was ever such an extraordinary excuse made for a diabolical outrage? This was placed at the rent office window of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hunts, and another instrument of a similar construction was put near to the house of a Mr. Fitzgerald, who had purchased the interest of his holding at a Sheriff's sale. The hon. Member admits that transactions of this kind have several times occurred, and yet he comes down here as a champion of the cause of law and order without having used the great influence which ho possesses in Tipperary to prevent these things from being used.
    MR. DILLON: I did; I spoke strongly against them.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then as to shadowing. I do not think the practice of shadowing persons suspected of illegal proceedings can be an agreeable one, or upon which we in this House can look with any satisfaction; but which are we to prefer—shadowed criminals or committed crimes? There is no one who can point out any individual who has been subjected to this system of shadowing who is not concerned in the criminal offence of boycotting.
    THE EARL OF CAVAN: I beg to say that a deputation that I sent over, consisting of three men who were perfectly innocent of boycotting, were shadowed all the time they were in Ireland.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I was never charged with boycotting, and yet I was shadowed all the time I was in Ireland.
    MR. H. J. WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that about me, because he has admitted in this House that I was followed about.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that I have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Member for East Mayo drew a perfectly legitimate distinction between that observation by the police, which he truly says has long been found necessary in Ireland—
    MR. DILLOX: I do not say anything of the kind.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And the system of shadowing of which he complained. Hon. Gentlemen who have interrupted me may have in some sense

    375
    been under police observation, but they were not shadowed in the sense of which the hon. Member complains.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I was.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The people who are shadowed in this way are those who make themselves responsible for cattle boycotting at fairs and other transactions of a similar character. I do not believe the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) would be of the least use as an agent for cattle boycotting, and I am sure, therefore, that the police would not take the slightest notice of him. Now, I should like the House to consider who are on their trial in this Debate. [Opposition cheers, and cries of "You are."] The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and hon. Members behind him, who so vociferously cheered my question, are clearly of opinion that Her Majesty's Government are on their trial. I do not take that view. In my opinion, when the responsible Government of the day has proclaimed a meeting, it may and ought to be asked on what grounds they did so; but I do not think that any man, be he who he may, knowing the results that must follow from his action, is justified in doing at Tipperary and at Cashel what the hon. Member for East Mayo and his friends have done. If there has been any violence consequent upon their operations, they are to blame, and not the Government. It is impossible to disperse a crowd without some degree of violence; but I do not believe that the degree of violence used at Tipperary and Cashel was excessive. Though we have heard vague statements about injuries received by this man and that man in the crowd, and while the estimate of the number of wounded persons has been put at 43, I cannot discover that any serious injury has been inflicted by the police upon any human being, except, perhaps, in the case of the boy Heffernan. I believe the most serious injuries that have occurred during these troubled months in Tipperary have been injuries inflicted, not by the police on the people but by the people on the police. I have seen it stated in an article in the Speaker, written by some felicitous imitator of the style of the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), that no police were injured. [An hon.
    376
    MEMBER: He signed the article.] Did he? Well, if he did make that statement he made it under grave misapprehension, because I am informed that two policemen have been so seriously injured that they have had to leave the Force, and have received as compensation £300 and £500 respectively, awarded by the Grand Jury. ["They were bogus cases."] The cases, came before the Grand Jury. ["When?"] Since these transactions occurred. I believe that no injuries were inflicted upon any one of the people comparable with those injuries, and I think that there is no evidence that those inflicted in the case of last Sunday week and Tuesday week were in any way of a serious character. Now I come to what I think a more important question than the action of the police; I come to the action of the Government. Was the Government justified, or was it not, in the course which it took in proclaiming this meeting? The hon. Member for East Mayo is under a grave misapprehension as to the law under which we act in Ire-laud. The law under which our action is taken is precisely the same as the law in England, and under that law, as I fully admit, a meeting is not rendered illegal by the proclamation of the Government. It was rendered illegal under the Coercion Act of 1882, but, under the Crimes Act now in operation, it is not in the power of the Government to make a meeting illegal by its mere fiat; but what the Government can do by its fiat is to throw grave responsibility upon those who, in the face of such a proclamation, persist in holding a meeting. A meeting is rendered illegal by the circumstances which surround it. If it is likely to lead to intimidation or boycotting, outrage, or crime of any sort, the meeting is, ipso facto, an illegal meeting. Does the hon. Member, or do any of his friends, deny that the meeting which he and his friends attempted or desired to hold last Sunday week was not an illegal meeting under the definition which I have given? Some parallel has been attempted to be drawn between the meeting which was proclaimed and the meeting which was permitted a month or two before. I admit that, in the then circumstances at Tipperary, it may be doubtful, and it was doubtful, whether we should have allowed even the banquet of April 10

    377
    to take place; but, on the whole, we decided that, taking into account the circumstances of the case, it was permissible. But those circumstances were perfectly different from the circumstances of Sunday week. The programme of the meeting in the case of the banquet was made public, and the managers were approached by the authorities and told that if the programme was not departed from they might hold the meeting. There is an account of the order of proceedings in the Freeman's Journal of April 10, stating that the hon. Members would arrive in such and such a way, and there would be a luncheon, a dinner, the reading of some original poetry by the hon. Member for Dublin, and so on—the usual thing. There was nothing serious in the programme. I have been asked whether the fact that English Members were to be present had any influence upon me. It had great influence upon me: I do not in the least degree deny it. I know that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are on their best behaviour before English Members; I know that they would be reluctant to make those speeches, which I am justified in calling criminal speeches, which they have too often made in Ireland—speeches which produce the consequences in Tipperary and elsewhere which we so much deplore. We know, also, what kind of things these public banquets are. One gentleman gets up and congratulates another upon all the great things he has done, and the other gentleman then gets up and returns all the compliments with interest. I have taken part in these things myself. They are all the same; a great deal of champagne is drunk, and a great many speeches—some bad some good—are made without any serious consequences occurring to any one. Now, compare that with the meeting announced to be held the other day. The time chosen was a period when the tenants of the hon. Member for South Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry) had to redeem or lose their right to redeem. It was known perfectly well that they desired to redeem; it was regarded as essential to the Nationalist cause that they should not redeem; it was thought that the patriotism with which they had been credited for making sacrifices to the National cause
    378
    would be the better for receiving a jog in the shape of a great demonstration held among them, presided over by the two Members of this House who, more than any others, are responsible for the Plan of Campaign and boycotting. Was that to be tolerated by any responsible Government? Those who say that it was must, I think, be in ignorance of the state to which the policy of hon. Members has reduced Tipperary since September last. Since that time Tipperary has been given up to a mob, who were the instruments for carrying out the policy of intimidation to which too many of these unfortunate shopkeepers have had to succumb. Boycotting was rife throughout the town; crime of all sorts had largely increased. On this point I have been challenged by the hon. Member opposite in the course of his speech. Before the recess, I gave the figures for the last four months of last year, as compared with the figures of the last four months of the two preceding years. The House will recollect that in 1887 the total of crimes of' drunkenness and assault and other crimes affecting the public peace amounted' to 143. In 1888 the number was 162, while in 1889 it rose to 269, so that in the two years preceding last year the total of the four months but little exceeded the number for the corresponding four months of one year under the régime of hon. Members opposite. I was challenged whether I would continue these figures. I said I would make inquiry. I have made inquiry, and I find that during the first four months of 1888 the figures were 118. In the first four months of 1889 they were 110, while in the first four months of 1890 they rose to 258. So that there has been, as I have said, a startling increase of crime.
    MR. DILLON: What class of crime?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Drunkenness, assaults, and other crimes affecting the public peace—showing that concurrently with this attempt at mob rule, this system of boycotting and intimidation, these outrages with explosives, we have a general increase of other crimes connected with the public peace. That is a matter which should be carefully considered by hon. Gentlemen when they consider the action of the Government. They must remember that the houses of those persons who attempted to redeem were

    379
    wrecked by the mob. I stated before that a Member of this House had boasted that these things had occurred. I believe he controverts the fact—he has stated in the Freeman's Journal that he never made any speech of the kind. What he did, or what he was reported to have done in a newspaper the editor of which is, I understand, a personal friend of his, was to give to the reporter of the newspaper the account which I quoted accurately. In addition to the wrecking of houses Ave have had the destruction of goods sold by a boycotted shopkeeper. If a boycotted shopkeeper is fortunate enough to find a customer the customer has to send the goods back or have them destroyed by being publicly burnt. We have had riots and assaults, and only the other day the family of a Protestant minister who had lived in Tipperary in peace with his neighbours for many years was attacked by some ruffians whom, unfortunately, we have not been able to identify. These are the methods by which the people of Tipperary are "brought into line." These are the methods by which they are induced to present a united front to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hunts. If anybody desires to know what the methods of Irish agitation are, let them go to Tipperary—[Opposition cheers, and an IRISH MEMBER: Let them go, and welcome]—and study, as they easily may—[Opposition cheers, and a VOICE: It is above board.]
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And study the action which, under inspiration from hon. Gentlemen, has made that town a disgrace to civilisation in order to carry out political objects or satisfy the personal ambition of some gentlemen who regard themselves as leaders of their people. A quarrel has been picked with a man who, by the admission of his own tenants, is one of the best landlords in Ireland, and the result of that quarrel is that demoralisation has spread over the whole community. Desolation will undoubtedly follow the crime. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen will succeed in ruining the hon. Member for South Hunts, but I think it is more than possible they will succeed in ruining Tipperary. [An hon. MEMBER: Come and try it.] It is because we have these facts in view, because we
    380
    have surveyed the whole course of this controversy, because we observe that intimidation dogs the heels of the agitators of the Irish Party, that we thought that, when they went down to Tipperary and declared their intention of holding a demonstration at this critical period, we should be cowards, and utterly unworthy of carrying out the duties with which we are entrusted if we had refrained from proclaiming it, and from effectually preventing it being held.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have no doubt that this Debate will proceed to some considerable length from the grave nature of the matters which have been laid before the House; but I have no hesitation in asking to intervene at this time, because I think we have reached ground that is perfectly clear and definite. We have heard the able statement of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I have no doubt the case he stated will be supported by his friends who were eyewitnesses, but I assume that the substantial matters in the case have been produced in the speech of the hon. Member. In that speech, I observed, he commenced by taking objection in mild terms to the Proclamation issued by the Government against certain meetings in Ireland; but everyone who heard him must have seen that his charge on that ground was perfectly secondary. It was not upon that that he made his principal appeal either to the understanding or the feelings of the House. But we are in this predicament, that while the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has made a careful, detailed, argumentative reply on the part of the Government to the impeachment of their conduct as to the issuing of the Proclamation, to the more grave and serious portions of the charges on which the hon. Member laid stress, as the gist and bulk of his complaint, the right hon. Gentleman has not referred at all. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman thinks he has made a reply, and I do not consider that the assertion I make is to be accepted without proof. I think it is very easy to show by reference to the particulars that the proof will be forthcoming. I do not intend to detain the House at any length, and I will mention at once the course I should recommend

    381
    to the hon. Member and his friends to pursue. In my opinion, the allegations made by the hon. Member are of the gravest nature. The Government no doubt dispute those allegations and think they have met them. In my opinion, they have not been met at all. The matters are of such gravity that, in my opinion, we cannot leave them suspended in the air between the strong, broad, numerous, pointed, and definite statements of the hon. Member, and the vague, thin, irrelevant, general, intangible statements made by the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that we cannot allow this subject to pass by with the charge and the reply. It deserves, it requires, and it ought to command a public inquiry. Hon. Gentlemen are quite competent to judge of their own course, but that is the course I should recommend and suggest to them. If they make such a proposal it shall have my support, and I believe it will receive the support of all those with whom I have the honour to act. Three questions were put to the Chief Secretary, of which he has taken no notice whatever The first of them was this: the hon. Member alleged that the meeting was dispersed with no sort of notice. Is it right that public meetings should be attacked with no sort of notice and with no warning to the people? Is that the value we set on the right of public meeting? I say that no meeting could be dispersed in England without notice given.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said that the meeting was proclaimed by a notice put up on the Saturday. Everybody knew of the notice.
    MR W. E. GLADSTONE: That is not it. I do not mean that; I mean notice at the time the meeting was dispersed. The position I lay down is that it is not right, I believe it is not legal, I am certain it is not customary, I am confident also it is fatal to public liberty, if public assemblies not engaged in acts that involve violence and breach of the peace are to be dispersed by the use of violent means, without previous notice to them that they ought to disperse and that it is the intention of the agents of the law to disperse them. The right hon. Gentleman made no statement whatever on that point showing whether notice was given. He said nothing
    382
    which would lead us to believe that notice was to be given, or to allow us to assume that in future notice will be given. The second question was whether it was right that parties of police should charge with their batons upon small and peaceable groups of persons—upon groups such as that in which the hon. Member himself stood, upon groups of women and children. As to the group in which he stood, the hon. Member made a clear, striking, significant and definite statement; and what was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman? I accept his statement that he had no intention of giving the lie to the hon. Member for Mayo. He made this vague and general answer. First of all he tried to trap him into a statement which he had not made, and then he said he did not believe there was on that occasion any batoning at all, except in answer to the stone-throwing at the police. Where were those stones thrown at the police if not from the group of which the hon. Member formed a part? Were there any stones thrown at the time of the charges and the batoning? Has the right hon. Gentleman ventured upon a single definite allegation? No. It is a general presumption that he entertains, and he apparently believes it to to be his duty to have absolute faith in his agents in Ireland, and I am sorry to see that they are endeavouring to copy the spirit of many of the right hon. Gentleman's own speeches. No answer has been given to this definite statement of an hon. Member's personal experience. The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not believe, and, so far as he is informed, he does not know, that there was any charge by batons by the police except when stones wore thrown.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When the hon. Member accused me of having given him the lie, what I did was to contradict him precisely and categorically.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Now we will see how the matter stands. We must endeavour to draw the right hon. Gentleman out of the darkness. The hon. Member for Mayo says that he was standing in a group of six or seven persons, with, I think, five Parliamentary Colleagues and a priest, when an order was given to the police first to draw their batons and then to charge the group.

    383
    That statement the right hon. Gentleman says he categorically denies.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Then we must go to a Committee to see what is the truth. I do not want to fasten upon the right hon. Gentleman more than he is responsible for, but I now understand him to say that from some hallucination or other, the very precise statement of facts made by the hon. Member for Mayo is not true, that the hon. Member was not the object of an attack by the police, who were first ordered to draw their batons and then to charge the group of six or seven persons. That is categorically denied by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What is categorically denied is that the charge in question was made by the police upon the hon. Member.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I must say that the interpretation that I put upon the very clear statement of the hon. Member for Mayo was this, that whatever may have been the intention—I do not say ferocious intention, but certainly violent and an intemperate intention—of the person who gave the order, there was humanity and compunction on the part of the police—that, in fact, the police did not give full effect to their orders and did not charge.
    MR. DILLON: They did charge, and passed clean through us, with batons drawn; but the humanity of the police was greater than that of their officers; for, when they came abreast of us, they broke rank and passed us without batoning us, and re-formed on the other side. While the police were charging, their officers kept shouting, "Close your ranks and drive them before you."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Upon a matter affecting his personal experience as to what came within his own view and almost within his arm's length, an hon. Member receives a categorical denial. Is it possible, in these circumstances, to refuse a Parliamentary inquiry? Nor was that the only case of batoning mentioned by the hon. Member. The hon. Member gave in careful detail no fewer than four instances in which batons wore drawn and charges were made. And then, upon these facts, the hon. Member raised three general questions which have not
    384
    received an answer. The first question was, Are meetings to be dispersed by violence without any notice or invitation to the people to disperse? The second question is, Is it right that the police should be ordered to draw their batons and to charge groups of six or seven individuals engaged in no communication with others, or in anything that bears the semblance of an illegal act—groups incapable of violence, and consisting in some instances almost entirely of women and children? And there is the third question, Is it right, when a charge has been made, and when the people are running and are overtaken in escaping from the meeting, that they should be knocked down by the police and vindictively punished? To none of these questions has an answer been given. The third question is as important as the others, but I cannot overrate the importance of every one of them. I cannot conceive what is a case for inquiry if this is not. What says the right hon. Gentleman? He says that we ought not to take any notice of this case, because no one has been seriously injured. Sir, I say that the liberties of this country are to be vindicated when the exercise of those liberties is interfered with, even if you cannot prove that serious injury has taken place. But, what is meant by serious injury? I say that heads broken by the batons of the police are very serious affairs. It is idle to talk of maintaining law and order if you make light of such matters. The whole tendency of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on any of the points on which any reply has been made has been to exhibit the Government of the Queen and the agents of the Queen in Ireland as the principal upholders of law and order. Is it possible to conceive a graver issue for inquiry? The Chief Secretary says that the hon. Member for Mayo is upon his trial. I agree with him. Unquestionably that is so. If the hon. Member has deceived the House upon a statement of fact, the character and honour which the hon. Member has always maintained intact, and which he values, I apprehend, as much as any Member of this House, would grievously suffer. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that he thinks that the principal injuries have been those inflicted upon the police. How does he show that?

    385
    He shows it by stating that two policemen have been obliged to leave the force, and have received compensation from the Grand Juries of £300 and £500. But when wore those injuries inflicted? We are speaking now of the treatment of the people at Tipperary and Cashel a fortnight ago, and the right hon. Gentleman says that these policemen retired at some period, which he thinks was last September. What has that to do with the proceedings at Tipperary and Cashel a fortnight ago? I must say that I do not pretend to enter upon the question on which the right hon. Gentleman based the principal part of his speech—whether the proclnmation issued by the Irish Government deserves the approval or the censure of the House. That is a large and difficult question. If Ireland were being governed under laws breathing the spirit of freedom I should have no difficulty in condemning that proclamation. But when I consider what is the spirit of the Coercion Act of 1887 I feel that the Government are justified in drawing from such an Act rather large conclusions. Until I have more information on the subject I will not undertake to say whether the Government, in issuing the proclamation, have acted beyond the spirit of the Coercion Act, or merely in accordance with the spirit of that Act. As I have said, this is the main question before the House. An accusation has been made upon one set of questions, and a defence has been made upon another set of questions. I do not say that we are to draw irrevocable conclusions from these matters. I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have an opportunity of producing witnesses. My position is this. This is a case in which the strongest and the most imperative grounds have been made out for an inquiry. And now let me say one word about the system of espionage known as "shadowing." We have, first of all, the assertion, which is, at any rate, tacitly admitted even in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that a certain system of espionage, conducted with a certain amount of consideration and regard to decency, has long been in force in Ireland. But that is not the invention of the present Government. A new system has been introduced under the name of "shadowing." Under that system of
    386
    espionage a gentleman walking peaceably in the street has a policeman in plain clothes placed beside him, shoulder to shoulder.
    MR. DILLON: In uniform.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I meant in uniform, for that is a very large part of the charge. The policeman marches along with the gentleman wherever he goes, and whoever he accosts that policeman is the confidant of his conversation—conversation that the policeman has to report to a Resident Magistrate, under whose orders he is performing executive duties, and if a prosecution arises it is likely that the Resident Magistrate will hear the case. I must say on this state of things that, in my opinion, it is impossible to conceive a system of more outrageous tyranny combined with Constitutional freedom. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether there is one of them who would endure it. Is there any man in this House—even the feeblest—who would not use such means as Nature has given him to put an end to such abominable outrages, which are all the worse because they are inflicted in the name of law? What was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman? He asked, Which is the greater evil—to watch a criminal or to allow the commission of crime? Observe, that because some police officer suspects that somebody may have an intention of committing one of those offences which have been made crime by your legislation, on that account he is to be watched as a criminal and to be described as a criminal in this House. The priest of the parish is one of the gentlemen thus shadowed—he is accompanied by the police shoulder to shoulder along the footpath. There are not words strong enough to describe such abominations. Is there a single man sitting on the Benches behind the Chief Secretary who will get up and defend this new-fangled system of shadowing—an invention of the present Government and a symbol of firm government in Ireland? I think too well of them to believe they will take upon themselves the responsibility of such a defence. Knowing these things as we now know them, if the hon. Members for Cork and Mayo and the other Representatives of Ireland make a demand for inquiry, I ca not for a moment believe the first Lord of the

    387
    Treasury will refuse a serious and responsible inquiry by a Committee of this House into the allegations of the Mover of the Motion and the defence made on the part of the Government.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN": The right hon. Gentleman has made an unanswerable reply to the speech of the Chief Secretary, and because it is unanswerable it remains unanswered from the Treasury Bench. We on these Benches most cordially reecho that reply. If the Chief Secretary has the courage of his convictions, if he believes the horrid imputations he has thrown upon the people of Tipperary, now is his chance, he asked Englishmen to go to Tipperary if they wanted to study the methods of the Irish Government. We say yes. We ask him to send, not a stranger, not an individual, but a Select Committee of this House to Tipperary. The Chief Secretary says he has received accounts of these transactions fundamentally different from those of the Irish Members. The issue is whether it is the officials who are lying or the Irish Members. We invite and we challenge you to have the question probed to the bottom by a full public investigation, and let the English people see just once for all on which side is the truth and on which side is the lying and blackguardism. There are two great dangers to the public peace in Ireland. One is the conduct of the police on such occasions as that in question; and the other, and the far greater danger, is the delivery by the Chief Secretary of speeches such as that he has just made. The recklessness of statement exhibited by the right hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons is the main cause of the recklessness and ruffianism of his subordinates in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman wants Englishmen to go to Ireland. Oh, yes, but while they are there, the police are on their best behaviour. It is idle for the right hon. Gentleman to object to inquiry by saying there are no matters of fact in dispute. Was there, or was there not, on the 12th of April an open public meeting in the town of Tipperary, attended by thousands, addressed by eight Members of Parliament, and attended also by two English Members? According to the Chief Secretary, up to this hour it is still in doubt whether all this is imaginary, like
    388
    the batoning by the police of the poor cripple, whom I myself saw, and whom many of my friends beside me saw, batoned by the police. After to-night's Debate, at all events, he can be in no doubt that there are some matters of fact in dispute between us. Let the Government enable the English people, once for all, to ascertain the truth of this matter by some tribunal of a less absurd character than one in which Colonel Caddell, the Magistrate, passes judgment upon the conduct of Colonel Caddell, the policeman—the Lord High Chancellor of Tittipoo passes judgment upon the Lord High Executioner. On dozens of points we are prepared to prove that the statements put into the right hon. Gentleman's mouth are either misleading half-truths, or are unvarnished, unadulterated falsehoods. Let me give one instance. While the right hon. Gentleman speaks of there being 400 people at Limerick Junction, even the Times gives the number as 2,000. We traverse also, as a simple unadulterated lie, the information supplied to the right hon. Gentleman that no baton charges were made in Tipperary that day. I have friends by me who were present on the occasion, and I can speak of the meeting I was myself addressing. The policemen came up at a gallop, and, without a stone being thrown, without any provocation beyond that of cheering, the police rushed like maniacs upon the unfortunate people. Although this was witnessed by several Members of the House, we are to be told it was all purely imaginary. Let me deal now with the Chief Secretary's references to the all important portion of my right hon. Friend's indictment. It is practically undisputed that at the Limerick Junction meeting a handful of police were for over an hour absolutely at the mercy of the meeting, which the Times estimated at 2,000 people, and not a single hair on a policeman's head was injured. In Tipperary town, an hour afterwards, the police were in overwhelming force. Did they use their strength as the people at Limerick Junction used theirs? No, they instantly and savagely attacked the people, right, left, and centre—people who were doing nothing except cheering. The same thing happened at Boherlahan, and again there were the same results. At Cashel

    389
    the game thing happened. Again, at the first, the people were the stronger, and not one policeman was hurt; but the moment the police were reinforced they attacked the people. There was no disorder, violence, or injury while the people had the police at their mercy. What follows? The Government have instituted, I believe, 44 prosecutions against the men who were wantonly and brutally assaulted that day. They are prosecuting the rank and file, but up to the present moment they have not thought proper to grapple at all with the Members of Parliament who were responsible for the meeting, and that is the sort of thing that Lord Salisbury tells you is to go on in Ireland for 20 years. That is your brave and resolute Government. We have heard to-night something of the melancholy system of shadowing. I defy any impartial tribunal to study the statistics of Tipperary without coming to the conclusion that the police and the Removable Magistrates are acting with the deliberate intention of goading the people into a breach of the peace, because neither by fair means nor foul have they been able to smash their meetings up. I despair of giving any idea of the miserable petty police espionage that is exercised every day in Ireland. I do not speak particularly of these special occasions, although the conduct of the police at Cashel has been horrible and cowardly; but the far and away worse is the system of persecution which is exercised daily upon local men and local leaders. There is the case of Father Humphreys, one of the most revered and respected priests in Ireland. The picture of Father Humphreys alone passing through the streets, with a policeman in uniform on either side of him, and another at his heel, like a burglar in custody, would alone raise the gorge of any Englishman who could see it. Let me tell you what a mean, cowardly, tyrannical system it is. Upon the day my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan and myself were in Tipperary a man crossed the street and suddenly stood in front of Father Hnmphreys with a detective camera, and took his photograph. I afterwards joined him and went for a walk with him down the main street of Tipperary. The two policemen who attached themselves to us attempted to
    390
    do the very same thing with us both. I asked if they had orders? I wanted to fight the question out, as they were not allowed to molest us. What did they do? The Head Constable behind cried out, "Fall back," and the policeman after my threat did fall back, and did not molest me again the whole time. Did they resume their march by the side of Father Humphreys? No, they knew that this photograph was taken, and that it would be seen throughout England. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester several times raised the question in the House of the treatment of Father Humphreya, and it has been defended and championed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. But the camera did what the Chief Secretary's conscience did not do. I had a letter from Father Humphreys a few days ago stating that the shadowing system had been dropped, but they continue it in the case of humbler men, of most respectable men, in Ireland, everyone as respectable as myself or the right hon. Gentleman himself. The police dog them from morn to night, and listen to what they say. They jostle them, make most offensive remarks to them, and do all that men can do to inveigle them into doing something to give them a pretext for a charge of assault, so as to throw them into gaol. Now that is the system of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in Ireland. The police yield when they must, and when England is looking, but when nobody is looking on the persecution goes on as before. The right hon. Gentleman has been beaten in the prosecution of the leaders, and is now engaged in the still more dastardly, and I venture to say equally futile, policy of persecuting their followers. The Irish police are being used as took, and we, their countrymen, are driven with shame and anguish to recognise the condition to which they are falling. It is not they we blame, it is you (the Government). You have driven the Irish policeman to distinguish himself by hatred of his fellow-countrymen. The consequence is a fatal demoralisation of the Force which is simply incredible. The cowardice of the conduct of the police was really pitiful that day. They made three wretched attempts to suppress the meeting. They were put back with no single injury, and were

    391
    obliged to yield. The moment the cavalry came up they made the brutal charge which has been described. The people had spared them when their lives were in their hands; but I never saw anything more horrible than the conduct of the force in return. They were literally growling like wild animals in a cage, muttering threats and using filthy language. Directly people attempted to raise a cheer they were attacked by infuriated policemen, who bludgeoned men right and left. The savage section of the force have got the upper hand. They are too strong even for their own officers—they hunger for promotion, and they know it can be got in no other way than this. I believe that our people are the most enduring people in the world; and unless their hearts were buoyed up with unshakeable confidence in the British people, I tell you that your Irish officials would long ago have maddened our people into some desperate acts of violence. The right hon. Gentleman had the courage to go back on the miserable story of the explosives in Tipperary. Two exploded while my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo was speaking to the police, and if they could have done any injury to anyone they would have injured him. There is in Tipperary as old a custom as that of exploding squibs in England on Guy Fawkes Day. It is a harmless stupid custom. I remember it myself in Tipperary for 20 years. I defy anybody to point to any injury resulting from it; and if you referred this matter to a Select Committee, you would find the story of the bombs to be as ridiculous as Serjeant Buzfuz's explanation of the famous "chops and tomatoes" in the Pickwick breach of promise case. The Irish people can no longer be blinded to the fact that while we can point to murder after murder committed by the police in Ireland, they cannot, on the other hand, point to a single policeman (except the unfortunate Inspector Martin, who lost his life through his own folly), who has been killed there for years past. The right hon. Gentleman has trotted out again his miserable statistics of drunkenness in Tipperary, contributed largely to, of course, by the Emergencymen. Why does he quote statistics of drunkenness? He has nothing else to depend upon. Where can he point to one single policeman in the whole County of Tipperary
    392
    who has lost his life or limbs? Where is his list of killed and wounded? In the 10 years preceding the Land League agitation there were 18 landlords and agents shot dead. In all the years that followed the Land League there was not a single landlord or agent or policeman shot. Not one. They can quote no other outrage than the one I deplore, and which took place in an empty house eight months ago when we were in gaol. That we deplored and described as a piece of blackguardism. In all that time there has been no single outrage of any sort or kind. The Chief Secretary blows hot and cold. One moment he declares that there is no crime in Ireland, and then he says that Tipperary is given up to the mob—that it has become a disgrace to civilisation; that he is obliged to have 150 policemen and 700 soldiers to take care of it. If there is legitimate boycotting—and I say there is—the people of Tipperary claim the right the people of England have to choose their own interests and to deal with their own friends; and all I can say is that they have done it, and will continue to do it, and you will be just as powerless in the end as you were in the beginning. In what you are doing you are fighting against the instincts of a whole community and against the instincts of human nature itself. This is not a question of enthusiasm for law and order. The hon. Member for South Hunts has got his town. He has got his land and his houses without a single act of resistance to the law. He can have the remainder as soon as he wants it. But still he is not happy, and his advisors and backers in Dublin Castle are not happy. They know that their united force fails utterly to stay by one hair's breadth the tenants' combination. Let the Government submit this whole question in its entirety to a Select Committee, for we believe that if the whole truth were fully known the people of England, instead of being shocked, would say that never in the history of the world had there been in the face of so much provocation so much forbearance and unselfishness as the Irish people had shown. It is our business to court inquiry. Englishmen would be horrified at the length to which policemen and Magistrates go in Ireland, and the recklessness and criminality with which they

    393
    used their weapons when there was no shadow of danger to them, and it is made a thousand times worse by speeches like that of the Chief Secretary. We invite this investigation. It would strengthen our cause. We bring these things forward because we are determined to bring them into the light, and to condemn the Government in regard to them. We believe that when you have before you the whole facts of this case, you will come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman's exploit in Tipperary is as vindictive an act of tyranny, and as ignominious a failure, as ever disgraced the name of an English statesman.
    (8.32.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. BRADLAUGH: The suggestion made some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was one which I think required an answer from some Member of the Government. Specific statements have been made by the Mover of the Motion for the Adjournment. These statements have beer, contradicted by the Chief Secretary, for Ireland. The statements made by the hon. Member were made in great part upon his own personal knowledge, and they were contradicted, at the best, on information supplied by the Chief Secretary; and I think it would have been only courteous to the House if in a matter of this kind the Chief Secretary, in contradicting statements, had supplied us with the authority from whom he obtained his information.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, Sir, I made my statement upon information supplied through the official Reports, as every Chief Secretary is obliged to do.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I think the House is also entitled to know the position of the person making the Report on which the Chief Secretary contradicts the statements of the hon. Member for Mayo, especially when the statements of that hon. Member are specific, and the denial exceedingly general. The specific charges—and I will draw attention to some of them that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian did not refer to—seemed to me to be callable of such explicit proof or disproof that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has left the House or himself in a worthy

    394
    position by a mere denial. There was not only the police charge on the hon. Member and half-a dozen friends in the square, but there was a charge upon the people who shook hands with these gentlemen, and a charge en the people who cheered them, and the specific boast of Mr. Shannon of the batoning of the people by the police. All these statements are covered by the general denial that the police charged the people in any case until first subject to stone-throwing.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I made my statement upon the official Reports, and I referred only to Tipperary. I do not think I dealt at all with the alleged charge at Cashel.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Then I take it that there is no denial of the charging by the police at Cashel; and, that being so, there is no "specific and categorical denial" of the case submitted by the hon. Member for Mayo this evening.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think I dealt at all with the alleged charge at Cashel.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I am sure I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for any correction of my speech. I always try to make my facts as fair as I can, and in this case I desire to make them as hard as I can. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that as I understand his corrected defence——
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not corrected—original [A VOICE: Very original.].
    MR. BRADLAUGH: My impression is that the right hon. Gentleman said he had given a categorical denial to all the charges made by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I thought so; and if I am right in that, then I should also be right in speaking of his corrected form of answer.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What occurred was this: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian distinctly stated that I had not traversed the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo with regard to the occurrences at Tipperary. I said that I had traversed them, and I also asserted, and I adhere to the statement that no baton charge was made by the police until stones had been thrown. That has no reference in one way or the other to the occurrences at Cashel.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon my giving my version of the matter, even though, in his opinion, it may not be correct. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, adopting, from his view of the veracity of the hon. Member for Mayo, the statements he made, urged that they had not been coutradicted, and I understood the Chief Secretary to say that he had categorically contradicted those statements. It now appears this was wrong, and that the right hon. Gentleman only contradicted one of the matters to which allusion was made, and that, instead of saying that the police had never charged except when stoned, he meant to say that they Sid not charge on one occasion in the square until they were stoned, and that of everything else he was ignorant.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not wish to argue the question, but I do not agree with that statement.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to agree with me, but I now think there is higher ground for inquiry still, and that the Motion for Adjournment has been clearly justified, for the larger portion of the case, upon the statement of the Chief Secretary himself, now remains without contradiction. Although the Chief Secretary has taken care to have Reports, his subordinates, who ought to have furnished him with the means of stating the truth to the House, have neglected to do so. Somebody who is responsible for giving him information has not thought it right to let him know the facts. I submit that the adjournment has been justly moved, and that the answer to it is utterly incomplete. I think that the few hon. Members on the other side of the House who have heard the corrected answer of the Chief Secretary will be bound to vote for the adjournment on the ground that the bulk of the facts remain as stated by the hon. Member for Mayo, utterly uncontradicted by the Chief Secretary. I am bound to say that, knowing the ability of the Chief Secretary, I was disappointed with his speech. Of course, it is clever tactics to make an able speech and pass by the most important matter of challenge, but I am disappointed to find that any one claiming to represent the Government, and desiring to bring about a better affection
    396
    for law and order in Ireland should have avoided the bulk of the questions raised to-night, as the right hon. Gentleman has done. There are Members of the Government whom I might have suspected of not answering, on account of incapacity, but the Chief Secretary is not one of these; and the other horn of the dilemma is quite as unpleasant. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that two questions were involved in this Debate, the first being, "Did the police act without moderation and with want of judgment," and the second, "Had the Government just ground for proclaiming the meeting." With the first question the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to deal. Is then, the case affecting the police abandoned? No attempt has been made to meet the grave allegations against the police in respect of their batoning and charging the people outside the town of Tipperary. If the law relating to public meetings is the same in Ireland as in England, then the uncontradicted case of the hon. Member for East Mayo shows that an extraordinary series of illegalities have been committed by the Executive and the police. In regard to the uncontradicted case, it certainly appears to me that there is ground for the inquiry asked for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. As to the occurrences in Tipperary, I am bound to say that the corrected denial of the Chief Secretary, or the corrected avoidance of denial, appears to me a little awkward, because, unless my memory fails me, I think I heard the right hon. Gentleman say he had read about these things in the papers—and that it was upon his full examination of the matter that he felt capable of giving an explicit denial. Now, it is clear that that cannot be true. I do not mean that anything the Chief Secretary said was not true, but that the right hon. Gentleman must have misled himself. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman was unintentionally totally inaccurate, and that he unintentionally utterly deceived the House when he said there were versions which contradicted each other. The right hon. Gentleman and myself are agreed, if I may say so, that the proclamation of a meeting does not make it illegal. If it be illegal otherwise, the proclamation neither decreases nor increases the

    397
    illegality. How can you know whether a meeting will be illegal or not? You may know it will be illegal if it be avowedly called for an illegal object. The proclamation issued on the 23rd merely announced that John Dillon, M.P., and William O'Brien, M.P., would deliver addresses. You cannot import into these addresses what they are likely to be in order to give the meeting the character of illegality. Primâ facie the addresses would be lawful. There was nothing on the face of the placard to entitle you to say that the meeting would be illegal. But you dealt with it before anything happened at the meeting. You began to break heads before the meeting commenced. At Limerick Junction, according to the right hon. Gentleman, there were only 300 or 400 people. But that was 20 times as big a meeting as one of those that was charged upon. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) says there were 2,000 persons present at the Junction.
    An hon. MEMBER: The Times says so.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: The Times. But you will not expect me to accept the authority of the Times in any matter in which there is any divergence of opinion between any two Members of this House. I know from experience that public speakers have sometimes adisposition, like fishermen as to catch, to increase in their own minds—without any intention of being untruthful—the size of the meetings they address. But if, in the opinion of the Chief Secretary, the police did well in letting alone a meeting of 300 or 400, why did they not do better in letting the smaller alone? I should fall under the censure of the House if, in any spirit of meanness, I said the police could be justified in batoning the people at a meeting when they were strong enough to do so, and were not justified in doing it when they were too weak. If that position were not taken up by a Member of the Government it would be a mean and contemptible position. If the police charged on the people who came to shake hands with the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) at the gateway, they not only displayed great want of tact and moderation, but were guilty of great brutality. That they did so is uncontradicted, and it is presumably true. I say that the Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for the
    398
    attitude they have taken up on this point. The Chief Secretary's language puzzled me. He said that the account of the transaction given by the hon. Member for East Mayo and his own account were vitally different. I find that, instead of the two accounts being vitally different, there is only a very small portion on which there is any difference. The Government have let judgment go by default against them. Who are on their trial? That is a question the Chief Secretary for Ireland answers, but which we shall not get fully answered until an election takes place. I will however, venture to anticipate one or two of the issues on which the English people will be asked to pronounce a verdict. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said that very little damage was done. But is it no damage, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian said, to drive a police car into a crowd so that the shafts catch a poor woman on the breasts, and the horses are only turned aside by the blackthorns of the men? Is it a trifle to charge among the people with batons and to use the butts of rifles? It used not to be a trifle in England, and we must have got into a degraded state indeed when an English Government can defend this in the House of Commons. Again, I find that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary pledged himself to a personal conviction based upon his complete examination of the matters which had been submitted to the House. But how could he have a personal conviction on matters which he had not examined at all? We are told it was a dangerous thing for the two hon. Members who have spoken this evening to be allowed to address a meeting in Tipperary. Why more dangerous for them to do so than at the Junction? The conduct of the police in permitting those addresses there has been approved by the Chief Secretary this evening. A meeting which is a menace to the State in one place cannot cease to be a menace to the State if held three miles off. I will not describe anything the Chief Secretary says as nonsense, but I am sure it would have been the most utter nonsense if I had said it, and utterly unworthy of being regarded as a grave appeal to the House. I happened the other day to be reading a number of

    399
    Blackwood, some 40 years old, and I found the landlord mischief denounced by one of the first Whig politicians of the day, in the same way as they are denounced by the hon. Members for North-East Cork and Mayo. They say that whatever mischief they may have done they have at any rate put some hope into the hearts of the people of effecting their own redemption by open organisation, and the result is that the few survivals of the old bad spirit are survivals chiefly kept alive by the survival of old methods on the part of the Government. Even under a Government as bad as this, when the police did not interfere, no disorder took place. The claim set up by the Government to-night in answer to the appeal made to them for the preservation of some of the rights of meeting is simply that wherever the Member for East Mayo or the Member for North-East Cork happen to go the fact of their going warrants the Government in preventing the holding of meetings. Why? Because the Government is utterly afraid, and if the Members speak sedition or incite to crime they may be indicted. But the Government do not wait for these things. Our memories must be very short. We commenced the Session with a nourish of trumpets as to the pacification of Ireland. Tonight we have a frank confession of utter and abject weakness, and are told that the Government dare not allow hon. Members of this House to address the people in open meeting. The Chief Secretary expressed a doubt as to whether he ought to have allowed even a banquet in Tipperary. I have not the honour of the friendship of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), except as one Member may find himself friendly with every Colleague who, like him, is entrusted with the mandate of the people. But the hon. Member's words were words that rang like truth. It is no use discussing whether the Government were justified in proclaiming the meeting. The Chief Secretary and the Government seem to consider that all rights of meeting are to be put an end to both in England and Ireland. There is such a thing as going too far. I had the honour of successfully arguing before one of England's greatest Judges that in relation to a meeting in Devon I should have been justified in killing a constable who unlawfully inter-
    400
    fered with MR. The Attorney General for Ireland laughs. I know my knowledge of law is not fit to match with his, although it has been found fit to match with, at least, the hon. and learned Gentleman's Colleagues. I recommend the right hon. and learned. Gentleman to read the grave language in which the Lord Chief Justice Earle examined my proposition. The Judges of this country have helped to make the law here a protection to the meanest of our subjects, but the law in Ireland is used as a sort of thumbscrew. The law in England has been and is if it can be declared fair between the weakest, and poorest and the strongest, but is it so in Ireland. The hon. Member for East Mayo asked whether the man who is alleged to have had his forehead cut with a baton is to be prosecuted. I imagine, and I think the House imagined, that the Chief Secretary denied the fact. It is clear now the fact comes in the category of fact that is not denied. Is the man to be tried? Is he to be tried before a Resident Magistrate? If he were tried here, and was unjustly committed, he could appeal to the Quarter Session, and if the law were strained against him there he could carry the case to a Divisional Court. In Ireland things are different. You say that a character of a meeting is changed by your proclamation. If a man goes to a meeting and draws attention to himself yon send him before a, Resident Magistrate, who does not administer the law as we have known it administered here, without fear and without partiality. The Irish Resident Magistrate administers the law as a machine, to be used for I making what you call and order, I which is really only an apparent quiet I which begets the crime which has been referred to. I say that a Government which strains the law so that it is shapeless, which sends poor unfortunate men to gaol if they resist the driving of a horse and car at a gallop into a crowded meeting, provokes bigger crime. What makes men criminal? It is no hope of justice. I do not complain that the Chief Secretary has left since the earlier portion of my speech. It is probably for my quiet he has done so, because we disagreed so exceedingly during that portion of my remarks. But is it worthy of the position of the Government,

    401
    standing, as it professes to do, in front of civilisation, to say that these are small things? Small things at the end of the 19th century? Small things when you prate of the progress you have made? I avow I feel ashamed, of the excuses made by the Government. The Chief Secretary asked who and what is on trial. It is the whole system of government in Ireland, and this Motion for the adjournment of the House has been well brought, if only by way of an interlocutory appeal to the English people.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I take it that the real question at issue whether there should be a public Parliamentary Inquiry into the occurrences at Tipperary on Sunday fortnight. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has requested that such an inquiry should be held. The inquiry is asked for because there is a discrepancy between the Chief Secretary for Ireland, giving official information, and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who was present at the meeting. Nobody says that anybody was seriously hurt. A cripple has been referred to as injured, but we have not even got his name. The least we could expect is that if anybody has been seriously injured, his name should be given, so that investigation might be made. Now, if we are are to go by precedent, I am very much afraid that the inquiry asked for cannot be granted. If we take the precedents, all of them under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and most of them when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir G. Trevelyan) was Chief Secretary, the Front Opposition Bench, at all events, cannot plead for inquiry. [Cries of "Belfast!"] I will not commence with Belfast, but with a part of my own county. ["Which is your county?"] The county I represent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton Division will well recollect the two meetings which were convened at a place called Dromore. I have always held that the second of the two meetings ought not to have been held. The Nationalists had a right to convene their meeting, and I do not think it was wise on the part of the Orangemen to convene a counter meeting at the same place and on the same day. What happened? The
    402
    right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian objects to the police running after people and batoning them when they are running away. Why, at that meeting a man, whilst running away, was run through with a bayonet and killed, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton Division refused an inquiry. In the first case I give there was a man killed while running away, and the Government of the right hon. Gentleman, who now demands an inquiry into a row in which no one was hurt—["Oh, oh!"]—well, seriously hurt, refused an inquiry. The next case: occurred on the 16th of August, 1880, at Dungannon, County Tyrone, under Mr. Forster, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was Prime Minister. On that day a party riot occurred in the South of Dungannon, in the course of which houses were attacked and the police assaulted. Ultimately the District Inspector in charge gave orders to fire. One man was killed and several persons wounded. In the following week hon. Members below the Gangway forced a Debate on the subject, and Mr. Forster explained that the police could not avoid firing. No proceedings were instituted against the police, and no inquiry was held. I take another case which must be familiar to hon. Members, namely, that of Ballaragget, County Kildare, which took place on the 9th of October, 1881. I make no charge against hon. Members below the Gangway in these matters. They wished for inquiries, and inquiries were refused by the very Party who now demand an inquiry in a case in which no one was seriously hurt. On the 9th of October, 1881, a Land League meeting was held at Ballaragget, and a force of police was drafted into the town to keep order. At the termination of the meeting the police wore marched to the railway station and they were attacked by an excited crowd. Orders to charge were given, for the purpose of dispersing the mob, and a man named James Mansfield received a bayonet wound, from which he died. A Coroner's Jury returned a verdict of wilful murder against the District Inspector who gave the order to charge. On the application of the Crown the verdict was quashed in the Queen's Bench, and when questioned in the House the then Attorney General de-

    403
    clined to grant an inquiry, saying that the Government were in full possession of all the facts. The Attorney General was Mr. Johnson, and everybody knows on which side of the House he sat. One would suppose that all the shooting had been done by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but the fact is that it has all been done by right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Opposition Bench. In October, 1881, a party of police were engaged in protecting a summons server at Belmullet. They were attacked by a mob, who threw stones at them. The District Inspector in charge gave orders to fire, with the result that two women were killed. The Coroner's Jury again returned a verdict of wilful murder against the District Inspector and a constable. The Nationalist Press demanded that the men should be put on their trial, and the Attorney General directed the Crown Solicitor to get information and take the accused before a Magistrate. The Magistrate dismissed the charge, and no further proceedings were taken. Exactly the same thing took place at Ballina some time afterwards. A man was killed, but no inquiry was allowed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division why these inquiries were refused by the Government of which he was a Member? Were they refused for the purpose of shielding and protecting the police in an illegal action? The right hon. Gentleman will not say anything of the kind. ["Ireland was misrepresented."] Probably Ireland was misrepresented now. At all events that has nothing to do with the question I put, namely, were these inquiries refused during the time when the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary with the view of shielding the police and protecting them in illegal conduct? I do not believe a word of it. I believe the inquiries were refused because the Government, acting on the best information they could receive, believed that the police did not exceed their duty, and I imagine that if the Government refuse this inquiry that will be the reason for their refusal. The hon. Members for North-East Cork and East Mayo unite in an attack. It would be well they should try to be consistent one with the other as to the description given of title police. The hon. Member for
    404
    Mayo called the police in Tipperary cowardly, infuriated savages. [Cries of "In Cashel!"] The hon. Member spoke of the police generally—["No!"]—and if he were present he would not deny it. The hon. Member for North-East Cork described the charge the police made upon himself and five or six other gentle* men who were standing doing nothing at the corner of the square. He said Colonel Caddell and the other officers of the police opened their ranks in order to avoid doing them any harm. What terrible savages! They never lifted a baton, but when they came up to the crowd of seven or eight people, these cowardly, infuriated savages opened their ranks in order to avoid injuring the hon. Member and his friends. The reports in the Irish Times and Daily Express have been paraded before the House, and, no doubt, these are Unionist papers; but it does not follow that to Sunday meetings they always send Unionist reporters; [Laughter.] On the contrary, I know that as regards the Irish Times, at all events, the majority of the reporting staff in my days were Nationalists and not Unionists, and, of course, these gentlemen will colour their reports according to their convictions. Now, let us take the question of the policy of the Government in proclaiming the meeting at Tipperary. That question is entirely different from the conduct of the police, I admit. But let us take the policy of the Government in proclaiming this meeting. I say nobody who knows anything of the state of Tipperary and of the facts mentioned in the Chief Secretary's speech, can have the least doubt of the wisdom of the policy that directed the proclamation. What was the real meaning of the proclamation? Meetings had been held a few weeks before, and a number of first-class revolutionists from England had delivered addresses, and a fortnight afterwards another great meeting is resolved upon. Why was this? The real reason was that the period for redemption for tenants under the Land Act of 1887 was about to expire, and these hon. Gentlemen no doubt had information of what was taking place in the town and neighbourhood of Tipperary, and I have received reliable information from Tipperary itself and its

    405
    neighbourhood that the object of the meeting was to intimidate the tenants, and to prevent them from redeeming their holdings. I fully admit that the right of public meeting is a sacred one, but at the same time I think that the right of the tenants to redeem their holdings is equally sacred, and that public meetings held with the object of preventing them from exercising that right ought to be proclaimed, and that a Government having information of this object of a meeting would neglect its duty if it did not proclaim such a meeting. And now let me say a word or two on the practice of shadowing. There is one point upon which hon. Members and I agree, and that is, that every policeman in Ireland should be distinguished by a number on his uniform. I have said before that it should be as easy to identify a policeman in any part of Ireland as it is in Belfast or Dublin. I entertain as great an objection to the system of shadowing as hon. Members below the Gangway, because I do not believe that it is efficacious. What is taking place in Tipperary? There are numbers of "corner boys" standing about the streets acting as pickets upon the shops open there. There are open arrangements for boycotting, and the man who makes the arrangements is perfectly well known to the police. You may shadow Father Humphries, who is the real instigator and the master of the whole Tipperary business in the street as much as you please, but you will never find out what passes in Father Humphries' house.
    [The hon. Member's speech was interrupted several times by exclamations and laughter.]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt the hon. Member so continuously. They will have an opportunity of replying.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. Member for North-East Cork has congratulated the Chief Secretary upon a change of policy, that whereas in former times he went for the leaders he is now content to go for the rank and file. But other people have changed their policy. The hon. Member for North-East Cork has changed his policy on his own admission. ["No, no!"] In the old times of the League murder and outrage was com-
    406
    mitted, but these have passed away and the policy now is what the hon. Member terms legitimate boycotting.
    MR. T. HARRINGTON: In the absence of my hon. Friend I do not think he should be misrepresented. ["Order, order!"] Ii is a very grave accusation against my hon. Friend. What he stated was that murder and outrage took place before the Land League was constituted.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not think that is so. Murder and outrage did not cease with the formation of the League-, it waxed more fierce. [Cries of "Not true; none in Tipperary!"] Tipperary was quiet until about 10 months ago, when hon. Members went down there and went from platform to platform rebuking the people for their quietness. But what is the nature of this legitimate boycotting? I do not think the people of England realise yet what this "legitimate boycotting" means. Frankly, I say I do not think the people of Ireland subjected to the practice fear personal violence so much as they do* what is called legitimate boycotting. Take the case of Mr. Phillips. He has been boycotted because he has disobeyed the unwritten law of the League, and because he has refused to give up his farm, for which he has paid £1,000, and only asks in a free country to be allowed to remain an honest man and to pursue his business in peace, and refuses to become a beggar and a scoundrel. He does not consider his rent too high; he profits by his farm. Because he has done this he has been made the subject of legitimate boycotting, with the consequence that he has been deprived of the necessities of life, and when his child fell ill—[Loud laughter.] Ah, yes, when the hon. Members below the Gangway laugh at such a statement as that it only teaches us what we may have to expect in the future.
    MR. T. HARRINGTON: The hon. Member seems to indicate that I laughed, the imputation that I laughed is a gross—[Loud cries of "Order!"]
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It was the hon. Member who sits next to the hon. Member that I was referring to.
    MR. CONDON: I laughed at the statement of the hon. Member because Mr. Phillips' so-called child is 25 years old.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I will say a member of his family. I am following the description of Mr. Phillips, who refers to his child. ["As truthful as you."] I say that when that man's child fell ill the local druggist would not compound the medicine prescribed, and he was obliged to obtain the medicine from a long distance. That is what the hon. Member for Cork describes as legitimate boycotting.
    An hon. MEMBER: That is not true.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I might also refer to the case of the old lady at Tipperary, who has been boycotted and had her windows smashed because she would not accept the policy of hon. Members below the Gangway; because she would not lend her neck to the yoke, and chose to live as she has lived in the past, honestly fulfilling her engagements, her windows were smashed, I suppose by those innocent urchins who make curious squibs out of axle boxes. ["Not true."] I say the Government were entitled, looking at the state of Tipperary, looking at the fact that this meeting was called immediately before the day of redemption under the Act of 1881, to proclaim the meeting; and I hold that so far as the conduct of the police is concerned they have committed no act which comes within miles of what was committed under the Secretaryship of the right hon. Gentleman below me, and who point blank refused inquiry. If the inquiry asked for were to be granted, the result would be simply a conflict of testimony between the police on the one hand and the people on the other.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member has challenged ex-Chief Secretaries on this Bench to explain why it was we refused inquiry into incidents that occurred under the former Government. My right hon. Friend can explain why it was inquiry was granted in the case of Belfast, and I will explain, in the one single instance the hon. Gentleman has brought forward out of his large répertoire in which I am concerned, why it was I refused inquiry in the case of Dromore. The hon. Member seems to think it is a very light matter we have before us, because he says few or no people had their heads broken. Into that I will not inquire, and I care com-
    408
    paratively little about it. I care for something else much more.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I did not say a light matter. I said a comparatively light matter.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: Well, I do not think it is a comparatively light matter, and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are representatives of free men in a free country, will not think this is a comparatively light matter. What we are dealing with is the right of free and open meeting, and it is strange that the hon. Member, who has attained an eminence remarkable, and in some respects not enviable, by his powers of free speaking to masses of his fellow-countrymen, should consider it a light matter to be denied the use of that power. In the case of Dromore, the object of our action was not to suppress free speech but to maintain it. Instead of suppressing a meeting at Dromore, the Government insisted that it should be held. It was a culminating case in a series of arduous and important crises. The Nationalists in the North of Ireland insisted upon their right to hold a meeting in their own part of the country, and the Orangemen of the North of Ireland denied them that right. They endeavoured to deny it first by coming to the Government and telling them that for the sake of the peace of the country they ought to suppress the Nationalist meeting, and when the Government refused to yield to the pressure that was put upon them by the Orangemen and by the Tory Press in this country, the Orangemen declared that they would hold a meeting at the same place and hour. If this had been a meeting of unarmed citizens to listen to speeches and pass resolutions we should have little cared. But it was to be a meeting, not of the inhabitants of the district, but of hordes of armed men, subsidised by the Orange leaders, and coming, many of them, distances of 100 and 150 miles. It was a most insidious snare to the Government. They would have been praised in every Tory paper if they had said what it was in their power to have said, that neither meeting should be held; but we were determined that at any sacrifice and risk we would vindicate the right of the Nationalists, to whom we were then opposed, to hold a meeting, and, consequently, we declared

    409
    that, whether the Orangemen came armed or not, the meeting should be held. The assertion of this right required the presence of 1,200 armed men, cavalry and infantry; and if it had been 12,000 the expenses and the difficulty would have been amply repaid by the result. The Nationalist meeting was held, and it was protected; the Orange meeting was also held. A strong body of armed troops was posted between the two meetings, and it was during the organised and persistent attempt of the Orangemen to break through the lines of troops and to fall upon the unarmed Nationalists, not very pugnacious at that time, that a single life was lost. There was no dispute about the circumstances at all, either in this House or anywhere else. The present Lord Cross, speaking from this Front Bench, said he entirely agreed with the action of the Government, and down to this moment there has been no dispute as regards that action. In order to protect the right of free speech one life was unfortunately sacrificed; but the right of free speech is worth many lives. [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The man was running away.] But he had come 100 miles with the object of interrupting a meeting of his fellow countrymen; find in this case the House is dealing with the right of free meeting under different circumstances. If the Government wish systematically to suppress public meetings they had better do it by legislative enactment. It is an exceedingly dangerous course to pursue to apply the law which is in vogue in a free and self-governing country like England to a country like Ireland, which is not free and self-governing. The Government are endeavouring to wrest regulations which prevail in this country to the government or mis-government of public meetings in Ireland. In this country no meeting in itself is unlawful until a magistrate has read the Riot Act and has ordered the people to disperse, and if they do not disperse after that they may be tried before a jury and convicted of felony. That is the law in this country, what is the practice in Ireland? The charge is that at Tipperary the people were attacked without due notice. At Dromore the longest possible notice was given that the Nationalist meeting was to be protected, if needful by force. At Tipperary there is no doubt that
    410
    groups of peaceable people were charged by the police on three occasions, and it is not denied by the Government. There are three distinct allegations, not one of which is denied, and as to the truth of which inquiry alone will give satisfaction. People are bound to take information in the first instance from the newspapers; but it is an extraordinary thing for the hon. Member to say that even the evidence furnished by Tory papers must be discounted, because it is possible they may be served by Nationalist reporters. The argument for inquiry is strengthened by the information that has come from the Ministerial Bench as to shadowing, in spite of our being told that Ireland is quiet to a degree scarcely known before. The Government have invented a new interference with liberty not known in any other civilised country, and which would be resented anywhere by our common human nature. Can such a system as has been described exist anywhere for a month without bringing about violent personal collisions and breach of the peace? It is all very well to talk about the state of Tipperary. What there is in Tipperary, in Donegal, and in other parts of the country is a state of terrible discontent, of something like hopeless despair, and of absolute mistrust of the Executive Government. For those three feelings what outlet is there except free speech? If inquiry is refused conceive what an idea you will sanction. You will sanction the idea that trusted men, like the hon. Member for East Mayo, may actually not visit a town in Ireland, may not be greeted by their fellow-citizens, but, for the next 15 or 20 years, the police shall have the right to rout their fellow-citizens up and down the town, and that they can do this with impunity. We are asked to believe that all this is absolutely necessary for the sake of protecting the citizens of the neighbourhood. The Member for East Mayo has disproved that by showing that all these outrages and dark doings which have been referred to preceded, and did not follow, the open-air meeting held at Tipperary two months ago. The Liberal Government may have been right or wrong when there were a certain number of bloody murders in Ireland in preventing a very small number indeed of public meetings on the spot where those murders had been recent; but for several

    411
    years past the whole Liberal Party—and they never will go back from that, and under no circumstances will they ever consent to have anything to do with a repressive policy—have believed that Ireland is in a state in which the greatest security for order is liberty and free speech, and such an interference with, liberty and free speech as that with reference to this meeting at Tipperary—so irritating, so useless, and so pernicious—has never taken place in Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): I do not know that the House generally will be disposed to think that the right hon. Gentleman has explained satisfactorily why, consistently with what he had just said., he did not grant an inquiry into the proceedings at Dromore; but the House, at any rate, will be satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman has just made a complete retractation of the principles upon which he conducted the Government of Ireland. It is within the knowledge of the House that when the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Government of Ireland, he suppressed numbers of meetings on the ground that the holding them would lead to murder, crime, and outrage. Now he says the Liberal Party under no circumstances will be guilty of such conduct again, and this, I repeat, is a complete retractation of the principles on which he governed Ireland. The particular point on which the right hon. Gentleman was pressed by the hon. Member for Tyrone was why in the Dromore case, it being alleged the police had pursued and killeda flying man, he did not grant an inquiry? Why is an inquiry to be granted in the present case, and refused in a case in which death actually occurred? In the case now being discussed by the House no serious injury was caused to anyone. The hon. Members for North-East Cork and East Mayo have spoken of the brutalities of the police; but where is the list of wounded at Tipperary?
    MR. DILLON: The Dublin Daily Express states that 40 people were knocked down by blows on the head at the first charge.
    MR. W. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman engage not to prosecute the wounded if the names are furnished?
    MR. MADDEN: Not one case of serious injury has been complained of to any authority whatsoever.
    MR. GILL: And if any one did complain he would get a summons the next day and be prosecuted.
    MR. MADDEN: Hon. Members opposite will have an opportunity of answering me presently. Is there any person in hospital at the present moment from injuries received by the police charges? If any person has been injured by excesses committed by the authorities in suppressing the meeting, that person is not without his remedy. The right of public meeting in this country and in Ireland, as the hon. Member for Northampton has stated, is absolutely identical. It is not in the power of the Government by proclamation to make a meeting illegal. Who pretended that it was? The Crimes Act of 1882 must be in the minds of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I must inform those hon. Gentlemen that the law is different now. Under the system of coercion under which Ireland groans, the law of public meeting is absolutely identical with the law of public meeting in England. Let any person interfered with unlawfully at a public meeting bring his action at law, and if the Judge lays down the law differently from the law in England let him bring his case to the Court of Appeal, and from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite willing to accept the House of Lords. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] No; but they must accept the House of Lords as laying down the law for England, and no lawyer will contravene the proposition that the law of public meeting in England and Ireland being identical, the law in both countries must be brought in the last resort to the same test—the decision of the House of Lords. Now, one remarkable feature of this Debate is that there has been no serious attempt to show that in the suppression of this meeting the Irish Government have gone beyond their strict rights. The hon. Member for Mayo rather suggested than argued that the meeting was a legal one; but the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian was careful to hold in the background that portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo. The right hon. Gentleman declined to attack the Government on that point, and it appears to me that a point on which the right hon. Gentleman the

    413
    Member for Mid Lothian declines to attack the Government must be an exceedingly bad point indeed. Both from the action of the right hon. Gentleman and the utter absence of any attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seriously to contend that this was a lawful assembly, I think that I can ask the House to say that this was an unlawful assembly.
    MR. DILLON: Certainly not.
    MR. MADDEN: If the assembly which was proclaimed was rightly proclaimed as an unlawful assembly, hon. Members opposite are brought face to face with a second fact, namely, that the prevention of the meeting took place with no serious injury to any person, and I think that if the Executive have prevented an unlawful assembly without any serious injury it is action on which they may be congratulated. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has read to the House the proclamation, posted on the Friday before the meeting, by which it was proclaimed. The meeting was to be what was known as a monster meeting, to which excursion trains were to be run. In what condition was the town of Tipperary at that time? has any hon. Member attempted to deny that for months before that a system had been going on which I will call one of boycotting and intimidation? Has any hon. Member denied that a system of boycotting has been carried on there? I have read a letter in the public Press written by one of the Roman Catholic priests, in which he said that he would not be coward enough to deny that he had promoted boycotting, and the hon. Member for North-East Cork has stated that what he describes as legitimate boycotting has been going on in Tipperary. I think that the House may fairly assume that the boycotting that would satisfy the desires of the hon. Member, and was described by him as legitimate, is of a somewhat extreme character. The movement, therefore, which has been going on against the hon. Member for South Hunts has, it must be admitted, been promoted by boycotting and intimidation. Is that legal or not? Is a meeting in promotion of that object a legal meeting? I ask the House for what other purpose the meeting on the Sunday in question could have been convened except to support the movement against the hon. Member for South Hunts which was
    414
    going on in the town, and which was carried on by boycotting and intimidation. Then the case is complete. The meeting was convened for the support of that movement, the active promoters of which say that they will not be cowards enough to deny that they have promoted boycotting. It is impossible to carry out the system of boycotting without intimidation; and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, after what he said formerly, cannot deny that boycotting involves intimidation, and is carried out by means of intimidation. In fact, the grossest intimidation has been carried out in the town of Tipperary. Explosives have been used which have blown down portions of buildings in Tipperary, and would have killed persons who might have been inside; is the use of such explosives not intimidation? No Government responsible for the peace of Tipperary could have possibly allowed such a meeting to take place. The question to consider, then, is whether there has been any excess, any undue interference with rights, or anything that goes beyond what is absolutely necessary in the course of suppressing that meeting? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has stated, with regard to the town of Tipperary, that no charge was made by the police until they had been stoned; and the information at the disposal of the Government went even further than that—to the effect that no batoning took place until the police had been actually attacked. The House must know that it is no easy matter to suppress a meeting of this character, where there is a crowded assembly, without serious collision between the police and the crowd; but in this case no such collision took place, and, so far from life being lost, no serious injury at all took place. That takes away the very foundation for the demand for an inquiry. The case of the Belfast riots was a very different thing. There riots had been going on day after day in the streets of Belfast, in which numbers of persons were shot down and actually deprived of life. That case is not to be compared with the suppression of a meeting in which, owing to the forbearance not only of the police, but also, I am happy to add, of the people, no serious occurrence has taken place. No serious attempt has been made to show that the action of the

    415
    Government in suppressing this meeting has been illegal, and, if it is so, any man who has been injured has his remedy at law. Further, I will say that I think that the manner in which the police discharged their duty on this occasion deserves our commendation.
    MR. T. HARRINGTON: I think that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken should define what he means by serious injury to an Irishman if he does not consider four blows from a baton and then being kicked by a policeman serious injury. What a lesson the Irish police will read from this! If one incitement more than another could be urged on the police to deal thoroughly and effectually with the heads of any unfortunate people with whom they may come into contact, it would be found in the two speeches delivered by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to-night. If they mean anything they are a direct censure on the police for not taking the lives of their victims, and they are a proof to the people of this country that the taking of liberties with the rights of Irishmen is not a subject for discussion in this House. I was myself a witness of the scenes in Tipperary, and I confess that the gross manner in which every incident which occurred in Ireland is misrepresented makes me ashamed of the manner in which the law is administered in that country. The word of the most drunken and rowdy policeman is taken as gospel by the Chief Secretary; while the words of hon. Members of this House who have gone through the occurrences and pledged their honour to the accuracy of their accounts are sneered at and disregarded. I assert that not one single stone was thrown until the last of the meetings in the town had been suppressed. I myself was seated on the carriage which followed the hon. Member for East Mayo, in company with the hon. Member for North-East Cork, and not only did the police baton the people who attempted to come up and speak to us, or shake hands with us, but they also used their batons on the horses in the carriage. We are told that the meeting was proclaimed because it would lead to a breach of the peace, and because it, was an outdoor meeting in support of a combination against the hon. Member for South Hunts. But if this was so, why would not a meeting indoors have effected the
    416
    same objects? Would it not be quite as likely to lead to intimidation as an outdoor meeting? We intend to maintain the right of public meeting in our country. When we do attempt to hold a meeting in the open-air, the meeting is proclaimed because it is illegal; but if we merely closed the door and shut out the Government reporter, and taught any abominable doctrine, the meeting would be legal. Is that an argument to address to the House of Commons? If our object were unlawful, and we desired to preach boycotting and combination against the hon. Member for South Hunts, we must accept the miserable compromise which the right hon. Gentleman has offered us. But is the combination against the hon. Member for South Hunts illegal? Who has yet argued that it is illegal? There has been no resistance to the law on that estate, no fortification of houses; and is there any Judge who would not laugh at the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he alleged that combination against the hon. Member for South Hunts was sufficient reason for suppressing the meeting? I am surprised that one occupying the position of the right hon. Gentleman should get up and endeavour to address the argument to us. We have as much right to combine against the hon. Member for South Hunts in respect to lands and rents as have the electors to combine against the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) in Manchester, The right hon. Gentleman denied that there were any persons shadowed in Ireland except those suspected of being concerned in boycotting, but I can tell him that when he goes back to Manchester he will find that two or three of his most influential supporters among the Conservatives have been persistently shadowed by the police. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General has given a legal opinion upon the right of public meeting. The unfortunate peasant of Tipperary, if he endeavours to assert the right of public meeting gets his head smashed. The Attorney General says he has the right of appeal to the Irish County Courts, or be can ultimately come to the House of Lords. That is a convenient course, no doubt, for the Irish peasant, wishful to assert his rights, but I venture to say that if he adopts it, the time will be long before he gets his rights through that avenue. But the Irish peasantry prefer

    417
    to take the more manly course of insisting on the right of public meeting, and they defy the right hon. Gentleman and all his agents to prevent them asserting that right. Here is a very curious thing we have had from the Attorney General. He has passed over all the incidents and attacks at the various small meetings, and neither he nor the Chief Secretary has attempted to answer what is grave in our charge. The Attorney General admits that the mere proclamation by the Government has no effect upon the right of public meeting. He says that you must judge of the public meeting altogether by its surroundings and circumstances. One of the reasons given for proclaiming that this meeting in Tipperary was illegal was that squibs or bombs were used. But these squibs were used before in the English meeting in Tipperary, to which every word he has spoken might have been applied with greater force than in the present instance, but which was not attempted to be interfered with. Why attempt to justify your position by shabby arguments of this kind? We have heard a speech from the hon. Member for South Tyrone, a characteristic speech, and evidently prepared for some other occasion. In fact, I sat for a long time admiring the dexterity with which the hon. Member applied to this occasion a brief which was evidently intended for some Scotch or English platform, denunciatory of Members on these; Benches and commending the Government. What is the lesson taught the Irish police? That they may be encouraged to drunkenness and riotous conduct on these occasions, and that next they will be shielded and defended in this House. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot but think that on some, at all events, of these occasions, he may be deceived. He is very sceptical about the statements of Irish Members, but ho has implicit faith in any Irishman who will act on his own side. Will the right hon. Gentleman on any of these occasions put to the test the information which ho gives to this House, and which he derives from officers in Ireland? I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not some regard for his own character. He must know that it is a very serious thing for one in his responsible position, with the eyes of the world upon him, that the statements of hon. Members in this House and the
    418
    information which he gives as derived from the police are sure to be as wide as the poles asunder.
    CAPTAIN BETHELL: Sir, I have listened with attention to the Debate, and I cannot help thinking that there has been no answer given to the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo. This is not an ordinary case, because the hon. Member for East Mayo spoke of a matter of which ho had not only personal knowledge, but in which he was absolutely an actor. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, I understand, was not able to answer, right off, the detailed statement, but the hon. Member has a personal acquaintance with what occurred. I most respectfully submit to the House, and to my right hon. Friend, that the meetings ought not to be dispersed until notice has been given, and that people, if they are flying, ought not to be pursued and batoned. I say these few words, Mr. Speaker, with considerable regret, because I have been a very consistent supporter of the Government of my right hon. Friend, in whom, I am bound to say, I have great confidence. But I also have very great confidence that when, upon further inquiry, he finds the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo to be true, he will take care to administer such rebuke as may be necessary. I do not wish on this subject to engage in any Debate, but as to the system of shadowing described, it is to my mind—and I use the word not in its blasphemous sense—damnable.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I doubt whether, in the observations I propose to address to the House, I could add anything to the force and effect of what the hon. Member has just said with reference reference to the present administration in Ireland. I hope, however, that the expression of opinion which the hon. Gentleman has given utterance to will have weight with the Government as indicating opinions, though they may not think so, which are entertained by a large section of their supporters both in the House and out of it. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."] Hon. Gentlemen may cry "No, no" now, but I know what they will say when they go before their constituents. Many years ago Mr. Bright said he had observed that any recital in the House of the wrongs or

    419
    sufferings of Ireland was met with denial, insult, or contempt. I think we may say this evening that all those three manifestations of feeling have been meted out to the Representatives of the Irish people The House has heard the denial which the Chief Secretary invariably gives to every statement made in the House, no matter what the evidence may be by which it was supported, in which he always shelters himself from being brought to book to prove his statement by saying, "I am informed; from the information I have received; I have no doubt that the hon. Member for East Mayo is not telling the truth; I will not tell you the names of those from whom I have received my information; I will give you no opportunity of testing that information as to whether it is correct or incorrect, but I deny it." A great deal has been said with reference to the administration by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division. I have sat in this House through the administrations of several Chief Secretaries: and I hope my right hon. Friend will pardon me if I venture to say that the mode in which the Irish Chief Secretary, whether Mr. Forster or my right hon. Friend in his day, or the present Chief Secretary, have invariably announced to the House that from information they have received the statement of the Irish Members are incorrect, has led me to form a very hesitating opinion as to the value of the evidence which is placed in the hands of the Irish Chief Secretaries. No man has a higher opinion than I have of the extraordinary acuteness and intellectual power of the Chief Secretary. I will not insult the right hon. Gentleman by suggesting for a moment that he really in his heart of hearts believes what he read to the House. We have had tonight, one of the usual stories of denial. I do not suppose the Government would grant a Committee of Inquiry for the very good reason that they dare not. Hon. Members have stated what they saw with their own eyes. They have recited assaults committed upon themselves by the servants of the Crown. The Government have no evidence contradicting the statement except a blank denial, and they refuse to give the House an opportunity of inquiring into the truth of statements made by some of its own Members.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only assault which was alleged was admitted. I mean the one that was made on the hon. Member for East Mayo.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to deny the statement of my hon. Friends. The Attorney General for Ireland said that the law in reference to public meetings was the same in England as in Ireland. In England, however, the question whether a meeting was lawful or unlawful would have to go not to the House of Lords, but to a Jury, but in Ireland it has to go to a Resident Magistrate. In England the question as to whether an assembly is an unlawful one or not would have to be tried by a Jury, and the common sense of the Jury would have to be brought to bear on the question whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, there was evidence to convince them that the meeting was held with criminal intention or was otherwise unlawful. In Ireland, however, it is otherwise, and instead of being tried by a Jury these things have to be decided by a Resident Magistrate. I am reading from the opinion of one of the greatest lawyers at the English Bar, who is substantially quoting the charge of Mr. Justice Patteson given on this question many years ago.
    MR. MADDEN: What I stated was that any person who has been interfered with, as he alleges, unlawfully in a public assembly or meeting, which he alleges to be a lawful meeting, has in Ireland, as in England, a right to bring his action. That civil action in Ireland, as in England, must go before a Jury, and if the Judge who tries that action misdirects the Jury upon the law, the plaintiff has an appeal, first to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, and ultimately to the House of Lords.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I must express my amusement at the idea of a Tipperary peasant going to the House of Lords. Such a thing as bringing a civil action is not practicable in such cases. Attending an unlawful meeting is a criminal offence. A man is indicted for it in this country, and in Ireland he goes before the Resident Magistrate—Colonel Caddell, or somebody else. The right hon. Gentleman used very extraordinary language when he said the proclamation made a meeting unlawful, and when he added, "We will permit or not permit

    421
    such a meeting," lie has no power legally to allow or disallow such a meeting. He may declare that, in the opinion of the Government, it is unlawful, and if a man attended it he runs the risk of being punished in the event of it being proved to have been unlawful. The House will be led very much astray from the point of this Debate if we get into a discussion as to the lawful or unlawful meetings, as to the Plan of Campaign, or as to the legality or illegality of the proceedings in Tipperary. What has been brought before the House is the brutality of the police, the injustice of the Resident Magistrates, and the infamous system of shadowing the Queen's subjects in Ireland. Admitting, merely for the sake of argument, that this meeting was an unlawful one, still the police had not the right to disperse it in this brutal manner, and before they had declared to all present that the meeting was unlawful and they must return to their homos. That, at any rate, is the law in this country. I would ask right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite if, for a moment, they will strip this question of its Party aspect, whether, in administering the law relating to the police of this country, they would allow English police constables to behave as the Irish policemen behaved on this occasion? We are told by hon. Members that they saw the police batoning the crowd, and the Chief Secretary has not denied it. There were five Members of Parliament standing together, and they heard the order given, "Charge with your batons, and clear those men out." I do not understand that to be denied, and I ask, Is this the sort of thing which Hon. Members opposite would allow to take place in this country? But, Sir, we have to look at this ease not only as it affects the people of Ireland, but also as it affects the rights of Members of this House. Half these things—I may say 9–10ths of thorn—are don because some of those present are Parliament, and not because they a private capacity. I charge Secretary with systematically doing his utmost to bring Irish Members of Parliament into contempt because they are Members of Parliament; and that, I contend, is conduct unworthy of any English Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. S. Buxton) took
    422
    prominent part last autumn—a part well worthy of his great ability—in the conflict then going on between capital and labour in the East of London. Can any Member of this House conceive what would be the position of the Chief of the Metropolitan Police in setting constables to shadow the footsteps of my Iron. Friend, wherever he went, from morning to night, listening to everything he said, taking note of everyone lie spoke to, and generally dogging his progress as he went about from one place to another? I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite — I ask this House—would such a thing as that be tolerated in this city for half an hour? Why, Sir there is no English Minister who would dare to incur the responsibility for such a course of procedure, or, if such a Minister could be found, he would not be able to retain office for a single week. But, as I have said, the Irish Members are to receive unjust treatment of this kind because they are Irish Members. But who is it you employ to treat them in this matter? They are the Resident Magistrates and the police—the men whom the Irish Members feel it necessary to criticise in this House, the men whose conduct they impeach—these are the men you set to insult them in every way, so that, if possible, you may send those Members to prison. I say that this conduct is unworthy of the Government, and unworthy of the traditions of this House. We are all Members of one Parliament, and what we wish to preserve is the integrity of that Parliament, but there are, in fact, two Parliaments in this House, and the Gentlemen who sit on that (the Ministerial) side are not treated in the same way as those who sit below the Gangway on this side of the House. That is the gravamen of the charge. The question is not whether a meeting is legal or illegal, but whether the police of Ireland are systematically encouraged in trampling on the rights and liberties of the people. The question is whether these Resident Magistrates, ignorant of law and ignorant of justice, virtually police officers—faithful servants, I admit, of the Executive, and nothing else—are to be allowed to degrade and disgrace the administration of justice. Our vote to night will be a protest against that branch of the Irish Executive, and, although we may be beaten, and no doubt we shall be beaten, the

    423
    day is coming very rapidly when the English people will have a word to say upon this question. Then the Representatives of the liberty-loving people of England and Scotland will know how to deal with those officials in Ireland.
    MR. GILL: I desire to offer a word or two before this discussion closes. If the ordinary courtesies which are supposed to govern the Debates of this House were regarded in relation to the Irish Members it would be unnecessary for me or any one present on those Benches to get up and corroborate the statements that have been made on the responsibility of an hon. Member of this House. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo has given a narrative of what he himself witnessed, which has had the effect of impressing even some of the hon. Members opposite, and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has mainly consisted of denials made in the names of anonymous policemen whose conduct is the subject of our investigation. As one who accompanied my hon. Friend into the square of Tipperary on the Sunday on which the meeting was held, I was an eyewitness to the scenes he has described, and stood among the group which the police charged with their batons. Every single circumstance that my hon. Friend has detailed, as recording that scene, I witnessed and hereby corroborate, and there are four other hon. Members who can do the same—and being Members of this House, they are, by our traditions, entitled to have their word of honour believed. In spite of all this testimony the right hon. Gentleman gives a flat denial to our statements; and this, in whatever sort of Parliamentary phrase he may choose to disguise it, simply amounts to hurling the lie at us across the floor of this House. The Chief Secretary's statement has received a comment from the other side of the House which, I think, is one of the first symptoms of the opinion which will be passed on him by the English nation. The observations of the hon. and gallant Member opposite were a sufficient answer and rebuke to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, not only as to the meeting at Tipperary and the scenes which took place there, but also as to his conduct during the Debate this evening. The speech of the right
    424
    hon. Gentleman was not only indecent in its method as denying the truth of statements made by Members of this House on their word of honour, but it was insulting. His speech and the manner in which ho has since met the speeches of hon. Members on this side by sneers and laughter, are all characteristic of the manner in which he administers the law in Ireland. The scenes which occurred in Tipperary on the Monday, and to which no reference has been made in the Debate, are equally worthy of the condemnation of the House and equally illustrate the rule of the right hon. Gentleman. The Members for East Mayo and North-East Cork and my self were followed about by the police, who batoned every group of people they saw in our vicinity. Twenty times during the day I saw the police bustling the people about, and with my own eyes I saw one policeman strike a poor woman on the face with his fist whilst she was held by another. I submit that if ever there was a case for having an inquiry it is the transactions connected with the suppression of those meetings. An unanswerable case has been made out to-night, and, though the Division will be against us, I believe the Debate will not be ineffectual in calling the attention of the English people to the right hon. Gentleman's rule in Ireland, and that it will be an effectual means of bringing about the self-government of Ireland which we have every hope of securing at the next General Election.
    MR. PARNELL: I certainly expected, as I think many Members of this House expected, that we should have had some intelligible answer from a spokesman of the Government in response to the suggestion which was made by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian with regard to an inquiry into the unhappy circumstances complained of by the hon. Member for East Mayo. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is armed with very important and extensive power; he is practically, through his agents, intrusted in Ireland with the power of life and death; and I think that the country and the House ought to insist that those powers shall be used not unnecessarily, but with judgment and discretion, and, if there is to be action of a punitive

    425
    character, it shall be taken not against poor people, such as those who suffered on this occasion, but against those whom the right hon. Gentleman would consider to be ringleaders and responsible persons. In the history of events such as those which have happened at Tipperary nothing has struck me so much as the utter disregard of public rights and liberty which has been shown on all occasions. It appears to be assumed that the poor people are to be brutally intimidated and ill-treated for the purpose of preventing them from exorcising that right which is the dearest right of Britons —the right of free assembly and free meeting—so that it may be made impossible for a public assembly of any kind to be held whenever the right hon. Gentleman chooses to say it shall not be allowed. This is not your interpretation in England of the right of free meeting and free assembly and freedom of speech: and it ought not to be in Ireland. If any law has boon transgressed—if, in the announcement of Thursday the law was transgressed—due notice should have been given to the peasantry of Tipperary before they assembled and before this terrible risk was incurred, a risk which was not so slight as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe, because there were no fewer than 150 people treated in the hospitals of the district as a consequence of the action of the police on that occasion. People wore treated in the hospitals mostly for horrible injuries about the head. The right hon. Gentleman knew that this meeting was to be held on Sunday. Why was not notice given on (Friday? It could have been given on Thursday. But no notice was given until Saturday. And then what was the action of the police? No attempt was made in the town of Tipperary to hold any meeting whatever; but the police, acting on their instructions, wherever they saw two or three persons gathered together, charged them and assaulted them in the manner which has been described by my hon. Friend. They charged them with their batons, they struck them about the head, and they intimidated them and injured them as much as they possibly could without the use of firearms. That is not the way to treat people who were at least not primarily re sponsible for the proceedings objected to by
    426
    the right hon. Gentleman. He has passed over my hon. Friends the Members for East Mayo and North-East Cork, and he has let loose these armed constables upon the peasants, who cannot judge as to the law and as to the rights of the Government in this matter, who even had no notice except the posting of the Proclamation late on Saturday that the Government held that this meeting was illegal, and who only thought that they were doing their duty to their country in coming in response to the summons of their leaders to take part in this meeting in vindication of free speech. Is that any justification for the action of the Government in attacking them in this brutal and cowardly fashion? If anybody was deserving of being batoned, the hon. Members for North-East Cork and East Mayo were. If there was legal authority for any blows struck in Tipperary, that authority would have been on the side of the policeman who struck the hon. Members. No such attack was made. It was only the poor peasants of the neighbourhood, who thought they were doing their duty loyally to their leaders—just as the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman would think they were doing theirs if they came to a meeting summoned in his constituency—who had to feel the weight of the Government's displeasure and to bear back to their families and humble cottages the marks of police brutality, and who had to reflect bitterly on the sort of justice and law administered in Ireland by the orders and under the dispensation of the right hon. Gentleman. The people of Tipperary have gone into this struggle; they may be right or they may be wrong. That question is not concerned here, but whether they are right or wrong they have gone into it out of a feeling of loyalty to their leaders and to their country, and because they honestly think that they are doing their duty to their country in the only way that is possible for them. Better treatment should have been extended to them than the horrible and infamous brutality which has been related to us to-night by the hon. Member for North-East Cork. If there is law on the side of tire right hon. Gentleman, why should he not have instituted his proceedings against the leaders—why should he have studiously shielded the leaders from attack, and

    427
    have selected poor and obscure persons for this treatment? It may be said that these peasants have open access to the Courts. We know what an action of law is in this country; the expenses involved; and how many weary months go by before the wrongdoer has exhausted every artifice of delay and the injured person can approach the portals of justice to obtain redress. It is worse than mockery to tell the Tipperary peasant, after his brains have been dashed out by a police baton, or by the butt of the policeman's rifle—it is a mockery, I say, to tell him to go into a Court of Law, and if lie should succeed in identifying his assailant, to recover his damages. But supposing that he had asserted his rights still further, supposing the celebrated blackthorns of Tipperary had overpowered the batons of the police, then we should have had the sabres of the dragoons and the rifles and bayonets of the infantry, and it would have been replied that the peasants had the power of action against the soldiery for any loss of life or injury to person that they might have suffered. But this is a question of notice, of the conduct of the police in dispersing these assemblies, and of their action with regard to the right of the people to cheer a popular favourite and shake hands with him free from assault or attack. It is a, question of rights and wrongs which can be very easily investigated, and in reference to which we demand public investigation by a fair tribunal. As I stated at the outset, I am surprised that we have had no definite answer from some responsible officer of the Government to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian with regard to his suggestion that the whole question should be fairly and openly brought forward, and that the blame should be fairly distributed— if it is on my hon. Friend, let it be placed on his shoulders; if it rests with the Government let them boar it. It is not fair that obscure people, [that poor and ignorant people, should be compelled to suffer for the bad judgment or wrongdoing of my hon. Friends on the one side or of the Government on the other. If you wish to maintain the law in Ireland, let the people see that the law is made for them just as much as for their betters, that their heads and bodies are as sacred from the attacks of policemen's truncheons
    428
    as the heads and bodies of my hon. Friends. Let them see that the Government is an equal Government and a firm Government—that the Government will not discriminate between persons. When you have done that you will have done the first thing towards establishing your right to rule in Ireland, for the only foundation on which you can claim to rule her is the consent of the governed— the consent of the Irish people.
    Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
    (11.20.) The Committee divided: — Ayes 220; Noes 281.—(Div. List, No. 123.)

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 199.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 112.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): I do not know whether the Government intend to proceed with this very important Bill at this time of the night. The measure involves the most important considerations, and I think the Committee will be very slow to deal with the affairs of this enormous tract of country in the short time now at our disposal.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to discus's the Bill as a whole.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: What I was about to do was to suggest that at 20 minutes to 12 o'clock it was impossible to do justice to the Bill. I think it will be better that I should move to report Progress, and I beg to do so.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): We cannot consent to report Progress. Almost the whole House, with the exception of the hon. Member, desire that the very great labours of the Committee which has sat on the Bill should bear fruit.
    MR. CHAINING: I entirely concur in the desirability of hastening the passage of the Constitution of Western Australia. The questions which have to be raised before the Bill passes through the House are, however, of such importance that I think my hon. Friend is justified in asking that more than a quarter of an hour should be devoted to discussing them. The question is, whether emigrants should have their fair share in the future of that country. I think that question will lead to long discussion, and to my mind the Government would do wisely in assenting to the suggestion that has been put forward.
    MR. J. MORLEY: In this matter I am certainly of the same opinion as the First Lord of the Treasury, and I hope my hon. Friend (Sir G. Campbell) will not press his Motion. This Bill was fully discussed on the' Motion for the Second Reading. It has been submitted to a very strong Select Committee, the members of which were most assiduous in their attention and unanimous in their judgment as to the most important parts of the measure. My hon. Friend behind me did not vote upon the point which he is now apparently going to contend for. In the Committee he had an opportunity, of which I think he cannot deny he amply availed himself, of raising all questions. I think that in a matter of this kind, in which the Australian colonists are greatly concerned, when the Governor of western Australia is detained in this country because the Bill is not passed, when all the colonists are of one mind in urging the passage of the Bill as soon as possible, we ought to allow the measure to get through the House as soon as possible.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I think there would be a good deal in the observations of my right hon. Friend if it were possible to pass the Bill this evening. It is, however, hardly worth while to commence it at this late hour. It seems to me that it would be
    430
    almost an insult to the Australian colonists to take the Bill piecemeal— discussing it for 10 minutes on one night and 10 minutes on another. I think the Government are bound to bring it on at a reasonable hour. We shall gain nothing by merely commencing the discussion this evening. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) has many observations to make on the Bill, and the only result of going on with the Committee stage to-night will be that the Government reply to his speech will have to be postponed till another day, and then his observations will probably be repeated by someone else. I observe that in the case of discussions at this time at night, when an hon. Member states his reasons, no answer is given to him on that day, and practically, as far as time is concerned, nothing is gained by hon. Gentlemen making observations. Under these circumstances, it is hardly worth while to prolong discussion now, and I would urge the First Lord of the Treasury, out of respect to the Australian colonists, to put down the Bill for an earlier hour some other evening.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I protest against the passing of the Third Reading this evening. There is one question which alone will take several hours to discuss—namely, the proposal to grant a pension of £333 to Mr. Wharton, in spite of the protest of the Western Australian people.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): The hon. Gentleman speaks of a protest. I do not know anything of such a protest.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I have the protest.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: No such protest has been made to Her Majesty's Government, and I cannot admit that a document such as that stated by the hon. Member to be in his possession can, on that ground, be assumed as coming within the cognisance of Her Majesty's Government. Of course I cannot discuss the question of Mr. Warton's pension on the Motion to report Progress.
    MR. CREMER: I entertain the greatest possible respect for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J Morley), but on this occasion I hope the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will per-

    431
    severe with his Motion. It is monstrous to proceed with a measure of this kind at 10 minutes to 12 o'clock. If there were no other reason for delaying the consideration of this measure, I think the rumours which have been in circulation during the last two or three weeks with reference to the objects of the promoters of the Bill form a reason. We know what has been going on in many of the Australian colonies, and we are anxious to prevent the same evils arising in Western Australia. I do not say the rumours are true, but it has been said that the Bill is promoted by a number of land grabbers. It is well that such a rumour should be disproved, if possible. Those of us who entertain broad views on the question of laud tenure reform will stoutly resist any attempt on the part of a handful of men to obtain possession of the land of Western Australia. I think it would be most unfortunate for this country, as well as for the colonists themselves, that the Bill should be passed without the most serious deliberation.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I opposed the Second Reading of the Bill because I thought the measure was proposed in great haste and without due consideration, and because the principle upon which it proceeded was not one which commended itself to my mind. But as a strong Select Committee has reported in favour of the Bill, and in view of the fact that every Australian Legislature has passed a unanimous vote in favour of the Bill, I am not prepared to pursue my opposition any further. At the same time, I think the demand that the measure should be brought on at an early hour some other evening is a reasonable one.
    SIR R. N. FOWLER: I agree very much with the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I was not in favour of the Bill originally, but, considering that the Australian colonists are unanimous in favour of the measure, it seems to me there is only one course open to the House, and that is to press the Bill. I think, too, that it ought to be taken at any hour.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: As reference has been made to the Select Committee, I think it right to say that although we had ample opportunity of discussing some parts of the Bill, we had not sufficient opportunity of discussing the most
    432
    important portion of the Bill, namely, the disposal of the temperate southern lands. If the Government think it worth while to go on, I shall not further resist them.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I am sure the Members of the Select Committee who are present will boar me out when I say that the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, that the last portion of the Bill was not adequately discussed, is absolutely without foundation. There was no sort of impediment put on the discussion of the Bill. If hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Report, they will see that a large portion, a disproportionate amount of the time of the Committee was occupied by the observations of the hon. Member himself. So far from any check being put on the discussion of the Bill in the Select Committee, I give the statement the most unqualified denial.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: Ten sittings were held to take evidence on the Bill, and the discussion of the Bill is limited to one sitting. I assent that a great part of the time was occupied in considering whether the northern lands should be reserved. When we come to what I think is the serious part of the Bill, the question of making over to the present inhabitants of the colony the temperate southern lands, Members commenced to pack up their papers; not 10 minutes were given to the discussion.
    DR. TANNER: I observe that the Government are pursuing their usual tactics, namely, dragging on at a late hour of the night a measure dealing with an important colony. They actually condescend to devote three or four minutes to the consideration of a Bill which really gives a now Constitution to Western Australia. Irish Members have the utmost respect for anything that falls from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), but in some matters, notably in colonial matters, we have to consult very largely the opinions of our constituents, and I assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy that if he had not moved to report Progress, I should have felt it my duty to do so.
    It being midnight, the Motion for Progress lapsed without Question put;

    433
    and the Chairman loft the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee to sit again to-morrow.

    INDIAN COUNCILS BILL [LORDS ] (No. 197.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading be deferred till Thursday."—(Sir John Gorst.)
      MR. BRADLAUGH: I think the Government ought to state when this Bill will be taken. There was a distinct promise given on the part of the Government that the Debate; on this Bill should be taken between Easter and Whitsuntide, but that has been departed from. I do not wish to put the Government in an unfair position, but I received notice late on Saturday night that the Bill was to be taken to-day, and that is not a fair carrying out of the arrangement that Members should have duo notice of the Bill coming on. It should be sot down as the first or second Order, for there must be a real Debate upon the Second Reading, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge if there is no intention of taking the Bill on Thursday, to put it down for a later day.
      MR. BRTCE: I desire to confirm what has been said by the hon. Member. This is really a very important matter, and, in view of the interest the question excites in India, I hope the Government will make arrangements for a reasonably long Debate of three or four hours.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): It was the intention to take the Second Reading to-day, and if business had followed its usual course I have no doubt we should have boon able to do so. I would suggest that the hon. Member for Northampton should to-morrow put a question on the subject to my right hon. Friend the Loader of the House.
      MR. BRADLAUGH: Then Thursday is merely the pro formd postponement, not a fixture?
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

    SUPERANNUATION (WAR DEPARTMENT) BILL.—(No. 297.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      DR. TANNER: I object.
      COLONEL NOLAN: No, no.
      DR. TANNER: I was under the impression this was a Government measure, but I find it is promoted by the hon. Member for Woolwich, and I make no objection.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." —(Colonel Hughes)
      MR. BEAUFOY: I do not rise to object to the Second Reading, but I would ask the Government if they can see their way to make a small extension and bring within the scope of the Bill two persons who now consider themselves suffering under an injustice by the existing state of things. Two men were employed in the Seamen's Registry Office of the Board of Trade, and were led to expect in the same way as employés Army Department that they would receive pensions on retirement. I do not say that the promise was made to them in so many words, but neither was it denied in the same manner. As it is, after 28 years' service they find themselves retired with the magnificent sum of £48 5s. as compensation. I would urge the Treasury to make a concession so far as to include these two men in the Bill; it will be an act of justice and will confer great happiness on two deserving public servants.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): No, Sir, it is not possible to accept the suggestion. The Bill deals with one class only, and the claims have boon very carefully considered.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill road a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

    LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 244.)

      COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That (he Committee be deferred till tomorrow."—[Mr. Jackson.)
      SIR W. HARCOURT:I should like to ask what course the right hon. Gentleman means to take to-morrow. Supposing the Speaker leaves the Chair, does he propose to proceed with the clauses in Committee to-morrow?
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir; that is the intention of the Go—vernment.
      MR. E. ROBERTSON: I should like to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker. I observe there are three or four Instructions put down on the Paper; one most important. I should like to ask whether they are in order or not?
      MR. SPEAKER: It is unusual to ask a question of that kind until the Order is reached, and about to be proceeded with, but I may say that the instruction of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington is in order.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Committee deferred until to morrow.

    SUPPLY—REPORT.
    Resolution [6th June] reported.
    EDUCATION ESTIMATES.

      CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £2,182,224, 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 Public Education in England and Wales, including Expenses of the Education Office in London."
      Resolution agreed to.

    ALDERSHOT ROADS BILL.—(No. 298.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODBICK,): I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill now. Shooting has been carried on at Aldershot with some danger to the public, and this Bill provides for making a new road for the benefit of the locality, obviating all danger. I have conferred with representatives of the locality, and I do not believe there is any difficulty in the matter.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
      MR. CONYBEARE: I have no quarrel with the roads,
      436
      but I have an objection to Government business being carried on after 12 o'clock.
      Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 239.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    DIRECTORS' LIABILITY BILL.—(No. 60.)
    Order for Consideration of Bill read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Consideration of this Bill be deferred till Wednesday."
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think it was agreed that this Bill should not be taken until after the Companies Winding-Up Bill, which had been put down for Monday next. May I suggest that this Bill should be set down for the same day.
    THE PRESIDENT OE THE BOARD OE TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): If the hon. Member in charge of the Bill wishes that the Bill should be set down for Wednesday, I think it should be deferred to that day. It is not a Government Bill, and it does not follow that it will be taken before the Winding-Up Bill.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: It will be an advantage to deal with the other Bill first, and the Bills are so connected that we cannot deal with this Bill first.
    MR. BARING: As I sat in the Committee upstairs on both Bills, I can say that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken; the Bills are wholly independent of each other.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is usual to observe the instruction of the hon. Member in charge of a Bill as to the date of postponement.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday.

    PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 290.)
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I hope I may ask the House to proceed with this stage of the Bill. There is, I think, no objection.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member, I believe, accepts the Amendment we suggested on the last occasion?
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I accept that Amendment.
    MR. J. KELLY (Camberwell, N.): I must press my objection.
    DR. TANNER: I withdraw any objection I have made.
    Committee deferred till Wednesday.

    TREES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 70.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after the word "shall," to insert the words "subject as hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. Macartney)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    DR. TANNER: I sincerely hope the hon. Member who has proposed this Amendment will not insist upon it. It will be a great injustice and inconvenience to tenants to insist upon their travelling long distances for the purpose of registering. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment which in an ill-advised moment he moved. It was a similar Amendment that wrecked the Bill on a former occasion, and indeed it would make the Bill worthless. I hope the hon. Member will see fit to withdraw the Amendment, which I cannot accept, and I cannot suppose the hon. Member really believes this is in the interest of the tenant farmers.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I do not wish to detain the House. I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member, and must insist on my Amendment.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    ANGLESEY ASSIZES AND QUARTER SESSIONS BILL.—(No. 248.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses agreed to. Preamble.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 2, to leave out all after "that," to "county," in line 5, and insert "it may be
    438
    lawful to hold assizes and quarter sessions for the county of Anglesea elsewhere than at Beaumaris."— (Mr. Attorney General.)
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE EOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): It must be observed that in allowing this Bill to proceed the Government give no undertaking that the Assizes shall be removed from Beaumaris to any other place in Anglesey until the Home Office is satisfied that proper accommodation has been made at such other place for prisoners awaiting trial.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill reported as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

    PLAGES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL. (No. 115.)
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 262.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      MR. MARJORIBANKS: This Bill is simply to remove an anomaly in certain burghs in Scotland where a portion only of the Act of 1862 has been adopted, and a considerable part of the electors are omitted from the Municipal and County Council franchise. It is really an extension of the franchise.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
      DR. TANNER: After an assurance from a leader of our Party, which I unreservedly accept, I offer no objection.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

    OPEN SPACES BILL [LORDS].—(No. 303.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      SIR J. LUBBOCK: There is no new principle in this Bill, it is merely to remove certain difficulties to enable authorities to take over open spaces outside their own area. The

      439
      Bill has been carefully considered in another place, and it is in print.
      DR. TANNER: I object.
      Bill deferred till to-morrow.

    SALARIED SHOP ASSISTANTS' WEEKLY HALF-HOLIDAY BILL.—(No. 203.)

      SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [29th April.]
      MR. MAPLE: If the House will agree to read the Bill a second time I will do my best to secure it being sent to a Select Committee, together with the Bill of the hon. Baronet opposite.
      MR. ESSLEMONT: I have a strong opinion against the Bill; but I should be content if it were submitted to a Committee upstairs.
      SIR J. LUBBOCK: I hope the House will agree to refer the two Bills to a Committee.
      MR. TOMLINSON: I object.
      Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

    SHOPS (WEEKLY HALF-HOLIDAY) BILL.—(No. 131.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      SIR J. LUBBOCK: I hope there will be no objection to the Second Reading, upon the understanding that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
      MR. TOMLINSON: I must maintain my objection. I understand that there is no likelihood of a Committee being appointed. My objection would be removed if I had an assurance on the point.
      MR. CONYBEARE: Can the Government give us any assurance as to whether a Committee will be appointed or not?
      Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

    ROCHESTER BISHOPRIC BILL. (No. 228.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      MR. CAUSTON: This is a very innocent Bill, its object simply being to enable the Bishop of Rochester
      440
      to have his residence in any part of his diocese, instead of compelling him to reside in the County of Surrey.
      Objection taken, Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.

    MOTIONS.

      EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVANTS).
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the alleged grievances of the Uncovenanted Civil Servants of India arising from the change in the relative value of gold and silver money and their leave and pension rules."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
      MR. A. O'CONNOR: I object to the Motion, and it may perhaps save the right hon. Gentleman inconvenience if I intimate my intention to oppose the Motion every night, though I have to attend for that purpose only.
      Motion deferred till to-morrow.

      WATER COMPANIES' CHARGES BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Causton, Bill to regulate and limit the powers of Water Companies in respect of their Charges for the supply of Water, ordered to he brought in by Mr. Causton, Mr. Beaufoy, Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Howell, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Octavius V. Morgan, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Rowlands, and Mr. James Stuart.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 332.]

      REGISTRATION OE ASSURANCES (IRELAND) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relating to the Registration of Deeds and Judgments, and to provide for the Registration of other Assurances, Acts, and Matters affecting Land in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Arthur Balfour.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 333.]

      LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Bill to establish Local Registries of Titles to Land in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Arthur Balfour.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 334.]
      House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.