Commons Sitting of 22 June 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, who had on the Paper the following notice—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill is committed to take the evidence tendered by or on behalf of residents in the district of Rhyl upon the question of the powers proposed by the Bill to be given to the Rhyl District Council to make bye-laws in respect of the foreshore and sands. That all petitions against the Rhyl Provisional Order by or on behalf of the residents in the district of Rhyl, presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee. That the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records,"
  intimated that he would postpone the Motion till Tuesday next.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: As the Ramsgate Order, to which no objection is taken, is included in this Bill, I strongly object to its being hung up.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (South Tyrone): I do not like to object, but if the Bill is delayed until Tuesday it may be too late for consideration in the House of Lords.
  MR. SPEAKER: Under the Standing Order the Motion will go over until to-morrow.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I hope it will be taken to-morrow. There will be plenty of time in another place to raise any objection.

  PRIVATE BILLS. [Lords.]
  (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.)
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

  OYSTERMOUTH RAILWAY OR TRAM ROAD BILL. [Lords.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION BILL. [Lords.]
  (Queen's Consent signified),—read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  ALL SAINTS' CHURCH (CARDIFF) BILL [Lords.]
  (By Order),—read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
      PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
      Read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act. 1892, relating to Paisley Corporation Gas Supply, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther.
  Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—(The Lord Advocate.)

  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act,1892, relating to Paisley Corporation Gas Supply," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 246.]

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP L).
  Sir William Houldsworthreported from the Committee on Group L of Private Bills, that the Parties opposing the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill had stated that the evidence of Frederick Steevens, Acting Town Clerk of Bradford, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Frederick Steevens do attend the said Committee upon Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock, and do produce all correspondence between him and the Local Government Board, or any inspector or officer of that Board, since the local, inquiry held in the month of March last before an inspector of the said Board, in the case of the Bradford (Yorks.) (Sewage Lands) Order proposed to be confirmed by the Bill, and especially all letters relating or referring to an Amendment of the Schedule to the said Order of the Lands with reference to which the said Order purports to empower the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of the city of Bradford (Yorks.), acting by the Council, to put in force the powers of the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement.

  261
  Ordered, That Frederick Steevens do attend the said Committee on Group L of Private Bills upon Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock, and produce the said documents.

  WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Special Report from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills in respect of the Warrington Corporation Bill brought up and read.

  WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, with Amendments.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon Ate Table, and to be printed.

  LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, with Amendments.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MENSTONE WATER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Amendment to—
  Friends' Provident Institution Bill [Lords].
  Amendments to—
  Skipton Urban District Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Tramway's Act, 1870, relating to Aberdeen Corporation Tramways, Devonport Corporation Tramways, Halifax Corporation Tramways, Matlock Urban District Tramways, Perth and District Tramways, and Reading Corporation Tramways." [Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill. [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers on the Glasgow
  262
  and South-Western Railway Company; for the construction of works and the acquisition of lands; for vesting in them the undertaking of the Largs Harbour Company and the Kilmarnock and Troon Railway Company; for making provision with reference to the election of Rothesay Harbour Trustees; for empowering the Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Glasgow and South Western Railway Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Wolverhampton Tramways Company, Limited, to alter the gauge of certain of their tramways, and to work the same by mechanical power; and for Other purposes." [Wolverhampton Tramways Bill. [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Constitution of the Owens College, Manchester; for conferring further powers on the President and Governors; and for other purposes." [Owens College,)Manchester, Bill. [Lords.]

  TRAMWAY ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 247.]
  GLASGOW ND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [Lords.]
    WOLVERHAMPTON TRAMWAYS BILL. [Lords.]
      OWENS COLLEGE, MANCHESTER, BILL. [Lords.]
      Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  PRIVATE, LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Nairn, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow and other places, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1890 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Applications to and Proceedings of the Board under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1890, during the past year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 237.]
  ARMY (LENGTH OE SERVICE AND AGES OF MEN IN EACH UNIT).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 8th June; Mr. Arnold-Forster];to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (LENGTH OF SERVICE AND AGES OF MEN IN NEW BATTERIES OF ROYAL ARTILLERY.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 8th June; Mr. Arnold-Forster];to lie upon the Table.
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 2nd June; Mr. Jesse Collings]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 238.]
  EDUCATION (SCIENCE AND ART SCHOOLS).
  Copy presented,—of Directory for the year 1899, with Regulations for establishing and conducting Science and Art Schools and Classes [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (FEES FOR PAUPER CHILDREN).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 15th May; Mr. Charles Morley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 239.]
  NAVY (EXCEPTIONS TO QUEEN'S REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented—of List of Exceptions to the Queen's Regulations as to Pay, Non-effective Pay, and Allowances during the year 1898–9 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented,—of Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EGYPT (No. 5, 1899).
  Copy presented,—of Despatch from Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Cairo, inclosing a Report on the Soudan by Sir William Garstin,
  K.C.M.G. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2293 and 2294 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    QUARTERMASTER-GENERAL'S BRANCH OF THE WAR OFFICE.
    MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the appointment of staff paymaster in the Quartermaster-General's Branch of the War Office is a staff appointment within the meaning of Article 69 of the Royal Warrant for Pay and Promotion of the Army, 1898; and for how long the present occupant, who was appointed on 21st August, 1893, is to hold it.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. G. WYNDHAM,. Dover): This appointment is not technically a staff appointment, but it is governed by the rule laid down in Article 69; that is to say, it terminates after five years, "unless extended under special circumstances." The present occupant was appointed from 21st December, 1894.

    RECRUITING IN PUBLIC-HOUSES.
    MR. SOUTTAR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that much of the recruiting in the provinces is carried on in connection with public-houses, the recruiting sergeant being sometimes even the publican; and whether some other arrangement could be made.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are strict regulations against recruiting in connection with public-houses. If the hon. Member will draw attention to any case in which this rule is seriously violated inquiry will be made.

    CASE OF DOMINICK HOGAN.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War

    265
    Office whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Dominick Hogan, an Army pensioner, now 76 years of age, who enlisted in Nenagh, county Tipperary, in 1842, in the 64th Regiment, and served 22 years and eight months, 15 years of which was foreign service, haling medal and clasp for service in Persia, medal and clasp fur service in the Indian Mutiny, and medal and clasp for China, and also a discharge of good character and conduct, having served with honours in 26 general and 100 principal engagements, having been eight awl a-half years in action; whether he is aware that Hogan was discharged at Raglan Barracks, Devonport, in 1864, on a pension of only 8½d. per day; and whether, under the Soldiers' Deferred Pension Act, he is entitled to an additional 4d. per day, having Served over 21 years, alai having attained the age of 60; and whether, Owing to his long service and distinguished career, the War Office authorities will make some provision for Dominick Hogan so as to enable him to spend the remaining few years outside an Irish workhouse.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELLWILLAMS,): Hogan's case has been repeatedly considered. Although he was given a good character on discharge his service was not of such a nature as to entitle him to any good conduct badges, and consequently he is entitled to a pension of 8½. a day only. He is not entitled to any deferred pension.
    MR. FLAVIN: What is the difference between a good conduct badge and the three medals and three clasps which this man has?
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I am willing to explain that to the hon. Member privately.
    MR. FLAVIN: Has the hon. Gentleman no assistance to give these pensioners except the Irish workhouse?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    ARMY HEADQUARTERS ADMINIS TRATION.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is able to state when the Report of the Committee of
    266
    Experts on the Administration of the Headquarters of the Army, of which he is the chairman, will be presented to the Secretary of State; and whether it is the intention of the Committee to invite the evidence of Members of this House who have served in the Army at home and abroad.
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The Committee to which the hen. Member refers is appointed to inquire into the Civil Establishment of the War Office, and the inquiry, though it has made considerable progress, is yet incomplete. It is impossible at present to say when a Report will be presented to the Secretary of State. The answer to the last paragraph of the question is in the negative.

    OUTRAGE BY RRITISH SOLDIERS IN RANGOON.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the woman who was outraged at Rangoon by sixteen soldiers of the West Kent Regiment is dead; why was the fact of her death, which was announced in the Star of the 31st May and the Bombay Champion of the 4th June, withheld from the knowledge of the Secretary of State; and whether the West Kent Regiment is still stationed in Rangoon.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,Ealing): I have ascertained that the woman who is alleged to have been outraged at Rangoon is not dead. The outrage is stated to have happened on the 2nd April; and at the trial of Private Horrocks on the 10th May the woman gave evidence in court. The West Kent Regiment is still at Rangoon.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And is it to be allowed to remain there after this?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I think it would be most unwise to remove the regiment until we are in full possession, of the facts.

    INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
    COLONEL WELBY (Taunton): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the regulation that candidates for the Indian Staff Corps must not be more than 25 years old, and must

    267
    have served at least one year in a European regiment, whether he can see his way to extending the age limit by two or three years in the case of officers promoted from the ranks, as this regulation shuts out the greater number of these, owing to the length of time they have to serve in the ranks before obtaining a commission.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The maximum limit of age for admission to the Indian Staff Corps was adopted in the general interests of the Service, and I do not think it expedient to extend it in order to facilitate the admission of a particular class of officers, which would have the effect of excluding officers of a more suitable age. There is an ample supply of officers under the present conditions—in fact, there is considerable competition for admission to the Indian Staff Corps.

    THE MECCA PILGRIMS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken, or are about to be taken, by Her Majesty's Government to secure the safe conduct of British Indian subjects between Jeddah and the cities of Mecca and Medina, whilst on the customary pilgrimage to the Mohammedan shrines; and whether compensation has been demanded, or will be demanded, by the British Government from the Porte for outrages committed upon British subjects in Arabia in the years 1895, 1896, 1897, and 1898, whilst performing religious duties in the Hedjaz.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Her Majesty's Government have taken and will continue to take all steps in their power to insure the protection of the British Indian pilgrims. As regards paragraph 2, demands have been made for compensation for robberies committed between 1892 and 1898, and some progress appears to have been made towards an arrangement.

    THE KOW SHING DISASTER.
    COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information about the progress being made in the negotiations with the Chinese Government in regard to compensation for the relatives
    268
    of those whose lives were lost in the Kow Shing disaster.
    MR. BRODRICK: There has been no progress since the statement made by me on February 20th, in reply to a question on the subject. On the 9th ultimo a Note was addressed to the Chinese Minister, in which the hope was expressed that he would soon be in a position to communicate the reply of his Government to our proposal that the claim for compensation should be referred to arbitration.

    THE CONSTANTINOPLE RIOTS.
    COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to give any further information as to the reported settlement by the authorities at Constantinople of the American claims on account of loss during the recent disturbances in Constantinople.
    MR, BRODRICK: The information we have received on this subject gives us no reason to suppose that the claims alluded to have been settled.

    BUNDER ABBAS.
    SIR HENRY MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information whether the Russian Government have obtained the lease of Blinder Abbas, in the Persian Gulf, from the Persian Government for a term of years.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir, no such information has been received.

    GIBRALTAR.
    MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now been able to consider the evidence collected in Gibraltar last year from trustworthy witnesses with regard to the urgent necessity for adopting measures for the improvement of the sanitary condition of the city and fortress of Gibraltar; whether Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the importance of providing proper accommodation for the naval and military forces which may from time to time be employed there, will take steps to prevent the grant of leases of Crown lands to private persons or to companies engaged in building speculations; and whether they will consider the desirability of demolishing the

    269
    buildings which are stated to be a danger to health.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have considered the Report of the Committee appointed last year by the Secretary of State for War to consider the question of improving the sanitary condition of Gibraltar, and the evidence taken by them. It is proposed, in dealing with Crown lands in Gibraltar, as leases fall in to have regard to the requirements for the accommodation for naval and military officers. The Sanitary Commissioners for Gibraltar have and exercise the power of ordering the destruction of buildings found to be actually dangerous to health; there are also other buildings which it may be desirable to remove with a view to prevent the overcrowding of the city and fortress, and Her Majesty's Government are considering how this may be done.

    BRITISH INDIANS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
    SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a petition, dated May last, from British Indian traders in the South African Republic, complaining that they have been ordered to remove, by the 1st of July, to locations at a distance from their places of business; whether the alleged necessity for such removal is sanitation; whether he will cause inquiry to be made whether this removal is really required on sanitary grounds; and, if so, whether the removal is being effected in the way least liable to cause hardship and loss to those affected; and whether Sir A. Milner made any representation regarding the grievances of British Indian traders at the recent Conference with the President of the South African Republic.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not yet received from the High Commissioner the petition of which a copy has been placed in my hands by the hon. Baronet. The facts are as follow: A law was enacted in the South African Republic in 1885 with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, which empowered the Government of the South African Republic for sanitary purposes to assign streets, wards, and locations for habitation by Asiatics. A difference arose between Her Majesty's Government and the Transvaal
    270
    Government as to the scope of the law, and they referred the matter to the arbitration of the Chief Justice of the Orange Free State, who decided that the Government of the South African Republic were entitled to carry out the law, subject solely to the interpretation of the courts of the Transvaal. Her Majesty's Government accepted the award, but reserved the right to make friendly representations to the South African Republic with a view to more generous treatment of the Indians. No action was taken by the Government of the South African Republic pending the decision by the Court of a test case, which was to settle whether the Government had the right to assign to the Indians places for business as well as for residence. The decision was given in August last, and was in favour of the Government of the South African Republic. Sir Alfred Milner, when he returned in February last, was instructed to endeavour to effect some arrangement favourable to the Indians, but the Government of the South African Republic declined to make any arrangement unless Her Majesty's Government were prepared to surrender certain rights of the Cape boys and other coloured persons. Sir Alfred Milner was then instructed at the beginning of May to ask in a friendly way for the favourable consideration of, at least, the better class of Indians, if not of all, suggesting the possibility of creating an Asiatic quarter within each town, and pointing out that the sanitary considerations on which the law is based cannot be applicable to all Indians without distinction. Notice had, however, in the meantime been issued by the Government of the South African Republic requiring the Indian traders to remove to places assigned to them by the 1st of July. The latest information shows that these locations have been assigned inside the towns at twenty-two places in the Republic, but that in Pretoria and Johannesburg the Government intend to compel the Indians to live in locations outside the town, but propose that a block of ground shall be set aside for a certain number of them for trading purposes inside the town. With a view to obtaining equitable treatment of the Indians Her Majesty's Government have used every friendly means left open to them by their predecessors' acceptance of the law of 1885, by the indefinite terms in which that law is

    271
    couched, and by the difficulty and uncertainty of the result of appeals to the law courts of the Republic. The matter is one of a number in which the views and wishes of Her Majesty's Government and that of the South African Republic are not in accord, and which would have been brought forward by Sir A. Milner at the Bloemfontein Conference had the discussion proceeded beyond the question of the franchise.

    THE METRIC SYSTEM.
    SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the sixth Report from Mr. T. Worthington on British trade in South America, containing a paragraph to the following effect:—That the metric system is the only one recognised; that an English foot rule cannot be legally imported, and that our trade suffers greatly by not adopting compulsorily the metric system used by almost all the civilised nations of the world; whether he has seen the Consular Report on the trade of Amsterdam issued last month, to the effect that, unless we adopt the metric system of weights and measures, we may look on the Continental and perhaps on other markets as lost to ns; and whether he will facilitate the adoption of the metrical system in this country by using metrical weights and measures in the Government Departments.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir, my attention has been directed to the matter referred to in my hon. friend's question. As the House is aware, there is now no reason why any manufacturer or trader in this country may not carry on his foreign trade in terms of metric weights and measures. I am in communication with some Government Departments on the concluding paragraph of the hon. Baronet's question.

    LOANS TO COLONIES.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give a return stating the names of the colonies, &c., to which the Colonial Loans Fund Bill would apply, the revenue of each of these colonies, the different heads under which revenue is raised, and particulars of present debts of
    272
    each colony, &c., showing amount of interest, nature of sinking fund, &c.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): A return such as is asked for will be given in respect of the colonies to which it is proposed to apply the Act this year.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give a list of the loans which it is proposed to make this year in pursuance of the Colonial Loans Fund Bill. In putting this I would further ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not think it would be fair to the House to give us this information before we finally pass the Colonial Loans Fund Bill.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think that has anything to do with it. A list of the loans which it is proposed to make this year will be contained in the schedule to a Bill which the Government proposes to introduce as soon as the Colonial Loans Fund Bill is passed.

    THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been brought to Ins notice that every week men with less than two years' service leave the Metropolitan Police force; and whether he can state the total number of men with less than two years' service who have left during the past year, and how this compares with the number of those who left with the same amount of service ten years ago.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,):Men of short service (not limited to two years, but from three months upwards) leave the force every week, and have always done so for fairly obvious reasons. There has not been time to ascertain the proportion of men of not more than two years' service who resigned voluntarily during the years mentioned in the question.

    MARGARINE FACTORIES.
    MR. ARTHUR MOORE (Londonderry): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Returns of Margarine Factories

    273
    registered under the Margarine Act, 1887, will be ready.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): I am informed that the English portion of this Return (which involves applications to 250 local authorities) will be ready in about a month. The Irish portion of the Return will be ready about the same time, and the Scotch portion is already complete.

    BECKENHA (NOTTINGHAMSHIRE) SCHOOL GRANT.
    MR. PERKS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education will he explain why the School Board of Beckenham (Nottinghamshire), which has maintained an efficient school fur the education of the parish in temporary premises since April, 1898, has not yet received a grant; and what are the objections to the school being at once admitted to the annual grant list, and a grant to the school being paid from the time of the opening of the school by the Board.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. CORST,): The school has not yet received a grant because the old National School premises, in which it is conducted, and which were erected with the aid of a building grant, have not been transferred to the Board under Section 23 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. The Board now proposes to erect an entirely new school, and meanwhile to occupy temporary premises which the Department has conditionally agreed to sanction. On hearing that the Board accept these conditions the Department will be prepared to consider a claim to annual grant as from the date of the Board's first occupation of the National School premises.

    LIVERPOOL POST OFFICE STAFF.
    MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that at the Liverpool Post Office there are 260 postal clerks with 79 superior appointments, and 365 telegraphists with but 57 superior appointments; whether 16 postal clerks are now at their maximum
    274
    salary, and 68 telegraphists are in like position, the former having an average length of service of 20 years, while the latter have an average of 22 years' service; and whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Faweett and the Tweedmouth Committee recommended that the two services should be placed upon an equality, some revision of the Liverpool telegraph service will take place.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The answer to the first paragraph is yes; but the number of sorting clerks at their maximum is 29, not 16. Mr. Fawcett recommended common scales for sorting clerks and telegraphists at provincial post offices, but his scheme did not contemplate the possibility of providing an equal flow of promotion in the two establishments. The Tweedmouth Committee recognised that the existence of more superior appointments on the postal side than on the telegraph side of the service was unavoidable, as there is on the postal side a greater necessity for supervising officers, and the number of superior appointments in both brandies must be regulated by the requirements of the service. The requirements of the telegraph service at Liverpool were specially examined last year in accordance with the general undertaking given by the Postmaster-General and myself, and a considerable addition was made to the number of superior telegraph appointments. There is no necessity at present for a further revision.

    IRISH POST OFFICES ON LICENSED PREMISES.
    MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he is prepared to lay upon the Table a Return of the number of post offices in Ireland held by publicans or in licensed premises.
    MR. HANBURY: I can give the hon. Member this information now. The number of post offices in Ireland which are situated in premises licensed for the sale of spirits, wine, or beer is at present as follows:—On licences: head offices, 1; sub offices, 226–227. Off licences: head offices, 2; sub-offices 19–21. Total 248.

    TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH LANESBOROUGH.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that at present a line of telegraph is being laid from Longford to Kenagh, and with very small additional expense could also be laid to Lanes-borough, and that the latter place is now a port of call for the Shannon lake steamers, whether he will recommend that, for the convenience of tourists and others, the telegraph line be continued to Lanes-borough.
    MR. HANBURY: A telegraph extension to Lanesborough shall be carried out if the ordinary guarantee is given.

    CAVAN POST OFFICE.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, what progress has been made with the erection of a new post office for Cavan; is it nearly completed; and when the postal authorities expect it to be opened for public service.
    MR. HANBURY: The Post Office informs me that the new post office at Cavan was completed and opened for the public service on the 4th of February last year.

    RETIRED OFFICERS AND CIVIL APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE CROWN.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, referring to the Return for the year ended 31st March, 1898, of the Army and Navy officers permitted under Rule 2 of the Regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 to hold civil employment of profit under the public Departments, he is aware that owing to a deduction of 60 per cent. the Director of Transports, pages 18 and 19, Case 13, is serving for £400 a year, while his assistant has 50 per cent. deducted and is serving for a salary exactly the same as his chief; and whether he can explain why the offices of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, pages 2 and 3, Case 8, and Keeper of the Regalia, pages 10 and 11, Case 7, are exempt from deductions.
    MR. HANBURY: The Director of Transports is not serving for £400 a year. His salary is £1,000, and so long
    276
    as he holds the office he is not entitled to retired pay in addition. The salary attached to the post of Assistant Director. of Transports is not £400, but £700 to, £800 a year, and no deduction is made either of 50 per cent. or any other amount. The cases referred to in the second paragraph are explained in the last column of the Return. Appointments in Her Majesty's Household are exempted from the usual deduction.

    ROSSLEA TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
    MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if his attention has been called to the necessity of a telegraph office in the town of Rosslea, in the county of Fermanagh; and will he give his consideration to the request of the people of that locality.
    MR. HANBURY: A telegraph office at Rosslea was offered on the usual guarantee terms in 1894, and nothing more was heard of the matter until within the last few days, when an application was received from the Clones Rural District Council. This application is under consideration, but the extension if granted must be, of course, under the usual guarantee.

    THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. Bussy, who contracted with Her Majesty's Government to print and publish the Parliamentary Reports of the Debates during the present session, was prepaid by libraries and by private individuals the sum of five guineas to furnish them with the said Reports; that Mr. Bussy is, bankrupt, and the persons who prepaid in advance are now required to make a further payment in order to obtain the Reports since the bankruptcy occurred; and whether, in view of the connection between Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Bussy, some arrangement can be made by which those who prepaid shall receive the Reports of Debates during the present session without further payment.
    MR. CALDWELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers I have to ask whether the reporters on the Staff of the Official Debates who have done the work should not have the

    277
    first claim to consideration in respect of their arrears of salary.
    MR. HANBURY: In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, I did my best to secure that payment should be made to the reporters, but I fond that when the contractor became bankrupt it was impossible to give preference to one set of creditors over the other. In reply to the question on the Paper, the answer to the first paragraph is "Yes." Legally there is no claim whatever upon the Stationery Office in this case, any more than in the case of the failure of any other contractor. The contract was admittedly a remunerative one, and the bankruptcy was due to causes not connected with it. At the same time everything that can be done to protect the interests of those who (somewhat unnecessarily) paid the subscription in advance shall be done.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Will any further efforts be made to do something for the reporters, many of whom have lost sums varying from £50 to £100?
    Mr. HANBURY: Under the Bankruptcy law it is impossible to give preference to one set of creditors.
    MR. FLYNN: But in proceedings in connection with bankruptcy, are not servants, who have a claim in respect of wages, in quite a different position?
    MR. HANBURY: That is a question which will have to be decided by the Official Receiver. It has nothing to do with the Treasury.
    MR. CALDWELL: My question was whether the Government could not extend some consideration to the reporters?
    MR. HANBURY: I am afraid we cannot bear all the sins of all our contractors.

    THE CARLINGFORD MEMBER OF THE LOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of a contractor under the Louth County Council, in the Carlingford Division, persisting in acting as a district councillor in the division in which his contract subsists; is this lawful; and, if not, do the Government propose themselves to prosecute for such
    278
    offences as in all other cases, or is it to be left to private prosecutors; and, if so, why is a departure from the usual Irish practice in respect of offences to be made.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The practice up to now has been not to institute a prosecution in cases of this kind which arose under the Poor Law at the expense of the Crown. But the whole matter is under the consideration of the Government, and I would ask the hon. Member to postpone his question for a week.

    THE CASE OF BRIDGET HARRIGAN.
    MR. MORRIS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that a tramp, named Bridget Harrigan, pleaded guilty to an indictment for perjury in connection with a false charge of a criminal nature which she brought against a farmer, Mr. R. Bolger, of Garryduff county Kilkenny, but that, notwithstanding her confession of guilt, she was released without punishment; also that the police, on her unsupported testimony, caused Mr. Bolger to be summarily arrested and sent for trial to the Assizes, although, as events proved, the smallest inquiry would have shown that the charge was false; can any reason be assigned for the discharge of Bridget Harrigan; will the Crown consider whether the heavy expense to which Mr. Bolger was put by his arrest and trial can be provided for; and why did the Crown originally refuse to prosecute the woman until Mr. Bolger's action compelled them to do so.
    MR. ATKINSON: The facts are as follows. On the 7th July, 1897, Bridget Harrigan reported to the police that she had been criminally assaulted by Mr. Bolger, who was at once arrested and on the following day returned for trial at Assizes by a local justice of the peace. There was absolutely no corroboration of the woman's story, and although a Roman Catholic clergyman and several other persons were ready to prove that Mr. Bolger was in another place at the time of the alleged assault, the justice referred to refused to take any evidence for the defence. The matter was thereupon reported to the Government, who issued directions that the Crown should enter a nolle prosequi at Assizes. Mr Bolger was in-

    279
    formed of this, and he did not attend the Assizes. In August a solicitor on behalf of Mr. Bolger applied to the magistrates at Petty Sessions for a warrant for the arrest of the woman on a charge of perjury. The district inspector, acting on the invariable rule in such cases, informed the magistrates he could not take any steps in this case until he consulted the authorities. He applied for instructions, and the Government directed the Crown Solicitor to prosecute the woman for perjury and to have a warrant issued for her arrest. She was arrested on the 21st September, and on the 23rd September was sent for trial to the Assizes. After her arrest she made a statement admitting she had committed perjury, and that she had been forced to do so by her husband with the object of extorting money from Mr. Bolger. She was subsequently released on her own recognisances to take her trial at the Assizes. The reason assigned by the judge in discharging her at the Assizes was that he believed she had acted under the compulsion of her husband. It is right to add that the woman was in Waterford Prison awaiting trial for one month. With reference to the third paragraph, the Government has no funds at its disposal out of which to compensate Mr. Bolger for any losses he may have incurred. As regards the last paragraph, the Crown did not, as I have stated, refuse to prosecute the woman.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Has the right hon. gentleman received the statement of the husband?
    MR. ATKINSON: There was no evidence in the case against the husband. That was the conclusion to which the judge came. He said the statement of the woman would not be evidence against the husband.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Why was a nolle prosequi entered, instead of bringing the man to trial and enabling him to get his acquittal from a jury?
    MR. ATKINSON: It was the proper course to take.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The man was put to all this expense. Who is the learned judge that gave that sacred opinion?
    MR. DILLON: Has anything been done in respect of the magistrate who refused to hear evidence for the defence?
    MR. ATKINSON: Nothing can be done.

    CASE OF MICHAEL HOPKINS.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in May last Michael Hopkins, at present confined in Maryborough Prison, completed 7½ years' imprisonment, which, with the remission earned by his exceptionally good conduct since his committal, would count for 10 years out of the 24 to which he was sentenced; whether numerous petitions, signed by magistrates, clergymen, and representative men in County Longford, including the foreman of Longford Grand Jury, Colonel King-Harman, have been presented asking for mercy to him; and whether he can hold out any hope that the prayer of these petitions will be granted.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The statements in the first and second paragraphs are substantially accurate. Memorials praying for a remission of sentence have been presented to the present Lord Lieutenant and his predecessor, and have been refused. The case has again been before the Lord Lieutenant upon a communication received a day or two ago from the hon. Member, but it has been decided that the law should take its course.

    APPLOTMENT OF CESS IN COUNTY CORK.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the work of applotment of cess in County Cork was done by two clerks under the Grand Jury, and whether 40 clerks will now be required under the system prescribed by the Local Government Board; whether the County Council has sent a deputation to complain of the expense to the Local Government Board; and have similar complaints been made in other counties; and if it is alleged that the law requires so expensive a mode of book-keeping, why is it not amended.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board understand that six persons were usually employed in the

    281
    applotment of county cess in County Cork, and about fifty in the preparation of poor-rate books of the county. The number of persons to be employed in the applotment of the consolidated rates will be somewhat short of the number heretofore employed, and in the course of a year or so, when the new system is thoroughly understood, the expense of making the consolidated rate will be very considerably lessened, and will show a material saving as compared with the old system. A deputation from County Cork attended on the Board, but their object was to obtain the Board's consent to certain variations in the Accounts Order to meet the peculiar requirements of this large comity. These modifications were made by the Board. Complaints have been generally made to the Board as to the extra work involved by having to raise the charges mentioned in Section 57 (2) as a separate item in the rate books. The Board has gone as far as possible in the direction of minimising this labour by consolidating the public health charges within each rural district.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on this matter when the Vote for the Local Government Board comes on?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Certainly.

    LORD DILLON'S ESTATE.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Congested Districts Board were in possession of the figures of gross and net rental of Lord Dillon's estate when they made the purchase; if not, on what basis was the price arrived at, and can the figures be now given.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: As already stated, the Congested Districts Board were in possession of figures as to the gross and net rental of the holdings on this estate when they approved of its purchase. The gross rental is about £20,500, but I do not feel at liberty to state the net rental without consulting the Board.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: That is the whole point of the question. The right hon. Gentleman has had a week's notice of it.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Board has not met for a week. Personally, I see no objection to stating the net rental. But I must first consult the Board.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: How can the taxpayers know whether they are getting value for money?
    No answer was given.

    WORK OF THE LAND JUDGE'S COURT.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that great dissatisfaction prevails in many portions of Ireland owing to the way in which properties under the jurisdiction of the Land Judge's Court are managed; whether numerous complaints and applications have been made to explain delay in the selling and transferring of the property to the tenants; whether the creditors have in many cases, as stated by Judge Ross, been ruined and left desolate by delays in realisation and payment of incumbrances; and whether some means cannot be devised by which a more expeditious and satisfactory transfer of property can be made to tenants purchasing from the court.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have referred this question to the Land Judge, who does not consider that the generalities contained in the first and second paragraphs require any comment from him. As regards the remainder of the question, I understand that on several occasions the learned judge has felt compelled to comment strongly on the delays of solicitors in the transaction of business, and that he has intimated that such delays, in future, will be visited upon the delinquent in the shape of a disallowance of portion of his costs.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CON DUCT IN LIMEERICK.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of the rank and file of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have been fined for breaches of discipline while serving in County Limerick by the Inspector General, and the number of those fined by the County Inspector, respectively, from the 1st June, 1896, to the 31st May, 1899, and from the 1st June, 1893, to the 31st May, 1896; the number of men disrated; the number of men punished by unfavourable records; and the number of courts of inquiry held for same periods respectively.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: There are reasons in the interests of the public service for not answering this question, and I will ask the hon and learned Member not to press it.

    REPORT OF THE INSPECTORS OF IRISH FISHERIES.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries has not been presented, in accordance with the provisions of the 112th Section of 5 and 6 Vic. c. 106, which directs that they should, on or before the last day of January in each year, make a Report to the Lord Lieutenant, and submit a copy to both Houses of Parliament if then sitting, or within three weeks after the commencement of the next session; whether he can state when the Reports for 1898 will be presented; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to enforce a compliance with the Act in future.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries for 1898 will be presented to Parliament in a day or two. The reasons which prevent a compliance with the statutory requirement in regard to the period within which the annual Report of the Inspectors should be presented were explained by me in answer to a question put by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth on the 21st of February, 1898.

    LAY TITHE RENT-CHARGE IN IRELAND.
    MR. HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the aggregate annual amount of the lay tithe rent-charge now payable in Ireland; and whether the persons liable to pay such tithe rent-chage are almost altogether of the landlord class.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Lay tithe rent-charge is not payable to the Irish Land Commission, and they have no statistics either as to its amount or the persons liable to pay it.

    NEWBLISS EVICTIONS.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
    284
    Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the doctor engaged by the agent of the Rossmore Estate to certify to the fitness of removal of the woman Finegan, on the occasion of the recent eviction proceedings near Newbliss, has an established practice in any town or district in the County Monaghan; did Dr. Henry make any report upon the ease to the Local Government Board; and upon whose authority did the police depart from their custom to make known to the coroner all deaths occurring under circumstances leading to the belief they were accelerated by eviction proceedings; and what is the name of the doctor who gave to Lord Rossmore's agent the certificate that the dying woman was fit to be removed.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I understand that the doctor who accompanied the agent on the occasion referred to informed the agent that the woman was fit to be removed. I am not aware that he gave a formal certificate to this effect, and in any case I cannot conceive that any medical man would state, or certify, that a woman whom he believed to be dying was fit for removal. The doctor alluded to was employed, presumably, by the agent; his services were not requisitioned by the police, nor is he subject in any way to the control of the Executive Government. This being so, and as the inquiry in the last paragraph appears intended not so much to elicit information as to injure the individual in question, I do not feel bound to answer it. Dr. Henry, the Dispensary medical officer, made no report upon the case to the Local Government Board, nor was it his duty to do so. The police had no reason to think that the woman's death was accelerated by the visit of the agent, and they did not, therefore, report the case to the coroner.
    MR. MACALEESE: Has this doctor any practice in Monaghan?
    MP. G. W. BALFOUR: I really know nothing about him.
    MR. MACALEESE: Was he not an imported doctor, brought in for the purpose of giving this certificate?
    No answer was given.

    THE IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

    285
    Ireland whether he is aware that a public meeting in connection with the Oireachtas was held in the Mansion House, Dublin, on the 8th instant, at which resolutions were unanimously passed calling on the National Board of Education in Ireland, in the interests of education and common justice, to give permission for the use of bilingual reading and copying books in schools at the option of the manager in Irish speaking districts; and also that in all schools Irish may be taught as an extra subject within the ordinary school hours in the fourth, fifth, and sixth classes; whether, owing to the great revival of the Irish language, representations will be made to the National Board of Education to make such changes in their regulations as will admit of the national utilisation of the Irish language in the primary educational system of Ireland; and whether the Government will consider the proposals made in these resolutions.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Copies of the resolutions referred to have been received by the Commissioners of National Education. It is already provided by the Board's rule that if there are Irish speaking pupils in a school the teacher, if acquainted with the Irish language, may, whenever practicable, employ the vernacular as an aid to the elucidation and acquisition of the English language. The proposal to sanction the use of bilingual reading books and bilingual copy books in such schools, viz., where the pupils have already a knowledge of Irish, does not receive the approval of the Commissioners, nor do they consider it desirable that in all National schools Irish should be taught to the four senior classes within ordinary school hours. As regards the second and third paragraphs, the right to make such changes in the programme of instruction as may be considered necessary rests with the Commissioners themselves.
    MR. FLAVIN: Has the Board any objection to Irish being taught between the hours in which other languages are taught?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I think my answer was quite full enough.
    MR. FLAVIN: I will put another question on this.

    QUEEN'S COLLEGE, GALWAY.
    MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the case of the Royal University, Intermediate Board, and Board of Education, one-half the governing body and one-half the executive are Roman Catholics, and is there any statutory provision to that effect; has the attention of the Government been called to the constitution of Queen's College, Galway, in which the president, all the office bearers, and six out of seven of the governing body of that college are Protestants; is he aware that Sir Robert Peel pledged the Crown to the appointment of Roman Catholics whenever possible in that college; and does the Government propose to make any change in the constitution of the college.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Senate of the Royal University consists at present of thirty-five members (exclusive of the Chancellor), of whom nineteen are Protestants and sixteen Roman Catholics. There is one vacancy on the Senate. The Board of Intermediate Education consists of seven members, of whom four are Protestants and three Roman Catholics. In the case of neither of these bodies is their religious composition determined by statute or charter. Of the Commissioners of National Education ten must under their charter be Roman Catholics and ten Protestants. The fact is as stated in the second paragraph. I have already replied to a question similar to that contained in the third paragraph to the effect that I was unable to find any such pledge. The Government have no present intention of making any change in the constitution of the college.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: As one of the professors has no pupil at all, will the right hon. Gentleman make no change in that case?
    No answer was given.

    BUNDORAN WATERWORKS.
    MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings of two large meetings of ratepayers held in the Court House at Ballyshannon on the 13th and 15th June respectively, and presided

    287
    over by the Chairman of the Town Commissioners and the Chairman of the District Council: whether he has received copies of resolutions unanimously passed at those meetings, protesting against an Order of the Local Government Board, dated 15th May, 1899, enlarging the contributory area for Bundoran Waterworks, and making the Bundoran water rate a district charge, instead of a charge on the area originally responsible for the loan raised to pay for the works; whether he is aware that one rate, in repayment of an instalment and interest on the loan, has been levied off the area originally defined, whose valuation is £2,933 1s.; and whether, having regard to the fact that the inhabitants of the electoral divisions of Ballintra, Ballyshannon Rural, Ballyshannon Urban, Carrow-garden, Carrickboy, and Cliff, comprised in the enlarged area, are opposed to the charge and will get no benefit from the Bundoran Waterworks, he will take steps to have the sealed Order rescinded and the charge confined to the district from which it was originally arranged that it should be levied.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The answer to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. I have already explained that the Order of the Board is based on the general principle which it was deemed necessary to adopt in consequence of the rating provisions of the Local Government Act of last session, and has been assented to by the majority of the boards of guardians of Ireland. I am very reluctant to depart from that principle with respect to particular instances, unless an overwhelming case of serious hardship can be shown. As at present advised, I am not convinced that such hardship can be shown to exist in the present instance, but I will look further into the matter.

    KERRY COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE FOOD AND DRUGS BELL.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution in connection with the Food and Drugs Bills unanimously adopted by the Kerry County Council on the 27th April, 1899, stating that great injury has been done, and fraud committed, by the artificial
    288
    colouring of margarine with butter; also, that the importation of foreign milk should not be allowed to continue without some restrictions; and whether effect will be given to this resolution in the Food and Drugs Bill now before Parliament.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have received the resolution referred to, and communicated it to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, the Minister in charge of the Bill, who no doubt will give the resolution due consideration.

    AUGHNACLOY DISPENSARY DISTRICT.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Aughnacloy, where Dr. Phillips resides, is twelve miles from portions of the dispensary district of which that gentleman has charge; can any cases be cited in England where the poor needing medical relief have to travel twelve miles in order to obtain it; and if the Local Government Board cannot see their way to adopt the proposal made by the Rev. Father Callan, P.P., to have the five divisions of Truagh erected into a district, with a resident medical officer, will they devise some other scheme to mitigate the hardships now endured by the poor of the locality.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am making inquiry into the statement contained in the first paragraph, and must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question until to-morrow.

    THE NEW CHANCERY JUDGESHIP.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact of the Judges of the High Court having vacations of four months in each year (at Christmas three weeks, at Easter ten days, at Whitsuntide ten days, and in the autumn two months and twelve clays), he will introduce legislation to shorten those vacations by a month, before he asks this House to sanction the appointment of a new Judge.
    MR. COHEN: I beg at the same time to ask the First Laid of the Treasury when the additional Chancery Judge, whom Her Majesty's Government have announced their intention

    289
    to appoint, will be appointed; and whether legislation is necessary before the appointment can be made; and, if so, when he expects the necessary measure will be introduced in this House.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The answer to my hon. friend is that the Government propose to proceed by Resolution, which, I think, is the proper way of dealing with the matter. I do not think I can make any further statement just now. In reply to the hon. Member for Stoke, I may say that legislation would be required to deal with the question of the shortening the Long Vacation, and that certainly could not be done this session.
    MR. COHEN: When will the Resolution be introduced?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say at present.

    THE INDIAN BUDGET.
    SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Indian Budget will be taken.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The financial statement has only just been received from India, so that it will be impossible to take it before the usual time—namely, about the end of the session.

    THE FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Report stage of the Food and Drugs Bill will be taken.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give a definite reply to this question.
    MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us due notice before he takes the Bill?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I can; but it is not always very convenient at this period of the session.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.

      INTRODUCTION.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD Or AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): If the results of a variety of inquiries extending over a
      290
      considerable period of time, anti if a virtual unanimity of opinion arrived at by distinguished and eminent men of our own time, who have given this subject their careful attention, constitute a claim for the redress of grievances, I think I shall have no difficulty in establishing a very good case for the subject to which I now invite the attention of the House. In 1843 the Poor Law Commission were asked to inquire into the incidence of local taxation—a subject which, like the poor, appears to be always with us, and always the subject of dissatisfaction and inquiry. In their Report there occurs this important passage:
      "We recognise the grievances to which the tithe-owner and some other classes of ratepayers are subjected in being rated upon the full value of their property."
      They only qualified that by objecting to the particular form of relief asked for. At a later period, in 1852, Mr. Gladstone, than whom there was no higher authority on questions of rating and taxation, referred in his Budget speech to a proposal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give some relief to owners of clerical tithe in regard to income tax. He said:
      "The clergy have a real grievance at this moment. It is admitted by all authorities. Professor Jones, Mr. Cornewall Lewis, and every man who has examined the subject of local rating, will tell you that the clergy suffer cruelly by being rated for local taxation upon their gross income."
      Mr. (afterwards Sir) George Cornewall Lewis was one of those who signed the Report from which I have quoted. Coming down to our own times, the Royal Commission appointed by ourselves has issued an interim Report and two minority Reports. That interim Report is of the most remarkable character, and, together with the evidence, will repay careful examination. Of the fifteen Commissioners twelve signed the interim Report, including Sir John Hibbert (formerly a distinguished Member of this House, and a high authority on questions of rating and taxation), permanent officials of the Treasury, and the town clerks of two of our greatest municipalities. They say that, pending the final Report of the Commission, the case of the parochial incumbent who owns tithe rent-charge might properly be met by some special measure of relief. The minority Report of the right hon. Member for Clackmannan only doubted the expediency of immediate

      291
      treatment. The Member for East Donegal suggested the inclusion of the clergy in the agricultural rating, and the Member for Hoxton alone told the clergy that they ought to be thankful things were no worse. The other Commissioners practically agreed in the existence of a grievance, and that it was one which ought to be dealt with. In order to illustrate how extraordinary this injustice is, let me take three different kinds of clerical endowment, each amounting to £300 a year. First take an income resulting from money investments, in which case the net deduction is £4 10s. Not a penny of that is liable to rates, so that the net income is £295 10s. Next take the case of an income arising out of glebe. The owner gets the benefit of the old Act, and of the Act of 1896. There the outgoings are £24 4s. 6d., and the net income is £275 15s. 6d. Now, take the case of the income of an incumbent derived solely from tithe at the present value of £300 a year. The outgoings came to £54, and the income falls to £246 5s., because this clergyman alone is called upon to pay rates on his income. Again, take a case in which we distinguish between a clerical and any other tithe owner or ratepayer. In the appendix to the Report of the Local Taxation Commission they take the mean of all these cases and work it out, giving an income of £223 14s. 5d. The percentage of rates paid by the owner of tithe rent-charge is on the average no less than 20.21 of his net income. If you apply the same calculation to an ordinary person, the owner or occupier of an ordinary hereditament, with the same income, you will find that the rates he would pay upon his assessment, which would probably be about one-tenth of his income, fall to 1.2, or, if the rates are at 6s., to 2.4. I venture to say that here is a disparity between these cases which justifies the demand that these people are making upon us—a demand which it is our intention to meet by this measure, of which I hope the House will approve. The decision of the Government to deal with the subject is not a recent one, but it was impossible for us to deal with it until we had before us full materials for consideration, including the interim Report of the Commission, which has been recently furnished. I may say that the measure with which we propose to ask the House to deal is simple, and the House will be glad
      292
      to hear also that it is brief in its character. We propose that the owners of tithe rent-charge shall in future pay one-half only of the rates to which they are at present liable. The question arises, and it is one in which the House will no doubt take the keenest interest, how is the deficit thereby created to be made up. The first suggestion that would occur to anybody is that the Imperial Exchequer should be the sole source from which to recover the deficit. When we had to deal with agricultural rating it was inevitable that the Imperial Exchequer should make up the deficit. The deficit was so great that it could not be allowed to fall upon the other ratepayers, and, unfortunately, there was no other way by which it could be made up. It was our poverty but not our will that consented, and we had to fall back on the Exchequer. Turning to the local taxation account, we find that there is, compared with the time when it came into existence in 1889–90, an increase of no less than £756,419 under the head alone of Licences and Probate Duty Grant. Comparing this year with last the increase is £143,197. The amount required for the relief to be given by this Bill will be only £87,000. Therefore there is not only sufficient to meet this deficit and a considerable balance to go on with in the ordinary way, but the change in the incidence from a limited class of ratepayers to the whole community is one that will give relief to the particular class concerned without casting upon any other class a burden which anyone can honestly call appreciable. I have precedents for this course. The Public Health Act of 1875 gave the same exemptions to the tithe-owner, and the Baths and Wash-houses Act gave an even larger exemption. Therefore there is a precedent for placing the tithe-owner in a better position than the other ratepayers in regard to the amount of their rates. The machinery of the Bill is simple enough. The collector of rates will forward his demand to the Board of Inland Revenue, who will pay the amount demanded, after deducting that amount from the gross sum of the local taxation account, before transferring that gross sum to the Local Government Board for distribution among the various local authorities. The relief that will be given by the Bill will remove a long-standing injustice in such a way that the burden will

      293
      not be felt by any of those upon whom it will fall. [Cries of "Why not?"] The reason is that under the existing system, unfortunately, the local authorities who have the spending of the money know beforehand of the fact that increased balances are coming into their hands. That rather tends to extravagance and bad administration. [Opposition cheers.] I can understand that cheer, but I am talking only of increases, and I say that if it were known that these growing amounts were coming at a fixed period, then the position of the local authorities would be much better. Unfortunately, they do not possess that knowledge, and they can only deal with the money when they receive it. These balances are available, and will cover the amount we require for the purposes of this Act; and I venture to say that if we are ever going to deal with this question of local taxation, and remove some of the burdens which press hardly upon certain classes of the ratepayers, it can only be done by some such system as is embodied in this Bill. I ask leave to introduce this measure, which will give substantial relief to a class that has long suffered from gross injustice, by a method which will not impose upon the ratepayers a single fraction of burden of which they need complain—of which, indeed, they would not even know if it were not for the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to the payment of rates on tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice."—(Mr. Long.)
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I feel bound, in the first place, to devote a small portion of the limited time at my disposal to expressing my surprise and entering my earnest protest against the procedure adopted in this matter. This method of introducing Bills at this period of the evening with a limited discussion was designed and adopted, as is shown by reference to Hansard, to facilitate the introduction of what are known as Departmental or non-controversial Bills. In the last Parliament I remember how loud and long were the re-monstrances addressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite against the intention again and again of the Government of the day
      294
      to bring in Bills in this manner, on the ground that from their importance or their contentious nature they were not fitted for such treatment. At all events, now it is surely time we had some definite understanding and rule in the matter. Private Members' Bills can be introduced without any discussion at all, and that is sometimes used as an argument in favour of this method; but the Government have limited discussion for their Bills, and the present arrangement leaves it entirely at the discretion of the Government of the day to say which of the modes will suit them best, irrespective of the desires and interests of the rest of the House. However important and however contentious a Bill may be, as this is, they may introduce it in this manner provided only it be short; and, on the other hand, if it is advantageous for them to have a full explanation and discussion, then they can adopt that course. All I ask is that we should have some rule which is fair and equal all round. I commend that, not only to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, but also to the House itself, as a matter on which at least there ought to be sonic regular and fixed rule laid down. What is the nature of this Bill? It is a Bill to relieve certain clergy from rates. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this question. I wish he had dealt with it on this occasion also, but the Minister for Agriculture has been brought in—we know not why. We have, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's opinion which he expressed last year. He said:
      "It is all very well to say that you ought not to tax clergymen in this way more than the lawyer or the doctor; but, as a matter of fact, they have been taxed in this way for centuries past."
      In fact, in a previous sentence he appears to have said they had been taxed since the clays of Queen Elizabeth, and although that particular reference seems to have singularly disappeared from Hansard, it is authenticated by the fact that in the subsequent Debate references were made to it. The right hon. Gentleman corrects his speech and strikes out something which is not absolutely to his mind on second thoughts; but unfortunately he cannot strike out the references to it in the subsequent Debate. I do not insist, however, upon Queen Elizabeth, because "centuries past" answers my

      295
      purpose as well. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say:
      "That being so, to ask the Government to relieve property from taxation which has been so long subject to it, either at the expense of other ratepayers or at the expense of taxpayers generally, is not a practical request."
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): That quotation does not accurately convey the meaning of what I said. I was alluding to the demands of some clergy that they should be entirely exempted from rating. That is what I was answering.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We shall have opportunities of elucidating that point at a subsequent stage; but those words—and very explicit words they are—are not invalidated by the fact that towards the close of his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to this Royal Commission that was sitting, and said he waited—in fact, he rather invited—the Royal Commission to give him, and give the Government, some guidance upon the subject. We have been told on the highest possible authority—the authority of one who is not only Prime Minister, but Foreign Secretary—that, in his opinion, Royal Commissions are for the most part of small account. They are, at all events, very convenient to certain Governments. They may either be a means of enshrouding and postponing some subject which it is awkward to deal with, or, as we have seen, they may furnish a means of suggesting desired legislation for which it is difficult otherwise to find an excuse. This is a manœuvre with which we are becoming familiar. It is the easiest thing in the world. You desire to reward or conciliate some section of the community by endowing them with exceptional advantages at the cost of other people. A Royal Commission is sitting on the general subject applicable to the whole community. You get the Commission to issue an interim Report in favour of some particular advantage being given to a section of the community, and then you come forward with that particular demand. It is an ingenious device, but it loses its force when it is repeated so often as to become perfectly transparent. What is the case before us, apart from technicalities with which we have to-day no time to deal? There are certain clergymen of the Church of England whose income comes from tithe
      296
      or glebe land, and they find so heavy are the burdens of local taxation that their income, already poor, is reduced so as to be altogether inadequate. And this grievance has been greatly aggravated by the legislation of the present Government, who, a few years ago, gave relief to the landlord through his tenant.—[Ministerial cries of "No"]—well, say the tenant without the landlord if you like—gave relief to a favoured class by relieving them from half their rates, and necessarily imposed the other half on all the other ratepayers, including these very clergymen who now make complaint. I have the greatest sympathy with these unfortunate clergymen. I believe in many cases they are hardly in a position properly to discharge the duties of their high and important office. They ought to be relieved, but who is to relieve them? They are to be relieved, according to the right hon. Gentleman, at the expense of the ratepayers out of moneys which, if they did not go to this purpose, would go to some other useful purpose beneficial to the community. The landlords have already been helped ["No, no"], now it is to be the clergymen. When is the turn of the householder and the shopkeeper and the tradesman and the community at large to come? What is this, in the name of common-sense, this £87,000, but a fresh endowment of the Church of England. I am not aware that at the present moment there is such an overweening and universal confidence in the clergy of the Church of England that a proposal of this kind is particularly opportune. But passing from that, if the incomes of these clergy are insufficient, as. I believe in many cases they are, for the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of their position; they are the servants of a Church, the richest far and away of all in the country—a Church which has amongst its members almost all the influential classes in society—the classes of exalted and wealthy position—and they are to come to the ratepayer of the country to make good this little deficiency in the incomes of the clergy. There is not a free and independent Church in the Kingdom so mean and so poor that it would not scorn to do it. I will not quote the case of what you call Nonconformist bodies, who have a different theory and a different ideal from yours in these matters. I will take the case of an Established Church well known to the

      297
      Leader of the House. The Church of Scotland is a poor Church; it does not include among its members the most exalted and wealthy of the community. It is a Church formed from the great mass of the trading, farming, and labouring classes in Scotland, at least it has its share, with the other Presbyterian Churches, of those classes. That Church, a few years ago, discovered—it did not dawn upon it, but it came home to it—that a large number of its ministers were not in receipt of a sufficient salary to maintain their position. What did it do? It instituted a fund, collected subscriptions, and fixed a certain minimum income which every one of its ministers was to receive, and that has been done by the freewill effort and self-sacrifice of the people of the Church of Scotland. Here is an instance of an Established Church which takes the right way in dealing with a difficulty of this sort. That is the way, and not to exact aid from the already burdened community, many members of which are every whit as much
      in need of our generosity as the clergy of the Church of England. The case will be argued afterwards on its technical merits, but these are the general considerations which prompt me to declare an open and determined hostility to the object of the Bill. I began by saying I protested against a Bill of this importance being introduced by the Government in this manner with a full knowledge of the strong feeling which existed upon it, and in order to emphasise this opinion I beg to ask you, Sir, if you would, in the exercise of the power given you, put the question to the House that the Debate be now adjourned.
      MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition desiring to take the opinion of the House on the question of the Adjournment, I will put that question.
      Question put, "That the Debate be now Adjourned."
      The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 243. (Division List No. 203.)

      AYES.

      Allan, William (Gateshead)

      Edwards, Owen Morgan

      Labouchere, Henry

      Allen,W. (Newc. under Lyme)

      Ellis, John Edward

      Lambert, George

      Ambrose, Robert

      Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

      Langley, Batty

      Arrol, Sir William

      Evans,Sir F.H. (Southampton)

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Evershed, Sydney

      Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

      Austin, M.

      Farquharson, Dr. Robert

      Leng, Sir John

      Barlow, John Emmott

      Farrell, Jas. P. (Cavan, W.)

      Leuty, Thomas Richmond

      Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

      Fenwick, Charles

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

      Ferguson,R.C. Munro (Leith)

      Lloyd-George, David

      Billson, Alfred

      Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

      Logan, John William

      Birrell, Augustine

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Lough Thomas

      Blake, Edward

      Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

      Lyell, Sir Leonard

      Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

      Fowler, Right Hon Sir Henry

      Macaleese, Daniel

      Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

      Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Gibney, James

      M'Ewan, William

      Buxton, Sydney Charles

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      M'Ghee, Richard

      Caldwell, James

      Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

      M'Hugh E. (Armagh, S.)

      Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

      Hammond, John (Carlow)

      M'Kenna, Reginald

      Carmichael, Sir T D. Gibson-

      Hayden, John Patrick

      M'Killop, James

      Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

      Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

      M'Leod, John

      Cawley, Frederick

      Hazell, Walter

      Maddison, Fred.

      Channing, Francis Allston

      Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)

      Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

      Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.

      Healy, Timothy M. (N.Louth)

      Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W.(Yorks)

      Clough, Walter Owen

      Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

      Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

      Commins, Andrew

      Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

      Molloy, Bernard Charles

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

      Montagu, Sir S. (Whitech'pl)

      Courtney, Rt. Hon.LeonardH.

      Horniman, Frederick John

      Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

      Crilly, Daniel

      Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

      Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

      Crombie, John William

      Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

      Morris, Samuel

      Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

      Jacoby, James Alfred

      Morton, E. J. C. (Devenport)

      Daly, James

      Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

      Moulton, John Fletcher

      Davies,M. Vaughan (Cardigan

      Joicey, Sir James

      Murnaghan, George

      Davitt, Michael

      Jones, David Brynmor (Swan.)

      Norton, Captain C. William

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

      Nussey, Thomas Willans

      Dillon, John

      Jordan, Jeremiah

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

      Doogan, P. C.

      Kilbride, Denis

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

      Kinloch, Sir John George S.

      Oldroyd, Mark

      Duckworth, James

      Kitson, Sir James

      Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

      Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading)

      Smith, Samuel (Flint)

      Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

      Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

      Souttar, Robinson

      Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

      Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb)

      Spicer, Albert

      Wedderburn, Sir William

      Perks, Robert William

      Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

      Whiteley, George (Stockport)

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Steadman, William Charles

      Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

      Pilkington,Sir. G.A.(L.,S.W.)

      Stevenson, Francis S.

      Williams, John C. (Notts.)

      Pinkerton, John

      Strachey, Edward

      Wills, Sir William Henry

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

      Wilson, John (Falkirk)

      Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

      Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

      Wilson, John (Govan)

      Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.

      Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

      Woodall, William

      Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

      Thomas, Alf.(Glamorgan, E.)

      Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rs

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

      Woods, Samuel

      Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

      Tuite, James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Ure, Alexander

      Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

      Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

      Wallace, Robert

      Mr. Causton.

      NOES.

      Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

      Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

      Hanbury,Rt.Hon. Robt. Wm.

      Aird, John

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Hardy, Laurence

      Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

      Chelsea, Viscount

      Hare, Thomas Leigh

      Allsopp, Hon. George

      Clarke, SirEdward(Plymouth)

      Hatch, Ernest F. George

      Anson, Sir William Reynell

      Cochrane. Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

      Heath. James

      Archdale, Edward Mervyn

      Coghill, Douglas Harry

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Arnold, Alfred

      Cohen, Benjamin Louis

      Hill, Rt Hn A.Staveley (Staffs)

      Arnold-Forster Hugh O.

      Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

      Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

      Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

      Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

      Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

      Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

      Bagot,Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

      Cox, Irwin Edw. B.

      Hobhouse, Henry

      Bailey, James (Walworth)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Cripps, Charles Alfred

      Horn by, Sir William Henry

      Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(Manch'r)

      Cruddas, William Donaldson

      Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

      Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds)

      Curzon, Viscount

      Jackson, Rt.Hon.Wm. Lawies

      Banbury, Frederick George

      Dalrymple, Sir Charles

      Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

      Barnes, Frederic Gorell

      Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

      Johnston, William (Belfast)

      Barry,Rt.Hn.A.H.S.-(Hunts.)

      Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

      Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

      Barry, Sir FrancisT. (Windsor)

      Dixon-Hartland, Sir. F.

      Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

      Bartley, George C. T.

      Dorington, Sir John Edward

      Kimber, Henry

      Barton, Dunbar Plunket

      Doughty, George

      King, Sir Henry Seymour

      Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Knowles, Lees

      Bech,Rt.Hn.Sir.M.H.(Br'st'l)

      Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

      Laurie, Lieut. General

      Bach, W. W. Bramston Hants)

      Doxford, William Theodore

      Lawrence, SirEDurning-(Corn

      Beckett, Ernest William

      Drage, Geoffrey

      Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

      Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

      Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

      Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

      Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

      Dyke, Rt.Hn.SirWilliam Hart

      Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

      Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

      Bethell, Commander

      Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

      Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

      Biddulph, Michael

      Fardell, Sir T. George

      Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn. (Swan.

      Bill, Charles

      Fellowes,Hon.Ailwyn Edward

      Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

      Blakiston-Houston, John

      Fergusson, Rt.Hn.Sir.J.(Man.)

      Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

      Blundell, Colonel Henry

      Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

      Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

      Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

      Firbank, Joseph Thomas

      Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

      Bond, Edward

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

      Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

      FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

      Lorne, Marquess of

      Boulnois, Edmund

      FitzWygram, General Sir F.

      Lowe, Francis William

      Bousfield, William Robert

      Flannery, Sir Fortescue

      Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. (Kent)

      Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)

      Fletcher, Sir Henry

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Brassey, Albert

      Folkestone, Viscount

      Lucas-Shad well, William

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

      Fry, Lewis

      Macartney, W. G. Ellison

      Brookfield, A. Montagu

      Galloway, William Johnson

      Macdona, John Cumming

      Brown, Alexander H.

      Gibbons, J. Lloyd

      Maclean, James Mackenzie

      Brymer, William Ernest

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward

      M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

      Ballard, Sir Harry

      Gorst,Rt Hon.Sir John Eldon

      M'Calmont,Col.J.(Antrim,E.)

      Butcher, John George

      Goschen,RtHnG.J (StGeorge's

      M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinb'rgh,W

      Campbell, Rt.Hn.JA (Glasgow

      Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

      Malcolm, Ian

      Carlile, William Walter

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Manners, Lord E. Wm. J.

      Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

      Graham, Henry Robert

      Maple, Sir.J. Blundell

      Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

      Greene,W.Raymond-(Cambs.)

      Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E.

      Cayzer, Sir Charles William

      Greville, Hon. Ronald

      Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

      Gunter, Colonel

      Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

      Halsey, Thomas Frederick

      Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

      Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

      Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

      Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

      Milner, Sir Frederick George

      300

      301

      Milton, Viscount

      Purvis, Robert

      Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

      Milward, Colonel Victor

      Ranki, Sir James

      Thorburn, Walter

      Monk, Charles James

      Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

      Thornton. Percy M.

      Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

      Richardson, Sir T.(Hartlepool)

      Tollemache, Hemy James

      Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

      Ridley,Rt.Hn. SirMatthew W.

      Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

      More, R. J. (Shropshire)

      Ridley,Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson

      Tritton, Charles Ernest

      Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

      Robertson, H. (Hackney)

      Usborne, Thomas

      Morrell, George Herbert

      Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

      Valentia, Viscount

      Morton, A. H. A. (Depford)

      Rou d James

      Wanklyn, James Leslie

      Mount, William George

      Russell,Gen.F.S.(Cheltenh'w)

      Warr, Augustus Frederick

      Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

      Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

      Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

      Murray,Col. Wyndham (Bath)

      Rutherford, John

      Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

      Newark, Viscount

      Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

      Whitmore, Charles Algernon

      Nicholson, William Graham

      Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

      Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

      Nicol, Donald Ninian

      Savory, Sir Joseph

      Willox, Sir John Archibald

      Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

      Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

      Wilson-Todd, W. H (Yorks.)

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      Seton-Karr, Henry

      Wode onse Rt.Hn E.R (Bth)

      Orr-Ewins, Cha les Lindsay

      Sharpe, William Edward T.

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

      Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

      Sidebottom, Wm. (Derhysh.)

      Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

      Penn, John

      Simeon, Sir Barrington

      Wyndham, George

      Percy, Earl

      Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

      Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

      Pierpoint, Robert

      Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

      Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

      Pilkington,R.(Lancs.,Newton)

      Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

      Young,Commander (Berks,E.)

      Platt-Higgins, Frederick

      Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Stock, James Henry

      Sir William Walrond and

      Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

      Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

      Mr. Anstruther.

      Original question put. The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 169. (Division List No. 204.)

      AYES.

      Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

      Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

      Aird, John

      Brookfield, A Montagu

      Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

      Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

      Brown, Alexander H.

      Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

      Allsopp, Hon. George

      Brymer, William Ernest

      Elliot, Hon. A. Ra'ph Douglas

      Anson, Sir William Reynell

      Bullard, Sir Harry

      Fardell, Sir T. George

      Archdale, Edward Mervyn

      Butcher, John George

      Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

      Arnold, Alfred

      Campbell, Rt. Hn.J. A.(Gl'sg'w

      Fergusson, Rt Hn.Sir J.(Mane

      Arnold Forster, Hugh O.

      Carlile, William Walter

      Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

      Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

      Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

      Finlay, Sir Robert Bannaryne

      Atkinson, Right Hon. John

      Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

      Firbank, Joseph Thom.s

      Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

      Cayzer, Sir Charles William

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Bailey, James (Walworth)

      Cecil, E. (Hertford, East)

      FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

      Balcarres, Lord

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

      Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

      Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manc

      Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

      Flannery, Sir Fortescue

      Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

      Chamberlain, Rt Hon.J.(Bir.

      Fletcher, Sir Henry

      Banbury, Frederick George

      Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

      Folkestone, Vi-count

      Barnes, Frederic Gorell

      Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Fry, Lewis

      Barry, Rt. Hn.A. H. S. -(Hunts

      Chelsea, Vi-count

      Galloway, Wm. Johnson

      Barry, Sir Francis T. (Winds'r

      Clarke, Sir E (Plymouth)

      Gibbons, J. Lloyd

      Bartley, George C. T

      Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

      Gibbs,Hn. Vicary(St. Albans)

      Barton, Dunbar Plunket

      Coghill, Douglas Harry

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward

      Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

      Cohen, Benjamin Louis

      Gorst, Rt Hon G. J. Eldon

      Beach, Rt.Hn. Sir M.H (Brs't'l

      Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

      Goschen, Rt. Hon. G. J.

      Beach, W. W Bramston(Hants

      Colomo, Sir John C. Ready

      Goschen, George J. (Susex)

      Beckett, Ernes William

      Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

      Goulding Edward Alfred

      Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

      Cox, Irwin Edward B.

      Graham, Henry Robert

      Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

      Beresford Lord Charles

      Cripps, Charles Alfred

      Greene,W.Raymond (Cambs.)

      Bethell, Commander

      Cruddas, William Donaldson

      Greville, Hon. Ronald

      Biddulph, Michael

      Curzon, Viscount

      Gunter, Colonel

      Bill, Charles

      Dalrymple, Sir Charles

      Halsey, Thomas Frederick

      Blakiston-Houston, John

      Digby, John K. D. Wingfield.

      Hamilton, Bt. Hn. Lord G.

      Blundell, Colonel Henry

      Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

      Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

      Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

      Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

      Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

      Bond, Edward

      Dorington, Sir John Edward

      Hardy, Laurence

      Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

      Doughty, George

      Hare, Thomas Leigh

      Boulnois, Edmund

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

      Bousfield, William Robert

      Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

      Heath, James

      Bowles, Captain H. F. (M'dl'x

      Doxford, William Theodore

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Brassey, Albert

      Drage, Geoffrey

      Henderson, Alexander

      302

      303

      Hill, Rt. Hn. A. S. (Staffs.)

      Maxwell,Rt.Hn.SirHerbertE.

      Samuel Harry S. (Limehouse)

      Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bris.)

      Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

      Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

      Hoare, E. B(Hampstead)

      Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

      Savory, Sir Joseph

      Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

      MilbankSirPowlettChas.John

      Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

      Hobhouse, Henry

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Seton-Karr, Henry

      Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

      Milner, Sir Frederick George

      Sharpe, William Edward T.

      Hornby, Sir William Henry

      Milton, Viscount

      Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

      Houston, R. P.

      Milward, Colonel Victor

      Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

      Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

      Monk, Charles James

      Simeon, Sir Barrington

      Jackson, Rt.Hn. Wm Lawies

      Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

      Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

      Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

      Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

      Smith, Hon. W.F.D. (Strand)

      Johnston, William (Belfast)

      More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)

      Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

      Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

      Morgan,Hn.Fred.(Monrn'thsh

      Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

      Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

      Morrell, George Herbert

      Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

      Kimber, Henry

      Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

      Stock, James Henry

      King, Sir Henry Seymour

      Mount, William George

      Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

      Knowles, Lees

      Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Gr'h'm(Bute

      Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

      Laurie, Lieut.-General

      Murray,Col. Wyndham (Bath)

      Thorburn, Walter

      Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Crn.

      Newark, Viscount

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

      Nicholson, William Graham

      Todemache, Henry James

      Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

      Nicol, Donald Ninian

      Tomlinson, Wm. Edw.Murray

      Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

      Northcote, Hon.SirH.Stafford

      Tritton, Charles Ernest

      Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      Usborne, Thomas

      Llewellyn, Evan H.(Somerset)

      Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

      Valentia, Viscount

      Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swan.)

      Peace,HerbertPikeDarlington

      Wanklyn, James Leslie

      Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

      Penn, John

      Warr, Augustus Frederick

      Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

      Percy, Earl

      Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

      Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

      Pierpoint, Robert

      Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

      Long, Rt. Hn W. (Liverpl.)

      Pilkington,R.(Lancs. Newton)

      Whitmore, Charles Algernon

      Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

      Platt-Higgins, Frederick

      Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

      Lorne, Marquess of

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Willox, Sir John Archibald

      Lowe, Francis William

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Wilson-Tod, W. H. (Yorks.)

      Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

      Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

      Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Purvis, Robert

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

      Lucas-Shadwell, William

      Rankin, Sir James

      Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

      Macartney, W. G. Ellison

      Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

      Wyndham, George

      Macdona, John Cumming

      Richardson, Sir T.(Hartlepool)

      Wyndam-Quin, Major W. H.

      Maclean, James Mackenzie

      Ridley,Rt. Hn.SirMatthewW.

      Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

      W'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

      Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson

      Young, Commander (Berks,E.

      M'Calmont,Col.J. (Antrim,E.)

      Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

      M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb.,W.)

      Round, James

      Malcolm, Ian

      Russell,Gen. F.S. (Cheltenh'm)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Manners, Lord EdwardWm. J.

      Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

      Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

      Maple, Sir John Blundell

      Rutherford, John

      NOES.

      Allan, William (Gateshead)

      Crilly, Daniel

      Gibney, James

      Allen, Wm. (Newc.-u.-Lyme)

      Crombie, John William

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      Ambrose, Robert

      Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

      Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

      Arrol, Sir William

      Daly, James

      Hammond, John (Carlow)

      Ashton, Thomas Gair

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Atherley Jones, L.

      Davies, M. V. (Cardigan)

      Hayne, Rt. Hon. Ch. Seale-

      Austin, M.

      Davitt, Michael

      Hazen, Walter

      Barlow, John Emmott

      Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles)

      Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)

      Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

      Dillon, John

      Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

      Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

      Billson, Alfred

      Doogan, P. C.

      Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

      Birrell, Augustine

      Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

      Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)

      Blake, Edward

      Duckworth, James

      Horniman, Frederick John

      Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

      Edwards, Owen Morgan

      Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

      Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

      Ellis, John Edward

      Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

      Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

      Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

      Jacoby, James Alfred

      Buxton, Sydney Charles

      Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

      Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

      Caldwell, James

      Evershed, Sydney

      Joicey, Sir James

      Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

      Farquharson, Dr. Robert

      JonesDavidBrynmor(Swansea

      Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson

      Farrell, James P. (Cavan,W.)

      Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

      Carvill, Pat. Geo. Hamilton

      Fenwick, Charles

      Jordan, Jeremiah

      Cawley, Frederick

      Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

      Kearley, Hudson E.

      Channing, Francis Allston

      Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

      Kilbride, Denis

      Clark, Dr G. B. (Caithness-sh

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

      Clough, Walter Owen

      Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

      Kitson, Sir James

      Commins. Andrew

      Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      Labouchere, Henry

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

      Lambert, George

      304

      305

      Langley, Batty

      O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

      Stevenson, Francis S.

      Lawson,SirWilfrid(Cumb'land

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Strachey, Edward

      Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

      O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

      Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

      Leng, Sir John

      O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

      Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

      Leuty, Thomas Richmond

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Oldroyd, Mark

      Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

      Lloyd-George, David

      Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

      Thomas,Alfred(Glamorgan,E.

      Logan, John William

      Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

      Thomas, David A (Merthyr)

      Lough, Thomas

      Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

      Tuite, James

      Lyell, Sir Leonard

      Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

      Ure, Alex alder

      MacAleese, Daniel

      Perks, Robert William

      Wallace, Robert

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Phillips, John Wynford

      Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

      M'Ewan, William

      Pickersgill, Edward Hare

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      M'Ghee, Richard

      Pilkington,SirG.A.(LancsSW

      Wedderburn, Sir William

      M'Kenna, Reginald

      Pinkerton, John

      Whiteley, George (Stockport)

      M'Killop, James

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

      M'Leod, John

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Williams,JohnCarvell (Notts.)

      Maddison, Fred.

      Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

      Wills, Sir William Henry

      Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

      Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

      Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

      Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)

      Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

      Robson, William Snowdon

      Wilson, John (Falkirk)

      Molloy, Bernard Charles

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Wilson, John (Govan)

      Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel

      Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

      Woodall, William

      Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

      Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

      Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Hudders.

      Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

      Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

      Woods, Samuel

      Morris, Samuel

      Sinclair,Capt. John(Forfarsh.)

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Morton, E J. C. (Devonport)

      Smith, Samuel (Flint)

      Moulton, John Fletcher

      Souttar, Robinson

      Murnaghan, George

      Spicer, Albert

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

      Norton, Capt. Cecil Williams

      Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

      Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

      Nussey, Thomas Williams

      Steadman, William Charles

      Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Solicitor-General.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
    "To amend the Law with respect to the Payment of Rates on Tithe Rent-charge attached to a Benefice," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hope the Bill will not be put down for Tuesday with a view of taking it on that day.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think so.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We have the strongest objection to take it so soon. Remember that the country at large has very little knowledge even of the intention of the Government in regard to this measure.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on this subject for to-morrow.
    MR. PIRIE: When will the Bill be delivered to Members?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: To-morrow.

    SUPPLY. [15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.

      CLASS III.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £39,895, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
      MR. DAVITT: I expect, Sir, that hon. Members opposite who are good enough to show an interest in the discussion of the Irish Estimates will expect a strong case to be made out to justify the proposal to reduce this Vote by the sum of £10,000, but I hope I shall be able to convince them that my proposal, everything considered, is, on the whole, a moderate one. If I understand the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite on Irish questions of this kind it is this—they are most anxious that Ireland should have an administration of law and justice as clean, as efficient, and as economical as this country possesses. If that is their desire—as I believe it is—I hope to have their support in the division lobby by-and-by.

      307
      Now, Sir, if hon. Members have not the Estimates by them, I would ask them kindly to recollect one or two figures which I intend to bring before the Committee. On page 202 of the Civil Service Estimates we find, under Class 3, Estimates for law and justice for Great Britain and Ireland amounting to a total of £3,809,088. Of this sum no less than £2,100,000, in round figures, is required for Ireland with its four and a half millions of people. That is, the cost of law and justice out of the Imperial Exchequer for the entire population of England, Scotland, and Wales, say, 35,000,000 of people, will be £1,703,000 for the current financial year, while law and justice in Ireland, paid for out of votes by this Committee with one-eighth of that population, will cost £2,100,000. Now, Sir, I come to the particular Vote to which I intend to move a reduction. This Vote for law charges and criminal prosecutions for the whole year amounts to a sum of £69,895. It is an increase of £7,000 on the Vote of last year, and I shall expect the Attorney-General for Ireland to explain why it is that such an increase has taken place during a year of almost unexampled freedom from crime and disturbances in Ireland. Let me point out to English and Scotch Members that there is a decrease in the corresponding Vote for both England and Scotland this year, while the Irish Vote has gone up to the extent to which I have referred. But this is not the most striking feature of this Vote. The extraordinary fact is that a sum of £69,000 is required for this department of law and justice in a country of four and a half millions of people, while the cost of the same services in England, with its 30,000,000 of people, is but £128,000, adding law charges and miscellaneous legal expenses together, as given on page 202 of the Civil Service Estimates. Now, Sir, what is the explanation of this monstrous disproportion of expenditure? Why should justice, law charges, and police cost the general taxpayer at the rate of 8s. 7d. per head in Ireland, and only cost at the rate of 6d. per head in England? Surely hon. Members opposite will agree with me that some explanation is required from the representatives of the Irish Government with reference to this extraordinary disproportion of expenditure. I must also ask leave to emphasise this additional fact, that Ireland is at the
      308
      present time, and has been for the past few years, I am happy to say, the most crimeless country in the whole of Europe. I do not believe that there have been a dozen murders in Ireland for the past five years. In fact, the hangman usually employed in Ireland is at the present moment in the bankruptcy court. He is "stone broke" over the collapse of his business. There is a slump in the hanging business in Ireland, and I hope it will long continue. Scott (the hangman) will not get one penny, I am happy to say, of this £69,000. Other serious crime has also all but vanished, Judges have been repeating the same judicial story over and over again throughout the country. And yet in face of these facts we are asked to vote £7,000 more for law charges and criminal prosecutions in Ireland this year than were required last. My contention is that this extravagance in law charges in Ireland, as compared with Great Britain, is due to the vicious system of rule which obtains in the one country and not in the other. Public money is shovelled into the hands of those whose business it is to keep this system going, and then when we complain of unjust taxation in Ireland we are told that so much of Imperial taxation is expended in Ireland in return, and than the balance between what we pay and what we get is nearly even. We get some of our taxes back, it is true, in this way—in this wasteful, extravagant piling up of expenses in connection with every department of this Dublin Castle system of finding fame and fortunes for all those who get themselves employment under it. These law charges are a part of this system of political corruption which obtains in Ireland, and against which we are here as Nationalist representatives to protest. The system of hiring and buying into Dublin Castle the service of hungry lawyers and of others who are quite willing to qualify for the service against their own countrymen necessarily gives rise to abuse. Human nature would not be what it is if it was not so, for whether it is the case of a large secret service fund, or a plethoric public purse for purposes of law and justice, human cupidity will strive to get a share of the spoils by fair means or foul. Let me ask the attention of the Committee to two instances of this character. One is that of a poor widow, now in prison, and the other is the notorious Mulrany forgery case. The case of

      309
      the widow Brennan can be told in a few sentences, without in any way reflecting upon the judicial bench, as I would not be permitted by you, Mr. Chairman, to call into question the action of any judge in a matter of that kind. The case in point comes under the Vote we are now discussing. This woman was evicted from her holding. She committed some trespass upon the landlord's property, for which she was prosecuted. How was she treated by the legal machinery which is controlled by the Attorney-General in Ireland? She was not tried by a jury. She was not dealt with by summary jurisdiction. No. This wretched widow wits cited to appear in Dublin, at the Court of Chancery, all the way from Mayo, to answer for the crime of trying to get the shelter of her former home for herself and her little children. Now, to cite a poor woman from Mayo to a superior court in Dublin means that this wretched creature is asked to face an expenditure of £50 or £60. She possibly does not possess 50s. in the whole world, and because of this system of administering law in Ireland this unfortunate woman has been lying in prison for contempt of court—a court to which she could not possibly go—almostfor the last twelve months. Now, Sir, the next instance I will give is a more serious one, and it also comes under the Vote which we are now considering. At the beginning of last year the Crown Prosecutor for Mayo, Mr. Malachi Kelly, made an intemperate speech in a court of justice in the West of Ireland, in which he resorted to certain threats against my hon. friend sitting by me and ALL William O'Brien. Attention was called to this harangue in this House, and, instead of this official being rebuked for his unprofessional conduct, his language was endorsed and applauded by the Chief Secretary here in the House of Commons. Well, Sir, to this conduct of Mr. Kelly's, and the approval given to it by the right hon. Gentleman, I trace the origin of the crime which I charge the administration of law and justice in Ireland with indirectly condoning and palliating. The facts of the case are as follows: On the 14th of April of last year one James Kelly, a member of the United Irish League, received a letter through the post which read as follows:
      "Newport, 13th April, 1898. "Two shillings for drink. Dear James Kelly,—As you are aware that Martin Kelly
      310
      has gone back to the bastard Stoney on Monday, go with some of the boys and visit him, and tell him if he works he will be sorry, and that he is working against our cause. It would be better to blacken your faces. Do it to-morrow night, and watch the police. Other houses, will be visited on the same night, so let Tiernane not be behind.
      "Yours truly,
      "JOHN MCHALE, Chairman, U.I.L.
      "Burn this for fear of danger. Don't bring any man but one you cant trust.—J.M.H.
      "Mr. James Kelly, P.O., Rosturk."
      Now, Mr. Lowther, there could be only one purpose indicated by that communication, that was the carrying out of a moonlighting outrage, which might probably result in loss of life. The signature to the letter was that of the President of the West Mayo branch of the, organisation to which Kelly belonged. The Mr. Stoney mentioned by the writer was a local landlord, as unpopular with his class as with the people on account of personal transactions to which I do not wish further to allude,. The Martin Kelly also alluded to had incurred unpopularity for being in the employment of Stoney, and the moonlighting outrage proposed by the writer of the epistle was to take place at his, house. Now a striking fact in this case was brought out in the subsequent investigations, namely, that on the night mentioned in the letter, Friday, April 14th, Sergeant Sullivan had arranged an ambush at Martin Kelly's house, and was, there with other constables from 11 p.m. until 1 the following morning, but no moonlighting party went there on that or any subsequent night. Now, what happened? The person to whom the letter was addressed was not criminally inclined, and the bait laid for him did not catch him. He showed the letter to friends, who brought it under the attention of Mr. John McHale, whose name was forged to the document. Mr. McHale suspected that a dastardly plot had been planned against him, and having good reasons for suspecting Sergeant. Sullivan, he set about the task of finding samples of the sergeant's handwriting. These he secured, and these along with the forged letter were submitted to Mr. Thomas Henry Guerrin, a noted expert, who has been employed for years by the Home Office in London and in connection with public prosecutions in this country, who affirmed in the most positive manner that the forged documents and the letters, were in the same handwriting, The next

      311
      step in this case brings the administration of the law in Ireland into this conspiracy of shielding detected guilt where the guilt is the work of an agent of the law. Mr. McHale made a demand for criminal information against Sergeant Sullivan at the hands of the local magistrates at Westport, and every effort that could be put forth to embarrass that action was made by the local police authorities. It is no exaggeration to say that the Bench was packed on this occasion by the presence of every landlord justice who would be likely to have a partisan feeling against the organisation to which Mr. McHale belonged. The expert in handwriting from the Home Office came to Westport and gave evidence. He described himself as Thomas Henry Guerrin, of 59, Holborn Viaduct, London, Member of the Royal Microscopical Society, and professional expert in handwriting; and, in answer to this question, "Have you the slightest doubt that the handwriting in this impeached letter is the same as the handwriting in the letter marked C.?" he swore this: "I have not the slightest doubt. I am absolutely positive as far as I can be." Those proceedings took place on the 1st of July of last year, and after all the facts had been gone into the justices gave their decision as follows. Mr. Lynch, in giving the decision of the Bench, was understood to say that they had heard the ease very carefully and it had occupied a great deal of time. It was a matter of great importance, and considering that the expert's evidence—Mr Guerrin'sevidence—was wholly uncorroborated with regard to the handwriting, that he might make a mistake about it, the Bench took it upon themselves to refuse information. Mr. McHale was not, however, to be moved from his purpose to have the truth brought out, and he demanded from the Bench to be himself bound over to prosecute Sullivan for a criminal offence. On this demand, an attempt was made by the magistrates to impound the documents so as to throw obstacles in Mr. McHale's way. That attempt failed, and the next scene of the drama charges to at the Summer Assizes at Castlebar on the 14th of July following. Here the Attorney-General for Ireland made his appearance in the case, but in the character of a most unwilling prosecutor.
      THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I never intervened until a true Bill had been found.
      MR DAVITT: In fact, he was forced to intervene by the very pointed remarks of Mr. Justice Murphy, who said:
      "It is somewhat inconvenient that the Attorney-General has not been consulted. From what you have stated, MacDermot, this crime which was alleged to have been committed is a very serious one indeed. Obviously it is serious, and pre-eminently so if committed by a member of the constabulary. If, as you contend, there was a clear prima facie case made out, how do I know that the Attorney-General, if the facts were laid before him, would not have exercised his discretion in the matter?"
      I contend that those remarks had a good deal to do with the case being remitted to the Sligo Winter Assizes, where it was tried in December last. Before I deal with that jury and make the very serious charge I shall have to make against those who organised this farce of a trial, I will quote what Mr. Justice Gibson said in his charge to the grand jury about the then condition of Mayo. He said there were six cases from the county of Mayo. One of these was a charge brought against a girl in connection with the death of her child; there was also a case of concealment of birth, a case of larceny, a case of shooting of a rather grave character at first sight, but probably the result of intemperance and a family quarrel. The last case was one of an unusual character against a policeman named Sullivan. As he was given to understand true bills had already been found by the Mayo grand jury they would not be required to investigate it at all. This was the state of the county of Mayo with its 200,000 of population at the time this attempt of manufacturing crime was made. Now, as to the jury which was empanelled to try Sullivan. I want the Committee to remember these few facts: Both the prosecution—that is, the Attorney-General—and the defence combined to challenge every juror who was a Catholic. Recollect that Sligo County is overwhelmingly Catholic, nine-tenths of its population are of that faith, and not a single one of that creed would either the Attorney-General or Sullivan's counsel permit to try the case against the accused. This was not the only deliberate act by which justice was sought to be defeated by the administration of the law in Ireland in connection with this case. Previous to this farcical trial, one Con-

      313
      stable Curtin, a fellow officer of Sullivan's, who gave information to his superior about Sullivan's tampering with the patrol book over the ambush at Martin Kelly's house, was banished from Mulranny out into the Atlantic, in a wild island called Inuiskea, in order to mark their disapproval of his conduct in showing a willingness to assist the course of justice. These officers did more. They harassed other witnesses pending the trial at Sligo, and left no expedient untried to intimidate those who were proceeding against Sullivan. The trial, under the circumstances described, was a screaming farce, and concluded in a manner in keeping with its character, as follows:
      At the conclusion of counsel's speech the Court adjourned for luncheon, and immediately on resuming,
      The Foreman said the jury had made up their minds, and they did not want to hear any further evidence.
      Mr. Wright said that the jury were probably acting on the statements made in Mr. Bushe's speech, which had not yet been proved. The witnesses were liable to cross-examination.
      Mr. Justice Gibson said that was a very proper remark made by Mr. Wright, and the jury should retire and say whether on the Crown case alone it was their opinion that the prisoner should be acquitted.
      A Juror: It is.
      Mr. Justice Gibson: Is that the general opinion of the jury?
      A Juror: Yes; we were unanimous about it this morning.
      Mr. Wright: The jury have heard very important evidence since this morning.
      Mr. Justice Gibson: The jury must retire, and say what their verdict will be on the Crown case as it stands.
      The jury then retired.
      Mr. Justice Gibson said this was the first time he had heard of such a result of a case.
      Mr. Bushe: The same thing occurred in a moonlighting case in Cork in which I was. Mr. Justice Gibson: The jurors are absolutely masters of the situation, but, as Mr. Wright has stated, some effect may have been produced on their minds by the admirable speech of Mr. Bushe, in which certain facts were stated. Such a thing often happens in a civil case, but it may occur in a Crown case as well.
      The jury again came into court, and the foreman stated that they had made up their minds to acquit.
      The jury had practically made up their minds before they went into the box to refuse justice. No attempt was made on the part of Sullivan to prove that the letter was written by anybody else. But the case did not end there. It was carried to Dublin, where Sullivan was sued
      314
      for criminal libel, but after a three days' trial the jury disagreed. If, however, the law of Ireland had been like the law of Scotland, where the verdict of the majority of a jury holds good, justice would have been brought home to the malt who unquestionably was the author of the forged letter which incited to the commission of a crime. In Dublin, with a jury fairly empanelled, 10 out of the 12 men Wren were in favour of convicting Sullivan, which conclusively proved that the author of this crime was allowed to go free in Sligo through the manner in which the prosecution was conducted by those for whose action the Attorney-General is responsible. English opinion has declared the verdict of a jury which acquitted a policeman in another country to be partisan, and that justice in that country is said to be tainted in consequence of the decision with regard to a Boer policeman. The verdict of this Sligo jury cannot be considered any more conclusive than the one at Johannesburg. I say, deliberately, that those who acted for the Attorney-General had, from the beginning, resolved to shield this officer from justice, and protect him from the consequences of his criminal design. This planned outrage was a part of a virtual conspiracy on the part of policemen, magistrates, landlords, and Crown prosecutors in Mayo to involve the United League in the commission of crime, and as a protest against this conduct I move to reduce this Vote by £10,000.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £29,895, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Davitt.)
      MR. ATKINSON: Before referring to the odious, unsupported and scandalous charges which the hon. Member has made against public officials who have courageously and honestly discharged the important duties of their office, and have gained the affection and respect of the worthiest portion of the community with which they deal, I wish to say a word on the general topics referred to by the hon. Member, whose remarks are to a great degree, if not altogether, founded upon an absolute ignorance of the difference between the systems which prevail in England and Ireland with regard to the payment of the costs of prosecutions.

      315
      In England to a large extent the money is paid out of the rates; but in Ireland, inasmuch as the Crown takes up almost every prosecution, it comes out of the Imperial funds. Thus upon the face of the Estimates the sum from Imperial sources appear to be out of all proportion to the population. The Estimates in general, as far as legal matters are concerned, are less by £1,200 this year than last, and are £10,000 less than when I previously held my present office. The amount has apparently increased by the fact that the Treasury has made contributions to the High Sheriffs in Ireland almost identical with those which they have made in England. The contribution is made to enable the Sheriffs to discharge the duties of their office, inasmuch as the emoluments which they were entitled to receive have decreased so much in late years that it was found impossible to get anybody to serve. As to the imprisonment of Mrs. Brennan, I am no more responsible for that than for the conduct of the Police in the Transvaal. A certain estate was being administered in the Court of Chancery, and the Judge made an order to put the woman in prison for contempt of court. That is not a matter for this Vote. It is entirely outside criminal procedure. It is only a form by which the Civil Court can make its orders to be obeyed, and I have no power to have the woman either imprisoned or discharged; it is entirely a matter for the Court of Chancery. As to the case of Constable Salivan, I understand the hon. Member to charge those in authority with conspiracy to instigate outrage.
      MR. DAVITT: Virtual conspiracy.
      MR. ATKINSON: It is an infamous charge. What are the facts of the case? I will answer for my part of the transaction. I have more than an official responsibility; I have a personal responsibility, because from the time the case was taken up by the Crown until the verdict was delivered in Sligo, I watched over and directed every step of the proceedings. I am responsible for everything that was done, and I am here to justify the methods which were adopted. The merits or demerits of the United Irish League are foreign to the question. I will not go further than to say that Sullivan had become obnoxious to the League in the discharge of his duty,
      316
      because some of the objects of the, League were criminal and its methods were criminal. According to the sworn evidence of the local chairman, rigorous boycotting was one of its methods. McHale, the local chairman, is certainly unfortunate, for a well-conducted man, in the number of times he has been in conflict with the police. According to his own admission, during the last ten years he has been convicted of drunkenness, assault, and poaching fifteen times, and he only questioned the accuracy of two of the convictions. McHale, with the assistance of Mr. William O'Brien, issued a summons before the magistrate with a view to having Sullivan returned for trial. The Executive are not responsible, nor am I responsible as having charge of the criminal procedure of the country, for the action of the magistrates. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite are so enamoured with expert evidence in this case, for if they will take their memories back for ten years they will find that their contention then was that no value was to be attributed to such evidence. The only evidence submitted to the magistrates by the prosecution was that of an expert in handwriting, and I think the Bench were acting within their rights in refusing to act upon such evidence. I wish very much that I could reconcile myself to believe that the evidence of an expert would be accepted as proof conclusive in a criminal trial. If it were so, I apprehend that there are many gentlemen at large all over Ireland at the present time who would be justly serving time in Her Majesty's prisons. Not only are handwriting experts liable to the weakness of all expert witnesses—namely, that they endeavour to sustain a foregone conclusion, but they always hold a number of theories of their own in reference to the formation of letters. There is this weakness in all evidence of this character, that if the writing of the individual whose handwriting is attempted to be forged has any peculiarities, they are certain to be copied by a forger if he has specimens to work on. At all events, it was quite within the right and competence of the magistrate to refuse to accept such evidence. The Government are not responsible, and know nothing whatever about the charges made against them, which I believe are utterly unfounded. Of course I am not impeaching this handwriting expert in any way,

      317
      but my contention is that the magistrates were entitled to think that this expert evidence was not a safe thing to act upon. At the next summer Assizes Mr. McHale applied for permission to send up a bill before the Grand Jury. That permission was given; the bill was sent up, and such witnesses as the prosecution thought necessary, including Constable Curtin who had not been examined before the magistrates, were examined, and a bill was found. Up to that time the proceedings were entirely in the hands of the private prosecutor, and they never in any way put themselves in communication with the police, and no application whatever was made to the representative of the Crown to take charge of the prosecution. On the 27th of July, after the bill had been found, an application was made to the Crown to take up the prosecution, and within five hours the Crown sent an answer stating that they would take up the prosecution. The solicitor who was acting for the private prosecutor immediately put himself in communication with the Crown Solicitor. He handed over a list of the names of his witnesses, all the documents he had, all the statements of evidence of the witnesses who had been examined, and who he thought should be examined, and he added that one of the witnesses, named Conway, had not been examined because he had made contradictory statements. As this was a grave charge made against a police officer in a very responsible position, it was thought to be most desirable that the case should be tried at the earliest possible moment, and it was also thought desirable that it should be tried in a county other than Mayo where the persons interested in the proceedings of the United Irish League in Mayo would not be called upon to serve on the jury. Therefore it was decided that it would be better to send the case for trial to the Sligo Winter Assizes. But I took good care to keep that decision to myself with the result that the jury panel was formed before the Sheriff could possibly have known that this case was to be tried at Sligo. It is provided by the Irish statutes that the panel from which these jurors are taken must be made up in a particular way, and in this instance the panel was made up in the ordinary way for the ordinary Winter Assizes. It was drawn up by the Sheriff in absolute ignorance of the fact that Sullivan
      318
      would be brought forward and tried on this occasion. The hon. Member opposite permitted himself to say that the witnesses were harassed by the Crown. If that was so, how were they harassed? Every witness whose name was furnished to the Crown by the private prosecutor was brought to Sligo at the expense of the Crown, maintained there at the expense of the Crown, and were sent back to their homes at the expense of the Crown also, and if that be not harassing there is no other harassing which can be assigned. Not a single witness that the private prosecutor wished to have examined was kept back, and we adopted his own notion in dispensing with Conway's evidence because we were informed that he was an unreliable witness. But that was not all. Owing to the importance of this case I took the precaution of giving special directions to the Crown Solicitor as to how he was to secure a just and impartial jury, and I will read those directions to the House. I wrote to the Crown Solicitor in Ireland the following letter:
      "As the action of the Crown in this case is likely to be misrepresented no matter what it may be, I wish particularly to call your attention to the fact that you should examine the panel most carefully, and consult with the local Crown solicitor in reference to it. I desire, moreover, that in this and all other cases in which local prejudice may be excited or jurors may be influenced by fear, you will do your utmost to secure that a fair and impartial jury shall be empanelled. In that endeavour you should act strictly on the lines laid down in the circular addressed to Crown solicitors dated the 12th of February, 1894, and signed by my predecessor in office, The Macdermot, a copy of which you no doubt have in your office."
      Now, the rules for Crown solicitors provide:
      "And when in any case he shall have sufficient reason to believe that any person coming to be sworn as a juror is open to challenge for affinity to the person on trial, partiality, bodily or mental infirmity rendering him unfit to serve as a juror or other sufficient ground on which a challenge for cause, if made, could be sustained, he shall direct such juror to stand by. He shall also, in the exercise of a due discretion, direct to stand by all such persons as he shall have reason to believe are likely to be hindered from giving an impartial verdict, by favour towards the accused, or fear of the consequences to their persons, property or trade, although same may not admit of legal proof; and (in the discharge of this duty) the Crown Solicitor will not interfere unless the circumstances of the case require it, and will then act with due care and caution, but also with promptness and decision, and, if time per-

      319
      mit, should consult the leading Crown counsel in the case. In all cases of peculiar local excitement in any particular town or district of the county, it will be prudent, if the panel permit, to set aside all persons returned from such locality."
      Those were my instructions to the Crown Solicitor, and I believe they were accurately carried out. Let me say a word or two about this much decried system of jury packing. It is a fact that every party litigant can challenge a juror for partiality provided he is able to show by facts upon which a challenge for cause can be sustained. This is called a challenge for cause, but in addition all litigants other than the Crown have certain powers of peremptory challenge. The right of peremptory challenge is then found to be necessary for the administration of justice. Why should the Crown, the guardian of society, not have it, even in a modified form. As far back as the reign of William III. a statute was enacted enabling persons to be put aside.
      MR. FLYNN: Is the number of challenges by the Crown mited?
      MR. ATKINSON: If we fail to get a complete jury we are obliged to recall those put aside. Hon. Members have frequently enlarged on the iniquity of what they call jury packing, but those acquainted with the administration of the criminal law in Ireland are not disposed to attach too much importance to their condemnation. I can bear testimony myself to an incident which occurred when I was responsible for the conduct of the Winter Assizes in Cork in a very bad time. Hon. Gentlemen appear to think that a Roman Catholic juror has more sanctity than any other.
      MR. DILLON: That remark is an insult.
      MR. ATKINSON: I mean no insult. What I mean is that I am not aware that there is any particular sanctity about a Roman Catholic juror, and I cannot believe that any juror was ever set aside in Inland because of his religion. If he is set aside it is because he is prejudiced. The hon. Member for East Mayo can perfectly well understand that in the North of Ireland religion might be the means of prejudicing a jury.
      MR. DILLON: Did you ever empanel a Catholic jury to try an Orangeman?
      MR. ATKINSON: I have seen Roman Catholic jurors serve very well, and what is more, I have seen them acquit Protestants; but that is not my point. I was endeavouring to give an illustration of the value of the wholesale condemnation of alleged jury packing. I remember at the Cork Winter Assizes a juror in my hearing asked the Crown Solicitor to be good enough to challenge him. The Crown Solicitor consulted me, and I said I could not allow any bargaining of that kind, that the juror should come to the box in the ordinary way, and that then it would be judged whether he was impartial enough to serve. He told us his business would be ruined if he happened to be sworn on the jury in the moonlighting cases about to be tried, and, of course, I concluded it would be very unsatisfactory to have a man so terrified on the jury. Accordingly he was challenged by the Crown, and what was my astonishment to find from the papers next morning that an indignation meeting had been held to protest against the insult offered to Catholic jurors, and that my friend of the previous evening was either chairman or a very prominent speaker at it. That shows the value of the condemnation indulged in in connection with alleged jury packing. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose was Chief Secretary a very foul murder was committed. At the first trial 19 men were put aside and a notorious criminal escaped justice. Another man, his confederate, was convicted and executed, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose was calumniated by placards posted all over Dublin "Who murdered Twist? John Morley." If a Government responsible for the conduct of business and the administration of the law has been constrained to use this power, to challenge it is not to pack a jury but to unpack it. It is said indeed that a similar power is not exercised in England. Probably not. But when jurors are murdered in England as in Ireland, when they are maimed, terrified, and canvassed in England as they are in Ireland, then the English authorities will have to put that power into force. We are comparing two unlike things. Not a month passes that I do not receive report after report from Crown Solicitors in Ireland stating that it is absolutely impossible to obtain verdicts at Quarter Sessions, even in cases of ordinary assault, because every juror is canvassed by the person charged or

      321
      his friends. In this particular instance nine men were ordered to stand aside by the Crown and four by the accused. In the civil case five jurors were challenged by McHale, and he did that within his right because he thought they would not be impartial. It has always been necessary for a Crown Solicitor who conducts a case to have regard to the particular conditions then existing in the locality, and I am bound to say that I have never known their powers to be abused. So far for the formation of the jury. The next step was this. Notwithstanding that this was not a case of a very serious character, I sent the most experienced Crown Prosecutor in Ireland specially to conduct it. A gentleman, a scholar, a lawyer with considerable experience and a just and fair mind, I think every member of the Irish Bar will admit the worth and fairness of Mr. George Wright, a Q.C. of many years' standing, and leader of the Munster Circuit. He conducted the case, and I arranged with him that every witness was to be produced, and I will give one extract from the concluding passage of his speech, which embodied faithfully the instructions I gave him. He said:
      "This is not a place for sympathy, but a court of justice, and the jury should deal out the same justice to the sergeant as they would to the humblest member of the community."
      Does that deserve the shameful charge that this gentleman entered into a conspiracy to pack the jury and acquit the accused? I desire to direct attention as to how that charge was insinuated and afterwards abandoned at the civil trial. At the first trial the jury said they had made up their minds on the Crown case that there was no evidence for conviction. Mr. Wright very properly protested against the jury interfering at that stage of the case. They had, he said, heard a very powerful speech from the learned counsel for the defence, but they did not know what might come out in the examination or cross-examination of the witnesses who were to be put into the box, His Lordship said that the whole matter was extremely awkward, and sent the jury back to consider whether their conclusions were based solely on the Crown case, or whether they allowed themselves to be in any way influenced by the speech of Mr. Bushe. But the jury came back and said they had made up their minds on the Crown evidence.
      322
      They were entitled to do that without having the infamous charge of corruption levelled against them.
      MR. DAVITT: My charge is against those who packed the jury.
      MR. ATKINSON: There were twelve men on the jury, and only nine were challenged, and all were unanimous. Assuming that the iniquity of being Protestants attached to them if you like, does the hon. Gentleman contend that because they are Protestants they were deliberately finding a false verdict?
      MR. DAVITT: My point is that they were selected because of their politics.
      MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Gentleman gave no proof of that whatever, and it is a charge which should not be made unless it can be proved. I do not know what was the religion of the gentlemen who were ordered to stand aside. The only question was whether they were partial, and if they were they ought to be set aside, no matter to what religion they belonged. The hon. Member has chosen to make tins infamous charge in this House, but I should like to read to the Committee what was said by the counsel for McHale at the civil trial. The hon Member for East Mayo reiterates the accusation that the jury was packed by Mr. Malachi Kelly, and he even went, so far as to accuse my learned friend Mr. Wright as a participator. He is privileged to make this charge, but let me call attention to what counsel for McHale said. Mr. O'Shaughnessy said:
      "My learned friend devoted a large portion of his address to an unnecessary vindication of our common friend Mr. George Wright, who was prosecuting at the Winter Assizes in Sligo. No one in this Court or out of it would for one second believe that Mr. George Wright, in the conduct of any prosecution of any case, ever did anything unworthy of the profession of which he is so distinguished a member, and I would say unworthy of himself. No one for an instant would cast such an aspersion, and my friend The Macdermot never stated or suggested anything of the kind."
      Then he proceeds to deal with the accusation against the Crown Solicitor, and he says:
      "Why the Crown Solicitor's name should have been dragged into this case I cannot at all understand. I have to sit here every day, as the other counsel engaged in the case

      323
      have, and if it has been thought that we have in the slightest manner reflected upon that gentleman, I say openly, and without any reservation, that it is a very erroneous idea, and I take it upon myself, so far as I am concerned, to add that it was wholly unnecessary to defend him."
      Counsel shrank from making these charges because there was no evidence to support them. I was not, of course, responsible for the conduct of the civil trial; but I was responsible for the criminal trial. I endeavoured to secure a fair trial. I believe I did secure a fair trial. The only other matter to which I wish to refer is that connected with Constable Curtin, whom it is alleged was banished lest he might give evidence against the sergeant.
      MR. DAVITT: To increase McHale's difficulty.
      MR. ATKINSON: Now, what are the facts? It is not too much to expect that hon. Members before making these charges should take the trouble of informing themselves of what has appeared in the public Press. The facts are that Curtin was in communication with McHale and his friends early in April. On 6th July his superior officer, having discovered that police information which ought to have been kept secret was leaking out, held an inquiry and decided it would be wise to remove Curtin. He was in utter ignorance that Curtin had given any statement to McHale, or made any report whatever until three days after Curtin's removal was determined upon, and then, and then alone, did the police become aware that he made a statement. So far from removing him because he was giving evidence in favour of McHale, he was removed three days before it ever came to the knowledge of the police that he had made a statement. Curtin was brought back to the trial. He was examined and cross-examined, and from his evidence it was quite clear that he was an ally of McHale, and by no means a disinterested witness. Here is a statement which he sent to Mr. Kilbride's clerk, who conducted the case against the sergeant:
      "There is another piece of evidence I want to give, but don't bring it out in direct examination. Keep it for re-examination, and it will do for a petty jury, because otherwise it might show that I was actuated by malice."
      324
      That is the gentleman who communicated with McHale's solicitor. He gave him a statement, coached him for the trial, and laid down the most effective way in which a damaging statement could be brought out, as there is no more effective way than by putting up an apparently candid witness, having previously arranged with him that he is to damage his own side. That was the person whom the authorities were accused of keeping out of the way. That is all I have to say with reference to this case. I cannot go step by step through every piece of the evidence, because the House of Commons is probably the worst tribunal to set up as a court of appeal on questions of fact. I did my best to secure an impartial trial. The case was presented fairly, and if a wrong verdict was returned the fault is not mine.
      MR. DILLON: There are two points in the speech of the Attorney-General to which I desire to immediately allude. He made a statement with regard to the very important evidence of Constable Curtin, which I should like to clear up, as the point is very important. He said that when Curtin had discovered the falsification of the entry in the patrol book he did not report it to his officer, but immediately reported it to the prosecutor. This is not the evidence. The evidence was that he did report it to his officer, and was after that ordered to be removed.
      MR. ATKINSON: He swore he discovered the entry on July 1st. He was ordered to leave on July 6th, but did not actually leave until July 9th, and he never made any communication about this matter to his superiors until the 9th.
      MR. DILLON: That is a point that ought to be cleared up beyond all doubt. I want to point out to the Committee that he did report to his officer, and the alteration of the patrol book bore directly and most materially on the evidence tendered at the trial. Thereafter the officer treated him very roughly and said that he was exceeding his business and had no right or call to be looking after such matters at all. This point as to the alteration of the patrol book is extremely important, for the constable swore that on that particular night on

      325
      which, by means of a forged letter, the man James Kelly was invited down to the house of a certain man, the police patrol under the command of Sergeant Sullivan—the very man who was charged with writing the forged letter—went on that particular night to the house of the man to be attacked, and remained there till nearly two o'clock in the morning—two hours longer than the patrol was ever known to remain in the district before. When Sullivan came home from that night ambush, Constable Curtin swears in his evidence that he was in bed, wondering why Sullivan's patrol did not return at the usual hour. He and his comrades accordingly inspected the patrol book, and found to their astonishment that that particular patrol had remained in ambush for four hours. In the patrol book was this entry:
      "Ambush near Kelly's house from ten p.m. until one a. m. Found all right."
      But when whispers began to get abroad, and when inquiries were being made about the forged letter, Sullivan, the accused man, went to the patrol book and altered the entry. He changed the A.M. into P.M., and put an additional 1 before the original 1 a.m., so as to make it read 11 p.m., thus making out that his patrol had returned to the barracks two hours before they actually did. Everybody sees that that materially alters the case. I charge the Attorney-General and the Irish Administration with gross and scandalous conduct in respect to their dealings with Constable Curtin. Whatever their other prejudices may have been—and the prejudice in the case of a constable who has given evidence against comrades and superior officer is very great—it cannot be said that the Grand Jury of Mayo is a body prejudiced against the police. It is dead now, thank God, and peace be with it, as an administrative body, but no one can accuse them of want of sympathy with the police. Well, they declared that, in their judgment, there was a p imâ facie case against Sullivan of a serious crime. The Government ought to have placed themselves above the suspicion of intimidating, boycotting, or punishing constable, because it is always most dangerous to a constable to give evidence against his comrades. Instead of that, they have persecuted this man Curtin. Of course he has been boycotted, and a black mark placed against him, and he was
      326
      banished to the island of Inniskeen, a kind of Devil's Island, where the unfortunate man is now. Of course, also, we now hear from the Attorney-General of the charge trumped up against him, that his evidence was given in order to punish his superior officer. That is a matter of opinion; but I say that in every case of this kind where a policeman gives evidence against an officer he is open to such charges, and it lies with the Executive to do everything in their power to give him fair play, and not to attack him before he has had an opportunity of giving his evidence. Now, I want to say something about the packing of the jury. We have listened to the defence of the Attorney-General, which I can show was no defence at all; for he did not deal directly with any of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for South Mayo. In the course of his speech the Attorney-General treated the Committee to a prolonged lecture on the question of jury-packing in Ireland—a subject which has frequently engaged the attention of the House, and will continue to do so as long as the practice exists. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in a passage of great eloquence and force, endeavoured to overwhelm us with the enormities of the crimes of the Catholic and the virtues of the Protestant juries. But what about the Catholics who were not allowed to come on juries in the County of Sligo? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman hold that no man is impartial in the county of Sligo unless he is a member of the Protestant religion?
      MR. ATKINSON: I never said that.
      Mr. DILLON: It is a very singular thing that if you go down to a district where 90 per cent. of the population are Catholics and Nationalists, you bring out a jury on which there is not one Catholic or one Nationalist, but the whole twelve are Unionists and Protestants. That is what we complain of, and this is the way we are met in this House when we bring forward substantial charges. It is really a mockery to meet the substantial charges which we make with such an answer as has been given by tile Attorney-General. Even in the singular annals of the administration of justice in Ireland this case is without parallel. On many previous occasions we have had to come before this House with complaints of

      327
      packing juries in Ireland for the purpose of obtaining convictions. Under the Irish system the challenges on behalf of the prisoner are strictly limited, whereas the challenges of the Crown are unlimited, and therefore the Crown can pack the jury in agrarian cases or those which have a political complexion. But on the present occasion the jury was packed for the purpose of obtaining not the conviction but the acquittal of the prisoner. In the packing of the jury the counsel for the prosecution and the defence were in collusion, and they both challenged the same men. That is actually an unparalleled case, and, of course, an acquittal was obtained. The Attorney-General pronounced a eulogium of an extraordinary kind on Mr. George Wright, the gentleman who conducted the prosecution. I do not want to say anything against Mr. Wright's character, but I shall read an extract from the speech with which he opened for the prosecution, and shall leave it without fear to the judgment of impartial men as to whether it is the speech of a man desirous of obtaining a conviction, He said:
      "In that district there was a league called the Irish League, and he need hardly tell them that the conduct of the man Martin Kelly was disapproved of by the Irish League. And it became necessary for the police to protect Kelly to a certain extent, and they patrolled the district at night. In the absence of the patrol Kelly was set upon and beaten. The ill-treatment of Kelly continued, and it was suggested that, under the circumstances, this extremely regular and active man, Sergeant Sullivan, allowed his zeal to outrun discretion, and he resorted to a trick or stratagem, and wrote a letter in a disguised hand to James Kelly."
      That is the language addressed to the jury by the prosecutor concerning the man accused of a most abominable crime—an incitement by means of a forged letter to commit a gross outrage at night. This is exactly on all fours with the Wheeler case in County Clare, where the police paid and sent an agent to organise an attack upon a house. A violent fight took place, and many lives might have been lost, but by a strange judgment of fate the man who organised the affair was the only one shot. Well, this crime, which it was alleged Sergeant Sullivan had organised, might have led to the very same results; and yet the prosecuting counsel for the Crown described this man Sullivan, in his speech
      328
      for the prosecution, as a zealous and excellent officer who allowed his zeal to outrun his discretion, and to write this forged letter. That language does not convey the impression of a man who really desires to obtain a conviction. There is another point in the history of this case which was not alluded to in the speech of the hon. Member for South Mayo or by the Attorney-General. This case was instituted as a private prosecution, and first of all tried at the Petty Sessions at Westport, when the bench was unquestionably packed. My evidence of this is that Lord Sligo and his agent were two of the most active magistrates on the bench, and that it was a case in which it was almost indecent for Lord Sligo to sit on the bench at all. One of the evils of Irish administration is that the resident magistrate is a policeman himself, and it is a positive farce for such a man to try a case in which a policeman is involved. Therefore I say the bench was packed, and in spite of strong evidence, which I have not the slightest doubt would have secured a conviction, and which, at any rate, would have been accepted as evidence of a primâ facie case in an English court, yet they did not commit Sullivan for trial. The next step was at the Spring Assizes at Castlebar. There the institutors of the private prosecution had to go before a most hostile tribunal, but in spite of that a true bill was found on the evidence which was refused by the magistrates at Westport. Now, up to this point the case had been conducted by The Macdermot, one of the greatest criminal lawyers in Ireland, and who was Attorney-General under the late Government. I am given to understand that it was the earnest wish of those who had conducted the prosecution up to this point that the Crown should continue to employ The Macdermot in the case. Why should the Crown refuse to give that satisfaction to the public and to those who had conducted the private prosecution so far? Some explanation is demanded from the Crown of the reason why the services of The Macdermot were not retained to the end. Is it to be said that they did not trust The Macdermot; and, if so, on what grounds? The Attorney-General speaks of Mr. Wright, who was substituted for The Macdermot, as a man of very high character and honour and so forth, but Mr. Wright had no special connection with the Sligo Winter Assizes. It may be

      329
      that he practised for many years on the circuit; but at all events, in the ordinary course this prosecution would not have fallen within his province. If the Crown had left the case in the hands of The Macdermot it would have been very difficult for us to criticise their conduct of the case, as we can now do so strongly. There is only one other aspect of the case on which I wish to make some observations. The Attorney-General triumphantly asked a question as to how the witnesses had been treated. The witnesses, he said, had been brought to Sligo, their expenses paid, and taken back to their homes, as if that was extraordinary evidence of the generosity of the Crown in this case. But I believe that in all these cases that is the universal practice, and therefore there was no particular generosity on the part of the Crown. What I allege, and what I can prove, is this, that from the hour when the private prosecution was instituted every witness who gave evidence against Sullivan and in favour of Curtin was subjected to police persecution. They were summoned for trifling offences—offences which had never been taken notice of before. For instance, a man was charged with trespass for allowing his horse to drink at a spring—a thing which he had been doing unchallenged for the previous fifteen years. After the Westport trial, when Sullivan heard that the case was to be brought on again at Castlebar, he went round to the witnesses and said:
      "Mark my words, I will maintain my authority, and you will hear of this again."
      The houses of witnesses were also searched by the police. One man came in in a state of intoxication to the house of a witness without a search warrant, shoved open the door, and pulled the bed about. I was reading the other day a series of documents which had been prepared as an indictment of the Boer Republic in the Transvaal. The pages of the Blue Book contained affidavits sworn to by coloured men and women, and one of the crimes alleged against the Boer police was that they went into houses without search warrants, and this is made a matter of diplomatic despatches and threats of war. The very identical thing is being done in Westport by the officers of the law. What was done there was indeed infinitely worse than in the Transvaal, because in Johannesburg
      330
      the defence of the police was that they were endeavouring to carry out the law in a place where there was great immorality. In the present case, this invasion of a man's house and pulling about the bed was done by the policeman for the purpose of terrorising the witnesses. When we speak of the witnesses being persecuted, it was not when they were in Sligo, or going to and fro from Sligo, but in their own homes. I have no doubt myself, from affidavits which I am quite willing to submit to the Attorney-General, that in some instances at least the police broke the law in terrorising the witnesses. All that we ask in connection with this matter, and which we have never yet been able to get in Ireland, is that we should have an equal administration of the law, and that when the Attorney-General is going to prosecute for an alleged crime he should display the same zeal, and no more, for his political opponents as for his friends. What I charge is that, having to bring the criminal law into operation against an officer of their own in Ireland, they worked from beginning to end to obtain an acquittal, and displayed nothing of that spirit they would have done in trying to obtain a conviction. In Ireland, when you are prosecuting a poor peasant or Nationalist, you display all the vigour and ferocity of bloodhounds on the track of blood. When you are prosecuting in this country, however, the whole spirit of the scene is changed. In the present instance we have a glaring case of one of the grossest abuses that could be alleged against an Executive Government.
      MR. HEMPHILL: As some reference was made by my right hon. and learned friend to something that occurred when I had the honour of being a law officer and the right hon. Gentleman the Mender for Montrose Burghs filled the office of Chief Secretary, I wish to make one or two observations in reference to the present case. I am not going to follow my right hon. and learned friend in the discussion about the propriety of jury packing in Ireland. I have always considered that one of the causes which has led to so much social and political disturbance in Ireland is the want of confidence which the people feel in the administration of the criminal law,

      331
      and I say, without fear or hesitation, that one of the things which has led to that distrust is the system of jury packing that undoubtedly has so long existed in Ireland. It would be most unjust to attribute to my right hon. and learned friend the creation of that system. He followed in the wake of others. The system sprung up at the beginning of the present or the end of the last century, in the old high Tory days, when there was only justice for people of a particular religion and of a particular opinion. That system became inveterate and encrusted in our law, and, although the common law of England and the common law of Ireland is the same, the manner in which juries were constituted became in practice altogether different. There are many impartial members of the English Bar in this House, present I believe now, who will bear me out when I say that, though the right exists in England on the part of the Crown of setting aside juries in criminal cases, that right is hardly ever exercised. In my long experience as a member of the Leinster Circuit I have been present at trials in which 70 jurors were set aside on the trial of the prisoner—I do not say because they were Catholics, but they happened to be Catholics. It may or may not be post hoc propter hoc- I know not how that is—but unquestionably it has led to the great distrust of the peasantry of Ireland in these criminal proceedings, and has created the idea that the Government and the law are against them. Now, I am very glad that this case has come before the House of Commons. I need not say that, knowing as I have done for many years, and respecting as I do most highly my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General for Ireland and the gentleman whose name has been mentioned—Mr. Wright—I am satisfied, as everyone who knows them must be, that they are incapable of anything in the least way unbecoming the great profession of which they are both ornaments. But unquestionably this particular case has about it circumstances calculated to inspire people, especially those living in Mayo, with the idea that because a person accused of this atrocious crime was a policeman the ægis of the law is thrown around him. Now, I am only going to summarise, for the benefit of the hon. Members who may not have heard the eloquent statement of the hon. Member
      332
      for East Mayo, the facts as they have come to my knowledge; but I am not going to pronounce an opinion as to whether Sergeant Sullivan was guilty or not, because it would be unbecoming of me to do so, and it is altogether irrelevant to the matter we are discussing. But there was a letter written, and it has been imputed that this atrocious document was written by the sergeant. Now, the very first thing that rouses suspicion is that though, as my right hon. and learned friend very properly said, the practice in Ireland is, almost without exception, for the Crown to take up prosecutions, in this particular case it was left, in the first instance, to a private prosecutor to try and bring Sergeant Sullivan to justice. Accordingly a summons was issued before the magistrates. There is, however, one fact which has not been mentioned, and if I am wrong my right hon. and learned friend will set me right. The Macdermot actually went down to the Petty Sessions to represent the private prosecutor and proceeded against Sullivan. The importance of that is that from the first The Macdermot's mind was perfectly saturated with all the facts of the case, and he was better able than any other man at the Irish Bar to see that justice was done. Well, The Macdermot, with all his ability, with all his ingenuity, went down to that Court of Petty Sessions—a very unusual thing for a man in his position at the Bar to do—but his evidence and his arguments were thrown away upon the bench consisting of the resident and local magistrates. The unpaid magistrates had flocked in, among them the landlord on whose estate the original outrage was committed which led to the charge, and, contrary to what is the practice and ought to be the practice, the landlord's agent; because, as a rule, in Ireland—and I suppose the same exists in England—landlords and their agents are 10th to sit on the same bench for the administration of justice at the Petty Sessions. Now the bench so constituted dismissed the charge, and the people were naturally suspicious, as all poverty-struck and persecuted races are That is the tendency of human nature—there can be no question about it—and hence the fear of the Irish peasantry that they do not get full justice from those in authority over them. Well, that was the first ground of suspicion. But what is the next? A private prosecutor applies

      333
      to Mr. Justice Murphy to send up a bill of indictment to the grand jury. That application was necessary because, the Crown not having taken the case up, the Bill could not be sent up without an order of the Judge, and I apprehend that it was on that occasion that Mr. Justice Murphy made the observation to which reference has been made. What follows? Mr. Justice Murphy left the authorities no alternative, and then the Crown were driven to take up the case, winch was remitted to the Winter Assizes at Sligo. Now, that is a very common proceeding, and I am not finding fault with it. But I think it was most unfortunate, when the Crown had taken up the case, that they did not instruct one of Her Majesty's Counsel, The Macdermot, who had filled the office of a law officer under the preceding Government, and whose character is as high as that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. If The Macdermot had appeared in that case, and if the result had been an acquittal of Sullivan, the people, who are a sensible people, would have felt that justice had been done, and that Sullivan had not written the letters. But Mr. Wright was sent down, a very eminent man, about whom there is not a word to be said, and whose opening speech has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Mayo. And what was the result? That nine jurors are set aside by the Crown, and that five are challenged by Sullivan, who is really in a sense in the service of the Crown. All the waters of the Atlantic would not wash out of the minds of the people the belief that if he had not been a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, that most favoured force, he would not have been acquitted. I rejoice that the strong light of the House of Commons—an eminently just body—has been thrown upon this matter, and I am glad that the circumstances of the case have been brought prominently forward. It will teach people not to rush hastily at conclusions whenever they read in The Times newspaper or elsewhere of some frightful outrage that has been committed in the West of Ireland.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: Grand jury packing in Ireland apparently means something very different from grand jury packing in England. Here we have a case where 90 per cent. of the people in a district where the jury are empanelled
      334
      are Catholics and Nationalists, and 10 per cent. are Protestants, yet we find that all the jury in this particular case were anti-Nationalists and Protestants. The Attorney-General tells us that this was a matter of chance, and that he cannot imagine how it occurred. Chance never plays such tricks as that, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House whether he really believes, with 90 per cent. of the population on one side and 10 per cent. on the other, it would be within the limits of probability for the entire twelve men who composed the jury to have been Protestants. But that is not why I rose; I rose to ask the Attorney General a question. The Attorney-General referred to the use made by the Crown of a letter written by the witness Curtin to a solicitor, which he said was essentially a private letter. I think that is a good illustration of the extraordinary way in which justice is administered in Ireland.
      MR. ATKINSON: In answer to the charge that witnesses in the case have been treated improperly by the police, I can only say that if that is so, it is very strange that no complaint has been made in the House. I am certainly unaware of any such charge having been made. I have been asked why I have not sent down a particular gentleman to conduct this prosecution. I should have failed in my duty had I done so, seeing that that gentleman had been retained by one of the parties, and must of necessity have been a partisan.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will first allude to one of the observations made in the speech of the Attorney-General. My hon. friend complains that some of the witnesses were harassed by the police before this case came on, and the Attorney-General said that he thought a sufficient answer to that statement was that the people who were harassed had their own remedy. What does he mean by "remedy"? To go before a bench of magistrates? To go before a court of law? In listening to this Debate I have been asking myself whether I was in the British House of Commons or the French Chamber of Deputies. The last time I had the honour of sitting in the French Chamber of Deputies I heard exactly the same kind of

      335
      speech made by the then Minister for War with reference to the Dreyfus case as that which has been made by the Attorney-General for Ireland with regard to the Sullivan case. There was, however, this difference, that whereas the French Minister for War spoke with characteristic exuberance, the splendid deportment of the Attorney-General never deserted him, while he stated his case as if he really believed in it himself. There is still an analogy between the two cases. In both cases there were forgery and sham trials. The Attorney-General speaks very favourably of the conduct of Mr. G. Wright in this matter. Mr. G. Wright may be an, ornament to his profession, as every barrister always is, but take his language; listen to it while he is trying to prove against Sergeant Sullivan the forgery of the letter which might have led to murder on the one side and to the gallows on the other. Mr. G. Wright was a Crown official. He was the gentleman prosecuting the charge. He speaks of this crime as an excess of zeal, the outcome of a scheme to entrap the guilty. This is the man who is determined to bring home the guilt to the man in the dock. The Attorney-General's own comments here to-night upon the case were scandalous and shocking. He said he was responsible for every action of the prosecution. He was responsible for the witnesses called. One of those witnesses was Mr. Guerrin, and another was the policeman Curtin. How does the Attorney-General speak of his own witnesses? With reference to the expert, he says that we, on a previous occasion, did not have much faith in expert evidence of this kind, but he did not state what that previous occasion was, and I can quite understand the reason, because it was the case of the Pigott forgeries. But he mentioned Guerrin for the purpose of throwing dirt upon him, and he mentioned Curtin for the purposes of damaging and destroying his character. If these people had appeared on behalf of Sergeant Sullivan he could not have damaged them more. When the case was brought before the Bench of magistrates the right hon. Gentleman was shocked at his learned friend in any way questioning their impartiality; but does not everybody know what is going on in Mayo at the present time? On the one side you have the landlords standing in the way of a great
      336
      and necessary reform, and on the other there is a great and, I am glad to say, a growing popular organisation among the tenants. There is a great class conflict going on in the county of Mayo, and there always is, and always will be, class wars in Ireland under these circumstances; but I hope they will come to an end. They would come to an end if England allowed Ireland to settle its own affairs and did not adopt the policy of dividing and conquering, which had been the ruin of both the landlords and the tenants. In Mayo the tenants have their organisation, and the landlords have the Bench and the Crown. The landlords are not ashamed to go on to the bench in these class eases and administer what they are pleased to call justice. Now this case was a very serious case a very serious case indeed, but the magistrates had no such idea as that. They thought it was such a trumpery case that they struck it out. This impartial Bench, packed with landlords, was guilty of the infamous practice of wielding the law as a weapon. If the Bench was an impartial Bench, the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in the course he took, but the Attorney-General came in at the eleventh hour. Tins high guardian of the reputation of the constabulary in Ireland never takes a step until he is forced. Why did he take action here? The Attorney-General has lived all his life practically in Ireland, and nobody knows Ireland better than he does. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that one of the fundamental principles of the Government of Ireland is that every Irishman knows every other man's religion, and everybody knew the religion of every man who was on the jury at Sligo, and also his politics as well. I do not care what the religion may be, but religious creeds sometimes make class hatred. The objection to these jurymen was that they were Unionists and in favour of the landlords, and were not likely to give an impartial verdict. It is my strong impression that every single one of the nine men challenged by the Crown were Catholics and Nationalists, and yet the jury of twelve men who tried this case were all Protestants and Unionists. Does the right hon. Gentleman deceive anybody when he says he does not know the religion of these people? Ninety per cent. of the population of Sligo are Catholic, and yet by an ex-

      337
      traordinary change, by a marvellous and mysterious proceeding, the very twelve men who had to try this case, in which the Crown is on its trial as well as its sergeant—because that is what it comes to after all—are Protestants and Unionists. It is all nonsense to say the right hon. Gentleman does not know. It was a deliberate packing of the jury and nothing else. Hon. Members opposite have often expressed their sorrow at the sympathy which Irishmen have for the enemies of England. The Irish would be unworthy of their tradition if they were not in sympathy with all people who are struggling for their national independence and rights. The case of Edgar in the Transvaal appears to me to be one of very great injustice, although I have not heard the Boer side of the matter. The reason Irishmen do not give their sympathy to this country in connection with the tyranny of the Boer police, and the alleged corruption of the Boer tribunals, is because they have in their own country, under English laws, the very evils which are alleged to be taking place in the Transvaal. Until you remove from your Statute Book and your administration such offences as are charged against this country, Ireland will continue to regard English complaints of injustice in other countries as pharisaical.
      DR. COMMINS: The law is administered in Ireland in a manner that would never be tolerated in England. This man McHale had reason to believe that this letter, written by Sergeant Sullivan, was written for the purpose of entrapping him into an act of moonlighting, which might have led to consequences terrible to contemplate, and he issues a summons against Sullivan for writing this forgery. Now just consider what would take place in England under circumstances like that. Instead of all the landlords in the country rushing on to the Bench to hear the summons, it would be left to one, or at most two magistrates. They hear this charge, and McHale brings before them a prima facie case; he brings, as a witness, the best hand writing expert of the day, a man who is employed by the Home Office of this country, who gives it as his opinion that the writing of the forged letter and the writing of other letters was the writing of Sergeant Sullivan. If such a case had come before any Bench in
      338
      England there would have been a committal; but if there had been any doubt in the case, if it had occurred in England, the Court would have said, "There may be a doubt in this case, we have some doubt with regard to the expert evidence, and we will not commit on that alone, but you can go on with an indictment." They would take the depositions, and the case would be presented to the grand jury at the next Assizes. One would thought that in Ireland this would have been the same; but in this case, though the grand jury found a true bill, when it came before the petty jury they Were objected to and challenged by the Crown. I have never known of any English case where the counsel for the Crown has asked a juryman to stand aside. There is nothing more likely to excite utter mistrust in the administration of justice than the practice which prevails in Ireland. It is notorious that the Crown Prosecutor suggests to counsel to order "So and so to stand aside." In the case which has been referred to, it was perfectly clear that the Crown Prosecutor opened the case with an acquittal speech. "Upon these facts he merely suggested that this man might have been induced by over-zeal to write this letter." When Crown Prosecutors want to convict they do not merely "suggest." There is the old rule that nobody is to be convicted on suspicion, however strong; much less can anybody be convicted on a "suggestion." When we see all these strange coincidences tending in the one direction of shielding a policeman who is being charged, and to shut the door of justice against a class against whom it is too frequently shut, I think there is a case made out that the Crown have hardly held the balance fairly.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General is particularly weak in his defence. Either he was badly briefed in the matter, or in his reply to the hon. Member for South Mayo he betrayed an amount of heat which must almost be called partisanship. The hon. Member proved by the figures that the law charges have increased in Ireland by something like £70,000.
      MR. ATKINSON: £7,000.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: That is the particular Vote under discussion, but I

      339
      think he was speaking of the whole question. I cannot, by the rules of the House, discuss the whole question, but I want to call attention to one particular case with which I am well acquainted, and which I have brought intimately to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General himself. It is the case of the unfortunate prisoner Hopkins, who, under circumstances of exceptional stress and excitement, was condemned to the extreme sentence of 24 years' penal servitude, and on whose behalf I have presented no less than four petitions for mercy. Probably this could be dealt with more fully under another head of this Vote, but I will ask the Committee to allow me to call attention to the extraordinary circumstances under which this claim for mercy has been refused.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): Is it in order on this Vote to call attention to a case which appears to me to have nothing to do with it, but to be a question of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy of the Lord Lieutenant.
      THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon Member is speaking with regard to a remission of sentence for a prisoner who is now undergoing sentence, I do not think that world arise on this Vote.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: I was using it as an illustration of the methods by which justice, so called, is meted out to us Irishmen, and as an additional argument why we should contest and resist to the utmost of our power the voting of so large a sum as is sought here to be obtained for the purpose of so-called justice and law charges in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has come down here prepared to defend the items of tins Vote, and we are entitled to bring these un-redressed grievances to the notice of the House of Commons. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have sought to shut out of the purview of this Committee a question not so much of party conflict as an appeal for the clemency of the Crown.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out that the question cannot be
      340
      raised under this Vote. I have been listening very attentively to the hon. Member, but I do not see how he connects with tins Vote the case which he desires to raise.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: I do not intend to press the matter further than to use it as an argument in justification of the position of absolute hostility which I assume towards this Vote. We have a system of maintaining law and justice in Ireland against which the heart and mind and soul of Irish people rebel. It is a system of mean and paltry espionage, in a great many cases on individual people, and occasionally on organisations started in their behalf; and the Mulrany case which has been cited, the circumstances of which throw so much discredit on the administration of so-called justice, is but one instance out of many which might be given to show why the Irish people so much detest the system of which the right hon. Gentleman is the defender. We have to provide in this Debate for the expenses of prosecutions. How are prosecutions got up in Ireland? Under what system is it sought to hold the scales of justice evenly between man and man? In each county of Ireland there is a person kept in the direct pay of Dublin Castle, whose business it is to get up evidence for prosecutions, and in many cases to plan outrages and pay for outrages throughout the land. There is a large sum of money voted on these Estimates for secret services. A sergeant of police is kept in each county for the distribution of this secret service money, whose duty it is to keep in his pay the informer and the spy. In the case before the Committee it is very curious that out of a panel of 70, 80, or 100 men, in the first 25 there should have been found 12 Protestants and Unionists. The explanation is probably found in the fact that the official is a leading light in the Protestant world in Sligo, and is a Unionist partisan in political matters. Also, I do not think the conduct of Mr. George Wright in this case was that of a man who wanted to convict nor was he free from political bias. It is curious that in a county where 93 per cent. of the population are Catholic, the twelve who were allowed to be sworn were of one denomination, and were known to be opponents of the principles of the United Irish League and of the doctrines of Home Rule for Ireland and the land

      341
      for the people. I know I should not like to be tried for any crime, especially a political crime, by twelve of the Protestant or Unionist jurors of my own county of Longford. They would not be able to dissociate from their minds the fact that I had been concerned in political agitation in the county. The argument of the prisoner's counsel in this case under notice told with the jury—that the prisoner represented the party of law and order, and that if they convicted him they would be condemning themselves to future terrorism and future annoyance at the hands of the League. I had hoped to be allowed, in this assembly of Englishmen, before political opponents, to advocate the case of the unfortunate man to whom I desire mercy to be shown.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I have already twice told the hon. Member that this case cannot be raised upon this Vote. This is not the right time or place to raise the question, and I hope he will not continue to discuss it.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: I will not continue to discuss it now, except to say that when I discover the right Vote upon which to raise it the right hon. Gentleman will hear from me again. The whole machinery by which we are governed from Dublin Castle is radically wrong. It is a system which tends to the creation of crime rather than to its suppression. Holding this belief, I shall support the opposition to this Vote, and I only regret that we cannot in a stronger and more marked degree show our detestation of the practice which the right hon. Gentleman has so badly defended.
      MR. FLYNN: I trust that, notwithstanding all the criticisms which have been made in the course of this Debate, that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General will quite understand that we are making no personal attack upon himself, and that we are in no wise raising personal issues in bringing forward the matters which have been raised in connection with this Vote. We are simply attacking the system with which these things are associated, and after the right hon. Gentleman's somewhat weak defence of his position we are forced to come to the conclusion that for so able a man a more inadequate defence of the scandalous and groes mismanagement
      342
      of Irish affairs was never heard in this or any other Chamber. In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman has declared himself a bigoted advocate of one side in this dispute, and in my 13 years' experience of this House I have never heard such a weak reply to such a grave indictment. As the national representatives of Ireland, we should be wanting in our duty to allow questions of religion or sectarianism to interfere with our judgment in this matter.
      Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
      MR. FLYNN: I am speaking for the vast majority of my colleagues when I say that we object to the introduction of sectarianism or religion into discussions of this kind, but it has been forced upon us by the peculiarly vehement language which the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, allowed himself to use. We are not claiming for Roman Catholic jurors any special kind of sanctity, but we do claim that they should be trusted on their oath just as much as members of any other religion. More than that we cannot claim; less than that we will not claim. Notwithstanding the ludicrous illustration given by the Attorney-General, it is a pollution of the very fountain of justice that in a country like Ireland, at the end of the nineteenth century, this atrocious and invidious system of jury packing should be persistently indulged in by law officer after law officer, all over the country. I shall be able to give the Committee ample and copious illustrations as to what went on at the Winter Assizes in Ireland last year, and in cases many of which were non-agrarian. I will concede to the Government that if the Mulrany case stood alone it might be possible to raise some ingenious plea that it was merely a coincidence, although in a county in which the population is 90 per cent. Catholic it is very strange that the twelve men in the box all happened to be Unionists and Protestants, and if a religious controversy is raised the blame should be cast on those who were responsible for putting those men into the box. The Attorney-General sought to minimise the significance of the

      343
      figures of this Vote. The Vote as it stands shows an increase of £7,235, and that in a year in which judges of assize and county court judges have been presented with white gloves, and when it is notorious that Ireland was never so free from crime. The Attorney-General says that the increase is to be accounted for by the fact that the Crown has been obliged to pay the expenses of Sheriffs, but allowing for that amount in full there is still an increase of £115. My hon. friend who moved the reduction gave some rather interesting figures with reference to the cost of law and justice in Ireland. I would like to give a few other figures bringing out the same point in a somewhat different manner. Compare the three countries. The administration of law and justice in England, after deducting the amount for prisons, police, reformatories, industrial schools, and lunatic asylums, is £518,000 for a population of 30,000,000. Deducting the analogous Votes, in Scotland the amount is £135,000; whereas in Ireland, with a population of a little over 4,500,000, the amount, after similar deductions, is £426,000. Therefore I think we are entitled to bring to the notice of the Committee these most extraordinary figures which illustrate the manner in which large sums are spent in Ireland upon the so-called administration of justice. What is the moral to be deduced from those figures? Considering our population, we have the costliest judicial system in the world. We have law officers paid extravagant sums, and all because, as a great Irish orator once said, you might corrupt and bribe the intellect of the Irish nation, and that you might as far as possible enlist the legal intellect of the country on your side. I trust anything we may say in this Debate will not be held to be personally applicable to either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. The figures are very instructive. The salary of the English Attorney-General, who has an enormous amount of business—commercial and otherwise—is £7,000. The salary of the Scotch Lord Advocate is £5,000, and the Irish Attorney-General gets £5,000. I think the latter salary should be reduced to something more in keeping with the business to be done and the population of the country. It may be asked by some who have discovered a newly found admiration for the Irish judicial system why we object to all
      344
      this money going to Ireland. We object to it on the ground of economy and also because it goes into bad hands and to support a rotten and vicious system. Why should the Irish Attorney-General receive the salary of a puisne judge? Lawyers are very anxious to get positions as law officers of the Crown because the salaries are out of all proportion to the amount of work to be done, and the right hon. Gentleman when he levels a charge against independent private Members of this House ought to remember the enormous salary attached to his office, and that Members from Ireland do their work relying entirely on the favour and love of their own people. With reference to jury packing I have several times during the last three or four years called attention to it by way of question, one of the most unsatisfactory methods of raising a discussion in this House. The answers I have got have not always been marked by accuracy, and still less often by courtesy. I do not complain personally, but when hon. Members bring forward cases of this kind they ought to be treated with the courtesy due to every Member of this House, and should not be looked upon as if they were faking up grievances in order to attack the Administration, when their only desire is to purify and keep pure the administration of justice in their own country. The right hon. Gentleman made a most unhappy allusion to the circular which was issued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose when he was Chief Secretary. On each occasion when I have asked a question about jury packing I have been referred, with woful reiteration and persistence, to this circular. But we object to that circular, and would object to it if it came from the late Mr. Gladstone himself. We object to it and its application because it is invidious and unfair, and a standing insult to the jurors who profess the religion of the vast majority of the Irish people. It would be far more decent, manlier, more logical and consistent, to abolish the jury system in Ireland altogether in every case connected with politics and religion than to try and foist upon an intelligent people the sorry pretence that you are holding the scales of justice even. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a most wretched murder case which occurred in Cork and was tried at the Winter Assizes. A more unhappy illustration could not

      345
      have been selected by the right hon. Gentleman even in his most heated moments. I regret to say that that murder occurred in the constituency I represent, but the morning after it all the shops in the neighbourhood were shut, it was denounced from every altar in the district, and instead of there being sympathy with the murderer, it was quite the other way. Two men were put on trial, one of whom was acquitted, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to use the language he did with regard to him. But with regard to Twiss, who was found guilty and subsequently hanged, one would imagine that the circular would have played a very conspicuous part in the trial.
      MR. ATKINSON: Nineteen men were set aside in the first case, and over 25 in the second.
      MR. FLYNN: But that was a case of murder, whereas in a petty contemptible case in Waterford 32 persons were set aside in one case and 50 in another. The jury that tried Twiss contained six or seven Roman Catholics and Nationalists. What was the result? The man was found guilty and subsequently executed, and it is absurd to bring that case forward as an illustration of the incapacity of Roman Catholic jurors.
      MR. ATKINSON: I have brought it forward as an instance where the Government of the day, because they used their right to challenge, were denounced as murderers.
      MR. FLYNN: Not by us. Their action might have been condemned by a small section of the population politically opposed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. In Cork there was no such indignation on the part of the masses of the people. The right hon. Gentleman's case falls to the ground. At the last Winter Assizes there were trumpery cases in which 20 and 30 jurors were ordered to stand aside, and neither Catholics nor Nationalists left on. In the Crusheen wounding case I said in my question that 29 jurors were ordered to stand aside, and, in the manner in which front bench men always like to snub private Members, the right hon. Gentleman said that was inaccurate, and that there were
      346
      not 29 but 28. I find, however, that there were 29, so I was accurate after all. I have gone carefully over the list and I have personal knowledge of the jurors, and of the 12 men empanelled there was only one Roman Catholic left on. That may be called a mere coincidence, of course; it may have been a fortuitous occurrence of events such as occurs in the land of dreams, in the realm of spooks, and—in Dublin Castle. The following day a boy of about 16 was charged with putting up a threatening notice. It was not a very atrocious affair. The jury disagreed the first time, and when he was put on trial the second time 18 jurors were ordered to stand aside, every one of whom was a Roman Catholic; another mere coincidence. These 18 jurors could not be trusted to say whether the youth was guilty or not, and when the jury was finally empanelled it contained only two Roman Catholics; again a coincidence. Here is a case in which insult was added to injury. A postmaster was charged with having bribed some Poor Law guardians in order to secure some positions in the Kilrush Union for friends of his. That was a particular species of offence which was denounced by all and found no sympathy whatever, and I say it was nothing less, than an insult to the respectable citizens of Cork to order them up day after day under a penalty, and then when they came forward to say publicly, "This is not an agrarian case, but I will not trust you to try it." One of the regrets I experience in being a Member of Parliament is that it deprives me of being on the jury list, because if I were I would stand up before any judge and claim my rights as a citizen, and I would protest against the constantly repeated insults that are offered to us when we are told that we are not to be trusted to give a verdict as between man and man. It is a scandalous, anomalous, and infamous system which should not be permitted in any civilised country. With regard to the Cork cases I cannot be wrong, because I was in Cork myself, and carefully followed the whole matter. In Waterford a man was put on his trial for the murder of an old woman for the sake of robbery. I am informed that twenty jurors were ordered to stand aside at the first trial and fifty-four at the second. If I am wrong my statements can be easily tested, but, assuming that I

      347
      am right, are we to be told that these fifty-four jurors sympathised with such an attrocious and abominable crime? If not, what is the meaning of asking them to stand aside? I must say that if I were a juror at the Cork Winter Assizes, I care not who the judge was, I would give him my opinion of the proceedings and take the consequences. I think I have shown that jury packing is carried on all over the country and at every assizes that the Government wish. And in face of a state of things like that does any sane man expect that a keen, intelligent population like the Irish can be expected to believe in the impartial administration of justice? Will they believe that the curious manner in which twelve men of a certain religious belief and political persuasion are selected to try men opposed to them in religion and politics is a mere coincidence? It is A maxim in English law that it is better that ninety-nine guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should be punished. You reverse all that in Ireland. In anything connected with the land struggle your doctrine has practically been "Better ninety-nine innocent persons should be punished than one guilty person should escape." That is the belief of the peasantry, and it is being strengthened by what goes on at each Winter Assizes. The Irish people will remember the Mulrany case and Sergeant Sullivan. The land agitation is not so much a thing of the past. We are aware of what occurred in Clare, by a system of police spies and agents provocateur. In connection with the Transvaal crisis the Imperialistic organs denounce the vast sums of secret service money spent in that country, and the opinion is entertained that the recent arrests in Johannesburg were part of a system of agents provocateur. That may or may not be true; but the last Government which can use an argument of that kind is the Government that supports and encourages these things in Ireland which cost such a large sum of money.
      MR. SWIFT MAC NEILL: I intend to discuss this question far removed from any feeling of bitterness, and I hope when I have sat down I shall not have said one word personally hurtful to the Attorney-General. The right hon. Gentleman made a very admirable statement characterised by great ability, but anyone reading that statement to-morrow,
      348
      together with the speeches which have been made by my hon. friends on this side, will come to the conclusion that the administration of justice in Ireland has sunk knee-deep in corruption and pollution. The Attorney-General spoke of the atrocious, scandalous, and horrible charges brought by my hon. friend against the Government. The charges are atrocious, scandalous, and horrible; but the worst part of it is they are true. All the machinery of the law has been used to clear the character of a policeman who is guilty of inciting to murder. Judicial proceedings in Ireland have become vile and abominable and a farce. That is a strong phrase, but it is not too strong. The Attorney-General is a practical man, largely engaged in affairs which present themselves to him at the moment. He has not perhaps had so much time and leisure as I have had to investigate transactions of this kind. In the archives of Dublin Castle at the present moment there are no fewer than forty briefs which were held by MacDonagh, the chief counsel for the defence of the political prisoners, for 25 years. These were given to the Attorney-General at the time, and they were noted by him in order that he might convict the prisoners. The Attorney-General in the course of his speech read a passage from a statement which was elicited from Curtin about the falsification of the entry in the police books. Now, how did the right hon. Gentleman get that statement? Since the Attorney-General made his speech I have gone through a verbatim account of Curtin's examination in Dublin, and there is not a single syllable there of the matter to which the Attorney-General referred. I then went to an account not so full, and there is not a single syllable in it as to the matter which seems to be injurious to Curtin's character.
      MR. ATKINSON: I said it was in the civil action.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I have got you there, for I have a verbatim report of the civil action, and there is not a word about it in that report. This is only another instance of the infamy of the Irish administration. When the Crown took up the case against Sullivan, clearly for the purpose of whitewashing him, the Crown Solicitor, Malachi Kelly,

      349
      got all the documents in the case from the solicitor who had been conducting it on behalf of MCHale. Amongst these documents was a private statement given by Curtin to the confidential clerk of Mr. Kilbride, and it was from that confidential statement the Attorney-General quoted. [The hon. Member having quoted from a full report of the proceedings to show that the statement quoted by the Attorney-General had never been brought forward during the trials, went on to say:] The Attorney-General probably only got a few extracts prepared by his subordinates for the purposes of this Debate. He probably did not know that we had got a full report of the proceedings here, and that we will make the matter hum before we have done with it. The right hon. Gentleman was almost about to shed tears over "our common friend" Mr. George Wright. I believe that Mr. Wright is quite competent to do a good day's work for a good day's fee. What I maintain is that Mr. Wright's informant, the Crown Solicitor, prepared the briefs in such a way that an acquittal was morally certain, and this altogether apart from the jury packing. One thing which appeared to greatly grieve the Chief Secretary was that in Mayo, where this man Sullivan had been endeavouring to coin offences against the leaders of the Irish Nationalists, Mr. W. O'Brien's United Ireland League had been a great success all over the country. When the Crown undertook to conduct the prosecution of Sullivan, they selected as the solicitor Malachi Kelly, who had been engaged in prosecuting William O'Brien's friends, and in Ireland the Crown Prosecutor is largely influenced in the manner of conducting the prosecution by what suits the Government.
      MR. ATKINSON: I did not select Mr. Malachi Kelly; he happens to be the Crown Solicitor for Mayo, and would naturally conduct the case.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: At any rate Mr. Malachi Kelly was engaged to go down to Sligo to blow up his own ships with the approval of the Castle. The right hon. the Attorney-General poses as a purist, a something of a cross between Aristides and Moses, and yet he allows Mr. Malachi Kelly to conduct a prosecution in which all his personal interests were vitally opposed to getting a convic-
      350
      tion. Then there came on the astonishing change of counsel. The Macdermot, the head of the Irish Bar for 15 or 16 years, and an ex-Attorney-General, who had conducted the prosecution both at Westport and Castlebar, and therefore knew all about the case, was shunted. I ask the House to believe that The Macdermot was put out of the case because he was determined to do the work honestly, and to bring about a conviction if possible. I think in the whole history of Irish administration, the taking of the case out of the hands of the head of the Irish Bar, and giving it to a gentleman who knew nothing of the case, and who had been publicly instructed by the friends of the accused man—all this, I think, out-Castles even Dublin Castle. The speech of Mr. G. Wright was mild to the last degree for the Crown prosecutor. He must have got his instructions from Mr. Kelly, who was the personal enemy of Mr. MCHale and, the personal friend of Sergeant Sullivan. The Macdermot was a Catholic, and perhaps that stood in the way of his appointment. Of Mr. G. Wright's Protestantism there is no doubt whatever. That gentleman was a favourite of the Government for a seat in this House, and he is a favourite with them for Crown prosecutions. I hope this case may stand as an instance of the villany of Irish administration. I have not gone outside by a title, in the statements that I have made in this case, of the speech of my hon. and learned friend the Member for North Tyrone, who has always spoken up for justice in Ireland. The right hon. gentleman speaks of his political virtue. I do not believe the man who talks about his political virtue. I would not believe a woman who boasted of her virtue of the other kind. I think the Member for North Mayo has done good work in exposing the system of the administration of justice in Ireland. I shall watch the promotion of Sergeant Sullivan with great interest, and I shall keep an eye on him as well as on the other minions of English administration in that country.
      MR. KILBRIDE: It is a notorious fact that Mr. Kelly was the solicitor for Sullivan when this case was originally heard, and if the right hon.. Gentleman was so extremely anxious that the case should be free from any insinuation with regard to the motives of the

      351
      Crown why did he send it to Sligo to the sessions where Mr. Kelly was bound to prosecute? And I should also like to know from the Attorney-General why this sum of £400 in the Estimates was transferred. Was this expended on the trial? When this man Sullivan was tried at Sligo a whip was sent round to the constabulary to subscribe for the expenses of the case, and it met with a very poor response. Where did the money came from to pay that expense? Did the Crown find it? The general opinion in Ireland is that the money that was paid for the defence of Sullivan was found by Dublin Castle. I notice under: sub-head H the £400 has been transferred for expenses of actions taken against magistrates, the constabulary, and others for acts done by them in execution of their duty. What is the meaning of that transference?
      MR. ATKINSON: That £400 which was transferred was money which was used for the payment of the sheriffs' expenses. There is now a large grant of £8,000 for this purpose, and that £400 now forms part of that. It had nothing to do with the expenses of this case.
      MR. KILBRIDE: The right hon. Gentleman also quoted the circular of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose when he was Secretary for Ireland. There is no Crown solicitor in any county of Ireland who is personally acquainted with all the peculiar characteristics of the people in Ireland. He gets his information very largely from local sub-inspectors of the police as to the religion and politics of every man on the panel; and here you have the Crown prosecutor of Sligo asking nine Catholics to stand aside from the jury, riot from anything in his own knowledge, but from information from Sergeant Sullivan's superiors or equals. It is impossible so long as this jury packing goes on at the instance of the police to get justice. The conduct of the Crown in the Sullivan case is the usual attitude of the Crown in all cases, and it is weakening materially the little respect which the Irish people have for it.
      MR. DAVITT: The Attorney-General in his reply to my speech employed some rather lurid adjectives in condemnation of the charge which I made against the administration of the law in Ireland. I
      352
      listened with equanimity, because I felt that he would be compelled to do so in support of his duty. I adhere to every statement that I made, and I reiterate every charge. I think the charges that I have made—the main charge I have made—is proved up to the hilt, and whatever the result of the Division of this House may be, the verdict in Ireland will be "The judge is condemned, when the guilty goes free.'
      MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I have listened to the statements made by Members on both sides of the House, and have been able to form my own judgment. In the first place, I exceedingly deprecate the remarks which were made by the Member for South Donegal about the profession of the man Leonard M'Nally, who was a man who disgraced his profession, and whose name was execrated by every person in the country, who took up the instruction for the defence, and then acted as a traitor. He was unworthy of his position, and the hon. Gentleman opposite is unworthy of his profession when he tells the House that the same thing might occur again at the Irish Bar. Amongst the rank and file of the Irish Bar there is almost an impossibility of such treachery occurring. If this man Sullivan was guilty, and if it was proved that he was guilty, and if the House believed he was guilty, I should attach considerable importance to what had fallen from the hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I have learnt some of the maxims of the English law, and one of them is that according to the English Constitution every man is deemed to be innocent until the contrary is proved. In this case two juries had declined to find Sergeant Sullivan guilty, and, notwithstanding that, the hon. Gentleman opposite got up and tried to blacken this man in his profession simply because he is a policeman, and for no other reason. Only expert evidence was given, and I ask the House whether it would hang a dog on the uncorroborated evidence of an expert? I cannot see where the complaint comes in of sending Mr. Wright down instead of The Macdermot. Mr. Wright was the leader of the Ulster Circuit for many years, and The Macdermot the leader of the other circuit, and the only difference between the two is that The Macdermot wore a white waistcoat and George Wright wore a black. I cannot see why a complaint should be

      353
      made because one counsel was sent down instead of another. The only crime of this unfortunate policeman was that he had served his superiors faithfully and loyally.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 147. (Division List No. 205.)

      AYES.

      Allen,W.(Newc. under Lyme)

      Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

      O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

      Ambrose, Robert

      Gibney, James

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Austin, M.

      Goddard, Daniel Ford

      O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

      Barlow, John Emmott

      Gourley, Sir Edwd. Temperley

      O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

      Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

      Hammond, John (Carlow)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Billson, Alfred

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Malley, William

      Blake, Edward

      Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford)

      Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

      Bolton, Thomas Dolling

      Healy, Timothy M.(N. Louth)

      Pilkington,SirG.A. (LancsSW

      Caldwell, James

      Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

      Pinkerton, John

      Carville, Patrick G. Hamilt'n

      Hogan, James Francis

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Cawley, Frederick

      Holland, Wm. H. (York,W.R.)

      Price, Robert John

      Clough, Walter Owen

      Horniman, Frederick John

      Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

      Commins, Andrew

      Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

      Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Joicey, Sir James

      Rickett, J. Compton

      Crilly, Daniel

      Jordan, Jeremiah

      Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

      Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

      Kilbride, Denis

      Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

      Curran, Thomas (Sligo S.)

      Lambert, George

      Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

      Daly, James

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumbland)

      Steadman, William Charles

      Dalziel, James Henry

      Leuty, Thomas Richmond

      Strachey, Edward

      Dillon, John

      Lloyd-George, David

      Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

      Doogan, P. C.

      Logan, John William

      Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

      Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

      Macaleese, Daniel

      Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

      Duckworth, James

      McDonnell, Dr.M.A.(Qn.'s C.)

      Tuite, James

      Edwards, Owen Morgan

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Warner, Thomas Courtney T.

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas

      M'Dermott, Patrick

      Williams, John Carvell (Notts

      Evans,Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

      M'Ghee, Richard

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

      Evershed, Sydney

      Maddison, Fred.

      Wilson, John (Govan)

      Farrell, James J. (Cavan, W.)

      Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

      Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbro')

      Farrell, Thos. P. (Kerry, S)

      Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

      Yoxall, James Henry

      Fenwick, Charles

      Morris, Samuel

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

      Flynn, James Christopher

      Moss, Samuel

      Mr. Davitt and Captain Donelan.

      Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

      Murnaghan, George

      NOES.

      Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

      Clare, Octavius Leigh

      Gedge, Sydney

      Anson, Sir William Reynell

      Cochrane, Hn Thos. H. A. E.

      Gibbons, J. Lloyd

      Archdale, Edward Mervyn

      Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

      Goldsworthy, Major-General

      Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

      Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward

      Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

      Compton, Lord Alwyne

      Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

      Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

      Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Bailey, James (Walworth)

      Cooke,C.W.Radcliffe(Heref'd)

      Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Cox, Irwin Ed. Bainbridge

      Greville, Hon. Ronald

      Balfour, Rt. Hn A.J.(Manch'r

      Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson

      Hamilton,Rt. Hon. Ld.George

      Balfour, Rt. Hn G W. (Leeds)

      Cubitt, Hon. Henry

      Hamond, Sir C. (Newcastle)

      Banbury, Frederick George

      Curzon, Viscount

      Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

      Barnes, Frederic Gorell

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Hare, Thomas Leigh

      Barton, Dunbar Plunket

      Dalrymple, Sir Charles

      Heath, James

      Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM. H.(Bristol

      Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

      Heaton, John Henniker

      Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

      Denny, Colonel

      Hornby, Sir William Henry

      Blundell, Colonel Henry

      Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

      Howard, Joseph

      Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Dorington, Sir John Edward

      Hutchinson,Capt.G.W. Grice-

      Brookfield, A. Montagu

      Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

      Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

      Brymer, William Ernest

      Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

      Johnston, William (Belfast)

      Bullard, Sir Harry

      Doxford, William Theodore

      Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

      Butcher, John George

      Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

      Keswick, William

      Carlile, William Walter

      Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

      Knowles, Lees

      Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

      Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

      Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)

      Cayzer, Sir Charles William

      Finch, George H.

      Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

      Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

      Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

      Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

      Fisher, William Hayes

      Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. (Bir

      FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

      Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

      Chamberlain, J. An. (Worc'r.

      Flower, Ernest

      Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea)

      Chelsea, Viscount

      Folkestone, Viscount

      Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

      Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

      Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd U.)

      Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

      Percy, Earl

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Lowles, John

      Pilkington,R.(Lancs, Newton)

      Tomlinson, Wm.Edw.Murray

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Platt-Higgins, Frederick

      Valentia, Viscount

      Macarteney, W. E. Ellison

      Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

      Wanklyn, James Leslie

      Macdona, John Cumming

      Purvis, Robert

      Warr, Augustus Frederick

      M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

      Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

      Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

      M'Iver, Sir L.(Edinburgh,W.)

      Rentoul, James Alexander

      Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.

      M'Killop, James

      Ridley,Rt.Hn.SirMatthew,W.

      Williams,JosephPowell(Birm.

      Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

      Ritchie, Rt. Hn.Chas.Thomson

      Wilson, John (Falkirk)

      Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

      Rothschild,Hon.LionelWalter

      Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh.N.

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Russell,Gen.F.S.(Cheltenham

      Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E R.(Bath

      Milton, Viscount

      Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

      Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

      Moore, William (Antrim, N)

      Seton-Karr, Henry

      Wylie, Alexander

      More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

      Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

      Wyndham, George

      Morgan, Hn.Fred (Monm'thsh

      Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

      Young, Commander(Berks, E.

      Morrell, George Herbert

      Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

      Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

      Stock, James Henry

      TELLERS FOE THE NOES—

      Nicol, Donald Ninian

      Strauss, Arthur

      Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

      Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

      Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

      Resolution agreed to.

      Original question again proposed.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to call attention to the recent murder in County Kilkenny of a shopkeeper. This man had gone to a policeman and asked for a small account which was owing, whereupon the policeman put up his rifle and shot the man through the heart. No sooner was the policeman convicted of murder than he was reprieved, though there was no suggestion that the man was innocent or that he had not had a fair trial. Recently, too, a soldier was charged in court with bigamy, and bigamy under most disgraceful circumstances. He was convicted, but he had not been in prison three days when he was discharged a free man. Why were these men not punished as ordinary citizens are? We are always glad to see mercy extended to any man, but I must say that it is a public scandal that a man who was collecting a debt in the broad daylight should be met with a policeman's rifle and shot through the heart, and that that policeman should be reprieved and in a few years regain his liberty. In the second case, despite the fact that the prisoner had heartlessly ruined a young girl, we find that because he had served in the Ashantee War he only got three years' penal servitude and did not serve for three minutes. Complaint has been made of packing juries. It is not the Attorney-General who packs juries, but it is the Act of 1876, because you have so arranged matters by the system of valuation that it is practically impossible for a Catholic to get on a jury. The system is at fault. So far as the general body of the people is concerned, justice in Ireland
      356
      is dead—or, rather, it is not dead, because it has never existed. Again, there is in the Vote an item of £8,820 as repayment to sheriffs. It is necessary to have sheriffs; but I ask whether it is true that this sum is confined to county sheriffs, and that city sheriffs in such places as Dublin, Limerick, Waterford, Belfast, and Derry are not remunerated for their trouble? No doubt it is some Treasury official engaged in the robbery of Ireland who makes this distinction between city sheriffs and county sheriffs, in order that the money may get it to the pockets of the landlord class.
      MR. ATKINSON: I think that all the circumstances of the case of the policeman referred to by the hon. Member show that when he committed the crime he was—if not actually insane—labouring under the greatest excitement. The jury strongly recommended him to mercy, and it was by reason of that recommendation that the sentence of death was commuted to penal servitude for life. In the case of the soldier, there were also extenuating circumstances, and he was discharged on the recommendation of the judge. The reasons for the distinction between city sheriffs and county sheriffs are—first, that gentlemen appointed to serve as city sheriffs are not hound to accept the office, while it is a misdemeanour, under an Act centuries old, for gentlemen appointed county sheriffs to refuse to serve; and, secondly, while the fees received by city sheriffs cover their expenses, county sheriffs are actually out of pocket. The same rule applies in England. The sum of £20,000 is voted yearly to recoup the expenses of county sheriffs in England.
      MR. HEMPHILL: With regard to the explanation of my right hon. and learned friend—first as to the reprieve of the prisoners, it does seem a strange coincidence that one of them should have been a policeman and the other a soldier. With regard to the explanation as to the policeman, if he was a lunatic I apprehend that he would have been sent to Dundrum criminal lunatic asylum. He must either have been a lunatic and not properly convicted in point of law, or else he must have been responsible for his actions and guilty. Why, if he was a lunatic, should he now be sentenced to penal servitude? With regard to the other case, I have a very strong recollection that the learned judge who tried the case, in his charge to the jury, commented very much on the enormity of the offence, and I have a distinct recollection that there was a great deal of astonishment felt when it was announced that the bigamist was reprieved. I think both these cases furnish a very strong argument in favour of what we have more than once contended for—viz., that there should be a court of criminal appeal, or that there should be something which would prevent an arbitrary and Capricious exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, which undoubtedly is calculated to outrage the public conscience. I believe my right hon. and learned friend, as far as my recollection goes, is quite accurate when he says that there is no compulsion on a person who is selected as a city sheriff to act, but there is undoubtedly compulsion, and always was, for centuries, on county sheriffs to act on appointment.
      MR. FLYNN: I cannot absolve the right hon. Gentleman from responsibility for the practice we are condemning, because he expressly stated, in reply to a question of mine, that it was by his special directions that the Crown Solicitor took these proceedings, and the large number of jurors were challenged. I for one shall divide on every occasion, while I have a seat in this House, to call the attention of Parliament to the system of jury packing.
      MR. DAVITT: Was the assistance given by the Government to Constable Sullivan confined to the Sligo case, or was assistance also given in the Dublin case, where the jury disagreed?
      MR. ATKINSON: I could not answer that question; I do not know how that is.
      Resolution to be reported.

      CLASS II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed—
      "That a sum, not exceeding £27,479, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending On the 31st, day of March, 1900, for the salaries and expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland."
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: I regret we have not had an opportunity of considering more fully Many important matters in connection with the administration of the Local Government Board in Ireland, particularly in view of the passage of the Local Government Act of last year. Of all the anomalous and ridiculous situations that have been created in Ireland for a lengthy period, probably the most ridiculous was that created by the passing of that Act. No doubt the Act was designed for the benefit of the people of Ireland, and it is also true it could not be put into force without much difficulty, but it could not have been more unfortunately circumstanced than that it should have been put into the hands of the existing Local Government Board to carry out. In the first place, by the passing of the Registration Act, an enormous burden has been thrown upon the people. Every local government area had to change completely its system of compiling the register. In the County of Longford, with which I am intimately associated, the cost of producing the register jumped from £60 under the old system to £940. The blame is entirely with the Local Government Board, because they delayed the issuing of the necessary instructions, and when the printing of these registers had to be undertaken only a limited time was given, so that, practically, carte blanche had to be given to pay any price in order to get the registers printed in time. This at once added 1½d. in the pound to the rates in County Longford. Then came the question of the elections. In the matter of the publication of Orders the Local Government Board "take the cake." There was a fresh set of Orders

      359
      issued every week, one contradicting the' other.
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Which Orders?
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: The Orders fixing the areas of charge, for one thing. The Local Government Board first ordered certain notices to be issued at a certain date; that date was found inconvenient maul changed. They then proceeded to allot the number of candidates who would be eligible for election in each area, and that eventually had to be countermanded. So that the cost of assembling the County Council in County Longford rose from a very small sum to £980, adding another 1½,d. in the ½ to the rates. In other counties the expenses were enormous, the amount in Cork being £5,420; Mayo, £3,425; Cavan, £1,150; and so on. There may be something in the argument that we cannot expect to get such a great change made without considerable expenditure. The Government may also claim that we get half the Agricultural Grant; I may say with regard to that, that that is one of the great disappointments of the Act. Very considerable expectations were entertained that the sum which was to go in relief of rates would be considerably more than it turned out to be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer practically told us in terms that we should get something approaching £750,000 as the Irish share of the Agricultural Grant, but when the Treasury experts came to make their calculations we were deprived of £25,000 of that amount.
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I distinctly said that I estimated the sum would be about £730,000.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: My impression was, and the impression on the minds of the Irish people still is, that We have been deprived by the Treasury experts of at least, £25,000. Then we have to compensate so many officials that the Act has become a very severe curse. In the olden times the county cess collector was an officer whom it was not necessary to dismiss; he was simply employed from assize to assize; but under the Act he becomes entitled to a gratuity. This gratuity may not exceed the amount of five years of his net emoluments: but that
      360
      basis has confused and confounded everybody, including the Local Government Board itself. The County of Longford became terrified by the amount which is claimed, and recently applied to the Local Government, Board for information as to the "net emoluments," and the reply was that the Local Government Board "are unable to lay down a specific interpretation of the expression." In the case of the county I am citing the amount claimed for compensation is £3,840, so that the setting of the Act into operation in that county has cost the ratepayers nearly £6,000.
      G. W. BALFOUR: As to the total amount of compensation, half of that is recoverable.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: That information will be gratefully received by the people who are to pay this compensation. Then we come to the machinery by which these county councils are to work. Under the old system the rate collector had to make up his own books, and so on, and in that way a great amount of labour was performed practically gratuitously for the people. In the book required under the new Act there are 22 columns across, and the county clerk will have to enter up the name of every ratepayer in the county, and all the particulars attached to the rating across these 22 columns. I asked Air. Edgeworth, the clerk in the County of Longford, to give me some data to go upon as to the work involved, and he says:
      "County Councils Order, 1899, Act 23 (4) directs that duplicate rate book should be furnished to clerks of unions not later than three days after making of rate. Longford is one of the smallest counties, but it contains over 15,000 ratings, in respect Of each of which a separate calculation of the rate on agricultural land and of the rate on buildings has he made, to say nothing of calculation for separate charges. Allowing three minutes for the double calculation and entering the same across all the columns, over 30 clerks would be required, working eight hours a day, to get it done in three days. Allowing one-third of the time for making the duplicates, would bring the number of clerks required to 40, The Local Government Board have admitted the absurdity by suggesting, that if enough clerks were employed it might be done in a fortnight."
      A more damaging statement as to the way in which the Act works could not

      361
      have been made than that of this -Unionist clerk in Longford. He further remarks that:
      "If these 15,000 collectors' books, 15,000 notices to pay, and 1500 receipts have to be filled up in my office, the clerical staff required for that purpose would be pretty large."
      The right hon. Gentleman could not, possibly have been aware When he introduced the Act of the anomalies and absurdities which would be set up. Then there is the keeping of the accounts, with regard to which the clerk says:
      "The requirement that a separate ledger account, involving entries in 22 columns, or a third of a million of entries each half year in this one book, alone means a good deal of clerical work."
      The Act was passed with the assistance of this side of the House in the hope that it would not only take the iron heel of ascendency of our necks, but that it would be an advantage to the people; but what you have given with one hand you have taken away with the other. As regards the next item in the book-keeping arrangements, the County Clerk of Longford says:
      The books to be kept include (1) a general ledger with 28 heads, of which some have seven sub-heads; (2) financial minutes; (3) financial statement, receipts; (4) financial statement, expenditure; (5) register, separate charges; (6) register mortgages; (7) financial statement book, separate charges; (8) three rate ledgers, which mean a good deal of clerical work."
      I do not impute to the right hon. Gentleman collaboration in the preparation of this extraordinary set of books, I am sure he was never consulted about it; but it is through the want of system at the Local Government Board that this method has been set up. My proposition is to, go back to the old system. What will be the state of things if the county council refuses to give extra clerical assistance? How will it be possible to set up the proper books, considering that only three days are allowed for their preparation and the enormous calculations in connection therewith?
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I Understand they have two months.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL: The right hon. Gentleman is misinformed entirely. They may have next year. Two months are
      362
      given under the Act, but in consequence of the blundering of the Local Government Board on this occassion only three days were given. I am not making a personal attack on the right hon. Gentleman, but this is the only opportunity we have of bringing these anomalies to his notice, in the hope of getting them redressed. I believe every Member would be glad to see this Act work smoothly, and I, for my part, declare that it is my intention, as a member of a County Council, to do all I can to make it work smoothly. But how can we do it unless assisted by the parent body, which controls the whole thing? If an enormous amount of work, such as this, costing a large sum to carry out, is thrown upon the county councils, does the right hon. Gentleman expect them to efficiently discharge their duties? The right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in throwing upon the county councils an immense responsibility, because it is on their unfortunate heads that the blame will inevitably recoil when it is discovered that this Act cannot be worked either as economically or as efficiently as was the old system. I am not referring to the grand juries at all but I am speaking of the old system of the collection of rates under the boards of guardians. Now, what state of things as regards finance has the Local Government Board precipitated upon the country? By an Order in Council the grand jurors were directed to pass presentments for the payment of contractors lip to the time that the powers of the grand jury expired, and also to pay for those contracts up to next September—that is for eleven months; and they let them go out of office without collecting a penny of this money. In the County of Longford there was a special Order issued. The liabilities which we shall have to meet amount to £11,000 up to the 13th of next September, and we have not got a penny in the treasury. When the money was received there were so many claims upon it that I don't think it lasted more than half an hour. We have £11,000 to provide to pay for the road contracts, to keep the unions going, to pay for the district councils, the election expenses, and the clerical staff. If the proper steps had been taken by the Local Government. Board the grand jury should have found this money before they went out of office. However, they

      363
      did not do this, for they simply put on the blister and went out of office without doing anything to pay their way, and the County Council will have to borrow this £11,000 at six per cent. interest. I say that if the Local Government Board had taken proper precautions we should not have been forced to undergo this loss, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to provide some means whereby a loss such as this shall be made good from the next grant. I know that I am standing in the way of hon. Members who are perhaps much more qualified to deal with the subject and are much more eloquent than I am. There is another matter, however, which is of very considerable importance. We find, after all the luring hopes which were held out to us when this Act was passed, that our powers are very limited indeed. Having provided for the district councils and boards of guardians, and paid contractors for the contracts left by the late lamented grand juries, we find that the total sum over which we shall have control will be less than £1,000 a year. The action of the Local Government Board in this matter has very largely helped to bring home to the people of Longford, at all events, the object-lesson of Home Rule. As I was very doubtful about the smallness of our spending powers, I made inquiries, and I am informed by a very good authority, to whom I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give credence, that what I have stated is a fact. My informant states:
      "I do not know whether you can go into the general provisions of the Act. If so, you can point out that the whole and sole business over which the Longford County Council have any sort of control is less than £1,000 a year, which is the cost of the roads now actually falling out of contract for new contracts, and these they can veto as they come up to the County Council, and that is all they can touch. All the other payments—to guardians, to district councils, to officials, to contractors under existing contracts, which amount to over £25,000 a year—they can no more touch than you can touch the Lord Chancellor's salary; in fact, the cheques might just as well be filled by me without reference to the Council for any power which they have to deal with them."
      I think that is a disappointing announcement. These councillors are, no doubt, humble men, and they have, I fear, entered upon a task which will not be grateful in its results. I do not wish to refer to individual members of the Local
      364
      Government Board, but I do say that a more scandalous and outrageous statement was never made by a member of any governing body than was made by Mr. Richard Bagwell, who, at a dinner in Dublin, declared that the Act was the worst that had ever been passed by any Government.
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: He said it was the worst drafted Act.
      MR. FAIRRELL: I am referring to what appeared in the newspaper report, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is getting unnecessarily heated over this official, who has not been particularly polite to him. I do not know that I have very much more to say. What I desire is that this Act should work out fairly well, and give satisfaction, and I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the very best intentions in passing it. In all sincerity and truth, I say that the management of this Act in its initiatory stages by the Local Government Board has been simply scandalous, for they have imposed upon us an immense burden, and they know nothing about what they are doing, and the country at large will have to suffer very heavily for the folly of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman has a great many duties to discharge, I know, and he has far too many duties if he attempts to discharge them all. I think, however, that he would occupy himself in a manner that would be more grateful to the people of Ireland if he would institute an inquiry into the scandalous anomalies which have been created under this Act, and more especially if he would take into account, not only the book-keeping arrangements, but also the arrangement in connection with the giving of the Agricultural Grant. In this respect alone the Irish people have lost fully £25,000, which they would otherwise have got. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to some thanks for the passing of this Act, but not for the giving of the money; because it is the money belonging to the people of Ireland, and which is law-fully due to them. I sincerely hope that he will take into his consideration the few points which I have endeavoured to make, and I hope he will see his way to simplify the arrangements for the working of this Act.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to say that this Mr. Bagwell had no particular qualifications which entitled him to be made a Commissioner, and he was just about as much fitted for the post as the doorkeeper of this House. He had never had any experience of official life, and the Government gave him as a clean present £1,000 per annum; and having got his job and his salary paid quarterly, instead of taking it and being contented with his good fortune, and thanking the Lord when every quarter-day came round, he attends, of all places in the world, a dinner of that grateful body the land agents of Ireland who met in Dublin. There Mr. Bagwell, who was in receipt of his first quarter's salary, had the impudence to describe this Act as the worst that had ever been passed by Parliament. This official, with his £1,000 a year in his breeches pocket, goes down to this land agents' dinner and poses as a high authority upon draughtsmanship. If I had had to deal with him, I would have draughted him out of the Local Government Board altogether, and sent him back to look after his bullocks. The attack this official made was not only an attack upon our system of local government, but it was an attack upon the House of Commons and upon the entire Administration. What assurance can the members of these local bodies have of fair and impartial administration from gentlemen animated by a spirit of this kind? Of course, I should be far from making such comments as these upon some of the gentlemen which are the older officials, but I think the Government made a great mistake in parting with Sir George Morris just at the moment when this Act was coming into operation.
      MR. G. W. BALFOUR: As I have already explained, Sir George Morris's time for retirement came round, and he expressed his desire to resign.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: All I have to say, then, is that Bagwell was a very poor exchange for Morris, who had served them for twenty years, and I never remember a single complaint being raised against him. No doubt Sir George Morris would have stayed on if he had been offered four or five years more service instead of being asked to go on for another year. I entirely disagree with die view that it is the duty of the Local Government Board
      366
      to give legal opinions, because when they do this they are generally wrong. I do not think they have any function of that kind whatsoever. But what we may fairly expect of them is this—that they will keep in stock in their offices in Dublin the whole of the papers and documents to which the new Act refers. One of the chief things dealt with by the Act is the question of compensation, and you will find, if you endeavour to study all the Local Government Act, that the compensation to be given has to be in accordance with the Civil Service rules. I hunted for a copy of these rules through the Dublin library and the library of this House, and then, in despair, I wrote for a copy of the Civil Service rules to the Local Government Board, and the reply was that they haul not a copy in the office, but that I could get them front a bookseller. There is not a single person in Ireland who can obtain these rides. With regard to the new system of keeping accounts the representative for North Armagh has already stated that there they will have to build new offices to hold the clerks required IT the new system. It is no use, however, decrying this Act, awl I congratulate the Government and the right hon. Gentleman upon passing it, although there is a good deal of extravagance in the system imposed. I may say that 40 clerks will be required in Cork to do what two clerks did tinder the grand jury system. There are 110 ratings in the County of Cork, and if you multiply that by the 24 columns which are to be filled up twice a year in the large form which has already been shown by the hon. Member who has just sat down you get some millions of entries, and for what purpose? Why simply to satisfy the Bagwells of the Local Government Board. ft is not merely the question of expense with which we are concerned, but there is also our credit as administrators at stake. When the next Home Rule Government comes in power—which will be very shortly—probably the right hon. Gentleman himself will get up from the wrong side of the Table and quote this as an instance of the horrible system of misgovernment in the County of Cork. I venture to say that every Primrose League in the country at the next election will have this case of extravagance embodied in a pamphlet, and the electors

      367
      will be asked, "Can you trust the Government of Ireland to the hands of extravagant 'jobbers' like those in the County of Cork?" When they are asked to render a reason for this, they will tell you that it is the law of the land. All I say is, that if it is the law it ought to be changed, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to bring in a Bill to effect this alteration, in the interests of economy. We hear a great deal of the county councils in England, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is anything in the English or the Scotch systems which will compare with the system of which I complain? If the right hon. Gentleman will make a statement upon this subject it will give considerable satisfaction to the people of Ireland. The matter is certainly one which requires elucidation, and I do trust that he will be able to say, if the system as at present maintained is according to law, that he will consent to bring in a Bill to have it altered.
      It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make Ids Report to the House.
      Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    MILITARY WORKS (MONEY).
    Resolution reported—
    "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, in addition to the sums authorised by the Military Works Act, 1897, of such further sums, not exceeding in the whole £4,000,000, as may be required for defraying the cost of certain Military Works and Services, such sums to be raised in manner provided by the said Act."
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wyndham and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    MILITARY WORKS BILL.
    "To make further provision for defraying the expenses of certain Military Works and other Military Services," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 249.]
    LINCOLNSHIRE. CORONERS BILL. [Lords.]
    Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. CALDWELL: Upon the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what is the business which he intends to take On Monday next?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not wish absolutely to pledge myself, but I think there can be no doubt that we shall propose to take as the first Order on Monday the Second Reading of the Secondary Education Bill, and as the second Order the Bill of my right hon. friend the Secretary for Ireland, the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: And when will the Tithes Bill come on?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Tuesday next.
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.