Commons Sitting of 14 September 1893

QUESTIONS.

  EEL FISHING IN LOUGH NEAGH.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state what rights exist, several or other, of fishing for eels in Lough Neagh; what instruments may be used; and what protection has been used by owners or afforded by the Royal Irish Constabulary to such fishery rights, and at whose cost?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries state that there are considerable doubts as to what rights exist—several or other—of fishing for eels in Lough Neagh. It would appear, however, that the public have exercised a right of fishing for eels in the lake probably since the reign of Charles II., and they still exercise that right. The instrument that may be used for the capture of eels, during the open season, is the coghill net; but numbers of "long" lines are also used by the public. The former instrument is subject to a licence duty of £3 per season, but no licence duty has ever been fixed for the long lines. The only place where protection is afforded by the police is at Toome, where they protect the water bailiffs in the employment of the Board of Conservators. The only expense incurred by the police is occasional subsistence allowance, which is borne by the Constabulary Department.

  SIAM.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if definite instructions will be given to Lord Dufferin in negotiating with the French Government on the Siamese Question to insist upon no restrictions being placed upon British trade in any part of Siam, having regard to the fact that 93 per
  1134
  cent. of the imports and 85 per cent. of the exports were last year conveyed in British ships?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): As far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, no proposal has been made to place restrictions upon British trade in any part of Siam. But Lord Dufferin is fully alive to the importance of the British commercial interests in Siam, and will receive whatever instructions may appear necessary in case they should be in any way threatened.

  IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland communicate the results of the examination held in July of candidates for the Training Colleges to them or any other persons; and, if not, whether he can state why not; and whether there is any objection to publishing a Return of the names of the candidates admitted to Drumcondra and the other Training Colleges, with the percentage of their answering as well as that of the rejected candidates?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The practice hitherto has been for the Commissioners to communicate the result of the examination to the Principals of the Training Colleges, and it was within the discretion of the Authorities of the Colleges to communicate the marks to the candidates who passed the examination, if these authorities thought proper to do so. The Commissioners will, in future, issue to the Managers of the Colleges a rota of the persons examined, with a view to its exhibition in the respective Colleges, indicating by numbers and not by names the cases of such candidates as fail to qualify.

  GUN LICENCES IN COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Timothy M'Namara, Ballinlaw Athlacca, County Limerick, has four times applied for a gun licence during the past year, and has been refused each time, the gun being a

  1135
  present made in the presence of Sergeant Kerrish, of Boherard, Limerick, who took charge of the gun until a licence was obtained; and have Lord Fermoy and Mr. Jevers, J. P., recommended Mr. M'Namara for a licence; and, if so, will the licence he granted; and, if not, on what grounds?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It appears that the gun referred to was formerly the property of one James Ryan, who had a licence to keep it, and that upon his death in March, 1892, the weapon was handed over to the police by Ryan's wife. It has never been in the actual possession of M'Namara, although the original licence for the gun and a written document consenting to his using it were given to him by Mrs. Ryan in July, 1892. I understand that M'Namara has been recommended for a licence, as stated in the second paragraph; such a recommendation, though valuable, would not of itself constitute a sufficient reason for the grant of a licence, as there are many other circumstances to be considered. However, I shall make inquiry into the matter.

  MRS. GLADSTONE AND HER LIMERICK TENANTS.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Noonan, Toomaline, Doon, County Limerick, after his eviction by Mrs. Gladstone, was admitted into one of the farm offices as caretaker, and has been recently served by a writ from the Superior Courts for possession on a question of title; if so, has his eviction been illegal; and will the landlady get police assistance in removing the crops off the farm before the case has been heard?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that the ejectment proceedings recently instituted against Noonan are limited to the dwelling-house only, to which he was re-admitted as caretaker after his eviction from the house and farm in February, 1892. The case is expected to be heard in November next. It is no part of the duty of the police to assist in the removal of crops from the farm, but it will be their duty to preserve the public peace should the necessity arise.

  TOOMALINE TENANTRY DISPUTE.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Kirwin, for whose arrest a warrant was issued for threatening to shoot an evicted tenant at Toomaline, County Limerick, has been yet arrested; and, if not, will instructions be given to the Constabulary to watch the trial of the action for possession of a dwelling-house by Mrs. Gladstone against her tenant, and in which Kirwin is an essential witness?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand the hon. Member will not, in the interests of justice, press this question.

  THE CAVAN MAGISTRACY.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many Justices of the Peace were appointed in the County Cavan during the last 12 months of the term of Office of the late Administration, and how many of these were Protestants and how many Catholics; how many have been appointed in the same county during the past 12 months, and how many of these were Protestants and how many Catholics; whether he is aware that the majority of Petty Sessions districts of the county are still without a single Catholic Justice of the Peace, though the vast majority of the people are Catholics; and whether effectual steps will be taken without further delay to redress the balance?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Fifteen Magistrates were appointed in the County Cavan during the last 12 months of Office of the late Administration, of whom one is a Roman Catholic, one a Presbyterian, and 13 are of the Church of Ireland. Six Magistrates have been appointed in the same county during the last 12 months, of whom four are Roman Catholics, one is a Methodist, and one Church of Ireland. There are 18 Petty Sessions in the county, and at 13 of these one or more Catholic Justices of the Peace attend, or are eligible to attend. The total number of Magistrates in the county is 114, of whom 29 are Roman Catholics. The Lord Chancellor assures me he is ready to consider the names of any Roman Catholic gentlemen that may be brought before him as suitable for the Commission of the Peace.

  LUNATICS IN BELFAST WORKHOUSES.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of lunatics in the workhouses of Ireland, and especially at Belfast, as disclosed by the Annual Report of the Inspectors; whether he is aware that one of the greatest obstacles to the removal of these patients to regular asylums is the fact that pauper lunatics in workhouses are supported out of the poor rate, which is paid half by the owners, while pauper lunatics in asylums are supported out of the county cess, which is paid wholly by the occupiers; and whether he will consult with hon. Members on both sides of the House with a view to putting an end to this state of things?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The incidence of taxation in respect to maintenance of pauper lunatics in district lunatic asylums and in workhouses is as stated, but I understand that the principal obstacle in the way of the transfer of inmates of unsound mind from workhouses to district asylums lies in the fact that these latter institutions are so overcrowded as to afford no accommodation for such patients. The subject has been fully dealt with in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Irish Lunacy Administration which was presented to Parliament in 1891. As regards the case of Belfast, I am informed that the Board of Governors of the district asylum are providing increased accommodation for the patients, and it is expected that this accommodation will be completed in a couple of weeks. The workhouse buildings are also being extended with a similar object. With respect to the concluding paragraph, the hon. and learned Gentleman may rest assured that the whole question is receiving my most careful attention, and I hope to have an early opportunity of conferring with the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums and ascertaining what steps can be taken to lessen the overcrowded condition of these institutions.

  ACCIDENTS ON THE HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will furnish
  1138
  a statement of accidents to mixed trains on the Highland Railway in the last few years; and will give a Return showing to what extent during the last six months trains on that railway have been late in their time of arrival; and of what number of vehicles these trains have been composed, distinguishing between goods and passenger carriages?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I will lay on the Table a statement of the accidents to mixed trains on the Highland Railway which have formed the subject of an inquiry during the last few years. The Board of Trade have not the other information asked for by the hon. Baronet, but they will communicate with the Company on the subject.

  PORTADOWN POST OFFICE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the insufficient accommodation for the public and the employés at the Portadown Post Office, and if it is intended to build a new Post Office for that town?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): Attention was called some time ago to the insufficient accommodation afforded in the present Post Office at Portadown, and the question of providing a new Crown Office there has been under consideration. A proposal for the acquisition of a site and the erection of a building in Bridge Street has just been received, and it will be dealt with without delay.

  IRISH POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the Table showing the distribution of the balances in Post Office Savings Banks in Ireland according to counties has been omitted for the year 1892; and if the Tables for Great Britain have been published?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I understand the hon. Member to refer to a Return which was moved for for some years by the late Mr. Whitley. This Return was presented for the last time in 1890 for the year ended 31st December, 1889, and it has not been moved for since. The Return is a costly one, and the purposes which it serves appear to be hardly proportionate to its cost.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the balances in Irish Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks for the half-year ending 30th June last shows a decrease of £160,000; and if this is the first half-year since 1883 in which there has not been an increase?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The estimated decrease in the Post Office Savings Banks, apart from the Trustees Banks, was only £49,000, or rather more than 1 per cent. The answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative. I ought to say that during the first two months of the current half-year the deposits exceeded the withdrawals by about 36,000 in number, and about £24,000 in amount.

  WAGES FOR UNSKILLED LABOUR AT DEVONPORT.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that house rent at Devonport is at least as high as at Deptford and Woolwich, the Government have decided to make the minimum standard rate of wages to unskilled labourers the same as conceded to these districts?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON",): A careful investigation was made into the cost of living (including rent) in the various dockyard districts, with the result that, in the opinion of the Board, no basis could be found for a discrimination in the rate of wages to unskilled labourers except in the special cases of Deptford and Woolwich. The Admiralty is unable to see its way to any alteration of this decision.
  MR. KEARLEY: Are the Admiralty aware that at Devonport the rent for a single room is quite as much as is paid for a cottage in some parts of the country?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: There is a great difference in the case of Woolwich and Deptford; but we could not find that there was any evidence which would justify us in discriminating between Devonport and any other part of the country.
  MR. KEARLEY: Is the Civil Lord prepared to receive evidence on this question? A statement was made only two days ago to the Plymouth Corporation by the Labour Council of the Three
  1140
  Towns that the cost of living and rent in Devonport was 20 per cent. higher than in London.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Any information the hon. Gentleman may lay before me will be fully considered.

  COAL MINERS' CHECK WEIGHERS.
  MR. WASON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to a defect in "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," under which it would appear that, while the miners have the nominal power of appointing a check weigher to safeguard their interests, should the appointment made by them prove unacceptable to the mine-owners, the latter have the right to terminate the men's contract, and inform them that they might work on a new contract provided that they did not appoint the same check weigher; and whether he will take steps to have the law amended, so as to ensure that the miners are not deprived of their legal right to select their own check weigher?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): It appears from the decisions which have been pronounced that the right of miners to appoint a check weigher is not effectively secured to them by the existing law. The grievance pointed at in the question appears to me to be a genuine one, and I think it is very fit matter for consideration whether an attempt should not be made to remedy it by legislation.

  EDUCATIONAL DISPUTES IN GUERNSEY.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the States of Guernsey have recently passed a law relating to public primary education which makes the rectors of the parishes ex officio members and Presidents of the School Committees, and provides that the religious instruction in the public elementary schools shall be in conformity with the doctrines of the Anglican Church, and be under the direction of the Ecclesiastical Authority; whether he is aware that the measure was strenuously opposed by the Nonconformists of Guernsey, who have petitioned Her Majesty to cause inquiry to be made into the educational system existing in the Island; whether

  1141
  the law, before coining into force, must receive the assent of Her Majesty; and whether there is any objection to placing a copy of the law upon the Table of this House?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): From inquiries at the Privy Council Office, I have ascertained that Petitions from certain merchants and tradesmen of the Island, from the Committee elected to represent the Protestant Nonconformists of the Island, and from the Presidents of a Committee named by the ratepayers of the town and parish of St. Peter's Port, have been presented against the law stated in the Petitions to have been passed by the States of Guernsey relating to public primary education in the Island. The law referred to has not, as yet, been received at the Council Office. Such a law, like other permanent laws of the Island, must receive the assent of Her Majesty in Council, but no precedent can be found for laying a copy of the law upon the Table of the House, even if it had been received.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it not a fact that the States of Guernsey have a perfect right to pass laws in favour of denominational education?
  MR. ACLAND: Yes; but the law must receive the assent of Her Majesty.

  IRISH COUNTY CESS COLLECTORS.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in many places in Ireland the collectors of county cess, and bailiffs who make seizures in respect of the same, are in the habit of requiring innkeepers to receive distrained cattle and other seizures on their licensed premises; and whether it is compulsory upon innkeepers to receive such seizures; and, if so, under what law?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the practice referred to does exist in some places in the North of Ireland, but that in other parts of Ireland the practice does not prevail. It is not, I am advised, compulsory on innkeepers to receive such seizures, as by the Act 14 & 15 Vict., cap. 92, it is provided that except for distress for rent no animal can be impounded in any other place than the nearest licensed pound of the county, un-
  1142
  less where an assault shall be threatened or a rescue anticipated, and that it be necessary to put the animal into a place for its safe detention and for the safety of the person in whose custody it is.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of communicating with the County Authorities? Is it not a fact that the solicitors to the County Authority of Donegal have threatened innkeepers with opposition to their licences at the next Sessions?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Donegal is, I am told, one of the counties in which the practice prevails. I will certainly make inquiry.

  THE UNITED STATES MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that delivery of the mails off the steamship Teutonic, regarding which an inquiry was made, would have reached London sorted ready for delivery at or about 7.30 a.m. on the 6th instant if a throughout service had been ordered by the Post Office Authorities; and whether, in the interests of the public, it is intended to continue the expeditious service via Cork, Kingstown, and Holy-head, after the expiration of the present year?
  MR. A. MORLEY: If the special service referred to had been used the mails would probably have arrived in London about the time stated; but the Teutonic did not bring a full mail and did not arrive at Queenstown within the time laid down for a special service. The case, therefore, did not come within the conditions which govern the use of that service. No decision has been arrived at on the point referred to in the last paragraph, but the subject will be carefully considered before the end of the year.
  MR. SEXTON: In connection with this matter, has the right hon. Gentleman yet determined to issue tenders in view of the expiration of the present contract?
  MR. A. MORLEY: It will be a long time before the present contract terminates—it expires in the year after next, if next year a 12 months' notice is given to end it.
  MR. FIELD: What is the number of sacks necessary to constitute a full mail? Is it 41?
  MR. A. MORLEY: It does not depend on the actual number of sacks.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: Could not the contract be terminated a year hence by giving notice at the end of this month?
  MR. A. MORLEY: No.
  MR. DANE: The right hon. Gentleman says the contract expires in September, 1895, providing a year's notice is given. Could he not give that notice now?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I do not quite see how this arises on the question. If notice is put on the Paper I will answer it.

  DUBLIN CITY RATE BOOKS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the ratebooks of the Collector General for Dublin City now contained a column headed "Occupiers (not liable to rates)," that did not appear therein until some few years ago, and which is an additional column to that authorised by the Franchise Act of 1884; and under what Act, or supposed Act or authority, this column was added; whether Section 63 of "The Collection of Rates (Dublin) Act, 1849," is totally repealed; and, if not, whether the conditions of rating in that section mentioned are in operation in any part of the United Kingdom except Dublin; whether the law which provides that every landlord in England shall notify to the assessors of taxes, within 14 days after letting any lands or premises, the names of each incoming occupier, or some similar provision, can be made applicable to Ireland, so that the names of occupiers may become known to the assessors of taxes at the earliest opportunity; and whether the provisions of the principal Jury Act for England, which permits of omitted names from the Jurors' Lists being added at the annual revision upon any person making complaint, will be made applicable to Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The column referred to was added to the rate-book after the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, in pursuance of the opinions of eminent counsel obtained by the then Collector General. The section mentioned in paragraph 2 was repealed by Section 19 of the Represen-
  1144
  tation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, so far as regards poor rate in respect of lands, tenements, and hereditaments of an annual value exceeding £4. The hon. Member will see that the conditions of rating mentioned in Section 63 of the Act of 1849 are not now in operation in Dublin. They are not in operation in any part of Ireland. The matter referred to in the 3rd paragraph is worthy of consideration, and au amendment of the law in the direction suggested would tend to facilitate the collection of rates in Ireland. With reference to paragraph 4, the Juries Act (Ireland), 1871, provides for the annual revision of the Jurors' Lists and for the insertion of omitted names by the Parliamentary Revision Courts. I am not aware that any amendment of these provisions is required.

  IRISH BURIAL GROUNDS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill enabling the Guardians of any Poor Law Union in Ireland to acquire by purchase, compulsorily if necessary, any laud not exceeding one acre immediately adjoining any existing ancient closed burial ground vested in the Guardians?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed by the Local Government Board that, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 174 of the Public Health Act of 1878, and to the provisions of the Board's Rules and Regulations respecting burial grounds, which require that the land shall be of a character suitable for burial purposes, Boards of Guardians already possess, under Sections 172 and 173 of the Act, all the powers suggested in the question.

  MASHONALAND.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have confirmation of the telegrams in Tuesday's papers that bands of armed Matabeles have reappeared on the borders of Mashonaland, and that the Mashonas are flying for safety to the British fortifications; and whether his attention has been called to the statement by the British Chaplain at Victoria that about 3 o'clock in the after-

  1145
  noon, of July 8, whilst holding a Sunday school, the church and parsonage were surrounded by an impi of Matabele, who were on all sides massacreing the Mashonas without mercy, simply out of thirst for blood?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): We have no confirmation of the news referred to. As regards the second question, I am not sure if I have seen the particular statement mentioned. But, of course, there is no doubt that the Matabele did raid within the town of Victoria. I may add that Papers on the subject, containing all the latest news in our possession, were presented yesterday, and will be distributed, I hope, on Monday.

  THE "CAMPANIA" MAILS.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the mails per Campania, which reached Kingsbridge on Friday last at 2.57 p.m., were detained there over three hours and then sent on to Kingstown by ordinary train, and the mail packet retarded in starting 15 minutes?
  MR. A. MORLEY: In the ordinary course the mails would have been conveyed, by the afternoon mail train from Queenstown, which would have taken them through to Kingstown. The Railway Company, however, ran a special train as far as Dublin for the passengers and carried the mails for England as well as those for Dublin and the North of Ireland in the special train to Kingsbridge, where they awaited the arrival of the ordinary mail train. On the occasion in question there would seem to have been some little loss of time in the transfer of the bags to the steamer at Kingstown, and this matter is being inquired into. I do not think that a special train from Kingsbridge would have been warranted.

  LEEDS BARRACKS.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the alterations to the barracks at Leeds will be completed, and if he can state when the barracks are likely to be ready for occupation?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,)(who replied) said: It is hoped that the alterations to the barracks at
  1146
  Leeds will be completed by July, 1894, when the barracks are expected to be ready for re-occupation.

  THE BRITISH HONDURAS CURRENCY.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: In the absence of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether urgent representations continue to be received from British Honduras, protesting against the use of a depreciated silver currency: and whether a decision has now been arrived at with respect to the Petition from the inhabitants, praying for a gold standard such as obtains in other parts of the British West Indies, and which Petition has now been under consideration of Her Majesty's Government for a period of over six months?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second question, the existing currency of British Honduras was established a few years ago, after very careful inquiry and consideration, and in accordance with the general wishes of the colonists. So serious a measure as a change of currency requires very grave deliberation, and is receiving attention at the hands of the Treasury.

  SCOTCH SCHOOLMASTERS' HOUSES.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland on what ground the Scotch Education Department refuses to recognise the rental of the schoolmaster's house as part of the expenditure on a school required before the payment of the full grant earned?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The question put by the hon. Member cannot be answered in general terms, as the circumstances of each case may vary. If the hon. Member will be good enough to inform me of the case in which a difficulty has arisen, I shall be glad to explain the grounds of the Department's action.

  CESS INCIDENCE IN PERTH.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the incidence of the taxes of cess and stent in the City of Perth, with

  1147
  a view to their reform in the next Session of Parliament?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR(who replied) said: Inquiry will be made in regard to the incidence of cess in Perth. I am aware that dissatisfaction has sometimes been expressed with respect to the mode in which cess is levied in Scotch burghs, and the inquiry will doubtless show whether there is any peculiarity in the case of Perth, or whether it shares the objections which have been stated by some other burghs. It can then be considered whether a case for legislation is made out.

  DAVIDSON'S COUPLINGS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if large quantities of Davidson's couplings or joints have been made by the War Office and its contractors; if the War Office recognise Mr. Davidson, a working man, as the inventor; and what steps have been taken by the War Office to procure a suitable award for the inventor?
  MR. WOODALL(who replied) said: Considerable numbers of couplings or joints for side arms for ordnance have been made on a plan suggested by Mr. Davidson. He claims that these joints are covered by a patent held by him, but the War Department is advised that this patent is bad. £100 has, however, been offered to Mr. Davidson as an acknowledgment of his services in connection with the introduction of the joint in question into Her Majesty's Service. Up to the present he has not accepted this offer.

  ROTTEN FRUIT AT COVENT GARDEN.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing the great amount of fruit and vegetables that is imported from Rotterdam and Hamburg and sold by auction at Covent Garden, St. Katherine's Wharf, and Pudding Lane, a great quantity of which very often arrives in a rotten state unfit for human consumption, he will send an Inspector or Inspectors to attend these sales and empowered to prohibit the disposal of unwholesome food amongst thickly-populated districts?
  THE PRESIDENT OK THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The duty of seizing and, where necessary, obtaining an order of Justices for the destruction of articles of food which are unfit for human consumption devolves upon the Local Sanitary Authorities. I am informed that the authorities of the Strand District and of the City of London are exercising a careful supervision in this matter.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Do I understand that if the Local Authority fails to discharge its duty the precautions are dropped?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not know what might happen in such a case, but I should like to take the opportunity of saying that in the present crisis the Local Authorities are doing everything they can to carry out the directions of the Local Government Board.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: May I ask whether fruit and vegetables coming into the Port of London by water are not inspected at all times by the Port Sanitary Authority?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Of that I am not aware; but as my hon. Friend is a member of that Authority, he probably knows more about the matter than I do. I think the Port Sanitary Authority of London is pre-eminently distinguished on the present occasion for the admirable manner in which it has discharged its duty.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: That is so, Mr. Speaker. Not only are these things inspected now, but they have been inspected at all times.

  YORK CAVALRY BARRACKS.
  MR. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what further information he can give with reference to the sub-letting of the Government contract for the painting of the Cavalry Barracks at York, and the rate of wages paid by the sub-contractor; what are the wages paid by such sub contractor to the workmen employed in connection with the work contracted for; whether such wages are below the wages generally accepted in the district for competent workmen of the class employed; and having regard to the Resolution of this House of 13th February,

  1149
  1891, what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?
  MR. WOODALL(who replied) said: Looked at from the present standpoint, there may be said to have been some irregularity in this contract, which was a triennial one, anterior to the Resolution of the House of the 13th of February, 1891. Care will be taken to have the rates of wages provided for in the next triennial contract; but, from the information furnished, there does not appear to be any reason to suppose that the wages paid were lower than those generally in force in the district.
  MR. BUTCHER: What are the rates of wages paid to painters and painters' labourers?
  MR. WOODALL: There is no obligation in the contract to pay the current rate of wages, the contract having been made three years ago, before the passing of the House of Commons' Resolution; and, therefore, I do not see it is necessary to give the information asked for.
  MR. BUTCHER: But in the contract under discussion is there not a clause with respect to the payment of wages such as are accepted in the district?
  MR. WOODALL: This contract was made more than three years ago, and no conditions are enjoined in it with regard to the payment of the current rate of wages.
  MR. BUTCHER: None as to the wages accepted in the district?
  MR. WOODALL: No; the contract was made before the House passed this Resolution, but every contract made subsequent to the House of Commons' Resolution contains a stipulation that the current rate of wages shall be paid.

  FLOODS OF THE INDUS.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that breaches, owing to floods of the Indus, have been so frequent in the railway leading to Karachi, in Scinde, as to interfere seriously with the trade of that port; and whether he will ascertain what steps are being taken by the Government to prevent recurrence of the difficulty?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL,): The Secretary of State is aware, from notices in the newspapers,
  1150
  of the damage caused by the recent floods to the line of the North Western Railway in the neighbourhood of Karachi. The Secretary of State is confident that the Government of India will spare no effort to maintain the efficiency of the railway communications with Karachi, and sees no reason to call for a special Report.

  THE "NEW YORK" MAILS.
  SIR F. EVANS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General at what hour the mails by the steamship New York, viâ Southampton, were received at the General Post Office, and at what hour the mails by the steamship Teutonic were received at the same place, last week; and if he can state what porportion of the mail matter from the United States consists of letters, and what proportion of newspapers and printed matter?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The mails from the United States brought by the New York arrived at the General Post Office at 9.55 a.m. on the 6th inst., and those by the Teutonic at 1.29 p.m. on the same day. The proportion of letters to newspapers and printed matter in the mails from the United States is approximately 1 to 5.

  THE KERRY MAGISTRACY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many Nationalist Magistrates have been appointed in the constituency of West Kerry during the past 12 months; and whether any more will be appointed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Lord Chancellor is unable to give the numbers for West Kerry, as distinguished from the county; but for the entire county the number of gentlemen appointed to the Commission of the Peace during the past 12 months is 19, of whom 12 are believed to be Roman Catholics. No official record exists as to the political opinions of these gentlemen. As regards the second paragraph, I can only give the hon. Baronet the same reply that I have given to the hon. and learned Member for West Cavan—namely, that the Lord Chancellor assures me he is ready to consider the names of any gentlemen which may be

  1151
  brought before him as suitable for the Commission.

  DR. GREIG'S CASE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any explanation as to the delay on the part of the Chinese Government in settling the admitted claims of Dr. Greig?
  SIR E. GEEY: In his latest Despatch on the subject Mr. O'Conor stated that he had again brought the question of Dr. Greig's compensation before the Tsunlyi Yamen, when he was informed that it would be settled on the terms already agreed upon, but that the delay was owing to difficulties which had arisen with the Local Authorities.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: This matter has been a long time in settlement. Will the hon. Baronet give his attention to it during the Recess? I am not interested in Dr. Greig specially, but I have an interest in the missionaries of the Irish Presbyterian Church.
  SIR E. GREY: I quite admit there has been a deplorable delay, but we have only recently succeeded in getting the Chinese Government to admit the principle of the claim. The Government have no intention of allowing the matter to drop.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in reference to the progress of Supply, he can mention approximately the date on which he hopes to cause the Indian Budget to be laid before the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The Indian Budget will be taken on the day fixed for the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: When will that be?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the hon. Baronet is, perhaps, in as good a position as I am to answer that question.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the Indian Budget be put down before the Appropriation Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Appropriation Bill takes precedence when it is put down.

  SATURDAY SITTINGS.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is to be understood that in the event of a Sitting being held on Saturday next the Adjournment of the House will be moved at 7 o'clock?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If, as I hope, the Irish Votes are concluded to-day, there will then be two days to dispose of the remainder of Supply. As far as I can gather, there is a universal feeling that Supply should be brought to a close as early as possible. If that is so, I do not think it would be wise at the present moment to fix a particular hour for the conclusion of the Sitting on Saturday.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is there any precedent for taking Irish Supply in one day?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am not prepared to answer that question.

  SWAZILAND.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, before the House adjourns for the Recess, he will lay upon the Table the latest Papers regarding Swaziland, including the Convention?
  MR. S. BUXTON: As I have before explained, no Convention has yet been concluded, and the question whether Papers can be laid before the Adjournment must depend on whether the negotiations respecting such Convention are or are not concluded before that date. I cannot lay incomplete Papers.

  SOMERSET AND THE COAL STRIKE.
  MR. BARLOW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, although there has not been the slightest disturbance in the Somerset coal district during the strike, yet large numbers of extra police have been drafted into the district; and whether he has any power to prevent the Local Authorities acting thus?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have telegraphed to the authorities in Somersetshire on this matter, but have as yet received no reply. When it arrives I will show it privately to the hon. Member. But

  1153
  whether the statement is true or not, I must point out that the matter rests in the discretion of the Local Authorities, and that I have no power to interfere.

  COFFEE TAVERN PROPRIETORS AS LICENSING MAGISTRATES.
  MR. AGG-GARDNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Magistrates, who are proprietors of coffee taverns, wholly or in part, can adjudicate on and withhold licences from public-houses within the area in which their taverns are situated; and, if so, whether he will take steps to apply to such Magistrates the disqualification from acting in licensing cases which attaches to those Justices who are interested, however remotely, in public-house property?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Magistrates in question are not disqualified from adjudicating in licensing cases. I do not intend to propose any change in the law applicable to the matter.

  THE PISTOLS BILL.
  MR. HOPWOOD: T beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now ascertained that the Pistols Bill is a controversial measure; and whether the Government will proceed with it at untimely hours against the feeling of many of their supporters?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think that, on the whole, the House has treated this as a non-controversial Bill.

  THE CHOLERA.
  MR. ROUND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any foundation for the statement made in some newspapers to the effect that the precautions taken by the Port Sanitary Authorities of Harwich against cholera have failed?
  MR. HANBURY: May I, at the same time, ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information with regard to an alleged outbreak of cholera in Ashbourne, Derbyshire?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: In answer to the first question, I am not aware that there is any justification for the statement which has appeared in the public Press. I believe that the Port Sanitary
  1154
  Authority of Harwich have appointed a Sanitary Inspector for the special duty of boarding ships coming within the limits of the port, and that the Orders of the Local Government Board are being carried out. I am in communication with the Port Sanitary Authority, and I see no reason for charging them with any neglect of duty. They are incurring a heavy expense, as all the authorities in the Kingdom are, with reference to this unfortunate outbreak. The case of Ashbourne is, I am sorry to say, a serious one. Thirteen persons have been attacked with choleraic diarrhœa, and eight deaths have occurred. That is an extraordinary proportion, even in severe cases of the disorder, but I find upon investigation that the whole of the persons attacked lived in one courtyard and drank from one well. The water is, I am afraid, very suspicious. The Local Authority have stopped the use of it, and are taking all the precautions they can. We have no information of any spread of the disease outside the courtyard. Perhaps the House will allow me to take this opportunity of stating that the general report to-day from all parts of the Kingdom is satisfactory. There are no cases whatever at Cleethorpes; and at Hull there have been no deaths, and there are only two cases in hospital. A case is reported in the papers this afternoon—and I am sorry to say the report is correct—of a person living at Ashton-under-Lyne who went on a trip to Cleethorpes, and on his return was attacked with cholera or choleraic diarrhœa, to which he has succumbed. I asked Dr. Thorne Thorne to give his opinion on the present state of the epidemic, and he writes to me as follows:—
  "Having regard to the time of year through which we have passed since fatal attacks of choleraic character first commenced at one point of our Eastern Coast, the comparatively sporadic character of the disease is a distinctly hopeful feature, and the activity of Sanitary Authorities is even more hopeful as regards the future."
  I think, on the whole, that the House may rest satisfied that affairs are mending—not to put it any stronger at the present time—and that they are not retrograding at all.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Are steps being taken to

  1155
  have a thorough scientific examination into the character of the outbreak at Ashbourne?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Steps will be taken. The Local Government Board will make a thorough inquiry into the matter.
  MR. BRUNNER: May I ask whether medical men all over the country have been invited to assist the Local Government Board in ascertaining the exact character of the disease where it has appeared throughout the country?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Every district has a Medical Officer of Health, and in no case has any outbreak taken place without our sending down a Medical Inspector to make an examination specially for ourselves. I am quite sure that the Medical Profession will be now, as they always have been, ready to give the greatest help to the Local Government Board.

  THE COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. TALBOT: Will the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be taken to-night?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It will not be taken to-night.
  MR. TALBOT: Will it be taken this week?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope so.
  MR. TALBOT: As I wish to draw attention to parts of certain Acts to be included in the Bill, I should be glad to know when the Bill is to be taken? We were told on Monday by the Secretary to the Treasury that the Bill would be taken to-night, and some of us are here at some inconvenience. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman now name a day for taking it?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am endeavouring to consult the convenience of the House, and I thought it better we should first dispose of Bills on which no discussion is likely to arise. We could take the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill when we have more time at our disposal.
  MR. TALBOT: I quite agree with that, but I think we are entitled to a little notice as to when the Bill is to be token.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think I can relieve the hon. Member's mind for this week, at any rate.
  MR. TOMLLNSON: May I ask whether, in order to prevent the overburdening of hon. Members, the right hon. Gentleman will move the Adjournment of the House directly the Government Business has been completed?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is my intention.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I hope during the remainder of the Session.
  MR. BARTLEY: Will the Savings Banks Bill be taken to-night?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope it will be taken to-night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, suggested it might be dealt with as non-controversial if an agreement could be come to with the bankers. Negotiations have been going on with the bankers, and I yesterday received an assurance from them that they are satisfied with the agreement that has been come to with the Government to alter the figure from £100 to £50 as the limit of the annual deposit. It therefore may be taken that the bankers have agreed to the Bill as amended in that sense, and I hope there will be no opposition to it.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Is it intended to take the Merchant Shipping Bill to-night?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; I have received a communication from the Chamber of Shipping expressing a hope that the Second Reading will be taken, so that it may be considered by a Committee during the Recess.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.

      CLASS II.
      1. £2,764, to complete the sum for Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, this was not a controversial Vote in the ordinary sense, but he wished to draw attention to an item of £789 for the Chapel Royal. As a matter of fact, that Chapel was not now used by the Lord Lieutenant, nor was it used by anyone extensively. As a rule, the Lord Lieutenant attended the

      1157
      Royal Hospital Chapel in the morning and St. Patrick's Cathedral in the afternoon. Now, he had no desire to interfere with any vested interests, but it did appear to him that the item simply appeared in the Vote because it had been in previous years' Estimates, and he desired to know whether it was to be continued in the future?
      MR. J. MORLEY: I do not think the services at the Chapel have been discontinued.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he did not deny that services were still held there, but he was assured that they were not attended by the Lord Lieutenant and his Household; and the question was—Was it worth while to continue to maintain the Chapel?
      MR. J. MORLEY: Although it is the fact that the Lord Lieutenant attends the Royal Hospital Chapel in the morning and St. Patrick's Cathedral in the afternoon, I believe that during the Dublin season he also attends the Chapel Royal. I will make inquiries into the matter.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he remembered that when the Party of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) was in power he never assisted the opposition which was repeatedly raised to that item.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that if he desired to reply, he might point out that the hon. Member for Peterborough and his friends, who always resisted the Closure while they were in Opposition, now supported it without a murmur.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he supposed the hon. Member for South Tyrone would admit that it was a matter within the Lord Lieutenant's own discretion as to what church he should attend. He was surprised at the intervention of the hon. Member, seeing that in the course of the Debates on the Home Rule Bill he evinced such great anxiety that the Civil servants in Ireland should not be despoiled of any of their rights. Did he wish that the Chaplain, Reading Clerks, and Organist of the Chapel Royal should be deprived of their pensions, &c, and of their vested interests?
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I said I had no desire to touch any vested interest. I only wanted to know if the Vote was to be kept up in future years.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for North Kerry
      1158
      (Mr. Sexton) has come forward in quite a new capacity. I recollect that on this Vote, for a number of years in succession, long Debates were raised upon each item, from that of the Chaplain's salary down to that of a certain drummer boy. But the hon. Member now comes forward as a supporter of every appanage of the Castle, although he is aware that the Lord Lieutenant must be a Protestant.
      MR. SEXTON: I merely spoke in an interrogatory vein.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It must be evident to the Committee that this is a question which cannot be considered apart from other questions connected with the Lord Lieutenant's Household. If we are going to retain Dublin Castle we must keep up its staff, with all circumstance and pomp, and we should not be well advised in cutting it down in a niggardly spirit.
      Vote agreed to.
      2. £24,028, to complete the sum for Chief Secretary for Ireland—Offices.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that no one would contend that this was not a Vote that might be legitimately discussed. In former years this Vote had taken as much as three nights, but now the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the whole of the Irish Votes, might be disposed of in one Sitting. He assured the right hon. Gentleman he proposed to raise orgy specific questions, and that he had no intention of making a sporadic raid across the whole Irish question. It ought to be remembered that there had been no opportunity during this long Session of dealing with Irish administration. There had been opportunities for asking questions, but there could be no argument on them; and there had been Motions for the Adjournment of the House—indeed, he himself had been responsible for that operation twice—but those Motions had to be confined to a definite matter beyond which no one could go. There had been no occasion on which the whole question of Irish administration could be raised, and, therefore, he submitted that they were entitled to discuss it on the Vote for the salary of the Minister responsible to the House of Commons for Irish affairs. The first point he wished to touch upon was the condition of the dark area in

      1159
      Clare, Kerry, and Limerick. When he last moved the Adjournment of the House on this question the Chief Secretary objected—and he had some fair ground for the objection—that he had literally raised the question before the Clare Assizes were over. That could not be said now; and if they took the two last Spring and Summer Assizes for Clare, Kerry, and Limerick, they would find that 26 agrarian cases were sent to juries. What happened? He proposed only to give a bald statement of the facts, which would show better than anything else the real condition of those three districts. Not a single conviction was obtained in any agrarian case. There were 19 acquittals, six disagreements of the juries, and one adjournment. The fact was that in these counties, in all agrarian cases touching questions of land and polities, it had been absolutely impossible to get a single conviction. Surely that in itself constituted a serious state of affairs. It was all very well for The Daily News to talk about County Clare as though it was a standing joke; but it was a place in which Her Majesty's subjects had to live; they had to pay taxes for protection, and the Government did not appear to be able to afford them that protection, because in the 19 cases in which there were acquittals, the juries, according to the Judges, rejected the clearest possible evidence. Was this state of things an improvement on that which had prevailed in the past? Under the late Government, after the passing of the Crimes Act, giving power to change the venue, 231 persons were tried out of their own counties, and there were 106 convictions. The system of changing the venue was, therefore, a partial success, at any rate. Now that that plan was no longer resorted to not a single conviction was obtained, however plain the evidence for the prosecution might be. In Ireland, as a whole, there were, between August 22, 1891, and June 30, 1892, 39 cases of moonlighting. That was under the late Government. From August 22, 1892, to June 30, 1893, there were 84 cases. That was under the present Government. In the first period which he had named there were 20 cases of serious intimidation; in the second there were 35 cases, and firearms were used in 17 of them. Taking Clare, Limerick, and Kerry, he
      1160
      found that there were in the first period 28 cases of moonlighting in those counties, and in the second 74 cases. Thus they saw that the result of the Crown's not being able to obtain convictions on clear evidence was an increase both of moonlighting and intimidation. Was not that a very serious state of affairs? Before he ceased dealing with the County of Clare he wished to say a few words in regard to a certain outrage, and he did so solely in order to strengthen the Chief Secretary's hands. He desired here to refer to the case of Mr. Moloney, who was shot at on June 1, and seriously wounded. That gentleman held the position of County Court Registrar in Tipperary. His salary amounted to two guineas a day, payable on the certificate of the County Court Judge that the Registrar had attended and fulfilled his duties. After he was shot, Mr. Moloney was, of course, unable to attend the Court, which sat for 30 days, and as the Judge could not give him a certificate of attendance he had been deprived of his salary. That might be strict law, but it was hardly justice. Mr. Moloney had made an application to the Lord Lieutenant, which had been somewhat misconstrued by the right hon. Gentleman. He applied for aid in meeting his medical expenses, and also for his salary. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think he did not ask for the latter; but although his letter was somewhat hazy, he certainly did do so, and that was placed beyond doubt by the fact that in reply the salary was refused. Although an agent to a property, he had had no quarrel with the tenants, and had enforced no eviction for 15 years, so that there seemed to be no reason for the outrage. Under these circumstances, was it not drawing the line a little too tight to refuse his salary as Registrar of the County Court? Surely the Treasury could find some means to make a payment which certainly would not be unfair or unjust. When the late Government was in Office one of the charges most frequently brought against them related to the suppression of public meetings. The present First Commissioner of Works was especially annoyed at the suppression of the right of public meeting, and on one occasion, referring to the gathering which got Mr. Wilfrid Blunt into trouble, he said publicly he would not have felt

      1161
      otherwise than proud to have found himself beside Mr. Blunt in the dock. He was not the only Minister who objected to the suppression of public meetings, for even such a mild man as the President of the Board of Trade, in the Debate on the Address in 1888, asked, in the most indignant tones, was it an agrarian crime to attend a public meeting to express sympathy with the oppressed tenants? On the same occasion the Secretary for Scotland declared that the Nationalists of Ireland had as much right to attend public meetings as a landlord had to receive his rents. Those were excellent sentiments in 1888-9, and public platforms were made to ring with denunciations of the action of the then Chief Secretary. Bearing this in mind, he wished to show how the present Chief Secretary treated public meetings. Would it be believed that the right hon. Gentleman had suppressed, or, to use his own phrase, "interfered with," 21 meetings during his year of Office? It did not occur to the late Chief Secretary to use the phrase "interfered with"; he was too brutally frank. He did not complain of what the present Chief Secretary had done in that respect; he only wanted to point out that, although hon. Members denounced the late Chief Secretary for similar action from 1887 till 1890, they were now silent when their own Chief Secretary was quite as active in the same direction, even if he had not actually beaten the record. He wished to know whether the Chief Secretary would give the House a Return stating the places at which these meetings were suppressed, the circumstances under which they were interfered with, and the amount of interference? They had not been suppressed in Ulster, where they would have been heard of, but in other parts of Ireland, and hon. Members opposite had been so quiet this year that they had not a word of protest against outrages of this kind. There was another offence which the Leader of the Opposition committed every day of the year when he was Chief Secretary. In the last Parliament the Statute of Edward III. was the subject of denunication by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Donegal—
      MR. MACNEILL: I never mentioned Edward III.'s name in this House.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that was a very large order, for he did not believe
      1162
      there was any Member sitting below the Gangway that had not the Statute of Edward III. off by heart. Unquestionably the late Government were denounced for having disentombed that obsolete Statute, and Debates had over and over again taken place upon their enormity and iniquity in using that Act. Since, however, the present Chief Secretary had been in Office the Statute of Edward III. had been put into operation in 16 different cases. The right hon. Gentleman had recently said that "new presbyter was but old priest writ large"; but he would say that the new Morley was the old Balfour writ large, the only difference being that hon. Members below the Gangway were muzzled and gagged in some occult way, so that it was left to him on September 14, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was panting to get the place shut up, to bring forward these grievances. It would, perhaps, interest the right hon. Gentleman to hear what had been said outside in regard to his action. One of the right hon. Gentleman's friends, who was formerly a Member of this House—he referred to Mr. Leamy—had, at a meeting of the National League in Dublin last week, pointed out that evictions took place just as they did before, and that meetings were suppressed just as they were in the old times, and he had asked what the Chief Secretary had done for the evicted tenants or for anybody else. That Nationalist did not see that the right hon. Gentleman was one whit better than the Leader of the Opposition, and it was quite possible that his private opinion would be that light railways in the West of Ireland would outweigh, everything that the right hon. Gentleman had done. He next had to call attention to the disturbances that had taken place at Moira, in Galway, during the last two or three months. There had been a small Protestant community there for 40 years; it numbered only 40 people. There was a feeling in the district, apparently, that they ought not to be there, and it was suggested that they had gone there for proselytising purposes; but, whether that was so or not, if they conducted themselves according to law they were entitled to the protection of the law. What was the nature of the persecution to which they had been subjected? In May the well from which the Scripture

      1163
      reader obtained his water was soiled, and he was precluded from using the water; a woman was denied permission to cut turf, although she was legally entitled to it, the Roman Catholic owner declaring in explanation that he would not have his name called out in chapel for any amount of money, and subsequently outrages were committed on other members of the community, shots were fired into the parsonage, and a, cow was mutilated. All this had occurred since a fresh priest had taken up his residence at Moira. The Chief Secretary had lately strengthened the police force at a village a few miles from Moira, but a police hut at that place would have been much more effective, and he hoped one would be placed there. The next matter he wished to deal with was one in reference to one of the recently-appointed Magistrates.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I am not responsible for those appointments.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not in Order, as the appointment was made by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. As his salary is on the Consolidated Fund his action cannot be discussed in Supply.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsubmitted that if the appointment of Irish Magistrates could not be discussed in this House upon Supply it could not be discussed at all, and that would be a very serious business.
      MR. J. MORLEYexplained that his point was that the subject could not be discussed on this Vote.
      VISCOUNT WOLMER: On what Vote can it be raised?
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was certainly wrong in raising the question on this Vote. He repeated, that the Lord Chancellor's salary was charged on the Consolidated Fund, and as he was responsible for these appointments they could not be questioned in Supply; that is in accordance with the ruling that was given on the salary of the English Lord Chancellor on the question of his salary as Speaker of the House of Lords a few days before.
      MR. SEXTON: Might not the question be raised on the Appropriation Bill?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the point of Order, I submit that no question can be discussed upon the Appropriation Bill which cannot be discussed in Supply
      1164
      Is it not a serious matter to altogether remove from criticism on the Estimates the action of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in his administrative, not in his judicial, capacity? Cannot some plan be adopted for raising this point?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I am bound to administer the law as it stands. As the Chief Secretary is only responsible for his administrative acts, and not for these appointments, they cannot be challenged upon this Vote. With regard to the matter of the Appropriation Bill, I cannot decide that now.
      SIR T. LEA: The Chief Secretary answers questions in this House with regard to the appointment of Magistrates; and as he must be in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, is he not, to a certain extent, responsible?
      THE CHAIRMAN: No; I think not. He is only responsible for administrative acts in his own Department.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he could bring forward the matter he wished to deal with without referring to the Lord Chancellor's appointment at all. On June 8, 1893, a landlord named Tyrrell took up the possession of certain lands in Westmeath, allowing all the workmen, six in number, to take re-possession of their houses and gardens on condition that they continued to work for him. The tenant of those lands had been a Mr. Patrick O'Byrne, and he was one of the newly-appointed Magistrates. A decree had in due course been granted against him for non-payment of rent. One of the labourers, named Smith, after being re-instated, refused to work, and a summons was taken out by Mr. Tyrrell, the landlord, for the possession of the dwelling. When the case came on Mr. O'Byrne sat as one of the Magistrates to hear the case, which after a time was adjourned on the understanding that Smith would give up possession; but he refused to carry out his undertaking, and the landlord was kept out of his property for another month. When the case came up a second time, Mr. O'Byrne again sat on the Bench to adjudicate upon it, though, after a bitter contest, he was compelled to leave the Bench. Boycotting notices with reference to the grass on the farm were posted all over the countryside, and Mr. O'Byrne superintended the boycotting proceedings. The area of the farm was 620 acres, the Poor Law

      1165
      valuation £375, and the rent £141. This evicted tenant, therefore, was not a poor cotter tenant, but a fradulent debtor who had rightly been put off the holding, and then went on the Bench to adjudicate on a case in which he was concerned. This man was still retained on the Magistracy, and by virtue of his office he was an ex officio Guardian. What had he done in that capacity?
      MR. J. MORLEY: On a point of Order, may I ask whether this subject has reference to the Estimate before the House?
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am asking the Chief Secretary to take action with regard to this gentleman's conduct on this boycotted farm.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Chief Secretary is not responsible for the conduct of Magistrates.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he was speaking of this man as an evicted tenant, and not as a Magistrate.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to connect it with some administrative act of the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he was asking the Chief Secretary to protect the landlord in his legal right. Surely a case of persecution of this kind was not to be disposed of on a mere point of Order? Now, this Mr. O'Byrne, in his capacity as ex officio Guardian of the Poor, applied for and obtained outdoor relief for Mrs. Julia Gaffney, an old woman living on the land. Because Mrs. Gaffney continued to work for the landlord, Mr. O'Byrne took action which had the effect of stopping that outdoor relief which he himself had been instrumental in obtaining for the woman.
      MR. KNOX: Does not this question arise on the Irish Local Government Board Vote?
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, it was all very well to try and burke the question; but this was a matter for which the Chief Secretary was responsible, and it could be raised on another Vote if not on this. Surely it would save time if he was allowed to deal with it at once.
      THE CHAIRMAN: This is an administrative matter, and the Chief Secretary is, I think, responsible.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he had referred to the facts, because he thought that the Chief Secretary ought to look
      1166
      into this case and see that Mr. Tyrrell got justice, and also that the conduct of Mr. O'Byrne was brought under the notice of the proper authorities. He next desired to challenge the action of Magistrates in certain Courts in Ireland. Under the recent additions to the Bench, a great many publicans had necessarily been appointed Magistrates. He supposed that that could not be avoided if the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was to be carried out.
      MR. M. AUSTIN: Have you not already decided, Sir, that magisterial appointments cannot be discussed on this Vote?
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am not discussing the appointment; I am discussing their action.
      MR. SEXTON: Surely that is the same thing. The Lord Chancellor, and not the Chief Secretary, is responsible.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I hare already desired the hon. Member to deal with some administrative act of the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I submit that it is the duty of the Chief Secretary to bring the action of these Magistrates to the notice of the Lord Chancellor.
      THE CHAIRMAN: It is for the hon. Member to show that the right hon. Gentleman has done an act he should not have done, or failed to do something he should have done.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL, continuing, said, that under previous Governments it used to be the habit for a licensed victualler so appointed to transfer his licence to some relative, or give it up altogether. But a number of gentlemen who had been appointed in these circumstances persisted in sitting at Petty Sessions to try licensing cases, with the result that in some districts it was impossible to get convictions for breaches of the Licensing Laws. This was an entirely new departure, and he should like to know whether the Chief Secretary could not take some steps, either by appealing to the Lord Chancellor or by some other means, to confine these gentlemen to Magisterial duties outside the licensing question? In conclusion, he asked the Chief Secretary whether he proposed to do anything to facilitate the collection of county cess in certain parts of Donegal? It would be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that the collection

      1167
      of this cess was absolutely in abeyance, and had been for some time. The Grand Jury had applied to the Government for a warrant for the Constabulary to collect it, and he wished to know what arrangement had been come to?
      MR. J. MOELEY: I think I had better at once reply to a great many points raised by the hon. Member, and get them out of the way. The hon. Member claims that he and others have had no opportunity before now of calling attention to the misfeasances of my Irish administration. I think that is rather strange, seeing that there have been five or six Motions for the Adjournment. The hon. Member said these were made to call attention to a definite matter of public importance, but surely he forgets that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) moved a Vote of Want of Confidence covering the whole field of Irish government only two or three months ago. I do not object to the banter of the hon. Member. It is not particularly ill-humoured. It is said that I have suppressed 21 meetings; but is that a ground for censure from the point of view of the hon. Member? These were meetings for, beyond all doubt, an illegal purpose. Can the hon. Member point to one meeting suppressed where the object was a legal one? I can call to mind a case where the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suppressed an undoubtedly political meeting. The occasion was when the hon. Member for East Mayo proposed to address his constituents at Swineford. When the hon. Member can find a case of that kind in the course of my administration, I shall recognise some force in his remarks. The hon. Member asks for a Return of these meetings. I decline to give it him, because it would not tend to pacify Ireland. I do not mean—unless this House orders otherwise—to give any Return which, in my view, would rake up the members of disquiet. I will now come to a more serious point. The hon. Member went into what is called the dark area—a portion of Clare, a portion of Limerick, and a portion of Kerry. The point of his attack was that the Clare juries at the Spring and Summer Assizes did not convict. Well, that does not disclose any new or surprising state of things, or any deteriora-
      1168
      tion in the state of Clare. What the hon. Member tried to make out was that these counties have deteriorated since the withdrawal of the Crimes Act. I have never concealed for a moment how bad I think the state of the County Clare, and how bad for a short time I thought was a portion of Limerick and a portion of Kerry. I will tell the hon. Member something which is extremely inconvenient for his proposition, but which, in spite of Party feeling, I think the Committee will be glad to hear. I received yesterday, not for the purpose of this Debate, but in the ordinary course, the Reports of the Divisional Commissioners and the other Police Authorities in the South-Western Division, and the hon. Member and the Committee ought to be glad to hear that there is a marked, a steady, and apparently a durable improvement going on.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, his complaint was that Clare was in the hands of secret societies, and that the right hon. Gentleman knew it.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I know nothing of the kind. These officers, who must know what they are speaking of, and who have no desire to make a case for one side or the other, report that there is a complete absence of agitation of any sort. With regard to the County of Clare, they reported that in Ennis and Corofin there is a great improvement; that there is a marked improvement in the district of Tulla; and, taking the county as a whole, these authorities have stated that its improvement is gradual and promises to be steady. A still more satisfactory Report is returned from Limerick. They report that the County of Limerick is peaceable, and that the districts of Abbeyfeale and Newcastle, which are in the dark area, are now as tranquil as any other part of the county. They also report as regards the County Kerry that there is a marked improvement. That, surely, is a sufficient answer to the hon. Member's contention. Reference has been made to the general figures as to agrarian crime all over Ireland. What are those figures? The agrarian outrages, exclusive of threatening letters and notices, from August 22, 1892, to August 23, 1893, numbered 207, against 237 in the corresponding period from 1891 to 1892, and if we include threatening letters and notices, then the total number of agrarian

      1169
      outrages for the period from August, 1892, to August, 1893, is 395, as against 437 for the period from August, 1891, to August, 1892. I do not say that it is a marvellous improvement, but from one cause or another a perceptible improvement has taken place in that particular class of crime. The hon. Member has referred to the case of Mr. Moloney, whose life was attempted in a particularly deliberate and cold-blooded manner in the County of Clare. Mr. Moloney was disabled by the wound he received from following his profession of a solicitor, and from attending to his duties as Registrar of Petty Sessions. I have examined into Mr. Moloney's application very carefully, and I am glad to be able to say that, though the Treasury think it will not be proper to place it upon this Vote, there are other resources from which a small sum—£50 I think the hon. Member mentioned—will be paid to satisfy Mr. Moloney's claim. The hon. Member then referred to the alleged persecution of Protestants by Catholics at Myross. I have examined very minutely into the affair; and though the hon. Member's account of the incidents of this alleged persecution does not in all minute particulars correspond with my information, there have been no doubt one or two acts of violence, not of a very serious kind, which appear to have arisen from a religious quarrel. The only point of difference between the hon. Member and myself is as to the particular place where a police hut ought to be erected in the neighbourhood. If the authorities on the spot think it desirable that the hut should be erected at the place mentioned by the hon. Member, then that course will be adopted. With regard to the question of the Magistrates, I, of course, am not responsible for what the Magistrates do, nor for those whom the Lord Chancellor in his discretion may appoint. At the same time, I am perfectly prepared to defend all that the Lord Chancellor has done in this matter. The Lord Chancellor has a most difficult and a most invidious task, and he has devoted to it an amount of labour which I am sure far exceeds all his judicial labours. I know this—that the Lord Chancellor has exercised his discretion with the desire to appoint no one on the Bench, whoever may be his sponsors, whose appointment cannot be fully and
      1170
      amply justified upon the floor of this House. With regard to the case of Mr. O'Byrne, a Justice of the Peace in West Meath, I will inquire into the circumstances which the hon. Member has alleged. I am not sure, listening very carefully to what the hon. Member has said, that, even if all he has alleged were true, he has alleged anything with which it is my duty to interfere—but the case, even as it stands, marks no failure in the administrative vigilance of the present Irish Government. In the case of the appointment of the owners of licensed, premises as Magistrates, the hon. Member wishes me to promise that if any publican is made a Justice of the Peace a bargain shall be made with him that he shall not adjudicate in licensing questions. The hon. Member says the Liberal Party are particularly bound to look into this matter.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he had withdrawn that.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I am glad the hon. Member withdraws it. He must have forgotten, when he made that remark, that he told his temperance friends in England that, bitterly and deeply though he regretted it, from the Liberal Party alone they had anything to expect in the way of temperance reforms, so that the hon. Member has no alternative but to withdraw the remark. I cannot answer the hon. Member upon the point which he has raised off-hand, but I think he will find that with one exception my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has not made a single publican a County Magistrate.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But he has.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I believe there is one exception, and that is the case of a gentleman who, though holding licensed premises, chances to be Chairman of the Town Commission. I believe my right hon. and learned Friend has not yet committed himself on the matter of principle, but, as a matter of fact, and as testing the accuracy of his statement, the case is as I have just stated it. As to the subject of the Donegal cess, I believe the hon. Member has been misinformed, because the difficulties have not arisen in the slightest degree in connection with the Gweedore case. But I hope to have information on this subject later on.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has

      1171
      referred to Motions for Adjournment from time to time during the last seven months on Irish affairs as if they were something exceptional. As far as my recollection carries me, I think that during that time the right hon. Gentleman has been peculiarly fortunate in his immunity from criticism and attack; but I do not suppose that this immunity will, even by himself, be wholly attributed to the individual merits of his administration. I have no wish to utter a single ill-considered word against his administration, but there are circumstances outside the question of the administration of Ireland which may have had no small effect on the character of the Debates in this House touching the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the suppression of meetings, I am the last person to suggest that in any of the 21 cases referred to the right hon. Gentleman's interference was otherwise than justified. The right hon. Gentleman does not make any reply to the perfectly fair tu quoque argument of my hon. Friend as to the kind of measure meted out to the late Irish Administration when they also interfered with or suppressed public meetings in Ireland. But I am the last person to desire to drag up ancient controversies; and if the right hon. Gentleman will only consent to govern Ireland according to the principles that every responsible Government has held to be necessary, I shall not make his task more difficult by turning up speeches of his Colleagues to see whether any of their utterances are inconsistent with the course they and their Government are now pursuing. I do not profess to recollect the facts connected with my own suppression of a meeting in Mayo, but I am convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman will consult his officials, or even my own public defence—and I suppose the case was debated in this House—ample proof would be afforded that under whatever disguise the meeting was brought together, it was, in fact, a meeting either for the intimidation of individuals or for the promotion of some illegal conspiracy. Either of these conditions intervening, the Executive Government were bound to interfere with or suppress the meeting. I throw out that challenge without having in my mind the details. This I know—that never in the whole course of
      1172
      the time I was responsible for the government of Ireland did it ever enter into my head to suppress a meeting called boné fide for the purpose of discussing any political matter whatever.
      MR. MACNEILL: Mitchelstown.
      An hon. MEMBER: Yes; "remember Mitchelstown!"
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Never did I do so, and never would I commend it. The Committee knows well enough that if a Nationalist Member of Parliament is anxious to throw himself into these illegal transactions it is perfectly easy for him to cover his procedure by describing a meeting called to promote illegal objects by the name of a political gathering of his constituents. But no Nationalist Member is anxious to give the right hon. Gentleman trouble. No Nationalist Member is likely to put him in the embarrassing position of having to suppress a meeting in which that Member proposes to take an active part; but I think well enough of the right hon. Gentleman to believe that under such difficult circumstances his courage would not fail him, and that he would carry out consistently and to the end the principles which he has just avowed, and would suppress any meeting, called under whatever auspices, which he was convinced was of an illegal character. Reference has been made to the Myross case, in which there was something in the nature of religious persecution in a particular part of Galway. I do not think that anyone will complain of the action the right hon. Gentleman has taken in the matter, and I only allude to it because I think it has an important bearing on the statement I have constantly heard made inside and outside the House, that the religious differences are never of that character which lead to breaches of the peace or persecution of small bodies of persons living amongst those of a different religious persuasion. I do not wish to exaggerate the part which religious differences play in social life in Ireland. I agree with those who think that in large parts of the country the Roman Catholic priesthood themselves would be the first to deprecate any illegal action against any of their fellow-subjects because they happen to be Protestants; but in the history of Ireland it is impossible to unravel the

      1173
      tangled threads of religious difference. We might go back for the last three centuries, and take crisis after crisis, and it would be impossible to discover how much has been due to political and how much to religious differences. The religious question is there as an operative and important factor in Irish politics, and when it comes to the surface, as in this case, it should give pause to those who are ready to conclude that that chapter, at all events, of the unhappy past has been finally turned over, never to be re-opened. As to Mr. O'Byrne, he appears to have used his power as a Poor Law Guardian very unfairly, and his power as a Magistrate to assist him in defeating his creditors. It appears to be a scandalous case, and a most shocking violation of the rules which should guide the administration of justice. I will not enter into a question which the Chairman has ruled to be beyond our competence, and I will only make this remark: My hon. Friend was, undoubtedly, justified in calling attention to the fact that this breaker of the law was himself a Magistrate, and I am sure that bon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who, I thought very unfairly, tried to close the mouth of my hon. Friend, must have forgotten the persistence with which they dragged up certain cases when I was Chief Secretary—cases in which a certain section of Magistrates, and in which the fact that they were Magistrates, was an endless topic of criticism.
      MR. MAC NEILL: Captain Segrave.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not thinking of him; I am thinking of other cases. The details are not present to my mind, but I am sure the memories of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will carry them back to many eases in which the Magistrates were, or were supposed to be, interested in proceedings not creditable to the Bench. Mr. Drummond is often held up as an exemplar in his administration of Ireland; but, in the first place, he established the Irish Constabulary; and, in the second place, he instituted Resident Magistrates. I hope the case of Mr. O'Byrne will remind hon. Members that Mr. Drummond thought that in a country like Ireland justice could not more properly be administered by a Stipendiary than by an Unpaid
      1174
      Magistracy. If Magistrates are to act in the way which Mr. O'Byrne is alleged to have done, the last state of Ireland will become worse than the first. I now come to the more important part of the case brought forward by my bon. Friend—namely, the measures taken by the Government for putting down agrarian offences. I am not going to quarrel over the comparative quiescence of Ireland under this Government or under the last, nor do I think it of great importance whether agrarian crime has diminished to the extent mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Everybody must rejoice that crime has diminished, but that is not the root of the matter. The condition of Ireland at any time is due undoubtedly, in part, to the manner in which the Criminal Law is administered, and the success with which prosecutions are carried out; but an enormous number of other circumstances come into play, and, in the long run, contribute their quota to the general result; and till we can distinguish between one cause and another, it is impossible to pronounce a final verdict as to how far the diminution of crime is due to the measures by any Government whatever. The right hon. Gentleman, as he was justified in doing, quoted statistics of agrarian crime, excluding and including threatening letters, but he has nothing to say of the two important classes of moonlighting and grave intimidation, which show not a diminution, but an actual increase during the 12 months the right hon. Gentleman has been in Office. If that is so—and it is not disputed by the Government—it must largely qualify, if not altogether destroy, the satisfaction we should otherwise feel at the diminution from 237 to 207 of the total number of agrarian crimes during the past year. Let us consider under what circumstances this diminution, such as it is, occurred—this diminution of all the offences combined, with an increase in two of the most serious classes of cases. It has occurred, it seems to me, under circumstances eminently favourable to the preservation of peace in Ireland, and which may not occur in future years. There are two circumstances especially which must have had a very great effect upon the condition of Ireland. One is the excellence of the harvest. Ireland has been blessed this year with an amount of material pro-

      1175
      sperity such as she has not had, as far as my memory goes, for 20 years. I do not think she has enjoyed such prosperity since 1876 or 1877. We all know that agrarian offences partly arise out of agrarian difficulties between landlords and tenants, and unquestionably rich harvests and great prosperity of the farming interests must have the effect it always has had of diminishing the friction between landlords and tenants, and mitigating, or altogether removing, many of the causes of agrarian crime in Ireland. That is a circumstance which may not be repeated next year. The other circumstance is political. Everybody knows—and it is really not denied—that much of the difficulty of governing Ireland has been produced by Organisations which are in their essence political, and it is also a matter of notoriety that these Organisations have in many cases had as their most powerful instruments the Catholic curates, and in some cases the Catholic priests, of rural districts. Well, Sir, these great forces which certainly have not always been exerted in the cause of public order are now on the side of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Morley). It is their interest and their business to make his task easier. They know as well as we know in this House that if his administration were to be a failure it would be a serious blow at the ulterior objects which they all have in view, and, therefore, they are bound by every motive of policy and every motive of gratitude to the present Government to make the task of the right hon. Gentleman as easy as possible. I confess that, under these circumstances, a diminution of 237 to 207, combined as it is with an increase in two of the most serious forms of crime, is as satisfactory as we might have hoped it would be. Such as it is, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the House upon it, and I earnestly hope that there will be a continuance of the relative smallness of the amount of crime which now prevails in Ireland, and even a still further diminution in future years. My hon. Friend (Mr. T. W. Russell) began his speech by pointing out that out of 26 cases of agrarian crime in Clare, Kerry, and Limerick there was either an acquittal or disagreement in 25. The right hon. Gentleman, while not denying, as he cannot
      1176
      deny, this fact, says, in effect—"Oh, why should I trouble my head about that? The state of Ireland is not worse than it was; in fact, it is better." [Mr. J. MORLEY was understood to dissent.] At all events, it causes him no anxiety. If the right hon. Gentleman did not say that, he said nothing. He gave an absolute go-by to the argument of the hon. Gentleman, and never attempted to reply at all. I thought the right hon. Gentleman entirely mistook the position taken up by my hon. Friend. I should not think it a conclusive argument were agrarian crime diminished by one-half, as long as I saw the agrarian criminal on every occasion get off scot-free. What should we think in London if, from causes quite outside the administration of the law, crime were to diminish, while, at the same time, the administration of justice were to become an absolute farce? Should we say—"Why bother our heads that jurymen will not convict, or that people are afraid to come forward and give evidence when the general attitude of the Metropolis is improving"? Should we say that this was a sufficient reason for leaving the instrument of the law unsharpened in our hands? The Home Secretary, if he used an argument so ludicrous as that, would not remain Home Secretary for 24 hours. The first duty thrown on every Government is to see that the administration of the law is carried out, that criminals are brought to trial, and that when the trials take place justice is done. Is that primary duty being exercised by the Government in Ireland? and if it is not being exercised by them, why not? If the Government could come forward and say—"This is a most unfortunate circumstance; but we cannot help it, as there is no power by which this state of things can be remedied," the Executive would have to be absolved from blame. New laws might have to be passed, but the Executive would have an excuse which would be regarded as sufficient. But that is not the position of the Government. The Government know perfectly well they have at their command facts which conclusively prove—and the figures given by my hon. Friend tend to prove it—that if only the Government will give change of venue, this shocking legal scandal will, at all events, be largely diminished. That it will come to an end is not, I am

      1177
      afraid, at all likely as long as there is such great difficulty as unfortunately exists in parts of Ireland in obtaining evidence. But the difficulty which arises from the intimidation of juries and from local circumstances affecting the verdicts of juries would be almost entirely removed by change of venue, and I have no doubt we might anticipate that a not inconsiderable portion of the guilty men brought to trial would be also brought to justice. The right hon. Gentleman promised, when this question was last raised, that he would carefully watch the course of events in Ireland, and that he would not be restrained either by anything he had said, or by anything which hon. Gentlemen opposite might say, from putting in force the full power of the law should the necessity for so doing be made clear. I appeal to the Committee whether the facts brought forward by my hon. Friend, and not traversed or contradicted for a moment by the Chief Secretary, are not sufficient to show that the clauses in the Crimes Act should be again put in force? The Government surely do not want more time. The right hon. Gentleman has now been in Office for a year and a few weeks. He has been able to study the course of justice at the Summer and the Winter Assizes, and has been able to see how it is possible or not to get verdicts in the localities where the crimes are committed. Unless he gets up and says experience proves that verdicts can be obtained, surely an immense and overwhelming responsibility rests upon him, and those who support him, for refusing to proclaim those districts under the Change of Venue Clauses of the Crimes Act, and thus bringing this judicial scandal to an end. I hope the Committee will believe me when I say that I do not make this request in any Party sense or for any Party object. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to do anything which I think he will feel impossible or even difficult. I do not ask him to deal with illegal conspiracy, or to renew those clauses of the Crimes Act which give increased powers of summary jurisdiction; I ask him only to make that an effective part of the law in Ireland which, in some nominal sense, is already part of the law there, which is at the present moment the law in Scotland, and which
      1178
      would be put in force in England in 24 hours if the same state of things existed in England. I do say that if after the unwearying and unbroken experience of a year—all tending to support the accumulated experience of previous Administrations in Ireland—the right hon. Gentleman still persists in allowing men time after time to be brought up, who are undoubtedly guilty, but whom no jury will convict, the responsibility will rest upon him for the maladministration of that justice of which he should be the first defender, and which, I am sure on reflection, will be heavier than in his reflective moments he would desire.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The right hon. Gentleman rather surprised me by recurring to the subject of the change of venue after having not long ago wound up a speech in this House with a very remarkable declaration the sincerity of which I did not doubt at the time and do not doubt now. The right hon. Gentleman wound up that speech by imploring me, if I should discover that it was impossible to get convictions in cases where clearly convictions ought to be obtained, that I should not scruple to restore the clauses giving effect to change of venue. He added that he, for one, would never make it a topic of Parliamentary protest if I did so. That has been in my mind ever since; but what surprises me is that the right hon. Gentleman should have made the same kind of declaration now, and the same kind of appeal, when, as far as I know, nothing new has happened.
      MR. JACKSON: Another Assize has been held.
      MR. J. MORLEY: No, I beg pardon. The Summer Assizes were in full course when that declaration was made.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Were in course, but were not finished.
      MR. J. MORLEY: This is not a point on which I should be likely to be mistaken. I submit, and I insist, that there has been no change since that powerful appeal was made to me by the right hon. Gentleman, calling upon me to re-consider the attitude we have taken up in reference to change of venue. The facts mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. T. W. Russell) are an old story. The pledge I gave to the House was that if, as the right hon. Gentleman now

      1179
      says, I found that convictions, where convictions were desirable and important, could not be obtained without change of venue, no fear of being confronted with language I had used in former days about exceptional legislation would prevent my taking up that weapon again. Why, then, is that appeal repeated when, so far from circumstances making it desirable for us to re-consider the question, our experience is the other way? I will not dwell on the fact that the next Assizes are the Winter Assizes, when, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is an actual change of venue; but I say that, under those circumstances, the question does not press at all. I must ask why at the moment when I am able to inform the Committee that, in the opinion of the responsible authority there is a marked and steady improvement in the only disturbed part of Ireland, and the only part where this difficulty of obtaining a conviction is really an important fact—why, at this moment, I should be reproached with having dropped the power of change of venue, and again appealed to to renew that power?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was perhaps labouring under a mistake when I spoke, although I rather think not. I did not recall the precise date of the former discussion, but I certainly thought it took place early in the course of the Summer Assizes. The remark I intended to have made was that there was much of the Summer Assizes still to run, and I hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider what the result of the Assizes were, and on that result would base any policy which circumstances might seem to require. When we reached the Debate this evening, I thought we had behind us what was never behind us before—namely, the record of the whole of the trials which had taken place. I thought that if, on looking back and forming our judgment, we found that the indications given by the earlier trials were fully borne out by the later trials, it was impossible to hope that justice would ever be done without change of venue in the three counties in question. The right hon. Gentleman seems to take a different view, and to think that he ought to be given from now to the next Spring Assizes to make up his mind on the question. I do not desire to press him
      1180
      in the least unduly on the point; and as long as I understand that it is still in his mind, and that he does not entirely shut the door, I will not press the matter further.
      MR. BARTONshould like to bring before the attention of the Committee some points which had not been brought before the House as yet, and as to which the Chief Secretary might avail himself of the opportunity of giving an explanation. The first of these was the policy of the Lord Lieutenant in accepting or refusing addresses. The action of Lord Houghton had created a great deal of dissatisfaction and misunderstanding among certain sections of the community in Ireland which the Chief Secretary might be able to clear up, and it would constitute a precedent for future Lords Lieutenant. Almost the only opportunities the Lord Lieutenant had of coming into touch with the people—outside the Court circle—were on these occasions when he visited different towns, and received deputations from different Bodies. A distinction had been sought to be drawn between Dublin and other towns. There was no distinction, except that in Dublin a large number of communities and societies had their headquarters; otherwise the matter was the same. Former Liberal Lords Lieutenant had always been approached by Conservative or Unionist Bodies; there had been no distinction of any kind, and invariably the Lord Lieutenant had received addresses from political opponents; and if not always agreeing with them, had treated them with courteous consideration. What occurred on this occasion? It might be right or it might be wrong, but it was quite unprecedented, and it was unequal treatment of the different sections of the community. When the Lord Lieutenant arrived in Dublin many Bodies approached him with addresses, including the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin and the Methodist Community in Ireland, through their Representative Body. Nobody could say these two latter addresses were not loyal and respectful in tone, but they were refused on the ground that they each contained a passage declaring the maintenance of the Legislative Union to be essential—
      THE CHAIRMAN (interposing)observed that the hon. and learned Member seemed to be raising a matter which was personal to the Lord Lieutenant, and, therefore, could not be properly discussed upon the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On the point of Order, at an earlier period of the Session I consulted the authorities of the House as to the—[Cries of "Order!"]
      MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order. Surely, Sir, you will not permit an attempt by the hon. Member to overbear the Chair by referring to other authorities when you are the sole authority.
      THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman rises to a point of Order he can make it.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: All I was going to say was this: At an earlier period of the Session I intended to raise this question. I did what was natural under the circumstances, and consulted the authorities of the House as to the proper method, and they informed me I could do it on this Vote and not on any other.
      MR. SEXTON: I submit that is an unjustifiable attempt to bring the opinion of other authorities to bear upon you in the sphere of Committee of Supply, where you are the sole authority.
      MR. BARTON, on the point of Order, asked to be allowed to say that this matter was distinctly discussed in the House of Lords, when Lord Kimberley stated that Lord Houghton did not come there to answer for himself, and that it was better that his action should be defended by the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons and by his Colleagues in the House of Lords. The Chief Secretary was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and the latter acted, presumably, upon his advice.
      THE CHAIRMAN: That is the opinion of Lord Kimberley, which is doubtless correct, so far as the House of Lords is concerned. He gave no opinion with regard to Committee of Supply. The question here is, what is open to the hon. Member in Committee of Supply? I pointed out that it is not open to him to challenge this personal action of the Lord Lieutenant as apart from the Chief Secretary. On the other hand, if it is a matter upon which the Lord Lieutenant has been
      1182
      advised by the Chief Secretary, of course then it is open.
      MR. BARTONshould assume the Lord Lieutenant acted on the advice of the Chief Secretary, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would deny this or refuse to accept responsibility. What was the fact about these addresses? In the first place, they were loyal and respectful in their tone, and no fault could be found with them except for this particular paragraph to which he had alluded; and, secondly, similar addresses had been presented by the same Bodies to Lord Spencer and Lord Aberdeen; but of course the one to Lord Spencer had no reference to Home Rule, whilst the one to Lord Aberdeen had.
      MR. SEXTON, rising to Order, asked whether an act done by the Lord Lieutenant, as the Representative of the Queen, was an act for which the Chief Secretary should be called upon to answer.
      THE CHAIRMANthought not.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURrespectfully submitted that if it were shown that the Lord Lieutenant had acted upon the advice of the Chief Secretary as he had done here, the discussion of his conduct would be in Order.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. and learned Member must first show that the Chief Secretary advised the Lord Lieutenant.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he understood that the Chief Secretary did not deny responsibility in this matter.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I am not sure this ought to be stated, but I might say that the action of the Lord Lieutenant in this particular matter was taken by Lord Houghton personally as the Representative of the Queen. In stating this, however, I do not wish to dissociate myself in any way from Lord Houghton.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURdesired to point out that, as the Lord Lieutenant's salary was not upon the Estimates, the only way of dealing with such matters as that now raised was to discuss them upon the salary of the Chief Secretary, who was the adviser of the Lord Lieutenant. What the Lord Lieutenant did as representing Her Majesty he must be taken to do upon the advice of his Chief Secretary.
      MR. J. MORLEY: On the point of Order, Mr. Mellor, the right hon. Gentleman could not have the intention of informing the Committee that the Lord Lieutenant can do no act on his own personal responsibility. He is unlike the Sovereign in that particular. The Sovereign can do no act for which the Minister is not responsible, but I have never understood myself—the right hon. Gentleman knows more about the system than I do—that there are not some acts which the Lord Lieutenant cannot do himself.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is so. There are certain acts which the Lord Lieutenant does apart altogether from the Chief Secretary, but in Committee of Supply you can only criticise those acts of the Lord Lieutenant which he has done upon the advice of the Chief Secretary, as then the Chief Secretary is responsible for his advice, and it is, therefore, in order in such a case to move to reduce his salary. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not, therefore, in Order.
      MR. MACARTNEY: On the point of Order—
      THE CHAIRMAN: No, I cannot allow my ruling to be discussed.
      MR. MACARTNEY: I have not stated my point of Order.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I have already stated my decision, and, having decided the matter, there is an end to it.
      MR. BARTONshould certainly bow to the Chairman's ruling. If he had been allowed to proceed, he should have shown that his very point of complaint was that the Lord Lieutenant did not in this case act as representing Her Majesty, but as representing a Party. There was another matter to which he should certainly direct the attention of the Chief Secretary, which the right hon. Gentleman left in a very unsatisfactory condition when he last referred to it. He alluded to the exercise of the dispensing power in Ireland in the execution of civil processes and the charges of the right hon. Gentleman made against the late Government when he was defending himself on that point. Early in his term of Office the Chief Secretary issued a Circular forbidding police protection for the execution of the writs of the Superior Court at night. This was challenged by the Sheriff's as illegal, and ultimately the matter came to trial in the
      1184
      Queen's Bench in Dublin, in a case in which the protection had been refused at night in pursuance of this Order. The Queen's Bench unanimously ruled that the Order of the Chief Secretary was quite illegal; that he had no power to do anything of the kind, and that he had, in fact, rendered himself amenable to the Criminal Law, and was liable to be tried by indictment, and to have a criminal information issued against him. The Chief Secretary had ever since declined to admit the correctness of that Judgment, and had intimated that he contemplated an appeal, on behalf of the Government, to the House of Lords, or legislation to alter the state of the law, but he had never given any explanation as to how this matter arose. It was said in the House of Lords that this was not an exercise of the dispensing power, and he supposed the argument of the Chief Secretary was that the dispensing power was not exercised when it was exercised under colour of the law, or when the Chief Secretary was acting under the advice of his legal advisers. But every exercise of the dispensing power had always been under colour of the law, and on the advice of the Law Officers, and sometimes even with the approval of the Judges. What did the Chief Secretary do in the House when brought face to face with the Judgment of the Queen's Bench? He stated in a speech on the 2nd February that out of 1,215 cases which arose during the administration of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour), in which police protection was afforded for seizures at night, 712 were seizures under civil bill decrees. That was to say, that 712 statutable misdemeanours were aided and abetted by the police, and then he said that these acts were just as unlawful as any cattle lifting. He thought no Member of the House would recollect an instance where any Head of a Department had made a charge against his Predecessors in Office of anything approaching this character. But here was a charge not only against his Predecessors in Office, but also against the police in Ireland, the Sheriffs, and their subordinates, that he had been guilty of 712 statutable misdemeanours which were as unlawful as cattle lifting, for which, of course, they ought to be prosecuted, and which was a grave reflection upon them. This matter was

      1185
      not merely a reflection upon the late Government, but, as was pointed out in a letter sent to the Press by the Sub-Sheriff of the County of Waterford, charges of this kind made by the Chief Secretary raised an additional incitement to the classes of disorder in Ireland, and made the administration of the law more difficult. Subsequently, the Chief Secretary told them he had made a mistake in the figures, and that there were only 66 cases on which he relied. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman only produced four, and he believed that not a single one of these had been substantiated, and that there was no foundation for the charge at all. He would really ask the Chief Secretary now, after he had had many months to consider the matter, Did he adhere to his statement that these statutable misdemeanours were committed, and these breaches of the law committed, by the officials of the late Government? This was most a serious matter; and although the charge was entirely groundless, it had never been withdrawn. Whilst he acknowledged the Chief Secretary had always treated his political opponents in that House with courtesy and consideration, there was one set of persons in Ireland to whom he had not extended the same treatment. He drew attention to the matter not on personal grounds, but because it was calculated to weaken and render more difficult the administration of the law in Ireland. He alluded to the Judges, in speaking of whom he believed the Chief Secretary had departed from the general rule of courtesy he had observed in his conduct of his Office. He had to mention the case of Judge Kelly, the County Court Judge of Clare. On the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, the state of Clare was a disgrace to Ireland, and it was, therefore, especially necessary that nothing should be said reflecting upon, or reducing the dignity and importance of, the County Court Judge of that county. What turned out to be a garbled and incorrect report of the observations of the learned Judge in charging the Grand Jury appeared in a local newspaper mixed up with his observations on a motion for the adjournment of certain cases. The main fact which the Judge called attention to was the uselessness of trying prisoners in County Clare—a fact which the Member for South Tyrone had made
      1186
      perfectly clear that evening. The right hon. Gentleman was questioned about the words of the Judge by hon. Members below the Gangway, and asked if they met with his approval. His reply was that if such words were to be used by an English Judge he should consider them highly unbecoming. That was a clear reflection on the County Court Judge of Clare, for the words he was reported to have used, the language of which was not correctly reported, but which, in so far as they mentioned any fact, were strictly correct. Had the Chief Secretary asked the learned Judge for any explanation of the words before he made this statement? He had not. He really thought they were entitled to some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. He (Mr. Barton) had been for many years at the Bar, and he had never heard a word reflecting on the impartiality of this Judge, who was himself a Catholic and a Liberal, appointed by the present Prime Minister. Apart from the personal pain the Chief Secretary's statement might have caused Mr. Kelly, it was a highly impolitic thing that anything should be said without the greatest care and inquiry reflecting on a County Court Judge, who had more to do with the administration of the law in Clare than even the Judges of Assize. It was, therefore, very important that nothing should be said at all calculated to bring him into disrespect or weaken his authority, and he thought the Chief Secretary would feel that the Judge might fairly complain. Again, coming to the Judges of the Superior Courts, the right hon. Gentleman, referring to some observations of Chief Justice O'Brien, had said, in answer to a question in that House, that an English Judge would not make occasions of this kind an opportunity of criticising the Executive Government. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he believed an English Judge would; and he was certain he ought, if it was necessary to do so. He ventured to think that if official documents came before an English Judge, to which he had reason to make references in the interests of justice, he would not be deterred from doing so because these references might reflect on the Executive. The Chief Secretary then went on to say—

      1187
      "If he chanced to be in politics opposed to the Executive, he was sure the English Judge would be doubly careful."
      He respected the Irish Judges; he knew how unjustly these Judges were traduced, and how easy it was to gain a cheer at their expense in the House of Commons; and as the Chief Secretary was not a man who closed his mind to new impressions, he believed that before his term of Office was concluded the right hon. Gentleman would see how unfair and how unjustifiable were these attacks on the Irish Judges. He would say, in reply to the Chief Secretary, that no Minister should make Question time in the House of Commons the opportunity of attacking the Judges in Ireland; and he would add that when a Judge in the discharge of his duty had occasion to reflect on acts of the Executive, the right hon. Gentleman should be doubly careful in referring to them. It must be remembered that upon the Judges the Chief Secretary would have to rely for the vindication of the law in times of disorder.
      MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of protesting against the doctrine recently laid down by the Chief Secretary that a Return containing information desired by Members of the House ought to be withheld, as it might militate against some persons in Ireland. That doctrine particularly came home to him, for he had frequently asked for information which he fairly thought he was entitled to receive, but which he did not receive because of this doctrine of the Chief Secretary. They were now face to face with a state of things in Ireland that he had often prophesied would come—a state of things under which apparent quietness and order would exist because crime had been effective in doing its work of terrorism and intimidation. The recent Assizes in Ireland had clearly shown that crime might be committed with absolute impunity. They had it from the Chief Secretary the other day, in answer to a question, that the trials of all the cases of agrarian crime at the recent Assizes had resulted in the criminals getting off scot-free. He was entitled to ask for the particulars of these cases, in order that hon. Members might understand the real condition of affairs, in Ireland, and that it was no answer to say when he asked for these particulars that
      1188
      such information would affect some people in Ireland. There might be a reason why the right hon. Gentleman might not furnish the names of the persons tried, and he did not want those names, but there could be no reason whatever for objecting to the giving of the details of the crimes tried at these Assizes. The Chief Secretary had told him that these were facts he could make out for himself. He had been put to considerable trouble in searching through the Irish newspapers for this information, which he did not suppose was complete, in order that he might understand Ireland as the Chief Secretary with the official source of information at his disposal understood it. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might fairly have given him the information he had asked for; the information was at the hands of the officials of the Irish Office, and the Return would have been prepared in a few minutes. He again ventured to ask the Chief Secretary for this information, and he urged upon him that it was information which it was desirable that the House should have in its possession.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the Chief Secretary had urged that nothing had occurred since the last Debate in July on the question of change of venue to give any foundation for a further demand for a declaration of policy. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the position he took up on the former occasion was that when the Assizes were over and the necessary information was accessible he would be prepared to meet any criticism on the subject. While he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that crime had diminished, he pointed out that punishment had not been effective in any single instance where the crime had been the result of either agrarian or political feeling. While he congratulated the Chief Secretary that crime of a general character had diminished in Ireland, cases of an agrarian or political character were unaffected. As far as the Chief Secretary could consistently go he had acted since he had been in Office in conformity with the views of what were called "the people of Ireland" as to the administration of the country. He began by dismissing some capable officials (Colonel Turner, for

      1189
      instance), and then he proceeded to release several prisoners—his second step in pandering to so-called public opinion in Ireland. Then the Government had acceded to the demand for increasing the Magistracy out of all regard to the necessity of the case by appointing to the Bench men whose only qualifications seemed to be that they belonged to one religious creed; and, lastly, he had lost few opportunities in this House of flouting anybody concerned in the administration of justice to get a little popular applause.
      MR. J. MORLEY: Oh, oh!
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he considered that the result of the administration of justice, and the fact that in no single case at the last Assizes were convictions obtained in agrarian cases, was a grave one requiring serious consideration. But this failure to obtain convictions was not confined to agrarian cases. It had extended to cases connected with the exercise by Irishmen of their civil rights when the exercise of those rights conflicted with popular political opinion. For instance, there was the case of Father Kelly, of Dromore West, Sligo. Father Kelly made himself notorious in his efforts to smother the legal expression by some of his parishioners of their opinions in connection with a Poor Law Guardian's election. Nothing could be more unhappy than the lot of an Irishman who wished to vote in opposition to the political opinions of his parish priest. If he did it by open voting he was intimidated by a crowd headed by a priest, and if he voted by ballot he was told there was nothing but fire to his heels and toes for him in another world. In this election there were two candidates, a Nationalist and a Unionist—a gentleman who had the additional crime of being a lauded proprietor. It was bruited about that a certain number of tenants of Mr. Ormsby, the Unionist candidate, were going to vote for him in preference to the Nationalist candidate. Before the polling day the Constabulary distributed voting papers among the electors qualified; and as it was well known that intimidation of some kind would be used on these tenants of Mr. Ormsby, the District Inspector sent out with the ordinary constable a force of 10 men. On the 18th March Father Kelly met the District Inspector
      1190
      and told him there would be opposition to these voters obtaining their votes and marking them with the name of the candidate they favoured, and the constables had the greatest difficulty in serving the voting papers on these unfortunate ratepayers. In some instances they failed altogether. Voting papers were taken by force from several of the electors, and in one or two cases physical assaults were committed, for which persons were afterwards tried. Father Kelly and several others were returned for trial, charged with riot and unlawful assembly in connection with this election. The jury—though this was not an agrarian case, and there were no rights of an injured tenantry to protect—acquitted Father Kelly and seven others; and on the following day, when four men were charged with assaulting the voters, they were acquitted also. It was perfectly evident that the spirit of agrarian agitation still existed, and could not be controlled by those assisting the Chief Secretary in preserving the peace. Where there was violent partisanship or political feeling influencing the general body of the populace, as the results of the late Assizes in Clare showed, it was absolutely impossible to say that juries would do their duty, or that justice would not be interfered with, whether from agrarian motives or the absolute determination of the majority to take away from the minority their civil rights. Never in the recent history of Ireland had there been a more flagrant attempt than that of Father Kelly and his associates to deprive their fellow-citizens of the just exercise of their civil rights. If parallel cases of this kind occurred again, or agrarian outrages continued, he appealed to the Chief Secretary to take advantage of the further powers which he possessed of strengthening the administration of the law in Ireland.
      MR. DANEinquired what was the position occupied by Sir West Ridgeway since his return from Tangiers? Was he still Under Secretary, or what was to be his future position? He would have rejoiced to think that the state of Ireland had improved, but his personal knowledge and the information that reached him left no doubt on his mind that there had been no such improvement. The condition of what was called the dark area was one which at the

      1191
      present time very seriously exercised the minds of people who had to live in those districts. As the hon. Member for Antrim stated, the Unionists had been in hopes, from what the right hon. Gentleman had said in July last, that some steps would have been taken by him, having regard to the results of the two last Assizes, to improve the conditioned those localities. In pursuance of a compact entered into by the Government with the Nationalist Members, they deprived themselves of the powers they had under the Act of 1887. The result of that action was that at the subsequent Assizes in the disturbed counties the jurors in every case either acquitted the prisoners or failed to agree. At the last Assizes 26 cases were tried. In 19 cases, notwithstanding the strong evidence against the prisoners, the jury gave a verdict of acquittal; in six cases they failed to agree, and one case was adjourned. He would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do with reference to those seven cases? Again, he failed to understand that the right hon. Gentleman had taken any steps with regard to the resolution passed at the meeting of Resident Magistrates and Local Justices in Clare, which called upon the Government in strong but respectful language to take steps, either by the powers they already possessed or by fresh legislation, to put down acts that were a disgrace to any civilised community. A copy of it was sent to the right hon. Gentleman and was duly acknowledged, but no action was taken by the Government with reference to it. In the Debate last March on the venue question the Chief Secretary stated that the Government were not quite powerless in the matter, for they could, if they thought it necessary, go to the Queen's Bench, and, in pursuance of their Common Law right, obtain an order for change of venue. Had the right hon. Gentleman exercised that right, and, if not, why had he not done so? The cases were, however, brought up at the Quarter Sessions, and in June last the learned County Court Judge in Clare expressed his views on the subject very fully, and said that trial by jury was a farce, and that he would try no case by jury there, for it would be perfect nonsense to do so. The matter was shortly afterwards brought before this House, and the Chief Secretary
      1192
      stated that if such language had been used by an English Judge it would have been most unbecoming. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that a reference of that kind to the learned County Court Judge was calculated to further the ends of justice? Did he think that his references to Mr. Justice O'Brien, who was appointed by his own Government and who was an eminent Roman Catholic, and to that eminent and courageous Judge the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, would tend to the due administration of justice, or inspire respect for law in the West of Ireland? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman obtain an order for change of venue before the Summer Assizes? He remained quiescent. Mr. Justice Gibson went down to those Assizes, and when he found that in every case the jurors either acquitted the prisoners or refused to convict them, although the evidence was conclusive against them, he declared that there was no use in continuing the trial of the cases, which amounted to a solemn comedy. Not only had the law failed to bring to justice criminals in the counties in the South and West of Ireland, but it was absolutely paralysed in other parts of the country. Could anything have been more disgraceful than the election at Dromore, in County Sligo, and the prosecution which followed, with the usual result? With reference to the disgraceful riots at Bundoran, only two prosecutions took place. That state of things had not ceased, for only on Sunday week, while four Protestant gentlemen were driving from Bundoran, they were waylaid and beaten, and he was further informed that the police who came to their assistance were also ill-treated. He would like to know what the Chief Secretary intended to do in regard to the counties where such outrages occurred? The right hon. Gentleman's statement that he had abandoned some of the provisions of the Act of 1887 because they were found to be futile as regarded the conviction of breakers of the law was not justified by facts, for in those counties 46 persons were prosecuted, and, what was more, were convicted upon inquiries held under Section 1 of the Act, and four of those were murder cases in the County of Kerry, immediately adjoining the plague-spot in County Clare. Why should the right hon. Gentleman have

      1193
      deprived himself of the right which he possessed under Section 3 of the Act of 1887? Was that section futile? Out of 231 eases in which the venue had been changed, 106 resulted in the conviction and punishment of the offenders. Residents in Kerry and Clare had appealed to Unionist Members to bring these matters forward, because they possessed no Unionist Representatives themselves. Through the Unionist Members from Ireland the residents in those counties appealed to the House, and if they failed to obtain justice from this House they would appeal to the people of this country. In conclusion, he desired to put these two questions to the Chief Secretary—What was the exact position occupied by Sir West Ridgeway in this world; was he Under Secretary or was he not? And, secondly, what were the intentions of the Government with reference to the plague-spots in the West of Ireland?
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that his action in connection with night seizures was easily explained. He found that practical inconvenience was caused by the necessity of police protection being afforded to Sheriffs during seizures by night; he found that the policy of Parliament appeared to have prohibited night seizures in the execution of civil bill decrees; he failed to see a difference in the policy between affording protection in the execution of civil bill decrees and the execution of fi. fas. or other decrees of Superior Courts; and he thought that the action of the Executive was to be decided by the reasonableness of the hours at which the protection was sought. His position was disputed, and he communicated with some of the Sheriffs, and said that if they desired to take a test case into Court the Government would offer no objection, and would even be glad to have a judicial decision on the point. The decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was adverse, but the subject was so important that the Government thought it right to take the judgment of the Court of Appeal, who decided that they had no jurisdiction in the matter, but two members of that Court expressed regret that they were unable to give such a decision as would allow the opinion of the House of Lords to be taken upon the point. He could not see why the hon. and learned
      1194
      Gentleman had thought it worth while to bring this up again, when he could only receive the same explanations that had already been given.
      MR. BARTON: But the right hon. Gentleman made the accusation against the late Government.
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the hon. and learned Member appeared to forget that he (Mr. J. Morley) had in the House expressed his regret for having been led, by the information he received, into an erroneous statement; but the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in saying there was not a single case of unlawful night seizure. He admitted that largely and substantially the statement was not well founded. Having satisfied himself that that was the character of the statement he withdrew it, and expressed his regret for having made it. The third objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that he (Mr. J. Morley) had used unfair and disparaging language of some of the Irish Judges. When he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman across the Table to substantiate his charge, the hon. and learned Gentleman's case broke down. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he (Mr. J. Morley) had made an attack on the Lord Chief Justice, and upon a County Court Judge in County Clare. In what he had said there was nothing in the nature of an attack: he had only said that the Lord Chief Justice had used language that should not have come from any Judge. Was it to be held that while a Judge was to be free to make a charge against the Government, a Member of the Executive Government was not to be allowed with bated breath to express an opinion that the Judge had put himself in a position it would have been better to have avoided? No one had a higher opinion or more respect than he had for some of the members of the Irish Bench, and, so far as he knew, they were not supporters of the present Government. For ability, authority, and weight of judgment they were not surpassed by any Judge in England or Scotland. It was not an unsolicited observation, but was an answer to a question; therefore, he did not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's charge—that he had used language of Irish Judges calculated to impair their authority, or which laid him

      1195
      open to the charge of discourtesy to them. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) referred to the case of the failure of justice in Dromore West in regard to certain transactions in the County of Sligo, where Father O'Kelly and a number of other persons were put on their trial for riot, unlawful assembly, and general disturbance. They were, as the hon. Member truly said, acquitted; but, as the hon. Gentleman also admitted, there was in that case nothing whatever of an agrarian character. He regretted the view taken by the jury. Ecclesiastical feeling could not have entered into the matter, because, if his memory was right, seven or eight members of the jury were of some form of Protestant belief; they were not Catholics; therefore it was not due to religious feeling.
      MR. DANE: How did the right hon. Gentleman ascertain that?
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that, as a member of the Irish Bar, and one presumably acquainted with the policy of previous Conservative Governments, the ton. Gentleman must know it was idle to ask how they knew the religion of jurymen, and, therefore, the interruption of the hon. Member was uncalled for.
      MR. MACARTNEY: The majority could not convict.
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he was prepared to leave it there; but did the hon. Gentleman suppose that even in this country, where the administration of the law was so perfect, a year went by without some jury failing to record a conviction where the Judge and the general public thought a conviction was justified by the evidence? If the hon. Gentleman looked through the legal proceedings for a whole year he would find there were many such cases. He attached no importance to this particular case as an indication of the general want of respect for justice in Ireland. The only other case he need refer to was raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down—the case of Bundoran, which was the subject of repeated questions in the House; and if one thing was clearer than another, it was that, though on the first night of the Evangelists meeting in Bundoran there was some disorder, after that night there was no disorder whatever. The Evangelistic services
      1196
      went on until the 12th or 13th August, and then, with excellent judgment and good feeling, on the 15th August an important Catholic anniversary, the Evangelists withdrew, and since then, so far as he knew, there had not been a word of any disturbance at Bundoran. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there was some suggestion of a similar case.
      MR. DANE: On last Sunday week.
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that all he could say was that he had had no information of any disturbance whatever, and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware, the Government was pretty well informed on this matter. Those were the only points raised by hon. Gentlemen, and he had done his best to answer them.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that as no reduction in the Chief Secretary's salary had been moved, though the discussion had been applicable to such a Motion, and as they had, perhaps, adequately dealt with the Chief Secretary in his personal capacity in regard to his policy in Ireland, and as there were several other items on which hon. Gentlemen wished to raise questions, he thought the general discussion might be allowed to come to an end.
      ADMIRAL FIELDwished to call attention to the training ship at Belfast, for the purpose of getting the inspection of that ship changed. In regard to the English industrial training ships, the Home Secretary had kindly agreed to put the inspection under the Admiralty; but the Grampian, the industrial training ship at Belfast, was inspected by a civilian.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will this shut out anything else?
      MR. J. MORLEY: No.
      ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, that no doubt good work might be done under existing circumstances if the ship was properly managed. He did not wish to reflect upon the Committee, who did their best; but, owing to the present mischievous system, the best was not made of the ship. Over £13 per head was contributed by the Treasury for the training of the lads on board. The ship was capable of accommodating and training 350 boys, but only 250 were allowed on board by the Treasury. In five years the ship had discharged 302 boys. The

      1197
      raison d'être was that the boys should be trained for the sea; but of the 302 boys discharged from the ship in the five years, only 48 went to sea, four entered the Army—he presumed as drummer boys—and the rest were discharged to shore. Seventy-nine of the boys were found physically unfit for sea life at all; and as this must have been known to the authorities they ought not to have been kept on board, and subjected to a training that could do them no good, whereas if they had been sent to school on shore some good might have been done with them. What he wanted to impress on the Chief Secretary for Ireland was that the ship should be inspected by a naval officer. The right hon. Gentleman would only have to apply to the Admiralty Court and ask for a commanding officer to be sent to inspect the ship, and no doubt a commanding officer would be sent from the neighbourhood, probably from the Coastguard ship at Kingstown. He also wished the right hon. Gentleman to stop the entry of these very young boys at the age of 11 years. There were several other schools—the Fox School at Belfast, another at Blackrock—and from these might be drawn boys that would be fit for the Service. The reason he called special attention to this was that in the Report for 1893 the civilian Inspector, Sir Rowland Blennerhasset, made the mistake of suggesting the abolition of the ship altogether, because it did not turn out sailor boys. If they were to adopt the suggestion it would raise a storm, and he would suggest that now they had this ship the Irish Government should take it under its wing and nurse it jealously. It was intended for the Mercantile Marine, no doubt, but it did not seem to have fulfilled its object. Out of the numbers discharged but a small percentage went to sea, and the whole thing was a solemn farce; they were getting no return for the £13 per head that was expended. What he wanted was that the Government should appoint a naval officer to see that the boys were physically fit for the work, and that they were properly trained, and he should not rest satisfied until the ship was inspected by naval men.
      MR. KNOXthought the hon. and gallant Admiral had a very
      1198
      considerable case, and if the right hon. Gentleman was going to look into this question he hoped he would, at the same time, look into the question of the industrial schools at Belfast. There had been no increase in the certificate for industrial schools in Belfast since 1884, and yet the population had more than doubled, the result being that there were many cases where room could not be found for the children. This was felt by both Protestants and Catholics alike, and both were agreed in their demands for increased accommodation.
      COLONEL NOLANgathered from the speech of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Field) that this was a Protestant ship. Now, he objected to a Protestant ship unless there was a Catholic ship too, and, therefore, he should like to know how the matter really stood?
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the point referred to by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) was not the point raised by the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Field). The ship might be a Protestant ship; but the point raised by the hon. and gallant Admiral was not that it was a Protestant ship, but that it was inefficient, and he (Mr. Balfour) was afraid that it was the fact that the ship was improperly managed. Sir Rowland Blennerhasset, he thought, was perfectly right in calling attention to the fact, and, from his point of view, he (Mr. Balfour) could not say it was wrong to make the suggestion that the ship should be abolished as an industrial school, though it might become an important training ship. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last but one (Mr. Knox), there was an enormous difficulty in augmenting the number of these industrial schools in Ireland. Protestants and Catholics all agreed in trying to force on the Government new industrial schools and the augmentation of old industrial schools. More than half the cost of these schools was borne by the Government—by the British taxpayer; and as these schools were denominational schools of the strictest and most rigid type, and as the portion of public money spent on industrial schools in Ireland was largely in excess of the money spent in this country for the same purpose, he would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the neces-

      1199
      sity of watching this question with the greatest jealousy.
      MR. MACARTNEY, without venturing to agree with his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Field), wished to say he thought the hon. and gallant Admiral had been unfair to the Committee of Management of the training ship. He rather understood from the hon. and gallant Admiral that the fact of the ship not performing its proper functions was in some way owing to the deficiency of the Committee. For the information of the Committee he would point out that the Report upon this ship said—
      "The boys on the ship are well looked after by Captain O'Rourke and the officers under him. The Committee on shore are energetic and vigilant, and the Secretary, Mr. O'Dowd, is efficient."
      Then the Report went on to state that the boys, from various circumstances, were not sufficiently strong of physique to pass for the life of a sailor in Her Majesty's Service. He should heartily rejoice if an alteration in the system would have the effect of altering the physical constitution of these boys, and that those boys not fit for a sea life were trained for industrial pursuits in Belfast.
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid that, so far as the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Admiral Field) was concerned, he had already discussed the question with his right hon. Friend at the Admiralty, and it appeared to him they might adopt the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Admiral. He thought there would be no harm in the Captain of a ship, or some naval officer, going periodically to inspect the ship to ascertain how the training was going on, and that it was efficient. As to the remarks that fell from the right hon. Gentleman, he was glad to find that he had not forgotten the sense of woe that fell upon the person who filled the office of Chief Secretary. A dead set was made upon him to certify for a large number of new industrial schools. The grant already was quite enormous compared with England and Scotland; it was a most formidable grant, and he might say that, in regard to the pressure brought to bear upon the Chief Secretary to certify for industrial schools, unless a very good case were made out it would be the duty of the Executive Government to watch with the greatest jealousy all the de-
      1200
      mands that were made. This must be his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Cavan (Mr. Knox). As to the efficiency and character of the schools, he was not sure much could be said, as that was a matter that would require further Debate when the question was raised on its own merits.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he found in the Vote a salary of £600 was given to the Government draftsman. That they had passed away from; but he found here £1,400 was charged for journeys between London and Dublin of this gentleman. He could understand that in some Sessions that amount might be necessary.
      MR. J. MORLEY: That is not for the expenses of this gentleman alone.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the Irish Bills this Session only numbered three; and as they were very small matters—a Cholera Hospital Bill and a Sites Bill—he could not understand why £1,400 was charged for travelling expenses.
      MR. SEXTON: It includes all the staff.
      MR. T. W.RUSSELLwas glad to see the hon. Member took an interest in Irish affairs; but he must persist in desiring some information on this point. Here was an item of £1,400, and there had practically been only three Bills for this gentleman to draft, for he did not suppose he had anything to do with the Home Rule Bill, and certainly he was not under the Gallery in charge of it. He maintained there was no necessity for this gentleman journeying between Dublin and London when he had nothing to do. He simply wanted an explanation of how the expense was incurred.
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, it was not merely in the drafting of Bills that the expense was incurred, but it was for charges, allowances, and the travelling expenses of the whole of the staff between Dublin and London and London and Dublin. Undoubtedly, travelling expenses must be made.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, it seemed to him that if the hon. Member objected to the travelling expenses the best thing would be for him to support Home Rule, as they would then necessarily come to an end.
      SIR T. LEAsaid, there was another item—"D"—in regard to which he gave notice that he

      1201
      would call attention in Committee of Supply to two points. One was the question of the increase of lunacy in Ireland, and the other was the appointment of the Board of Examiners of the asylums in Ireland. The latter point had been since then raised by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell); therefore, he should pass over that with simply the remark that he trusted the Chief Secretary, when he came to consider the appointment of these Boards in Ireland, would see that the Presbyterians were fairly represented according to their population on the Boards as well as the Catholics, whom the right hon. Gentleman had already taken in hand. The other point was the question of the great increase of lunacy in Ireland. If he could have had a Tuesday or Friday he would have raised the question by an abstract Motion; but, as he was unable to get either day during the Session, he must do the best he could in Committee of Supply. Since 1851 the increase of lunacy in Ireland was remarkable. In that year the number of lunatics was 5,074, and in 1891 14,945; while, if lunatics and idiots together were taken, the numbers were 9,980 in the former year and 21,188 in the latter. Such an increase as this, with a decreasing population, might truly be called alarming. Since 1881 there had been a decrease of population of 11 per cent., while the increase of lunacy was no less than 28 per cent. The Reports of the Inspectors nearly all testified to the fact of the increase in lunacy. The Inspector at Killarney said his tables showed that—
      "With a shrinking population not only have the numbers in the asylum actually increased, but the greater number of unregistered lunatics and idiots at large is also much greater, a state of things sufficient to attract the attention and excite the alarm of every one interested in the welfare of the country."
      So that they saw the increase was not confined to the workhouses and asylums. Then, again, wherever one turned in the Report, he found that the authorities were increasing the accommodation. Out of 22 asylums no fewer than 11 were engaged in enlarging their buildings. The case of the Belfast Asylum had been so often referred to in the House that he might take the Report, touching it as read. In the next case to which he
      1202
      came—Carlow—it was stated, referring to the figures—
      "This proves that the number of lunatics in the district is gradually increasing, and no diminution of persons requiring asylum care can be expected for many years to come."
      And the Inspector went on to say—
      "Of necessity the overcrowding still continues,"
      and—
      "that rooms which are insufficient to contain the number of patients by clay are used as sleeping accommodation by night for some of the inmates."
      It seemed to him (Sir T. Lea) that this was a matter requiring attention. He next came to Downpatrick, where the Inspector stated—
      "Overcrowding is, in any asylum, the greatest evil which can exist, making the patients irritable, excitable, and discontented, and rendering their individual treatment, often essential to cure, almost impossible. But if overcrowding is an evil in any asylum it is doubly go in one like Downpatrick, which contains so large a percentage of dangerous and suicidal patients."
      And again—
      "With nominal accommodation for 150 women there are no less than 201 actually resident."
      Surely in that case the accommodation was very bad, and the proper treatment of the inmates was impossible? A Enniscorthy it was said—
      "The Governors are aware of the very great overcrowding in almost every part of the building. While there are 218 male patients resident, there is only day-room accommodation for 156, and sleeping accommodation for 181."
      At Kilkenny—
      "The Asylum continues overcrowded, containing 35 patients over the number which it can properly accommodate, and necessitating the conversion of some of the day-room accommodation in dormitories."
      He passed by a number of other paragraphs from different parts of the country pointing to the same conclusion—that the accommodation was inadequate. At Richmond the Governors were satisfied as to the inadequacy of the accommodation, and it was there recorded that the high death-rate
      "is in a great degree due to an outbreak of pneumonia and pleurisy, which proved most fatal."
      And it is added to this—
      "The overcrowded state of the institution, in Dr. Norman's opinion, acted injuriously on the course of all bodily disease."

      1203
      At Waterford they had overcrowding; also, although various additions to the buildings had been made from time to time. He did not think anyone would deny that in these circumstances the existing state of matters in relation to lunacy in Ireland and its treatment could be looked upon other than as bad in the extreme. What were the causes of this increase of lunacy? The Chief Secretary, when questioned on the subject, referred to the Committee of 1891. But the Committee which reported in 1891 did not deal with the causes, and the matter was one well deserving the attention of the Government. It dealt only with the question of further legislation. It could not be said that the increase arose from manufacturing life, for he found that whilst there was one lunatic in every 333 of the population in Down, one in every 310 in Antrim, and one in every 284 in Dublin—those being manufacturing districts—there was one in 126 in Meath, and one in every 149 in Carlow, one in every 149 in Kilkenny, and one in every 159 in Westmeath, which were agricultural counties, which showed that it was in agricultural Ireland they had the greater part of the lunacy of Ireland. He thought this was a fair proof that manufacturing life had nothing to do with the increase. It could not be said that it was attributable in any way to learning. The Reports of the Inspectors showed that whilst there were 3,635 described as well-educated "and able to read and write," the total number of lunatics was 12,133. From this, he supposed, it might be taken that the increase did not depend upon learning. He thought he should also refer the Committee to the defective arrangements for registration. The Reports showed that the system ought to be improved; they had not a full Return at present, and he hoped the Government would give that matter their attention. Well, dealing further with the causes, he might inform the Committee that some years ago he went over some of these lunatic asylums in Ireland, and he remembered once asking one of the Governors what he thought was the reason of the increase of lunacy. His reply was that it was due to the use of tea and whisky. He had carefully considered the question, and that
      1204
      was the conclusion he arrived at. The people used a large amount of indifferent tea, and they allowed it to stand for a long time before drinking it. His hon. Friend beside him (Mr. T. W. Russell) would deal with the case of the whisky; but he hoped the Government would soon give them a chance of dealing with it through the operation of Saturday evening and Sunday Closing laws. He would refer them to the Report of the Committee alluded to by the Chief Secretary, from which they would see that Ireland had a proportionately higher rate of lunacy in the counties that were tabulated, taking the population as per 100,000. This, with the other facts which he had laid before them, showed that there was some cause at work which it was the duty of the Government to discover. He left the matter to the Chief Secretary, but he would suggest that he should appoint a small Commission of experts to report. He believed such a Commission would present a very valuable Report; and there was not a man in the House, whatever his politics might be, who would not be glad to interest himself in applying a remedy to a state of affairs which was of the deepest importance, not only to Ireland, but to the whole country.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, his hon. Friend had conferred a public service by drawing attention to this subject, which was one of the saddest that could be referred to, and demanded the attention of the Government. On the general question of the increase of lunacy in Ireland the Debate was most opportune. The figures were positively alarming. The Census Returns gave the total number of lunatics and idiots in Ireland as follows:—In 1851,9,908; in 1861, 14,908; in 1871, 16,505; in 1881, 18,418; and, in 1891, 21,188, showing a steady and alarming increase ever since 1851, and he thought this was the first time that public attention had been called to the matter in the House of Commons. They had been so busy with other questions that this matter, although so serious and alarming, had never been referred to in any discussion during the last Parliament or the present Parliament. He had read

      1205
      a great many suggestions with regard to this subject. Everybody, nearly, had some theory in regard to it. He had heard it stated that the increase was largely due to insufficient food in certain parts of Ireland; but although that seemed a reasonable inference to draw, it could not be maintained, because, on looking at the figures, it would be seen that whereas Dublin had one in 333 and Antrim one in 310, poor counties like Mayo, Kerry, and Galway had one in 282, 270, and 269 respectively, while Donegal, the poorest of them all, had only one lunatic or idiot out of 256 of its population. He did not think that in the face of these figures it would be possible to maintain that the increase in lunacy was due to insufficient food, because if there was insufficient food anywhere it was precisely in the Counties of Mayo, Kerry, Galway, and Donegal. His hon. Friend had attributed this increase in lunacy to tea and whisky, though why tea was put first he (Mr. T. W. Russell) did not know. He was not there to defend the tea-drinking that went on in Ireland, although he thought it had something to do with it; still less was he inclined to defend whisky-drinking. He was informed by competent authorities that there were three causes for the increase of lunacy—namely, politics, whisky, and tea. Undoubtedly, medical men of the South and West of Ireland regarded politics as a contributing cause, for whenever an Irishman got into trouble in regard to rent or crime he turned to whisky. His hon. Friend had made a suggestion—namely, that a small Commission of experts should be appointed to inquire into the subject. Now, the Government had appointed many Commissions; and though he did not find fault with them for so doing, he thought that such a Commission as that proposed, if appointed, would be more fruitful of results than the Commission started by the Government when they first came into Office to inquire into the condition of the evicted tenants. This was not a political question at all. It was entirely separated from politics, but was none the less interesting on that ground. He did not remember a discussion on the Chief Secretary's salary ever travelling on non-political grounds before, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would think the more kindly
      1206
      of the suggestion which had been thrown out on that account.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I find no fault with the hon. Baronet for introducing this subject, nor for the tone in which he discussed it, or the way in which he presented the case to the House. I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that this is not in any sense a political question. Whatever Party we belong to we must all feel that the facts disclosed in the Report of the Inspectors are really alarming, but the increase of lunacy in Ireland at an enormously rapid pace was not a surprise. Anyone acquainted with Ireland for the past four or five or six years must be aware that this increase of lunacy has been going on at an enormously rapid rate. Various theories have been advanced in explanation of the increase. Insufficiency of food is evidently not the explanation, as the hon. Member for South Tyrone has shown. That hon. Member has mentioned politics as one cause, but I would rather use the word "excitement" in connection with the state of the country, whether as to agrarian matters, politics, or crime. I have conversed with experts in Ireland during the last 12 months on this subject, and I find that even experts differ among themselves quite as much on this subject as doctors differ on other maladies. One suggested explanation, however, has not been touched upon, although some authorities place it as the first operative cause. It is the fact that the population is being depleted of its strongest and most robust elements by emigration, this depletion causing an inferior stock to be left behind, and rendering it more liable to this malady than before. Certainly this cause cannot be left out of sight. There is, undoubtedly, a tendency for the youngest and most robust to emigrate, and thus amongst those who remain behind there is a tendency to decline both in physical energy and mental strength. However that may be, this is not a time when we can profitably discuss the matter, for, after all, this is a special question for experts. What we have to face is the fact that there is this most alarming increase. If I thought that the issue of a Commission would throw any new light on the subject, I should not hesitate to take that step, but I am not satisfied as yet that a Commission—which would be a

      1207
      Commission of distinguished experts sitting in London and inquiring in an abstract way, for the two Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland, it seems to me, have collected together all the facts bearing on this phenomena—would throw much light on the matter. The Inspectors have gone very carefully into the statistics, and have examined the places where these unfortunate beings are treated, and I do not know what new class of facts or new views it is expected a Commission would be the means of bringing out. However, I will think very carefully over the question, and consult other persons with regard to it. It is one of the most important social facts in the condition of Ireland, and is well worthy the attention of the Government. Of course, if we have in Ireland a population in which the proportion of insane persons is constantly and rapidly on the increase, all other questions become subordinate and secondary. I will not say either yes or no to the suggestion that a Commission should be appointed, but I will consult members of the Lunacy Board and other persons on the subject. I regard this phenomena as one well worthy of the attention of the Government, and I am certain it is one of those phenomena which the Government of Ireland will undoubtedly feel itself called upon to deal with. I have studied this Report, and I find that, apart from the grave facts that have been discussed tonight, there is, in the treatment of these unfortunate beings in the asylums, and inside wards of workhouses, certainly vast room for improvement. I confess it is rather a shocking picture that is presented in this Report; the only consolatory thing in connection with it is that, as I am informed by those who are competent to know, the condition of things, unsatisfactory as it still is in the workhouse wards and district asylums, is a great improvement on that which existed five or ten years ago. At the same time, I must say that it is shocking to read of the scandalous state of things in the Belfast Asylum, for instance, and of the condition of affairs in the Richmond Asylum, where there is accommodation for 1,000 persons, but where 1,500 persons are crammed into the inadequate space available. The most striking of all the statistics in the Report are those given on page 43, showing as they do
      1208
      that in the large district which this asylum deals with the population has decreased by 2 per cent., whilst the total number of lunatics has increased at the rate of 36 per cent. All I can promise the Committee is that the question shall have my immediate attention, and if I find that any good can be gained by issuing a Commission, and I am satisfied that the proper medical gentlemen will be willing to serve on it, I will certainly carry out the suggestion. The matter, however, requires consideration.
      MR. JACKSON: I think the Committee will have heard with satisfaction the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. There are two questions to be considered. One is the enormous increase in lunacy and its causes, and the other is the question which the Report of the Inspectors refers to almost on every page—namely, the want of accommodation at present existing, and the constant overcrowding of both the Asylum and Workhouse Boards dealing with pauper lunatics. The right hon. Gentleman has referred especially to the Richmond case, and I hope we may conclude from his sympathetic utterances that everything he can do to induce those who are responsible to make the additional provision necessary for dealing with lunatics, not only at Richmond but in Ireland generally, will be done. The inadequacy of the accommodation is certainly not confined to Richmond, nor is Richmond an extreme case. In the case of Richmond, I think it is shown clearly that the overcrowding results in a very serious depreciation of the health of those who live in the asylum. The figures given by the Inspectors of Lunacy, who I am sure are not only competent men, but are most anxious to do everything they can to discharge their duties, show that in Richmond, which is extremely overcrowded, there has been a very high death rate as compared with the ordinary and normal death rate. I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Belfast. A question was asked to-day which seemed to indicate that, in the opinion of the hon. Member who asked it, Belfast Workhouse was in a very unsatisfactory state. I do not, however, find that such a statement is made in the Inspector's Report—indeed, the Inspector speaks rather highly of Belfast Workhouse.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I spoke of Belfast Asylum.
      MR. JACKSON: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that there is a proposal to build a separate Asylum for Belfast, and this will, no doubt, reduce the pressure as regards the Asylum. I have referred to the Belfast Workhouse, because I remember that about two years ago a question was raised about it which seemed to indicate that the lunatics were not properly attended to. I notice that the Inspectors in the present Report speak in very satisfactory terms of the improvement that has been made, although, speaking generally of the workhouses, they say it is quite impossible to give that attention and care to pauper lunatics under the existing arrangement and the existing law which the case demands. Lunatics get neither the attendance of experts nor the care which their mental condition requires in workhouses. The increase which has taken place in lunacy in Ireland is certainly very alarming, and is certainly not confined to one district. The right hon. Gentleman, I thought, rather hesitated to use the word "alarming," but I would point out that in the Report dealing with the Enniscorthy District Asylum, the Inspectors say that what is occurring in Wexford is happening in every part of Ireland—namely, that while the general population is rapidly shrinking, the number of the insane is increasing, and that the proportion of the lunatics and idiots is now 604 per 100,000 of the population—a very excessive and alarming number. I am sure everybody will admit that it is necessary to increase the accommodation for dealing with the cases that have already risen. With regard to the causes of the increase, it may be desirable that some inquiry should take place. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is alive to the importance of the question, and will try to do whatever is necessary to be done.
      MR. HAYES FISHERremarked that whilst a most sympathetic speech had been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Morley) many Members would not be altogether satisfied with the sceptical attitude he had adopted as to the value of any Commission that might be appointed. He believed a Commission would be of the
      1210
      greatest value in enabling the Inspectors in Ireland to test their own statistics as to the cause and the cure of the increase of lunacy by comparison with those of England and Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had repeated the theory that the increase of lunacy in Ireland was due to the depletion of the best stock in the agricultural counties. That theory might be tested at once by a Royal Commission, because, to a certain extent, the same forces were operating in England. The other theories that were put forward to account for the increase in lunacy might also be tested, and a great amount of information might be collected from England and Scotland on the question of cure. Indeed, he thought there was everything to gain by such a Commission, and nothing to lose. He would suggest that the Commission should comprise, besides the experts, one or two others who would take a practical common-sense view of the subject, and who might decide between the experts when they differed in their views. He hoped the request for the appointment of a Commission would be supported by some Members who represented the majority of the people of Ireland, and that all sections of the Committee might on one occasion act together in trying to solve one of the most difficult and intricate problems that any body of Ministers could have to solve.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I do not think I shall be going too far if I now ask the Committee to give us this Vote.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that before the Vote was taken he wished to refer to one question. The other day he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared to re-enact Clause 13 of the Land Purchase Act for the purpose of allowing tenants who had been evicted to purchase their holdings under that Act? The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, expressed some doubt whether the proposal would be received with favour on the other side. He (Mr. T. W. Russell) had to-night received an official letter from the Evicted Tenants' Association of Cork, copies of which had been sent to the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. J. M'Carthy), the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), and the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley). All he need say was that the letter asked him to do his best to get the 13th section of

      1211
      the Land Purchase Act re-enacted, and that it was signed by Mr. P. T. Murphy, Hon. Secretary of the Association. He (Mr. T. W. Russell) was responsible for the introduction of the clause into the Act: a great many cases had been settled under it, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) stated, after the clause had run out, that if any desire for its re-enactment were expressed by Members below the Gangway he would have no objection to re-enacting it. In face of the request now made, he (Mr. T. W. Russell) hoped that the Chief Secretary would again pass the clause.
      MR. MACARTNEYhoped the Chief Secretary would understand that his hon. Friend who had just sat down was only speaking for himself, and would not suppose that a measure such as that suggested would pass through the House without considerable opposition. On the question of lunacy, as the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the theory respecting emigration, he should like to point out that the Lunacy Commissioners in their Report observed that the increase of lunacy was not confined to Ireland, but had taken place in America and the Colonies and all over the civilised world. Lunacy had, therefore, increased in those countries to which a large number of the Irish population were emigrating, and, consequently, the theory did not appear to stand on very substantial ground. The largest figures given in the Report respecting the causes of lunacy were those with regard to hereditary influence—namely, 663; the next largest relating to intemperance—namely, 260. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the opinion of those responsible for the administration of the Acts as to whether, in their belief, the causes which led to these results were sufficiently well known to the peasant population of Ireland. He knew that in the district in which he lived almost every case of insanity might be traced to the intermarriage between families in which there was a distinct hereditary taint of insanity; and he was confident that if the danger of such marriages were laid clearly before parties about to engage in them by persons of influence—whether it be the clergyman or the medical adviser—they would soon see a considerable abatement in the increase of lunacy. He wished to know
      1212
      whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could suggest any means for preventing the spread of this hereditary disease?
      MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwished to say a few words in regard to the Belfast Asylum, with which he was acquainted from top to bottom. He also knew the Richmond Asylum, and he would suggest to the Chief Secretary that if he made no change in regard to these institutions, he ought, at any rate, to turn his attention to the question of lunatics in workhouses, for in those establishments a very large number of persons were detained who ought not to be there at all. The condition of things at the Richmond and Belfast Asylums was almost intolerable in consequence of the state of overcrowding. He had had opportunities of comparing those asylums with kindred institutions in England and in Scotland. He did not think the authorities of the asylums were to blame; the aspersions which had been cast upon the management of these institutions had since been withdrawn, but the real fault was that there were no workhouse asylums. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to secure the exclusion from the workhouses of those who ought not to be detained in them.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, that as Chairman of a workhouse he was able to endorse the remarks of the last speaker. He rose, however, to deal with the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that the 13th clause of the Land Purchase Act should be re-enacted. He did not think that would sufficiently meet the case of the evicted tenants: it would, in fact, do more harm than good.
      MR. JACKSON: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary a question as to the Veterinary Department. Everybody must have learned with great satisfaction that pleuro-pneumonia had been stamped out in Ireland. During the short time I was at the Irish Office it was my duty to deal with this question under difficult circumstances, and it did seem at that time almost impossible, with the measures it was in our power to take, to hope for such satisfactory results in so short a time. I should like to take this opportunity of saying I think it reflects the

      1213
      greatest credit on the officials in Ireland, and everyone will bear testimony to the efficient manner in which they have discharged their duties at the time. I have referred to grave complaints which were made about the condition of the Dublin dairies, and it was alleged that the dirty and filthy state of some of them had, to a large extent, led to increased difficulties in dealing with pleuro-pneumonia. I will not say it tended to spread disease, because if we are to rely upon scientific experts disease can only be conveyed by actual contact. I should, however, be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether there has been any improvement in the condition of these dairies, for this constitutes a question seriously affecting the general health of the population of Dublin? I hope the subject has not been lost sight of by the authorities.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, that in regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that the 13th clause of the Land Purchase Act should be re-enacted, the hon. Gentleman had correctly described himself as the medium through which the clause came to be inserted. Unfortunately, the operation of the clause had been very limited. Only a few settlements had been effected under it. When the late Government was in Office he and his friends more than once asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds to consent to renew the clause, but he over and over again refused, the formula of his reply being that if he could receive satisfactory evidence that a substantial number of landlords and tenants desired to avail themselves of it he would be willing to renew it. He supposed that such evidence had never been received, because up to the date of his leaving Office the right hon. Gentleman never made any overtures to them.
      MR. JACKSON: No evidence was ever supplied to me.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman preserved complete silence on the subject, and left them entirely in the dark. Personally, he admitted that the clause might do a certain amount of good, but he feared also that it might do not a little harm if the landlords, upon the renewal of it, represented to the tenants that there was no hope for them
      1214
      of further relief, and that they had better at once take advantage of its provisions. The Chief Secretary had given them an assurance that next Session he would legislate on the general lines of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Evicted Tenants. He himself regarded such legislation as indispensable. While he would be glad to co-operate with anyone in Ireland in attempts to secure voluntary arrangements between landlords and tenants, and would in consequence support the request of the hon. Member for there-enactment of the clause, he wished it to be understood that the Irish Members would not regard that renewal as a satisfactory substitute for the legislation promised by the Chief Secretary.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I concur with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his congratulations to the officials of the Veterinary Department on the success of their efforts to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia, and I should like, further, to do the right hon. Gentleman the justice of saying that he himself took an active part in stimulating the Department in that matter. I cannot say what has been done in regard to the dairies, for I believe the officials have mainly concentrated their efforts on the task of stamping out pleuro-pneumonia; but I will make inquiry into the matter, and I can promise that every care shall be taken to secure improved sanitation. In regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), I think the hon. Member for North Kerry has taken up a position which is perfectly reasonable. The hon. Member for South Tyrone asked me the other day if I would be willing to re-enact the 13th section of the Land Act of 1891. My answer was that before I could give any pledge I must first receive an assurance from hon. Members opposite that they would treat such a measure as non-contentious. If I had such an assurance I should be prepared to bring in such a Bill. That answer of mine was given entirely in the spirit indicated by the hon. Member for North Kerry, and I should not for a moment seek to substitute such a Bill for that more complete and more deep-reaching measure which I believe anybody responsible for the administration of Ireland would feel bound to introduce.
      MR. FIELDsaid, that with regard to the question of pleuro-pneumonia, he desired to point out that Ireland was absolutely free from all sorts of cattle disease—it had, in fact, the cleanest bill of health of any country in Europe. He would suggest that the officials who had so admirably performed their duties and thus produced this good result ought to be placed on exactly the same footing as regards pensions as was held by the officials in the English Department that had to deal with these matters. He was, he might add, very glad to hear the Chief Secretary's statement on the subject of the evicted tenants.
      MR. M. AUSTINcomplained that in the Printing and Binding Departments in Dublin the work was done solely by unskilled labour—mainly that of boys—at low rate of wages, and in direct antagonism to the principles laid down by the Resolution of the House of Commons.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry I was not here when an interesting discussion was raised upon a clause of a temporary character of the Land Act of 1891. I understand the point is, whether or not that clause shall be renewed—as it bus hitherto been from year to year?
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It was a clause which lasted for a certain period. It has expired, and will now have to be re-enacted.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought it had been renewed. I understand the proposal of the hon. Member for South Tyrone is that it shall be renewed, and that that proposal has been to a certain extent endorsed by the hon. Member for North Kerry, while the Chief Secretary has indicated his willingness to act upon the suggestion. But the right hon. Gentleman has also intimated that he will not consider such action as relieving him of the pledges he has recently given to deal in a more satisfactory manner with the evicted tenants. I do not wish now to pronounce any final opinion on this subject. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend it would be eminently worth while to re-enact the clause if there were the slightest chance of its being taken advantage of, but I want to put this point to him. We all know that the clause has not been taken advantage of,
      1216
      and that while landlords have been willing to come under it their tenants have refused to do so. Why did they so refuse? Simply because extravagant hopes were held out, partly by the Government in England who are supported by those leaders, that terms incomparably more favourable than those offered under the clause would in the long run be given. Does my hon. Friend think that with the Chief Secretary announcing in the very speech in which he consents to the renewal of the clause that he means to bring in another Bill differing in its principle and offering better terms to the tenants carrying out far more completely the objects which gentlemen below the Gangway have never concealed that they have in view—does he think that the re-enactment of the clause under such circumstances could have any good effect? If he does, I think his hope will prove illusory. If the Government were prepared to accept the re-enactment of the clause as a final solution of the question, then the proposal of my hon. Friend would lead to great and practical results. Until I have had an opportunity of further considering this question, I should not like to arrive at any final conclusion.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he had received a letter from the Evicted Tenants' Association in Cork, requesting that this should be done. It was clear that some of the evicted tenants desired the re-enactment of the clause, and that they were a little sceptical about getting anything in advance of it. The re-enactment of the clause, too, would be a strong defence against extravagant claims, and would give an opening to those who desired a reasonable settlement.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had delivered a very surprising speech. He seemed to have forgotten the nature of his own clause. He thought it had been renewed from time to time, and that it was only a question of including it in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The clause, the Committee would remember, was inserted in the Bill which passed in August, 1891, and under it all agreements were to be concluded before February, 1892. They told him at the time that in the condition in which Ireland then was they did not think that any considerable number of agreements

      1217
      could be come to, but that if a longer period were allowed much might be accomplished. As a matter of fact, when the clause ceased to have force a number of negotiations were in progress which had to be broken off. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman had no desire to continue to keep alive the embers of discontent and disorder in any part of Ireland. He realised that the simple re-enactment of the clause could not settle the question, but if there were landlords and evicted tenants who were anxious to come to agreement, and if this clause would help them to do so, surely the right hon. Gentleman would not stand in the wav of its renewal.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member has made a direct appeal to me. In the spirit of that appeal I heartily concur. My difficulty is one rather of fact—it is as to the historical interpretation of what occurred when the clause was inserted in the Bill. He says that he and his friends urged upon the Government of that day that six months was too short a period. But my opinion is that tenants who really wished to arrive at agreements found it quite possible to do so in the six months covered by the clause. That was proved by the action of many of the tenantry on the Ponsonby estate, a certain number of whom did come to an agreement within the half-year, and the reason why more advantage was not taken of the clause was that the tenants were encouraged by their leaders to hope that in time they would get incomparably better terms. If similar hopes are to be encouraged now, and are to exist in undiminished strength and vigour, of what use will it be to undergo the labour of again enacting this lapsed clause? As I said before, I should be sorry on the spur of the moment to express any final personal judgment, but so long as these men are to have dangled before them illusory hopes of a probably impossible settlement, so long the sober, moderate, and I think, in itself, not ineffectual proposal we made in 1891 will be prevented from producing its proper result. It is absurd to ask for a remedy, and, at the same time, renew the hopes and efforts which have in the past prevented that remedy effecting its object.
      MR. J. MORLEY: In regard to the complaint made by the hon. Member for
      1218
      West Limerick, I may remind him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury went at length into this subject the other night, and I can add nothing to what he said. I do not think any advantage will accrue further from discussing the question of the evicted tenants on this occasion.
      Vote agreed to.
      3. £941, to complete the sum for Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
      4 £78,497, to complete the sum for Local Government Board, Ireland.
      MR. T. W.RUSSELLcalled attention to the accommodation of pauper lunatics in Irish workhouses. In the first place, he did not know of any law by which these poor people were confined in workhouses. He therefore asked the Chief Secretary under what authority these lunatics, who were usually harmless, were confined there; and whether, if the overcrowding of the regular lunatic asylums involved the packing of the workhouses with these poor people, that fact did not increase the responsibility of the Government to take steps to find room for them? He thought it was a great hardship upon the respectable poor that they should be brought into contact daily with insane people. He thought there ought to be room found in the proper lunatic asylums for the lunatics of Ireland. He also desired to draw attention to the enormous expenditure attendant upon Poor Law relief in Ireland. The actual amount expended upon the relief of the poor was £872,000, but the amount expended upon the salaries of officials was altogether disproportionate to that sum, for it came to close upon £1,000,000. The ratepayers did not grudge the money spent on the relief of the poor, but they did grudge the money that went in salaries for officers, a great many of which were not needed at all. There were too many workhouses in Ireland, and there was no reason why they should not be amalgamated. This was a burning question in the North of Ireland, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would give his attention to it. We were threatened with an invasion of cholera. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that in the rural districts and small towns of

      1219
      Ireland there were any proper precautions taken against it? The sanitary condition of the small towns in all parts of the country was of the most wretched character. In Castleisland, at own in Kerry, which he had recently visited, cholera would find a happy hunting-ground. The state of some of the dwellings and the sanitary conditions were perfectly horrible. Castleisland mainly consisted of a very long and tolerably wide street, in which there were 52 public-houses for 1,500 people. If whisky had anything to do with lunacy they ought to be all lunatics in Castleisland. Behind the main street there was an enormous mass of the foulest rookeries he had seen anywhere. He was shocked and appalled by the sight. There were no sanitary arrangements; the houses were without doors and windows; and huge piles of filth and pools of stagnant water were all around. Between 300 and 400 people lived in these houses in the most terrible condition. He thought that, in the first place, the Local Government Board was to blame for that state of things. The Local Government Board had undoubtedly the power to compel the landlord to do his duty.
      MR. D. SULLIVAN: Will the hon. Gentleman say who is the landlord of Castleisland?
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not know who he is; but whoever he is, Castleisland is a disgrace to him. I mean the landlord of the houses, and not the landlord of the soil.
      MR. SEXTON: He is a Member of the House of Lords.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he hoped the landlord would read what he had said about the town. The Local Government Board were undoubtedly to blame for the condition of these dwellings, inasmuch as they had the power to compel the landlords to put the dwellings into better condition and to condemn insanitary buildings.
      MR. CONYBEARE: It shows the want of Home Rule.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, it did not show the want of Home Rule, but it showed the want of Local Government. Even if there were no fear of cholera, the Local Government Board ought to compel the landlords of towns and villages to see that the houses were
      1220
      placed in better condition than at present.
      MR. KNOXsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for South Tyrone in what he had said on the subject of lunatic asylums in Ireland. He believed that something was urgently needed to improve the condition of pauper lunatics in workhouses. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had not, however, touched the greatest difficulty in the way of such a reform. It should be remembered that pauper lunatics in workhouses were supported out of the poor rate, while the pauper lunatics in lunatic asylums were supported out of the cess. The cess was paid only by the occupier, while the poor rate was paid half by the owner, and half by the occupier; and there was, therefore, an unwillingness amongst the authorities of the workhouses to transfer pauper lunatics to the lunatic asylums and thereby make them chargeable entirely on the occupiers—for that would be throwing a grievous burden upon the occupiers. He thought that if the incidence of the rate for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in lunatic asylums was so arranged that the owner paid half and the occupier paid half, there would be no difficulty in carrying the necessary increases of county lunatic asylums; and he hoped the Government would give their attention to the matter.
      MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, he desired to call attention to the arrangements made by the Local Government Board in Belfast with respect to precautions against the cholera epidemic. It was perfectly clear, he thought, that the arrangements which existed in ports in communication with foreign countries were not adequate. In regard to Belfast, he said the Sanitary Authority had no jurisdiction at all over cases of infectious disease outside the limits of the Corporation boundaries. The Guardians of Belfast had a large area over which they had jurisdiction, and for some reason the Local Government Board had thought fit to nominate the Belfast Board of Guardians as the Sanitary Authority in cholera cases alone for the whole of the district from Larne to Castlefergus, covering the entire coast line of Belfast Lough; and for the whole of that district—except for a small portion—the Belfast Board of Guardians had absolutely no executive authority whatever.

      1221
      The last serious epidemic that was introduced into Belfast—an epidemic of small-pox—was introduced from a ship outside the jurisdiction of the Belfast Sanitary Authority, and there was practically absolutely no power in the Board of Guardians to enforce the performance of their orders on the Town Commissioners of the considerable number of towns included in the area to which he had referred. He hoped the Chief Secretary would take the matter into consideration, and try to devise some means by which the Boards of Guardians would have effective sanitary jurisdiction over the district.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that on the subject of pauper lunatics he desired to say, on behalf of the Boards of Guardians and officials of workhouses, that they were placed in some difficulty in the matter of giving pauper accommodation to lunatics and idiots, inasmuch as the workhouses were not originally designed for the accommodation of lunatics. The Guardians had first to provide the necessary wards for the accommodation of the ordinary inmates, and then fit up as best they could accommodation for the lunatics. He noticed that in the Report of the Commission on Lunacy this year there was a complaint that no Return was made by the authorities of workhouses in Ireland as to the admissions, discharges, and deaths of insane paupers. It seemed to him that that was a very legitimate complaint, and that the attention of the Local Government Board of Ireland ought to be directed to it. With regard to the amalgamation of workhouses—a subject in which he had taken a great deal of interest—he desired to say that in 1879 a Commission composed entirely of officials was appointed to inquire into the matter and report to Parliament. The Commission took the views of the Boards of Guardians on the subject, and it was clear that if the amalgamation of Unions had not proceeded as rapidly as it had been hoped, it was not the fault of the Local Government Board, but was due to the fact that in the great majority of Unions there was a strong feeling, especially among the elected Guardians, against any scheme of amalgamation. In that year 104 Unions declined to recommend a scheme of amalgamation, and of 11 Unions which agreed to amalgamate
      1222
      five afterwards rescinded their resolution. The Commission entered on the inquiry evidently with a determination against the policy of amalgamation, and they certainly reported strongly against it. Nevertheless, the Report of the Local Government Board showed that where they had been enabled to carry out amalgamation in two or three cases, it had worked very satisfactorily. The Commission based their objection to the policy of amalgamation on the assumption that those who advocated it appeared to have been led astray by the figures given them with regard to the gross accommodation which could be afforded by workhouses in Ireland. It appeared that the accommodation of workhouses in Ireland was based upon the cubic contents of all the rooms, and not simply upon the cubic contents of the rooms used as sleeping rooms. The Commissioners, therefore, had no difficulty in showing in their Report that the estimated accommodation in the workhouses was double the real accommodation. If, therefore, there was to be any further movement in the way of accommodation, he thought there should first be a re-measurement of the workhouses. If that was not done, there would exist amongst those who had not given careful attention to the question, the opinion that Ireland had a surplus of workhouses; that there was a great deal of unnecessary expense thrown upon the ratepayers, and that enormous benefit would accrue in the way of relieving the rates if further amalgamation could be carried out. With regard to the question of sanitation in Ireland, no one would deny that the condition of many Irish villages was very deplorable. His hon. Friend had blamed the Local Government Board for their inertia. But the Local Government Board was not the only Body responsible. The primary Body which was to blame was the Board of Guardians in each locality, who were the people on the spot, who were brought into daily contact with these insanitary conditions of life, and it was upon their shoulders he was inclined to throw a greater weight of complaint than on those of the Local Government Board. There had recently been presented to the House an interesting Report on the condition of the agricultural labourers in the South and West of Ireland. Before quoting a passage from

      1223
      this Report he might say generally that the administration of the Sanitary Laws in Ireland in the rural districts was almost absolutely a dead letter, for the reason that the Sanitary Inspectors were afraid of incurring the hostility of the Boards of Guardians, or of particular Guardians or ratepayers, by drawing attention to the numerous instances which were to be found, especially in some localities, of the absolute defiance of all laws of sanitation. Mr. Roger C. Richards, an Assistant Commissioner who had been appointed to report upon the condition of the agricultural labourer in certain districts in the Counties of Cavan, Dublin, Galway, and Tipperary, in his Report had the following paragraph:—
      "In English districts fear of giving offence to property-owning Guardians often deters sanitary officers from fearlessly doing their duty. In Ireland, notwithstanding a greater degree of independence, a sanitary officer may still be subjected to many annoyances if he is inconveniently jealous. Every Guardian has the right of giving tickets, which entitle the holder, on presentation, to the immediate services of the medical officer. Guardians who consider their officer has been unduly active or persistent in condemning their property will sometimes retaliate by a too liberal distribution of these tickets. An amusing illustration of this was brought to my notice. In one Union some of the Guardians, feeling aggrieved by the action of their medical officer, showered these medical relief tickets very profusely, with the result that the doctor was summoned at all hours of the day and night to attend most trivial cases. Understanding the origin of these numerous calls, the doctor hit upon a method of relief. Wherever he found that he had been sent for unreasonably, he treated the case as most grave, and insisted that the parish priest should be sent for. The result was, that the priest was kept on the run as much as the doctor. The priest took the earliest opportunity of remonstrating with the doctor on the absurdity of his being called to administer the last ordinances to persons not at all in extremis; whereupon the doctor remarked, 'I thought if there was an urgent necessity for my prompt attendance, there was equally such for yours.' The shower of relief cards was stopped. The Chairman of the Board of Guardians often presides at the Petty Sessions where enforcing orders have to be granted, and is probably a property owner, and also a patient of the doctor who condemns."
      That was a statement of a person not prejudiced on either side of the question in Ireland; and he (Mr. Macartney) was bound to say that, while he thought the Local Government Board did not put in force all the powers with which it was armed by Parliament to insist upon a
      1224
      proper administration of the Sanitary Laws, still he could not relieve the Local Sanitary Authorities from the share of blame, which he thought ought to be attributed to their inactivity. It was the most difficult thing in the world, especially in Ireland, to persuade the ordinary peasant that he was endangering his own health or that of anyone else by his inactivity in removing the causes of insanitary conditions. He quite agreed there was room for additional activity on the part of the Local Government Board in arousing the attention of the Boards of Guardians, especially in these districts which had been reported upon in the South and West of Ireland, where certainly the sanitary conditions of the houses appeared to be deplorable. He must, at the same time, point out that the Commissioners had attributed the insanitary condition of these houses as much to the inattention of the occupiers as to the inattention of the owners of the houses. If there were any means by which it was possible to arouse this portion of the population of Ireland to a livelier sense of the dangers of living in such insanitary and unwholesome conditions, he should be delighted, whether it was brought about by the Local Government Board or by the greater activity of the Local Sanitary Authorities.
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, two or three points had been raised in the course of this discussion which he would now proceed to deal with. So far as the insane poor were concerned, he thought he stated in the earlier discussion his own sense of the extent to which he was shocked by the Report on this subject. At the same time, the hon. Member who had last spoken had overlooked what the hon. and learned Member for Cavan (Mr. Knox) had pointed out—namely, that the transfer of these poor people from the lunatic wards of the workhouses to the district asylums meant a difference in the incidence of the cost of maintenance. The Report of the Committee of 1890 dealt with this subject very fully. It was only fair to the Irish Government to say that at this moment they were making proposals to the Treasury for the purpose of making the enlargement of the accommodation of the district asylums an easier task than it now was. At present the loans which had been advanced were payable in 20 years,

      1225
      and it was hoped that if the Governors of these institutions responded to the pressure put upon them to improve the accommodation and give more room and better treatment and comfort to these unfortunate beings, that then the burdens should be spread over a greater number of years. He hoped that the Treasury would give a favourable consideration to proposals which the Irish Government had made to them at the suggestion of the Board of Control in Ireland. He would just make one remark upon the subject of district asylums. He at one time had some special interest in this particular subject, and he knew it was the opinion of many experts on this dreadful disease of lunacy that this aggregation of large bodies of insane in one room and in one exercising yard, and so forth, was, on the whole, an extremely doubtful course. Some of the best experts were of opinion that the Scotch were wiser in resorting in a very considerable degree to boarding out. Of course, that was a matter which, if a Commission were appointed, would probably be reported upon. The hon. Member for South Tyrone pointed out the disparity between the amount expended in relief and the amount expended in salaries.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I made a slight mistake. I find the total poor relief expenditure was £872,000, and the total expenditure of the Guardians altogether was £1,400,000. I was quite wrong in saying that was due to salaries. It is only part of that, and I apologise for the mistake I have made.
      MR. J. MORLEY: Then that argument disappears.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: This expenditure, of course, is not so large, but there is a great disparity between the expenditure on poor relief, strictly speaking, and salaries; and my argument was that these salaries might be saved to a large extent by the amalgamation of the workhouses.
      MR. J. MORLEY: There is only £141,000 for salaries against £872,000 for relief. That is very much the same proportion as obtains in England, where the total is £8,600,000; and £1,500,000 of that is expended in salaries against £7,000,000 expended in relief. The proportion, therefore, between England and Ireland is practically the same.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Ireland is a much poorer country.
      MR. J. MORLEYreplied that the poverty of the country did not affect the hon. Member's complaint against the Local Government Board, that an extraordinary amount went in salaries compared with the amount expended in the relief of the poor. As to the amalgamation of workhouses, there, again, they must proceed with caution. If they adopted a policy of amalgamation and went in rashly for a general amalgamation, they would land themselves in great difficulty, and the same argument, with a difference that he had used about enlarged lunatic asylums, was also applicable to the great workhouses. He was not at all satisfied that monster workhouses were a good thing. Amalgamation might lead to a lowering of the rates, but that was not the only thing they had to consider, and it was a matter in which they should move very cautiously. He was glad to note the healthy tone of the hon. Member's (Mr. Macartney's) observations, and his remarks on the responsibility of the Local Authorities, who, he had stated, should do their duty. The hon. Member had said that the whole responsibility in this matter should not be thrown on the Local Government Board. In Ireland they had got too much of Central Authority, and that authority a weak one, and every well-wisher of self-reliance would like to throw upon the Local Authorities the burden of looking after their own affairs. As to the re-measurement of workhouses, he could not deal with that question offhand, but he would inquire into it. As to the orders issued with respect to cholera, a question which had been raised especially by the hon. Member for West Belfast, he was informed both by the Local Authorities in Ireland and by the Local Government Board in this country that in Ireland they were keeping step by step with the English Local Government Board. He believed there was not a single precaution the English Board had taken which the Irish Local Government Board was not equally taking and pressing upon the Local Authorities. He had with him an exact account of all the measures taken by the Local Government Board in Ireland, and he believed they were doing all they could to stir up the Local Sanitary Authorities to take the precautions which it would be wise

      1227
      to adopt. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Local Government Board had made a mistake in selecting the Local Authorities. He could not say what were the considerations which prompted that choice, but it would seem, at first sight, as if the Corporation were the more proper authority. He would inquire what the reasons were, and the hon. Member might rest assured that they should press upon the authorities—whether Boards of Guardians or other bodies—the necessity of not neglecting any portion of their duty.
      MR. WOLFFpointed out that in Belfast the Local Authority had no means of preventing communication between vessels lying in Belfast Lough and small ports like Carrickfergus on the shores of the Lough. He would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could give his attention to this matter, and insure that effectual means would be taken to prevent the introduction of cholera into Ireland in this way.
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he would inquire what was done at Hull and Liverpool by the Sanitary Authorities, and he would see that the same precautions were adopted at Belfast.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURremarked that it was agreed on all hands that the accommodation given to pauper lunatics and idiots was very inadequate from the point of view of the lunatics themselves, and was positively injurious to the non-lunatic inhabitants of the workhouses. The reason these unfortunate persons were taken to a place where they were imperfectly treated, and where they did great harm to other individuals, was that in the case of the workhouses the charge was borne by landlord and tenant alike, whereas if they were sent to the county lunatic asylum the whole cost would fall on the occupier. The occupier, therefore, who was the controlling agent, determined they should go to a place where half the charge should be borne by the landowners. The motive was not a very high one, but it was a very intelligible one. On the subject of boarding out, though he was aware the plan had many advocates, yet he hoped it should be applied to Ireland with a cautious and sparing hand. There was not, as yet, in Ireland the kind of population among whom boarding out was practised in Scotland with good effects. They could
      1228
      not send these unfortunate beings to the poor cabins which were the only places in many districts of the country where they could be boarded out, and until the condition of the Irish peasant was raised to something like the level of the Lowland Scotch peasant, he did not think boarding out could be practised with any good results either to the patient or to the family with whom he was boarded. The amalgamation of workhouses was another matter that must be cautiously practised. There were at present in two contiguous Unions two sets of elected Guardians, two sets of persons with considerable social status and dignity, and a proportion of those persons would of necessity lose that social status and dignity by amalgamation and by the consequent diminution in the number of the Guardians. He was afraid experience taught that while division of authority was easy amalgamation was exceedingly difficult. As to the question of equalisation of rates, he believed it would be found that while a poorer district did not object to amalgamate with a richer one, the richer had the strongest objection to be amalgamated with the poorer. There were no more obstinate opponents to deal with than people struggling to protect their pockets. He did not agree with the Chief Secretary that the unit of Poor Law administration should be a small one; his belief was that in order to make the Poor Law system all it might be there must be large areas. Thus, and thus alone, would they be able to carry out that grading, that discrimination between different classes of inmates by which they might alleviate the lot of those who were there by no fault of their own, and distinguish between them and those who simply employed the poorhouse, not as a legitimate source of relief, but as a daily resort when other and perhaps less allowable means of livelihood failed them. He did not desire to argue that matter further, but he thought the Chief Secretary would be ill-advised if he were, on the ground of abstract preference for small areas of Poor Law administration, to neglect any opportunities which offered themselves for increasing the size of the Unions. There was only one other point raised in this Debate on which he should like to say one word. His hon. Friend opposite gave an account which, he was sure, all

      1229
      the Committee would feel came from his heart, of his own personal experience in an urban district in Ireland. The story he told them was a shocking story, and gave them a view of the condition of the inhabitants of this wretched urban area which, he was sure, must have filled everyone who heard it with horror and disgust. But the only question here was not whether this state of things needed a remedy, but how it was to be remedied, and on whom lay the fault of the existing state of things. His hon. Friend was inclined to blame two sets of people, who were, he believed, innocent—namely, the Local Government Inspector and the landlord. A landlord who deliberately bought at a very cheap rate wretched insanitary dwellings with a view of earning a large percentage of profit on his investment was a man for whom no one in that House would have the smallest mercy. But he assumed that the owner of the soil, and possibly the owner of the houses, did not belong to this class, and that the case was one in which an unfortunate landowner had been left the property in this condition by those who preceded him. [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL assented.] What was the landlord to do with the property, since it was said that he was responsible? He received no rent for it, and to rebuild the houses in a sanitary condition meant, in such circumstances, financial ruin. The only other alternative was wholesale eviction of the inhabitants; and were hon. Members prepared to recommend that course? Were they going to require the landlord to turn all the people out into the street or the workhouse? Was that their solution of this great social difficulty? He felt, whatever else the Committee might say, at all events they would not press upon the Legislature any plan so drastic, and he feared so inefficacious, as that; therefore, he did not see how it was possible either to throw the blame for the existing state of things for the most part on the landlord, or to require the landlord to apply an instant and effectual remedy. Then, did the blame rest with the Inspector? From the inquiries and observations he had made when Chief Secretary, he believed that the Inspector of the Local Government Board who should go through many districts in Ireland and insist that the letter of the law should be carried out to its fullest
      1230
      extent would require police protection in every part of the country. He would be treated worse than a process server, and would be hounded out of the place visited as the greatest curse which had been inflicted on an injured peasantry. But the right hon. Gentleman said it was a case for the healthy exercise of local administration. They all desired to see this remedy carried out, but they must not desire too much. The truth was, that hon. Members were constantly running after two inconsistent ideas. They wanted the thing well done, and they wanted it done by the Local Authority. They could not have both, however. If they wanted the work well done, it must be done by a strong and centralised administration; and the evil here was not that the system was centralised, but that it was not strong enough. If they abolished the Local Government Board control they would throw the whole thing into the hands of the elected Guardians, and they would give up, for a generation at least, the slightest hops or prospect of having a sanitary condition of things in the villages of the South and West. It was contrary to the customs and habits of the people, and they would not of their own proper motion alter the practice which had been going on for generations, the evils of which they did not recognise, and, indeed, which many persons in England and Scotland—far above them in education and other advantages—refused to recognise themselves. He was not going to discuss the Local Veto Bill, but he would just say they would find the same thing if sobriety depended on Local Authorities. Sobriety and sanitation could not be forced on a people, and they would not spring up as the mere product of Local Government. They had first to persuade the people that it was a thing to be aimed at, at much cost, considerable expense, and change of cherished habits. Until they had done that, it was not the least use to throw down these platitudes about cultivating Local Government in Ireland and elsewhere, and trusting to that, and to that alone, to remedy all the difficulties under which they suffered. He confessed that neither by the help of the Local Government Board, nor by the help of the Local Authorities in Ireland, did he expect, for many years to come, to see a complete change in this respect

      1231
      in Ireland. He did not blame the Irish for it. He did not think they were responsible for the present condition; he did not think anybody was responsible. But it was there; and just as they would not get, in a backward English village, any ideas of the kind they were accustomed to connect with the word "sanitation," so it was hopeless to expect a better state of things in Ireland, and all the Chief Secretary could do was to require his Inspectors gradually and slowly to make the people feel how much they had to gain by altering the unhappy external circumstances under which, unfortunately, too many of them lived.
      COLONEL NOLANdenied altogether that the Local Authorities in Ireland had done nothing in the way of effecting improvements in sanitation and other matters. Take, for instance, North Galway. During the last few years they had erected excellent waterworks for the town of Tuam, and all the county towns in Ireland had taken to bringing in water from a distance of two or three miles, and in many other respects considerable improvements had been made. He would promise the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, if he would propose a Vote out of Imperial Funds for the purpose of sanitary improvements in Ireland, he (Colonel Nolan) would go with him against all Party ties whatsoever on that point. Unless he did something of that kind he did not know what use it was for the right hon. Gentleman to attack them, because at present the rates of the Local Authorities were very high for the improvements they had already effected. They could not do everything all at once, and particularly in districts where the money was required to feed the people rather more than it was to carry out these ideas of sanitation. With regard to the precautions against an outbreak of cholera, he did not think the steps which had been adopted in Ireland were sufficiently practical. The Chief Secretary had issued Circulars and taken up a Bill of his (Colonel Nolan's), but the Lords had spoiled it as much as they could in the interests of vested property. The Chief Secretary when he copied, or nearly copied, this Bill got it into such a state—
      THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. A. O'CONNOR): I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make his observations relevant to the subject of the Vote.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, the point to which he wished to draw attention was the inadequacy of the arrangements made by the Local Government Board in Ireland, of which the Chief Secretary was the head, for grappling with the cholera. The state of the law was such that the Local Authorities could not take a site now for a cholera hospital until cholera appeared in that district.
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was mistaken. The particular clause which he seemed to think had been omitted was, as a matter of fact, contained in the Bill.
      COLONEL NOLANwas glad to find that in this instance the Local Government Board behaved as a sensible body. He expressed the opinion that the Local Government Board ought to have a number of wooden or iron hospitals in Dublin or elsewhere, together with a number of trained nurses, so that they might be ready to cope with the cholera should it break out in any district, however remote, and should not leave these matters to the Local Authorities, who could not bear the expenses.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLwished to know whether the Chief Secretary could give any information as to how the rents had been paid of the cottages which were built under the Labourers Act?
      MR. J. MORLEYthought the information which the hon. Gentleman desired would be found in the last Report of the Local Government Board; but, if not, he would make inquiries. In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had to say he had already informed the Committee that the Irish Local Government Board had taken the same steps that had been taken by the English Local Government Board, and had used, and were using, every precaution which the most apprehensive mind could desire to see carried out.
      COLONEL NOLANinsisted on the necessity of a supply of iron or wooden hospitals being kept in Dublin or some other place, so that they might be ready for any emergency.
      Vote agreed to.
      5. £3,327, to complete the sum for Public Record Office, Ireland, agreed to.
      6. £19,528, to complete the sum for Public Works Office, Ireland.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLdesired to ask what was the amount of money that had been paid for the first of the two Training Colleges?
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the Training Colleges were not public works.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the money was paid through the Public Works Department, and the work was done under the superintendence of the Board of Works. All that I desire to know is this—
      MR. SEXTON: There was no work done. These Training Colleges are already built. There is nothing for the Public Works to supervise, and I submit that on the Vote for Public Works you cannot deal with these institutions.
      THE CHAIRMAN: That is so.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes, but this money has been paid through the Board of Works. I do not want to raise any discussion on the principle of the matter, but I want to know—
      MR. SEXTON: It comes up on the Education Vote.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, of course, if the matter was out of Order on this Vote, and he could raise it on the Education Vote, he would be satisfied; but he should have thought the Board of Works Vote was a very convenient Vote on which to raise the matter.
      THE CHAIRMANruled that the matter was out of Order on this Vote.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I see on the Board of Works Report that they have expended this year £40,000. I contend, therefore, it comes on the Vote for the Board of Works.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the charge for these Colleges appeared on the Education Vote.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the question was raised some days ago on the Public Buildings Vote.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that was as to the sanitary question.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, it was the same question that had been mentioned by the hon. Member now.
      SIR T. LEAsaid, he wanted to know, on an item which he saw on the Paper, whether there was a certificated architect for the Board of Works, and, if so, whether any buildings could be dealt with until this gentleman had submitted his views to the Board? He was especially referring to lunatic asylums, and he thought with regard to the new buildings that were going on they should be informed how that matter was dealt with.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, there was an architect for superintending asylums, and also provision for special advice in regard to all other Public Buildings.
      MR. JACKSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not gone so far as he might. When a vacancy arose in the post of engineer for these works a gentleman was appointed at a less salary than formerly. There was a Departmental Inquiry into the question, and it was thought that for ordinary purposes a man could be got for less than £8,000 or £12,000 a year—that a man could be got for £600 or £700, and it was thought right and wise that when the Board of Works were undertaking any large work there should be a power of consultation as regarded plans with this gentleman. But the Board of Works were entirely responsible. He considered the arrangement satisfactory, so far as he had been able to judge it.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would again direct attention to the case of the Kingstown Harbour. He had had an assurance from the Chief Secretary already, but he wanted him to go one step further, and he did not see there was any difficulty in the work—the very necessary work—going on at once. He had made inquiries, and he understood that there was no difficulty in the way if the Treasury would only authorise the Board of Works to deal with the matter. That was the only difficulty in the way. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman was greatly interested in this work, and he hoped he would give them some assurance on the point.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, undoubtedly his right hon. Friend was

      1235
      very anxious that this work should be carried out. He (Sir J. T. Hibbert) was also very anxious about it. It was only a few weeks ago that his right hon. Friend had an opportunity of seeing the plans, and he thought he might to-night assure the hon. Member that anything that could be done in the direction he alluded to would be done, as they were anxious that improvements should be hastened.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it was simply a question of providing the money.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he was aware of all the circumstances.
      SIR J. GORSTsaid, he would like to know what the present Vote provided for.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTwas understood to say that the Vote only went as far as was necessary at present.
      MR. JACKSONsaid, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's mind had been given to this Vote particularly, but he thought he ought to do so in connection with the reduction of the number of applications for loans for land improvements. There was a very much less sum asked for last year than in the year before. If that were so the expenses of administration ought to be reduced.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the number of applications for the last three years had varied very little, though there had been a variation in the amount of money dealt with. He did not know about the applications this year, but they thought it safe to provide on the basis that the applications would be at the same rate. He thought it was necessary they should provide for the future in this way.
      MR. DANEsaid, he would like to ask if the Government intended to construct a deep-water pier at Killybegs. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. T. Hibbert), in his recent visit to the district, saw the parish priest, Father Martin, and he left the people under the impression that a pier would be made out into deep water. The light railway which was recently opened to Killybegs would open up that portion of Donegal very much, but its efficiency would be greatly impaired unless there was a deep-water pier constructed at its terminus at Killybegs.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, there could be no doubt that a pier at Killybegs would be a great advantage, not only to
      1236
      the fisheries, but to the general trade of the district, and he thought it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to offer every encouragement he could to such public works as would be opened by the construction of such piers. These piers were necessary to the material development of the country. They were aware of the disadvantages that prevailed at present, and he believed a very large sum had been drawn from the Post Office Savings Bank, which was a serious thing as an indication of the present state of trade and industry, and a warning of the urgency of public works being instituted.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTpaid, he would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the question of spending money on public works was not raised here. There was a great deal to be done in these matters, and a great deal had been done during the last few years; but such works as the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to indicate would require much consideration. With reference to the Killybegs Pier, he had visited the place, and was impressed with the necessity of something being done in the matter. The Treasury had made a request to the Congested Districts Board to give some assistance towards this object, and if the Congested Districts Board did so they would provide a similar sum next year, so he hoped this desired object would soon be carried out. There could be no doubt that the pier would be of great advantage, and it was most desirable that something should be done.
      SIR J. GORSTsaid, he also had visited Killybegs prior to the late Government leaving Office, and he was very much impressed with the desirability of having this pier constructed. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman had been similarly impressed. But there was one matter about which he would like to have some information—and that was with regard to the arrangements made by the late Government and the operations at the point where the railway stopped. If the railway was now opened, and if matters remained as they were, he feared a large sum of public money had been wasted.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, certain things were projected, no doubt, and the Government had carried these out to the best of their ability. The manner in

      1237
      which the work had been done might not be satisfactory, but he did not wish to throw blame on the late Government; and certainly any difficulty that had arisen to future work was not a matter for which the present Administration could be blamed.
      SIR J. GORSTsaid, he did not wish to convey that the right hon. Gentleman was to blame. This was an example of the evil of changing Governments. He appreciated the position of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would only say that he hoped he would do what he could to have the works at Killybegs carried to completion.
      Vote agreed to.
      7. £8,670, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, Ireland.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would suggest that the record as regarded Roman Catholic marriages should be carried out in a more complete manner.
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he would inquire into the matter.
      Vote agreed to.
      8. £4,683, to complete the sum for Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.
      MR. JACKSONsaid, there seemed to have been some re-organisation of the Office, because there appeared to be a great change in the Estimate as affecting the officers. There was a large reduction, which certainly pointed to reorganisation. Was the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give some information?
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, his right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had left the House, but, not to cause delay, he would promise to furnish a reply on Report.
      Vote agreed to.
      9. £46,806, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland, agreed to.
      10. £65,006, to complete the sum for Supreme Court of Judicature and Other Legal Departments in Ireland, agreed to.
      11. £40,467, to complete the sum for Irish Land Commission.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, there were several matters to which he desired to call attention in connection with the Vote for the Land Commission. In the first place, the Auditor General in his Report pointed out, at the close of a very long correspondence running over several years, that the Land Commissioners had suffered a loss of £16,000 on the Laud Purchase and Settlement Company, Limited, formed in 1883 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Parnell, with the present Attorney General and one of the Members for Manchester on the Board of Directors. The nominal capital of the company was £250,000, but only £4,669 was subscribed; but what the company lacked in capital they made up by borrowing, and under the Tramways Act of 1883 they borrowed £42,300 from the British Treasury. With that money they purchased the Bodkin estate in County Galway; the idea being to migrate people from the congested districts into the open space and to give them larger holdings. Well, as a simple fact, not a single human being was ever migrated to that estate, and the whole policy of the company came to grief. There never was an attempt made to find out the object of the company, and what the Auditor General pointed out was that the company was bound to repay the money in half-yearly instalments, spread over 40 years. The company only paid two instalments and then came to a dead stop, and the Irish Land Commission had been obliged to sell the estate to the tenants at a dead loss of £16,000, and the Auditor General, after three or four years' correspondence, had at last elicited the fact that the loss was due to the Land Commission not seeing that there was sufficient security for the advances made. This was a serious state of matters, and if it had occurred with the tenant occupiers it would have seriously injured the Land Purchase Act. He wished to know if the facts were as he stated? There was another question to which he desired to call attention—namely, the block in the Register of Titles Department of the Land Court. Under the Land Purchase Act of 1885 purchasing tenants were bound to register their titles, but no machinery had been provided for it, and the result was the whole thing came to a deadlock, and under the Act of

      1239
      1885 nothing could possibly be done. The block was so enormous that scarcely any impression had been made, and the purchasing tenant could not borrow money from the Board of Works to improve his holding, or do anything, unless he could prove his title. There were 26,000 or 27,000 cases, and he asked what arrangements had been made by the Government or the officers of the Irish Land Commission to meet this extrordinary state of affairs. The next point to which he desired to call attention was the situation as regarded the fair rent question in Ireland. He noticed that there were on the Vote the salaries of 24 Lay Commissioners. There were absolutely 29 Commissioners at work, but he supposed the doubtful five were not permanent Commissioners. They were, presumably, only brought in for a specific time to do work that was urgent. And in addition to these there were four Legal Commissioners. During the past 18 months the Commissioners had only been able to fix 8,000 fair rents. That struck him as very slow progress indeed. He admitted that the work was being done now more efficiently than it had ever been done before. The original method was a rough-and-ready one; that was to say, the Commissioners ascertained the actual rental and Griffith's valuation, and then heard the statement of the tenant and the proposal of the landlord, and from that hotch-potch cut out the rent. But now the thing was done more carefully. A map was used; the soil of each field was carefully inspected and marked down on the map. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to say whether something could not be done to expedite the work. He had not been able to find out how many cases were listed; but the right hon. Gentleman could, perhaps, tell him how many cases had yet to be dealt with, and to give the amount of the average reductions that had been made during the last 12 months. In regard to land purchase, it was said that the Act of 1891 would never work, but he found that £1,200,000 had been applied for since that measure came into operation. The progress since 1891 had been not quite equal to the progress made under the Ashbourne Act, but they must remember that the present was a time when neither buyers nor sellers were keen to
      1240
      get to work. The buyer was not keen, with the Government of Ireland in an unsettled state, and a measure like the Government of Ireland Bill before the country. He was waiting to see if the Bill passed, and if it would give him better terms. But in spite of that drawback, as he had said, since 1891 upwards of £1,200,000 had been applied for. And now he was afraid he must go back to what the Chief Secretary would regard as an old story—namely, the delay as to land purchase on the Verner estate in his own constituency, to which he had already called the attention of the Chief Secretary. There had been a delay of four or five years. He did not know who was to blame. He only knew it was not the tenants, who had done everything in their power to become the owners of their holdings, which were, many of them, very small, and consisting of mountain land. He hoped the Chief Secretary would be able to tell them to-night whether any progress had been made on that estate in order to bring matters to a conclusion. In the case of Mr. Gunning Moore, of Cookstown, County Tyrone, there had also been gross delay. This gentleman had written to him to say that if he had known there would have been so much difficulty in the transfer of this small property to the tenant, nothing would have induced him to go into the Land Court. He (Mr. T. W. Russell) would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to inquire into that case. Then, there was another question which he thought the right hon. Gentleman must have been turning over in his mind in view of the immediate future. They were now nearing the period when the first of the judicial leases would expire. The Land Act was passed in 1881, and many of the Ulster tenants went into the Court at once and secured their reduction. In the natural order of events the judicial leases running for 15 years would very shortly expire, and he wished to know whether the tenants would have to go into the Court again and enter once more upon this weary round, or whether the Government had any plan by which a proceeding that would be calamitous both to tenants and landlords might be obviated.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, that with regard to the Bodkin estate it was true

      1241
      that the company to which the hon. Member had referred was started by the late Mr. Parnell and a number of other gentlemen, one of whom was a Conservative Member of Parliament, for the purpose of carrying out the work of migration. He did not believe a single subscriber—except, perhaps, one or two small holders—ever expected to get a single shilling out of the Company. It was a mistake to say that no one had migrated to the estate and that no one had got any value out of it. Persons living in the neighbourhood had taken land upon it, and in that way had got their holdings increased. In that way some 40 or 50 tenants received great benefit. No doubt the Company failed, but that was due chiefly to political causes. There was a political agitation at the time—he would not say whether it was right or wrong—and the effect was to put a stop entirely to the inflow of subscriptions. The total sum subscribed was under £5,000, and, of course, it was impossible to carry on the Company with such a sum as that. In addition to that, the Company was seriously handicapped by having to pay a half or a quarter per cent. interest on borrowed money more than was paid under succeeding Land Acts. When the estate was acquired the Company could borrow as cheaply as outside tenants, but in a short time Acts were passed to reduce the interest paid by future borrowing tenants, which Acts did not relieve the Company. The Company was subscribed to to set an example in Ireland, which was very badly needed.
      MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has explained, as far as he could, the circumstances that attended the formation of the Company, which the hon. Member for South Tyrone began by calling attention to. I have only to make one or two observations from the point of view of the Land Commissioners; and, in the first place, I would point out that these transactions took place when not one of the present body of Land Commissioners was in office. The present Commissioners, therefore, are not responsible. It is also fair to the Commissioners of that day to point out that the Commissioners could only make the advance with the consent of the Treasury of the day. The undertaking turned out to be disastrous, but I do not think that any
      1242
      economic or political moral is to be drawn from that failure. It was very unfortunate that a sum of £30,000 should have been thrown away, but the Commissioners of that time and many other persons thought that the proposal of Mr. Parnell presented one opening for solving the Land Question in Ireland. As to the registration of titles, the operation of the excellently designed Act now in force has not been all that we could have desired, or all that it was expected to be. Those tenants who have purchased since 1892 have had the registration provided gratuitously for them, which was not the case with the tenants who purchased before that year. The condition of things now is that out of 24,000 purchasers under the old Act 8,000 have applied for registration; but even in this case there appear to have been difficulties, and a year ago the case was laid before the Irish Government. The Irish Government represented the matter to the Treasury, and the Treasury assented to an arrangement, which has undoubtedly removed somewhat of the sting of the position in which the purchasers anterior to 1892 found the selves. The Commissioners have dealt with 7,000 cases, and although that is not entirely satisfactory the Committee will see that to take away the 7,000 cases reduces the 24,000 to a considerable extent. As to the cases since 1892, owing to causes which it would not be useful to go into now, there arose an unfortunate block; but I can say that arrangements have been made for melting it down; and I hope that by this time next year, though I do not expect that complete registration will have been effected, in both cases all arrears will have been wiped off. The Land Commissioners are as anxious as they can be to facilitate this great operation, and I need not say that anything that I can do in the way of putting pressure upon the Treasury I shall be glad to do. Complaint has been made that the 29 temporary Commissioners plus the four Legal Commissioners have only dealt with 8,000 cases of fixing fair rents; but, surely, when my hon. Friend reflects upon the character of the operations which have to be carried out he will see that that is not an unreasonably small number. The hon. Member asked how many cases of fair rent are now listed. As I understand the matter, on the 31st July there were

      1243
      2,950 fair rent applications undisposed of, in addition to which there were certain current applications, and everyone familiar with the arrears in the decision of fair rent will agree that there, too, the work is going on with reasonable expedition. In the matter of appeals, on the 31st July, 1,406 were outstanding, and the Assistant Lay Commissioners referred to are engaged in valuing in connection with these appeals. The Commissioners do not think—and I must say that I agree with them—that the number of Assistant Lay Commissioners is in excess of reasonable requirements for the work that has to be done. If during the financial year there should be a falling off in the applications, the Commissioners will be able to dispense with the services of the temporary Commissioners now from time to time employed. A question was asked as to the percentage of the reductions in the matter of fair rents. In the case of yearly tenancies, in 1885 it was 18 per cent; in 1887, 31; in 1889,227; in 1891, 21·8. I cannot give the figures for the last 12 months, but for the period between August 22,1891, and March 31, 1893, it was 23 per cent. In the case of leasehold tenancies, the percentage of reduction was, in 1888, 29·6 per cent.; in 1889, 25·8; in 1890, 23·5; in 1891, 23·1; and during the period between August, 1891, and March, 1893, 21·9. As to the delay in purchase transactions, after a good deal of inquiry, I have come to the conclusion that there was a too great fondness for stiff judicial form. Instead of treating the work thoroughly administratively there is too great a tendency for all the forms and paraphernalia of a Judicial Court. In one case mentioned—that of the Verner estate—upon a careful examination of that case, and after a correspondence with Mr. Wrench, the Commissioner in charge of the matter, I am bound to say that the conclusion I have arrived at is that the delay is due to the tardiness of the solicitors employed. The Commissioner has done all that a man could do to hurry on the transaction, and the hon. Member's accusation has no foundation whatever.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I made no accusation. I said I did not know who was to blame—whether the landlord or the Court. I am glad I have found out that it is the solicitors.
      MR. J. MORLEY: As to the second case mentioned by the hon. Member, I had not heard of it before. I will make inquiries into the matter. As to the additional point raised by the hon. Member, this Vote does not concern a series of transactions which can only occur in the year 1895, and I think that it would not be right for me to enter into the discussion of a scheme that may or may not be forthcoming for the revision of the rents fixed under the Act of 1881.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot blame the right hon. Gentleman for refusing to sketch out the Land Bill of 1895. That will be a great undertaking if it is ever entered upon, and I certainly do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to anticipate the labours of either himself or his successors in the year 1895. In Irish landed estate questions sufficient for the day is the evil thereof, and the evil is not usually inconsiderable. In regard to the question of laud purchase, I listened with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I consider with him that the whole energies of any gentleman in his place should be devoted to sweeping away the technicalities which appear always to coalesce around processes in which either solicitors, or those who are much guided by solicitors, are concerned when questions of land transfer come to be dealt with. We want a more rapid, a simpler, and a less expensive process, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will find in the very able men with whom he now works earnest coadjutors in the task he has set himself. As to the delay intenants coming forward with offers to purchase, I do not think he need look far for the reasons. They are evidently not social or economic, but purely political. The Irish Land Question has been so much mixed up with Irish politics, that necessarily, whenever great political changes are discussed in this House, Irish tenants look not to Land Courts, nor to the landlords, nor to the ordinary processes which prevail between landlord and tenant in order to obtain what they desire, but to some obscure gain they think they may possibly derive in the future from this House or from some subordinate Legislature. I hope that whatever may be the future of the Bill to which I have ventured very distantly to allude, it will, at all events, not have

      1245
      the effect of stopping land purchase, which is, to my mind, the one simple satisfactory solution of the Irish Land Question. Anyone who applies even a grain of sand for the purpose of stopping the machinery by which that operation is carried on is performing a very ill service to the tenants of Ireland. As to the Land Registration Bill, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to associate my name with that very important measure. I claimed, at the time the Bill was before the House, and I claim now, no credit for that very fine piece of legislative work, which was entirely carried out by Mr. Justice Madden. The right hon. Gentleman says that certain difficulties have rather hampered the working of that Act, but that he has the matter in hand. I gather that he hopes to be able to oil the wheels of the machine next year, and expects to give a much better report of the proceedings of the Act than he can give at present. There is another question on which I should like to say a word, and which, I think, is of much more importance than the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to attribute to it. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) took up the cudgels in defence of Mr. Parnell's Company for promoting migration in Ireland, and he said that while the Company had been a financial failure, it was not true to assert that it had done no good to the class it was intended to serve, for, although it was a fact that no migration, purely speaking, was carried out under it, the holdings of many persons living on the estates purchased had been increased, and, therefore, the position of the tenants had considerably improved. Well, Sir, I hope that all Irish land reformers will take the lesson of that Company to heart. I believe in it is to be found the whole moral of dealing with the agrarian question in congested districts. There are still those who flatter themselves that migration on a large scale from one part of the country to another is possible, just as there are sanguine individuals who believe that similar operations can be carried out with success in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I fear that neither in the one case nor in the other is any such procedure possible, and, apart from the reasons which are to be found in the habits of the people, there is one economic reason which stands
      1246
      out plainly, namely, that if you are going to bring people from outside into a new district you must build them houses, make fences for them, drain the land, and indulge in general expenditure which they cannot themselves meet. I do not believe that any philanthropic company can ever carry out these operations, and I do not believe the taxpayers of this country will ever assent to carry them out. If, however, you are prepared to proceed on a more modest scale in Ireland, and to buy where you can estates in which there is land which can be added to existing holdings, though I believe such estates will be rare; still, when you can get them, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that you will be able to add to existing holdings such an amount of land as shall take them out of the category of congested holdings, and turn them into farms on which the agricultural population can obtain a decent livelihood. The idea that you are going to cut up grazing farms, that you are going to divide vast estates in Galway and migrate people to them from other parts of Ireland is, I believe, au absolutely vain expectation, which would entail financial bankruptcy on any Company which acted upon it, and evils of even a worse kind on any Government that was rash enough to support it. By all means try every sane and rational experiment for mitigating the evils which prevail in a barren country like the West of Ireland or the West of Scotland, but do not anticipate that such a scheme as that can be satisfactorily carried out. I suppose we have now heard the last of this unhappy undertaking. I am sure that it was entered upon by Mr. Parnell, by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan), and by other Members of this House, and the general public, in the most earnest hope that it would do good to the population whose benefit it was primarily intended to serve, and do not believe that any great mismanagement can be charged to the Company. Under these circumstances, the failure of the experiment points to some fundamental and initial vice in it, and the record of that failure and its cost to this country will remain as a monument of warning and a beacon to those who again take in hand the difficult, perplexed, and thorny questions which attach in Ireland and Scotland to

      1247
      the question of the migration of the people.
      SIR T. LEAthought that very little justice had been done to the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had just referred to. Six or eight persons, including himself (Sir T. Lea), subscribed £100 apiece in order that the question of migration might be fairly tried. They chose an estate in Galway, on part of which there was a congested population, and, as they could not move the houses of the tenants who were congested, they gave portions of the grazing land to each of the tenants. It was an experiment that was well worth trying, because at that time there was a strong, even a violent, feeling on the part of the Nationalist Members that the emigration policy of the late Government was entirely wrong, and that if a successful trial could be made of migration they would be able to prove that the people of Ireland would remain at home to cultivate their own farms instead of going to the other side of the world. The experiment failed, he believed, because the price it was necessary to pay for the land was very high, although be feared that under any circumstances it would hardly have been a success. With reference to land purchase, he took it that the £10,000,000 granted by Parliament had now been pretty well allotted. He wished to know what would be done with reference, to applications when the £10,000,000 were exhausted. Would the repayment of the sums borrowed under the Ashbourne Act go to meet such applications. He wished also to know whether the Chief Commissioner and the Purchase Commissioners were now acting as one body. The Land Act of 1881 was not working as well as could be wished, and he would impress on the right hon. Gentleman the importance of abolishing all unnecessary red tape in the working of the Land Department and of bringing in a Bill to abolish all the unfortunate restrictions contained in the measure of 1871.
      MR. JACKSON: It will be in the recollection of the Committee that under the Act of 1871 Laud Stock was issued. '"It has been frequently stated that Laud Stock is not a very good security, and that that is one of the reasons why the Land Purchase Act is not working satisfactorily. In that Act there is a
      1248
      power by which, with the consent of the Treasury, Land Stock can be exchanged for Consols. Within recent times we have had Consols very nearly at par, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us to what extent the power of exchanging Land Stock for Consols has been exercised. It would be useful for us to know whether those who have taken Laud Stock are so satisfied with it that they have not exchanged it for Consols or whether they have exercised their option of exchanging it; and, if so, to what extent? I have also a word to say with reference to the difficulty of dealing with titles on the part of the Land Commission in regard to Land Purchase. When I was in the Irish Office the question came up, and the Treasury were asked to sanction some additional local assistance in order to deal more quickly with the examination of titles, so as to prevent any unnecessary delay in registration. It was then promised that if the additional assistance were found to be effectual, further assistance would be given in order to what I may call balance the office, because at that time the position was this: The work of the office prior to the stage of the examination of title and subsequent to that stage was pretty well balanced; the only delay that occurred was in connection with the examination of the title. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the delay has now been overcome, and whether the examination of the title keeps pace with the other work of the Department?
      MR. DANEsaid, he considered the explanations in reference to the Land Commission Court were most unsatisfactory. Out of 24,000 purchasers prior to the 1st January, 1892, no single one had had the title registered; while of 3,000 who had purchased since, only 550 had had their titles registered. That was all the work accomplished in 18 months. The Land Commissioners in their Report stated that they applied to the Treasury for assistance, and the only assistance, and but slight aid was given. Certainly they stated that the initiatory steps had been taken in 7,000 out of the 24,000 purchases he had already referred to, but undoubtedly red-tapeism had been carried too far in that Department. The Land Commission Court was responsible to the State for due inquiry into all titles,

      1249
      and to do its work effectually it ought to have a competent staff of men. If the Treasury would not provide such a staff then no Member of the House was entitled to blame the Land Commission or the Chief Secretary. There was nothing like putting the saddle on the right horse in such a case. Would the Secretary to the Treasury inform the Committee what further assistance was applied for, and to what extent it was granted? He quite endorsed the statement of the hon. Member for South Tyrone as to the feeling on this subject which prevailed in the North of Ireland, and the uneasiness which the tenant farmers there felt as to their lot under future land legislation. Under the Bill recently before the House it was arranged that the Land Question should be reserved to the Imperial Parliament for a period of three years, but surely it was desirable that this registration of title should be completed as promptly as possible. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would look at this business from a large-minded point of view, and that he would grant the Department substantial and material assistance to enable it to grapple with the great block in its work.
      MR. J. MORLEY: The late Chief Secretary has asked how far the exchange of Guaranteed Land Stock for Consols has proceeded. I believe, as a fact, there has only been a very small operation; but if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will obtain the required information. The hon. Member who last spoke followed the right hon. Gentleman in pressing for further assistance from the Treasury in the matter of the examination of titles. All I can say is that at the present moment there is no question open between the Land Commission and the Treasury. All the demands of the Land Commission have, to some extent, been met by the Treasury, and, as far as I know, they are wanting nothing. The hon. Baronet asked whether I was thinking of amending defects in the Land Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But the right hon. Gentleman himself said in a previous part of to-night's discussion that it was unreasonable to ask whether I was already turning over in my mind the Land Bill which I might think it expedient to bring in in the year 1895, and I think the same considerations
      1250
      justify me in saying I have not yet thought how the Act of the right hon. Gentleman can be made better. What is quite certain is that some Amendment is necessary, as the central prominent prediction which we made, and which constituted our reason for opposing the Act, has come true. I am told by those who have no political bias in the matter that so long as the landlord is to be paid in Guaranteed Land Stock, and so long as the Insurance Fund is to be exacted from the tenants, so long will the Act work slowly.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the delay in settling matters on an estate in County Tyrone, to which he had drawn attention, was due not to the Land Commission, but to the solicitor to the landlord's agent. The tenants had done their share; the Land Commission had done all in its power, and could not the right hon. Gentleman now do something to get the matter concluded? One party ought not to have the power of causing all this delay; and if it was not possible under the Act to prevent it, then it showed a drawback in the Act itself.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I am pretty sure;hat the Land Commission have left no stone unturned to bring the matter to a conclusion.
      Vote agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed'
      "That a sum, not exceeding £75,093, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Salaries, Allowances, Expenses, and Pensions of various County Court Officers, of Divisional Commissioners, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now let us report Progress. In the whole history of this House for the last 15 years the Irish Estimates have never been discussed so briefly and in so businesslike a spirit as they have been to-night. That has been partly due to the silence of hon. Members from Ireland, who by their cries now show an intense desire to go on with the work; but seeing that the Committee have passed such Votes as those for the Chief Secretary, the Local Government Board, Public Works, and the Land Commission, as well as a large number of minor Votes, I do not think

      1251
      it will be suggested that it is unreasonable we should now ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to report Progress at 1 o'clock.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the amicable spirit in which the discussion has been carried on to-night is a subject for congratulation. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Irish Votes in former times have taken a longer period to discuss, while the hon. Member for South Tyrone asks if there is any precedent for taking all the Irish Votes in one night. I do not know that there is any precedent, but I do not conceive that the hon. Member could bestow a greater blessing on this House, or become a greater benefactor, than by creating such a precedent. I am averse to entering into a conflict on a subject of this kind, because I know the ultimate result is a loss of time. I desire to accelerate the completion of Supply, and I am afraid that if to-night we entered into an angry contest we should not advance that object. At the same time, when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of adjourning at 1 o'clock, I may point out that that is entirely contrary to precedent. I have the figures of what occurred under the Government of which he was a Member, to show what has been the practice on the later days of Supply. In the first year of that Government's administration the House was in Committee of Supply on September 5, and sat until half-past 4; on September 6 it sat till 4.50, and on September 8 till 4.30. In 1889, on August 22, it sat till 20 past 3; on August 23 till 40 minutes past 2, and on Saturday, the 24th, from noon until 9.30 p.m. In 1891 it sat on July 30 till 2.30, and on July 31 till 4 o'clock. During those years the late Mr. Smith was the Leader of the House and he certainly was not a tyrannical Leader. To suggest that we should cease the consideration of Supply at 1 o'clock, or soon after, is to recommend a complete departure from the practice which has obtained in recent years. I submit these considerations to the Committee in perfect good humour, and I hope hon. Members will consent to follow the example of previous years and apply themselves to business till a later hour. I have one suggestion to make which the right hon. Gentleman may be
      1252
      inclined to accept, and that is that we should at least be allowed to take the non-contentious Votes.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, there was a good deal in that suggestion. There were several Voles which, so far as he was concerned, were non-contentious; but there were four or five, such as the Constabulary Vote, which certainly required debating. In former Sessions the Constabulary Vote had occupied two or three nights.
      MR. SEXTON: It is non-contentious now.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the Vote for Irish Education was also contentious.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that although doubtless some of the Votes were practically non-contentious he did not see that anything would be gained by taking them now. They could be disposed of just as quickly to-morrow. The Chief Secretary would not say that any disposition had been shown to discuss any Vote at undue length. He, personally, had abstained from raising several questions which, under other circumstances, he should have discussed.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I think the only contentious Votes are those for Constabulary, Education, County Courts, and Queen's Colleges. I understand we may take the rest.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To a certain extent, I agree it does not matter much whether we take the non-contentious Votes to-night or to-morrow night; but as the Government desire to take them, I shall be the last to raise any objection. Let me just say, on the general statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we cannot take his figures without an examination of the circumstances of each Sitting. In the first place, even if we stop Supply now, we have other business which will probably keep us another hour; and, in the second place, in former Sessions the last hours of prolonged Sittings were usually spent in disagreeable wrangles, and were not devoted to the serious business of Supply. I agree, however, to the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      12. £60,709, to complete the sum for Dublin Metropolitan Police, agreed to.
      13. £78,532, to complete the sum for Prisons (Ireland), agreed to.
      14. £55,702, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Ireland), agreed to.
      15. £3,958, to complete the sum for Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum (Ireland), agreed to.

      CLASS IV.
      16. £605, to complete the sum for Endowed Schools Commissioners (Ireland), agreed to.
      17. £1,445, to complete the sum for National Gallery of Ireland, agreed to.

      CLASS VI.
      18. £3,933, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics (Ireland), agreed to.
      19. £1,621, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Charities (Ireland), agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [13th September] reported, and agreed to.—[See page 1057.]
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
    SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 292.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I do not think I need detain the House in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The Government desire to raise the annual limit of deposits from £30, at which it has stood since 1828, to £100; but, in view of the opposition that was raised to that, we have agreed to make the limit £50. I regret that that step has been necessary. I believe the limit of £100 is strongly desired by the country; but if we had not made the concession, the Bill would have been a controversial Bill, and would have been lost for the Session. I beg to move the Second Reading.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. A. Morley.)
      SIR T. LEAprotested against the Bill, on the ground that it would deprive Irish banks of a large number of deposits. In England it did not matter, because the money
      1254
      came from England, and was invested in Consols. But the Post Office Savings Banks in Ireland would be the means of taking out of Ireland and investing in Consols money which, if placed in the ordinary Irish banks, would be used to encourage trade and agriculture by loans, to farmers, merchants, and traders. He did not propose to move the rejection of the Bill, but would content himself with that protest on behalf of the Irish banks.
      MR. GODSON, said the effect of the Bill would be to draw a large number of small sums of money into the Government net to be invested in Consols. He considered that every inducement ought to be given for retaining as much money as possible in the agricultural districts, where it was so much wanted. From the point of view of the bankers, the Bill was not a good one; but, on the whole, the Government had fairly met them, and they accepted the compromise as to the limit of the annual deposits.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was not surprised at the opposition of the bankers, but he could not help thinking that they were not altogether justifiable in their opposition. The substantial banks did not get the savings of the poorer classes, because they required larger sums on deposit than the poorer classes could command. The poorer classes were, therefore, driven to invest in those Societies of whose failures so much had been heard recently. He welcomed the Bill, as it would tend to prevent the poorer classes being robbed by these Societies in the future, his only regret being that the Government had not retained the limit of £100.
      SIR A. ROLLITsaid that, as a Member of the Inspection Committee, he regretted the Government had been compelled to give way in the matter of reducing the amount of deposits. But as there was no alternative, the Government had acted wisely in agreeing to the compromise. He was sure this increase in the facilities for investing in Consols would greatly benefit investors, and be a source of strength to the State.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  PISTOLS BILL.—(No.425.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. HOPWOOD (Lancashire, S. E.,)said, that if the Government intended to go on with this Bill, in spite of the opposition of their Radical supporters—though it was said that no contentious measure would be taken—he had no choice but to submit the Amendments standing in his name, which were many and important. He would first submit to Mr. Speaker a point of Order. He understood that on the Report stage, if he had Amendments to a clause, he should move those Amendments first, though he intended to move to reject the whole clause. If he were right in that, he would proceed to move the first Amendment, the insertion of the words "other than a householder, for protection of person or property," which was not upon the Paper, and which applied to Clause 1, Sub-section 3.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid he would so put the Question that the hon. Member might speak at first against the whole clause.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, the 1st clause contained the gist and effect of the Bill. He had several objections to make to it. In the first place, he contended that it was absolutely unnecessary; that it was not warranted by the Returns which had been furnished recently at the request of the Home Office; that it was non-effective, and that it attacked the natural right of everybody who desired to arm himself for his own protection, and not to harm anybody else. The Government appeared to think that there were so many accidents with firearms that some such Bill as this was required. But the evidence adduced in support of it was based on three Returns only—one, of the number of accidents arising from revolvers and other firearms which had been treated in hospitals throughout England during 1890–91–92; a second, of the number of Coroners' inquests on such accidents; and the third, of the number of outrages by burglars carrying firearms during five years ended 31st December, 1892. The first Return showed the small number of cases of suicide and homicide upon which the Government were prepared to found this Bill, which should never have been introduced by a Liberal Government, and he did not think it could be proved
    1256
    that in these cases—there were only 19 fatal accidents for three years—the pistols were purchased for the deliberate purpose of destroying life. Were the parties who sold such weapons to be responsible for the actions of those who purchased? In the case of Coroners' inquests, they had only 49 instances. Then, as regarded armed burglars, the statistics available were equally satisfactory from his point of view. The first column showed "No policeman shot," several wounded. The number of burglars who were found with arms not used was small—31—and the number who escaped by use of arms—he was taking a period of five years—was even smaller—18. On the basis of these Returns, which the Government had before them, they were not justified in proceeding with a measure of this kind. If the Bill were to pass, why should they have a prohibition as to children under 18 years of age? There were very few of those present who in their earlier years had not pistols in their hands, and who was the worse for it? He said this grandmotherly legislation was not required, and they should make a firm stand against it, so far as it was in their power as a minority to resist it. They regretted to see this relaxation of firmness on the part of the Government, and one so robust in character as the Home Secretary bring it in. Why should not Englishmen arm themselves? It was natural, and they ought not to interfere with such a right. Why did they not interfere with catapults?—these did more injury than the other weapons. Another objection he had to the Bill was that it was class legislation, tending to create class distinction, and sure to be injurious to trade. The Bill at first proposed to secure to the gunmakers and pawnbrokers a monopoly in the trade. He said the disabilities imposed by the Bill were of a character that the trade should not suffer under. While the Bill prohibited buying and selling, it did not prohibit barter and exchanging, nor lending, nor giving; its provisions were so contradictory that it could not be effective. He did not wish to detain the House, but he thought they should mark their sense of the Government action in introducing such legislation. The Bill had been amended, but the provisions introduced were not such as they could be content

    1257
    with. The provision as to the sale or purchase of pistols really effected no more than the Gun Licences Act did. He pointed out the vexatious restraint on naval and military officers. If any subject of the Queen wanted to buy a pistol or a revolver it was his business and his right to do so without being obliged to sign a document to show that he was an officer. Why were these irritating proceedings to be imposed upon Englishmen? Then, again, they had the provision requiring the production of a certificate from the Board of Trade as to whether a man desiring to purchase was the master or mate in the Merchant Service. Why should that be necessary? Suppose a man wanted to emigrate, he must produce a statement signed by himself, and attested by a Justice of the Peace, to the effect that he was about to emigrate within 14 days from the date of the purchase of the pistol. Was that not irritating, provoking, and absurd legislation? In the case of a foreigner, if he wanted to buy a pistol in this country under this Bill, he would have to produce a statement signed by him, and endorsed by the Consular officer for the country to which he belonged, that he was about to leave the United Kingdom within 14 days from the date of purchase. The clause further stated—
    "A pistol or ammunition suitable only for a pistol may not be sold to a person apparently under the age of 18 years, or bought by a person under that age."
    They were going to protect these young people against themselves, but yet, whilst it was proposed to restrict the sale of pistols, any of these young people could buy half a pound of gunpowder and blow themselves and their relatives up. Sub-section 5 of the clause said—
    "This section shall apply only in the case of the sale of a pistol by any person in the course of trade or business."
    As he had pointed out, any person might barter any number of pistols he liked, and this Bill did not prevent any system of exchange in any form. A man might import pistols wholesale from abroad, and then give them to whom he pleased, and the Bill would not touch him in the least. In another clause it was provided that a person under 18 years of age who used a pistol was liable to be fined £10 or sent to gaol for a month. Just fancy that! Who was to pay the fine—the
    1258
    father or the mother? And who was to be sent to gaol? He supposed the child. Then in this same clause the laws of evidence were reversed. It was provided—
    "For the purpose of this section a person on whose behalf any sale is made by an apprentice or servant shall be taken to be the seller, but such a person will not be liable under this Act if he proves that he has taken all reasonable means to prevent the; committal of an offence against this section."
    The moment he proved his own innocence he was not liable to any penalty. But would it be believed that, although this was a criminal offence, there was no provision in the Bill to enable him to be a witness; therefore he could not prove that he had taken reasonable means to prevent an offence being committed if he had to depend upon himself alone. It was clear the Bill was controversial, and he hoped the House would pause before proceeding with it, and would support him in rejecting this clause, which was a vital part of the measure.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, to leave out Clause 1.—(Mr. Hopwood.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. A. C. MORTONdesired to move the Adjournment of the Debate. It was quite evident this was a contentious Bill, and it ought not, therefore, to be gone on with. The Government had dropped many good Bills, including Bills that would be of use to the country, pleading that for want of time they could not pass them. Another reason for the Adjournment of the Debate was that the present Bill was thoroughly bad, as his hon. and learned Friend had shown, and they ought, at the very least, to have further time for considering it. With a view of obtaining that further time he begged to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)
    SIR W. HARCOURTthought it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had allowed a Division to take place on the clause—a course which would have enabled them to have seen how far the Bill was contentious or not. It was desirable they should know how

    1259
    many Members there were who were really hostile to the Bill, and when they knew that they should know how to deal with the Bill.
    MR. CONYBEAREthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have seen by this time that there was quite enough contentious matter in the Bill to induce several of the Radical Members, at any rate, to fight it with very considerable inconvenience to the House and the Government; therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in the Division which he was inviting, would be satisfied that it would be better to drop the Bill, so that the efforts of the Government might be devoted to some more worthy measure.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 96.—(Division List, No. 306.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he would now like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered the Bill contentious? The minority, though small, were resolute upon the subject.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he was prepared to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he was not disposed to push matters too far, and he would agree to the adjournment of the Debate if the hon. and learned Member would move it.
    COLONEL NOLANmoved the Adjournment of the House. That, he thought, would meet the difficulty.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment before the House is, that Clause 10 be omitted. The Question I have to put is as to the omission of that clause.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to agree to the Adjournment.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question I have to put is, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. W. S. B. M'LARENsaid, he would point out, as a matter of Order, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway had moved the Adjournment of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Motion before the House is with regard to the retention or omission of the clause. The Amendment is, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and negatived,
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. M'LARENwas understood to suggest that he believed the Government and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway were willing that the Debate should stand adjourned.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he was willing that the Debate should be adjourned.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was willing to move that. He only moved the Adjournment of the House, as he thought it would be more convenient.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, there was a little confusion, and to put matters in order he would move, "That the Debate on Clause 1 stand adjourned."
    MR. HOPWOODrose, but—
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question is, "That the Debate on Clause 1 stand adjourned."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION BILL [Lords].—(No. 270.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he would like to understand whether this was a Consolidation Bill, as stated the other night, or whether it was a Bill to amend the law?
    SIR W. HARCOURTwas understood to say it was a Bill to consolidate certain Acts and secure uniformity.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  SALE OF GOODS (re-committed) BILL. [Lords].—(No. 441.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. S. T. EVANSsaid, he understood the Government had agreed to allow Clause 22 to stand over.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,)said, that was so; the question would be dealt with at a later stage.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the object of this was, he presumed, to make the Bill a purely Consolidation Bill.
    SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, he could not commit himself to that. It was principally a Consolidation Bill.
    MR. CLOUGHsaid, he begged to move the following new clause:—
    (Protection of third parties.)
    "Where the possession of goods is delivered by the owner to any person under an agreement for a sale, or for an intended sale, or under any agreement whereby a right or option is given to such person to purchase the goods, and such goods are thereafter sold or pledged by the person so in possession to any person who shall receive possession of the same in good faith, the owner shall not be entitled to recover the goods from the purchaser or pledgee by any process of law or otherwise."
    He proposed to add to the end of the clause the words—
    "Except on payment by the owner of any amount which the purchaser or pledgee may have paid or advanced on the delivery of such goods to him."
    He offered in justification of his clause the statement the Attorney General had just made to the House—namely, that this was not simply a Codification Bill. To explain the clause, he would point out that a purchaser under a hire agreement might obtain goods—say, a watch, although it might be any article from a wedding ring to a piece of furniture—and being a person of limited means might desire to raise money on it. He took it to the pawnbroker. The hire trader insisted on the payment of the instalments when due, and a default in such payments having occurred he followed up the watch, and insisted on the purchaser either paying the instalment or returning the article. The purchaser
    1262
    had to declare that the article was not in his possession; then the pawnticket was demanded, and the hire trader went with it to the pawnbroker and insisted on the article pledged being given up. Here they had three parties to the transaction, the pawnbroker being the third. At present the pawnbroker, under such circumstances, was bound to deliver up the article pawned, and had no remedy against the person who had pawned it. He was deprived of his security, and his only remedy was to commence an action for fraud. This showed the necessity for the new clause. He maintained that the pawnbroker, under these circumstances, had a right to be protected by law, his having been a perfectly legitimate trading transaction. If the article was worth more than the third party had advanced on it, let the hire trader pay the money so advanced; but it was evidently most unjust that the person who had advanced money should be compelled to give up the article, and that the hire trader should get back the article, and enjoy the money already paid on it in the shape of instalments. The hire trader ought to bear the loss, his remedy being against the purchaser whom he had trusted with his goods. Many persons obtained goods under the hire system, and after paying one instalment pledged the goods which were afterwards claimed by the hire trader, who made the pawnbroker no restitution whatever. This mode of doing business opened the door to fraud. It was an inducement to persons without money or with small means to incur liabilities which they had no means of meeting. The clause covered not only pawnbrokers but auctioneers, and he held that the former class particularly, who were the poor man's brokers, had as much right to be protected as bankers who held bills of exchange.
    Clause brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENThoped the Attorney General would accept the clause.
    SIR A. ROLLITdid not intend to oppose the clause, but thought it raised

    1263
    highly controversial matter. He thought it should be amended, so that an inequitable advantage could not be taken of the person owning the goods. But he was of opinion that the state of things contemplated by the clause was already, to some extent, met by the Factors' Act.
    SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, he could not accept the clause. With certain modifications, there was a good deal to be said in favour of it, but, on the other hand, it certainly raised most highly controversial matter. It raised the question of rights of property under the hire system, and as the Bill was substantially one for consolidation the proposal could not now be entertained. The matter, as had been already pointed out, was dealt with, to a certain extent, in the existing law, which was reproduced in Clause 25 of the Bill.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  COLONEL NOLANmoved to disagree with the Lords Amendment which substituted the words "What is the least percentage," for "as nearly as he can."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): I think my hon. and gallant Friend has not quite apprehended the object of the Amendment. The clause relates to warranty respecting the sale of fertilisers. When the Bill was in another place the Lord Chancellor made a criticism to which there seems to be no answer, that the words "as nearly as he can" are inconsistent with the notion of warranty Accordingly, on the Lord Chancellor's Motion, the words "What is the least percentage" were substituted. Of course, it will always be open to the person giving the warranty to fix the standard as low as he likes.
  Lords' Amendment agreed to.
  Other Amendments agreed to.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.—(No. 446.)
  Read a second time.
  Resolved, That it is expedient that the Merchant Shipping Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.—(Mr. Mundella.)
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution, and desire their concurrence.

  MADRAS AND BOMBAY ARMIES BILL [Lords].—(No. 413.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

  PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.
  MR. S. T. EVANSsaid, he wished to know, now that the Motion for Adjournment was made, as soon as Government Business was disposed of, what became of the Bills which were placed below the Government Bills on the Paper? He would suggest to the Government that they might go through them one evening, so that they might be placed on the Paper for the Autumn Sitting.
  MR. SPEAKER: Under present circumstances they are promoted, so to speak, from day to day. The suggestion of the hon. Member is for the Government to consider.
  MR. S. T. EVANSsaid, it was impossible to give instructions to the Clerk at the Table, as the Orders were not called on.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member could defer a Bill to a later date at the commencement of Business—after the Private Business is disposed of at the commencement of the Sitting.
  MR. FIELD: Will this Closure be continued?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,): Yes.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Three o'clock.