Commons Sitting of 7 July 1893

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
  Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales' Consent, as Duke of Cornwall, signified.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the conference in Dublin of the representatives of the Royal Irish Constabulary as to the proposed terms of their dismissal under the Government of Ireland Bill has yet been held; if he has accorded them an interview; and if the Government propose in consequence to improve the conditions specified in the Bill in question?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, New-castle-upon-Tyne): Conferences, representative of both officers and men, have been held in Dublin regarding their position under the Bill, and I have had the advantage of interviews with the representatives of the two sections of the Force with regard to the notices of Amendment placed on the Paper tonight. I fear, after giving the best consideration to the subject, that we shall not be able to meet the wishes of the men, except as to officers and men appointed before 1866.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Were the various grades and periods of service represented in the officers' deputation?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe so. Of course, that was not my affair; the officers themselves chose their representatives.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Will an opportunity be given to discuss these Amendments?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That will depend on the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.

SCHOOL BOARD FOR ABERAVON.
MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has received a request from the Town Council of Aberavon, asking for permission to withdraw the request they had previously made for the formation of a School Board; and whether he is prepared to accede to that request?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham): The Town Council of Aberavon passed a resolution for a School Board on the 9th June, and an Order was accordingly issued on the 20th June. The day after the Order had been issued the Town Council passed another resolution asking the Department to withdraw their Order till the Town Council had an opportunity of further considering the matter. The Department, after full consideration, decided that the Order could not be withdrawn.

THE PRINCE OF WALES'S PROPERTY IN LAMBETH.
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the name of the official who furnished him with the statement that there is no insanitary area in Lambeth belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall; whether the freehold of certain insanitary houses in Lambeth belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall, and whether the Prince of Wales receives the ground rents; if not, who does receive the ground rents; what revenue the Duchy of Cornwall derives from London, and how many (if any) dwellings for the working classes have been built in London by the Duchy; and, if so, where situate; whether the Duchy will undertake to build houses for the working classes; and whether the leases from the Duchy of Cornwall contain clauses enabling the Duchy to enforce sanitation; if not, will he lay upon the Table the present form of Duchy lease, and undertake that future building leases shall contain such clauses?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham): The statement was furnished by the Secretary of the Duchy of Cornwall, who had submitted it for approval to the Prince of Wales's Council, the subject having been under investigation by a Committee. As stated on the 19th June last, the freehold of Salutation Place belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall, the proportion of ground rent paid to the Duchy amounting to £21 a year; but the Duchy has at present no power to interfere with the property. The houses, though objectionable in construction, are not in such a condition as to enable the Local Authorities to obtain a closing order. The lease comprising the area in question was granted in the early part of the century, when the views on sanitation were very different from what they are at the present time. It contemplated the erection of four good substantial houses on the whole site, or of such buildings as would be of at least equal value. The lessees ultimately erected upwards of 60 houses. In recent years the Duchy has granted building leases only on condition of the plans being submitted for approval; but for some time no building leases for dwellings inhabited by the working classes have been granted by the Duchy, such dwellings having been erected by the Duchy itself for the very purpose of insuring good sanitation. During the last seven years about £32,000 has been spent by the Duchy on the removal of inferior dwellings and the erection of improved buildings in the parish of Lambeth, and other houses-are still in course of construction. The amount of Duchy revenue obtained from London property is not included as a separate item in the Returns made to Parliament.

FISHING IN THE THAMES.
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Thames is stated in the old Law Books to be a Royal, navigable, public, and common river; and whether the fishing from mouth to source, or at least from mouth to beyond Lechlade, did and does belong to the Crown, the people of London, or the public generally; whether the Thames is expressly stated in Statutes 6 & 7 William III., c. 16, and 24 George II., c. 8, to have been

1049
time out of mind a navigable river from London to Bercott in Oxfordshire, and from Oxford to beyond Lechlade; and whether the Law Books of the date of these Statutes declare that the fishing in all navigable rivers belongs to the Crown, or public; and whether this is still the law; whether the report in The Oxford Chronicle of 17th December, 1892, page 7, column 2, in which it is stated that Mr. J. E. Bankes, instructed by the Thames Conservancy, said—
"He desired to emphasise as strongly as he could this point, that the whole of the River Thames, as far as he knew, from Staines to Cricklade, was private property—that was to say that the bed and soil of the River Thames all the way from Staines to Cricklade, belonged, either to adjoining riparian owners, or else to persons who happened to have got a grant of fisheries from the Crown. That had been decided again and again,"
is a correct report; and whether Mr. Bankes was instructed to make such statement by the Thames Conservancy; if so, whether the Thames Conservancy was authorised by any officer of the Crown to make such statement; and, if so, by whom; and whether the Government will give short particulars of all grants made by the Crown of fishing in the Thames?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: With reference to the first two paragraphs of the question, I am afraid I can only say that the Commissioners of Woods are not aware that the fishing from the mouth to the source of the River Thames ever belonged to the Crown in right of the Land Revenues. The third paragraph is one for the Thames Conservancy Commissioners, and I have no information except that Mr. Bankes had no authority from the Office of Woods to make any statement on the subject. The Commissioners of Woods could not give the information asked for in the last paragraph, because, if any such grants have in fact been made, it would probably involve long and expensive searches in ancient records to discover them.

LAND PURCHASE IN COUNTY CORK.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many farms on the estate of Mr. J. H. Payne, Ballinhassig, County Cork, were sold under the Ash-
1050
bourne Land Purchase Act; whether he is aware that a tenant named P. Murphy, after having been evicted, purchased his holding in 1888 at 26 years' purchase of the valuation, sold his interest in 1891, not being able to meet the purchase instalments, and that the purchaser, Mr. T. Murphy, is now being pressed for payment by the Land Commission; also, that he put up his interest for sale by auction on 27th ultimo and failed to get a buyer; is he also aware that another tenant named Kelly, who purchased under the Act, was evicted by the Land Commission two years ago; and what steps, if any, are taken by the Land Commission to insure that the prices paid for holdings under the Land Purchase Act are not excessive?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Land Commission informs me that 12 farms have been sold to tenants on the estate of Mr. J. H. Payne, of Ballinhassig, under the Land Purchase Acts. Mr. P. Murphy purchased his holding of 65 acres for a sum of £780, being at the rate of 26 years' purchase of the tenement valuation and 14 of the annual rental of £55. In October, 1891, he sold his interest to Mr. T. Murphy, subject to the Land Commission annuity, for a sum of £125. At that time the annuity had been paid up to date. Mr. T. Murphy not having paid the tenth instalment for the advance, amounting to £15 12s., proceedings are now pending for the sale of the holding by public auction. With regard to the case of Kelly, it appears that in 1891 his holding was offered for sale by the Land Commission for non-payment of the instalments, and was sold, subject to the same, to the former landlord.
MR. FLYNN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph in my question?
MR. J. MORLEY: I do not perceive that that is a question to which I could give a general answer.

COUNTY COUNCILS AND THE SMALL HOLDINGS ACT.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in cases in which County Councils decide to let land for small holdings, the rent, as defined by the 18th section of the Small Holdings Act, must be sufficient to cover the instalments for the repayment of the pur-

1051
chase money, or only the interest thereon?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER, Essex, Saffron Walden): The question is one with regard to which it is not competent for me to give an authoritative decision; but, with a view to assist County Councils in the discharge of their duties under the Small Holdings Act, I made arrangements, in April last, for the submission of a case to the Law Officers of the Crown. These officers have recently expressed the opinion that where land is purchased by a County Council under the Small Holdings Act, and let, the rent should not be such as to cover annual instalments of principal borrowed, but a fair rent estimated so as to provide against loss, covering, with a fair margin for eventualities, the interest on all expenditure including purchase money. On receipt of the opinion, I gave instructions for the preparation of a Circular Letter to County Councils on the subject, and this has now been issued.
SIR R. PAGET: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to place on the Table a copy of the Circular and of the case submitted to the Officers of the Crown for their opinion?
MR. ACLAND: I shall be happy to show the hon. Gentleman a Circular sent to the County Council. As to the other matter, I will consider that.
SIR R. PAGET: I will put a further question on the subject.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS.
MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Messrs. Harrison, one of the Government printers, are paying less than the recognised rate of wages for pressmen, namely, 38s. per week of 56 hours, the rate paid by the principal firms in the trade; and that, in consequence, Trades Union pressmen have refused to work for the firm; whether the contract with Messrs. Harrison was entered into previous to or since February, 1891; and whether he will state when the contract will come to an end?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The contract was entered into previously to February, 1891, and expires at the end of 1896.
1052
Until that time, therefore, I am afraid the Treasury is not in a position to deal with the matters contained in the first paragraph.

EDUCATIONAL SCHEMES.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education what steps are taken under Section 13 of "The Endowed Schools Act, 1873," for publishing and circulating the Schemes approved by the Department, in order that they may not escape the notice of all parties interested; and whether he will consent to the publication of all such Schemes in The London Gazette?
MR. ACLAND: The practice has always been to publish Schemes approved by the Department twice, at intervals of a week, in the same newspapers in which they have been previously advertised by the Charity Commissioners. I do not think there is any reason for departing from this practice. For further details, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to the question which stands in his name next to this.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire's Charity Commissioner, what steps are taken under Section 33 of "The Endowed Schools Act, 1869," for publishing and circulating the Schemes drafted by the Commissioners, in order that they may not escape the notice of all persons interested; and whether he will consent to the publication of all such schemes in The London Gazette?
THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS, Merionethshire): The following are the steps ordinarily taken by the Commissioners under the provisions of Section 33 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, for publishing and circulating Draft Schemes so as to give information to all persons interested:—In the case of an endowment in London, about six leading morning and evening daily papers of opposite politics, and also some local paper having circulation in the part of London chiefly interested in the endowment, are selected for the insertion of advertisements of the Draft Scheme; and, in the case of an endowment in the City of London, the Scheme is also advertised in journals having

1053
special currency in the City. Besides being thus advertised, the Scheme is deposited for gratuitous inspection, and sold at a cheap rate to all applicants, at the office of the Commission in Whitehall. In the case of an endowment in the country, the Trustees of the endowment are required to furnish the names of at least two local journals of opposite politics, having principal circulation among those interested in the endowment; secondly, the name of some place where the scheme can best be deposited so as to be easily accessible; and, thirdly, the name of some person who will undertake to sell at a small charge copies supplied to him gratuitously; and the Scheme is published accordingly. In the case of Schemes under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, additional publicity is given by their submission to all local Public Bodies, and to numerous persons interested. For instance, the Glamorgan Scheme was submitted to 108 local Public Bodies and to 42 persons for purposes of public deposit and sale. In view of the fact that publication of these Schemes in The London Gazette is not required by Statute, and would, in the opinion of the Commissioners, be less effective for the purposes of the Endowed Schools Acts than the abovementioned process, they would hesitate to impose upon the Imperial Exchequer the additional expense of advertisements in a journal which does not command an extensive circulation among bodies and persons interested in education.

SOUTHEND POST OFFICE.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will state the cost to the public of the fitting and furnishing the new post office at Southend, Essex; and whether he has received any complaints of the inconvenience and inaccessibility of the new office as compared with the old building?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): The rent of the temporary post office at Southend is £100 a year, and £200 has been spent on fittings and furniture. Most of these articles will be available for use in the new permanent building which is about to be erected. So far as I am aware, only one complaint has been received of inconvenience or inaccessi-
1054
bility of the temporary office as compared with the old post office.
MAJOR RASCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman re-consider the matter if it is properly brought before him by deputation or otherwise?
MR. A. MORLEY: The hon. Gentleman has not told me what matter he refers to. Of course, I shall be pleased to consider any points laid before me.

THE LIMERICK POST OFFICE.
MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the cause of the delay in giving to the postmen in Limerick the good conduct badges they are entitled to?
MR. A. MORLEY: I regret to find that there has been delay in this matter; but the surveyor of the district has now been directed to lose no further time in submitting recommendations for good conduct badges.

PUBLIC COMPANIES AND INCOME TAX.
MR. NOBLE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury at what rate Income Tax is deducted on dividends of Public Companies payable during the current financial year, but which have partly accrued during last year; and if at the rate of 7d. in the £1 for the whole period, by what authority 7d. in the £1 is deducted from that portion of the dividend which accrued while the Income Tax was 6d. in the £1?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is assumed that the hon. Member refers in his question to English Public Companies. The rate at which those companies deduct Income Tax from their dividends is a matter between the companies and their shareholders. The tax is charged upon the profits and gains of the companies, not on the dividends. If the advice of the Board of Inland Revenue is sought, they advise that the deduction by such companies shall be at the rate, or rates, in force during the periods in which the profits distributed in dividends have been accruing—namely, 6d. in the £1 for so much of the dividend as relates to the period up to April 5, 1893, and 7d. in the £1 for so much of it as relates to the period from April 5, 1893.
MR. NOBLE: And as to the companies?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a similar question on the 12th June by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which it was stated that the deductions for foreign and colonial dividends were made under Acts of Parliament named in that reply.

FATAL ACCIDENT AT THE HAWICK RIFLE RANGE.
MR. T. SHAW (Hawick, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that John M'Naught, while acting as a marker at the rifle range, Hawick, on Saturday, 23rd May last, was shot dead; whether the marking butt had been condemned by the Military Authorities, and was so imperfectly constructed that a bullet pierced some rotten wood of which the butt was in part composed, and killed M'Naught while he was attending to his duty and within the supposed shelter of the butt; whether his attention has been called to the fact that no public inquiry has taken place, but only a private inquiry, the details of which have not even been furnished to James M'Naught, the father of the deceased, who, however, has been offered a payment of £5; who is responsible for the dangerous condition of the butt and the consequent death of John M'Naught; will he direct a public investigation to be held; and are the Government prepared to accept such Amendments to the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Bill as will widen its scope so as to include casualties of the above description?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): Until the hon. Member gave notice of his question no information regarding the accident to John M'Naught on the rifle range at Hawick had reached the War Office, the matter having been dealt with regimentally by means of a Court of Inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the facts. M'Naught was shot on May 27, inside the marker's butt. He was not acting officially as marker, but was in the butt with the marker. The butt had not been condemned by the Military Authorities. The accident resulted from a bullet piercing the wooden backing of the butt below the iron mantlet. It does not appear that the wood was rotten, but that the earth banked behind the wood
1056
and insuring security had slipped down and left two or three inches of the wood bare. I am informed that ah official inquiry was held by the Fiscal, but I am not aware how it was conducted, and the result was not communicated to the Military Authorities. The range is in charge of the 1st Roxburgh and Selkirk Rifle Volunteers; and the officer commanding is responsible for its condition. The last two questions should be addressed to the Lord Advocate.
MR. SHAW: I beg to give notice that I shall put a question on this to the Lord Advocate.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN SCOTLAND.
MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether one portion of the sum of £60,000 set aside for Secondary Education in Scotland by the Act of 1892, is (by Clause 2, Section 1 (a) of that Act) to be devoted to defraying the cost of inspecting and examining secondary schools; whether, according to the Circular of 12th May, 1893, which allots only £57,000, the sum of £3,000 is held over for this purpose; and whether it is the intention of the Department to appoint fully qualified Inspectors who will adopt a uniform system of inspection and examination in secondary schools all over Scotland?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): A certain portion of the amount allotted for secondary education is, by the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892, assigned for higher inspection and the leaving certificate examination, and the amount so required was fixed in May, 1892, as £3,000. The system of inspection and examination is, as far as possible, uniform, due regard being had to local circumstances and requirements. Great care is taken in securing the services of fully qualified persons; but the inspection forms only a part of this work, the heaviest part being the leaving certificate examination, and until further experience is gained, it has not been deemed right to make permanent appointments, especially as, in consequence of the work being confined to about six weeks in the year, this would be attended with great difficulty and inconvenience to the schools.
MR. CROMBIE: Is the sum of £3,000 to be spent this year?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: About £800 has been spent on inspection, and £1,400 or £1,500 on the leaving certificate examination.

THE POLICE AND THE FIRE ESCAPES.
MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a lecture recently delivered by Mr. Davis, late Chief Officer of the Margate Fire Brigade, on the subject of making fire escapes available, under police direction, during the daytime as well as at night; whether he is aware that the system recommended by Mr. Davis has been successfully carried into effect in Liverpool and other places; and whether he will consider the desirability of adopting, or recommending for adoption, the same method for the Metropolis of London?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): The subject of making fire escapes available under police direction has frequently been, and is now, under the consideration of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade and Police Authorities. The case of Liverpool is not an analogous one, as the Fire Brigade in that city consists of members of the Police Force. The duties of the Metropolitan Police are so arduous that, without a large increase in the number of the Force, I doubt whether they can properly be called upon to render more assistance to the Fire Brigade than they at present give?

THE BENGAL GANJA COMMISSION.
MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he can now state the composition of the Bengal Ganja Commission?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL, North Beds.): Yes, Sir; the members of the Commission are:—President, Mr. Mackworth Young, of the Punjab. Members:—Bengal—Raja Soshi, Sikhareswar of Talurpur; Surgeon-Major Warden, Chemical Examiner. North-West Provinces and Oudh—Lallah Nehal Chand, of Mozuffernagar. Punjab—Kunwar Harnum Sing Ahloowallia. Bombay—Mr. Ommaney. Central Provinces—Mr. Fraser.

CATTLE DISEASE AND FOREIGN FEEDING STUFFS.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if the Board has arrived at any definite conclusion as to the possibility of cattle disease being introduced into the United Kingdom by imports of hay, straw, or other food stuffs from places where disease has existed; and whether any and what steps have been taken, or will be taken, by the Board to guard against any possible danger of that nature?
MR. H. GARDNER: I have given careful consideration to this matter in conjunction with my professional advisers, and the result is to confirm the view I indicated a few days ago. There is no evidence that disease has at any time been introduced in the manner suggested in the question; and the danger, if any, is certainly not of such a character as to justify me in proposing the prohibition of the import of feeding-stuffs—a measure which would be most inopportune at the present time. Short of prohibition, I do not think any measures are practicable which would assist us in the detection and extirpation of disease.

SHEET ENAMELLING IN THE MIDLANDS.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the dangerous nature of sheet enamelling work in the Midlands, and the recent death therefrom of a girl, Harriet Walters; and whether he will allow one of the Special Committee on Injurious Trades, now sitting at Stoke, to make immediate inquiries into this industry?
MR. ASQUITH: My attention was drawn to this case on the 26th of last month, and it has been referred to the Committee now inquiring into the white lead industry to report as to the sufficiency of the special Rules now in force. Mr. Cramp, Her Majesty's Superintending Inspector of Factories, and Secretary to the Pottery Committee, has made special inquiries into the case, and forwarded me a Report, which will be brought under the special notice of the Committee on White Lead.
MR. FENWICK: Will that Report be laid on the Table of the House?
MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.

THE INDIAN OPIUM COMMISSION.
SIR J. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government that the proposed Royal Commission on the Opium Question shall sit and take evidence in India?
MR. G. RUSSELL: The Secretary of State is in communication with the Government of India on the subject of the Opium Commission, and he cannot speak positively until he has heard from them as to the arrangements for conducting the Inquiry; but he anticipates that it will be necessary that the Commission should visit and take evidence in India.
MR. PAUL: Will the Commission contain an adequate representation of native opinion?
MR. G. RUSSELL: No particulars have been decided on as yet, but the hon. Member may rely on it that native opinion will be adequately represented.
MR. CAINE: Are the communications taking place by telegraph or letter?
MR. G. RUSSELL: A telegram has been sent, but there will be fuller communication by letter.

GOODS RATES ON THE NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY.
MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the North British Railway Company have advanced their rates on certain classes of merchandise from 30 to 50 per cent. between Kirkcaldy and the following places—namely, Burntisland, five miles, from 5s. to 9s. 2d. per ton; Cupar Fife, 18 miles, from 8s. 9d. to 12s. 1d. per ton; Dumbarton, 73 miles, from 15s. l0d. to 23s. 4d. per ton; Haddington, 43 miles, from 12s. 6d. to 16s. 3d. per ton; and Musselburgh, 31 miles, from 9s. 2d. to 13s. 9d. per ton; whether he is aware that, in spite of repeated promises to revert as nearly as possible to the old rates, the increased charges are still in force; and whether the Board of Trade can take any steps to put an end to these
1060
increased charges upon the trading public?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA, Sheffield, Brightside): The Board of Trade communicated with the Railway Company on the subject of the hon. Member's question, and in reply the following telegram has been received from the General Manager:—
"Class 3 rates mentioned in hon. Member's question correct, but three of the distances understated—Burntisland being six miles, Haddington 63, and Musselburgh 42. The increases shown were made solely to remove inequalities, and all the new rates mentioned are less than maxima by from 4 to 28 per cent. Goods traffic at Kirkcaldy at new rates, taken as a whole, works out to practically same as at old rates—difference being only one-tenth of 1s. per cent. increase."
The Board of Trade have no power to compel the Company to revert to the former rates; but any interest that feels itself aggrieved can avail itself of the Conciliation Clause (Clause 31) of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.
MR. DALZIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the North British Railway successfully opposed a rival scheme on the express condition that their rates would not be increased, whereas, in fact, they have increased their rates 50 per cent.? Does he not think that this is a case in which he should interfere?
MR. MUNDELLA: If the rates are under the maximum I cannot interfere.
MR. DALZIEL; Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to assist in any inquiry if appeal is made?
MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly.

DOCKYARD CLASSIFICATION.
COLONEL LLOYD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government can give the House any information in regard to doing away with the system of classification in Her Majesty's Dockyards?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON, Dundee): As was stated last week in the discussion on the Navy Estimates, a Departmental Committee is now sitting to consider this and other Dockyard questions. I hope very soon to announce the decision of the Admiralty on all these questions, but cannot yet name any day.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when we may expect this information? Will it be before we corns to discuss the Dockyard Vote? This question has been repeatedly put since the beginning of the Session; promises have been again and again given of an early decision, and once we were told that that decision should be made known before Whitsuntide. Yet we are now in exactly the same position as before.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I did hope that at the time named a decision would have been come to. Since then a definite step has been taken by the Committee on specific instructions from the Board of Admiralty, and I quite think the whole matter will be before the House before the Dockyard Vote is reached. I cannot, however, give a pledge to that effect.

THE ALDERSHOT CAVALEY BRIGADE.
CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War will he explain by whose authority, when the Aldershot Cavalry Brigade was put under canvas in consequence of the recent military disturbances, no field or separation allowance was granted to the troops, and the extra ration of ¼1b. of meat per man, authorised by the Queen's Regulations, was withheld; and whether it is within the power of the Military Authorities to cancel such provisions of the Allowance Regulations?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The General Officer commanding at Aldershot decided that, as the Cavalry regiments were moved into camp in consequence of misconduct, no extra charge should be thrown upon the public. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief approved of the steps taken.

HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the sudden departure of H.M.S. Triumph from Queenstown has prevented the completion of her repairs at Haulbowline, as promised by the Admiralty; whether he is also aware that the present great dearth of employment at these docks occupied the serious attention of the Queenstown Town Commissioners on Saturday last; and whether, under these
1062
circumstances, the repairs required by the new guardship Warspite, or at least those above water line, will be executed at Haulbowline?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WOHTH, Lancashire, Clitheroe): The Triumph will return to Haulbowline, when any unfinished repairs can be completed at that Yard. It is not practicable to distribute the repairs of the Warspite between Devonport, where she is now in dock, and Haulbowline, as the time required for the extensive repairs to her bottom enables the remaining small repairs to be completed economically at Devonport in the same time. Her future repairs will be carried out at Haulbowline to the extent which the appliances at that Yard will permit. With regard to the second paragraph of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, I have no doubt that the information which he gives is correct; but it has not been otherwise communicated to the Admiralty.

CHARGE AGAINST AN ATHENRY CONSTABLE.
MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a police constable stationed at Athenry, who was charged last April with being drunk while under medical treatment, and against whom the charge has been again renewed, the doctor who attended the constable having since died; is he aware that it transpired at the inquiry that a statement made by the accused to the Inspector General was suppressed; can he state by whom this statement was suppressed; is he also aware that it was shown that the Head Constable induced certain shopkeepers to at once send their accounts to the accused, it being represented to them that the accused was about to be reduced and removed; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the case?
MR. J. MORLEY: The question appears to relate to a constable named Lally, who was recently tried by a Constabulary Court of Inquiry on several charges, including one of drunkenness, in respect of all of which he was found guilty. I am informed that the entire circumstances of the case were fully in-

1063
quired into, and that all the papers, including the statement alleged to have been suppressed, were before the Court, by whom it was submitted to the Inspector General. The alleged misconduct of the Head Constable was also inquired into, and the Court were of opinion that he had only done his duty. The Inspector General considers that the constable has been dealt with leniently, and there appears to be no sufficient grounds for re-opening his case.

STOKE GOLDING BURIAL BOARD.
MR. C. P. B. M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at a meeting held on the 27th June last in the vestry of the parish church of Stoke Golding, Leicestershire, for the purpose of electing three members on the Burial Board in that parish in the place of three members retiring by rotation, at which meeting the Rev. Hugh Bryan, vicar of the parish, was in the chair; whether he is aware that, on Mr. Robert Bust, Mr. John Lee, and Mr. Nathan George Bacon being duly proposed and seconded as members in the place of three retiring, the vicar refused to take these nominations or put to the meeting any vote other than the re-election of the three retiring members, of whom the vicar himself was one; and that, on a poll being demanded and signed by three inhabitants of the parish, the vicar refused to grant a poll; and whether the Local Government Board will take any steps in the matter for the purpose of setting aside the proceedings at the meeting, or enabling the inhabitants of the parish to elect members on the Burial Board?
MR. ASQUITH: AS this question was only given notice of last night, I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone it until Monday, as it has been impossible to obtain the necessary information in so short a time.

THE LORD LIEUTENANT AND THE CORK CORPORATION.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared, on behalf of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to explain on what grounds His Excellency, during
1064
the course of a recent visit to Cork, received an address from the Corporation of that City from which every expression of loyalty to the Sovereign had been excluded by a direct vote, and which made demands for the release of the dynamite prisoners and the restoration of the evicted tenants, whereas, on His Excellency's accession to office last year, he declined to receive addresses offering him a loyal and hearty welcome as the representative of the Sovereign from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and the Methodist Conference, on the ground that the addresses contained political allusions; and whether he is aware that the sole political allusions contained in these addresses were paragraphs referring to the attachment of the bodies in question to the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland as it now exists?
MR. J. MORLEY: I think the hon. Member will agree with me it would be proper that I should have an opportunity of communicating with the Lord Lieutenant before I answer the question, and, as His Excellency is still absent from Dublin, I will ask that the question be postponed till next week.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I quite agree, and am perfectly willing to postpone it till Tuesday.

INDIA COUNCIL BILLS.
SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if, in future, it is the intention of the Government that Council bills shall not be allotted at less than 1s. 4d. per rupee?
MR. G. RUSSELL: The Secretary of State cannot, as at present advised, pledge himself that no bills shall be allotted at less than 1s. 4d. per rupee. He will endeavour, as has been the invariable practice, to obtain the best price for his bills that the purchaser is willing to pay.

THE SILVER QUESTION IN INDIA.
SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if any Correspondence on the Silver Question took place between the British and Indian Governments before the year 1886; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
MR. G. RUSSELL: Much Correspondence took place from the years 1876

1065
to 1882, and many of the more important Papers have been already laid before Parliament. If the hon. Baronet will specify any particular Papers that he wishes to see, it is not likely that any objection will be made to their production.

UGANDA.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Despatches of Sir Gerald Portal since his arrival in Uganda have reached Her Majesty's Government; and whether, if so, he will lay them upon the Table of the House?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): Some Despatches have been received quite recently, but they have not yet been considered by Her Majesty's Government, and I am not, therefore, in a position to make any statement as to their publication. I may say, however, that they only give an account of Sir Gerald Portal's proceedings up to the 8th of April, and do not contain any final opinion on his part either as to Uganda or the best method of dealing with the country.
MR. LABOUCHERE: When does the hon. Baronet think the Government will be able to form a conclusion?
SIR E. GREY: I cannot say how soon, but it is obvious that the consideration of important Despatches must take some time. If the hon. Member will repeat the question next week, I hope to be able to give him a more definite answer.
COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to a statement in The Standard, that the correspondent of The Berliner Tageblatt had written from Uganda that the Catholics and the Protestant Bishops had agreed, with the concurrence of Sir Gerald Portal, on an apportionment of territory between the professors of the two religions; if this statement is correct; and if the division of Uganda is finally concluded?
SIR E. GREY: Attention has been drawn to the statement. It is correct that the Protestant and Roman Catholic Bishops have, with the approval of Sir
1066
Gerald Portal, come to an understanding as to an apportionment of territory that would be satisfactory to them. But no final settlement has yet been reported.

DRINK AND SUICIDE—BOGUS CLUB.
MR. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the evidence given, on oath, at an inquest held on the 4th instant, at the Coroner's Court, Dublin, on Patrick Donnelly, who committed suicide by hanging on the morning of the 3rd instant, whilst temporarily insane from the effects of drink; whether he has noticed that at said inquest it was sworn to by several witnesses that drink had been obtained by the deceased and others, at various hours, between 8·45 a.m. and midnight on Sunday, the 2nd instant, at. a so-called workmen's club situated at 16, Denmark Street, a poor and decayed locality, kept or managed by a man named Joyce; that it was also sworn to by the witnesses that neither the deceased nor his companions, who were so supplied with drink at said club, were any of them members of said club; that neither deceased nor his companions were any of them introduced by a member of said club; that the drink supplied to deceased and his companions was in each case paid for by them, and not by any member of said club; and that any one who pleased, whether a member of the club or not, and without being introduced by a member, could go into the club and get and pay for drink without any question being asked; whether such supplying of drink to non-members of the club, not introduced by a member and not paid for by a member, constitutes a breach of the Excise and Licensing Laws, as well as a fraudulent evasion of the Rules under which bonâ fide workmen's clubs are legally constituted; and whether the authorities propose to take any action in the matter, in order that a decision may be arrived at?
MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are correctly set forth in the question. The police have taken immediate steps to bring the person who sold the drink to Donnelly before the Magistrate for having sold drink without a licence.

THE POLICE AND THE ROYAL WEDDING.
MR. BECKETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Members of Parliament were prevented from attending to their duties by the fact that on several occasions at several places the police refused to let them through on the ground that they had been instructed to stop all traffic without any exceptions whatever? I also desire to ask if the police have any right to prevent Members of Parliament from having access to the House while it is sitting under any circumstances whatever?
MR. ASQUITH: I regret extremely to learn that any Member of the House should have been inconvenienced, or should have been prevented from attending to his duties, through any conduct of the police. Strict orders were given on the subject to the police; and as I have received only one single complaint, and that from the hon. Member, and as the House was fuller last evening at 10 o'clock than it has been on any previous evening during the Session, I infer that those orders were well carried out. If any hon. Member has any complaint to make on the subject of his own personal inconvenience, and will furnish me with the particulars of his complaint, I will undertake that the matter shall be strictly inquired into.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I wish to ask whether the conduct of the police generally met with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman; and, if so, whether a notification to that effect might not be made by him to the Chief Commissioner? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering the expressions of gratitude and admiration that have already been made in regard both to the arrangements and the care of the police, and especially to the great humanity they showed to many people who were taken ill among the crowds, whether such notification can be conveyed to the Chief Commissioner in such a way that it may be made known to the public?
MR. ASQUITH: I entirely concur with what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the admirable manner in which the police yesterday discharged their
1068
duties. They have earned the gratitude not only of the Members of this House, but also of the public at large. I shall consider the most appropriate way of expressing what I believe to be the universal feeling, and I trust I may be able in a few days to make a communication to the House on the subject, which will give satisfaction both to the police and to the public.
MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask, Sir, whether any banks in the City were looted yesterday, and how many cashiers wore massacred?
MR. ASQUITH: Up to this moment I am entirely without information on those points.

PEMBROKE DOCK.
MR. EGERTON ALLEN (Pembroke, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, considering the urgent need of acquiring a site at Pembroke Dock for a school house under a Scheme for Intermediate Education, he can give a favourable response to the application for land belonging to the War Department?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is proposed to sell some War Department property to the Local Committee under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act to enable them to provide a site for a schoolhouse.

EVIDENCE ON INDIAN CURRENCY.
MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he can now say when the Evidence taken by the Committee upon Indian Currency will be laid upon the Table?
MR. G. RUSSELL: I have to say that a copy of the Evidence was laid on the Table 10 minutes ago.

GIBRALTAR.
SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what is the total number of the resident civilian population in Gibraltar, and what proportion is engaged in industries or employments not connected with the supply of the needs of the garrison or the maintenance of the works of that fortress?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I may perhaps be allowed to answer this question. According to the Census of 1891 the total civil population of Gibraltar consisted of 16,759 British subjects and 2,341 aliens—total, 19,100. It is impossible to state what proportion of this population is engaged in industries or employments not connected with the supply of the needs of the garrison or the maintenance of the works of the fortress, but the details of the occupations of the population will be found in the Census Report.

THE STRENGTH OF THE NAVY.
MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, inasmuch as the Government accept the conclusions arrived at by the late Government as to the strength at which the Navy should be maintained, he will state when the Government propose to introduce the financial measures necessary to bring up the strength of the Navy to the point at which it stood immediately before the total loss of H.M.S. Victoria?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The time has not come for making any statement. The Board of Admiralty are fully aware of the duty which rests upon them of maintaining the strength of the Navy.
MR. DARLING: My question was not to the Board of Admiralty, who, I know, have admitted their responsibility. What I want to know of the First Lord of the Treasury is when the Government propose to introduce the necessary measures to give effect to the opinion of the Board of Admiralty?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I have already stated that the time has not come for making an announcement.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask whether, in view of the fact that the Sultan, Howe, Camper-down, and Warspite are all unfit for service, that the Victoria has been lost, and that the Navy is thus below its complement by four battle-ships and one first-class cruiser, Her Majesty's Government propose to take any, and, if so, what, steps to cause the Navy to be brought up without delay to its proper strength?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: All the necessary steps are being taken. The Sultan is under repair; the Howe will presently be finished, and the Camper-down will be immediately repaired; and, as I have stated, the responsibility rests on the Board of Admiralty, and they will discharge it.
MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square): I desire to ask, but in no controversial spirit, whether there will be a Supplementary Estimate?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I have already more than once indicated that the time has not come for making an announcement on the subject.

THE IRISH DEBT.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could state, or lay upon the Table as an Unopposed Return, as an addition to Parliamentary Paper, No. 283 (22nd June, 1893), what was the rate of interest of the British and Irish Debts, respectively, at the time of the Union, unredeemed at 5th January, 1801, and at the time of the amalgamation of the British and Irish Exchequers in 1817, and the gross amount paid in each of those years to defray the interests of the British and Irish Debts respectively?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, Edinburgh, Midlothian): I believe that the information the hon. Member desires is already before the House, and he will find it in the Return No. 443, 1858. I think the hon. Member will find there all he desires to know; but if it is not so, I should be sorry to have a Return framed after the notice that has been given, for it would tend to support the idea that Ireland was responsible for a certain amount of the National Debt at the period of the Union, imposed, I might almost say, fraudulently upon her, unfortunately with the assent and support of the British Government.
MR. BARTLEY: May I ask whether it is not a fact that it has always been regarded that the amount referred to in the Return mentioned was, in the opinion of statesmen of the time of the Union, the Debt of Ireland, as compared with the Debt of England?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No doubt, as a matter of account, the amount referred to stood as the Debt of Ireland at the time of the Union.

THE BENGAL POLICE.
MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware that the District Superintendent of Police for Barisal, Bengal, in 1893 threatened, by circular, his subordinates with loss of promotion and perhaps their posts if they failed to secure 75 per cent. of convictions in cases sent up by them for trial; whether the Deputy Magistrate of Backergunge, Bengal, has issued a circular to his subordinates directing them in effect to do their best to convict all persons brought before them on charges of committing breaches of the peace, and that, in consequence, no less than 3,338 persons were bound over to keep the peace; and, if so, why have such severe measures been necessary in this district; whether the Secretary of State is aware of the strongly prevailing opinion in Bengal, founded on statements in official Papers, that unless Magistrates show a large percentage of convictions in the cases sent before them by the police there is no hope of their obtaining promotion; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which has taken place between the Government of Bengal, the High Court at Calcutta, and other Papers bearing on this matter?
MR. G. RUSSELL: To the first of my hon. Friend's four questions my answer is in the negative. With regard to the second, the Secretary of State is not aware of the existence of any such circular; but it is true that, owing to an increase in the number of riots in that district, it was found necessary to bind over 3,338 persons in the year 1891 to keep the peace. The Secretary of State has seen statements to the effect that in some places in Bengal a belief prevails, or did prevail, to the effect set forth in the third of my hon. Friend's questions; but whether there is, or ever was, any foundation for such a belief he is unable to say. The attention of the Government of India has been called to the matter, the importance of which is fully recognised, and will not be lost sight of. The Correspondence to which
1072
the fourth question refers is as yet incomplete. When it is complete, the question whether it is desirable to lay it on the Table will be considered, but the Secretary of State is unable to give any promise as to the decision which may be then arrived at.

ARMENIAN PRISONERS.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Returns can be obtained as soon as possible from the British Consuls in Asiatic Turkey, showing the names and numbers of the Armenian prisoners in Turkish gaols, and stating whether they have or have not been tried, the terms of imprisonment and dates of arrest, and whether they are or are not in chains?
SIR E. GREY: We continually receive Reports from Her Majesty's Representatives in Armenia on the general condition of affairs in that country, with such details as they are able to give. It would be very difficult for them to obtain accurate and complete Returns such as the hon. Member asked for, and it would be impossible without the co-operation of the Turkish Authorities; it is, therefore, undesirable to issue special instructions in this sense.

ASIATIC TURKEY.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how soon the Papers relating to the affairs of Asiatic Turkey will be presented?
SIR E. GREY: No decision has been taken as to the presentation of Papers; it must depend upon the turn that events may take in Turkey whether it will be advisable to publish the Correspondence.
MR. PAUL: Will the hon. Gentleman state, for the information of the House, whether the Foreign Office has heard of the pardon or release of the 15 Armenian prisoners who were convicted at Angora with the two Professors already set at liberty?
SIR E. GREY: We have no information of that fact. I have nothing to add to the answer I gave yesterday—that no decision had been announced with reference to the prisoners except as to the two named.

THE HOUSE AND THE ROYAL MARRIAGE.
MR. BOULNOIS: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can explain why the Royal Standard was not hoisted on the Victoria Tower yesterday in honour of the Royal Wedding?
MR. THEOBALD: Before the question is answered, may I ask another—namely, whether the right hon. Gentleman did not consider the hoisting of the Royal Standard a superfluous manifestation, taking into consideration the proceedings in this House and the narrow squeak the Government had last night?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is a matter not within the cognisance of my office; but if any hon. Member chooses to give notice of a question on the subject I shall be glad to obtain information for him.

MOTION.
  COUNTY OF CLARE ASSIZES. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    Mr. T. W. Russell, Member for South Tyrone, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the failure of justice at the present Assizes for the County of Clare in political and agrarian cases, and the conduct of the Government in not taking the necessary steps to remedy the defect existing in the administration of justice"; 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. T. W. RUSSELL*MR. T. W. RUSSELL moved the adjournment of the House. He said it was quite true that he made a Motion of a similar character only a few weeks ago, but a good many things had happened since then. He wished, first of all, to call attention to the question he raised on the previous occasion. The Spring Assizes in the County of Clare had then just been held. At those Assizes nine prisoners had been put upon their trial
    1074
    for agrarian offences, and every one of them, with the exception of a gamekeeper, had been acquitted. He supposed the Clare jury thought that the gamekeeper, at all events, was fair game. These facts had been admitted by the Chief Secretary, and nobody had been in a position to traverse them. Immediately afterwards he (Mr. Russell) and his friends asked whether, in view of facts and proceedings of this kind, the Government intended to remove the administration of the criminal affairs of this county outside the bounds of the county. The Judge presiding at the Spring Assizes had suggested that this should be done, and if he (Mr. Russell) recollected aright, he went the length of saying that it was little short of a farce to go on with things as they were. The Chief Secretary replied with great curtness to the request that was made to him, saying that the Government did not intend to take any steps in the matter. The jurors had been admittedly visited and intimidated by certain people in the county. This was admitted by the Chief Secretary. The result was seen in the Court House at Ennis when the jurors acquitted the prisoners. The Government must have had good reason for refusing to take any steps in the matter; but the reasons for their conduct did not appear on the surface. He knew perfectly well that the Government could not conveniently change the venue in these cases without proclaiming the county and bringing back into operation a section of the Crimes Act. But seeing that they had the power in their own hands, seeing that to-morrow the Lord Lieutenant could proclaim the County of Clare, or could proclaim any specific baronies within that county, and seeing that, under such a proclamation, a change of venue could be secured and special juries could be obtained as a right, it was incumbent upon the Government to show very good cause indeed why they should allow the travesty of justice which was taking place in Clare to continue. He knew the Chief Secretary had strong views about the Crimes Act. It was called the Coercion Act, but it was well to bear in mind that there were two kinds of coercion. By putting those who committed crime upon their trial under circumstances in which conviction was impossible, and in which the Judge de-

    1075
    clared conviction to be impossible, the Government were not coercing the criminal, but were coercing the poor victims of his crimes. Whilst he (Mr. Russell), and those who agreed with him, had no abstract love of coercion, they preferred that if anybody was to be coerced it should be the criminal and not his victim. It might be said that he had chosen a very inconvenient time for bringing this question forward. Those who were in opposition, however, could not pick and choose their time. The Government had so arranged matters that they had taken the whole time of the House practically from private Members, and, as no satisfaction could be obtained by questioning the Chief Secretary, he submitted that those to whom the minority in the County of Clare looked for support and protection would fail in almost their first duty if they did not take every opportunity that fairly came in their way of asking the House to insist upon justice being done in that county. Since the Spring Assizes things had been going on in Clare pretty much as they went on before. The mere fact that so many criminals escaped at the last Assize naturally gave criminals almost immunity from the consequences of their crimes, and they had since been going about the county moonlighting, shooting people in the road, and intimidating law-abiding citizens to their hearts' content. In spite of this the Government sat perfectly placid on the Treasury Bench and did not seem to care one atom whether the poor people in Clare had the protection of the law or not. The first case that came before the present Assize was a charge against five men of rescue from the Sheriff. These men, who were tried on Monday last, were identified first of all by the Sheriff himself as having taken part in the rescue, and then by the bailiffs who were present. He could understand Nationalist Members saying that the Sheriff and the bailiffs did not count, but he did not think that line of defence would be taken by the Chief Secretary. At all events, however, the Nationalist Members who had lately shown extraordinary trust in the police, would attach some importance to the fact that the prisoners were also identified by the police who were present. The jury, however, returned a verdict of acquittal on the spot, and the Judge
    1076
    from his place on the Bench declared that this verdict was a scandal to the administration of justice. It was undoubtedly a scandal to the administration of justice, but it was also a scandal to the Government who, in face of the warnings they had received, had deliberately sent these men to be tried by a Clare jury. Another case was tried on the following day.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if he would be so good as to say what crimes the five prisoners were charged with?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I stated distinctly that it was a case of rescue from the Sheriff.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Do I understand that it was a case of rescue of their own cattle?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that was not the case. The prisoners set up no defence whatever, and he thought there was a good deal to be said for their action in this respect, because they were certainly entitled to rely upon a Clare jury. Why should a Clare prisoner take the trouble to set up a defence when he knew that his defenders were in the jury box?
    MR. W. REDMOND: As a matter of convenience, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that the prisoners were defended by very eminent counsel?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, it was true that the witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the prisoners by very eminent counsel; but when the time came for the defence, no defence was attempted. In the second case which had been tried, and the particulars of which were given in The Times newspaper, the jury did not promptly acquit the prisoner, but disagreed. The Judge asked whether this was a case that had been previously tried. The Crown Prosecutor stated that it was, and the Judge thereupon declared that it was a farce to go on with these proceedings. There was one case of counterfeit coin, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. He admitted that in cases of ordinary crime, where no political motive could be assigned, these jurors would do their duty; but he submitted to the House that the proceedings at the two Assizes showed that in cases where the agrarian question was raised, or where the crime was tinged with politics, it was absolutely impossible to

    1077
    get a verdict from a Clare jury. The Chief Secretary for Ireland well knew what was going on in the County of Clare, and he knew that the state of things there was not a state of civilisation. [Cries of "Oh!"] Of course it was all very well for those who were committing crimes with impunity, and who could do practically what they liked; but he submitted that to the poor victims, to the men and women who wanted to do what was right and honest, who wanted to pay their rents, who wanted to do an honest day's work for a fair day's wage, and who desired to go through life quietly, and to have nothing to do with politics, and still less with the ruffians who infested this county, it was not a state of civilisation. He heard someone saying on the previous evening that the fact that some place was 10 days' distance from London excused a great deal. County Clare was not more than 24 hours' distance from the place where he was now standing. It was full of policemen, and nothing was wanting but the signature of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to put an end to the whole business. He proposed to read an extract or two from the Charge of the learned Judge at the present Clare Assizes. He had taken the best report he could find—that which appeared in The Times, which was a tolerably long report. Mr. Justice Gibson, charging the Grand Jury on the 3rd of July, said—
    "The amount of business was more than he anticipated when he settled the Circuit, but none of the cases appeared of great consequence except three, one being of murder, the infanticide of an illegitimate child, and the others being in connection with some seizures by Mr. Macadam. These seizures appeared to have been resisted by a considerable number of people. None of the ordinary crimes were of a character to merit any special observations. With regard to the general condition of the county, he learned from the Constabulary Returns that the number of specially reported cases for these Assizes was 96 as compared with 74 for the corresponding period of last year."
    That, at all events, was a fact for the Chief Secretary about which there could be no mistake. The right hon. Gentleman had his Constabulary on the spot. They were under the right hon. Gentleman's orders, and it was they who had sent in this Report to the Judge. Mr. Justice Gibson went on to say—
    "This would appear to indicate a considerable increase in the amount of crime, and that crime, with one or two exceptions, was of the worst character."
    MR. J. MORLEY: That is what The Times says. What the Judge really said was—
    "This would appear to indicate a considerable increase in the amount of crime, though none of that crime, with one or two exceptions, is of the worst character."
    [Nationalist cries of "Pigott!"]
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. Hon. Members here are calling out "Pigott!"
    MR. SPEAKER: I hope no expression of that kind will be used.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am sure I have no desire to mislead the House. I took the best report I could, and I have no means of knowing what report the Chief Secretary is quoting from.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The official note taken at the time by the official note-takers. [Nationalist cheers.]
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, this was the first time he had heard the Nationalist Members cheering an official note. His opinion had already been that they had not a very high opinion of the Jeremiah Stringers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and he congratulated them on their change of view. At all events, it was only the most serious crime that was reported to the Judge. [Cries of "No!"] When the Judge spoke of 96 against 74 he was not referring to drunkenness and offences of that kind. The Chief Secretary would not, at all events, deny that the Judge declared that there was a very considerable increase in the specially reported cases. This fact threw a tremendous responsibility on Her Majesty's Government. It was perfectly well known that juries would not convict in these special cases in Clare, and what he desired to ask the Chief Secretary was whether this state of things was to go on? The right hon. Gentleman knew—he had bowed his assent already to the horrible condition of the county. Why was Clare in that horrible condition? Because justice was paralysed. Those criminals, as they proceeded every night on their mission of outrage, knew that they could do so with absolute impunity, because, first of all, the Clare juries would not convict; and, secondly, because Nationalist Members would not allow the Chief Secretary to change the venue. He asked the Chief Secretary whether he was prepared to go on in this ignoble

    1079
    servitude? Was he prepared to allow the County of Clare to be overrun by men doing what they liked with the property of their neighbours, and frequently attempting to take their lives? Was he prepared to allow that to go on simply and solely because Irish Members would not allow him to proclaim the county and to avail himself of the Crimes Act, by which he could change the venue and stop the mischief? If the right hon. Gentleman would answer that question plainly, then they would not quarrel about the minutiæ of these cases or of the minutiæ of the Judges' Charges. He wanted to see this business stopped in the County of Clare, and the Chief Secretary could stop it. If the right hon. Gentleman refused, then for these crimes, which were a disgrace not only to Ireland but to humanity, he must take the responsibility, for no other man could clear the county of them.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): I would not have been at all surprised at the subject being brought forward at the proper time, when the necessary information was accessible, when there had been time to read the Charges of the Judges, and opportunity to ascertain the facts and details of the cases, of which only two have been mentioned. The House would then have been in a position to judge of the conduct of the Executive Government. I have no desire whatever to shirk one atom of the responsibility that rests upon me for the state of Ireland. I do not seek, and I have no right to seek, any quarter from the Opposition; but I submit to the House, and I think the Opposition will agree, that it is an extreme course to make an attack upon the Government in connection with the proceedings at Assizes which I believe are not yet over.
    MR. CARSON: They finished the day before yesterday.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Gentleman may know; but so far as I know, if the Assizes are over, they were only over last night. Anyway, there has been no opportunity to obtain information. One of the cases was tried on Monday last and the other on Tuesday. Reports
    1080
    could not reach this country until Wednesday or yesterday, and, if I had nothing else to do, there has been no time in this short interval of a few days to ask for official opinions upon the facts and to communicate with the prosecuting counsel. Yet the hon. Member, on the strength of some newspaper reports—un-veracious reports, as I have shown—thinks he has got material enough for a case against the Government. I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, is it reasonable that this should be done without a word of notice?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What would have happened if I had given notice? I should at once have been blocked by notice of a Resolution.
    MR. J. MORLEY: If the hon. Member had given me notice—that notice which even the humblest Minister may reasonably expect, and which any other Minister but the Irish Minister would assuredly have got—the hon. Member knows very well that if he had given me notice this morning, it would have enabled me to telegraph to Dublin and Ennis and get a good deal of information. Instead of that, I only heard of the intention to move the adjournment almost at the end of questions. I went to the hon. Member 10 minutes before he rose and said, "Is it true there is going to be a Motion for Adjournment?" "Yes," said he,"on the Clare Assizes." That is all the notice I have received. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who dislike the policy with which I am associated, whether that is fair or reasonable treatment—I do not say with reference to myself, for I do not care anything about that—but is it reasonable treatment to subject the House to? The House is asked to spend I do not know how much time upon an ex parte statement founded upon unverified, untested, and unsifted newspaper reports. I find that the Judge in his Charge said the reputed crime was not of the worst kind. [Cries of "Go on!"] I am quite ready to help the case of the hon. Member by quoting the general language of the Judge on the state of the County of Clare.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What report is the right hon. Gentleman referring to?
    MR. J. MORLEY: It is the report of The Irish Times. I have not had an

    1081
    opportunity of comparing it with the official report; but I believe a similar report would have been found in the London Times if the hon. Member had been candid enough to state the whole case. The report says—
    "Mr. Justice Gibson said he was a stranger to the County of Clare; and though the Returns showing this considerable amount of crime might excite in the mind of a stranger considerable apprehension, to those familiar with the district they might appear to be only symptoms of a long-standing disease."
    The hon. Gentleman's case is that since the Spring Assizes things in Clare are going from bad to worse. That is not true. The Judge does not say so. He says to those who know the district these cases appear to be only the symptoms of a long-standing disease. He added—
    "He would not be disposed, on the information before them, to draw the same inference from the increase of crimes shown by these Returns that he would in some other counties in Ireland."
    The truth is, that for the last 13 years the state of Clare has been the despair of successive Governments. The Leader of the Opposition was foiled by it. He did as little as we have done to improve the state of Clare. That was what the Judge was pointing to in his remarks. I wish that self-respect had led the hon. Member to read the following remarks of the Judge:—
    "It might be that the Returns were more formidable on paper than they were in reality."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Read on.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Why did not you read on?
    "But, on the other hand, Clare was a county in which, from its history, any rise in the catalogue of crime ought to be regarded with grave apprehension."
    Does anyone suppose that the Irish Government do not regard what is going on in Clare with apprehension and anxiety? I have stated with perfect candour on all occasions when the state of Clare has been before the House that it is a disgrace to a civilised country. I am told that I can alter it by a stroke of the pen. The Leader of the Opposition used the stroke of the pen for six years; and how did he leave the County of Clare? Did he leave it the paradise which the hon. Member for South Tyrone desires? No; as a matter of
    1082
    fact, the state of Clare is better now than it was when the late Government left Office. ["Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members must give me some credit for not making a rash statement on a serious matter of this kind. I say that the County of Clare is not one atom worse; it is not by one atom more calculated to fill the Government with apprehension and anxiety than it was on the day the right hon. Gentleman opposite retired from Office. I say that when the Assizes are over at Limerick and Kerry, as well as Clare, and when there has been time to examine the verified statements and Returns, I shall be prepared to meet any Motion of this kind. For the present I will only say that the hon. Member has grossly exaggerated the effect of the Judge's Charge; he has laid before the House an unverified statement, and he has not enabled the House to form a judgment as to the precise measure of the miscarriage of justice which he alleges. As for making statements so bald, jejune, and coloured the basis of a charge that the whole policy of the Government has failed, that is one of the most extravagant assertions the hon. Member has ever made.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I had not thought of answering the right hon. Gentleman—at all events, not at the moment he sat down—but he has made a very direct appeal to me with regard to Motions of Adjournment. In response to the appeal made to my own experience, I will admit that it is a convenient practice to give notice to a Minister of the intention to attack him. But I must add that in my long experience no notice whatever was ever given to me, and I do not recollect a case out of the many in which the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to join in an attack on the late Government, on Motions for the Adjournment of the House, in which he took the opportunity of protesting against the treatment his predecessor received. But I will treat the right hon. Gentleman with a generosity which he has not, I think, always shown to myself; and I will admit that in these cases where the Government have to get up complicated details of administrative proceedings in Ireland it may be grossly unfair to ask them to defend themselves till they have full time to obtain and

    1083
    consider the information regarding these details which their officials in Ireland may have to give. But is this a case in which notice should have been given to the Government? I really think it is not. The issue before the House is not a question of the character or amount of the crime in Clare, or of the views of the police as to the causes of that crime. It is simply a question of whether or not in the Assizes which concluded the day before yesterday it was found possible under the system which the Government are keeping in force to obtain verdicts from a jury even in the clearest cases. With every allowance for the difficult position of the Chief Secretary, I put it to him whether he thinks any information he could get from Ireland would really modify the facts which my hon. Friend opposite has laid before the House? My hon. Friend opposite read a statement with regard to what Judge Gibson had said from The Times newspaper; and though I observe that everybody in the House, to whatever Party he belongs, invariably quotes from The Times when he has to deal with the transactions of the House or with speeches out of the House, my hon. Friend opposite was received with uproarious interruptions, as if he had quoted from a tainted source. These interruptions are grotesque; they are even childish. On the present occasion my hon. Friend might have quoted with even greater effect from the Irish papers. In both The Irish Times and The Freeman's Journal, which I have before me, the account of what Mr. Justice Gibson said on the occasion of these trials is not only precisely identical to that of The Times, but is even stronger and more forcible as to the language used. In one instance, according to the report in The Irish Times,
    "Mr. Justice Gibson said that the case was conclusive against the defendants."
    The jury retired, and another case was taken up. The jury then returned a verdict of "Not Guilty." His Lordship asked if the next case was of the same character, and when told that it was, he said—
    "There is no use, so far as I can see, of continuing. We are engaged in a solemn comedy at present. What is the use of wasting time if the cases are the same?"
    Mr. Morphy, apparently sanguine, suggested that the new jury might be a
    1084
    better one, and Mr. Adams said the case having been entered on they must proceed with it. Mr. Justice Gibson said—
    "Such a travesty of justice is perfectly melancholy."
    And added—
    "I will say that the full responsibility rests with someone."
    In another case the witnesses were called for the defence. Mr. Justice Gibson said it was the clearest case of a violation of the law that he ever recollected being proved. The sergeant of police said it was the worst assembly of the kind he saw since he went to Bodyke, and at Bodyke he was likely to have a good deal of experience. After half an hour the jury returned, saying they could not agree. I admit—and I give this admission freely to the House—that it is impossible, and even absurd, in the case of a county like Clare, to say the condition of crime and outrage depends on one cause and one cause alone. I will not say that if these juries had convicted, or if convictions for crime in Clare had been got elsewhere, Clare would at once become a Paradise. The sources of social disorder are too deep-rooted, long-standing, and complex. But my argument against the Government is that if the experience of the civilised world be worth anything, there is, in the long run, some relation between bringing criminals to justice and the suppression of crime. If all the machinery for bringing criminals to justice, and, when convicted, for keeping them in penal servitude, is of any value, surely grave responsibility attaches to a Government which deliberately sanctions a system under which every criminal guilty of a certain class of offences knows that he may go into a Court without a semblance of a case; that he may not even put in a defence, and yet that he would be in that position incomparably safer than his unhappy victims. You cannot get rid of that responsibility by talking about statistics. You cannot get rid of the responsibility of seeing that justice is carried out by any statistics of the rise and fall of crime. I would in this matter most respectfully make an appeal to the Government. I recognise that you can only get rid of the present deplorable condition of the administration of justice in the dis-

    1085
    turbed counties in Ireland by adopting one clause of the Crimes Act—that by which change of venue will be permitted. I know that, owing to political circumstances with which we are familiar, that would be a difficult operation for the Government to go through. But I would appeal to them as patriots and statesmen. I do not—at all events, at the present moment—ask them to re-enact any of the clauses of the Crimes Act which they would themselves describe as coercive, and against which they fought go vigorously in 1887. I only ask them to re-enact a clause which they wished to make a permanent part of the law in 1885, which is a permanent part of the law of Scotland, and which the Prime Minister has distinctly asserted is not of a coercive character. And I promise so far as I am concerned, and so far as I can influence others, that if the Government take this course it will not be used as a political weapon against them. It will never be thrown in their face, either in this House or out of it, as a proof of their inconsistency, or as showing that their present system is wrong and their ancient attacks on us unfounded. I do not say the result of following such a course will be that crime will be put down, but I do say that a great and scandalous evil will be removed from the administration of justice. I do not ask that the Government should now give an answer to my appeal. I will be content with some kind of promise that they will watch the course of events at the other trials about to come on; and if, as we have reason to fear, the conduct of juries elsewhere will be what it has been at Ennis, that then they will not unfavourably consider the suggestion which, in all good faith, I have offered to them.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in a speech I made—I think on the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, but, at all events, within a very few weeks—I said to the House that we were watching crime within this black area—that is, in a piece of Kerry and a portion of Clare—and that we were watching it with a most vigilant and solicitous eye. And I then made this declaration—it is on record—that if I were persuaded that taking powers to change the venue and procure special
    1086
    juries would put an end to a state of things we all deplore that no amount of things I said in the past and no sense of mortification at having to unsay them would prevent my taking those powers.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, that, in view of the fact that no opportunity had been given either to the Government or private Members to inquire into the statistics presented at the last Assizes in Clare, he did not propose to say more than one or two words; but he felt he ought to take that opportunity of pointing out the very great difference in the attitude of the hon. Member for South Tyrone that day and the attitude he adopted on a former occasion when a similar Motion was made by the hon. Member for West Belfast. He agreed with what the Chief Secretary had said, that in a matter of this kind some sort of notice, however short, should be given to those interested. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had stated that had he given notice some action would have been taken to prevent the Motion for Adjournment. He could tell the hon. Member that he (Mr. Redmond) and his friends did not desire in the slightest degree to shirk discussion on the subject; and if they objected to the matter being introduced again, it was simply because this was the fourth Debate they had had on the condition of County Clare, and the hon. Member had not shown that anything had occurred to warrant his again bringing the subject forward. He must protest against the tone adopted by the hon. Member opposite with reference to this matter. The covert insinuations all through these speeches on the condition of Clare, that those concerned were in sympathy with crime or would not take ordinary precautions to put down crime, were of such an insulting character that he did not think they ought to be used even to the bitterest opponents in that House. The Leader of the Opposition said that if the Chief Secretary would take means to put down crime he would not be upbraided with being inconsistent. Was there any person in that House who imagined that the Chief Secretary would refuse to take a certain course, if he thought such a course was necessary, simply out of fear of being twitted with inconsistency by the Opposition? He thought such an insinuation was an unworthy one, and

    1087
    ought not to be uttered in that House. On the 1st June the hon. Member for West Belfast moved the Adjournment of the House on the ground that the condition of things in County Clare, by which convictions could not be obtained from juries in any case whatever of a criminal nature. On that occasion the hon. Member said—
    "In the first place, past experience showed that convictions were not likely to be the result of such trials, whether the cases were agrarian or non-agrarian;"
    and the hon. Member for South Tyrone said—
    "This was not agrarian crime nor non-agrarian crime. It was sheer ruffianism, and for the Chief Secretary to have any scruple to apply the Crimes Act, or every Act, to put down that ruffianism was unworthy of an English statesman."
    He wished the House to notice the great change in what had taken place that day on this matter. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had admitted that day in the most frank manner that in ordinary criminal cases convictions were found as readily and regularly in Clare as in any other part of the United Kingdom, and that the cases in which the juries disagreed or found verdicts of "Not Guilty," were those which had what he called a tinge of agrarianism. He invited any Member of that House to study the facts in connection with the last Assizes in Clare. They would find that in all ordinary cases convictions were found, and not a word was said to the juries by the Judge or anybody else, and out of 16 cases the Member for South Tyrone referred to two only. Justice was done, even to satisfy the hon. Member, in all the other 14 cases; convictions were found, the men sentenced, and the hon. Member himself in his speech found no fault with what had taken place except in two cases.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I did not say verdicts had been found in all the other cases. I admitted, that so far as these cases had gone, and if they were not tainted with politics or agrarianism, that the juries had done their duty; but I did not say they had found verdicts of "Guilty" in all the other cases.
    MR. W. REDMONDdid not say the hon. Member had said that verdicts of guilty were found in all the other cases; he led the House to believe that in all the cases at the Assizes, except these two,
    1088
    justice had been done. The fact remained that out of 16 cases at the Assizes the hon. Member had only complained of two. After having heard the exaggerated talk about the frightful condition of Clare, would hon. Gentlemen believe that the two cases to which the Member for South Tyrone had referred were not cases of a serious character involving the loss of life or property, or danger to life? The hon. Member was not sufficiently candid to tell the House that, but had led the House to believe by his silence that verdicts had not been found in two cases, which might have been of murder, or, at all events, of a very serious character. What were the two cases? They were two cases arising out of what, he made bold to say, was as black and wanton a conspiracy on the part of a landlord in Clare to discredit the present Government and Home Rule in Ireland as could be conceived. These were two cases of what were called rescue from the Sheriff. What did that mean? In a certain part of Clare, called Bodyke, a fight had been going forward between landlord and tenants. The tenants alleged they were not able to pay the full rents demanded of them. The landlord sent down a large force of bailiffs and police, armed with Winchester rifles, and encamped them in the district for the purpose of over-aweing the people. When they talked of Clare as being a disgrace to civilisation, he wished also to say it was a disgrace to civilisation that, under protection of the law, these bailiffs should be allowed to go about primed with drink, firing off their rifles in the middle of the night, overaweing the people, and keeping the whole of that district in a state of terror. On two occasions these bailiffs, with the police, had seized cattle. The people were there in excited crowds, and they regarded the proceedings as unjust. They said they could not pay their rents, which they alleged were unjust, and for which the cattle were seized, and in an excited way they attempted to rescue the cattle. These were the kind of cases in which, in the two instances, verdicts were not found, the only charge against the accused being that they endeavoured to rescue from bailiffs and police what they considered to be their own property—namely, the cattle seized for rents which they could not pay, and which they did not think themselves

    1089
    bound to pay. The jury found them "Not Guilty." He said, in the first place, there was not sufficient evidence to say the men had broken the law. But even if it was proved they did break the law, and attempted to make a struggle against their property being seized for rents they could not pay, there was, after all, nothing so very serious in the fact that their fellow-countrymen—peasants like themselves, and who had probably suffered in the same way—should refuse to give the Judge an opportunity of sending these men to prison for years and years, simply because they had violated the law in defending what they regarded as their property and right. Crime was bad, whether it was in Clare or anywhere else, and he had always said so. He had repeatedly, in Ireland and elsewhere, set himself against crime, but he said what was nearly as bad as crime was the exaggerated talk about crime. Things might be bad in Clare; but was that any reason why they should be made worse by hon. Members coming down there and leading the House to believe that juries refused to find verdicts in cases of murder, and otherwise of a serious character, when the fact was that there were only two cases where the juries refused to find a verdict of "Guilty," and these were cases of a distinctly agrarian character, simply relating to an attempt of these people to save their property. He wished to say a word or two about the estate of Colonel O'Callaghan. Colonel O'Callaghan had for several years past readily and willingly given his tenants a reduction of over 20 per cent. on their judicial rents, when he felt it necessary to suddenly stop giving that reduction. He did not allege that the people were in a better position to pay; as a matter of fact, prices were lower, and they were in a worse position, when suddenly, without assigning any reason, their landlord left off giving this reduction. He did it because the late Government went out and the present Government came in. All the time the late Government were in Office these reductions were continued, and there was little or no trouble between Colonel O'Callaghan and his tenants. Why did he stop the reductions? Because he was a Conservative. Colonel O'Callaghan entered into these proceedings against the tenants simply and solely for the purpose of stirring up
    1090
    the country and embarrassing the present Government. Colonel O'Callaghan cared very little whether a Coercion Act was on in that district or not before the present Government came in, and not because there was any necessity for anything of the kind, but simply to discredit the Government, and prove the country could not be governed without coercion, he entered into this conspiracy, and the two cases at the Assizes were cases of a number of unfortunate men who endeavoured to protect their cattle from this conspiracy. He (Mr. Redmond) told the Chief Secretary at the beginning of the Session—and he repeated it now—that he did not believe the people in Bodyke and other parts of Clare were able to pay the rents demanded of them without reduction. When they talked of crime and outrage in Clare, they should remember that, under ordinary circumstances, the people of Clare were as good and as law-abiding a people as in any place in the world. When they denounced crime and spoke of Clare as being a disgrace to civilisation, he also wanted to say it was a disgrace to civilisation that any landlord should be allowed to hunt his tenants about, to force them to pay rents which the landlord had admitted for years they could not pay, and to do it simply because of a political trick, and to cast discredit on a Government of which he did not approve. Some people imagined that a jury should always convict when a Judge said they had to do it. He was not there to make any charge against Judges collectively or individually; but hon. Members should bear in mind that there was not an occasion when any Judge made mention of a bad state of affairs that he was not, from a political point of view, glad to be able to do so. It was said that these gentlemen were not partisans. He should like the House to remember that no man could be a Judge in Ireland unless he was a political hack and partisan.
    MR. SPEAKER (interposing)remarked that criticisms, either collectively or individually, could not be made as to the conduct of Judges.
    MR. W. REDMONDperfectly agreed with the Speaker's ruling. All he wished to say was that no Judge could be appointed in Ireland until he had, in most cases, first come to that House, and on the Treasury Bench served a term of

    1091
    Office for one political Party or the other. They were essentially politicians, and when speeches were made by them, directed, as in the present instance, against a Liberal and Home Rule Government, he said that if words meant anything when a Judge said a great responsibility rested on somebody for this matter he was referring to Members of the Government, for these Judges were most of them Conservatives and landlords.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is a Rule to the effect that it is impossible, except by direct vote of the House, to impugn the conduct of Judges.
    MR. W. REDMONDobserved, that he commenced his observations on this head by saying he did not desire to make charges against these Judges; but he maintained that when such statements were made from the Bench it ought to be remembered that these gentlemen were politicians. ["Order!"] He did not desire to offer any apology for crime in Clare or anywhere else; but he said that if Clare was in a bad state, or there was crime there now, it was principally because the people had had such an idea of the administration of the law put into their hearts by the last and previous Governments that they thoroughly distrusted the administration of the law. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech denounced crime in Clare, but omitted to say anything of his own introduction into that county of the battering ram to drive in the roofs over the heads of these poor people. The reason juries in Clare were distrustful of the administration of justice and took with great reserve the testimony given by the police and the officials of that kind was easily to be found. In this very County of Clare cases had been proved against the police authorities of the most shameful and corrupt attempts to get up crime and outrage. In the most dreadful case of all, where a police sergeant lost his life, it was proved beyond all question that the whole attack in which the sergeant was killed was concocted and got up by the police, and an informer named Cullinane admitted in the witness-box that he had been paid by the police for getting up the outrage. There was also the case of Sergeant O'Halloran, who, under cross-examination, admitted that
    1092
    he received money to get up cases of this kind. When such cases as these were proved to have occurred he said there was a very good reason why the people were careful in the verdicts which they found and had not a very great idea of the administration of justice. The Leader of the Opposition and the Member for South Tyrone seemed to think that by a stroke of the pen the Chief Secretary could put down crime. Why were not the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for South Tyrone frank enough to tell the House that when the Coercion Act was in full swing, with its change of venue and secret inquiry, and with the county proclaimed, these things had no effect whatever in checking crime? The Chief Secretary would be foolish if he introduced the Coercion Act into Clare again, knowing, as he did, from facts and figures, that it was absolutely powerless when it was in force to put down crime and violence. He was utterly tired of these repeated attempts to defame and blacken the character of a people who, under fair treatment, would be as good, as brave, and as loyal a people as any in the United Kingdom; and when such Motions as these were made, not for the purpose of putting down crime and outrage, but for the purpose of making political capital, it was lamentable in the last degree. He declared that County Clare was freer from serious crime than were many of the English counties. Not long ago he alluded to the fact that, in an English county, in a few months, five people had been murdered in cold blood, whilst in the same period not a single murder had occurred in Clare. He would tell the House frankly that he did not expect to see a tranquil state of affairs in Clare, or things working smoothly there, until the Government went to the root of the whole matter, and compelled Colonel O'Callaghan, and landlords like him, to treat the people properly and as they ought to be treated.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERtook note of the Chief Secretary's declaration, with which he had much sympathy, that it would be well to debate this question more fully when they had the complete information which would be supplied at the termination of the Clare and Limerick Assizes; and he

    1093
    thought it would be their duty to avail themselves of this invitation to bring up this matter when they had fuller information. When the right hon. Gentleman reproved them for the unofficial character of the information on which they acted, he must bear in mind that, after all, that was the best and only information available to them; and if they waited for a week or a month they should only have accessible to them, in addition to private information, the accounts which would appear in the newspapers. The justification for the hon. Member for South Tyrone bringing forward this question was the urgency of the matter. It did not require notice, for they gave notice not long ago. They who were interested in Clare stated a few weeks ago that there was only one result possible if these cases from County Clare were sent to the Clare Assizes—namely, acquittal, and now they had confirmation of their statement. With regard to what had been said by the Member for East Clare as to there being only two cases specifically mentioned, that was not relevant. The fact was that the possibility of capture and conviction had been so reduced that it was not possible for the Constabulary to arrest malefactors, or, if they did, there was no chance of securing a conviction. Therefore, if they saw that the number of cases brought up at the next Clare Assizes had been reduced, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not tell them that the state of Clare had improved because there was a fall in the number of cases brought up at the Assizes. The fact was that this statement made by the Judge was a true statement, and, in a portion of his Charge not quoted by the Chief Secretary, he stated it was impossible to escape from the conclusion that there existed a widespread system of intimidation in County Clare. The hon. Member for East Clare talked about Colonel O'Callaghan—and a man had been shot with four bullets who had been mistaken for that gentleman—but this demoralisation in Clare was far outside anything connected with Colonel O'Callaghan. There was an absolute feeling of despair in that county, and an impression that the law had passed altogether outside the Executive of the county, and into the hands of the
    1094
    executive of the gangs of malefactors throughout the county. He was perfectly certain the Chief Secretary, with the information he must have before him, would not challenge that statement. He did not agree with the Member for South Tyrone in thinking that by one stroke of the pen the Chief Secretary, or any other man, could put a stop to this crime. It was far too deep-rooted for that, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman might do a great deal to minimise it, and put some feeling of confidence and consolation into the hearts of people living under this daily terror which accompanied this crime. When he spoke on the occasion this question was last before the House, he said the Chief Secretary was as sincerely anxious to put a stop to crime as any man in that House—and probably more so, because of his position. But he did think it would be open to those who, like himself, were deeply concerned in the welfare of County Clare, to say if the right hon. Gentleman, after what he now knew, and what the future Assizes in Kerry and Limerick would certainly reveal, persisted in foregoing any of the precautions which had been mentioned, they should not refrain from believing and expressing their view that, from some mistaken idea of duty, he had made himself the accomplice of men who were conducting this crime in County Clare.
    Mr. Robyrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes 278; Noes 246.—(Division List, No. 202.)
    Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."
    The House divided:—Ayes 241; Noes 283.—(Division List, No. 203.)

  PRIVILEGE.

    MR. CONYBEARE'S LETTER TO "THE DAILY CHRONICLE."
    MR. CONYBEARE: I rise, Sir, in accordance with a request preferred yesterday, to ask the indulgence of the House for a very brief space to refer to an incident which hap-

    1095
    pened while I was absent on Tuesday last. I was present in my place on Wednesday afternoon prepared to say what I now wish to say; but the Public Business extended practically to 6 o'clock, and I was unable to do so. Yesterday afternoon you, Sir, were not in the Chair at the commencement of Public Business, and I had, therefore, no opportunity of referring to the subject. Had this been merely a personal matter, I can assure the House I should not have thought it worth while to ask the House to listen to me, but it is more than a personal matter. It is a matter by which my constituents are affected, and they have a right to expect me to place before the country and before them the reasons which led me to the action upon which, I may say, the unanimous condemnation of the House was passed. But more than that, from the point of view I entertain on the subject, there is a broad general principle involved in this matter to which I have more than once referred. If I were to pass by this matter in silence I might be justly accused of wilful disrespect to this House, and it might be thought that I cared nothing for the good opinion of my colleagues in this House, and that I am wholly indifferent to the esteem in which every Member of this House would desire to be held by his colleagues. I can assure the House that that is not my opinion. I have never been intentionally disrespectful to this House. I am very far indeed from feeling any indifference to the view of my colleagues, either on one side or the other, with respect to my conduct. The letter which I wrote to a newspaper was brought before the House on Tuesday, and after strong expressions of rebuke from the Leaders of both sides of the House a silent but unanimous judgment was passed upon me without my having had an opportunity of saying one word in self-defence. I wish to say at once that it is wholly erroneous for any hon. Member to suppose that I wilfully absented myself on that occasion. The facts are these—I was unfortunately detained by an engagement outside, and did not enter the precincts of the House until 5 o'clock, when the discussion on the unfortunate letter was over. The first intimation I received that I had been the subject of any remarks whatever in this House was communicated to me by a friend of mine when I was down below
    1096
    upon the terrace. It was after that I came into the House, and, as I passed through the portal, I was presented with the note which the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Tritton) had left earlier in the day for me. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made the statement that I had received full notice of what was going on, and that it was clear that I did not think it incumbent on me to be present; but, as I have shown, that was utterly unfounded. I do not think it quite lies with the right hon. Gentleman to accuse me of wilfully absenting myself upon any occasion upon which my conduct was called in question, as in July, 1889, I was sent to gaol by his orders. I think, Mr. Speaker, I have some reason to complain that when this matter was brought up on Tuesday some slight opportunity was not afforded me to be present before this condemnation was passed upon me. Not a single Member throughout the proceedings suggested that it was possible that I might not have received notice, and not a single Member got up and said that it would not be fair to condemn me in my absence, and that it was necessary to ascertain whether I was behaving in a recalcitrant manner in abstaining from attending in my place. I ask that the same measure of fairness which is meted out to others should be meted out to me. Only a few moments before a question had arisen between an hon. Member and the Member for West Birmingham, and in the absence of his chief the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) got up and made a long statement in order to kill time. [Cries of "Order!" and "Question! "] I am stating my view. I think, at any rate, the same opportunity which was afforded the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who read his telegram, should have been allowed me to make my statement. I am not making that statement because I complain. I am able to fight my own battles, and I have never asked anyone to strike a blow for me; but the fact that this measure of fairness was not dealt out to me renders it necessary I should take the step which I have taken this afternoon in order to show that the Representative of a Mining Division of Cornwall is not afraid to meet his accusers and judges face to face. My principal reason for

    1097
    bringing this matter before the House is because a broad general principle and question is at issue—namely, whether it is or is not proper for a Member to call in question, or to pass any criticism on, any ruling of the Speaker through the medium of the public Press. I think every Member of the House will agree with me when I say that we all desire to share the good opinion and esteem of the Prime Minister. [Cries of "Oh!"]
    An hon. MEMBER: No.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I beg pardon for having forgotten that there might he one Member too graceless to desire it. [Cries of "Question! "] For my part, I have to acknowledge—and I do so with gratitude—the kind and generous words which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed on my behalf to my constituents before now; and I should be sorry indeed if, through any action or language of mine, I were to forfeit the good opinion which he has on those occasions expressed. Mr. Speaker, during the speech which you made on Tuesday, you used similar expressions, and you said that you did not think it the proper course for any hon. Member who found your conduct censurable to write to the papers, but that the proper course was to impugn your conduct in this House. As to the position which is thus outlined, I desire to say two things. In the first place, I am not capable of forgetting either what is due to the Speaker or to myself; and, in the second place, I wish to say that I do not subscribe to the doctrine which he has laid down—I confess that it is a bold thing to say—by the two greatest living authorities. I do not think that that doctrine in all its plenitude is exactly consonant with the democratic spirit of the present day. I will give two reasons. ["Question!"] I maintain that the Speaker is a public authority, a public institution, or—using the expression without any disrespect—a public servant of the people, and I do say it is outrageous that any public servant should be superior to the criticism of the public Press. In the case even of the Sovereign herself, it is not claimed that she should be free from such criticism;
    1098
    and I do not see how we, as Radicals, can maintain any public authority or public servant if such authority or servant is never to be criticised in the columns of the public Press on a matter affecting the welfare of the public.
    MR. COHEN: I rise to Order.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. CONYBEARE: If that is so with regard to general criticism by the Press, I do not see why, when I was endeavouring to show that direct questions of general public interest are concerned, that—
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, Edinburgh, Midlothian): I am sure my hon. Friend will excuse me, but it is under a sense of duty that I rise to raise a question of Order. I have taken this upon myself, feeling from the circumstances of the case that the Chair was, perhaps, in some part incapacitated from acting in respect to the Order of the House as the Chair would otherwise act. Now, Sir, when my hon. Friend rose to vindicate himself against the charge of apparent disrespect to the House, which seemed to be before us on a former day, it certainly appeared to me that in performing that office he was strictly within the lines of a personal explanation. I did not think that anybody on that day intended to accuse my hon. Friend of want of courage and manliness in the maintenance of his opinions. His courage and integrity are beyond all dispute, but of course we were in this difficulty—that the hon. Member who brought forward the subject assured us that he had given notice to my hon. Friend. What now appears is that what the hon. Member called giving notice was leaving a note with the doorkeeper of this House.
    MR. TRITTON: May I state exactly what happened? I was very anxious indeed to give the hon. Member for Camborne full notice. I came down at half-past 9 o'clock, and asked the Post Office official to take the note and put it with the letters of the

    1099
    hon. Gentleman, in order that he might be certain to get it the moment he came into the House.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I made no imputation upon the hon. Gentleman; but he used words which certainly conveyed to my mind, at least, that notice had been received. So far it appears to me that my hon. Friend was within the limits of a personal explanation, and not only should I not have thought of interrupting him, but I should have heard with pleasure what he had to say if he had confined himself to that. But then he went on to a totally different question, and he stated and appeared to raise for our consideration this very important subject—namely, whether it was open to a Member of this House to question the conduct of the Speaker of this House through the columns of a public journal? I did not understand that to be the question before us on the former occasion, whether the judgment we arrived at was prudent or imprudent, desirable or undesirable. It is one thing to raise a question whether there had been an error of judgment on the part of the Speaker, but the letter of my hon. Friend went far beyond that, and, if I recollect, the hon. Gentleman imputed gross partiality, and that the Speaker had displayed obliquity of judgment produced by some mental prejudice. The House discussed the latter question, and formulated a conclusion, and that was on account of the advice given by the Chair, and I think that the method of that advice and the prudence and policy of that advice were felt universally by the House, and gave great intensity to the approval with which the address from the Chair was received. It is perfectly competent for my hon. Friend, I apprehend, to argue at the proper time and in the proper manner, if he thinks fit, that Members of this House ought to be free to canvas anywhere and in any way the conduct of the Speaker in the Chair; but I feel very strongly that no hon. Gentleman can do that in the character of a personal explanation. That is raising a principle of extreme breadth; and what I feel it my duty to put to the House is that it is a question which cannot possibly be raised under cover of a personal
    1100
    explanation, and that if my hon. Friend wishes to establish for himself liberty to question in the House the conduct of the Speaker in the Chair in respect of partiality that is a question which can only be raised by him in the form of a regular Motion.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for indicating the limitation of the subject with which I am permitted to deal. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have not the slightest desire to argue the matter; and I shall not refer any more to the point I was discussing. I merely advanced it in order to show what my motive was, and that it was not a personal matter. The Prime Minister practically asks me to address myself to the more particular point—namely, the placing of the matter before the House by means of a formal Resolution. I want to say one word upon that. I do not wish to do so, as I am not making any charge of partiality against the Speaker. It is well known to everybody that it is practically impossible for a private Member to raise any question of a Vote of Censure on the Speaker in the House. No doubt there is a copy of the letter I have written on the Table of the House, which can be reproduced if I am not correct; but I can tell the Prime Minister that there is not a single syllable in the letter which charged partiality against the Speaker. [Cries of "Oh! "] If I may say what was in my mind when I wrote, I will state that I considered that the Speaker had attributed to the passage of the Coercion Act of 1887 greater importance than to the passage of the Home Rule Bill. That, if a correct view on my part, was not a charge of partiality against the Speaker, but merely a suggestion of an error of judgment on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. Speaking as a Member of the Radical Party, as was said by the Prime Minister the other day, the Coercion Bill destroys the Constitutional rights of a nation, and deserves more prolonged criticism than a Bill to extend and establish popular rights. The acceptance of the Closure in 1887 and its refusal on Friday morning last suggested to me that, in the view of the

    1101
    Speaker, the Opposition in 1887 was obstructive, while the present Opposition was not.
    MR. R. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.): I rise to a point of Order. In the interests of Public Business I ask you, Sir, whether, in making a personal explanation, my hon. Friend is not confined to explaining his personal conduct?
    MR. SPEAKER: Yes; but I do not altogether choose to sit quiet under the fresh imputations of the hon. Gentleman. All I can say is that if the doctrine he has laid down is accepted by this House, I would not consent to occupy this Chair for 24 hours. Why did I make the remarks I made the other day, and why did I regard the charge of the hon. Gentleman as a gross imputation on my conduct? Because the hon. Gentleman, alone among the Members of this House, has on previous repeated occasions done exactly the same thing. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has induced me to say this; but I will not sit down under the imputation that the hon. Gentleman, in the action which he has taken against me, is performing the part of a great public duty. Under the guise of a great public duty he has repeated those charges, which are gross—[Loud cheers in which the remainder of the sentence was lost.] I recollect that in April, 1887, the hon. Gentleman, at the Westminster Palace Hotel, made charges against me of a most outrageous character; that they were taken notice of in this House; that the hon. Gentleman then apologised for them; that an hon. Member came to me in the Chair, and said he should move that what the hon. Gentleman had said was a gross Breach of the Privileges of this House, and I begged him not to do so; that another hon. Gentleman on that occasion put into my hands a notice that the hon. Member be expelled this House, and I begged him not to do so. The matter rested with an apology of the hon. Gentleman; but in 1888, on July 20, the hon. Member thought proper in this House to make use, with regard to me, of a scandalous expression. I named the hon.
    1102
    Gentleman, he withdrew the expression, and no further action was taken. On the next day—in the meantime he had written a letter to a public journal accusing me of gross partiality—he disclaimed the intention of accusing me of partiality; but the very terms which he then used he now repeats in this letter. The House took action on that occasion. I hope the House will excuse my personal feeling in this matter. I desire to stand well with this Assembly, and I wish, if I may be permitted to say so, to repudiate with honest indignation the charge that the hon. Member brings against me. On that occasion the House took action. The House passed two Resolutions. The first was that the letter of the hon. Member to a journal was a gross libel upon the Speaker. The second Resolution was that he be suspended, and he was suspended; and now, forsooth, under the guise of performing a great public duty, the hon. Member comes down here and charges me with a gross offence, the grossest offence that a man in my position could commit. There is no man on that (the Ministerial) Bench who could get up and say that the granting of the Closure, for not doing which the hon. Member condemns me, would not have been grossly unfair at the time he made the Motion. I have nothing more to say. I only hope the House will pardon the heat and warmth I have shown in this matter. I should be scarcely human if I had not.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think, too, under the circumstances of the case, the proper step next to take will be that which the hon. Gentleman himself invited—namely, that the letter in question should, for the refreshment of our memories, be again read to the House.
    Whereupon the said letter was again read, as followeth:—
    "Mr. Conybeare and the Closure.
    "The Editor of The Daily Chronicle.
    "Sir,—Perhaps you will allow a 'luckless' wight to state why he courted the 'withering' asperity of Mr. Speaker by making what your reporter is pleased to consider an inopportune Motion for the Closure' at half-past three a.m. on Friday morning.
    "I knew perfectly well that the Speaker would refuse the Motion. Indeed, it was the talk of the Lobby that he had earlier in the

    1103
    evening told our leaders it must be a two days' Debate. Whether that be so or not, we felt on our side that we could not give in to the Tory demand to postpone the carrying of the Resolution till Friday afternoon, without the justification of vis major in the shape of the Speaker's refusal to accept any Closure Motion. The moment I had elicited his emphatic refusal to Closure the Debate the conditions of the fight were altered, and even without the compromise with the Opposition Leaders we should have been relieved of all further responsibility, and could have gone home to bed with an easy conscience. I fail, therefore, to see what of inopportune there was in my Motion.
    "Another not insignificant advantage I gained by it, viz., that it called pointed attention, which the Speaker's curt severity only emphasized the more, to the contrast between his treatment of the Liberal majority on this occasion and his treatment of the Tory majority under the parallel circumstances of June 10, 1887. But then, of course, a Liberal Home Rule Bill is not to be compared with a Tory Coercion for ever-and-ever Bill.
    "I believe I moved the Closure at nearly the same hour at which it was accepted by the Speaker on the historic occasion of the 1887 precedent.—Yours obediently,
    "C. A. V. CONYBEARE.
    "Southwold, July 1."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think, under the circumstances, as I do not understand my hon. Friend to have exhibited any disposition to withdraw or apologise, my first duty is to move "that the letter which has been read is a breach of the Privileges of this House."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the letter written by Mr. Conybeare, published in The Daily Chronicle newspaper of the 3rd July, constitutes a breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    MR. SEXTON: I think, Sir, that as a matter of fair play, if the hon. Member for Camborne has not concluded the statement which he intended to make he should be allowed to do so—[Cries of "Oh!" and "No, no!"]—and especially after what the Prime Minister has called the refreshment of the House by the reading of the letter.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps, under the circumstances, I may be allowed, Sir, with great respect to say one or two words. I remember upon a
    1104
    memorable occasion, which I shall never forget, a serious allegation was made against the hon. Member for Mid-Cork by the hon. Gentleman who was then Secretary to the Local Government Board, and, Sir, I conceive that never was the high office which you so admirably fill better discharged than when you rose, when the House was inclined to take a severe step, and suggested that a calmer temper might be adopted, and that it was hardly becoming of the House, when an expression of regret had been made, that the subject should be pursued any further. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the case is one in which, in view of the general feeling of the House, and without regard to what may be his abstract attitude on the particular question, that this is an occasion when the hon. Member, out of deference to the respect in which you, Sir, are held in all quarters of the House, and to the fact that we here in this quarter being in a minority—at one time a somewhat persecuted minority—have frequently been afforded the shelter of your protection, and I certainly should respectfully say to my hon. Friend, whose motives I do not impugn, and whose anxious desire for the liberties of Ireland—for which he suffered three months' imprisonment—I wish to acknowledge—I say the occasion is one when his dignity would not suffer by expressing regret. [Laughter.] Yes, however strongly he may feel in the matter, I would suggest that he should express regret, in view of the attitude and the personal pain shown by Mr. Speaker, which must have touched every one of us, showing how keenly he felt as a personal matter the language of the hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Divide!" and "Vote!"] As a matter personal to Mr. Speaker, and in view of the pain he has shown in reference to the charges made, my hon. Friend would be advancing the cause we all have at heart if he were to express regret for the pain he has caused.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! In the circumstances, and unless he has anything to say, the hon. Member for Cam-borne will withdraw from the House.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I do not think that, under the circumstances, it would be any use for me, at the present moment, to continue the statement of my motives and intentions, which I was endeavouring to place before the House just now. I have listened with great gratitude to the suggestions made by my hon. Friends on both sides of the House. I should be contradicting what I said just now as to my desire to share and merit the good opinion of hon. Members of this House if I were not to pay very careful attention to the suggestions which have been made to me. I have endeavoured to make plain that in the course which I have adopted I was not actuated by personal feeling—certainly not by any ill-feeling—towards the Speaker. I listened, Mr. Speaker, with the same pain as other hon. Members to the expression of your own feelings in this matter. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I had not the intention—I hope my expression will be accepted as genuine and sincere—I had not the intention of inflicting pain. ["Oh!"] I had not the intention of pursuing the Speaker in a rancorous manner, and, accepting the feeling of the House and the advice 'which have been tendered to me by hon. Members who are my friends, I have no hesitation in expressing my regret to you, Mr. Speaker, that what I have done has been taken and accepted by the House and by you, Sir, in the sense in which it has. ["Oh!"] I do unreservedly state my regret to Mr. Speaker, adding that I acted in the way I did in the belief that I was maintaining a public principle. ["Oh!"] In that I certainly bow to the wishes and feelings of the House that my views as to that point were wrong. I have no hesitation in admitting that I am wrong when I am wrong. [Cries of "Apologise!"] I say, in view of the feeling of the House, in view of the importance of the position in which we are placed in this crisis, I have no desire whatever to prolong this incident, and I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that what I have said may be accepted by yourself and by the House. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I rose just now—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will, according to the usual custom, withdraw from the House.
    Mr. Conybeare thereupon withdrew from the House.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I merely rise to protest, in a word or two, against one expression that was used by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, which has just been repeated by the hon. Member for Camborne. I am sure the House appreciated the very graceful tribute of the hon. and learned Member for Louth to yourself; but the hon. and learned Member went on to say that he hoped the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall would express his regret at having given pain to you; and he stated that you had said that you felt pain, or had shown pain, at the attack of the hon. Member. I rise, Sir, to say that, so far as my friends and myself are concerned, we did not understand you to state that you felt pain, or to exhibit any pain. What we did understand was that you showed a natural indignation—at a gross offence. Sir, I will only say, in sitting down, that in the whole course of my experience in the House I hare never heard a lamer apology for so scandalous an offence.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am one of those who think that almost any offence that a Member may commit—apart, of course, from dishonourable intention—against the Rules or against the authorities of this House ought to be considered as purged by frank, intelligent, and complete apology—but I am compelled to say that that is not the character of what has been said by the hon. Member. The hon. Member, I have no doubt, disclaimed all intention of doing wrong; but, Sir, the intent of the hon. Member is not the matter now before us—we have to deal with fact. Looking at that I regret to think that he has offered no reparation or extenuation that this House can possibly accept for the brief aberration from duty which he has unhappily committed; and it appears to me, I must confess, that the House ought to mark

    1107
    its sense of the gravity of this occurrence by the suspension of the hon. Member from his duties as a Member of the House for—I believe a fortnight is—[Cries of "The rest of the Session!" and "A week!"] I understand a week is the period.
    MR. SPEAKER (interposing): The first Question before the House is that the letter constitutes a breach of Privilege.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; and that should be affirmed first.
    MR. SPEAKER: Yes; that is to be decided, and then it will be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to make any further Motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: The first Question I have to put to the House is—
    "That the letter written by Mr. Conybeare, published in The Daily Chronicle newspaper of the 3rd July, constitutes a breach of the Privileges of this House."
    Those who are of that opinion say "Aye."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Nemine contradicente!
    MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER assented.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Then I make my Motion, Sir. I have to move that Mr. Conybeare be suspended during one week from the service of this House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise, Sir, to second the Motion which has just been made by the Leader of the House. I venture respectfully to remind the House that the Question before them, as might be supposed from some words dropped in the course of the Debate, is not as to the personal feelings of the Speaker upon a matter which he may be justified in regarding as an imputation thrown out against himself. We are concerned solely as to the dignity and position of this House, and I conceive that it would not only be an insult to the Speaker, but to the House, if we were to accept as any apology for the offence an expression of regret that the Speaker has suffered pain, even if that were the fact. You,
    1108
    Sir, pointed out when this matter came before us the other day, that it was not respectful, in your judgment, to the House for any hon. Member who thinks your conduct censurable to write to the newspapers. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne has not only written to the newspapers on the occasion referred to, but he has repeated and emphasised the offence which he committed by communicating certain correspondence to the Press relating to the subject, and, if I may say so, by what he described as his apology just now. I do not wish to characterise that apology, or that attempt at apology. It has been done adequately and efficiently by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and it is not necessary—and, being unnecessary, it is not fitting—that I should add anything to what the right hon. Gentleman has said on the subject. I hope the House will feel that, in dealing with the hon. Gentleman in the mode proposed by the Leader of the House, we are doing the very best that can be done. I must remind the House that this is not the first or the second time upon which the hon. Gentleman has committed an offence of this kind. Upon one occasion the House will recollect that he was suspended for a week. I believe in the ordinary course of procedure it would usually be thought necessary to augment that period of suspension on the present occasion. [Cries of "No!"] I myself, however, feel that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has taken a wise course in inclining to mercy; and I am glad that he has substituted the period of a week for the longer period of a fortnight, which, perhaps, the strict equities of the case might demand. I think the House will feel that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted a wise course, and one which is best calculated to maintain the dignity of our Debates, which, Mr. Speaker, is so entirely bound up in your position.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Mr. Conybeare be suspended from the service of the House for one week."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will only say this: that I desire to apologise to the House for having shown

    1109
    personal indignation in this matter. The offence which has been committed is not an offence against myself personally, but against the office I hold, and, through it, an offence against the House itself. I would very respectfully and diffidently suggest to the House that if the hon. Member for Camborne will come into the House and apologise—not to me personally—but apologise to me in my capacity as Speaker of this House, and will apologise through the Speaker to the House of Commons itself, I say in that case I should respectfully suggest that the House of Commons should accept that apology, and that the Motion be withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTON: I humbly agree, Sir, with all that you have said. I would suggest that a short interval should now be allowed. [Cries of "Order!" and "No!"] Are hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway more zealous for order than Mr. Speaker? I am only asking that a reasonable interval should be allowed, so that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne may have notice of what has transpired conveyed to him before we come to a decision on the punitive Motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that the hon. Member should be called into the House.
    Mr. STOREY Mr. STOREY (Sunderland) rose and left the House.
    After an interval of some five minutes' duration,
    SIR J. MOWBRAY: Although it seemed to me an unreasonable request on the part of the hon. Member for North Kerry that an interval should be allowed, that interval has already been given by the permission of the House; and as the hon. Member has not appeared, I think we should proceed to a Division upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. STOREY here re-entered the House, and was followed by Mr. CONYBEARE.
    MR. CONYBEARE(reading from a written statement):—
    1110
    "I desire to express my unqualified regret for the publication of any expressions reflecting on Mr. Speaker. I withdraw them."
    The statement was received with loud cries of "Oh!" "Divide!" "Withdraw!" and "Speak up!"
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEwas understood to intimate to Mr. Speaker his desire to withdraw the Motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Motion is that Mr. Conybeare be suspended from the service of the House for one week. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn? [Cries of "Yes!" and "No!"]
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If I heard the hon. Member aright he has now expressed his unqualified regret—
    Several hon. MEMBERS: Only for publication.
    Another hon. MEMBER: Not at the act [Cries of "Divide!"]
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (having had the paper from which Mr. Conybeare had read handed to him): The hon. Member has expressed his unqualified regret for the publication—[Cries of "Publication!"]—"for the publication of expressions reflecting on the Speaker. I withdraw them." [Cries of "Oh!"] It appears to me that this unqualified regret having been expressed, I should be in favour of the House accepting that apology, and I now ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    MR. SPEAKERdirected Mr. Conybeare to withdraw.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot conceal from myself that had I been responsible for the conduct of the Business of the House or for giving advice to the House in this matter I should have been inclined, although I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's motive, to dissent from the advice he has just given us. We have endeavoured to wring slowly and painfully from the reluctant mouth of the hon. Member for Camborne something in the nature of an adequate apology for an offence which is

    1111
    not his first offence of the kind, and, therefore, I confess I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has given the advice that he has just given us. But, at the same time, I am strongly of opinion that in all these matters the House should act together—unanimously. I also recognise that the matter and circumstances of the words, leaving out of account the actual phraseology—may with a little goodwill be interpreted into a full retractation and apology. Under these circumstances, I would earnestly deprecate any division, and I should hope—whether the Leader of the House be well or ill-advised in the course that he has taken—a course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken, no doubt, with an earnest desire to maintain the dignity of this House, that we shall follow the line indicated by the right hon. Gentleman and allow the Motion to be withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.(No. 209.)

      COMMITTEE. [Progress, 6th July.]
      [THIRTY-THIRD NIGHT.]
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Irish Representation in House of Commons.
      Clause 9 (Representation in Parliament of Irish Counties and Boroughs).
      THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper is not in Order. It is in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton, as follows:—
      To insert at the beginning of the clause, "The representation of Ireland in Parliament shall remain unchanged, and the Irish Peers in the House of Lords, and the Members of the House of Commons for Irish Constituencies, shall be entitled to deliberate and vote as heretofore."
      MR. LABOUCHEREasked if it would be in Order to move the Amendment in the following words:—
      "Members of the House of Commons who shall sit for Irish Constituencies after the passing of this Act shall be entitled to deliberate and vote as heretofore."
      THE CHAIRMAN: I think that that would be in Order, but not here. It should come on on Sub-section 3. The next Amendment, which is an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, would be in Order if moved on Sub-section 1 as a substantive Amendment. It is, after "Parliament," to insert—
      "Shall bear the same proportion to the total number of Members as the contribution of Ireland fixed in Clause 10 bears to the total Imperial expenditure."
      The next Amendment is out of Order—namely—
      Mr. William Whitelaw—As an Amendment to Mr. Labouchere's proposed Amendment (Clause 9, page 4, line 25) line 2, leave out all after "Parliament," and insert "shall bear the same proportion to the representation of Scotland in Parliament as the population of Ireland bears to the population of Scotland; but the Irish Peers in the House of Lords, and the Members of Parliament for Irish constituencies, shall not be entitled to deliberate or vote upon any matter which relates to Scotland and does not relate to Ireland."
      The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wands-worth, would be in Order on Sub-section 1 if moved as a substantive Motion—namely—
      Mr. Kimber—As an Amendment to Mr. Labouchere's proposed Amendment (Clause 9, page 4, line 25), line 2, leave out all after "Parliament," and insert "shall henceforth be reduced to the like proportion to the population of Ireland as the representation of Great Britain bears to the population of Great Britain."
      The next Amendment is out of Order—
      Mr. Heneage—As an Amendment to Mr. Labouchere's proposed Amendment (Clause 9, page 4, line 25), line 2, after "shall," leave out to end of Amendment, and insert "cease."
      The next Amendment ought to come on Sub-section 3—
      Mr. Charles Darling—Clause 9, page 4, line 25, before "Unless," insert "From and after the appointed day no Member of the Irish Legislature shall be capable of being elected to or sitting or voting in Parliament, but."
      The next Amendment sets up a rival scheme, and is out of Order. It must be moved, if at all, as a separate clause. The first Amendment in Order is in the name of Mr. Parker Smith—
      To leave out the words "Unless and until Parliament otherwise determines," and to insert "Until six years from the appointed day."
      MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, he did not move his Amendment. As Amendments on matters of principle were out of Order, he did not wish to move one which related merely to a matter of detail.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which proposes to leave out lines 25 and 26 is out of Order.
      MR. AMBROSE MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow), rising to Order, said, he proposed to move the omission of lines 25 and 26 in conjunction with another Amendment, which would make it read. He proposed to omit the words down to "shall," in line 30, and after "the appointed day," to insert "every Parliament so constituted in Ireland."
      THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would put it in Order.
      MR. AMBROSEthen proposed the omission of lines 25 and 26. He said that Home Rule had been defined as meaning that the Irish people should have the power of managing their own local affairs. It had never been suggested that they should, in addition, have the power of managing the affairs of the British Empire. The question, therefore, arose what would be the position of things if the Irish Members were to retain their seats in the Imperial Parliament? The Bill proposed that 80 Members should remain at Westminster.
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I rise, Mr. Mellor, to a point of Order. As I understand, the question is to omit two lines of the clause.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Would it not be competent for us to discuss the omission of these two lines upon their merits? I myself should object to them as surplus age, and we can discuss them without raising the very large questions which must come up at a later stage of the clause?
      THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to leave out all the words down to the word "shall" in line 30.
      MR. SEXTON: Surely, Sir, he proposes to leave out "the appointed day."
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I respectfully suggest, for the convenience of the Committee, that the clause would read perfectly well without these words?
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I would suggest that the hon. and learned Member should move to leave out for the present only "unless and until Parliament otherwise determines."
      THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Member confines himself to those words in the first instance, I think he will be in Order.
      MR. AMBROSEsaid, he was disposed to fall in with the wishes of the Committee, and he would limit his Amendment to the words suggested by the Prime Minister.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 4, line 25, to leave out the words "Unless and until Parliament otherwise determines."—(Mr.. Ambrose.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I will state in a few words why it seems reasonable for us to ask to leave in those words. [The right hon. Gentleman made some further observations which did not reach the Reporters' Gallery.]
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I assure him we cannot hear a word.
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: What I was saying was that this subject of the inclusion of the Irish Members has been one of great difficulty. We have always thought that any plan Parliament might adopt would be open to a good deal of criticism. But Parliament has expressed a strong indisposition to exclude the Irish Members, and we mean to give effect to that indisposition. At the same time, we think that the clause will probably be open to a good deal of criticism.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must say I think the words "unless and until Parliament otherwise determines" seem in themselves to attack and minimise the supremacy of Parliament. It would be convenient if we could have some indication from the Government as to the mode in which the important questions raised by the clause will come before the Committee, as we have felt a great deal of embarrassment through the lack of this knowledge. I take it there are three alternatives to be raised. First of all, there is the question whether Irish Members are to be in Parliament for all purposes; second, whether they are to be limited as to the class of subjects on which they can vote; third, whether they are to sit in the Imperial Parliament at all? It would be of enormous advantage if the Government will tell us—that is, if they have yet made up their minds—when it will be desirable or possible to raise these three great issues. There remains even then a fourth point to be determined, and that is the number of Irish Members to sit in this House, if they are to be retained here at all.
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I cannot say more than that the Government will gladly accommodate themselves to the method of procedure which may be found convenient in the course of the discussion. I do not see how I can say more than this at the present time. When the question of total cessation of the Irish Members at Westminster is raised the Government will give their opinions upon it.
      SIR H. JAMES: I am sure that everybody approaches the consideration of this clause with a deep sense of responsibility. I will ask the Prime Minister whether, if the words referred to in this Amendment remain in the clause, the Committee will not, in his opinion, approach its consideration bound by the fact that anything decided on will, in consequence of these words, be of a temporary character? If the Committee should come to the conclusion that there should be a total cessation of Irish representation in the Imperial Parliament, why should we allow that to be looked
      1116
      upon as a temporary instead of a permanent step? I do urge that the Committee should be allowed to discuss the question unfettered; and if a determination is arrived at subsequently as to the need for making this provision of a temporary character, words can be inserted on Report.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he could not adopt the view of the right hon. Gentleman that these words would have an unduly or inconve niently binding effect. If allowed to stand they would not bind any future Parliament, nor, indeed, would they be binding on any future Session of the present Parliament. They were rendered necessary in order to indicate the view of the Parliament which passed the Bill that the arrangement was of a temporary or experimental character. The whole Bill, in fact, had been made transitional and almost experimental in its character by reason of the provisions deferring the power of the Irish Government for given periods of years in regard to judicial appointments, the Land Question, and certain financial topics, and therefore it would be in accord with the general character of the Bill that the words should be allowed to stand.
      SIR H. JAMES: What the hon. Member has just said shows the vast importance of this Amendment. It is clear that by these words we declare that anything we do by this clause will only be of a temporary character. I quite agree with him that we cannot bind future Parliaments. Evidently we are emphasising by these words our view that what we are about to do shall be only of a temporary character.
      MR. SEXTON: May be.
      SIR H. JAMES: Must be. Why should we not be allowed to discuss this matter unfettered by these binding words?
      MR. ASQUITH: I think we shall all be agreed that the words "unless and until Parliament otherwise determines" have no substantive character. They are, in fact, implied in every clause of every Act that receives the Royal

      1117
      Assent. The question which the Committee have to consider is whether a provision implied in all legislation shall be expressly stated here. The subject being one involving large and difficult issues, and on which experience will throw some light, the Government think that it would be a pity not to do as Parliament has frequently done in days gone by, and deal with the question more from the standpoint of experiment. I have here two instances in the legislation of the late Government in support of this contention—the Local Government Act of 1888 and the Local Taxation Act of 1890. In the first-named Act the clause dealing with the distribution of the Probate Duty grant contains words to the effect that certain sums "shall, until Parliament otherwise determines," be distributed among the several counties. That distribution has not been altered; but it is an indication of the opinion of the Legislature that the distribution was to be of an experimental character, as experience may make a change desirable. In the Local Taxation Act of 1893, for which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was also I think responsible, in the 1st clause dealing with the application of the English share of the increased Customs and Excise Duties, provision is made that "unless Parliament otherwise determines" the residue shall be distributed to county and borough funds. We have, therefore, recent precedents for inserting these words, the object being, not to say that the provisions affected by them are necessarily of a temporary or provisional character, but to indicate that experience may throw light upon them which may necessitate a change. On that ground the Government think that the words should be inserted here.
      MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think that the two cases cited by my right hon. Friend can be compared with this Bill. In the case of the Local Government Act grants were being made to Local Bodies; and as there is a tendency in grants of this kind to get crystallised, words were inserted to indicate to the Local Bodies that the grants would not be permanent, but that they were subject to alteration by Parliament. No such reason, however, can
      1118
      be advanced in support of this clause. The fact is, that the mind of the Government had not been made up at the time the words were inserted in the clause; they see the difficulties of their scheme, and they are now in a state which may be described as "unstable equilibrium," and they are willing at the slightest push to abandon this plan altogether and to adopt some other. The words can serve no useful purpose, and ought to be struck out of the clause.
      MR. COURTNEY: I think that the words quoted by the Home Secretary point to a makeshift—a temporary expedient—and they cannot be applied with reference to this clause unless it is to be looked upon as a makeshift resorted to for a temporary purpose. I confess I cannot understand why the Government cling to these words. We have had many illustrations in these Debates of carelessness in the wording of clauses, and of the Government fighting hour after hour over insignificant words which have only been proposed to make the Bill clearer and more definite. I think they might very well consent to drop these words, and let us commence discussing this clause in its operative part and on points of real importance.
      MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he did not think a more unfortunate proposal could have been brought forward by the Government than that a clause on which three great alternative issues were to be raised should have been made to commence with words indicating that it was likely a blunder would be committed in the decision arrived at. Even if the Committee did come to a wrong conclusion, the error could be inserted, although these words were omitted. There was another reason for getting rid of these words. They were about to enter on a triangular duel, and surely it was desirable that those who were worsted in the conflict should have time to sit down under their defeat, and that the plan decided upon should have a fair trial. But the retention of these words constituted a direct invitation to renew the fight without allowing the scheme a fair chance. Again, it was desirable that in dealing

      1119
      with the questions raised by this clause hon. Members should make up their minds to stand or fall by the form of Constitution decided upon; but the use of these words would keep their minds in a state of fluidity until the last moment, and prevent them coming to a decision as swiftly as they otherwise might.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The words are objected to on the ground that they were not only surplusage, but mischievous surplusage. It is said that Parliament will have the right to make any alteration in the arrangement at any time it pleases; but if the words are retained the tendency will be to limit the authority of Parliament. It is suggested that without these words Parliament will not have the power which undoubtedly it has.
      It being ten minutes before Seven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    SALMON FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 389.)
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

    CLUBS REGISTRATION BILL.—(No. 3.)
    Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 314.]
    Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday 19th July, and to be printed. [Bill 407.]

    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BROMYARD, &C.) BILL [Lords].—(No. 400.)
    Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
    RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 408.]

    CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Heywood Johnstone, Bill to amend "The Consecration of Churchyards Act, 1867," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Heywood Johnstone, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Baldwin.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 409.]

    COMMONS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Bill for the better preservation of Commons, and to amend the Inclosure Acts and Commons Acts, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Viscount Wolmer, Captain Sinclair, Mr. Bonsor, and Mr. H L. W. Lawson.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 410.]

    PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL. (No. 91.)
    Order for Committee read, and discharged.
    Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill,
    Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 9) Bill,
    Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,' to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts." [Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill, [Lords.]

    EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 411.]

    LONDON TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Order [6th February] that the London Tramways Bill be committed, read, and discharged.
    Ordered, That the Bill be withdrawn.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

    EAST INDIA CURRENCY (COMMITTEE).
    Copy presented,—of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Indian Currency Committee, together with an Analysis of the Evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    POLLING DISTRICTS (CAMBRIDGE).
    Copy presented,—of Order made by the Town Council altering the Number and Boundaries of the Polling Districts of the Parliamentary Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    POOR LAW PARISHES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
    Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 21st April; Mr. Henry Hobhouse); to lie upon the Table.
    LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
    Copy presented,—of Returns for 1891–2: Part I. Poor Rate and Valuation for Poor Rate; Part II. Abstracts of Accounts of County Councils and Accounts of Pauper Lunatic Asylums [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 312.]
  EVENING SITTING.
    ORDERS OF THE DAY.

      SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    S.O. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

      RESOLUTION.
      MR. J. E. ELLIS*MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe) rose
      To call attention to the inconvenience arising from the power given by the present form of Standing Order No. 1 to a single Member of preventing the transaction of business
      1122
      when it is the evident sense and general desire of the House to proceed with it; and to move—"That, whereas, when it is the evident sense and general desire of the House to proceed with any particular business, it is inexpedient that a single Member should have the power of preventing this, it is resolved—That Standing Order 1 (Sittings of the House) be amended, as follows—namely, page 2, line 2, leave out the word 'opposed,' and insert after the word .'business' the words 'to which, on its being called, Ten Members object by rising in their places.'"
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
      MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, the Motion which he had the honour of laying before the House was limited in its scope, and would be found, if carried, to be simple and effective in its operation. He should have had some hesitation, as an unofficia Member, in proposing any alteration in the Standing Orders did he not know that with respect to the matter dealt with in his proposal precedent was all in favour of its being left in the hands of unofficial Members. Standing Order No. 1 was so far as his Motion touched it, really the child of the old Half-past Twelve o'Clock Rule of the Standing Order 41, under what he might call the old dispensation, before the alteration of the Rules in the month of February, 1888. He found that seven-eighths of the old Half-past Twelve o'Clock Rule had been inserted on the Motion of unofficial Members, and that only one-eighth of it came from official sources. He regretted the absence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for London University, who was in hearty sympathy with the Motion, and who had intended to second it. It was only within a few hours past that the hon. Baronet, who was suffering from an accident which they all deplored, found himself unable to come down to the House. With regard to his proposal, it was impossible to form a judgment upon it, or upon Standing Order 1, without dealing with the history and origin of the old 12.30 o'Clock Rule. That Rule was first made a Sessional Order in 1871, on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, and it continued to be a Sessional Order till 1879, when the

      1123
      right hon. Baronet moved that it be made a Standing Order. Considerable protest was made against that proposal by various Members of great experience, some of whom were now in the Cabinet. The object of it was, of course, one with which everyone sympathised—namely, to curtail the Sittings of the House within reasonable hours. But the practical effect of the Rule was not of that character. No less a person than Mr. Speaker Brand went before a Committee of the House in 1878 and gave unimpeachable testimony that the Half-past Twelve o'Clock Rule had not operated in shortening the hours of the House, but, on the contrary, had, in some respects, the tendency to prolong them. In fact, the Rule was too severe against the progress of business. It placed in the hands of individual Members a power which the House soon found out ought not to be left to individual Members. The Rule was consequently amended in 1882 in two serious respects. On the Motion of Lord Knutsford—then Sir Henry Holland—the nominations and appointments to Committees were exempted from the Rule, and on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for London University proceedings under Standing Orders and Acts of Parliament were also exempted from its operations. In November of the same year, 1882, Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Bills passing through Committee were exempted from the Rule on the Motion of the Prime Minister of the day; and on the Motion of Sir Henry Holland blocks were made to lapse at the end of the week in which they were placed on the Paper. That was the history of the origin and development of the Half-past Twelve o'Clock Rule, and he ventured to think that for the present purposes of the House it was full of instruction. The present Rule was enacted on February 24, 1888. It was part of the great revolution in their procedure, the effects of which he believed were not yet fully appreciated by the House. One of its effects undoubtedly was to render it almost impossible for an unofficial Member to pass a Bill through the House, however good it might be, and however urgently it might be desired. The vital point of the present Standing Order I., so far as his Motion was concerned,
      1124
      lay in the word "opposed." During the discussion which took place on the present Rule in February 1888, the late Mr. W. H. Smith was pressed as to the meaning which he put on "opposed business," which under the Rule it was impracticable to bring on after half-past 5 on Wednesdays and after 12 on other days. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, with that acuteness which was one of his characteristics, thus described what would be the effect of passing such a Rule—
      "Was he correct in understanding the First Lord of the Treasury that after 12 o'clock it would be in the power of any individual Member of the House, by saying 'I object,' to put a stop to all Business upon the Paper, because, if so, he did not hesitate to say that the business of the House would be brought to a standstill."
      There was no doubt that, so far as unofficial Members were concerned, the result had been precisely what his right hon. Friend had foreseen. The experience of the Rule during five years had been to show that, as had been the case with the half-past Twelve o'Clock Rule, it was also too severe. If unofficial Members had been chastised with whips under the old Half-past Twelve Rule, they had been chastised with scorpions under Standing Order I. The unfortunate result of that Standing Order was that after 12 o'clock the Orders of the Day were gone through without, as a rule, any business being done. Not only had the progress of business to be considered, but some consideration was due to the dignity and decorum of the House itself. The scenes which were constantly being witnessed after midnight with reference to objections to Bills, to the withdrawing of objections, to the appeals made by promoters of Bills to hon. Members who objected did not conduce to the decorum and dignity of Parliamentary proceedings. He ventured to say that the Speaker never illustrated more truly the old meaning of the word Speaker than when, in June last, he said, in reference to this subject—
      "It is my duty to observe that the power of objecting after 12 o'clock ought to be used with some discrimination and discretion, because I foresee that the time is coming when some change will have to be made to prevent objections which are made indiscriminately."
      He believed that it was the general

      1125
      feeling of the House that this power of individual objection was one which had been abused, and which ought to be put an end to. So far there was substantial agreement between all sections of the House. But then came the difficulty which always arose when they passed from criticism to construction. He did not, however, admit for a single moment that they were incapable of getting over the difficulty. The Motion he had the honour of submitting to the House was a very simple one indeed. As "opposed" business had come to mean business objected to by a single Member, he proposed to strike the word "opposed" out of the Standing Order, and to require that business to be stopped should be objected to by 10 Members. As to the particular number of Members mentioned in his Motion, he was not wedded to that number. There was a great variety of opinion as to what should be the number. He had been strongly urged that 10 was too small a number, and that it ought to be 20, while others said that five would be sufficient. However, that was a matter on which the House would be able to arrive at some common agreement. There were some needless fears entertained with regard to his Motion. It was believed in some quarters that it would lead to a great prolongation of the Sitting. He did not share in those fears. Under the Standing Order, the House would, of course, rise at 1 o'clock, and he proposed that the 40 or 50 minutes after 12 o'clock should be devoted to some useful legislation promoted by unofficial Members. The pressure upon unofficial Members to promote legislation was greater than ever. That was shown in the great increase in the number of Bills introduced by unofficial Members, few of which ever passed into law, owing to the abuse which he sought to remedy. He now placed the matter in the hands of the House for its judgment, recognising fully the difficulty of the matter, and feeling it was not one to be carried by a narrow majority. He urged his Motion as a simple and effective mode of remedying that abuse, and of facilitating the general and evident sense of the House to advance business which they believed to be for the good of the nation. He begged to move the Motion.
      MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to second the Motion.
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Standing Order I. be read and amended, by leaving out, in page 2, line 2, the word 'opposed,' and inserting after the next word 'business,' the words 'to which, on this being called, Ten Members object by rising in their places,"—(Mr. John Ellis,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): I do not rise to speak on this occasion on behalf of the Government. Though not now what is called an unofficial Member, I desire, as far as possible, to speak on the Motion in that capacity. In dealing with matters relating to the Standing Orders, I perfectly agree that it is not the concern merely of the two Front Benches. The fact is that in these matters it is altogether for the House to judge. But, being for many years a Member of this House, perhaps I may venture to offer my individual opinion on this Motion. There is one thing I will say first of all, and that is that experience has led me to believe that it is a risky thing to meddle with Standing Orders, and that in stopping one hole you are likely to open another. Some years ago we determined to put an end to the very late Sittings of this House. I think everybody will agree that that was a very wise decision, and that the business of the House has been more efficient and more creditably done under a sort of Eight Hours Bill. It has been said that work generally is better done when the hours are short. That is my experience as the result of this Rule. I believe that when the Rule was passed that opposed business should cease at midnight the House desired, and I think it continues to desire, to go to bed nearer 12 o'clock than 1 o'clock; but under the proposal now made we would go to bed nearer 1 o'clock than 12. I admit that there is an abuse of this power of objection, and that Bills—useful measures—are stopped which might be allowed to

      1127
      pass a stage in five minutes. Last night here was an example of a sort of Bill to which objection ought not to be taken. It was the Savings Banks Bill. But I am afraid if it came on the conversation would have lasted till 1 o'clock. If one Bill were disposed of in a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes there might be a second and a third that would take as long, and substantially the Midnight Rule would become a 1 o'clock Rule. I am bound to say that in many cases, as the Rule at present works, it is abused, and the Speaker has expressed the opinion that if that abuse continues a change must be made. But we are now in July, and there is a good deal of heat in the atmosphere—there is a good of heat in this House, both political and atmospherical—and this time is not particularly opportune for making any change which would enlarge in any degree the labours of the House. Those labours are exceptional this year, and it is to be hoped that there will be a time when Members will not be worked so hard. I would suggest that it would be more opportune to consider this question and other similar matters capable of amendment in calmer moments and in a calmer spirit than can be done at this particular juncture. [Mr. J. ELLIS: By a Committee?] That I will not say beforehand. I am only expressing an opinion that there would be a more favourable time for considering the question at the commencement of a Session of normal character. With regard to the Amendment on the Paper of the hon. Member for Somerset, which speaks of—
      "A notice of opposition or Amendment, dated not more than seven clays previously, and signed either by one Member of the Government or by not less than six unofficial Members of the House,"
      I wish first to say that I cannot accept a principle that makes any distinction between Members of the Government and private Members in the Standing Orders. If hon. Members accept the views I have expressed, I think we might come to a conclusion that, though it is admitted there is an evil to be remedied, the present is not the most opportune time for dealing with the subject and coming to a decision upon it. In the next Session there may be a more favourable opportunity for considering the question.
      SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)said, he remembered when the Half-past Twelve Rule was suggested by two Members, of whom he was one. When the House had tried that Rule it began to desire an extension of it—the Rule which now prevailed—namely, that no opposed business should be taken after 12 o'clock. When he remembered that most of the Committees when sitting commenced business at half-past 11 or 12 o'clock in the day, he thought it very hard upon any Member who attended regularly to business that he should be asked to sit there night after night after 12 o'clock. All Members had fads, and put those fads into Bills. There was one Bill which had been upon the list nearly every day this Session, and he desired here to point out another abuse in that respect, which he thought was as great as that to which the hon. Member had referred. When Bills were objected to they were put down day after day, thus necessitating the attendance of Members who did not approve of the Bills night after night in order to object. When the House remembered that over 250 Bills were brought in upon the first day of the Session, they could easily imagine how many of them contained fads of no general interest to the House. Consequently, he said that if they had any new Rule of the sort suggested, they must also have a Rule that a Bill should not be placed on the Paper more than once a fortnight when objection had been taken, because otherwise they would compel large numbers of Members to attend when they had no desire to do so. The proposal of the hon. Member would impose a difficult task on the Speaker in deciding when it was "the evident sense and general desire of the House" that a Bill should be passed. Standing Orders should be clear and precise, and to put such words into them would only create great confusion, which would be most undesirable. The hon. Baronet was continuing his observations when—
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—
      House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock till Monday next.