Commons Sitting of 14 February 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.

LONDON VALUATION AND ASSESS- MENT BILL.
Order for First Reading read.
SIR H. JAMES: I desire to ask your judgment, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order affecting this Bill—whether this Bill is a fit subject to be introduced into this House as a private Bill. I do not now ask you to fix any definite rule as to what constitutes a public Bill; it is difficult to form an exact rule, but I respectfully suggest to you that this Bill clearly goes beyond the line which divides private from public Bills. In the first place, although, without doubt, it only refers to London, it affects 5,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects. It is, moreover, stated in the Preamble that it is introduced for the, purpose of forming a common basis of Imperial and Local Taxation. It also proceeds to change entirely the law as to the mode of assessment for rating and

707
taxation, it abolishes the jurisdiction of a Court which has hitherto administered the law, and creates a new tribunal of an entirely different character. But there is one reason why I especially call your attention to this matter. This Bill repeals five public Acts of Parliament, and once you get a private Bill repealing a public Act, you are treading on most dangerous ground. The Bar Committee have remonstrated with the Lord Chancellor on the practical inconvenience to anyone connected with the law of this course being taken in the case of Bills of such importance. If a public Act repeals a public Act, we can turn at once to our digest, but on library contains all these private Acts, and, therefore, students and practitioners who are not acquainted with the proceedings of the House never know whether there has been any repeal of a public Act by a private Act. The Court takes no judicial notice of private Acts; they have to be given in evidence like any other document. This Bill offers a most flagrant example of the evil to which I have referred; and I am sure great practical evil will follow in the administration of the law under this Bill if it is dealt with as a private measure. I respectfully ask your ruling as to whether this Bill ought to be treated as a private Bill.
MR. J. STUART: The proceeding the promoters of this Bill have taken is, they believe, similar to that taken on the London Streets and Buildings Bill, which was passed through this House as a private Act last Session; and in that Bill a number of public Acts were repealed. In that case the difficulty about public and private Acts was met, as the House will recollect, by an entry on the Public Statute Book, to the effect that that Act had been passed and others repealed by it. The present Bill proposes to deal in the same, way with the question of the assessment and valuation of property in the Metropolis. With respect to the assessment of London there have been special London Acts, such as the Metropolis Valuation Act of 1869. The general law of 1862 is undoubtedly dealt with to some extent in the present Bill, but the relation of London to that general law is not altered by any provision of the Bill, and I submit that this case is practically on all fours with the
708
Streets and Buildings Bill. The alterations of the powers of a corporation, the constitution of a local Court, and the assessment of the poor rate are, I submit, fit subjects for a private Bill if other things are in order. This Bill was drafted in consultation with the majority of the Local Assessing Authorities of London, and the contention upon it will not be found to be widespread, while a large portion of it is very generally approved. When the substance of this Bill was introduced into the House last Session as a public Bill, considerable objection was taken, on the ground that the local interests with which it dealt could only be adequately represented by the right of appearing, by counsel or in person, before a Committee upstairs. The Bill affects the quinquennial valuation of London, and I believe oil all sides of the House there is a desire for uniformity in that matter. Hitherto, no doubt, Bills of this class affecting London have been introduced as public Bills, but I submit that the real reason of that has been that London has no representative authority interested in all parts of it to take up such Bills. I submit that the procedure on private Bills insures justice and full examination of the subjects dealt with, and that in such a complicated matter as this it is really for the public convenience that it should be dealt with by the methods of private legislation.
*MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the inquiry of the right hem. Gentleman, I have to say that the question now raised is one of great importance, because it touches on the question of what should be the scope of, and the interests involved in, a measure introduced into this House as a private Bill. I observe that this Bill in its Preamble professes to repeal certain specified Acts, and I have to observe that all those Acts were introduced into this House as public Bills. It further proposes to amend and to incorporate the provisions in a Bill introduced last year, touching the Metropolis, which Bill was also introduced as a public Bill. I am far from saying that, because a private Bill affects public Bills and repeals public Acts, that that is always a fatal objection to its being introduced as a

709
private Bill. But we must consider the scope of the public Acts which a private Bill proposes to repeal, and in this instance the Acts proposed to be repealed are of such vast magnitude and cover such a vast area that, I think, there are objections to the Bill being proceeded with as a private Bill. The Bill covers the whole of the Metropolis, and, though it does not quite follow from all precedents that a Bill affecting the entire Metropolis must necessarily be introduced as a public Bill, still I think that a review of these precedents will establish the conclusion that Bills affecting the Metropolis should, as a rule, be introduced as public rather than as private Bills. There was, it is true, in 1857 a Thames Navigation Bill, which was introduced as a private Bill; but, on the other hand, there was a Weighing of Corn (Port of London) Bill in 1864, which was introduced, and properly so, as a public Bill, seeing that it covered an area extending over nearly four counties and affected a population of 4,000,000, and also an extensive foreign trade. In the year 1889 the Coal Duties Bill was introduced as a public Bill. I may here remark that, when the Thames Navigation Bill was introduced in the year 1881 as a private Bill, objection was taken on the score of the multiplicity and vastness of the interests involved, and the private Bill was given up and was re-introduced as a public Bill. In 1890, on the London County Council Bill, there was objection taken on the ground that certain clauses were thought to be too large to be included in a private Bill, and they were expunged. If I am asked whether any clauses might be expunged from the present Bill, and the Bill so brought properly within the scope of private Bills, I should say that nothing of the Bill would be left, because the whole Bill is of such vast importance that it is impossible to separate the clauses. But more than that, this Bill contains clauses altering Acts which affect not only local rating, but affect
710
also the basis of Imperial taxation. That is another very serious objection. Whether railways would be affected by the Bill is a moot point, but it is one which should clearly be discussed in this House, as to whether the altered mode of assessment of railways would affect the status of railways within the Metropolitan area. I mention that, to show that the interests involved are much more than local, that they cover Imperial taxation as well as local rating; and if I am told that the Bill is a local Bill I am bound to reply that it is local only in the sense in which a Bill that applies to Scotland or Ireland may be called a local Bill; I should say that the magnitude of its scope, the area touched upon, the interests implicated are so vast that I think full publicity should be given to the Bill, and that it should go through all the stages of a public Bill, and when it is placed on the Statute Book it should be accessible to all as in public Acts, and not placed among those which are merely local and personal. On these grounds, therefore, looking to the magnitude of the area, the magnitude and multiplicity of the interests involved; looking to the fact that a new jurisdiction and a new Court of Record are sought to be created in the matter of assessment, apparently doing away with an appeal; looking to the interests involved; to the fact of the repeal of public Acts, which have been themselves introduced as public Bills; and looking to the great interest of the Metropolis, I think full publicity should be given to the Bill; and, in my judgment, it would be unwise and improper to introduce it as a private Bill. In these circumstances, and for these reasons, which I hope I have not stated at too great length to the House, I have no doubt upon the matter, and am of opinion that the Bill ought to be introduced as a public Bill.
MR. STUARTmade formal Motion to withdraw the Bill.
Bill withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH IMPORTS INTO TURKEY AND JAPAN.
  COLONEL H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if Her Majesty's Government has recently assented to an increase in the duty levied upon British goods entering Turkey and Japan; and, in such case, what representations were made to their Imperial Majesties the Sultan and Mikado in favour of British exports receiving equal treatment to that accorded in the United Kingdom to Turkish and Japanese exports?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Berwick, Northumberland): No new Treaty has been concluded with Turkey, and the duties remain as they were. The Tariff annexed to the Treaty recently concluded with Japan, provides for a higher rate of duty on certain British goods entering Japan. Under Clause I of the Protocol attached to the Treaty, the new Tariff might, in certain circumstances, have come into operation a month after the Ratifications of the Treaty had been exchanged. It is, however, subject to the provisions of Article 23 of the Treaty of 1858, by which it is expressly stipulated that Her Majesty's Government and British subjects will be allowed free and equal participation—
  "in all privileges, immunities and advantages that may have been or may be hereafter granted by His Majesty the Tycoon of Japan to the Government or subjects of any other nation;"
  and the Provisions of the new Tariff are therefore necessarily suspended until the revision of the Treaties between Japan and other Powers has been effected. British commerce with Japan is also fully protected by Articles 5 and 15 of the New Treaty against the imposition of any duties heavier than those levied on the commerce of any other State. The New Treaty with Japan was negotiated upon the same principles as are observed in dealing with other civilised Powers, and the Tariff of Duties arranged under it will not compare unfavourably with those of most European nations. No useful purpose would have been served by arguing with the Japanese Govern-
  712
  ment in favour of the principles of Free Trade.

  NAVAL EXPENDITURE IN IRELAND.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if any, and if so how much, of the money taken last year for the increase of the Navy has been spent in Ireland; and whether, in the event of any more being taken, it is proposed to spend any more; and if so within what time.
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): I assume that the question relates to increased ship-building. Tenders were invited in Ireland for the hulls and machinery of two first-class battleships and six large cruisers, and for the machinery of three other first-class battleships, to be built in the dockyards; but only one tender of those above-named could be accepted (on account of price) for the machinery of a first-class battleship. The money spent last year and liabilities incurred amount to £98,702. It cannot be stated how much more will be spent or in what time; but tenders for any new work will be invited from Irish firms considered competent to undertake it.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will you say how much of the money was expended at Haulbowline?
  MR. ROBERTSON: That is not in the question at all.
  MR. FLYNN: Would it not be possible to give work at Haul-bowline in the construction of certain classes of ships, such as small cruisers?
  MR. ROBERTSON: I hardly think it is so, but it is a question to which I cannot give a definite answer.
  MR. CREAN: How much of the money has been spent in actual work and how much in superintendence?
  MR. ROBERTSON: I have not the information that would enable me to answer that question.

  IRISH FISHERIES.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will consider the advisability of appointing a Government Inspector in addition to the three Inspectors of Fisheries for Ireland, whose special duty it will be to attend to the

  713
  mackerel-curing industry, in view of its large and growing importance.
  The following questions on the same subject stood upon the Paper:—
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from the mackerel-curers of the Counties of Cork and Kerry, praying for the appointment of an inspector, specially fitted to judge the quality of the fish and the barrel, and with power to affix the Government brand, at a small fee per barrel to cover the costs of salary and expenses, as practised with good results in the herring-curing trade in Scotland; and, further, praying that efforts should be made to induce the Government of Russia and the United States to reduce their import duty on cured mackerel to that on cured herrings, the duty on cured herrings being 7s. per barrel in Russia and 4s. 2d. per barrel in the United States, whereas the duty on cured mackerel is 28s. per barrel in the former country and 6s. 3d. per barrel in the latter; and whether, in view of the fact that Irish mackerel-curers are at present practically dependent on American markets for the sale of their produce, and the desirability of encouraging this growing Irish industry, he will grant the prayers contained in this memorial?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from an association of mackerel-curers in the Counties of Cork and Kerry, pressing for the appointment of an additional fishery inspector in Ireland with the special function of looking after the mackerel-curing industry, which is fast increasing in that country; whether it would be possible, as suggested by the memorialists, to make the office self-supporting by establishing a Government brand for cured mackerel, at a small fee, similar to the herring brand in Scotland; and whether the Government propose to adopt, the suggestion of the memorialists? Also, whether he has received a memorial from an association of mackerel-curers in the counties of Cork and Kerry, asking that the Government should cause representations to be made to the Governments of the United States and of Russia respectively, with a view to the reduction by these coun-
  714
  tries of the import duty on cured mackerel; whether he is aware that the import duty on cured mackerel in the United States is 6s. 3d. per barrel, and in Russia 28s. per barrel, as against an import duty in these countries on herrings of 4s. 2d. per barrel and 7s. per barrel respectively; and whether he will cause representations to be made in the sense suggested?
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the importance of the mackerel fishery in Ireland, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Government Inspector, whose sole duty it will be to attend to the mackerel-curing industry; and, whether he will establish a Government brand similar to the herring brand in Scotland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-on-Tyne): In answering the questions of the hon. Bart. (Sir Thomas Esmonde), it will be convenient that I should at the same time answer four other questions on the paper relating to the same subject. In December last I received the memorial to which reference is made, from the Irish Mackerel Fisheries Association; and the reply given to that memorial stated that the question of establishing a Government brand for Irish-cured mackerel had been engaging the attention of the Government, but that the matter was one requiring very careful enquiry, and that legislation would be necessary to provide for the branding fee, and the punishment of any infringement of the brand. It was also stated that the question of import duties of cured mackerel exported to Russia and the United States would form an element in the general question, which is manifestly one requiring mature consideration. The Inspectors of Fisheries believe that the reason for the lower tariff in Russia on herrings, as compared with mackerel, is that herrings form a staple article of diet among the Russian peasantry. As regards the United States, the mackerel fishery forms an important industry for American fishermen, and a high protective duty is imposed on foreign imports of mackerel to that country. With regard to the suggested appointment of an Inspector, in addition to the three Inspectors of Fisheries, the Government are of opinion

  715
  that three Inspectors are ample for the work of inspection under the Irish Fishery Department. One of these Inspectors is able to devote a considerable portion of his time to the work of fishery development of the Congested Districts Board, and in the performance of his duties he is constantly moving about the vicinity of the mackerel fisheries.

  NEW QUAYS IN KERRY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state when the works at the proposed new quays at Glasha and Tullig (County Kerry) will be commenced?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Tenders for these works are to be lodged with the Congested Disticts Board before the 19th instant, and arrangements will be made to start the works as soon as possible after that date.

  HOURS OF PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(l)whether the Trades Warders in Mountjoy Prison, who work at their trades from 6 a.m. to 6.15 p.m. for eight months of the year, and from 6.45 a.m. to 6.15 p.m. for four months, are required, in addition, to do duty as evening guards for three days in the week; (2) whether these men have also to do ordinary duty as warders on Sundays, and only get leave every third Sunday; and, (3) whether some are required to do night duty as well?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The General Prisons Board informs me that none of the Trades Warders, in this prison, work at their trades for the length of time mentioned in the question. Work commences at about 7 a.m. in Summer, and 7.45 a.m. in Winter, and ceases at 5.45 p.m. all the year round. Two hours of the interval are allotted for meals, and half-an-hour for serving the food to the prisoners. In addition, all indoor trades get an hour's exercise daily. The Trades Warders are required to do duty as evening guards, amounting on an average to about six hours a week. The reply to the second and third paragraphs is in the affirmative. Night duty consists of about five hours once in every twelve nights,
  716
  and those who perform it are allowed half the following day off duty.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether it was not the fact that, while other Warders were at liberty, the Trades Warders were either at work or engaged in supervision, and whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think that men who were continuously on duty for so many hours ought not to be relieved from night duty?
  MR. J. MORLEYwas not sure whether the Trades Warders got the same hours of exercise as others, but he would find out. He could assure the hon. Member that the duties of the Warders were not excessive or prolonged.
  DR. KENNYasked whether a Return could be laid on the table, showing the number of hours worked by the Warders.
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he would consider the possibility of giving a Return, but the information it would contain would be the same as that given in the answer to the question.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN IRELAND.
  MR. P. M'GILLIGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) how many labourers' cottages have been erected under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in the Enniskillen Union up to the present time; (2) whether he is aware that an application from Thomas Love, Mally-lusty, Blacklion, and Michael M' Loughlin, Carrentrenall, Blacklion, had been refused, and that one of those men immediately afterwards was evicted by his landlord, an ex-officio Guardian, though the rent was fully paid up, and was compelled to seek a habitation with his young family in an outhouse for several days and nights; and, (3) whether he will make inquiries into these cases, and generally with a view of having the Labourers Acts enforced in the Enniskillen Union?
  MR. J. MORLEY: (1) No cottages have been erected in Enniskillen Union. (2) Representations on behalf of the persons named were refused by the Guardians, on the ground that there was a number of vacant houses in the locality available for their accommodation. Statements to the effect mentioned in the, concluding part of the second paragraph were made to the Local

  717
  Government Board by one of these persons. (3) The Local Government Board are always ready to direct an inquiry where a primâ-facie case for such action on their part is established; but having regard to the reports made to the Guardians by the Medical Officer of Health and the Sanitary Sub-officer as to the existence of vacant houses in the district this case did not appear' to the Board to be one in which any advantage would result from such an inquiry.

  VACCINATION.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a sentence, passed by Mr. Denman at the South-western Police Court in September last, on F. D. Summers, of seven days' imprisonment with hard labour for non-compliance with a vaccination order; whether he is aware that F. D. Summers was, contrary to law, subjected to the hard labour regulations while in prison; and, whether he will direct compensation to be made to him for this illegal punishment.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I have communicated with the Magistrate and the Prison Commissioners, and am informed by them that Summers was neither sentenced to hard labour nor subjected to hard labour.

  THE EXECUTION OF JOHN TWISS.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the statement given in evidence by Governor Andrews, of Cork Gaol, at the inquest on John Twiss, executed on last Saturday, 9th instant, that magisterial investigations, at which a Resident Magistrate, the Crown Solicitor, and Inspector Irwin were present, were held in Cork Gaol, and evidence taken in reference to the crime of which Twiss was subsequently convicted, and that at those investigations the prisoner was not professionally represented; and whether such investigations are according to custom; and, if so, whether he will take measures to put an end to such proceedings?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In answer to my hon.
  718.
  Friend, when further evidence against a prisoner is obtained after he has been committed for trial, it is, I am informed, the usual and proper course, and a course taken in favour of the prisoner, to take that evidence in his presence, lest he should be taken by surprise by its production at the trial. The evidence in this case was that of a man named Reidy, but was not used at the trial. The prisoner was not professionally represented when the witness's evidence was given in the prison. Copies of the evidence taken were, on the same day, forwarded to the solicitor acting for Twiss, and that is the answer to the question on the Paper. As, however, the lion. Member mentioned the name of District Inspector Irwin in the question, perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of referring to certain allegations that have been made affecting him. It has been alleged that he paid money to Twiss to swear against a certain person or persons; that he told him that he had "a rope round his neck;" and that he had shown Twiss photographs of certain persons. I have received to-day from Inspector Irwin a Report, in which he stated explicitly that he never at any time, either in court or in prison, offered any money to Twiss to swear against any person or persons, or for any other purpose whatever, during the time that he was employed in the investigation of the case, or at any other time. He never mentioned to Twiss that he had a rope round his neck, or at any time showed him photographs of persons.
  DR. KENNYreminded the Chief Secretary that he had made no insinuations against Irwin. Did the right hon. Gentleman approve of the practice in criminal cases—where a man's life might be in jeopardy—of additional evidence being taken in a prison, away from all publicity, against a prisoner who had no professional aid, whether in his presence or not? Why was it not given in open Court or reserved for the trial? Under what Statute was evidence taken in this way?
  MR. J. MORLEYreplied, that he could not say under what Act of Parliament the procedure was based. But he had informed himself about the practice, which was in favour of the prisoner. When new evidence was found against

  719
  a prisoner after he had been committed for trial, two courses might be taken before the trial took place—the depositions might be taken outside the prison and communicated afterwards to the prisoner, or the evidence of witnesses might be taken by a Magistrate in prison in the presence of the accused. This was to prevent new evidence being sprung upon the prisoner at the trial.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman thought it was in favour of a prisoner, when he had a solicitor to defend him, that additional evidence should be taken against him in a prison and behind that solicitor's back?
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid, this question was not in Order, as it discussed what was in favour of the prisoner or not, which hardly arose here.
  MR. HARRINGTONthen asked whether notice was given to Twiss's solicitor that the additional evidence would be taken, and whether he had an opportunity of using it for prisoner's defence if it was not in favour of the prosecution?
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOXasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the effect of witnesses being examined in the walls of a prison?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, it did not matter what the effect on witnesses was, he was right in assuming that the practice of taking the evidence in prison and in the prisoner's presence was in favour of the prisoner. Notice that the evidence would be taken was given to the prisoner's solicitor; but the witness was not produced at the trial, and the evidence was not used for any purpose.
  DR. KENNYpointed out that perfectly inadmissible evidence might be given against a prisoner who had not the protection of a legal adviser.
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had discussed the matter thoroughly with those who were competent to advise him, and he was convinced that the course taken was not injurious to the prisoner.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked if representatives of the Press were at liberty to attend the taking of evidence in prisons?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am afraid not; but I cannot say.
  DR. KENNYwas proceeding to put another question, when—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  LONDONDERRY BARRACKS.
  MR. J. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that troops can easily be moved to Londonderry from head-quarters at Enniskillen, where there is already sufficient accommodation, he will reconsider his intention of proposing a large outlay of public money for providing barracks for the head-quarters in Londonderry?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): This question was determined some time ago, when it was decided on strong military grounds to transfer the troops to Londonderry. There is no idea of reconsidering it.
  Mr. R. W. HANBURYasked whether it was decided on military or public grounds that the head-quarters should be at Londonderry? So many of our troops were merely engaged in police duties.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: From the information supplied to me it appears it was on military grounds.
  In answer to MR. JORDAN—
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANadded that the transfer would have been carried out before, but for the difficulty of obtaining a site.

  INCLOSED POST CARDS AND INVOICES.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Department has received numerous complaints from business houses respecting the conditions laid down in the Post Office Guide, page 27, for the return of inclosed post cards and invoices, &c.; and whether he can see his way to remove the complaints that have been made against the present arrangements?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): The complaints from business houses of the new regulations for the return of undelivered post cards, invoices, &c., had not been numerous. It takes time for regulations of this kind to become fully known, although previous notices are issued by the Department; but the inconvenience which has arisen from senders being unaware of the change is diminishing day by day. The regulations affect only

  721
  packets prepaid ½d., and such packets being in themselves unremunerative, it is only reasonable that senders should pay the cost of returning any which they desire to recover in case of their non-delivery.

  THE ROYAL MARINES.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what proportion of the additional officers and men of the Royal Marines voted in the Estimates for 1894–5, have up to the present date been appointed to, or enlisted in, the corps.
  *MR. E. ROBERTSON: Five officers, and 485 warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates; total 490, out of 500 additional voted.

  SAVING LIFE AT SEA.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he sees his way to recommend payment out of the public funds to deep sea fishermen who are continually, at great personal risk, saving the lives of the crews of sinking or abandoned vessels, and who are also at pecuniary loss in having to leave the fishing grounds and bring their vessels into port with those saved; whether, in the case of the crews of foreign vessels being saved, the claims for compensation or reward will be brought before their Governments; and whether a special medal or decoration, could be instituted?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): Payments out of the Mercantile Marine Fund are made by the Board of Trade to deep sea fishermen, under Section 677 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, when they have saved life at sea from British vessels at great personal risk. The Board also grant medals in many cases, and, as the House is aware, Her Majesty, whose sympathy with acts of courage and chivalry has been so often displayed, has instituted the decoration of the Albert Medal for conspicuous cases of gallantry in saving life at sea. In the case of the crews of foreign vessels being saved, the circumstances are usually brought under the notice of foreign Governments by their local Consuls, and rewards are often bestowed.

  THE UNEMPLOYED IN LIVERPOOL.
  MR. J. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the police of Liverpool are preventing the unemployed of the City from meeting on Corporation ground, near the Exchange, which is a common place of public meeting; and that members of the police force have been guilty of violence towards the unemployed whilst preventing them holding their meetings at the place referred to; and whether the police have instructions to prohibit such meetings; and, if so, by whom have such instructions been given?
  *MR. ASQUITH: I am informed that the piece, of ground to which the hon. Member alludes is not Corporation property, but a public highway, where to hold a meeting would cause great public inconvenience, and would seriously impede the business of the port. The Lord Mayor informs me that meetings are now, and always have been, allowed to be held on a piece of land situated in the central part of the town, and which, although Corporate property, has not been dedicated to the public as a highway. The reports furnished to me go to show that the police acted justifiably in preventing the meeting, and that no undue severity was used by them in the execution of their duty. But I have no authority in matters of this kind over the Liverpool police, who are under the control of the Watch Committee of the City.

  ANGLO-FRENCH WEST AFRICAN AGREEMENT.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in the recent arrangements with France in West Africa, steps have been taken to prevent the duties and restrictions imposed upon British trade by that Republic in Indo-China and elsewhere?
  SIR E. GREY: The negotiations were, from the nature of the case, limited to certain questions connected with West Africa. The commercial arrangements which have been entered into will be found in a Parliamentary Paper which is on the point of being issued.

  THE HIGH SHERIFF OF CORK CITY.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  723
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Alderman Edmund Walsh, who has been selected by the Lord Lieutenant to fill the office of High Sheriff of the City of Cork, is the same Alderman Walsh as was challenged by the Crown and ordered to stand aside, when the jury was being sworn at the recent Assizes, for the trial of Eugéne Keeffe on the capital charge?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Alderman Edmund Walsh was ordered by the Crown Solicitor to stand aside in the case referred to. It would be without precedent and inexpedient to mention the reasons which weighed with the Crown Solicitor in the exercise of his discretion. As to his having been selected by the Lord Lieutenant to fill the office of High Sheriff, I may observe that he was named first on the list of three persons nominated under the Statute by the City of Cork Town Council to fill the office of High Sheriff, and the Lord Lieutenant took the first name on the list.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: I should like to know whether this Gentleman, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, is not competent to find a verdict in accordance with the evidence, and in accordance with the oath, and whether this same gentleman will now have the framing of the jury panel for the City of Cork?
  MR. J. MORLEY: For many reasons, I understand, a juryman on the panel may be ordered to stand aside. There may be certain questions of prejudice or local connection, and so forth, which may render it undesirable that a person should serve, but I do not know whether those were the reasons which actuated the Crown Solicitor in the present case. Those reasons may be quite inconsistent with the reasons which may actuate the Town Council of the City of Cork in nominating Sheriffs.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Is there any precedent for allowing a gentleman to serve on a jury panel of which he is in charge?
  DR. KENNY: Is it not a fact that a High Sheriff is, by his office, precluded from serving on a jury?
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: Is it not a fact that this gentleman was challenged by the Crown about the middle of December, and that he did not enter on his office as High Sheriff till January 1st?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I must ask that that question be put down. I have answered all that is material to the point raised in the question on the Paper.

  THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  MR. G. W. E. LODER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can state how far the buildings of the New National Portrait Gallery have advanced towards completion; what further steps are necessary before the pictures can be moved from Bethnal Green; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to put down a Vote in the Estimates in connection with the preparation of the Gallery for the reception of the pictures.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The building has so far advanced that the architect is now of opinion that he will be able to hand it over to the Board of Works at the end of April, or beginning of May. The two top floors are now practically finished, and it will be possible to begin the removal of the pictures from Bethnal Green in the course of next month. The hanging could be carried out during the time that the lower floors are being finished, so that the galleries might be opened to the public in June. A sum of £400 has been provided in the Estimate for Public Buildings for the next financial year to cover the cost of completing the fixtures and furniture of the new building. The cost of removing the pictures from Bethnal Green will be borne by the Science and Art Department.

  ADMIRALTY LABOURERS AT DEPTFORD.
  MR. J. H. C. HOZIER: On behalf of the Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling): I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whether men employed by Government in the Deptford Victualling Yard on general labourers' work are paid 20s. a week (for a week of 48 hours' work); and whether a contractor employing men in the same yard on the same class of work is compelled by the terms of his contract with the Government to pay to his men 6½d. per hour, being 26s. for 48 hours' work?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Labourers employed by the Admiralty

  725
  at Deptford are paid a fixed rate of 20s. a week. Contractors' labourers are paid by the hour, at the rate stated in the question. It should be borne in mind that Admiralty-hired labourers have privileges not enjoyed by contractors' men—namely, holidays with pay; hurt pay, and medical attendance when hurt; gratuities under certain conditions on discharge; and, above all, more constant employment without the expense of frequent removals.
  MR. J. KEIR HARDIE: Is it not a fact that the privileges referred to are only estimated to amount in value to 1s. 6d. a week?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I do not know, but I will give the hon. Member an opportunity of ascertaining their value if he wishes.

  STAMPS ON PRIVATE ENVELOPES OR POSTAL WRAPPERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, (1) whether any charge is made for printing stamps on private envelopes or postal wrappers, if the total value of the stamps is £10; (2) whether he is aware that at present the charge for printing private post cards is 2s. 6d. per quire, or £2. 10s. per ream; and that the actual cost of this printing does not exceed 2d. to 3d. per quire, or 3s. to 5s. per ream; and (3) whether he will extend to private post cards the same regulations and charges as for postal wrappers and private envelopes referred to in the first question?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: The answer to the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question is, No. The answer to the second is, Yes; except that the actual cost is considerably higher than the price mentioned in the question. As regards the third paragraph, I must point out that its adoption would not only necessitate additions to the establishment at Somerset House, for which I see no justification, but would also demand additional space, which it is impossible to provide. My hon. Friend's question shows that very considerable facilities are already afforded to private individuals
  726
  by the Inland Revenue Authorities; and, for the reasons given, I cannot hold out any hope of increasing them. I need not remind my hon. Friend that it is always open to the private purchaser to avoid the charge in question by stamping his own cards with adhesive stamps.

  POSTMASTERS.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether it is a rule of the Post Office that post-masterships are to be given only to those who have been previously employed in the service; whether this rule is rigidly applicable to post offices which are Crown Offices; whether Maryborough (Queen's County) Post Office is a Crown office; and, whether Mr. Fennell, recently appointed as postmaster to that office, had any previous connection with the Postal Service; if so, what was the nature of the connection; and, if not, why was the rule above referred to departed from in his case.
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: Crown Offices are simply offices that are the property of the Department and have really nothing to do with what I understand to be the object of the hon. Member's question. Consequent upon contemplated alterations which would have reduced the Telegraph work at Maryborough, the salary was reduced provisionally from £100 to £90—this being below the amount at which persons already in the service are as a rule appointed; and it was under these circumstances that the appointment was conferred on Mr. Fennell, who was unconnected with the Service, and who was strongly recommended.

  THE BANTRY ESTATE.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware the trustees of the Bantry Estate have, by claiming a right to the foreshore, prevented the erection of a boat slip at Trafrask, and that a number of the Tenants of said Estate have been thrown out of employment, and are in a state of

  727
  destitution; and, if so, what steps the Congested Districts Board and the Board of Trade purpose taking in the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The works at the place mentioned were suspended for the reason stated, but it is expected that the difficulty will very shortly be removed and the works resumed.

  MARKET TOLLS AT ENNIS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the evidence given at the public inquiry held in Ennis on 8th June, 1888, by Mr. J. O'Meara, Assistant Commissioner on Market Rights and Tolls, and also to the Petition presented to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant by the Town Commissioners of Ennis on the 22nd May last, praying for an immediate inquiry into the right, if any, of Lord Leconfield to levy tolls, and to the reply given by the Lords Justices of Ireland, the Government will bring in a Bill enabling the Town Commissioners of Ennis to acquire the right of levying tolls and establishing markets, on such terms and conditions as may be considered equitable and just?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that the validity of Lord Leconfield's Patent to the Customs and Tolls of Ennis came before a Jury in 1847, that evidence was then given on behalf of the Crown and the Patentee, and that there was a disagreement of the Jury. No proceeding has since been instituted to impeach the Patent, and there is no evidence forthcoming for the purpose. I can only again add that whatever may be the opinion as to the necessity for general legislation, the Government do not propose to introduce a Bill dealing with any one particular place.

  AFFORESTING CROWN LANDS IN WALES.
  MR. J. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have made any
  728
  experimental plantation in Wales; whether they have made inquiry with regard to the desirability of further afforesting Crown land in Wales; and, whether they intend to take the necessary steps to afforest any part of the lands over which they have control?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham): The Commissioner of Woods informs me that he has just completed a plantation of five acres on a Crown Farm in Merioneth-shire principally for the purpose of affording shelter. Last autumn he visited certain wastes of the Crown Lordship of Denbigh with a view to decide whether planting could be carried out with success. The Common Rights existing over these wastes presented difficulties which he discussed with the parties interested. He proposes to visit this and other districts in the coming spring, but it is necessary to bear in mind that the Commissioner of Woods has no control over these waste lands that would enable him to appropriate any portion of them for planting unless the common rights existing over those parts were extinguished.

  DISMISSAL OF AN IRISH SCHOOL TEACHER.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that Mr. Quinlivan, recently school teacher to the Stradbally (Queen's County) National School, has been dismissed from his post by the Manager, the Rev. Mr. Brennan, P.P., without any cause assigned, and that the Rev. Mr. Brennan took forcible possession of the school by breaking in the door; whether the police were present on the occasion; and, if so, for what reason and by whose directions were they present; whether he is aware that Mr. Quinlivan, relying on the recent resolution of the Bishops at Maynooth, that an appeal would lie to the Bishop of the Diocese in all such cases as above, did appeal to the Bishop, the Most Rev. Dr. Lynch, and the coadjutor Bishop, the

  729
  Most Rev. Dr. Comerford, the latter of whom replied that he could not interfere, and the former did not reply at all; and, whether he will cause an inquiry into this case?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The National Education Board inform me that in 1892 the School referred to was reported as in a very unsatisfactory state, both as to discipline and order of the school and the efficiency of the instruction. In November of that year the teacher, Mr. Quinlivan, was severely reprimanded by the Commissioners. A similar report upon the school was made in 1893, and the attention of the Manager, the Revd. Mr. Brennan, having been drawn to the state of affairs, he gave the teacher three months' notice of removal. The Manager, however, did not carry out his intention of removing the teacher at the end of this period, but extended to him further time, and subsequently gave him a final three months' notice, which expired in November last. The police were not asked to remain in the neighbourhood on the occasion of the breaking open the door of the school, but they were requested to be in the neighbourhood when the new teacher opened the school about a month afterwards. The case does not appear to be one calling for further inquiry.
  DR. KENNY: I wish to ask whether it is not a fact that Mr. Brennan tried to get him another school in the neighbourhood, and, whether the right lion. Gentleman in the proposed legislation which he has foreshadowed, will take care that such autocratic power shall not be left in the hands of school managers?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it a fact that this teacher's case was so bad that the other teachers in the school refused to have anything to do with him?
  MR. J. MORLEYwas understood to say that he did not remember ever having promised legislation on the subject.

  CATHOLIC EMPLOYÉS.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, is he aware that Catholic employés in the Telegraph Department, Dublin, have been deprived by the present Controller of a privilege heretofore enjoyed, of a time allowance from the prescribed hours of attendance for the purpose of hearing Mass on Sundays and holy days of their Church, and whether he will give directions that such privilege be restored?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Post Office servants who are allowed to absent themselves from duty for the purpose of performing their religious devotions on week-days are required to make up the time thus lost to the Department at some other part of the day. Established officers employed on Sundays are paid at special overtime rates, and are, therefore, only paid for the actual hours in which they are employed.
  MR. BODKIN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question in any sense. It is whether a privilege of attending Mass without loss of pay has been taken away by the present Controller, and whether the custom existing for ten years has been recently abrogated?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The privilege was no doubt allowed, but it never received sanction from headquarters. The change was made when all Sunday work was ordered to be paid for.
  MR. BODKIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the privilege had existed for ten years; that the Catholics are the only people who suffer by the change, and that grave dissatisfaction exists in regard to the change?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I cannot say how long it had existed, but I can say that Catholics are treated exactly on the same footing as every other denomination in the service.

  IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN FRUIT.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to ask the President of the

  731
  Board of Agriculture if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of any Instructions that have been issued with a view to check the importation of foreign fruit marked fraudulently as English fruit?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that so far as the Board of Customs was concerned no special instructions had been issued regarding the importation of foreign fruit, but such importations were subject to the general instructions issued in connection with the prohibitory sections of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887.

  EXTRA POLICE IN COUNTY CLAEE.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed at the recent Presentment Sessions in Ennis calling on the Government to relieve the county Clare of the cost of extra police; and, whether, in view of the peaceable condition of Clare, he will take steps to carry out the desire of this resolution?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had seen the resolution passed at the Presentment Sessions at Ennis. A reduction of the extra force of constabulary for Clare by 25 men had been decided upon, and this would be equivalent to a relief from taxation of about£800 per annum.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS IN ENGLAND.
  MR. J. L. WHARTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to lay this Bill for providing light railways shortly upon the Table of the House?
  MR. BRYCE: I hope to introduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity I can find.

  THE SAFETY OF TROOPSHIPS.
  MR. GATHORNE-HARDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what provision is
  732
  made on board troopships for saving life in the event of shipwreck or collision?
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, the only troopship in commission, the Malabar, had boat accommodation for 1,245 men in light marching order without packs, and could therefore accommodate in boats on an emergency all the numbers she carries. Transports which are merchant ships adapted to carry troops are governed, as regards boat accommodation, by a scale according to tonnage. This scale is the maximum laid down by the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping (Life-saving Appliances) Act, 1888. They are also obliged to carry life-belts, so that, with the boats, every man can be supported in the water on an emergency.

  CAVALRY HORSES.
  MR. F. V. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many men there are to each horse in the British cavalry; whether it is the fact that each cavalry regiment only averages 300 horses, as against 672 in the French cavalry, 662 in the German cavalry, 935 in the Austrian, and 855 in the Russian; and, whether he will consider the advisability during the present year of low prices and agricultural depression of making increased purchases of horses for the Army?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In India the British cavalry have 114 men to 100 horses, in the colonies and Egypt 132 men to 100 horses, and at home 157 men to 100 horses. The percentage of dismounted men is necessarily greater at home than abroad, because regiments at home receive and train their own recruits. With the present establishments for cavalry regiments the military authorities do not desire to increase the number of horses, as a proportion of dismounted men is a necessity. The average number of horses with a British cavalry regiment

  733
  is 388. As to the figures quoted by the hon. Member for foreign countries, I would only say that the number of horses must, of course, bear proportion to the number of men, which varies in different countries.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEESasked the right hon. Gentleman if there was not great difficulty in getting undocked horses?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that this subject did not arise out of the question.

  THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
  MR. F. V. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why Clause 11 (as to sub-letting and payment of wages at the current rate), in the contract for the Parliamentary Debates, contains no provision as to the payment of a penalty in case the Controller shall be of opinion that it has been broken; and, whether he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown with a view to framing a definite and enforceable form of contract, against sub-letting and for the payment of wages at the current rate, to be inserted in all Government contracts?
  *SIR J.T. HIBBERT: Clause 13 of the contract already imposes a penalty for the breach of any of its conditions in the shape of an immediate forfeiture of the contract. In addition to this the tenderers were expressly warned that the Controller would "be compelled to consider the question of removing the names of any firms who may fail to comply with the spirit of the resolution from the list of those allowed to undertake work for the Department." As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question, he is no doubt aware that the resolution was aimed against the abuse, arising from sub-letting.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: May I ask if, in giving this contract, the Treasury were aware of the fact that the present contractors intended to sub-let part of the contract?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury were not aware of that fact. To do it is not contrary to the contract.
  MR. DALZIEL: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it is fair to all the other firms who took the trouble to tender for this contract that the most vital provision should be departed from in the case of this particular firm that got the contract?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: In reply to that question, I may state that the Committee which sat upon the question a few years ago passed a resolution in favour of allowing the persons who tendered for "Hansard" to obtain their reports in the best way they could, and, therefore, it was not thought necessary to lay down any rule against sub-letting the reports.
  MR. DALZIEL: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but this is a very important point indeed; I would ask him if the recommendations of the Select Committee did not deal with the point as to taking reports from newspapers. This case of sub-letting deals with the employment of a special staff. Is it not the case that all the firms, with the single exception of this firm that got the contract, tendered on the basis that they would be unable to enter into any sub-letting whatever, and is it not the case that this firm which thus got the contract has departed altogether from the provisions of the tender, and has been allowed to enter into a contract for sub-letting?
  SIR J. HIBBERT: I was not aware that it was the intention of this contractor to obtain the reports in the way in which he is said to have done, but it has always been allowed to the contractors to obtain the reports in the best way they could. There is nothing in the contract to prohibit it or to say that they should employ a staff of reporters of their own, or that they should employ reporters in any other way.
  MR. DALZIEL: What does the clause in the contract mean, then?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The clause against sub-contracting is only in regard to the printing, and there is nothing about the reporting.
  MR. C. J. S. DODD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how these reports are being obtained and what the sub-contract is? (Cries of "Order"!") I daresay other hon. Members know, but I do not.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I can inform my hon. Friend that they are obtained, I believe, through the means of The Times reporters. The Times reports, I understand, are very good reports, almost the best reports to be obtained, and I do not know that there is any great objection to it.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: Were not eight or nine reporters previously engaged to furnish these reports, and are they not now, some of them, paid only a couple of pounds a week?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Am I to understand that the reports of the Irish Members will in future be taken by The Times reporters?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Times reporters, as I understand will take the report of each gentleman's speech in full, and these reports in extenso, will be sent to the editor of Hansard, who will curtail those speeches to the proper length required?

  IRISH POOR LAW EXPENDITURE.
  MR. F. V. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consent to the Return relating to Irish Poor Law Expenditure on the Paper for this day?
  MR. J. MORLEY: There will be no objection to the proposed Return. But I think it only right to explain to my hon. Friend that the information required can only be obtained from clerks of Unions, and that the preparation of the Return will take a considerable time.

  MAGISTRATES' CLERKS.
  MR. S. STOREY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the Return, moved on the 23rd August, 1894, as to Borough and County Magistrates, and that of 24th August, as to remuneration of Magistrates' Clerks, will be issued; and, what is the cause of the long delay?
  *MR. ASQUITH: The Return as to Borough and County Magistrates has been prepared during the Recess, and is now being printed. It was presented in dummy yesterday, and will be issued as soon as possible. The Return as to remuneration of Magistrates' Clerks was only moved for on the last day but one of last Session, and, therefore, was not presented in dummy before the rising of the House. It was presented on the 7th instant, and ordered by the House to be printed on the 8th, and will no doubt be issued shortly.

  HIRED MEN IN THE DOCKYARDS.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Admiralty will consider the case of the hired men in Her Majesty's Dockyards, who, if they are placed upon the establishment, are not allowed to count for pension the time they may have served as hired men, although in many cases this time amounts to many years?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: As I explained to the hon. Member last Session, the Regulations governing the award of pensions are common to all those employed in the service of the Crown, and are based upon the Superannuation Acts, and the Treasury Minutes issued under their authority. It is not in the power of the Admiralty alone to act in the direction suggested in the question.
  MR. HOZIERsaid he should call attention to the matter on the Navy Estimates.

  IRISH POOR LAW EXPENDITURE.

  Return ordered showing the total remuneration from all public sources of the Clerk to each Union; the amount paid by the Guardians to the Solicitor to each Poor Law Board; and the total remuneration from all public sources of the Doctor of each Dispensary District in Ireland, during the past two years, in the following forms:—

  THE ISLAND OF COLL.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has received a protest from the inhabitants of the Island of Coll complaining that the division of the Wards for the purposes of the Local Government Board has been made without due consideration having been given to the number of electors, and against the wishes of a large part of the population; and whether he will investigate the matter and endeavour to remedy the grievance complained of?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. O. TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): A protest was forwarded to the Local Government Board for Scotland, who, after inquiry, informed the complainers on the 21st of January that the Board had no power to interfere with the action of the County Council, but that, if they were dissatisfied, the proper course was for them to make a representation to the County Council, who alone have power to make any alteration in the Wards that have been fixed. I do not know whether any such representation has been made. Parliament having vested full discretion in the County Council, the responsibility for the division of the Parish into Wards must rest with that Body.

  LONDONDERRY ASYLUM.
  MR. J. ROSS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Asylum Board of Control have as yet decided on the site of the new Londonderry Asylum?
  MR. J. MORLEY: A site has, I understand, been offered for the new asylum, which is considered suitable provided satisfactory arrangements can be made for the water supply.

  CUSTOMS OUTPORT CLERKS.
  MR. H. PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is true that a Memorial sent by the Customs Outport Clerks to the Board of Customs in January, 1892, and to the Lords of the Treasury on the 17th of May, 1892, still remains unanswered; whether he can give any explanation of the delay; and when the Memorialists may expect a reply?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot trace any Memorial of the date mentioned, but a Memorial dated January, 1893, and presumed to be the one in question, was originally addressed to the Board of Customs, and was subsequently sent by the clerks direct to the Treasury. The subject of the Memorial has involved questions of consideration between the Board of Customs and the Treasury, the settlement of which has been unavoidably delayed, partly owing to the changes in the Board. I can assure the hon. Member that there shall be no unnecessary delay in the matter.

  CIVIL BILL EJECTMENTS.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that large numbers of Civil Bills in Ejectments are served by persons other than Civil Bill Officers, with the result that large numbers of tenants are charged fees in excess of those allowed by Law; whether the judicial statistics are in part founded upon Returns made by Civil Bill Officers as to the cases in which Ejectments are served, Returns necessarily erroneous to the extent of ejectments not served by them; and whether he will consider the desirability of obtaining an Order in Council amending the practice with regard to the service of Ejectments?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has been called to this matter by a Memorial received from Civil Bill Officers of Donegal and Londonderry. I am advised that—(1.) Processes in Ejectment or Replevin may be served by other persons than Civil Bill Officers. Other Civil Bills must be served by Civil Bill Officers. This is regulated by Section 15 of 14 and 15 Vic. Cap. 57, and His Excellency has no power to interfere. (2.) A table in the Judicial Statistics shows the number of Ejectments, Replevins, and other Civil Bills served in each year as shown in Returns furnished by Civil Bill Officers. This Return is necessarily incomplete, as regards Ejectments and Replevins, and there is no means of obtaining a complete Return of Ejectments served by persons other than Civil Bill Officers. Steps will be taken in future issues of the Judicial Statistics

  741
  to obviate any misunderstanding on this point by amending the heading of the table. (3.) The matter being thus one which is regulated by Statute, my hon. Friend will see that it cannot be interfered with by the Lord Lieutenant or the Privy Council.

  ST. JOHN'S INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the Report of the proceedings at the inquiry directed by him into the administration of St. John's Industrial School, Walthamstow, and of the Report of the Inspector thereon, together with the terms of any decision arrived at by the Home Secretary with reference to it?
  *MR. H. H. ASQUITH: There is no objection to laying on the Table the Report of the Commissioner and the letter subsequently written to the managers by the direction of the Secretary of State.

  THE RELEASE OF THE REV. S. HARRY.
  MR. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a largely and influentially signed Petition to the Queen from the inhabitants of Guernsey, praying for the release of the Rev. S. Harry, who has been sentenced by a minority of the Royal Court of Guernsey to six months' imprisonment, he having inadvertently performed an illegal marriage service; and what action he proposes to take thereon?
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHsaid, he had received a Petition on behalf of the Rev. S. Harry. He had communicated with the Lieutenant-Governor of Guernsey, and was now waiting for a Report which had been promised from the Royal Court upon the case and the Petition. He had also called for a medical report as to Mr. Harry's health.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS IN UGANDA.
  *SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have yet come to a decision with regard to the validity of Roman Catholic claims for compensation arising out of events in
  742
  Uganda which occurred during the Government of that district by the British East Africa Company; and whether, in case such claims have been sustained, they are being considered in relation to any payment which may have to be made to the British East Africa Company
  SIR E.
  GREYsaid, that the question of Roman Catholic claims formed part of the general negotiations with France about pending questions in Africa, and no settlement had been come to.

  COOLIE RECRUITING IN BENGAL.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks concerning the recruiting of coolies in Bengal, made by Mr. Toynbee, Commissioner of Bhagalpore Division, and published in the Calcutta Gazette of the 3rd October last, in which he gave many instances of criminal complaints, made in the Damka district, with reference to coolie recruiting, and also of cases of abduction of women and children for a similar purpose in Deoghur, and of the forcible carrying off of youths in Godda district; and, whether, in view of the constant and apparently unavoidable abuses to which the present system of recruiting coolies for the tea plantations of Assam, &c., gives rise, he will consult the Government of India, with a view of gradually abrogating these special laws, and leave tea planters in India to obtain coolies like other employers of labour, in the open market, and tinder ordinary conditions?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): I have seen the remarks to which my hon. Friend refers, and I find that they have also received the attention of the local authorities. I know that the Government of India are most anxious to gradually abrogate the special law for Assam, and that their recent Amendments of the Act were framed with a view to pave the way for a system of absolutely free migration. I will, however, again call their attention to this subject.

  RIOTS DURING LABOUR DISPUTES.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for

  743
  the Home Department whether a Departmental Committee has recently been appointed to further consider the subject of riots during labour disputes; if so, what was the composition of the Committee; whether it has issued a Report; and, will he lay a copy of the Report upon the Table of the House?
  *MR. H. H. ASQUITH: The Committee to which my hon. Friend refers dealt with riots generally, not especially with riots occurring during labour disputes. The Report has been published by the Stationery Office, and will be presented to Parliament.

  THE PARISH OF SKELMORLIE.
  MR. T. H. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the statement in his decision refusing the application of Skelmorlie to have a separate Parish Council, that it would be in direct opposition to recent legislative precedents; would he state to what recent legislative precedents he referred; whether, seeing that under the Local Government Act of 1894 he has recently obtained power to give Parish Councils to parishes situated similarly to Skelmorlie, he will reconsider his decision; and, whether, as he had been informed that Skelmorlie was a parish situated partly in one county and partly in another before he directed an inquiry to be held, what steps he proposes to take to relieve the inhabitants of the unnecessary expense thus incurred.
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: Section 49 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, is the precedent which I had more particularly in view. The Boundary Commissioners who were constituted by that Act were enjoined to frame orders dealing with parishes so that each parish—
  ''If the Commissioners shall in the whole circumstances of the case deem it necessary or expedient, may be within a single county."
  I am informed that whereas there were 64 civil parishes in two or more counties in 1888, there are now only seven. I think the decision in the case of Skelmorlie, on the evidence produced at the inquiry, was a right decision. The order has been gazetted, and any representation made in the course of the statutory 40 days will be carefully considered
  744
  before it is confirmed. I have no power to relieve authorities appearing at an inquiry of any expenses which they may incur.

  THE PROPOSED STATUE TO OLIVER CROMWELL.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works how much money the Government propose to ask out of the public taxes of Great Britain and Ireland for the purpose of erecting a statue to Oliver Cromwell; and, whether he will undertake, when the Estimates come on, to afford an opportunity to the House to express an opinion on the expenditure?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: The sum proposed to be taken in the votes of Parliament for 1895–96 is an instalment of £500. I am unable as yet to give any further information. When the Estimates come on full opportunity will of course be afforded for an expression of opinion by the House.

  THE IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION BOARD.
  MR. T. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the vacancies in the Board of Commissioners of National Education have yet been filled?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As my hon. Friend knows, the National Board consists of 20 members, 10 of whom are Catholics and ten of whom are Protestant. There were three vacancies on the Board, two for Catholics and one for a Protestant. Of the two Roman Catholic vacancies, one seat has been accepted by Dr. Walsh, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, and the Protestant seat has been accepted by Lord Plunkett, the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin. The other Catholic seat has been accepted by Mr. Harrington, of Cork.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Are we to understand that the Chief Secretary has appointed to the Board of National Education the principal opponent of the system of national education in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That is a question which ought not to be put in that form.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it not a matter of notoriety that Dr. Walsh, the Archbishop of Dublin, is the strongest

  745
  and most persistent opponent of the mixed system of education in Ireland?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin is the principal opponent of Catholicity in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I submit that there is not the time for discussing the matter raised by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. I may say, however, that our object in trying to secure the services of these two distinguished men, was to have the highest representative authorities on the Board, of the communions that are interested.
  MR. T. SEXTON: With reference to the statement that Dr. Walsh is an opponent of the system of mixed education, I wish to ask the Chief Secretary whether it is not a fact that the clergy of the arch-diocese of Dublin, who are under the ecclesiastical control of Dr. Walsh, are the managers of schools under the National Board?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes; I think that is so.

  THE NICARAGUA CANAL.
  SIR EDWARD HARLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Bill of Senator Morgan for the construction of a ship canal by the United States Government from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, through the State of Nicaragua, was passed by the Senate of the United States of America on the 25th ult., and that the Bill is now before the House of Representatives; whether he is aware that Senator Morgan, who is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, during his speech in favour of the Bill, stated that no foreign Government had raised any objection to the Bill; whether, inasmuch as the question of the construction of the Nicaragua Canal is one of great importance to British shipowners, owning, as they collectively do, two-thirds of the tonnage of the world, Her Majesty's Government will cause urgent representations to be made to the United States Government against any provisions in Senator Morgan's Bill which are detrimental to the interests of British shipping; and whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of urging upon
  746
  the United States Government the importance of the creation of a Joint Commission, British and American, to take up and deal with the construction of the proposed Nicaragua Canal and its status when built?
  SIR E. GREY: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. It is not usual to make representations against Bills not promoted by the Government which are under discussion in the Legislature of a foreign country. Her Majesty's Government consider that such a canal as the proposed Nicaragua canal should be under International control, and whatever steps may be desirable will be taken to advance this view, but we have no reason to suppose that the United States Government will not maintain their Treaty engagements.

  WORKING MEN JUSTICES IN IRELAND.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any working men had been appointed Justices of the Peace in Ireland; and, if so, how many?
  MR. J. MORLEY: If the expression
  "working men" means artizans or daily labourers, none have been placed in the Commission for counties. There have, however, been instances in which working farmers have been appointed to the Commission. The Lord Chancellor will consider each application on its merits. Borough appointments are not made by him.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, having regard to the importance of obtaining the fullest disclosure of the truth as to events in Armenia, steps will be taken by the Foreign Office to secure the rights of British subjects to visit all parts of the Turkish Empire under the provisions of the Capitulalations of 1875 or otherwise?
  SIR E. GREY: The right of foreigners to visit all parts of the Turkish Empire under the provisions of the Capitulations would not appear to affect the power claimed by every independent State of refusing to admit foreigners or allow them to travel when their presence

  747
  may be considered by it to be contrary to the public interest or dangerous to order. It has, however, been pointed out to the Porte that the movements of unoffending British travellers should not be interfered with.
  MR. CHANNINGasked whether the answer referred to the whole of Asia Minor or only to the villages of Susan.
  SIR E. GREYsaid it referred to the whole of Asia Minor.
  MR. CHANNING: And to newspaper correspondents
  SIR E. GREYsaid he had already intimated in his answer that each independent State claimed the right to a certain discretion as to whether newspaper correspondents should be admitted or not.

  THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will place upon the Table of the House within a day or two Returns showing the earnings of the different telephone trunk wires for the past three years which he proposes to buy from the Telephone Companies, the price he intends to pay for them, and copies of the Reports of the Post Office experts on their condition and value?
  MR. J. W. BENNalso asked whether the signing of the agreement would not be postponed until the question of the municipalities obtaining licences was discussed in the House?
  Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY: The valuation of the trunk wires of the Telephone Companies, which is now being proceeded with, will take some time to complete. I am, therefore, not in a position to furnish the hon. Member with information on this point. I have also no accurate information with respect to the earnings of those wires.
  MR. H. S. FOSTERasked whether the House would have an opportunity of discussing the question before the agreement was signed?
  MR. MORLEYsaid that hon. Members interested in the question would have an opportunity of balloting for a day to bring it forward.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT and MR. FOSTERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether
  748
  he did not give a distinct promise to the House last Session that hon. Members should have an opportunity of discussing the matter?
  M.R. MORLEY: I made no promise of that kind.
  MR. FOSTERasked whether the Government would give facilities to discuss the matter before the agreement was signed?
  MR. MORLEYsaid he was not prepared to answer that question.
  In reply to Mr. A. C. MORTON.
  MR. MORLEYrepeated that he made no promise that the signing of the agreement should be postponed until the question had been discussed in the House, and said he might remind the hon. Member that the agreement was in existence when he came into Office, and was not made by himself. The reason why he postponed the signing of the agreement last year was in order that the Session might be brought to a close.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he would state the circumstances which led to the withdrawal in the last Session of Parliament of the Government Bill for the Commutation of the Treasury Grant towards Light Railways in Ireland after it had passed the House of Commons?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Government introduced the Bill for the Commutation of the Treasury Grants towards Light Railways in Ireland towards the end of last Session, thinking that it would be unopposed; but, on finding that it gave, rise to considerable opposition in Ireland, they determined to withdraw it and re-introduce it early this Session, in order that neither side might complain that they had not been allowed a fair opportunity of expressing their views.
  MR. T. W.
  RUSSELLasked when it was proposed to introduce the Bill.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is intended to do some time before Easter, or as soon as possible.

  THE CASE OF THOMAS WEIR.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of

  749
  State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death of Thomas Weir, an insane patient at the Holloway Sanatorium, Virginia Water, on the 30th September 1894, and to the opinion expressed by the coroner's jury that not sufficient medical supervision was exercised, and that the mechanical restraint was excessive and too long continued; and, whether he will order an Inquiry into the case?
  *MR. H. H. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to the circumstances in connection with the death of Thomas Weir, and I have given instructions for a special Inquiry to be held.

  THE BAKEHOUSE QUESTION.
  *DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a book lately issued by Drs. Waldo and Walsh on the Bakehouse Question; and, whether, in view of the facts and conclusions therein detailed, the Government will institute an official Inquiry into the matter?
  MR. H. H. ASQUITH: I have seen the book referred to. For some time past my attention has been given to this question. The law as to bakehouses is already very stringent, and in the Factory Bill which I hope to introduce I shall propose to strengthen some of its provisions. The evils of the present state of things arise, not so much from defects in the law as from its lax and unsystematic administration by the Local Sanitary Authorities. There is no need for any official Inquiry.

  THE FROST AND SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  MR. L. H. COURTNEY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can make any allowance for attendances on the part of children who, through the severity of the weather and the state of the roads, are, especially in the rural districts, unable to attend school at this season?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OP THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND, York, W. R., Rotherham): I fear that no allowance can be made on account, of lost
  750
  attendances, because it is not possible to ascertain in each case the exact reason for absence, or to decide what actually constitutes inability to attend school. If allowance could be made for every day when weather was bad, the present system of giving grants on average attendance would become almost impossible. I can, however, perhaps meet the right hon. Gentleman in other ways, as many country schools at a time like this certainly need lenient treatment. In cases where schools have necessarily been closed in consequence of the severity of the weather, a proportionately smaller number of schools meetings than the 400 now required as a minimum is accepted as qualifying for the grant. But I will also instruct Her Majesty's Inspectors that, in assessing the grants, they should judge leniently schools now shortly to be inspected, whose efficiency has been temporarily impaired in consequence of irregular attendance caused by the recent inclement weather.

  THE KING OF ASHANTI.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the fact that the King of Ashanti has expressed a desire to send an Embassy to England, and has sent messengers down to Cape Coast Castle with this object; and, whether it is a fact that Her Majesty's Government have informed the King that such an Embassy could not be received by Her Majesty the Queen; and, if so, on what grounds was the refusal based.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar, E.): The King Kumasi—we do not admit his claim to the title of King of Ashanti—has sent certain messengers to Cape Coast Castle, who have stated that their instructions are to proceed to England to see Her Majesty the Queen. The Governor of the Gold Coast Colony has been instructed to inform them that any communications from the King of Kumasi must come through the Governor; and that if the messengers proceed to England they will not be received. The grounds upon which Her Majesty's Government have based these instructions are (1) that the King of

  751
  Kumasi is not a chief or ruler of sufficient importance to be allowed to send ambassadors to the Queen, and that, in accordance with custom, she can only treat with him through the Governor of the Gold Coast Colony, who is her representative; and (2) that, under any circumstances, Her Majesty could not receive a mission from a ruler who, there is good reason to believe, allows and countenances the practice of human sacrifices. I have to add that, under instructions from Her Majesty's Government, a message was sent to the King of Kumasi by the Governor some months ago requesting the King to accept a British Resident, and laying down certain conditions for the preservation of peace and the abolition of inhuman customs, but stating that his authority and independence would not be further interfered with.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. R. W. HANBURY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, the price of Consols having risen so much above par, the deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks now earn sufficient to pay the rate of interest to depositors hitherto paid and the expenses of management; and, if not, whether it is proposed to alter the rate of interest or to meet the difficulty in some other way.

  THE MANAGEMENT OF SAVINGS BANKS.
  THE HON. J. S. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost per cent. of management of the Savings Banks for every £100 of deposits; what is the loss, if any, on every £100 deposited in the Savings Banks at the present price of Consols; whether he proposes to take any steps to minimise the loss, if any, to the Exchequer; and what is the increase in the amount of deposits for the months of November and December 1894, compared with the same months in the previous year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): I am informed by the National Debt Commissioners that the securities held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of deposits in Post Office Savings Banks have hitherto earned
  752
  more than sufficient to pay the rate of interest to depositors in addition to the expenses of management; and though the price of Consols has risen to above par, it is not estimated that the expenses for the year to December 31, 1895, will exceed the income. But the margin would be extremely narrow, owing to the combined operation of the high price of Consols and the low interest upon Consols; and I propose to appoint a Departmental Committee to investigate this subject to see what can be done upon the matter. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Lime-house, the figures are not yet sufficiently ascertained to state the cost of management per cent. The increase of receipts in Savings Banks in the months of November and December 1894, as compared with the corresponding months in 1893, was about £730,000.
  MR. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he sees any objection to granting a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the rate of interest, instead of a Departmental Committee?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think that would not be at all desirable. The matter ought to be carefully and depart-mentally examined, and I do hope that nothing will be said here or elsewhere which will raise any doubt in the mind of the public on the subject of the solvency of the Savings Bank. I have every confidence that there is no foundation for any suspicion of the kind, and nothing could be more injurious than to disseminate in the minds of people, who have no means of judging in this matter, any notion that there was any doubt or hesitation about the perfect solvency of the Bank, and its ample means of meeting its liabilities.

  THE FINANCE ACT AND MARRIED WOMEN.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Section 34, Sub-section (2) of the Finance Act, 1894, has been held by the Inland Revenue to exclude married women who are engaged in trade from the benefits granted to married women deriving incomes from any profession, employment, or vocation; whether he is

  753
  aware that under this decision a married woman engaged as a typewriter gets the advantage which her sister engaged as a milliner or dressmaker does not; and whether he will take steps to remedy this inequality of treatment?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Income Tax Act, 1842, in Section 100, draws a clear distinction between profits derived from any "trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern, in the nature of trade," upon profits derived from "professions, employments, or vocations." The relief given to married women by the Finance Act, 1894, is distinctly limited to the latter. I see no reason for making any alteration in the Act.
  MR. BARTLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not certainly the understanding of the Committee, and the House, that in making the exemption no distinction would be made as regards the source from which married women derived their income, provided it was earned in some occupation; and is it wise to make a distinction in this way in regard to the small incomes of married women?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That matter raised in the latter question cannot be discussed in answer to a question. But as to the understanding, it was clearly in my mind that the exemption was only granted in respect of employment. The case that was specially put was that of a schoolmistress—that was the case on which the discussion turned. Therefore it was clearly in my mind that it was not intended to include women engaged in trade.

  SCOTCH SEED POTATOES.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, if his Administration will take special precautions to insure that when Irish Unions buy Scotch potatoes this spring in Scotland, they will get Scotch seed grown in Scotland?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: An answer on this subject was given to the hon. and gallant Member in January 1891, by the Lord Advocate of the late Government. I can only endorse his statement—that there were no special precautions which can effectively be taken to meet the case. But I can assure the hon. Member that, upon sufficient evi-
  754
  dence being produced, the Criminal Authorities in Scotland will do all in their power to stop so fraudulent a practice; and I trust that the Local Authorities in Ireland will communicate any information they may have in any particular case, and I will promise that it shall be promptly attended to. The Crown Office have been asked to state whether there were any cases in 1891 of the nature referred to brought under their notice.

  SOLDIERS' UNCLAIMED BALANCES.
  MR. J. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if soldiers' balances unclaimed are advertised in any, and what, papers other than the London Gazette, and if he can make arrangements for advertising such balances from time to time in newspapers circulating in the regimental district within which soldiers whose balances are unclaimed are known to have enlisted, or in papers of more general circulation than the London Gazette?
  *MR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Soldiers' unclaimed balances are only advertised in the London Gazette, and stated in full detail in the monthly Army List; and lists of those pertaining to men of each district are posted at the district head-quarters. Formerly advertisements were inserted in local newspapers, but they produced so little result in proportion to the expense that the practice was discontinued. I may remind the hon. Member that these balances, when finally unclaimed, do not go to the Exchequer, but are applied, in accordance with the Regimental Debts Act, for the benefit of widows and families of soldiers dying on service.

  FLOGGING IN THE INDIAN ARMY.
  MR. R. W. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will lay upon the Table any communications that have passed between him and the Government of India, in consequence of his promise given on 16th April last year, on the subject of flogging in the Indian Army; and what steps, if any, have been taken to abolish flogging in the Indian Army, and thus remove the existing distinction in respect of liability to flogging between

  755
  the Natives of India and all other of Her Majesty's soldiers, including the West India Regiments.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I addressed a despatch on this subject to the Government of India in May last, in fulfilment of my promise to which the hon. Member alludes. The question has been under consideration since then, and I believe that a despatch from the Government of India will probably arrive by next mail.

  THE PACIFIC CABLE.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can give the House any further information as to the projected telegraphic cable across the Pacific Ocean; and whether he can lay upon the Table any further Papers on the subject?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Discussions and negotiations are in progress in relation to this line of cable, but it would not be in the public interest to enter into a detailed statement at this moment, nor, I fear, can I give any definite undertaking as to the time at which it will be possible to lay further Papers on the Table.

  ALLEGED POISONING OF CATTLE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the evidence of the police and the analysis of Professor Tichborne, the Clare Presentment Sessions rejected the claim of Colonel O'Callaghan for the loss of 14 bullocks, alleged to have been poisoned in June last; that the police proved it was impossible that the cattle could have been maliciously tampered with, and the analyst's certificate showed that they died from eating water parsnip; that Colonel O'Callaghan's agent subsequently sent to another analyst specimens from the stomachs of the cattle without sealing the jars in the presence of the police; and that the second analyst then reported a trace of arsenic; whether he is also aware that the claim for compensation is now being renewed before the Clare Grand Jury, of which Colonel O'Callaghan has frequently been a
  756
  member; and will the Government, in the interests of justice, take steps to have the police represented, and their analyst in attendance, when the claim is resisted on behalf of the ratepayers.
  MR. J. ROSS: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this Question is in order, on the ground that it contains one-sided highly-coloured statements of fact tending to prejudice the trial of pending proceedings?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I presume the hon. Gentleman who puts the Question makes himself responsible for the facts set forth in it.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in this connection, whether it is not a fact that some time ago, in the County of Clare, several men were prosecuted, and that it was found they themselves had committed the outrages for which they claimed compensation, and whether, in view of the fact that it frequently happened that these claims for compensation have been proved to be bogus claims, he will order the Authorities to watch these cases very carefully?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am aware of what the hon. Member has stated, and I will watch the matter. It is a fact that at Presentment Sessions held at Tulla on the 6th November last, the claims of Colonel O'Callaghan, in respect of the alleged malicious poisoning of a number of cattle, were thrown out for want of sufficient evidence. The District Inspector of Constabulary attended the Sessions in order to afford such information as was in his possession as to these cases, and produced documentary evidence of the Reports made by the analysts who had been employed by Government to examine the viscera of the animals. Copies of these Reports have been supplied to Colonel O'Callaghan. The police will be in attendance at the renewed hearing of the claims before the Grand Jury, but Government has been advised that it would be inexpedient to send down the analyst unless his attendance is required by the Grand Jury.

  MINING EXPLOSIVES.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been informed that

  757
  the mining explosives experimental apparatus, owned by Messrs. Pearson and Knowles, colliery proprietors, Wigan, can be placed at, the disposal of the Government free of all charge for testing explosives in the presence of coal-dust and fire damp; if so, will he appoint a Committee of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines and representatives of the Miners' Federation, with instructions to report on the different explosives at present used in coal mines, and particularly with regard to their safety in the non-ignition of coal-dust?
  *MR. ASQUITH: I am not yet in a position to decide whether its shape or construction renders it suitable for testing explosives in general, but I will procure information upon this head, and consider the matter. At present the North of England Mining Association is making very elaborate and interesting experiments as to various explosives in which certain of the Inspectors are assisting. I propose introducing a Bill dealing with the question of explosions of coal-dust in mines at an early opportunity. I am informed that a gentleman connected with the Westphalite Explosive Syndicate called at the Home Office on February 12th and offered to place at my disposition the apparatus mentioned in the question, in which to show that this explosive would not ignite coal-dust.

  THE UNEMPLOYED COMMITTEE.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Unemployed Committee will have power to consider and to report to the House upon the desirability of preventing the disfranchisement of those who have recently been deprived of employment through no fault of their own, and have in consequence been compelled to apply for parochial relief?
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked when the names of the Committee would be put on the Paper?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope the names will be put down to-night. I stated yesterday that I thought it very undesirable that the Committee should be involved in any questions of a political character, and that the matter of disqualification was one rather for the House than the Committee. My hon.
  758
  and learned Friend the Member for Louth has already called attention to the clause inserted in the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, 1886, during the administration of the Member for Midlothian, to the following effect:—
  "No person shall be incapacitated from being registered or voting is a Parliamentary elector by reason of his receipt of relief under this Act."

  THE IRISH FEE GRANT.
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has been able to arrive at a conclusion as to whether, under the Education Act of 1892, the Irish Fee Grant, instead of being a fixed sum, should increase with the increase of the English grant, bearing to that grant the proportion of 9 to 80.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Treasury, on the representation of the Irish Government, have admitted the principle that, under the Education Act of 1892, the Irish Fee Grant, instead of being a fixed sum, should increase with the increase of the English grant, bearing to that grant the proportion of 9 to 80; and they have agreed to insert in the Estimate for the coming year the increased amount asked for by the Irish Education Commissioners.

  INQUIRY AT BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. M. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the recent Local Government Inquiry, at Belfast Workhouse, into the circumstances in connection with the admission and treatment of Hannah Bella Craig, who died there within a week of her admission; whether he will give the names of the claimants and the particulars of the amounts approved of by the Belfast Board of Guardians to be paid in respect of reporting, witnesses' expenses, fees, and otherwise in connection with this Inquiry?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The items of information required by my hon. Friend are too numerous to read out to the House, but I shall be happy to let him have a statement of them in writing.

  THE COMMAND OF TROOPS IN CASES OF RIOT.
  SIR A K. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken to make the Army Regulations in the command of troops, in case of riot, conform to the Law, as recommended by the Featherstone Commissioners and the Home Office Departmental Committee?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Steps have been taken to revise the Queen's Regulations in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, and the necessary Amendments will shortly appear in Army Crders.

  SOUND SIGNALS IN FOG.
  SIR D. CURRIE: I beg to ask the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether in view of the feeling and judgment evinced amongst shipowners, shipmasters, underwriters, pilots, and others connected with British Shipping, hostile to the application of the proposed Washington Regulations for fog-sound signals at sea, he will be pleased to appoint a Committee of Members of the House to receive and consider the arguments and evidence against these proposed Regulations which the Shipping interest desire to submit to the House of Commons.
  MR. BRYCE: The matter to which my hon. Friend refers has, no doubt, a technical aspect; and I am quite willing that it should be sifted thoroughly to the bottom in any manner which would be satisfactory. If my hon. Friend will move for a Committee I shall not oppose it.
  *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has receded from his previously expressed determination to carry into effect the Regulations issued by the Board?
  MR. BRYCE: No, Sir; the House is to understand nothing of the kind.
  *MR. BOWLES: Then what is the use of a Committee?
  [No reply was given.]
  SIR D. CURRIE: I beg to give notice that I will move for a Committee at an early date.

  A RIFLE RANGE FOR SEAMEN.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether any steps have been taken to prepare a rifle range for the seamen training in the Gunnery School at Sheerness, for which purpose, £1,000 was voted in last year's Naval Estimates, 1894–5; and, if not, whether the matter will be dealt with before, the expiration of the financial year; whether he is aware that the Military rifle range at Gravesend, to which the seamen at Sheerness Gunnery School have hitherto been sent for their rifle practice, has been closed for conversion into a range for the magazine rifle till July next; and, whether he can state how the seamen are to be exercised in rifle, practice under the circumstances without a rifle range?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Steps have been taken for preparing a rifle range for the Gunnery School at Sheerness. The question was connected with the joint ownership of the land by the War Office and the Admiralty, which caused some delay. This has been now practically settled, and it is proposed to acquire the land very shortly. Information has been received of the proposed closing of the Military rifle range at Gravesend until June, The seamen, therefore, will not be able to fire at Sheerness for some three or four months. The question of whether they should carry out their rifle practice at some other port, is under consideration.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    MOTION FOR ADDRESS, ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    [Order read for resuming Debate on Mr. Clancy's Amendment to Address, 13 February, see page 643.]
    Debate resumed by—
    MR. BODKINwho said that he proposed to move a short Amendment to the Amendment. It was to add to it the following words:—
    "Having special regard to the extent of the penalties provided by more recent legislation for the specific offences of which these prisoners

    761
    were convicted; and also to the sentences actually imposed in several cases of a similar kind."
    He thought that that Amendment embodied the strongest and most unanswerable part of the claim made by the hon. Member for Dublin County, and it was to that part of the claim to which the Home Secretary had given the most insufficient answer. Having justified the heavy sentences passed upon these men, on the ground that they were political prisoners, the Home Secretary could not then turn round and say that they were not political prisoners. His view was that these men were political prisoners, and it was upon that ground that he presented his arguments to the Home Secretary. On that point the right hon. Gentleman had given no answer, and when, the Home Secretary gave no answer to an argument, it might be taken to be the case, that, to give an answer, was impossible. His contention was, that it was the motive, and the motive alone, that made a political offence. He was willing in this case to take the Home Secretary on his own ground. He was willing to assume that these men were not political offenders. If they were not, what else could they be but offenders under the Explosives Act? If they were merely treated as offenders under that Act, then he was entitled to say that they should not have received any heavier sentence than could be given under the Explosives Act, and the Home Secretary was not entitled to say that they should receive the maximum sentence that could be awarded to political offenders. These men had already suffered 12 or l3 years of the maximum penalty, while in the Walsall cases the sentences were only ten or five years' penal servitude. In the majority of the cases, the non-political cases they were discussing, no explosives were found on the persons of the prisoners. This was an unanswerable argument, which had been urged in the absence of the Home Secretary, and one to which no answer had been attempted. If it was admitted that the offences of these men were non-political, the Home Secretary was not entitled to say that they were tried under a political Statute which authorised the passing of higher sentences than the non-political Statute. At any rate, if these non-
    762
    political offenders had received the maximum penalty, no one could deny that on that account they were entitled to the merciful consideration of the Crown. In one of these cases the clemency of the Crown was actually exercised. In Egan's case the sentence was commuted because it was a political offence. He pressed the Home Secretary to say that these non-political offenders should not be treated with more harshness than other non-political offenders. This was a demand for mere justice, which ought not to be denied by the Home Secretary to the practically unanimous voice of the Irish Members and the almost unanimous opinion of Ireland. He believed his Amendment had the hearty approval of many supporters of the Government, who would be only too glad to be able to vote for it. Already some of the supporters of the Government had raised their voices on behalf of these prisoners, and apparently none desired to say a word against the claim made for them. He did not desire to introduce any irritating topic into the appeal he was making, but for himself he must say he did not endorse the discreditable suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir E. Clarke), that the Chief Secretary gave or intended to give any pledge in the matter. In that insinuation he did not join, and he did not believe the words were capable of the interpretation put upon them. No intelligent or honest man could say the Chief Secretary intended to include the men who were in prison in the description he gave of men—
    ''Whose only fault has been that they have used their talents for the benefit of their country, who have done the best they could, and have done much, to raise up the oppressed, miserable, and down-trodden people of their country."
    He was speaking on behalf of trusted leaders, of whom he might say there was not a word in that description of which they would be ashamed, or need be anxious to repudiate. It was further to be remarked that the Chief Secretary spoke, not only of an Amnesty from England to Ireland, but also of a return Amnesty from Ireland to England. On the plain ground of undeniable justice, he appealed to the Home Secretary, if he insisted that these men were not political prisoners, to treat them no worse than other non-political prisoners con-

    763
    victed of similar offences. He concluded by moving the Amendment.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): I have nothing to complain of in the tone of the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment. The hon. Member did justice to the Chief Secretary for Ireland in repudiating the charge which the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir E. Clarke) endeavoured to fasten upon him of having given a pledge upon this subject; and I will say no more upon that subject. I must, however, protest against his proceeding of moving Amendment upon Amendment, as if we had not enough Amendments already upon the Paper to make almost impossible the conduct of public business in this House. If, when you have had an Amendment placed upon the Paper, and a whole day given to the discussion of the subject, you are to have the matter renewed by another Amendment put down upon that Amendment, all I can say is, being the person unfortunately responsible for the conduct of Public Business in this House, the conduct of Public Business is absolutely impossible under circumstances of that character. Since the topic arose, it has been a prominent one on these occasions; and it has been discussed over and over again. It has been said that these men must either be political prisoners or they are not—that their offences are either ordinary offences, offences against the ordinary law, or else that they are distinctly political offences. We have answered that over and over again. There is no reason whatever, because there is superadded to this crime of treason the crime of murder, that you should make a distinction between the two in these cases. When the celebrated historical character attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament the question was not raised whether it was a political offence or an offence against the ordinary law. It was regarded as an offence against both. The House has heard this matter over and over again, and the Amendment does not introduce any fresh considerations into the Debate. I recognise the strong feeling and profound conviction which gentlemen opposite had on this matter. The responsibility, not of one Government but of all Governments who have had to deal with the question, is a
    764
    very heavy and painful responsibility. No man who had not himself under gone the burden can understand what is the weight, of the responsibility, which rests on one who has to dispense the prerogative of the mercy of the Crown. It is the heaviest responsibility that could be cast on any human being. I believe that the men who successively have had that burden imposed upon them had endeavoured to discharge it with a deep sense of their responsibility and with the knowledge that they must answer for it. This is no new question. The Government have been obliged to make their decision, and they had made it upon due deliberation and as hon. Gentlemen opposite will believe, with no leanings against mercy. I venture to say that no Home Secretary has any other than an inclination towards mercy whenever he feels his duty allows him to exercise it; but, having made that decision on the responsibility which is cast upon him, the House cannot expect that the Government should shrink from that decision. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that this Motion was couched in a form which was a vote of censure on the Government. There is no doubt at all about the matter. It is a vote of censure on a decision the Government have taken, not once, but over and over again, and I am afraid that all I am in a position to do is to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite that, having stated very fully their case, not only this year but in previous years, they will allow the House to come to a decision on a matter which invites their decision and which, in my opinion, has been amply and fully discussed.
    MR. T. SEXTONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer misapprehended the object of the Amendment. It was not the purpose of the Irish Members to renew the subject of Amnesty or even unduly to prolong this Debate. Their desire was to place on record their view that the sentences of these prisoners should be considered in the sense of the parity that they bore to sentences passed on other persons for similar offences. When he moved the adjournment yesterday, the right lion. Gentleman described the Amendment as a vote of non-confidence of the most decisive kind. Now, he desired to make it clear, in supporting the Amendment, that he regarded it in

    765
    no such light. He felt much confidence in the present Government in matters of vital and supreme concern to his country. Confidence in politics was rarely absent, but when he compared this Government with the only other Government that could possibly succeed it, his confidence in it was large and comprehensive indeed. In his humble advocacy of the plea put forth in the Amendment he had no thought of want of confidence in the Government. His support of the Amendment was proof of his confidence in them. If he had no confidence in them he would not press the Amendment on their notice; but he pressed it because he felt they were disposed to listen to reasonable argument and to give reasonable argument firm consideration. The Home Secretary admitted that he considered these cases every ten years. He gathered from that that he considered them in 1893. A considerable time had now elapsed, and the principles and motives which should guide a Home Secretary in each future consideration were affected by lapse of time. The function of the Home Secretary was greater and, beyond comparison, higher than that of any jury or Judge. The jury were bound by the evidence; the Judge was limited by the law. The right hon. Gentleman was placed over Judge and Jury, and held his office with all its powers, including the prerogative of mercy, by the confidence of the House, and was not only entitled, but bound, in cases of this kind, to have regard not only to questions of guilt or innocence or the parity of sentences, but also to the lapse of time, the growth of public feeling and opinion, and even, in certain cases, to a course of policy, and especially to the opinion of those from whose confidence he derived his office and all the powers appurtenant to it. (Opposition Laughter.) If the jocular gentleman who laughed got into office and any question of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy should arise, would it be the duty of their Home Secretary to be indifferent to the expression of their opinion? A new situation, as regarded the political prisoners, was created on the previous day. Only one Tory Member took part in the discussion, though the late Home Secretary was present throughout on the front Opposition Bench and said nothing. No less
    766
    than five Liberal Members spoke in favour of Amnesty, two of them lawyers, and four of the five were in favour of Amnesty without any qualification whatever. Therefore, he contended that, so far from suggesting any idea of no confidence, the Amendment merely put forward a plea that in the time that had elapsed since these cases were last considered circumstances had arisen entitling them to press for a new consideration. The question whether these were political crimes or not had been left more obscure than ever by the speech of the Leader of the House. The Home Secretary said they were not political, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think they were. It would be more profitable to consider the course of the Liberal Government when these cases arose and their policy since, and to ask whether their policy since did not impose upon them some responsibility. These cases arose in 1883. There was a fever of excitement and deep indignation and apprehension in the country, and under the influence of this the Explosives Act of 1883 was passed. Such was the state of public feeling that the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, without Amendment and Debate, was passed in a single Sitting of the House. The Bill was not even amended in the House of Lords. After the right hon. Gentleman had himself passed a Bill intended to meet these cases, would not any one be justified in assuming, before the trials came on, that they would be conducted in accordance with the Act passed to deal with the case? But the prisoners were tried under the Explosives Act and sentenced under the Treason Felony Act. Why were they sentenced under that Act? Because they were Irishmen, and it was held that their criminal acts or criminal intentions were consequently due to resentment against the Government in Ireland. There had been other cases of having explosives in possession, and of conspiring to use explosives; but no other case had been tried under any other Act than the Explosives Act. The aggravating cause for the Government lay in the fact that the maximum sentence which could have been imposed upon these men under the Explosives Act for anything proved in evidence would have been 20 years' penal servitude for three of the men—a sentence

    767
    which the prison system would have reduced to 15 years—and 14 years' penal servitude for the rest, which was actually equivalent to 10 years and a half. But the Government of that day put into the indictment under the Explosives Act a clause under the Treason Felony Act, which enabled them to intimate to the Judge, through their prosecuting counsel, that the maximum sentence under the Explosives Act was not sufficient—a suggestion more direct than any which an Executive ought to make to some one in a judicial position.
    SIR H. JAMES: Will the hon. Gentleman state in what case that occurred? I was prosecuting.
    MR. SEXTON: These sentences are all sentences for life.
    SIR H. JAMES: The hon. Member stated that application was made to the Judge that the sentence under one Act was not sufficient—that he should impose a higher sentence than the maximum under the Explosives Act. Will he state in which case that occurred?
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has misapprehended my words. I did not speak of an application to the Judge. I spoke of an intimation or suggestion. My point is this—that if the Government had been content to proceed under the Explosives Act, the highest sentence which the Judge could have inflicted would have been 20 years in three cases, and 14 years in the rest. But as the Government brought in the Treason Felony Act, they thereby suggested to the Judge that the maximum sentence under the Explosives Act was not sufficient to meet the case; and that the Treason Felony Act was introduced into the indictment to secure a sentence for life. Continuing, the hon. Member said that that was scarcely a straightforward act of the Law. Immediately after the House had passed an Act specifically dealing with such cases, it was severe and rigorous in the extreme to go beyond that Act, and back a generation, to an Act of 1848, passed for the purpose of relieving the British Government of the odium of punishing treasonable acts in Ireland by death, by imposing a penalty just short of death. That Act of 1848 was passed at a time when Ireland had no independent and efficient representation in the House of Commons, and when the Liberal Party
    768
    was still wedded to the policy of Coercion. All that had happened in the sphere of political policy since these trials were held imposed on the Liberal Party an unquestionable responsibility to review them. It was not unnatural in 1883—it was intelligent and perhaps consistent with the view held at that time, that the only way to rule Ireland was by means of a British Delegate armed with a Coercion Act—that, in order to strike at what the Government believed to be the political acts of felony, they should seize the sharpest weapon in the armoury of the Statute Book. But, in 1886, the Liberal Party adopted the policy of Home Rule for Ireland. In 1892 that policy was ratified by the electors. In 1893 a Bill to establish a Parliament in Ireland was adopted by the House of Commons; and from that moment forward a responsibility fell upon the Liberal Party which they could not ignore. Reference had been made to certain language used by the Chief Secretary before the Election. The right hon. Gentleman meant to convey that an Amnesty of this kind would form a proper part of the grant of Home Rule to Ireland and a settlement of the national question. [Mr. MORLEY nodded assent.] What was the logical consequence? The electors sent the Government to Parliament to grant Home Rule to Ireland; and a Bill for that purpose passed the House of Commons. And why was that Bill not law now? Why had not Ireland a Parliament and an Executive of its own last year? Why was this Amnesty, as a part of Home Rule, not granted last year? Because the House of Lords rejected the Bill. The Government resented the action of the Lords in the legislative sphere, and were about to appeal to the electors of the country to declare that, when the Commons had determined that a Bill should pass, the Lords should not prevent it from passing. But though the Government had to put up with the action of the Lords in the legislative sphere, there was another sphere in which the Government were free—the sphere of executive action; and if they sincerely resented the action of the Lords in the legislative sphere, they were bound to show their resentment by using their power in the executive sphere. As the only reason why this Amnesty had not been granted

    769
    was, that the Lords rejected the Home Rule Bill, it logically followed that the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary were surrendering into the House of Lords the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. That was a position the Liberal electors, who were to be called upon to condemn the action of the House of Lords, would not aprove. He did not maintain the guilt or innocence of the prisoners, but he did not forget that some of the cases must for ever be tainted with suspicion. There was evidence, amounting to presumption, that some of the prisoners were tempted by agents of the State. That was the opinion of a most experienced officer. It was notorious that the trials were conducted at a time of high excitement, when anger was not unnaturally deep, and that feeling must have operated with prosecuting counsel, witnesses, juries, and Judges to such an extent as to render the impartial administration of justice difficult, if not impossible. It was only necessary to ask now that these men should not, because they were Irishmen, be subjected to a heavier punishment than would be inflicted on men of any other nationality for a similar offence. The Home Secrehad said in general terms, unsupported by argument, that these cases and the Walsall cases were dissimilar in weight of guilt. But the dissimilarity was not in the advantage of the Walsall cases. He was not aware of any evidence that these Irishmen intended to take life, though he would admit that their intentions, if carried out, might have resulted in the taking of life. In the Walsall case there was some intention to take life under circumstances amounting to general and indiscriminate slaughter. How would it be contended, therefore, when the position of these men before the law was precisely the same, that the guilt in the Walsall cases was lighter than in the others? If those cases were sufficiently punished by ten, seven, or five years, how could it be reasonably supposed that those Irishmen ought to be subjected to penal servitude? The Liberal Party, in view of their policy towards Ireland and their alliance with the Irish people, ought to be unwilling to lean any longer upon the effete Act of 1848, which justified the imprisonment of these men. What was the object of the right hon. Gentleman?
    770
    He could understand him if it was intended to keep them in prison for their lives on the ground that, when once convicted of such an offence, they could not be trusted at liberty. That would be an intelligible, though a condemnable position. But that was not the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. The prisoners were entitled to release at the end of 20 years; therefore the extreme limit of contention was this, that it was a case as between 12 and 20 years. They had suffered for 12 years; were they to suffer for 20 years? There were only two possible objects in keeping the men in prison; one or other must be the object of the Home Secretary. The one object was Punishment, and the other object was Prevention. Was the object of the right hon. Gentleman further punishment, and had the punishment up to the present been inadequate? It was very strange that the Walsall anarchists were punished by terms of imprisonment of ten, seven, or five years, while the Irish prisoners, for the same offence, were not sufficiently punished by 12 years. Was it not true to say that, because those men were Irishmen and there was a political character attached to their offence, they had suffered more in those 12 years than other men in 20 years? The other object was prevention. Did the right hon. Gentleman contend that they were less likely ever to commit crime again if he kept them in prison to the end of 20 years? Such an argument could not be maintained; and if further punishment was intended to deter those outside who were in sympathy with the prisoners, he asserted with the utmost confidence that there was an operation of grace more powerful than any operation of punitive law. If the Home Secretary released these men at the request of the representatives of Ireland a request founded on no sympathy with crime, and in no forgetfulness of the tragic consequences that might have followed from those acts for which the prisoners were tried, but founded on the interests of the commonwealth in the highest sense—he should say that the greatest good would be effected by a policy of clemency. The prisoners had already suffered a longer imprisonment than the highest sentence, that could be indicted on them under the Explosives Act, and he therefore submitted that a case for reconsideration

    771
    had arisen. While expressing on matters of general policy confidence in the Government, and as being disposed to regard them in this case also as entitled to confidence, he pressed upon Ministers the consideration that no public interest would be damaged, but, on the contrary, the greatest interest of the community—peace, and order, and respect for law—would be considerably preserved by a release of the prisoners for whom the Irish Members now pleaded.
    MR. R. WALLACEsaid, that he intended to vote with the hon. Members for Ireland and against the Government. This Amendment had been made a subject of confidence by the Government, and he desired to clear up his position in the matter. He thought that the turning of an adverse Vote on this question into a Vote of Censure on the Government was not worthy of them. He could not understand any rational justification for such a position. He supposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would plead that it was an old tradition that a Vote against the Government on the Address was to be accepted as a Vote of Censure. He ventured to say that this was a piece of antiquated nonsense. He imagined that the practice had come down from the days of Sir Robert Walpole; but the Parliamentary promulgator of graduated taxation at the end of this century might easily have undertaken the not very difficult duty of brushing aside the cobwebs left by Sir Robert Walpole.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: On the contrary, I wish he was here.
    MR. R. WALLACEthought, at any rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have detached his mind from the traditional formalities connected with this question, and that he might have devoted it to the centre and substance of the matter. Were the expected supporters of the Government to be tied down in the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by his utterances, proposed that they should be? It came to this—unless the supporters of the Government were on every minute point to come to heel they must run the risk of being dismissed to go before the country. He desired, however, to set the matter in the light of public interests. Was it right and proper that a great Administration should be prepared to
    772
    throw up its great power for usefulness all over the country, and for a very considerable period of time in prospect, merely on a matter of petty administration? A Government that went out of power in a pet, because its own supporters or the House of Commons offered advice differing from the view which it entertained itself on a point of mere administration, deserved to be censured. Years ago he had voted with his hon. Friends on this question, and he had seen no reason to reverse the opinion then arrived at. The prisoners had certainly expiated whatever crimes they had been guilty of; and, in addition to that, he had since seen a more clear and more full indication of the National sentiment of Ireland on the question. One other important event had happened since that time, and that was the enunciation of certain large principles with regard to Amnesty, both in speech and writing, by the Chief Secretary. The Leinster Hall speech justified the vote he was about to give. The Chief Secretary had no right to limit the application of his principles in any arbitrary way he pleased. The Chief Secretary was master of his own mind, but he was not master of deductive logic. Extracts from the Leinster Hall speech were quoted yesterday, and in that speech the Chief Secretary practically pledged the Government to give an Amnesty to these prisoners whenever Home Rule was granted to Ireland. He drew two inferences; the first was, that these prisoners were political prisoners. If not, why should they be amnestied on a political occasion? Did the Chief Secretary propose to amnesty the murderers, the thieves, and the rogues in Ireland? He drew the further inference that it was not a question of abstract justice. It was simply a principle of political expediency. If not, Government would not make time a part of the contract, If Home Rule had been carried eighteen months ago, these men would have been amnestied. If Home Rule was not passed for 20 years, they would remain in prison. Was there a principle of abstract justice there? If it was a question of expediency, it might be expedient to grant Amnesty now. The Irish people were Ito get not merely the haunch of venison, but the trimmings into the bargain; and I they said, as they could not get the

    773
    haunch of venison; "Give us the trimmings." They asked for something on account. He said that was a very justifiable request. He thought the Chief Secretary might grant the request of the Irish people, and release the so-called dynamite prisoners. He should call them political prisoners. From what he knew of the nature of the Irish people he was sure they would feel far more grateful for the contingent than for the postponed mercy.
    *MR. HENRY MATTHEWSsaid, he should not enter into the domestic quarrels of the Party opposite. He should leave them to settle that themselves. He noticed, however, that the Members opposite who supported the Irish Members had a large Irish element in their constituencies. If the Chief Secretary were understood to have said that the Amnesty of these prisoners depended upon the contingency of the Home Rule Bill passing, all he could say was that, he entered his most solemn protest against such doctrine as that. He should not dwell on the arguments of the hon. Member for Kerry, but he ventured to say that the reasons which guided the Home Secretary in his conduct in this matter deserved the full approval of that House. He thought the right hon. Gentleman laid down the true principle. Of course, the lapse of time must influence the judgment of any man. The physical circumstances of a prisoner must also be taken into account. The Member for Kerry suggested that these men should be released because public opinion in Ireland was in favour of it. He did not wish to say anything harsh, but he could not shut his eyes to this—that the public feeling in Ireland was not altogether sound on this subject. There was a morbid feeling to sympathise with those who fell under the lash of the English law. He could understand the feeling. He did not believe that in reality the Irish people sympathised with the perpetrators of abominable offences; but, on the other hand, there was a national disposition to sympathise with any one sentenced by the English Courts. Many of these prisoners did cause explosions, and the penalty for that offence under the Explosives Act. was penal servitude for life. The blowing up of stations in London, the Tower
    774
    explosion, and the explosion near the gasworks in Glasgow were cases in which explosions actually occurred. The offences for which penalties of terms of years were provided were much vaguer and lighter than those brought home to these prisoners. Was it possible to doubt that in all these cases explosions were intended? The explosives were in the possession of these persons, and, where explosions did not actually occur, it was the sagacity of the police that prevented them. The offence for which a penalty of 14 years was provided was for having explosives in possession, unless proof of innocent possession were forthcoming. While admitting that the penalties in the Explosives Act were of a somewhat savage character, he thought that the analogy of that Act could not be urged as a sound argument that the sentences in these cases were excessive. He supposed it would be in vain to suggest that no possible good could be done by this discussion. He could not imagine how it could conduce to any good to invite the House to remember all the circumstances that were proved in evidence against many of these men, but he was quite certain that everything that was necessary to the due administration of justice the Home Secretary would take into account.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDremarked, that he did not know that any useful object would be served by prolonging the Debate, but he desired to offer one or two observations before they proceeded to a Division, if the House would permit. On former occasions, when this subject was discussed, he dealt not only with the general arguments, but went into detailed accounts of the circumstances of many of these men. It would, he felt, be out of place to enter into a detailed examination of their cases upon the present occasion. The last speaker had, however, attempted to induce the House to believe that the analogy between the Walsall cases and some of these men told rather against the Irish prisoners than in their favour. But, taking the case of John Daly, for example, he was not tried for having caused an explosion or for connection with any explosion. He was tried for being in possession of explosives, which he could not satisfactorily account for. The Walsall men were tried for

    775
    exactly the same offence; but, whereas Daly to the last protested his innocence and evidence had since been produced by the Chief Constable of Birmingham that the explosives were planted upon him by an agent of the police, the Walsall men stood up in the dock and stated that in their case they had the explosives in their possession for the purpose of bringing about explosions; and one piece of evidence in their case was, that a document was found upon one of them showing that explosions were intended. Yet in Daly's case the sentence was for life, while the Walsall men only got terms of years. From the remarks of the Home Secretary he gathered that the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that it would not be altogether unfair if in the case of Daly the sentence were to be treated as a sentence of 20 years' penal servitude under the Explosives Act. That was an enormous advance to have secured, inasmuch as Daly's sentence, would then in the ordinary course he remitted at the end of 15 years from the date of the sentence. Pushing that argument a little further, he would remind the House that all these men in Portland Prison were suffering life sentence. They were not all guilty in the same degree. Some were intelligent men, while others were illiterate and the dupes of others. If Daly, under the Explosives Act, ought only to have received 20 years, it followed as a matter of course that it would be fair to reconsider the sentences on other men. Sentences of 14 years under the Explosives Act would amount to something like 10½ years in prison. The men whose cause was now pleaded had already been in prison over 12 years. He wished to press that point. He congratulated his hon. Friend on having initiated the most useful Debate on the Amnesty question that had yet been heard in the House. It was clear that the movement in favour of Amnesty was advancing rapidly. He regretted that the Leader of the House had, on the previous afternoon, and again, that evening, tried to invest the Amendment with the significance of a Vote of Censure on the Government. The plain meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was, to try and induce those hon. Members behind him who were convinced of the justice of the demand for Amnesty to vote with the
    776
    Government, or at least to abstain from voting in favour of the Amendment. He appealed to those hon. Members not to allow themselves to be driven out of the Lobby through fear that they might be imperilling the position of the Government, who were sure of a large majority that evening. In voting for this Amendment hon. Members would be strengthening the appeal for Amnesty, would be showing to the people of Ireland a conviction in the justice of the case, and would be doing a good work for the future peace of Ireland and for the establishment of better relations between that country and Great Britain by advancing still further the plea for Amnesty, and bringing about the ultimate release of these unfortunate men.
    MR. A. ILLINGWORTHsaid, it would have been impossible for any Home Secretary, after the passing of a Home Rule measure, to have kept these men in prison, as their offence was a political offence, and their Amnesty would be an inevitable corollary of such a measure. It was not a question of principle, as the Home Secretary had himself intimated that there would come a time when these men might receive a commutation of their sentences. If it were granted that the time these men had been in prison was ample punishment, the only question remaining for consideration was, what, was the state of the public mind? He thought everything pointed to a change amounting to a revolution in the disposition of the Irish people towards the English Government, and of the English people towards the Irish people. That being the case, he saw no reason why an early Amnesty should not be granted, and the fact that they had failed to secure Home Rule to the Irish promptly was an overpowering reason why the Home Secretary should release these men.
    MR. T. LOUGHthought that full justice had not been paid in the Debate to the speech of the Home Secretary, which was couched in very different language from that which he had made two years ago. Unfortunately, immediately after the right hon. Gentleman sat down a personal altercation between the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth arose, and

    777
    this incident had occupied much of their time, and had, he thought, thrown more acidity into the Debate. The Home Secretary had been good enough to say that he would be glad to consult the Judge who had sentenced these, men in regard to certain points that had been raised, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would promise the House that this conference with the Judge should take place on an early occasion, and that he would then take into account the various points points raised in the Debate.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I am told that the Division bells are out of order, but as no experiment has been tried it is uncertain whether they are so or not. Assuming that they art the Serjeant-at-Arms has given directions to the police and the messengers to convey the information to all parts of the House, and I hope the House will suffer no inconvenience.
    The House divided on the Amendment as amended:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 299.—(Division List, No. 5.)

    THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY MAGISTRATES.
    MR. A. C. MORTON MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough) moved as an Amendment to the Address,—
    "And we humbly express our regret that Your Majesty has been unable to inform this House that the Resolution of this House of the 5th of May 1893, relating to the appointment of County Magistrates, has been fully carried out by Your Majesty's present advisers."
    He explained that the Resolution of May5, 1893, declared that appointments of magistrates should no longer be made only on the recommendation of lords lieutenant. The Lord Chancellor, replying to a deputation before that Resolution was passed, said that if a Resolution of the kind were carried he would consider all nominations that might be sent to him and make appointments without regard to the nominations of lords lieutenant. At least he was understood to say that. The Resolution was then carried by that House, but the grievance of which its supporters complained did not thereupon disappear, as
    778
    they hoped it would. The present practice was this; when nominations for any district were, made to the Lord Chancellor, he sent in the names of the parties to the lord lieutenant and endeavoured to induce him to nominate them. If the endeavour failed, nothing further was done. In fact he doubted whether the Lord Chancellor had really made any appointment without first getting the consent of the lord lieutenant. He had heard of one case in which an appointment had been made in final opposition to the Lord Lieutenant, and that one case proved the rule. At any rate, the Radical Party objected to the existing practice, under which the Lord Chancellor made the nomination to the Lord Lieutenant, and really claimed the credit of the appointment. Under that practice, too, active and vigorous Radicals were, as a rule, excluded as far as possible. "What he wanted and sought by his Amendment, was some assurance from the Government that, in future nominations to the Bench, fair consideration should be given to qualified men of the Radical Party and to Nonconformists. They were perfectly content that the Lord Chancellor should make the fullest inquiries concerning the persons nominated, so long as those inquiries were not of a political character; for Radicals were quite as anxious as the Lord Chancellor, or as Tories, that unfit persons should not be placed on the Bench; and he believed there were very few cases of the kind on one side or the other. Only about 10 or 15 per cent, of the County Magistrates were Radicals or Nonconformists; and that, he contended, was a most unfair proportion, for Radicals and Nonconformists had as much right to a share in the administration of the law of the country as Tories and Churchmen. The Lord Chancellor had admitted in a letter to an hon. Member that he had a difficulty in finding a sufficient number of Radical gentlemen in the counties who possessed the necessary qualification. He recognised that such a difficulty might exist; but, at the same time, he thought more appointments of Radicals might be made than had been done. Tins property qualification handicapped the Party, and it ought to be abolished. He knew that the Government had promised to make an effort to do so, but time must be found for the purpose. In

    779
    the meantime, however, something might be done to remedy the existing injustice. It might be said that Radicals and Nonconformists were not good enough for Justices of the Peace, but if they were good and strong enough to put a Government in power, and to appoint a Lord Chancellor, they ought certainly to be capable of filling the position of Magistrates. It was a curious state of things that, while a property qualification was required in England, none was necessary in either Scotland or Ireland. Why should this difference exist? Why should Radicals in England be thus handicapped? How would the argument with regard to the predominant partner apply in this matter? They did not expect that the discrepancy in the number of Tories and Radicals on the Bench could be at once redressed, but they did claim from the Government that, until the balance was to some extent corrected, Tories should be nominated to a much less extent than at present. As far as he had been able to ascertain, as many Tories as Radicals or Nonconformists had been nominated for the Bench since 1893, and that he urged was most unfair under the circumstances. He had no objection to Tories being appointed; all he claimed was that Radicals had a right to equal consideration. The demands on the time of the Government might be too heavy to enable them to properly deal with the question at the present moment; but, having admitted that the Radical Party were acting fairly and justly in this matter, it was their duty to assist them in their object as far as they could. It might be said that many of the Magistrates recently placed on the Bench had been appointed through the District Councils. To this he did not object, though the men appointed might be Tories, because they were practically elected by the people. He did not bring this matter forward by way of censure at all events on Members of the Government sitting in this House, but the present was the only opportunity open to him. He asked the Government, therefore, having regard to the rights of the Radical Party, and especially the Nonconformist Party, to do their best to see that the Crown carried out the Resolution of the 5th May, 1893, which they themselves on that day voted for.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT)said he had listened very carefully to his hon. Friend's speech, but he failed to appreciate what it was he charged the Government and the Lord Chancellor with. The Resolution to which he referred had been carried out in hundreds and thousands of cases, and, therefore, the complaint of the hon. Member fell to the ground. No doubt there had been a certain amount of disappointment where gentlemen had recommended a list, and the whole list had not been adopted. The truth, however, was, that a person in a responsible position like the Lord Chancellor, must make inquiries, and must be careful to satisfy himself as to the qualifications of those whom he placed on the Bench. The old system was, therefore, a bad one—as bad as it could possibly be. Some years ago he went into a certain county, which he would not name, and said to a fellow-traveller, "Do you think the Lord Lieutenant of this county would make me a Magistrate?" "I don't think he would," was the reply," because he never made a Liberal a Magistrate in his life, and never will. "The very last thing he ever desired was to be a Magistrate; he was not one, and never would be. He might mention, as a fact not generally known, that a man who was a Privy Councillor could swear himself in as a Magistrate at any time. That was a privilege he had never taken advantage of. He was quite sure the desire of the Lord Chancellor had been very largely to extend the limits of the appointments of the Magistrates, that there should be no distinction of creed in the matter, and that classes who had not been freely chosen in the past, should in future have a place on the Bench. A considerable number of artisans had been placed on the Bench with great advantage. Therefore it was not the case that the Resolution had not been acted upon, and it was being more fully acted upon every week and every month.
    MR. CYRIL DODDthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mistaken when he informed the

    781
    House that artisans had been placed upon the county Bench. The Resolution dealt not with the Borough, but with the County Bench, and the reason why in England no artisans had been put on was that there was a property qualification, which practically closed the County Bench against working men. Nor could he admit that the Resolution of the House of Commons had been fully or adequately carried out, although it might be that sufficient time had not yet elapsed. He did not speak as having any personal grievance, because in the County of Essex, which he represented, no difficulty had been experienced in arriving at a list satisfactory to all parties. But, moving about the country a good deal, as he did, he found that a very considerable grievance existed. People had not been placed on the County Bench, for example, because they were Nonconformists. What it was hoped the Resolution would do, was this—that it would throw open the County Bench to men of all parties, and thereby to strengthen the sense of justice among all sections of the community. Instead of Magistrates being appointed by the Crown, on the nomination of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Chancellors had in latter days come to abandon this part of their duties, and the lord lieutenant of each County had practically become the arbiter of who should and who should not be on the Bench. The time had come when the whole subject must be considered. The Chairmen of District Councils became Magistrates during their year of office. At the end of that term they would come off the Commission of the Peace, and, in many cases, they could not be re-appointed unless the property qualification were abolished. All they desired at present, however, was to impress upon the Government that it was its duty to do the best in the present condition of the law, and to urge on the Lord Chancellor that he should not restcontent with what he had done in some counties, but should endeavour more thoroughly to carry out the Resolution of the House. He did not ask that the Lord Chancellor should put as many Liberals as there were now Tories on the Bench; that would neither be possible
    782
    nor desirable. But Liberals should no longer be debarred from serving their country as Magistrates simply because they were Liberals. It was unfortunate that there should be a feeling in the country that one Party was not being fully or fairly dealt with in the matter of the administration of justice. The House was concerned in seeing what effect was given to its Resolution. There were rumours of another Resolution, though he did not know when it was to be proposed. But, no doubt, it was a Resolution of the utmost importance. They wanted to know how Resolutions were carried out. The value of a Resolution depended on the force behind it. What was the force behind the Resolution with regard to the Magistrates? (An hon. MEMBER: "Very little.") It was the force of the Government who voted for it, and, as a supporter of that Government, he held that it was his duty to see that the Resolution was fully, fairly, and thoroughly carried out.
    MR. MORTONsaid would not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but he hoped the Government would take into consideration the feelings of their own Party, and endeavour to carry out the Resolution, of the House.
    Amendment withdrawn.

    THE MAAMTRASNA PRISONERS.
    MR. T. HARRINGTON MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour) moved as an Amendment to the Address:—
    "And we humbly assure Your Majesty that the present peaceful condition of Ireland affords a fitting opportunity for an inquiry into the circumstances attending the trial and conviction of certain prisoners at present suffering penal servitude in Ireland, known as the Maamtrasna prisoners."
    He said that this subject had been before the House on four or five different occasions. It affected not only the continued imprisonment of four men, suffering penal servitude in Ireland, but affected also the question of their guilt or innocence of the very abominable and the very heinous crime which was laid to their charge.
    Attention having been called to the fact that there were not 40 Members

    783
    present, the House was completed, and 40 Members being present—
    MR.HARRINGTON,continuing, said, that, practically, all he asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland to do was to carry out a promise to institute an inquiry into those cases which was made by one of his predecessors in office on behalf of the Conservative Government a few years ago. When the attention of the House, was first drawn to the question at the end of the Session of 1884, the Marquess of Hartington stated, on behalf, of the then Liberal Government, that while they refrained from making an absolute promise that an Inquiry should be instituted, the Irish Government were prepared to receive any representation, and, if the facts were as alleged, an Inquiry should be granted. A partial Inquiry followed upon representations which were made by the Archbishop of Tuam and other eminent ecclesiastics, but he desired to impress on the House the fact that that Inquiry was only into part of the case, for the full facts could not at the time be laid before the Lord Lieutenant, who instituted the Inquiry. The Chief Secretary, in the course of his speech the other day, had expressed the opinion that the object of this Amendment was to discredit the Administration of Lord Spencer in Ireland. He hoped his words would entirely remove that erroneous impression from the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt, when the question was first raised in the House, the suspicion very naturally arose, owing to the acute friction between the Nationalist Members and the Liberal Government, that the object of it was to discredit Lord Spencer's Administration. But the suspicion was, even then, utterly unfounded; and now the section of Irish Nationalist to which he belonged would be the last to make any attack upon Lord Spencer. They felt indebted in the highest degree to Lord Spencer for the manner in which he advocated the right of the Irish people to self-government, and for the strength with which the had held to that opinion in spite of many discouragements and difficulties; but they were even more indebted to Lord Spencer because, when
    784
    Mr. Parnell was being bitterly assailed, he was conspicuous among his colleagues for the generosity of his allusions to the late Irish Leader. The only desire he (Mr. Harrington) had in drawing attention to the cases of those four men, who, he believed in his inmost soul, were guiltless of the crime of which they had been convicted, was to have them restored to the bosoms of their families, whence they should never have been taken. In October 1884, on the occasion the Inquiry to which he had alluded was promised, a Debate, that lasted four days, took place, and because on that occasion some Conservative Members supported the demand for an investigation, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary seemed to have got it into his head that the Motion was intended to discredit the Liberal Administration in Ireland. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that though it was quite true that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir E. Clarke) supported the Motion on that occasion, the strongest speech in support of the Motion, and the speech of all the Debate that most carried conviction to the minds of all who heard the Debate, was made by the present Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Russell) who was a supporter of the then Government, and, of course, had no Party interest to serve. Lord Russell said he felt the duty was cast upon him to support the Amendment; because, though he had first believed the men had been rightly convicted, that belief had been removed after hearing the case which he (Mr. Harrington) had laid before the House. The next occasion on which the question was raised was in July 1885, when a Conservative Government was in Office, and again the Conservative Members to whom the Chief Secretary had alluded supported the demand for an Inquiry. On that occasion the right lion. Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:—
    "The Lord Lieutenant has authorised me to state that if Memorials should be presented or statements made to him on behalf of those prisoners who are referred to in this Motion, they would be considered by him with the same personal attention which he would be bound to give to all cases, great or small, ordinary or exceptional, coming before him, with the earnest desire to carry into effect the requirement of justice,"

    785
    No Memorial, so far as he knew, was then presented to the Lord Lieutenant by the friends of the prisoners. He did not think the duty was cast on him, having called attention to the matter in the House, to present a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant. Besides, the Conservative Government remained in office only a short time. There was then an interval of Liberal Government, followed by a long term of Conservative Government, during which it took all the efforts of the Irish Government to prevent the authorities from putting persons into prison, without giving them time to think of asking the Government to go back upon the cases of old prisoners. The crime of which the men had been convicted was a most abominable and heinous murder. On the night of August 17th, 1882, in a little glen on the borders of the Counties of Mayo and Galway, a poor humble family of small farmers, named Joyce, had their house broken into. The father, John Joyce, his wife, his mother an old woman over 80, and his daughter, were killed; and two other children were left in so precarious a condition that one died the next day and the other did not recover for a long time. The very enormity of the crime would dispel from the mind of every Member of the House the idea that there could be any sympathy with the crime or with the men who were guilty of it. There could be behind the demand for inquiry nothing but a desire to clear away the suspicion of unjust conviction. In drawing attention to the case of these prisoners he was drawing no distinction between the criminality of the man who actually committed the murder and that of the men who were accessory to it. If the inquiry he asked for did not clearly establish that the four men for whom he pleaded were in their beds, miles away from the scene of the murder when it was committed, and could have had no complicity with it, then he would admit that the verdict was perfectly just. Ten men were arrested for this abominable murder, and out of those ten men three had been executed and five still remained in gaol. These men were arrested on the information of Anthony Joyce, a cousin of the murdered man. Joyce was examined through an interpreter, as were all the witnesses in the case, being Irish-
    786
    speaking peasants. He stated that when he had been in bed some time on the night of the murder he was aroused by the barking of dogs, and going to the door, with very few clothes on, saw six men whom he did not know at first. Next he went to the back and saw the men again, this time recognising them all. Four of them he had known from youth. He went to his brother's house, and brought out his brother and his brother's son. Together they followed the men across the river to the house of the murdered man. They saw some of the men enter the house, heard shouting and screaming, and then ran home. That was the story on which the prosecution proceeded. To credit that story one must believe that an Irish peasant, hearing six men passing his house at midnight, got out of his bed, and, partly undressed, followed those men first to his brother's house, and then a distance of three miles. He himself had been all over the ground, and he could assert that no impartial man would give the slightest credence to the story. At the trial an application was made for a new jury to go to the scene of the murder; but the application was refused. Had it been granted, not one of the men would have been convicted. The witness Anthony Joyce stated in the most distinct manner that he identified all the prisoners, and he was corroborated by his brother and his nephew. His brother actually added that the men wore dark clothes. The whole strength of the case for an. inquiry rested on the overturning of this evidence, upon which the Crown rested their whole case. Three years after the trial the fact came out—a fact known at the time of the trial to the Crown counsel, but never produced by them—that the men who committed the murder were described by the two boys of the murdered man as having blacked faces and wearing white jackets. This was absolutely incompatible with the Crown evidence. Moreover, the men to whose guilt Anthony Joyce deposed were at enmity with him. One of them, Myles Joyce, had been quarrelling with him months before, and had only just been released from a month's imprisonment resulting from the quarrel. Two days after Anthony Joyce had given his information to the police, and before the Magistrate took his

    787
    deposition, Sub-inspector Gibbons stated that he had six other men under arrest, and asked that they should be remanded for inquiries. Again, after an interval of six or seven days, Sub-inspector Gibbons applied for a further remand. If the Crown had placed the least reliance on Anthony Joyce's deposition—which was before them all this time—it would have been absurd to arrest six other men and to ask for a remand in order to inquire into their cases. During all that time not only had the Crown this man Joyce in charge, but they had actually in custody the ten prisoners subsequently put on their trial, while the story given by the Joyces was before them. What took place at the trial? These men were removed from the County Galway to be tried in the City of Dublin. They were all Irish-speaking peasants; not one of them except the young lad in gaol knew a word of English. The prisoners were taken to a place to be tried where all the difficulties presented in the course of the trial were practically as great as if they had been tried in a city on the Continent. Their Counsel did not understand a word of the language which the prisoners spoke; the Solicitor who was supposed to convey the instructions of these unfortunate men did not know a word of their language; not a man serving on the jury knew a word, and not a word which any of the jurors might say was known to them, and they had not the slightest conception of what might be said by the Judge. Upon the facts as presented to the jury he would have returned the same verdict; and he did not for a moment question the finding of the jury on the facts presented to them. But here was a fact which he was anxious to bring forward in order to show the difficulty in which these prisoners were placed. They were unable to present, even to their own Counsel, the conviction and the knowledge that they were innocent of this crime. To make the matter more ridiculous and difficult for them, the interpreter who acted between the Court and the prisoners was a policeman who knew the Irish language—Head Constable Evans. Before the case came on in Dublin, of the ten men in custody one
    acknowledged his guilt of the murder. It was needless for him to point out that, however doubtful the story of Anthony
    788
    Joyce and his brother, however incredible to the minds of the jury if presented by Joyce alone, everything like a shadow of doubt with regard to the trial vanished; and when the case was so presented to the jury, with that man's corroboration, they could not have come to any other conclusion but that the murder had been committed as described; in fact, they were forced to believe the story. But what was the fact which he wanted the Chief Secretary to establish by his inquiry? It was that this man Anthony Joyce was so terrified, and so afraid of his life, though not within six miles of the murder at the time and had no cognisance of it, that when he had heard the story so often, and told against himself, he was constrained to say that he was guilty and that he was present. He knew how difficult it was to get a person to realise the fact that a man who had no participation in the murder and knew nothing about it, had no knowledge of it except that he heard the story told seven or eight times, was so weak and criminal that he stated the story told against him was true, and that he corroborated the story against the others in order to save his own life. That was the question which had complicated the whole case. A few days before the trial came on a second man made an attempt to save his life. One of the ten men charged who gave evidence, and who was not there, was a man named Anthony Philburn. Thomas Casey made an effort to save his life, and sent for Mr. George Bolton, the Crown Solicitor. Casey's contention was, that he was anxious to save his life and to give evidence, but that he wanted to tell the true facts and not the false story told by other witnesses. This man acknowledged his guilt now, and was prepared to go into any inquiry which the Chief Secretary was willing to institute. Nearly two years after this man had been sent to penal servitude, and after three of the prisoners had been executed, Casey came forward and made a public confession of his criminality in the church, in presence of the Archbishop of Tuam. He alleged that he first of all took part in the murder, and that he was, to some extent, responsible for the death of the three men who had been executed, because he gave evidence which led to their execu-

    789
    tion—evidence which was false. What was his story? His story was that, instead of ten men having taken part in the murder there were only seven. He was one of them; Michael Casey was another, and he supported Casey, stating, however, that the other four men in prison with them were perfectly innocent. Casey gave the names of the men who took part in the murder; three of them were still living in the district; they had not been brought to justice. Personally he had met these men; he had accused them of the murder; and he was convinced in his soul that they were guilty. Why had they not been punished? Because to take and punish them would be to expose the character of the entire proceedings on which the first men were hanged. Casey's story was, that of the men executed two were guilty, and one of them was innocent. Let the House look at the facts and see how Casey was corroborated. When Casey made that public confession he had absolutely no knowledge of some of the facts to which he had called the attention of the House. Two days previous to the execution of the three men found guilty at the trial, two of them, having no means of communication with one another, being in their condemned cells and guarded by warders night and day, were so oppressed in conscience at innocent men having to suffer for their crime that they sent first of all for the chaplain and then for the Governor of the gaol, stating that they wanted to make a statement as to the innocence of the third man. He did not know whether they did this on the same day, but the fact was, that the two men took the action he had described, and a Magistrate was sent for. He complained of the extraordinary fact that the same Magistrate was sent for who had practically been working up the case against the prisoners. This was a wretched and deplorable incident, calculated to check confidence in the administration of justice. The magistrate who attended the inquest, who worked up the case against the prisoners, and who entered the cells under the Court House to take the depositions of the informers, and their statements—the dying depositions of the boys being still suppressed—was the same man who was sent to take the depositions of the men in gaol, Mr.
    790
    Newton Brady. This gentleman might be perfectly innocent of any intention to do anything but justice, but he maintained that the introduction of a different man, at all events at this stage of the inquiry, would have given the unfortunate men to be executed some better chance and a reasonable ray of hope. The depositions of the two boys were suppressed at the trial, and were never given to the counsel who defended the prisoner. Some of the men going to their dread account admitted their own guilt, but declared the innocence of others. When the Lord Lieutenant went to make inquiry, Mr. Brady was the gentleman to whom he intrusted that duty. He wished to make no allegations against Lord Spencer. Necessarily he had to use the men who knew the facts; but he might have placed the conduct of the inquiry in the hands of an independent person. If they believed the story of the prosecution they must admit that, not only were ten men concerned in the commission of this abominable crime, but four of them were first cousins of the man who was killed. The fact was, that in the murderers' party there was not one member of the Joyce family. The confession made by Casey was, that all those who took part in the murder were Caseys except one named Joyce, who was no relative. The hon. Member then read to the House the statements of Casey, the approver, and pointed to the curious fact that, while the families of the real murderers received money, the families of the innocent men, who had taken no part in the murder, never received a penny. In the course of the questions put to Thomas Casey when he made his statement, he alleged that he did not go into the house. The question was then put to him—
    "As you were the greatest stranger, why did they not press you, or why did you not go in yourself?''
    He would invite the attention of the House to the following extraordinary answer:—
    ''Sure they were all strangers, for they had blackened faces. I had only a soft hat tied down over my face. It was John Casey blackened them with polish blacking."
    He pledged his word to the House that that was the first allegation of any kind

    791
    that he received as to the fact that these men had blackened faces on the night the murder was committed. It was inconsistent with the story of the Crown. Nobody could doubt for a moment that the entire story, as told by the approver, would be absolutely inconsistent with the allegation that the men had blackened faces. But he would draw the attention of the House to an extraordinary corroboration of the story of Casey. At the trial he had heard nothing of any such allegation being made, and in the subsequent discussion in the newspapers, he never saw it suggested that the men who committed the murder had blackened faces; and when he heard of Casey's story, it seemed so to upset all his notions of the case as he had watched it, that he went down into the district to make inquiries, and to examine into it. The first person he met was a police constable to whom he said—
    "Is it not singular that these men had on no disguise of any kind when they committed the murder?"
    "Oh!" said the constable "they had disguises." He then saw and spoke to the two boys Michael and Patrick Joyce, and they both told him that the murderers wore disguises. Now, if that were true, if there any weight in these statements, then the whole story presented by the Crown was absolutely false, and guilty and innocent alike were found guilty. A few days after this visit to the district, a legal gentleman, a friend of his, happening to have in his possession the briefs used by the Couusel for the Crown, sent them to him, and attached to them he found two remarkable depositions, which were never given to the Counsel who was responsible for the defence. To these declarations he would draw the attention of the House. The first was a declaration by Michael Joyce, the elder of the two boys, and it was headed—
    "Dying declaration of Michael Joyce, Maam-trasna, taken by A. N. Brady, R.M., on 18th August, 1882:—Two or three men came in. They had black on their faces. I did see my father and my brother killed. I am very sick. I cannot raise myself up. I was asleep when they came in. I heard the dog bark—my own dog. They said something to my father—I do not know what. I have no pain at all. I was
    792
    at Mass yesterday at Finney. My name is Michael. John O'Brien told me not to tell, and Michael Malley. It was last night when they told me not to tell. They swore me on a book not to tell. It is John O'Brien of the Wood— I am sure of it."
    That declaration was signed "A Newton Brady, R.M." From the beginning to the end of the trial no suggestion was ever made that that statement had been made by Michael Joyce. It was suggested that some statement was taken from the boy, but that he was rambling at the time, and that it could not be used. Appended to the statement were the following notes: "This has been found not to be a fact" (that the boy was at Mass at Finney the previous day). "These men"—(that was John O'Brien and Michael Malley)—"were arrested, but this was the only ground of suspicion against them. They were discharged." Those notes were signed "A. N. B.," and, because in the opinion of Mr. Newton Brady, the statement of the boy that he was at Mass the day preceding the murder, was not a fact, the whole of the deposition was kept out of the trial. The clergyman of the district wrote to him on November 3, 1884, upon the subject of the boy's condition. He said—
    ''Brady, the doctor, and I arrived at the house of the murders almost at the same time. Brady was a little in advance, and insisted on taking the boys' depositions before I saw them—the boys. I was, of course, excluded from the house during the taking of the declarations, but the doctor was admitted. And whatever he may have sworn at the trials, he certainly did not appear to be clear on the day in question that Michael was raving. I asked him whether Michael was capable of making a declaration or not. He replied 'that he did not know, that he was not sure.'He said his reason for hesitating was Michael's statement about the Mass, observing that he had heard from Brady that there was no Mass in Finney on the 15th August. But when I assured the doctor that there was Mass, his opinion appeared to have undergone a decided change in favour of the belief that Michael was not raving. There is Mass generally in Finney only once a fortnight, and this accounts for the mistake Brady and the police fell into. They did not calculate for the holiday. My own opinion is, that Michael was not raving. When I saw him, he was weak and exhausted. So weak that he would speak only after a little pressure, and what he did say was perfectly rational and coherent."
    To keep this boy's deposition out of the trial was, he declared, criminality of the

    793
    deepest dye, which nobody could justify. The second of these boys also made a declaration, and certainly, anybody who saw the position it occupied in the Crown brief would know perfectly well, that it was intended that it should never be used at the trial. In that brief, the case that was to be presented by the Crown came first, then came the case prepared to meet any alibis that might be set up, then the depositions taken round the country, and at the end of all these the dying declarations of the boys Joyce. He would read the second declaration to the House: it was marked—
    "Dying declaration of Patrick Joyce, Maam-trasna, taken by A. N. Brady, R. M., at Maamtrasna, on 18th August 1882."
    In this, which was supposed to be a dying declaration, Patrick Joyce said:—
    "I did not know anyone who came in. I would tell if I knew. Three men came in. It was near morning,…I did not hear any shots. I was struck on the head. I don't know who struck me. They were married men (grown-up men). They had soot on their faces. They had whiskers. They had bogdeal lights. They had a 'kippeen' each. They brought them inside the house.…I think they had no coats, but 'bawueens.' They had three old hats."
    The declaration was absolutely inconsistent with the story told at the trial; and the evidence of that boy would have completely broken down the case of the Crown. To withhold his evidence was to play with loaded dice. He invited special attention to the endorsement put upon the declaration by the Crown Solicitor—"Patrick Joyce has recovered, but his evidence is worthless." Was there ever anything more monstrous, unjust, iniquitous, or criminal than the appending of that note to the statement? No doubt the Crown Solicitor was entitled to make that comment if only he had handed the statement to the Counsel for the Defence so that they might have had an opportunity of seeing it; but to suggest to the prosecuting counsel that the evidence of the boy was worthless, and not to bring the deposition before the Counsel for the Defence was indeed playing with loaded dice. More shameful even than the suppression of that deposition was the conduct of the
    794
    Crown towards that boy at the trial. It was known that he had recorded. Of course it was necessary to present him at the trial. According to the newspaper report, the boy was brought on the table and, through an interpreter, said that he did not know his catechism, nor was he aware what would happen if he told a lie. In these circumstances the Crown declined to examine him. He had been three months in the hands of the Crown, and in five minutes he might have been instructed as to the obligation of an oath, but he had been kept in ignorance for the sole purpose of suppressing his evidence and so not giving these men any chance of life. Whether these men were innocent or guilty—even if they were all guilty—the manner in which their trial was conducted was a scandal. There were various points in the evidence he should like to go over, but, as he was sure the Chief Secretary did not wish to ignore any part of the evidence, he would not labour those points. It was impossible to go through the evidence without realising strongly the inconsistencies in the evidence of the men who alleged that they were watching at a crucial time. It was suggestive to take the story of the brother Casey, to compare it with the story presented by the Crown, and with the defence that had been offered, in order to sustain the verdict arrived at on these trials. Casey's allegation was that he was willing to give the correct story of this murder, but that the Crown Solicitor would not take it because it did not corroborate another story. Casey said—
    "I told Mr. Bolton, when he went to the gaol, that I would tell the truth, that five were innocent, and three men who were out were guilty; but Mr. Bolton refused to take my statements or spare my life if I did not corroborate the story already given by those three men."
    That allegation was made in the Memorandum published by the Lord Lieutenant when inquiry was asked for. An impartial examination would show that the Lord Lieutenant's Memorandum corroborated Casey's statement. Casey, in his statement, said—
    ''The trial was to come off on Monday. I saw the Governor on Sunday evening, about four o'clock, and I was talking to him. I told him about my meeting with Mr. Bolton.

    795
    "Had you made up your mind this time to corroborate Philbin? I was making up my mind for it, but I was putting it off to the last moment. The Governor said to me if I wished he would speak to Mr. Bolton. I did not then give a decided answer.
    ''The next day was the day of the trial. When we were going into the van I saw Philbin going away in a cab. The other men went into the van. I was the last to go in, and I then said to the Governor that he might speak to Bolton. I had not given him an answer the night before. We were then brought to the court. The nine of us were in the room back of the dock, and my name was called. I don't remember the warder, but I think it was Moore, the same man that brought us to the chief warder. I was brought a few yards to the right, to a little room where Mr. Brady, Mr. Bolton, and the Governor of the jail were. Mr. Bolton was the first who spoke. He said, 'Now, Casey, are you going to make a statement? He pulled out his watch, and said I had only a short time. I said, 'I'd like to give evidence fair.' He replied that I 'had only twenty minutes to consider my neck.' "
    The allegation of Mr. Bolton was that he received the man's statement on the Saturday, that he told him he would produce him as a witness, and that his allegation that it was only on Monday he finally agreed to give evidence was absolutely untrue. Let the House consider whether it was probable that a man not going to take his trial would be taken down to the Court with other prisoners in the prison van, and not in a special carriage with another witness. Casey told Mr. Bolton what he could prove with reference to the murder, and it closely corresponded with his subsequent written statement. The allegation in Sir R. Hamilion's Memorandum was that Casey told a lie when he said that this was on the Monday, and that it was on the Saturday before that he was accepted as an approver, and told that they intended to examine him. The Memorandum said—
    "This note was written by Casey, and handed by him to the Governor, with a request that he would have it sent to Mr. Bolton, and it was accordingly transmitted, and until the receipt of it Mr. Bolton had never spoken to the man, nor had he ever seen him except when brought up as a prisoner in Court. The Attorney General at the time was in London, and Mr. Bolton at once consulted the Counsel for the Prosecution, who directed him to see Casey, and be in a position to report to the Attorney General on his return what his evidence would
    796
    be, but to take no statement, and hold out no hope to Casey that he would be accepted as an approver without the Attorney General's authority. Mr. Bolton thereupon went to the prison, and saw the prisoner, not in his cell, but in the Governor's office. The Governor was present at this interview, no other person being here, and it is untrue that Mr. Bolton used any threat to the prisoner, or made any suggestion to him as to what his evidence should be, or in any manner whatever pressed him. Mr. Bolton told him what he had been directed to tell him by the Crown Counsel, and Casey then told Mr. Bolton what he had to prove in reference to the murder, which closely corresponded with his subsequent written statement."
    If Casey had consented on the Saturday to corroborate the story of the Crown, did anybody believe he would have been brought down with the other prisoners in the prison van as it was admitted that he was in the Memorandum? And why, when he had come down, should he have to send a message, as it was admitted that he did, to the Crown Prosecutor? No one would believe that if the Attorney General, on whom rested the responsibility for conducting the case, had had the statement of Casey on the Saturday, and intended to use it, he would have opened the case for the Crown without reference to it. He would have done nothing of the kind. He mentioned the evidence of the one approver, Philbin; but, beyond doubt, that statement was untrue, and the statement of the informer was untrue, and it was not until the Monday that he consented to corroborate the case for the Crown. It was borne out in a stronger manner still. After the trial had proceeded four or five days, attention was drawn to the fact that statements had been made by the two approvers, which should have been handed to the Counsel for the defence, but were not. At the trial of Myles Joyce his Counsel applied for a new jury. In the course of the discussion on the matter the Attorney General said—
    "The conduct of juries in the past gives your Lordship and the public the greatest confidence in the jurors who will be called to try this case."
    It was not the case that the two prisoners

    797
    supplied information to the Government the day before the trial commenced. Sir R. Hamilton alleged in his pamphlet that Casey consented to become approver before the trial commenced, The Attorney General denied this. One prisoner did so before the trial commenced, and as soon as the Crown was in possession of the fact, no evidence was furnished to the other side. The other prisoner gave information while the trial was proceeding, and on the same day, as rapidly as possible, information was given to the other side. There was plenty of contradiction of the memorandum which alleged that Casey gave on the Saturday what he was going to prove, and that it closely corresponded with the evidence he gave at the trial. The Attorney General contradicted it, and showed that Casey did not make his statement until the trial was proceeding. He had already shown what was suppressed by the Crown at the trial. He had shown that they suppressed by the dying declarations of the two boys, and that they were never handed to the Counsel for the defence. The Chief Secretary seemed to be under the impression that the taking of depositions in gaol in the presence of the accused was an act of mercy meant for the prisoner himself. The object of taking depositions in prison was, that if anything should happen to witnesses the depositions might be produced at the trial whatever might become of them. Philbin made two declarations in gaol. They were both absolutely contradictory of each other, yet neither was given to the Counsel for the defence. They were not brought to light until the Lord Lieutenant made the Memo Sir R. Hamilton never knew, when he was giving them to the public, that they had been withheld from the Counsel for the defence. Counsel made an application that they should be given to him. The declarations would have completely shattered the case for the Crown. Never was more unfair dealing practised by the Crown
    798
    than in this case. Let him recapitulate the facts. The dying declaration of Michael Joyce was never handed to Counsel for the defence of Patrick Joyce. The latter was himself withheld from examination at the trial, because it would have been impossible to have produced him on the table without his contradicting the whole story on which the plot of the Crown was laid. The deposition of Anthony Philbin was suppressed; and the deposition made by Casey in the gaol was never handed to the Counsel for the defence. In this latter deposition Casey, who was all along trying to bring in the real culprits, made the singular statement that there were two men, to whom he gave the fictitious names of Kelly and Neal, who met the others on the way. Yet no steps were taken by the Attorney General to have those two men brought to justice. He would like to impress on the Attorney General, that when the case came to be inquired into—and he had no doubt Lord Spencer inquired into it, with a desire to arrive at the truth of the case—Lord Spencer did not know, at that time, that it had been stated that the faces of those who committed the murder were blackened. This fact alone called for inquiry, which would show whether that statement were true or false. Moreover, when Casey made the confession, the Irish public had no knowledge whatever that the two men executed in Galway Gaol had made a declaration as to the innocence of the third man, Myles Joyce. The Memorandum of Sir Robert Hamilton threw out the suggestion that in asserting the innocence of Myles Joyce, a distinction was sought to be drawn between the man who actually committed the murder, and the men who were standing by, aiding and abetting him. There was nothing in the depositions to warrant that suggestion, and he himself did not desire to draw any such distinction. The evidence forthcoming since the trial established the fact not merely that Myles Joyce did not commit

    799
    the murder, but that he was not present when it was committed, and that he was not out of his own house at the time. He challenged the Chief Secretary to say whether the depositions did not contain a declaration that the man Myles Joyce was innocent. The dying declarations were taken by Mr. Newton Brady, who was getting up the case. Why did not that gentleman put the crucial question to the deponents: "Was Myles Joyce present, or not?" He did not do so, because he knew that it was meant by the deponents to assert that Myles Joyce was not present, and knew nothing about the murder. Of the five men now in gaol, one, Michael Casey, acknowled his guilt, but stated that the other four men, with whom he had had no means of communication, were innocent of the murder, and had no participation in it. Surely that man's statement could be accepted. He had himself examined the young boy who was produced by the Crown at the trial, and the boy's recollection was perfectly clear that the men who murdered his father had blackened faces and wore white jackets. In the face of all these circumstances could the right hon. Gentleman withhold the inquiry he desired in order to lay all the facts before him. He wished the House not to be prejudiced by the circumstance that the four men for whom he pleaded admitted their guilt at the trial. The trial took place in Dublin, not one of the prisoners, except the by still in gaol, spoke a word of English, while the counsel, the solicitors, the jury, and the Judge did not know a word of their language. At the opening of the trial an affidavit was presented on behalf of the prisoners, asking for the adjournment of the trial to the county Galway, in order that a now jury might be obtained, but this was refused. Patrick Joyce, the first of the men tried, was found guilty by the jury after eight minutes' consideration; Patrick Casey, the second man, was found guilty after twelve
    800
    minutes' consideration; a postponement of the trial in order that an examination into the facts of the case might be made in the district was refused; and a third man, Miles Joyce, was found guilty by the jury after six minutes' consideration, the jury after six minutes' consideration, the Judge when sentencing him stating that no shadow of doubt as to his guilt could be entertained by any sane man who had neard the evidence. Under these circumstances, was there any other means by which these men could have saved their lives except by pleading guilty? The counsel for the prisoner said to the solicitor:—
    "You must induce those men to plead guilty, especially after the conviction of the unfortunate man Miles Joyce, whose case oppresses me very much."
    Their solicitor followed the men to the gaol, and to him Michael Casey pleaded guilty, but stated that the four men for whom he was pleading knew nothing of the murder. Their solicitor informed Mr. George Bolton, but the Solicitor for the Crown refused to take the plea of guilty from Michael Casey if the other four men did not also plead guilty. Influence was accordingly brought to bear upon these unfortunate men to induce them to plead guilty, and under these circumstances they consented to do so. No one could be greatly astonished at the fact that, under the pressure that was brought to bear upon them, these unfortunate peasants, anxious to cling to life, pleaded guilty in the dock. He wished to remove from the Chief Secretary's mind any idea that in again bringing this case forward he had the slightest intention of casting discredit on Lord Spencer's Irish Administration. No one could accuse the present Lord Chief Justice of England of desiring to discredit the leaders of the Party to which he belonged when he sat in the House of Commons. When the cases to which he was drawing attention were before the House on a former occasion the Lord Chief Justice delivered a speech which went far in support of the view

    801
    that an inquiry ought to be held. From that speech he would quote the following sentences:—
    "If the Amendment before the House did involve blame on Lord Spencer, the Lord Chancellor, and the ex-Chief Secretary he could not help it, because he believed it contained a statement which was emphatically true. He began the consideration of this case with the very strongest feeling that an unanswerable case had been made out on the part of the Crown, proving the guilt of the men convicted and the men who pleaded guilty. It was only by slow and painful steps that he had come to the conclusion that there did exist very grave doubt, to put it no higher, of the guilt of the man Myles Joyce, who had gone to his last account, and of the guilt of four of the men who remained in prison."
    That was the language of a man who certainly could not be charged with desiring to discredit Lord Spencer's Irish Administration. He only pleaded for an inquiry on behalf of these prisoners, whose letters written from gaol were pathetic and touching declarations of innocence, and whose families were looking forward to the day when the Government would consent to reopen the matter. For his part, he believed that fresh investigation would establish the prisoners' innocence. He concluded by moving the Amendment standing in his name.
    MR. W. FIELDseconded the Amendment.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. and learned Member in the course of his speech said that he was afraid the House must have found it rather tedious. Well, his speech has been long, but I can assure him that I have not found it tedious. I remember that 11 years ago the hon. and learned Member took an interest in this case, which, I thought at the time, did him honour, and I am aware that he has never ceased to bear the case in mind. I give the hon. and learned Member every credit for the ability, the earnestness and sincerity, which ever since 1884 have marked his investigations into this matter. But the hon. and learned Member has been all this time an advocate. There is no particular harm in that, of course, but
    802
    as an advocate he has left out of sight a great many considerations bearing against his own view of the case. I am extremely glad to-night to take note of his emphatic statement that he is most anxious that it should not be thought that he entertains any desire to cast a slur upon the integrity, the uprightness, the absolute fairness of Lord Spencer. Then the hon. and learned Member has said more, for he has said that he finds nothing to quarrel with in the findings of the juries on the facts as laid before them, and that they could have found no other verdicts. That admission will clear the way to enable us fairly to consider the issue the hon. and learned Member has presented without any personal considerations supervening. The hon. and learned Member says that the present peaceful condition of Ireland affords a fitting opportunity for an Inquiry. But I confess I do not see how the peaceful condition of Ireland, at which we all rejoice, justifies an inquiry into this matter. I can quite understand that the condition of Ireland might be brought forward as a ground for exercising the prerogative of mercy—for showing clemency to the men when the time comes in a couple of years for revising their sentences, but I do not understand the train of reasoning by which the hon. and learned Member connects the present state of Ireland with his argument for re-opening this subject by a judicial or semi-judicial Inquiry. How many Inquiries are we to have into the Maamtrasna case? The hon. Member has not told the House—perhaps he does not know—how many Inquiries there have been. The murders took place in August, 1882, and the trials took place in November of the same year. There have been many Parliamentary demonstrations made in this House, to interest gentlemen of both Parties sitting on the Treasury Bench. Let it be understood that I have no wish to regard this as a Party question. The last and most remarkable occasion

    803
    of such a demonstration was in the summer of 1885, when Lord Carnarvon came into Office, and the right hon. Member for Bristol, then the Leader of the House, promised that his Lordship Would consider any memorial sent to him on behalf of the prisoners. So far as I can make out, after examining the voluminous Papers in the case, no memorial was presented to him.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he had stated so. He thought the friends of the prisoners would present a memorial, but the Government went out of Office before he discovered that a Memorial had not been presented.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Government was in Office seven months, and it was rather curious that during all the time that Lord Carnarvon was in office nobody thought it worth while to present a Memorial to him on the subject.
    MR. HARRINGTON: The Government were not in Office seven months after the promise of Inquiry was made.
    MR. J. MORLEY: There was plenty of time, at all events, to present a Memorial. Many years have elapsed since these events, and there have been a considerable number of inquiries in connection with Memorials addressed to the several Governments that succeeded the Irish administration of Lord Carnarvon. The cases were considered by Lord Carnarvon in 1885; after that, in December, 1887, as I am informed, Lord Ashbourne, acting I presume as Lord Justice, had a Memorial brought to his notice, and after considering it directed that the law should take its course. The cases were next brought before Lord Londonderry, who took similar action. They again came before Lord Ashbourne in November, 1888, with the same result—that the law should take its course. Lord Zetland considered the cases both in 1890 and 1892, and during the existence of the present Administration they were also carefully considered, in 1893. Therefore the hon. and learned Member is asking us to institute an Inquiry, when as a matter of fact inquiries have been instituted by successive Lord Lieutenants and by more than one Lord Chancellor or Lord Justice.
    Mr. HARRINGTONsaid, that the examinations that had taken place were insufficient and unsatisfactory. He himself had never attended these inquiries; not one of the many facts he had brought before the House that night had been asked of him, and many of them had not been placed before the Irish Executive at all.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not quite follow the hon. and learned Member, but I must say that I do not consider that in his speech to-night he has adduced one single new fact, or set of facts, which sets up a new prima facie case to justify this House in voting that the Government of the day should institute a special Inquiry. The hon. and learned Member seems to be discontented with the many inquiries which have been conducted by the responsible men whom I have mentioned.
    SIR A. K. ROLLIT: Will the right hon. Gentleman state before whom the Inquiries actually took place?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. and learned Member must know that when a Memorial is presented in Dublin all the facts connected with the case are most carefully considered. The Judge is consulted, and every step is taken to arrive at the truth of the facts. Now I wish to ask what sort of Inquiry it is that the hon. Member desires. As I said just now, the hon. Member is discontented with the Inquiries which have been conducted by Lord Lieutenants and others, and I should like to know what is the kind of inquiry he really does desire.
    MR. HARRINGTON: I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I should be satisfied with his own Inquiry. If he will take the facts I present to him, and if he will undertake to conduct the Inquiry himself, I should be absolutely satisfied.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Then, Sir, if the hon. and learned Member takes up that position, all he has got to do is to send a memorial to Dublin Castle, and I will undertake to him now, in the presence of the House, to go into that memorial. I cannot say anything more than that.
    MR. HARRINGTON: I am satisfied.
    MR. MORLEY: I will willingly undertake to go into all the circumstances of the case, so far as he is able to produce anything new, and if that is all the hon. Member wants the issue is at, an end. Because what has been in my mind tonight, while listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Member, going back to the old Debates in which I took no part, being then a comparatively new Member, was to what persons, tribunal or authority are you going to commit this Inquiry? See where we are. This horrible crime was committed in 1882. The boy on whose evidence the hon. and learned Member laid such stress was then nine years of age. What kind of advantage have we in examining that boy, now a young man 22 years of age, or in examining the informers who afterwards recanted their information, which not one jury but three juries possessed 13 years ago. I must, however, warn the hon. Member beforehand, in order to be quite honest and straightforward with him. I have read pretty laboriously the depositions and general facts in the case. If he has any new fact to adduce, any new particle of evidence whatever, I will give it all the attention I possibly can, and certainly I hope he will believe that there is no man in the House who would be more willing to give these men the benefit of any doubt than I am. Still, I think it right to warn the hon. and learned Member I do not expect that after any Inquiry I shall come to any other conclusion than that already arrived at, but I promise him that I will undertake to weigh any fact which he will bring before me in connection with his memorial.
    MR. HARRINGTONassumed that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to preclude him from presenting all the facts which he had brought before the House to-night?
    MR. J. MORLEYreplied, that he should himself piece on the new facts to the general facts which were brought out before the tribunal.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, that what his hon. Friend asked was that the Inquiry should be an inquiry into the whole case, and that the whole of the facts, whether old or new, should be presented to the right hon. Gentleman for Inquiry by himself.
    MR. J. MORLEYpointed out that of course the new facts could only be measured and weighed in connection with the old facts. That was clear. He wished to be perfectly clear and explicit. The Inquiry would be conducted like a coming up in ordinary course for reconsideration on its merits.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he wanted to present the whole case, and with the right hon. Gentleman's discretion or decision he should be satisfied.
    MR. J. MORLEYrepeated his promise to carfully consider the whole subject.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    THE RULE OF THE ROAD AT SEA.
    *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESmoved the following Amendment—
    "And we humbly represent to your Majesty that the Order in Council made by your Majesty, upon the recommendation or the Board of Trade with the concurrence of the Admiralty, on the 30 day of January, 1893, is calculated seriously to increase the dangers of the sea, and we humbly pray that your Majesty will he graciously pleased to rescind that Order; and we further humbly pray that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to refuse assent to the recommendation to your Majesty, of the Board of Trade with the concurrence of the Admiralty, that your Majesty should make an Order in Council to carry into effect the revised regulations for preventing collisions at sea, as communicated to shipowners by the Board of Trade circular of March 6, 1894."
    He asked for the indulgence of the House while he dealt with a difficult and technical subject which concerned the most important industry in this country and the fate of a quarter of a million of British seamen. For two years he had been endeavouring to raise the question, and had always been shouldered out on the plea that it was not a matter concerning Parliament, but a matter of administration. He could not proceed without making one remark on the extraordinary tactics which he had been met with in the most recent stage of the proceedings. First of all they were told by the President of the Board of Trade that lie would listen to nothing, but would enforce the rules. But at the eleventh hour, when the right hon. Gentleman became aware that the shipping interest and every seaman in this country were against him and that he

    807
    might run some risk of being defeated by his own followers, he accepted the suggestion of the Member for Perthshire for the appointment of a Committee. He had informed the hon. Member that he would call attention to his action. The hon. Member was one of those who most earnestly pressed him to bring the matter forward and promised him his support. He considered that the hon. Member owed it to himself to inform him that he was about to make this entirely new and extraordinary proposal, and he left it to the House to judge whether it was in consonance with Parliamentary practice, and courtesy, and propriety, that when a Member placed a Motion on the Table, one of his allies should at the last moment go behind his back and make an arrangement with the enemy. The right hon. Gentleman had asserted, in reply to a question, that he did not recede from his previously-announced determination. But, if he meant to put these rules in force, what was the good of a Committee? They had already had hundreds of Committees on the subject invariably packed by the Board of Trade, each over-riding the conclusions of its predecessor, till at last they were brought face to face with the most stupendous muddle ever perpetrated even by the ingenuity of a Public Department. His position and the position of every shipmaster, pilot, and shipowner in this country, was that the revised regulations were bad, and, instead of being calculated to prevent, were calculated to increase collisions, and therefore they ought not to be enforced upon the shipping of this country. Without one single exception every single man outside the Board of Trade had agreed in condemning these revised regulations for preventing collisions at sea, in two respects at any rate—namely, in respect of the screening of the side-lights, and the rules as to sound signals. No doubt the unavoidable dangers of the sea were great, but they were as nothing in comparison with the most serious danger of
    808
    all—the danger of collision with other vessels. He distinguished between natural and artificial danger of the sea, because he claimed that the danger of collision was artificial, and had been made much greater than it need be by the Board of Trade inventing rules of their own instead of going to the sea, taking the advice of seamen and framing consistent, certain, and practical rules. During the five years from 1870 to 1875 inclusive, there were lost at sea from all causes 3,513 British vessels. In the five years from 1889 to 1893 the number of losses was only 2,451, so that, although the number of ships had largely increased in the last 22 years, the total loss of vessels had very largely decreased. But when they turned to those losses due to collisions they found that, instead of decreasing, they had largely increased during the same period; for whilst from 1870 to 1875 the losses from collisions (included in the former figures) were 286, or 8 per cent. of the whole, from 1889 to 1893 they had risen to 425, or 17 per cent. of the total. Thus, whilst the dangers of the sea which were not affected by the rules of the road had decreased, the dangers of collisions which were affected by the rules of the road had enormously increased. He drew the inference that that must undoubtedly be due to some defect in the rules themselves. The present rules were bad, but the worse. One of the most serious defects in the present rules was that since their first elaboration in 1862 they had been subjected to incessant changes on the part of the officials of the Board of Trade, rendering them even more uncertain and complicated, with the result, as he charged, of a considerable increase in the loss of vessels by collisions at sea. The recent deplorable collision between the Elbe and the Crathie was a case of the rule of the road at sea, they being crossing ships. The case with regard to two crossing ships was that each one was subjected to four different rules, two of them

    809
    dependent upon contingencies which had to be calculated before the helmsman or master could ascertain whether they were applicable to the particular case or not. He only used the Elba and the Crathie case to show how complicated and doubtful is the instruction professed to be given by the rule. Each ship was under four rules, and two of the rules were entirely dependent for their applicability upon the question whether or not a certain set of circumstances had arisen. The rule of the road at sea had existed ever since man began to navigate the seas, and in the case of England, up to half a century ago, the rule was good, short, simple, and certain. It was a rule made by practical men for practical men; it was a rule made by the Admiralty, or Trinity House, or by a combination of the two, for seamen; it was made by seamen for seamen. But some 40 years ago there arose the Board of Trade, and it went about like a roaring lion seeking whom it might devour. It devoured the bankrupt, the electrician, the labourer, the railways, and it then proceeded to devour the sailor, and the way in which it did so was to frighten the Admiralty and the Trinity Board out of all concern with the rule of the, road at sea. He did not entirely acquit the Admiralty of blame. The Board of Trade was unable to make any changes in the rule of the road at sea without the concurrence of the Board of Admiralty, and undoubtedly that security was put into the Act by Parliament for the very reason that there might be some controlling power or body with technical knowledge to override any vagaries that might otherwise be resorted to by the Board of Trade. The Board of Admiralty, with its Sea-Lords fresh from sea, was a body competent to criticise a proposed alteration of the rules of the road at sea, but the Board of Trade had so terrorised the Admiralty that the Admiralty now appeared to regard its duties as merely formal, so that if the Board of Trade proposed any alteration or maintained any which had been made, it was certain the Admiralty would say "ditto." In that respect they had cause to complain of the Admiralty. The Board of Trade
    810
    seemed to entertain the strangest notions as to a ship. Lord Farrer had said it was a strange thing that the rule of the road should be designed to suit ships. Sir Thomas Gray had stated that the general rule of the road for steamers was precisely the same as the general rule of the pavement for passengers. These gentlemen went the length of believing that a ship might be compared to a pedestrian or a cab or conceivably an omnibus; they never conceived the notion that a ship could not be handled as a pedestrian or as a vehicle. A ship must move in certain ways, and it could not be made to move in any other. The present President of the Board of Trade not only shared all the fallacies of his predecessors, but had formed others which were even more astonishing. In his reply to the deputation who reminded him of the difficulties of the proposed regulations, the right hon. Gentleman said the real question was not whether the additional rules as to sound signals in case of fog caused confusion of mind, but whether they increased danger, which was by no means the same thing. The expression of that opinion showed conclusively that the President of the Board of Trade was incapable of understanding the situation. Confusion at sea was danger; there was no danger equal to it. A seaman had better be wrong and certain and unconfused than right and uncertain and confused. He could not conceive that the right hon. Gentleman had given any consideration to the matter when he laid it an axiom that confusion was not dangerous. Comparison was indeed regarded by the right hon. Gentleman as an element of safety. The right hon. Gentleman had said, referring to the subject of additional noises, that, though the signals might not, perhaps, be understood, the inference would be drawn that there was a vessel near. That meant that when they heard at sea a lot of sounds which horribly confused them, their safety and not their danger was increased, because they would say—"Oh, there's a vessel near; we are safe." It might be the view of the right hon. Gentleman, but it was certainly not the view of practical seamen, that they got more

    811
    safety by hearing more sounds. On the contrary, practical seamen were of opinion that that would be the greatest element of danger, because their minds would become confused as to the course they should take. But he did not blame the President of the Board of Trade for his want of knowledge of the sea. The right hon. Gentleman could not be expected to have such knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman knew all about the Holy Roman Empire, but not all about ships. Agur the son of Jakeh had said that the way of a ship in the midst of the sea was one of the three things that were too wonderful for him, and if it were possible to conceive of three things that were too wonderful for the President of the Board of Trade the way of a ship at sea was certainly one. But what he complained of was that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of listening to anybody who did know the way of a ship at sea, had placed himself entirely in the hands of officials. The right hon. Gentleman knew that all practical men were against those new regulations, but he did not listen to them. A prudent man, on undertaking the duties of a new office, and finding that all the officials were of one mind in a certain matter, and that everybody who knew anything practical about the matter was of another mind, would have said to the officials, "I must wait a bit; I must consider the matter before I take your view of it." But the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to anybody outside the office, any more than his predecessor, on the subject of those new regulations. Now what was the case against the new regulations? The revised regulations, as compared with the present regulations, were about half as long again. Their length was a very serious fault. The three elements of a good Code of the Sea were brevity, simplicity, and certainty. In the old times when the Admiralty managed affairs one could put the regulations on a sheet of notepaper. Now, one for the same purpose would require a book as big as the great historian Bryce's "American Commonwealth," and also a Philadelphia lawyer constantly at one's elbow to advise which regulation applied. The House would scarcely credit him when he stated that at least 33 different systems of light were prescribed either optionally or
    812
    absolutely by the new revised regulations. Those 33 different systems of light might be seen all round at once. It was possible to have 33 vessels close at hand, and each in one of the situations for which the 33 different lights were prescribed. It was easy to imagine how confusing that would be to the helmsman, who would have to take notice of all the lights. That number of lights was at least double the number prescribed in the existing regulations, and, like many of the other rules, would lead to increased ambiguity and confusion. In one respect the new regulations had proceeded in the old direction. That was in Article 22, which said—
    ''When by those Rules one vessel is ordered to get out of the way of another, it shall, if possible, avoid crossing her bow."
    But why have put it in that form? There were four other Rules in which the fatal Board of Trade words were used, "Keep out of the way," instead of the sound old words "Give way." When a seaman was told that he was to "give way," he knew that he must go under the stern of the other vessel; but when he was told to "keep out of the way," he might either cross the other vessel's bows, or go under her stern, as he liked. This uncertainty was the cause of a large number of collisions, and probably it might prove to be the cause of the recent collision. The new regulations were too long and complicated, and were most confusing in many respects; and where the Board of Trade had proceeded rightly in the direction of cutting away, they had not done it clean, but had put the new words, "Keep out of the way," in four rules, and the old words, "Give way," in the fifth. What was the case urged by the Board of Trade in defence? The first line of defence was, the Washington Conference. He believed it was a huge mistake to have agreed with the appointment of that Conference. The fact that it was agreed to by the right hon. Gentleman below him did not alter his mind; and his right hon. Friend was not responsible for the ulterior consequences. It was a Conference of 28 nations, such as Great Britain and Hawaii, the United States and Venezuela, France and Samoa, Germany and Nicaragua. Little nations which did not possess as much as a boat each possessed a vote, and were placed on an equality with Great Britain, which

    813
    owned more than half the tonnage of the world. There were 64 delegates—insurance agents, diplomatists, judges, and lawyers by the dozen. There were two important Members—the hon. Baronet who was the Recorder of London (Sir C. Hall) and Mr. Goodrich. Mr. Goodrich said at the Conference that—
    "he and Delegate Hall were mere theoretical sailors who had gathered their knowledge of the question from collision cases in the courts;"
    and he added that of course they "who did not know anything about it" must be very cautious where experts disagreed. The natural result of such a Conference was a longer code, a more refined code, and more niggling and hair-splitting code—a code infinitely more difficult for seamen to work, and infinitely more easy for lawyers to argue about. It was the result to be expected from a Conference composed mainly of lawyers. There were truly a few sailors—three Admirals and two captains from Great Britain; but he noticed that they had almost nothing to say, and that all the talking was done by the lawyers. The President of the Board of Trade sheltered himself behind the Washington Code, and the assumed international agreement to adopt that code. But the Washington Code was not here in question; what was objected to were the revised regulations which the right hon. Gentleman and his officials had founded upon that code. When the Board of Trade received the code, instead of treating it as a sacred thing, they cut it up, suspended part of it, altered and re-altered it, and withdrew alterations and played such pranks with it that, when it came out in the revised regulations, it was difficult to recognise. There were two points in the regulations to which particular objection was taken. One was the new method of screening the side-lights. He said "new method" advisedly. The old law and regulation was, that the side-lights should be fitted so as to show over an arc of the horizon of 10 points, from right ahead to two points abaft the beam, and should be so screened as not to show across the bows of the vessel. For 30 years that regulation had been followed. Now the Board of Trade had seen fit to bring into force the tremendous engine of an Order in Council, making in the regulation what he
    814
    called an alteration, and what the right hon. Gentleman called an explanation. There had been an alteration from 10 There were two points to 10 points plus 4 degrees, and the result had been that the screening of the lights had led to the two lights squinting across the nose of the ship and across its bows in front, the very thing that had to be provided against. This Order in Council, then, was one of the things that he complained of, and one of the things that he asked should be rescinded. It was claimed that this was no new thing; indeed, the President of the Board of Trade claimed, among other things, that he had made the lights to squint less and not more. If that were so, how then was it that the Board of Trade had been enduring this state of things for 30 years without a movement being made? If the Order in Council only put into force the law as it existed, the Board of Trade had already full power to put it in force without an Order in Council, and this simply by the orders of its inspectors. But every seaman knew that this was an entirely new thing. It raised the great danger of enabling the port light to be seen on the starboard bow, and vice versa; whereas the whole object, of the rule was, that sailors should never see the light except on the bow to which it belonged; that there should be certainty that when they saw the port light they were on the port side of the ship. This certainty, however, was what the screening regulation had removed, and it had increased the dangers in the regulations as they now existed. What happened with regard to the Admiralty? He had asked the Secretary to the Admiralty a question on the point, and the hon. Gentleman replied that they had not altered their lights. The Admiralty knew too well the risk, and they had disregarded the Board of Trade New Order in Council.
    *MR. BRYCE: The Secretary to the Admiralty had replied that the Admiralty lights were exactly the same as now provided by the Board of Trade.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had fortified himself with a copy of "Hansard," and these were the words which the Secretary to the Admiralty used:—
    "No alteration has been made in the manner of screening the side-lights of Her Majesty's ships, which has for many yours approximated

    815
    to the system lately defined by the Board of Trade."
    All ships "approximated" to that system; it was true enough to say that, but this was the complaint of the Board of Trade. He maintained, therefore, that the answer as reported in "Hansard" was strictly correct, and the incorrect and misleading version of it, now sought to be foisted on the House, had no foundation except in the fancy of the right hon. Gentleman. Here then was a thing which the Board of Trade knew to be new, and as wrong and confusing as it was new, and which had not been acceded to by the Admiralty. The Admiralty in the system of screening their lights were practically resisting the Board of Trade, but all merchantmen had to submit to it with fear and trembling. There could not be a stronger condemnation of the folly of this Order in Council, or a better illustration of the necessity for its repeal. The other point was as to the sound signals. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the sound signals had not been increased from 3 to 11. The right hon. Gentleman knew this to be true but he was incapable to give the answer he should have expected from him, because the answer had been put into his hands by the officials of the Department. The right hon. Gentleman began to distinguish between fog signals and sound signals to be used when ships were in sight of each other. He now asked the right hon. Gentleman, as a practical sailor, this question:—"Where are you going to draw the line between fog and in sight?" Would not the proposed change which the right hon. Gentleman thought was conducive to safety really lead to confusion. It was clear that the multiplication of sound signals increased the uncertainty of mind and the danger of the seaman. As to these sound signals and the screening side-lights, there was complete unanimity on the part of those who understood ships. The right hon. Gentleman said there were no complaints in 1892 and 1893, but he (the hon. Member) had made that House resound with his complaints. He was treated with contumely, smiled at, derided, and dismissed. He had cited the protest of Thames Pilots, which was not printed in the Blue Book, and he feared that further protests like that had been sup-
    816
    pressed, and the misleading impression given that no complaints were made. The right hon. Gentleman said, forsooth! that all other nations had agreed to these regulations, and that therefore we should agree to them. He said they should still resist them if they were bad. What did it matter whether Nicaragua or Hawaii agreed in saying a thing was right if we knew the thing to be bad. That was no answer at all. But was the answer true? Was France prepared to promulgate these regulations? Why, France had decided not to promulgate them till she saw more clearly whither they would lead. Germany had resisted tooth and nail. He had a telegram from the Cunard Line that America had now determined to suspend the sound-signal regulations. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had the advice of an eminent lawyer, but he wanted to know this—if they were going to a lawyer for seamanship, would they go to seamen for law? He thought they might do that. They might call in the captain of the foretop and a few able seamen before the mast, to decide whether France was or was not at war with Madagascar. It was a most serious subject, and he believed he had disposed of every argument. Everybody who knew what a ship was, was at one on this subject, and he warned the right hon. Gentleman that unless he gave way there would be an agitation all over the country. He should go about the country himself, and raise all the sea-ports until they got back the old system of shortness, simplicity, and certainty. The right hon. Gentleman knew he was wrong. It would be a very simple matter to rescind these rules, to follow the example of America, and to give up sound signals and the new screening of side-lights.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)said there was only one remark in the speech of the hon. Gentleman with which he could agree, and that was the remark that he had not done justice to the subject. He certainly had not done justice to the Department he had attacked when he left him only five minutes in which to reply to his somewhat irrelevant and sometimes discourteous attack. The hon. Member had given some statistics about collisions which were entirely erroneous.
    *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I got them from your own papers.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that then the hon. Member had entirely misunderstood the papers, for they would prove, not that the new regulations were bad, but that the regulations in force were bad. The side-light question was one entirely within their own control, and if he had time he could have satisfied the House that there was no ground for the suggestions the hon. Member had made. With regard to the question of fog-signals, that was a point which it was impossible to explain in a few words to the House. The hon. Member did not try to explain it because he never mentioned to the House any one of those fog signals. No serious attempt had been made to show that they would tend to increase collisions. It was said that one signal might be taken for another, but the best advice he could obtain—and they had the best nautical advisers at the Board of Trade—was to the effect that, although some of the signals might occasionally be mistaken, there was no reason to think that they would increase the danger of collisions. The hon. Member had not referred to the most important aspect of the question, the international aspect. These rules had been brought back from the Washington Conference, they were submitted to a highly-competent Committee, that Committee reported three times unanimously in favour of them, and after all that how could any one suppose that the Board of Trade did not take the trouble to obtain advice upon them? Those rules had now been acquiesced in by all the Powers, the matter had assumed a considerable international importance, and if this country threw them over, she might lose the probability of an international agreement. He had, therefore, come to the conclusion that it was better to go on than to leave the matter open. His hon. Friend behind him had asked him at question time if he had any objection to a committee, and he said that the House might reasonably desire to inquire into the matter, and, therefore, he had no objection to the appointment of a Committee, and he hoped that answer would be satisfactory. He would only say further that when that Committee was appointed, the hon. Gentleman opposite would, no doubt, be prepared
    818
    with the evidence of his friends, and the whole matter would be inquired into. He hoped that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment to a division.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESthen withdrew his Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now Adjourned."
    —Mr. J. Chamberlain.
    Motion agreed to.

    LEICESTER ELECTION WRITS.
    The adjourned Debate upon the Motion of Sir H. James for a Select Committee was resumed by
    MR. TIMOTHY HEALYwho said he was sorry to oppose a gentleman who was so courteous on all occasions; but he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he would omit the words instructing the Committee to report—
    ''Whether the case is such as to require further action in respect of such Returns on the part of the House."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not want to insert the two words. For himself he was convinced that the point taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a good one, that it was fatal, and that if we raised our Petition the seats would be vacated; and how could a Member of the Committee, who was convinced of this, wish to stop there? All the requirements of the case would be met if there were enquiry, if it were made known what had taken place and was upon record; and the Committee need not be bound to come to the further conclusion suggested in the Motion. It was that language he objected to. He was satisfied what the outcome; would be if the Committee were bound to report under this instruction. His point was, that the proper tribunal to come to such a decision was Her Majesty's Judges; and for the House to overhaul an election after the time allowed to others for objecting to it had passed, would be a revolutionary proceeding. He, therefore, appealed to the Mover to omit the concluding words of the Motion.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid it was in order to meet the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman that these words had been inserted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was it;

    819
    to prevent the Committee giving a judicial decision to vacate the seats, and to leave it to the House, not only to determine the matter, but also specially to determine whether the case was such as required any further action. If it did not call for further action the gentlemen would keep their seats. So it was to carry out the very view expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman that these words were inserted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it well, he might confer with the Leader of the House, and ask him to strike out the words; but to strike them out would defeat the object the hon. Member had in view. There could be no objection to delay if he required further time for consideration.
    [Debate Adjourned to Wednesday.]

    PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
    *MR. LEES KNOWLES*MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.) moved the Second Reading of his Bill. He explained that the country had been divided into districts for the instruction and examination of Plumbers, who received certificates when they had passed a theoretical and practical examination. It was desired that these certificates should be recognised by Law, as certificates were in other trades or professions. It was important that Plumbers should be practical men, who thoroughly understood their work; and that competency would be appreciated by many in connection with the prevailing frost.
    MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONdoubted whether the scheme would be really advantageous to the public. The question had been referred, on one occasion, to a Select Committee, and on another to the Standing Committee on Trade; it had received considerable attention upon several days; and the real difficulty experienced was that of giving practical effect to the provisions of a Bill of this kind. To be useful, it required to be properly administered by one of the Departments of the State. The Local Government Board could not be induced to take an interest in it; and practically the working of the Bill broke down because it could not be made the business of any Department of the Government. Unless some Department could be entrusted with the administra-
    820
    tion of the Bill, it was of no use giving it a Second Reading.
    Debate adjourned to Thursday, 28th inst.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Considered in Committee and reported without Amendment; Read 3, and passed.
  MOTIONS.

    GROCERS' CERTIFICATES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
    On Motion of Sir John Leng, Bill to abolish Dealers' or Grocers' Certificates in Scotland.
    Bill presented, and read first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 3rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

    PARISH COUNCILS (LABOURERS' COTTAGES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Cyril J. S. Dodd, Bill to amend the Local Government Act, 1894, so as to empower Parish Councils to provide or acquire Cottages for Labourers.
    Bill presented, and read first time; to be read a second time upon Friday 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

    MORTGAGEES' COSTS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. R. B. Haldane, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Costs allowed to Mortgagees.
    Bill presented, and read first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 4th March, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

    SPECIAL JURIES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. W. H. Long, Bill for amending the Law as to Special Juries.
    Bill presented, and read first time; to be read a second time upon Friday 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

    POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. W. H. Long, Bill to provide for Superannuation Allowances to Poor Law Officers and Servants, and for Contributions towards such Allowances by such Officers and Servants, and to make other relative Provisions.
    Bill presented, and read first time; to be read a second time upon Friday 1st March, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

    PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. William Field, Bill to amend the Public Libraries (Ireland) Act.
    Bill presented, and read first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]
    House adjourned at Twelve minutes after Twelve o'clock.