Commons Sitting of 22 March 1894

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

NEW WRIT ISSUED.
For Lanarkshire (Mid Division), v. John Wynford Philipps, Esq., Chiltern Hundreds.—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.)
QUESTIONS.

  THE SADDELL TENANCY DISPUTE.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the ease of Neil MacDougall, of Saddell, who obtained a decree against his landlord through the Court of Session for the destruction of his house in 1889, but without an order for costs against the defendant; and whether, under these circumstances, the landlord is entitled to detain the amount (£40 1s. ld) on account of costs incurred in his defence, or whether he is bound to pay the money decreed to the plaintiff by the Court, and pay his own costs out of his own pocket?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J.B. BALFOUR,): I have no knowledge of this case, but from the statements in the question it appears to involve a dispute between two private individuals in regard to a money claim, a matter with which I have no power to interfere.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Is not the unsuccessful party to an action bound to carry out the order of the Court?
  MR. J. B. BALFOURwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

  HOUSES OF ILL-REPUTE IN LIVERPOOL.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the Report for the year 1893 of the Head Constable of Liverpool, and to the statement there in that, although during last year 831 houses in that city were convicted as brothels, it, has been found impossible, owing to the inadequacy of the present? law, to render a single owner or agent of such property responsible for its use, or even for its continued use, for immoral purposes; and whether any representations have leached him from the Watch Committee of Liverpool regarding the urgent necessity for an alteration in the law on the subject, if owners and agents who allow their houses to be used for such purposes are to be made amenable; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take immediate steps to remedy the present state of things by the introduction of a Bill on the lines suggested by the authorities at Liverpool or otherwise?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): My attention has been called to the Report of the Head Constable for Liverpool, and the statements in question as to disorderly houses in that city, and I have received a representation from the Watch Committee, which has received careful consideration; and, after consulting with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, I have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to legislate on the subject, as, in my opinion, the law is at present sufficient to meet these cases if properly and rigorously administered.

  TRESPASS PROSECUTIONS AT DINGWALL.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that, in the case of trespass for game tried on 13th February last before I Sheriff Hill at Dingwall, in which Baron Middleton of Applecross was the plaintiff, and William Mackenzie, Ardneaskan, was defendant, the only witness for the prosecution was a game watcher named Macbeath, who admitted that his knowledge of English was very limited, while

  859
  Sheriff Hill, who sentenced Mackenzie, had no knowledge of Gaelic; and whether there is any interpreter attached to the Court House at Dingwall; if not, whether it is proposed to engage the services of competent interpreters at those places where Sheriffs are ignorant of the language of the people?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I communicated with Ross-shire when this question appeared upon the Paper, hut I regret to have to say that a reply has not yet been received, and I must therefore ask my hon. Friend to postpone the question.

  FOOTPATHS IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is now prepared to state the result of his inquiry into the condition of affairs in the Park District of the Island of Lewis, where, owing to the non-completion of footpaths, huge numbers of children are unable to attend school during severe weather; and whether he is aware that the children of Grimshader and Cromore have been withdrawn from school for want of footpaths?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): As I have already stated in reply to the hon. Member, the large proportion of £2,000 out of the £3,000 grant to Ross and Cromarty was allocated to the Island of Lewis. The expenditure of this special grant was entrusted to the County Council, who elected to devote £1,033 to the construction of footpaths to schools, including those at Grimshader and Cromore, in the Parish of Lochs. The responsibility for the proper expenditure undoubtedly rests with the County Council. Upon inquiry, I regret to learn that the present attendance at some of the schools is not so good as it should be, but I fail to see any reasonable cause, as the approaches to such schools arc, with the assistance which has been rendered, in a better position than they were last year, and the winter season is over. In the new Local Government Amendment Bill I propose to give power to enable County Councils to construct cart roads, footpaths, and footbridges in accordance with the provisions of the Roads and Bridges Act, 1878.

  INVERGORDON FERRY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Rules and Regulations governing the management of the Invergorden Ferry are disregarded by the lessee; that passengers using the present ferry boat incur great inconvenience and risk; and that the landing piers are in a dangerous condition; and whether it is proposed, in the forthcoming Local Government Bill for Scotland, to provide that this and other ferries, as well as piers, in the Highlands, now in the bands of private individuals, shall be placed under the control of the County Councils?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have not received any representation in regard to the management of Invergordon Ferry referred to by the hon. Member. I propose to deal with the regulation of ferries in the Local Government Amendment Bill.

  OVERCHARGES ON THE CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY.
  MR. J. STUART: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a case, which is reported in The Standard newspaper of 31st January last as having been hoard in the Queen's Bench Division, in which a passenger sued the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway for 4s., being the sum charged in excess of the maximum authorised by the Company's Acts between Victoria and Calais on an ordinary first-class ticket, and in which the money was paid into Court by the Company; whether he can state what number of passengers travelled between Loudon and Calais by this route during the year 1893; whether he will take steps, under the provisions of 7 & 8 Vict., c. 85, s. 17, to prevent such overcharge in future; and what are the Acts under the provisions of which the Company's charges are made?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I have seen a report of the case referred to by my hon. Friend. The Board of Trade are not in possession of the necessary information to enable me to reply to paragraphs 2 and 4 of the question. With regard to the legal pro-

  861
  ceedings, I am informed by the Railway Company that the ease is still subjudice, and it would appear From a newspaper report that the Court has made an Order which enables the plaintiff to obtain a decision by a more convenient method than that provided by 7 & 8 Vict. The powers of that Act should only be used in very exceptional circumstances.

  POLICE COURT PROCEDURE.
  MR. OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of "Pridham v. Jennings," heard before the Magistrates at Stratton, North Cornwall, on Monday the 12th instant, where the prisoner, accused of a trifling offence, elected to be tried summarily, and was so tried, pleading not guilty: the Bench disagreed, one Magistrate saying the accused ought to be discharged, and left the Bench, followed by another Magistrate: the two remaining Magistrates committed the accused to take his trial at Bodmin Quarter Sessions, a long distance from Kilkhampton, where the accused and his witnesses live, and without railway communication; and did the Magistrates act within their powers by committing the accused after trying him with his consent under the summary jurisdiction procedure; and, if not, will he take steps in the matter?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have inquired into the facts of the case referred to, and find that the circumstances are not quite accurately stated in the question. It is true that the Magistrates at first intended to deal with the case summarily with the consent of the defendant, and that subsequently they determined to commit for trial. I am advised that in so doing the Magistrates did not exceed their legal powers, and that the previous determination to deal with the case summarily does not render the subsequent committal for trial void. It is, of course, a serious irregularity that a man should be committed for trial without the caution required by law being administered to him, and his Statement, if any, taken down in writing; but it is open to the prisoner to use in his defence this or any other irregularity by which he may have been prejudiced. I see no ground for interference at the present stage of the proceedings, which will, no doubt, go on in due course of law.

  THE PROCURATOR FISCAL OF LOCHMADDY.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I bog to ask the Lord Advocate if he has seen a copy of the correspondence between the Procurator Fiscal of Lochmaddy and Sir John Campbell Orde, proprietor of North Uist, and his agents, regarding a residence for the former at Lochmaddy; whether he is prepared to take any steps to adjust the matter in dispute; and whether a landlord has power by law to deprive a public official, who must live in a certain locality, of the right to a suitable residence on his estate?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I have seen a, copy of the correspondence referred to, and I gather from it that Sir John Orde declines to give the Procurator Fiscal a feu on which to erect a house. This appears to me to be very unfortunate, but the question of providing residences for officials in the Highlands is a large one, and would require legislation, as there is no other way in which a proprietor could be compelled to grant ground for such a residence.

  BARLINNIE PRISON.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the intention of the Government to build an addition to Barlinnie Prison, to hold 260 prisoners, although there is accommodation for more than that number in the existing prison buildings in Scotland, if prisoners were more equally distributed among the different prisons; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will consider the advisability of utilising existing prisons by distributing prisoners more equally among them, instead of erecting new buildings while existing ones are not full?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: It is not proposed to enlarge Barlinnie Prison beyond the number of cells originally intended—namely, 1,000, that is, 200 more than at present. It is very desirable that prisoners should be detained in their own districts, and frequent removal of parties of prisoners to distant prisons is opposed to the policy of the 1877 Act, and the course hitherto adopted in regard to the re-arrangement of prisons in Scotland.

  FINNOR POSTAL FACILITIES.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain what is the cause of the delay in establishing the post office at Finnor promised by him last June?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The authority for establishing a post office at Finnor, County Westmeath, has been cancelled under circumstances which I recently explained in a letter to the hon. Member for North Westmeath.

  RAILWAY FACILITIES BETWEEN DROGHEDA AND DUBLIN.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the Memorial recently presented to him from a considerable number of the inhabitants of Balbriggan and the surrounding district for permission to the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland to run a passenger carriage with a goods train from Drogheda to Dublin, whether he will reconsider his refusal to grant the prayer of the Memorial referred to, in view of the fact that the company are willing to carry out the suggested arrangement, that that arrangement would involve a saving of time and money to a considerable mercantile community, and that a similar arrangement was till recently in force without any injurious consequences in the shape of railway accidents?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I consulted the Railway Inspecting Officers upon the Memorial referred to by the hon. Member, and they were unanimously of opinion that it is most objectionable to attach a passenger carriage to a goods train. I am, in consequence of this advice, unwilling to take the responsibility of acceding to the prayer of the Petitioners. The Memorialists should consider whether it is not more expedient to urge the Railway Company to give additional facilities than to press the Board of Trade to revoke an Order made for the protection of the public.
  MR. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman take into account the character of this railway?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I can assure the hon. Gentleman we are most anxious to do everything we possibly can to meet the convenience of the inhabitants, but
  864
  we look on these mixed trains as most dangerous.
  MR. CLANCY: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that no accident occurred when a similar arrangement was in force?
  MR. MUNDELLA: A Paper will be laid on the Table showing accidents which have occurred under these arrangements.
  MR. CLANCY: But there have been none on this line?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot say that.
  MR. CLANCY: If none have occurred, will that alter the right hon. Gentleman's attitude?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRELAND AND THE NEW REGISTRATION BILL.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the new Registration Bill will apply to Ireland, or whether Irish Registration Law will be dealt with in a separate measure?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I think it must be the desire of the Representatives of Ireland of all sections that the question of Irish registration should be dealt with in the measure that applies to England, and therefore the President of the Local Government Board will propose to introduce into the English measure a provision for the amendment of the Irish Registration Law. But I do not want to commit myself absolutely on the point.
  MR. CARSON: Upon what ground does the right hon. Gentleman state that this is the desire of all sections of the Irish Representatives? I am not aware that any opinion has been expressed on the point.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understood that that was so, but perhaps I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.
  MR. CARSON: And the hon. Member for Longford!
  MR. MACARTNEY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the fact that the Irish Registration Law is totally different from the English and the Scotch, and is most complicated at the present moment?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The complication to which the hon. Member refers is a very good reason for trying to simplify the law. But I think the hon. Member should wait till he sees our attempt, and finds whether our provisions meet the Irish case before he takes objection.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complication to which I have alluded is the result of attempting to amend the Irish Registration Law in English Acts?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not aware of that.
  MR. DARLING: I should like to ask whether the Bill will apply to England and to Ireland in the sense that it will establish the doctrine of one vote one value?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member must see that the time for raising questions of that kind is when the Bill is brought in.

  HILLTOWN TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I bog to ask the Postmaster General whether he will make inquiry as to the desirability of establishing telegraph service with Hilltown, which is an important centre in the County of Down?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The question of an extension of the telegraphs to Hilltown was considered in 1891. It was then found that it would not be remunerative, and it could not, therefore, be carried out except under a guarantee, which was not forthcoming. I shall be glad to make renewed inquiry on the subject, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  FIRING IN HIGHLAND SCHOOLS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whet her his attention has been called to a statement, contained in a speech delivered at Staffin Skye on the 9th instant by the Rev. Duncan Mackenzie, to the effect that, although the Education Department had decreed the exaction of peats from children attending public schools to be illegal, he had repeatedly during this winter met voting children of six and seven carrying peats to school: and whether he will inquire into this alleged infraction of the order of the Department?
  SIR. G. TREVELYAN: The speech to which the hon. Member refers gives
  866
  no particulars, and does not state the name of any School Board in the district of which the rule has been contravened. If any such contravention is brought to my knowledge, I shall call the attention of the School Board to the rule.

  CULCH ON THE ESSEX FISHING GROUNDS.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been informed of the recent collision between fishermen of Tollesbury and those of Burnham, in Essex, who were removing culch from, the public fishing ground, to the great detriment of oyster culture thereon; and whether he is aware that the Crown is the owner of the soil of such ground; and, if so, whether he will advise the putting in force of the Crown rights to protect the public grounds from such depredation in future?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have heard with regret of the collision which has taken place between certain fishermen of Tollesbury and Burnham. It has not, however, as yet been possible to ascertain the full particulars of the occurrence and the precise locality from which the culch is alleged to have been taken, but I am making inquiries.
  MR. DODD: Assuming that the Crown is the owner of the soil on these grounds, will the right hon. Gentleman enforce the Crown rights?
  MR. MENDELLA: I can say no more till I have the details before me.

  THE CANADIAN CATTLE TRADE.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Colonial Department has communicated to him the representations of the Canadian Government as to the freedom of the Dominion of Canada from pleuropneumonia in cattle; and, if so, whether he will issue an Order forthwith, allowing cattle from Canadian ports to be landed without being subject to slaughter or quarantine?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,: I received the Papers to which my hon. Friend refers on Friday last, and I am giving my most careful consideration to the representations by the Canadian Government which

  867
  are contained therein. There are, however, one or two matters still upon which I wish to receive information from the Dominion Authorities, and until this is available I shall not be able to say definitely what course it will be my duty to take in the matter. I quite recognise, however, the desirability of my decision being made known at an early dale, and I have written to the Colonial Office to ask that I may receive the information in question as speedily as possible.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House the Papers relating to this matter?
  MR. H. GARDNER: When I have received the answer from the Colonial Office I shall be glad to consider whether the Correspondence can be laid on the Table.

  GRESHAM UNIVERSITY DRAFT CHARTER.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill for giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Gresham University Draft Charter, or to take any other steps in relation thereto?
  MR. ASQUTTH: The recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Gresham University Draft Charter are receiving the careful attention of the Government, but the question as to giving effect to them must depend to a certain extent upon the unanimity shown by the different bodies interested in accepting the recommendations.

  THE GUBERNADOR ISLAND FATALITY.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Marshal Peixoto have given compensation for the deaths of the three British officers who were killed by the deliberate explosion of a magazine on Guberuador Island in November last?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The Brazilian Government have not given any compensation, but, as has already been explained, we have no
  868
  evidence to show that the explosion was an act of deliberation.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has the request for compensation been refused by the Brazilian Government?
  SIR E. GREY: I stated on a previous occasion in this House that the question of compensation would have to be dealt with when the civil conflict in Brazil came to an end. The only addition I can make to it is that we have no evidence it was an act of deliberation.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Are the Government prepared to press this question of compensation?
  SIR E. GREY: I have said the question of compensation is reserved to be dealt with when the present civil conflict comes to an end.
  SIR; F. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Then it is not settled yet?
  SIR E. GREY: No.

  PAPERS ON SIAM.
  SIR. E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the promised Papers with regard to Siamese affairs will be issued to Parliament?
  SIR E. GREY: I can only refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in this House yesterday, and that we are waiting to lay the Papers until we are quite sure the proceedings connected with the alleged murder of a French official has come to an end.

  POST OFFICE SAYINGS BANK WITHDRAWALS.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state the number of Savings Bank withdrawals by telegraph during each month since the introduction of the system, and the average interval between the application of the depositor and the payment of the sum withdrawn?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The new arrangements for withdrawing deposits by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank came into operation on the 1st December last. The number of withdrawals in December was 1,228, in January 1,446, and in February 1,798, making a total for the first three months of 4,472 withdrawals. In 3,774 cases repayment was required on the same day. The average inverval between the application of the depositor and the payment of the money

  869
  was 38 minutes in London, and between 50 and 60 minutes for the rest of the United Kingdom.

  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to whom Questions relating to the proceedings of the Charity Commissioners should he addressed pending the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner in succession to the hon. Member for Merionethshire; and when such appointment is likely to be made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The appointment of a Parliamentary Charity Commissioner in succession to the hon. Member for Merionethshire will very soon take place, and in the meantime my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council will answer in the House of Commons questions concerning the Charity Commissioners.

  THE ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that no copy of the Army (Annual) Bill can be obtained in the Vote Office: and whether he proposes to ask the House to read a second time a Bill which it has never seen?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): I have ascertained that there are no copies to be obtained, but for the information of the hon. Member I may say—what the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out last night—that the Second Reading stage of the Army (Annual) Bill is exempt from the ordinary considerations. It is a stage which has never been opposed in this House, and I will repeat my promise of last night that the Committee stage will be put down after Easter. That is the proper occasion for making changes in the Bill, and on that stage the matter can be discussed. Copies of the Bill will, of course, he available for hon. Members before that.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman proposes to ask us to read a second time a Bill we have not seen, will he undertake that the Committee stage shall not be taken after midnight, but at some hour when there may be adequate discussion?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes.

  SEA FISHKRIES BILL.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask if the Government have yet considered the Report of the Sea Fisheries Bill, and when it is intended to introduce legislation?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The recommendations of the Select Committee on Sea Fisheries involve very important principles and also an International Convention, and I am not prepared, in the existing pressure of legislation, to state at present when legislation on the subject can be proposed.

  THE IRISH LAND ACTS.
  MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he proposes to take the discussion on the Select Committee on the working of the Irish Land Acts?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I quite understand the desire of the hon. and learned Member that this matter should not be rushed. I will undertake that the discussion on the question of the Select Committee will not be taken before the first week after Easter.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): I am sorry to have to ask the indulgence of the House, but I desire to make a statement partly personal to myself and partly affecting the Department which I represent in this House. There is a letter of a, very unusual character from a Member of this House (the Member for West Belfast) in The Times to-day. I have nothing to do with the first part of that letter, in which he refers to a Motion which stood in his name on the Navy Estimates for Monday and Tuesday nights. He says it was the only one passed over. I may remark that according to the Forms of the House there was only one Motion that could be put. That Motion was negatived. Hon. Members who wished to deal with other Motions duly rose in their place to catch the eye of the Deputy Speaker, but I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Belfast did so, or what measures he

  871
  took to call attention to the subject. The Motion was as follows:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the information given to Parliament by the Parliamentary representatives of the Admiralty with respect to naval matters is misleading and unsatisfactory, and is not calculated either to inform Parliament or to promote the welfare of the Royal Navy."
  The hon. Gentleman, in his letter to The Times, says this—
  "What I desired to point out was briefly this —that without, I believe, one single exception every answer which has been given to me during the last eight months by representatives of the Admiralty has been absolutely at variance with the facts, has been calculated to mislead the House of Commons and the country with regard to important matters of fact, and has to my knowledge misled and misinformed many persons."
  I think that the House will agree with me that the letter is of an unusual character for any Member of this House to address to a newspaper, and I do not know how many newspapers, with respect to the representative of a Government Department in this House. I am not going to discuss the matter now. I have given notice to my hon. Friend that I intended to take notice of his letter in the House to-day. I am sorry that the notice given was necessarily brief, and that he is not in his place. I wish to say, first of all, that before I give an answer to any question in this House I always endeavour to sift the matter to the bottom and obtain the best information that I can. Of course, I am dependent on the very trustworthy officials of the Admiralty for the information that I give to the House in reply to the numerous questions put down. My hon. Friend alludes specially to an instance of a question which I answered in respect to the Royal Marine Division at Chatham. With regard to that particular instance, I had the advantage, I may inform the House, of seeing the Colonel Commandant at Chatham, and subsequently I saw the Deputy-Adjutant-General of the Royal Marines, and thoroughly satisfied myself that the facts which I gave the House were correct. I saw the Deputy-Adjutant-General of Marines again today, and I am able to stand to the answer as not having been misleading, but absolutely accurate from beginning to end. I really do not need to say more than that, except this—that I was perfectly prepared on Monday and Tuesday
  872
  evenings to meet my hon. Friend on the subject of his Motion, and if he will do that which I think should be done when an imputation of this kind has been made on any Member of this House, if he will bring the matter forward in the House, I shall be prepared to meet him and substantiate the answers I have given.
  SIR H. JAMES: As a matter of indulgence, I should like to say that I am quite sure my hon. Friend did not impute to my right hon. Friend anything personal in the statement he has made as to the information being accurate. I believe he is not in London and has not received the notice forwarded as to this matter being mentioned. When he returns, I have no doubt he will be prepared to offer an explanation, which I hope will be satisfactory.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether in the case of a Motion being brought forward relative to the insufficiency of the answers the right hon. Gentleman would procure an opportunity for discussion?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE COOTEHILL GUARDIANS AND THE LABOURERS ACT.
  MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the majority of the Guardians of Cootehill Union have persistently refused to make a scheme for providing suitable dwellings and allotments under the Labourers Acts; whether several labourers have frequently asked the Local Government Board for an inquiry under the provisions of the amended Act; is the Local Government Board aware that three-fifths of the elected Guardians are in favour of making a scheme; and whether the Local Government Board, after the proceeding of the Guardians on 23rd February, will order an inquiry forthwith?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have been informed that the Guardians of this Union have up to the present time declined to act on representations made to them under the Labourers Acts. Complaints from individual labourers have occasionally been received by the Local Government Board, but it was only during this month that application was made for an inquiry under the provisions of Section

  873
  5 of the amended Act. The Board is not aware that three-fifths of the elected Guardians are in favour of making' a scheme, but a proposal for such a scheme was defeated at a meeting of the Guardians by 13 votes to 11. The question of holding an inquiry in the district will, on the receipt by the Local Government Board of certain documents which they require to be furnished with by the Guardians, be considered.
  MR. KNOX: Is it not the case that in the Cootehill Union, as well as in the Bailyborough Union, there are a large number of non-elected ex officio Guardians who are opposed to the administration of these Acts; and will he, taking the serious reports as to the condition of labourers' dwellings in these Unions into consideration, endeavour to increase the number of popularly-elected Guardians?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will direct the attention of the Irish Local Government Board to the matter.

  THE DE FREYNE EVICTIONS.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether compensation has yet been paid to those evicted tenants on the De Freyne estate whose goods were confiscated by members of the Constabulary; and, if not, will he direct that no further delay be allowed to take place in the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, in reply to a question on the same subject on the 21st of December, stated that inquiry had been directed with a view to ascertaining whether the charges preferred against the police had any foundation in fact. These charges have been carefully investigated on the spot by the Divisional Commissioner, who is the highest officer in the district, and he has arrived at the conclusion that there is no foundation for them. I concur in the opinion that the case against the police has been disproved after examining this officer's Report and the statements made by the persons concerned. It is a fact, however, that one constable was charged with larceny while on patrol duty. He pleaded guilty, was convicted and punished, and dismissed the Force.

  THE IRISH CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return of the number and names of the persons employed in the High Court of Justice in Ireland who have attained the age limit fixed for retirement in the Civil Service?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have given instructions that a letter be written to the hon. Member stating there would be no objection to a Return of the kind asked for if moved for in the usual way. It will be necessary to substitute for the words following "in Ireland" the words "above the age of 65 years."
  MR. HAYDEN: I will make that change.

  LOANS TO IRISH TENANTS.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain why a tenant farmer in Ireland, the Poor Law valuation of whose holding is £7, could obtain a loan of £50 from the Board of Public Works for the improvement of his holding two years ago, but cannot now obtain more than £21?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): it is true that for a certain period anterior to 1891 a tenant-farmer could have obtained a loan of £50 on a farm valued or judicially rented at £7, but this under conditions. The highest loan permitted since 1891 was £35, or five times the valuation or judicial rent, and a loan to that amount can still be obtained on a £7 holding if one of three conditions is fulfilled, namely: (I) If the landlord postpones rent to the Board's loan; (2) if satisfactory collateral security is offered; (3) if the rent is so low as to be virtually nominal. If none of these conditions are fulfilled, the limit of the loan would be three times the valuation or judicial rent, but, as the minimum loan permitted under the Land Law Act is £35, no loan of £21 could be granted.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not inadvisable that the Irish people should be allowed to suffer owing to the action which the House of Lords have taken. Can the right hon. Gentleman afford the House an opportunity of considering the question?
  SIR J. T HIBBERT: We have been anxious to secure an amendment of the law by which the loan could be secured on the holding in view of the possibility of evictions.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Were the alterations made in the conditions under which loans are now granted to Irish tenant farmers sanctioned by any change in the law?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The alterations were made on the authority of the Treasury.

  THE CONVICT MICHAEL WALSH.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will be explain why it was that a, convict named Michael Walsh was removed in a dying condition from Mountjoy Prison to the Mater Miserecordia Hospital, Dublin, about a month since, receiving 15s. out of £3 10s. earned by him while confined, and that he was discharged in prison clothes, which he is still wearing; whether it is usual to give prisoners civil outfit and all their earnings on discharge; and, if so, why was this man differently treated; whether he is aware that this man is anxious to go to his family in America; whether it is usual to give discharged prisoners means to go to their relatives on discharge; and will he order that suitable clothes be supplied to this man at once, and that the balance of his earnings in prison be given to him, and that be will be provided with the passage fare to America when sufficiently recovered to undertake the voyage?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The General Prisons Board inform me that it is not a fact that the convict Walsh was removed to the hospital in a dying condition from Mountjoy Prison. The medical officer of the prison states that on the convict's removal he was quite fit to be removed, though he was suffering from pneumonia. The gratuity payable to him was £3, not £3 10s. as stated in the question, and out of the former amount he received 15s. on his discharge, the custom being to hand to the convicts portion only of their gratuities on their discharge, and to remit them the balance when they have returned home. I think the hon. Member will see that there is some prudence in not paying the full gratuity until the prisoner has returned to his home.
  876
  The object of this arrangement is to prevent men suffering from reaction on their discharge after long imprisonment frivolously squandering the whole of their gratuities. He was not discharged in prison clothes, but in an outfit of Irish tweed. He did not say to the Governor of the prison that he intended to emigrate. It is the practice to defray the expenses of the convicts to the place of their arrest or conviction, or any other place which they may select which would not involve greater expense. In the present case, Walsh has not applied for his travelling expenses, but as soon as he does so they will be provided in the ordinary way. The Prisons Board have no funds at their disposal to defray the cost of his emigration to America, but I may add, however, that, in addition to the 15s. given to him on his discharge, the Governor handed over to him a sum of £5 private cash, which, though speaking from memory, I am inclined to think was sent him from America.

  LUNATICS IN BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of additional nurses and officials appointed to the lunatic department of the Belfast Workhouse since 1st November last; also the number of deaths in the lunatic department since that date, and the number on which inquests have been held; whether the epileptics are still kept in the lunatic department, and if the Local Government Board has instructed the epileptics to be so kept there; whether, at a recent inquest on an epileptic who died in that department, held in Belfast, the coroner's jury strongly protested against this practice; whether he will state by what authority epileptics are placed there, or lunatics kept tinder restraint in the workhouse; whether he is aware of the practice of exchanging patients carried on between the workhouse authorities and the Governors of the asylum at Belfast; and if some inquiry will be made into the whole system in relief of these helpless afflicted persons?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I regret that I am not in a position to reply to-day to my hon. Friend's question, as I have not yet received from Ireland the Report for

  877
  which I have called. Perhaps, therefore, the question will he put down for a future day.

  BALLINA LIGHT RAILWAY.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the construction of the Ballina and Killala Light Railway, a deviation from the deposited plans has been made—namely, in ending the line and erecting the terminal station at the Killala end, 250 yards short of the point shown on the plans; if so, why the line as constructed has been approved of by the proper authority, and whether that authority will now recall its approval and compel adherence to the deposited plans?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is provided in the Second Schedule of the Order in Council, paragraph 3, that the company shall construct the—
  "railway in accordance with the deposited plans and sections. as modified by the working plans and sections," &c.
  The line is constructed in accordance with these latter, which have received the approval of the Board of Works. The change of the station site was made because, in the opinion of the Board, the new site was more convenient for the town, more economical as regards construction, and better facilitated the working of the line.

  TOWN PARKS IN IRELAND.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the general dissatisfaction in Ireland, particularly in Ulster, with reference to the present state of the law relating to town parks; whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Land Commission in the case of Mrs. Letitia M'Cann, tenant, and the Marquess of Downshire, landlord, wherein the village of Dundrum, County Down, Which had a population of only 372 in 1881, was decided to be a (own to which the exemption from the benefits of the Land Acts applied; is he aware that the Land Commission had previously decided that Dundrum was not such a town at the passing of the Act; whether he is aware that the Cowper Commission recommended that the exemption should not apply to any town under a population of 5,000, and that the late Government
  878
  accepted in the House of Commons, in the Land Act of 1887, an amendment providing that the exemption should not apply where the population was under 2,000; and whether some steps will be taken to preserve to tenants in towns in Ireland their property in such lands held outside the towns? At the same time, I may ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the large number of tenants in Ireland whose holdings have been exempted from the benefits of the Land Acts; whether his attention has been called to the ease of Mr. John Robb, of Belfast, tenant, and the Marquess of Downshire, landlord, where the Land Commission decided to fix an extra rent on the improvements made by the tenant, without any contribution from the landlord, on the ground that such improvements were too good for the holding: and whether the terms of Reference to the proposed Committee will be so extended as to include inquiry into the cases now excluded by the defects of the Land Acts, but which are equally entitled to the benefits which these Acts were intended to confer on all the farmers of Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the Judicial Commissioner is at present absent from Dublin hearing fair rent appeals. There has not been sufficient time to communicate with him in the country since the questions were put on the Paper, and. therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will postpone them.
  MR. SEXTON: I should wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether cases of the class referred to in these questions would not come within the scope of the proposed Committee to inquire into the working of the Land Acts?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have not considered that question, and I would rather not answer off-hand.

  BELFAST ASYLUM.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a strong feeling exists among the Governors of the Belfast Asylum in favour of having the asylums of Belfast and County Antrim managed under one Board of Governors, as suggested before the Committee of this House on the Belfast Asylum Bill: and whether, considering the advantages to the patients likely to arise from this course, the Local Govern-

  879
  ment Board will take into consideration the advisability of carrying it out?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that at a recent meeting of the Board of Governors of the Belfast Asylum a proposal to consider a scheme for the management, under the joint control of the Town Council and the Grand Jury, of the present city asylum and the new county asylum for Antrim was negatived by 10 votes to 7. Under the provisions of the Belfast Asylums Act (1892), which constitute the city and county separate asylum districts and requires the appointment of separate Boards of Governors, it would not be competent for the Board of Control to sanction the re-amalgation of the two districts; but the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, I may observe, are of opinion, so far as their judgment goes, that the amalgamation of the two districts would not be advantageous.

  THE EVICTIONS ON LORD DILLON'S ESTATE.
  MR. HAYDEN: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice. Is he aware that eviction proceedings were commenced yesterday against the entire population on a portion of Lord Dillon's estate in County Roscommon; that although many of the tenants were not in arrears of rent, yet several families were evicted; that three of these families have been refused re-admission even as caretakers; were the police present at the evictions; were the forces of the Crown used for the purpose of protecting emergencymen engaged in throwing down houses; and will the right hon. Gentleman, in order to prevent further proceedings of this kind, endeavour to have the Second Reading of the Evicted Tenants Bill taken before Whitsuntide?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not in a position to give; an answer in detail as to the transactions that took place yesterday. I am aware generally that these proceedings were announced, and that police protection was required, and was granted, as the law obliges us to do. The particulars about so many families having been evicted, and so forth, I cannot answer, as there has not been time for me yet to receive any details. The police, I presume, were present at the evictions. The forces of the Crown
  880
  have not been used to protect emergencymen in throwing down houses in other cases, nor will they in this. I cannot say whether we shall have the Second Reading of the Evicted Tenants Bill taken before Whitsuntide, but, of course, I shall do the best I can to press the measure forward.

  ADJOURNMENT (EASTER).
  Resolved, That this House at its rising this day do adjourn till Saturday next, and at its rising on Saturday do adjourn till Thursday, 29th March. That on Saturday, as soon as the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill has been passed, Mr. Deputy Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put.—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.')
ORDER OF THE BAY.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution [21st March] reported.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1894–5 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,199,768, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1895, viz.:—[See page 789]
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that although he had no desire to detain the House for many minutes, yet he wished to call attention to one or two matters which he was precluded from mentioning on the preceding day by the Rules of the House. In the first place, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend the new First Commissioner of Works if he would consider the advisability of appointing a Select Committee with regard to the offices in Parliament Buildings. He thought the dining, smoking and other rooms might very well be re-arranged, and if the whole question could be systematically considered by a Select Committee having the plans of the building before it, and if, too, some of those now residing on the premises could be induced to give up their residences, changes greatly in the interest of the general convenience might be effected. Many improvements were required, especially in connection with the Reporters' Gallery and rooms. Some sanitary matters also required attention, and he therefore hoped he would receive a promise that this question should be

    881
    considered even if no definite undertaking were forthcoming that a Select Committee would be appointed. The next matter to which he wished to refer was as to the Commission instituted by Act of Parliament in 1812 for the management of business connected with the House of Commons. So far as he could understand, that Commission had not been in the habit of meeting. Certainly it did not, under these circumstances, do much harm, but of course it did no good, and he would suggest the appointment of a Select Committee to deal with the question. There wore precedents for this course, such Committees having sat in 1833, 1835, 1836 to 1849, and it need not therefore be suggested that the appointment of another Committee would be an undue interference with the Act of Parliament constituting the Commission. Of course, a very different state of affairs to that existing in 1812 now prevailed. At that time there were many offices which were now non-existent. Officers were allowed to appoint deputies to do their work for them, and there were extraordinary methods of paying them. Hut that bad all now been altered, and simple business arrangements were the rule. But the great fault of the present system was that there was apparently no one who had control over or could answer questions in the House relative to these matters. He wanted to know if the Government would allow a. Select Committee to be appointed later on to consider the question? He thought that some of the lower class of officers in the House of Commons— the men at the bottom of the list— were not properly paid at. the present moment. This was a matter that ought to be considered, with the view of paying them a little better for the amount of work they did. He had intended to have a discussion upon the appointment of the Kitchen Committee and the nomination of the Members the other night, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that the Motion for its appointment would be brought on at a reasonable hour. As a matter of fact, it had been brought on exactly at 12 o'clock. He found that a Select Committee was appointed to deal with the subject of refreshments in the House in 1849, although the Kitchen Committee was then in existence, and he did not see
    882
    why a similar course should not be adopted now. There was, he found, general complaint with regard to all sorts of things. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh; but if they wanted all the things enumerated, from cabbages to champagne, he could enumerate them for them. He had been asking for some years that the Kitchen Committee should issue a balance-sheet. He had placed a Notice on the Paper on the subject, and the late Chairman (Mr. S. Herbert) of the Committee had told him that he would object to giving any balance-sheet. The Committee made a Report about the cud of December, and since then they had not held any further meetings, but had allowed the kitchen and refreshment-rooms to run themselves. He wanted to know why they should not have a detailed balance-sheet. For a number of years the House had been voting £1,000 a year to the Committee, and they were, therefore, entitled to a balance-sheet. But whether they voted money or not, they had a right to an account of the receipts and expenditure of anything connected with the government of the country or the management of the House, with the exception of the secret service. He was of opinion that the Secret Service Fund should cease to be secret, but, however that might be, he wanted to know why the proceedings of the Kitchen Committee should be on a par with the Secret Service Fund. Was there anything that should be hidden or concealed from hon. Members? Was there anything that was wrong going on? His experience of the management of public funds told him that as surely as there was secrecy there was something to conceal. He should like some assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would allow a Return to be made, whether the Kitchen Committee liked it or not.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I would point out to my hon. Friend that the Kitchen Committee and other Committees do not stand on the same footing as Her Majesty's Government. We are here to be attacked and denounced, and if we conceal things of course it is supposed there is something wrong. That is our mission in life.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I did not attack the Government. I said the Government always gave particulars.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I would point out that the Kitchen Committee is a gratuitous Committee, whose Members are kind enough to give their services to this House. We are extremely grateful for those services. They do their work, I am quite sure, as well as they can, and when they have taken a great deal of trouble on our behalf I am not disposed to criticise or interfere with them. If a Return is not made I think it is entirely within their competence to deal with the question. The Government, however, are not responsible for the Kitchen Committee or for the viands which they supply. I disclaim all responsibility for the action of the Kitchen Committee, although as a Member of the House and a Member of the Government I wish to tender my thanks to them for the trouble they have taken. As regards the accommodation in the House, my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works will answer my hon. Friend's observations. On the subject of that celebrated "Commissioner," my hon. Friend has at length got hold of the right Minister by the ear. I am the Minister who am the Commissioner. The real truth is that these matters are substantially conducted by the Speaker, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There have been no formal meetings, but every matter affecting the officers of the House has to be settled by the three persons I have named. I am not aware myself of any ground for complaint. If the House is dissatisfied with the arrangements made respecting the staff of this House they can deal with the matter when the ordinary Vote is taken. I do not think there is any occasion for any complaint of the kind. I think the arrangement satisfactory, and I am not aware that the majority of Members have any reason to distrust the method by which the present system is administered. If my hon. Friend is, however, able to make out a ease for inquiry that is another thing. My hon. Friend apparently has in view a rise of salaries. Of course, he cannot expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sympathise with such a proposal.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I only referred to those officers who are at the bottom of the list.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I know nothing myself of any matter in regard to the organisation of the staff of the House which is not satisfactory, and therefore, as at present advised, I cannot see that there is any particular occasion for action.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): I came down to the House prepared to answer a question that was to have been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield (Colonel Howard Vincent), and to say that, having regard to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the present President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Shaw-Lefovre) last year, and to what, I think, is the prevalent feeling in the House at the present time, I shall be prepared, on the part of the Government, to assent to the appointment of a Committee to consider the general question of the accommodation of the Members of this House. No doubt, that Committee will be able to take cognisance of the points raised by my hon. Friend.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: That Committee will have power to consider the whole question?
    MR. H. GLADSTONE: Yes, that is so.
    MR. CREMERsaid, he regretted that the question of the increased grant to the Kitchen Committee had been raised at a time when everybody was anxious to get away. Some time ago a question was raised as to the advisableness of abolishing the "tipping" of waiters in the dining-room. [Cries of "Oh !"] He was sorry that anyone should express dissent, because to him and to some others the question was of great importance. He had never known a body of men who lived on "tips" who had anything like manliness or independence about them. When a Sub-Committee was appointed a short time ago it was decided that before a serious attempt was made to abolish "tipping" the waiters should have their wages raised. A deputation then waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), who promised to grant £1,000 in addition to the £1,000 already annually granted, on condition

    885
    that the "tipping" system was abolished. The wages of the waiters had since been raised 1s. a day all round, hut the "tipping" system still continued in existence. As the condition on which the extra grant was promised had not been carried out, he felt himself justified in joining his hon. Friend in protesting against any increased grant being given from the Imperial Exchequer until that condition had been faithfully and honourably fulfilled. A body of hon. Members continued to tempt the waiters by offering "tips," and some of the waiters had told abominable falsehoods, to the effect that they had not had their wages raised and that they were being made martyrs of. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that the extra £1,000 should not be granted unless "tipping" were abolished, he (Mr. Cremer) would be glad to withdraw any further opposition to the Vote. As to the question of a balance-sheet, it seemed to him that when the House voted money for any purpose it had a, right to know how that money was expended, and ever since he had been a Member of the Kitchen Committee he had urged that a financial statement should be made by the Committee. This had not yet been done, but he hoped hon. Members would insist upon having it done, especially if an increased grant were made.
    MR. CLARKsaid, he did not see why money should be voted by Parliament to the Kitchen Committee at all. Hon. Members ought to pay the full price for their teas and dinners. The Chairman of the Kitchen Committee (Mr. S. Herbert) two years ago when the question was discussed said he would take the money voted by Parliament and spend it as he liked without giving the House any statement as to how it had been spent. If hon. Members voted money to themselves, as they were doing in this case, an account of the way in which it was spent ought certainly to be given. He hoped the Committee would be able to abolish "tipping" by paying the waiters proper wages. He begged to give notice that when the Vote was taken he should oppose the grant of an extra £ 1,000. The Kitchen Committee did not tell Members what the money was for.
    MR. CREMER: Yes they do. The money was asked for to enable us to
    886
    increase the wages of the waiters and to abolish the system of "tipping." My complaint is that the wages have been increased 1s. a day and yet the system of '"tipping" still prevails.
    DR. CLARKsaid, the House had never been told what the money was for; whether it was for wages or whether it was needed because the price of teas had been reduced from 9d. to 6d.
    MR. CARSONsaid, he desired to call attention to what, as reported, seemed to him to have been a very unprovoked attack by the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley) on one of Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland on that day week. The statements of the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought were entirely unfounded, had led to a good deal of discontent amongst many people in Ireland, and were calculated to weaken the administration of the law in that country.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member will not be in Order in dealing with that question.
    MR. CARSONsaid, he was sorry he could not refer to the subject, but he would call attention to the administration of the law in the County of Clare, out of which the matter arose. Mr. Justice O'Brien, at the last Clare Assizes, pointed to what seemed to be a very alarming state of facts with reference to the administration of the law in that county. The House was asked to vote a very large sum for public prosecutions in Clare, and he (Mr. Carson) wished to point out that those prosecutions had hitherto proved absolutely abortive for the purposes for which they were instituted. Since the present Government came into Office there had been three Assizes held in Clare. At the Spring Assizes in 1893 seven cases were tried—a very small number compared with the amount of crime there had been for the previous six mouths in the county. Out of the seven eases there was only one conviction. Mr. Justice O'Brien, referring to this fact, said that the law had entirely failed to bring the offenders to justice in spite of every care and vigilance used to attain the result. On the matter being brought before the House the Chief Secretary for Ireland made some very disparaging remarks about Mr. Justice O'Brien. He (Mr. Carson) rather thought the right hon.

    887
    Gentleman afterwards regretted having made those remarks. It must he remembered that Mr. Justice O'Brien was the one Judge in Ireland who, owing to the arduous duties he had had to perform, was obliged to have police protection. It was to be deprecated that a Cabinet Minister, a Minister of the Crown interested in the administration of the law in Ireland, should in any way lend himself—even assuming there were any grounds for so doing—to an attack on a Judge under such circumstances as these. This Assize passed over, and the Summer Assizes came on when the trials were before an entirely different Judge. He had not the figures before him of what took place on that occasion, but in the Summer Assize of 1893, so far as he could recollect, there was not, in any important case, any conviction, and Mr. Justice Gibson said that in trying cases there they were engaged in a solemn comedy, and that such a travesty was perfectly melancholy. At the Assizes which had just closed Mr. Justice O'Brien said that—
    "It was not possible to bring any criminal case into that county without it resulting in open contempt of the law."
    The net result of these three Assizes at Ennis was that there was no important conviction, and only three altogether. It might be said that he had omitted to mention that at Cork, under the Winter Assizes Act, there had been 11 Clare cases and seven convictions. But what did that prove? It proved that when they had a change of venue and tried Clare cases elsewhere, they got a fair percentage of convictions, and he could not understand a stronger argument for putting in force those powers of change of venue which still existed than the argument that at the recent Winter Assizes at Cork they got seven convictions out of 11 cases, because the cases had been taken from the intimidation that existed in the County of Clare. He thought that when the Judges in Ireland were bold and free enough to draw the attention of the Executive of the country to the failure of juries to carry out the law, which, he said, came within the duty of the Judge—when they had the courage and boldness to do this, and had the manliness to discharge their duty, so far from being met with any opprobrium from those who were entrusted with the supervision of law and order, they ought to receive the
    888
    commendation of those who were in high quarters. He could not imagine anything more likely to lead to a recrudescence of crime or to disrespect of the law than attacks on Judges, and the right hon. Gentleman would best consult his own dignity and the material welfare of Ireland if, instead of attacking Judges when they were compelled to draw attention to the failure of Juries to do their duty, he would back up the Judges and try to find some method by which crime might be punished and the law respected.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The hon. and learned Gentleman has so concluded his remarks that I have no right to complain in any way; but I say, in what the hon. Gentleman has had to say about Clare, I really fail to see what point he has brought against myself or Her Majesty's Government. He evidently intended to refer to are mark or two which I had occasion to make on the Charge of Mr. Justice O'Brien the other day, but into that we are not allowed to-day to go. The hon. and learned Gentleman has gone over ground which has already, I should have thought, been abundantly traversed ever since the present Government came into Office; the state of Clare has received more attention from this House than almost any other factor in regard to the condition of Ireland. I think there were four or five elaborate Debates on Clare last year, and I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has adduced one single new consideration throwing any light whatever on the attitude the Government ought to take up. I have not by me the figures as to the convictions in the County of Clare, but I will take the hon. and learned Gentleman's account as substantially accurate. It is no doubt lamentably true that out of the total number of offences of a certain kind committed in the County of Clare very few persons are made amenable. It is further true that at the Winter Assizes at Ennis, in the County of Clare, there have not been as many convictions as the Crown would desire, or as any impartial person might have hoped for, but, if my recollection is right, the four eases in which the jury failed to convict were not cases of that particular crime as to which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, miscarriage of justice almost systematically occurs. I believe I am right in

    889
    this. The hon. Member talks of the prosecutions that have been proved abortive since we came into Office, but I believe I should have no difficulty in showing, if I had the figures by me, that we have been as successful in securing convictions in the County of Clare, that we have obtained as good a percentage as was the ease with the late Government.
    MR. CARSON: We never got any in Clave, and gave up trying them there.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Well, I will take my own ground, and that, if I may say so, is the ground on which I lake the liberty of quarrelling with the line taken by the learned Judge at Ennis. It cannot be denied that the state of Clare has since December has: shown a marked and decided improvement. Now, the learned Judge seemed to deny that proposition, and I would undertake to say that there is not a single man of authority and responsibility in Clave, beginning with the Lord Lieutenant of the county himself, and ending with the humblest private constable, that there is not; one person with the means of judging and forming a responsible opinion, who would not tell you that the state of Clare shows a decided and remarkable improvement. In the month of December there were only four agrarian offences in the County of Clare. I do not make any boast of that. I never like to make any boast about Clare, because there might be a recrudescence of crime in Clare next month or the month after; hut what I complained of was, that instead of congratulating the county on the improvement that had taken place, and which had undoubtedly taken place in Clare during the last four months, instead of congratulating the Grand Jury on the position of the county or of saying nothing about it, the learned Judge unfortunately thought it his duty to represent the state of the County of Clare as rather showing no improvement. I say it is not the duty of a Judge going Assizes to express opinions upon the general social state of the county, when those opinions are in entire disaccord with the views of those who are responsible for what goes on, and whom, I contend, from the Lord Lieutenant of the county down to the humblest private constable, will show there has been a marked improvement. The hon. and learned Member made some remarks in vindication of Mr. Justice O'Brien himself. I have nothing to say
    890
    against those remarks; he is the last Judge on whom I would wish to pass any hostile criticism; hut when the hon. and learned Member says we ought to be careful in criticising the action of Judges hold enough and free enough to express their opinions, and that when we do that we are tending to disparage the administration of the law, then I distinctly and diametrically differ from the hon. and learned gentleman. There are many Judges on the Irish Bench who dislike and condemn these general social Charges, and think that a Judge would do far more to bring the administration of the law into respect if he steered as clear as he possibly could of disputed ground and political controversies. It is the Judge who imports into his Charge, which ought to be cold and judicial, political considerations, and who identifies the administration of the law with a certain set of political opinions which tends to make the administration of the law suspected and disregarded. I do nor think I have passed over anything calling for a reply. If it had been in Order, I should have been prepared to justify every remark I have made, by reference to chapter and verse upon the Charges of Irish Judges.
    MR. WEIRsaid, that yesterday he had, by the Rules of the House, no opportunity of referring to matters which he wished briefly to deal with. The first matter had reference to the Fishery Board. It would he in the recollection of the House that the (pies-lion of trawling off Ross-shire and the Island of Lewis had been brought up time after time during the existence of the present Government. He had brought it forward himself, and had been told there was no money in connection with this work. The fishermen had been told that they ought to report any trawlers they might see to the official of the Board at Stornoway. But how could these men be expected to walk 30 or 40 miles? A gunboat, the Foxhound, had been sent, which could steam only six or seven knots, while the trawlers could go at 12; and, moreover, it lay in Stornoway Harbour for weeks because it could not face the weather, which, however, did not keep the steam trawlers idle. Last year he found that £1,400 odd was returned to the Treasury by the Fishery Board, and he hoped that the Secretary for Scotland would this year take care

    891
    that the whole of the money granted was expended in connection with the work of the Fishery Board, and mainly in connection with trawling. He wished also to refer to the Board of Supervision. A few years ago the Secretary for Scotland admitted it was a very unsound and badly-managed Board, and required new construction. He would like to know whether anything had been done in that direction, or was it going on in the same sluggish fashion. He would also like to know whether Sir Donald McNeil was connected with the Board, and whether he was not the same man who associated himself very actively, two or three years ago, with the colonisation scheme, which was a, scheme promoted by commercial speculators? He would not, however, deal further with the Board of Supervision, which was a very unsound and a very corrupt Board to-day— [Cries of "Oh !"] It was shockingly bad, and so corrupt that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of it in that manner.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): No, never.
    MR. WEIRsaid, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it was unsound and badly managed.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: But you said corrupt.
    MR. WEIRsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman did not say it was corrupt he (Mr. Weir) did. Then there was a very large item for law charges. When he had spoken on these in connection with Highland matters, the Lord Advocate had shown the greatest ignorance of the geography of the Highlands. When he showed that a man had to travel on foot, in connection with a poaching case, from 30 to 35 miles to Dingle, and the same distance homo again, the right hon. Gentleman persisted in saying it was only a distance of six or eight miles. He would really appeal to the Government to furnish the right hon. Gentleman's Office with an ordnance map, in order that these stupid blunders might not be made. Further, be bad occasion to ask what number of Gaelic-speaking Sheriffs, Procurators Fiscal, and other officials there were in the Highlands; be asked for a Return, and was told it was not in the public interest that it should be supplied. What was there that it was necessary to keep dark? But he had obtained the
    892
    information in spite of the right lion-Gentleman, though he did not think that Members of the House should be called upon to spend their time, their energies, and their money in getting information that was available to the Departments of the Government. He hoped that the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland when other appointments were made of Sheriffs in the Highlands would take care that Gaelic-speaking men were appointed, and that Edinburgh advocates should not be pitchforked into these posts by the Lord Advocate, men who bad no knowledge of Gaelic or of the customs of the people of the Highlands. He did not think it was right that the Highland people should be treated in this manner. Perhaps to-day he might get some explanation as to the case of John MacLean. This was an old man who was 80 years of age, and on the 19th of July last he was charged with allowing trout to get into his net. [Laughter] It was not a laughing matter. If the trout was earmarked as the property of the landlord, then the fisherman could give instructions for it to keep out of his net. This man was not summoned to Dingle, a distance of 30 or 35 miles, until winter time, and that could only be in order that he might be convicted in his absence, as it would be impossible for him to walk that distance in the winter. That was bow the Lord Advocate allowed these matters to be conducted in the Highlands of Scotland. He found that three of the Sheriff's received £450 for services to the Board of Supervision —he supposed £150 each—and he wished to know why they were on the Board of Supervision at all, when what was wanted were men with a. knowledge of sanitary matters, and not lawyers? Talk about tipping in the dining-room of the House of Commons! why tipping was carried out by the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman to an alarming extent. Even the fiscals were paid by salary and commission. What did they get commission on; was it the number of convictions they managed to secure, or what was it? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what they paid these Commissions for? The whole system, it appeared to him, of the administration of the land in the Highlands was one of trickery and jobbery.
    SIR G. TREVELYANwas certainly surprised that any gentleman should

    893
    have accused him of having' charged the Board of Supervision with being corrupt. He should have as soon expected to hear Mr. Speaker rise in his chair and charge the officers of this House in being corrupt. He never used, with regard to the Hoard of Supervision, any of these adjectives. He said that the members of the Board of Supervision did their duty with great knowledge, experience, zeal and energy, hut that the system was one which was not well organised, and that he intended to alter the system by a Bill which he proposed to introduce on Monday week next. The hon. Gentleman referred to the want of protection against trawing in the Western Highlands. Hut in England there, was no protection at all. In Scotland that sort of protection existed, hut was deficient in quantity. In no case could they expect to have a gunboat, or steam launch, or police launch, every 20 or 30 miles along the coast so as to obviate the necessity of the fishermen keeping their own eves open, so as to report illegal trawling to the ministers of justice, who existed for the purpose of receiving complaints of private individuals on land and sea alike. It was not the ease at all that this system had failed in being efficient, because quite recently a fine of £50 was inflicted on a trawler in these seas, and any case brought. before a Procurator Fiscal would be looked into carefully. It was quite true that a sum of money had been taken to provide an additional steamship for protective purposes this year, but it was impossible for him to break through the well-recognised financial system under which the Government was carried on, and because there was £1,300 or £1,400 unexpended on a Vote of £20,000 or £30,000 to seize that money, and utilise it for a purpose quite different to that for which the money was obtained. As regarded the complaints of the hon. Member about justice in the Highlands, he did not know even what the hon. Member meant. He had no notion what the hon. Member meant by saying that Sheriffs, Deputy Sheriffs, and Procurators Fiscal lived by the process of tipping and pilfering. When he knew that he would inquire into the matter, but until then he should not do the Sheriffs and Procurators Fiscals the ill compliment of defending them against the accusation of tipping and pilfering. His own belief
    894
    was that the general administration of justice in the Highlands was, on the whole, trusted by the great mass of the population, and to their judgment he left it.
    Resolution agreed to.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.—(No. 116)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he did not wish to oppose the, Bill, but he did wish to say that his right hon. Friend promised that the Bill should be obtainable in the Vote Office before——
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have explained that.
    MR. A. C. MORTONwas aware of this, but was not satisfied with the explanation that had been given. It was all very well to say they ought to allow the Bill to be read a second time without Debate. As he understood it, the Bill concerned the comfort especially of the private soldiers, and whether the Government liked it or not they would be compelled in the future to take more notice, of the comfort and convenience of the private soldiers than they had done before, because even if the soldiers could not vote their friends could. Now that the franchise had been extended the friends of the soldiers would take more interest in such questions, and would insist that in future the soldiers should he better looked after. As the Bill largely concerned their welfare, comfort, and perhaps even their lives, they ought, before the Second Reading, to know if the Bill contained any new matter.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. Friend has asked me whether there is any new matter in the Bill this year. There are only two or three Amendments of a purely verbal kind, merely of this nature—to insert the year 1893 instead of the previous year where reference is made to some previous Act of Parliament which was altered last year. There is just one exception to these verbal Amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh brought forward a Motion last year enabling soldiers to be assisted by counsel when they were tried before District Courts Martial. J have promised to introduce a

    895
    wind or two in order to carry out that which was obviously the intention and the wish of the House. That is entirely in the direction of extending the comfort and welfare of the soldiers, so that I do not think the hon. Gentleman will object. That is the only alteration. The main point is this—this is a Second Reading which affirms the principle that the law is to be applied to a certain number of soldiers and marines of the numbers voted by Parliament. The question before the House is the principle of the Bill. When we come to the Committee stage my hon. Friend may raise any objection he likes, but this is not the time to do so.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESdid not think, after the undertaking which had been given that they should have a proper opportunity of discussing the Bill on the Committee stage, that there should be any opposition to the Second Heading. At the same time, he did not quite agree that the Second Beading of a Bill of this kind should be considered absolutely a matter of course.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not say so. If the hon. Gentleman objects to applying military law to the whole force of the Crown, that is the point.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, it was, of course, rather a serious matter, because it deprived nearly 250,000 of our subjects of their civil rights. He did not say it was not a thing to be done, but it was a serious thing, especially in the case of a Bill the Second Beading of which was to be passed sub silentio, and which had not yet been printed. He thought, however, that upon this occasion the Bill should be allowed to pass the Second Reading in consideration of the undertaking that in Committee there should be a proper opportunity of discussion.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday, 29th March.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Hill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Hoard relating to the urban sanitary districts of Bristol, Dover, Henley-upon-Thames, Idle, Nottingham, Padiham and Hapton, Tunbridge Wells, and Wells (Somerset), ordered to be brought in by sir Walter Foster and Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 122.]

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Saturday.
    House adjourned at ten minutes after Four o'clock till Saturday.