Commons Sitting of 10 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  COMMERCIAL GAS BILL, GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  YSTRADEELLTE WATER BILL [LORDS].
  Report [8th July] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read. Bill to be read a second time.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 10).
  Mr ASHTONreported from the Committee on Group 10 of Railway Bills; That, there being no business ready for their consideration they had adjourned until Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  COMMONS REGULATION (SODBURY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  EDUCATION BOARTD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, &c.) BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL [LORDS],
  BIRMINGHAM AND MIDLAND TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS],
    DEVONPORT CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [LORDS].
    Reported with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    BARRY RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
    Reported, without Amendment: Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CONSETT WATER BILL [LORDS]
    WEARDALE AND SHILDON DISTRICT WATER BILL [LORDS].
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,
    Irvine Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment;
    Nottingham and Retford Railway Bill;
    North British Railway (General Powers) Bill, with Amendments;
    Amendments to—
    Bristol Water 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 Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Knutsford Gas

    1355
    and Water, Staines and Egham Gas, System and Thurmaston Gas, Uckfield Water, and Worksop Water." [Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill (Lords.)]

    GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 269.]
  PETITIONS.
    EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
    Petitions against: From Acton; Ealing (two); Stopsley; Bradford; Luton (two); Stockton-on-Tees; Chiswick; Stotfold; Sbillington; Beeston; Steeple Morden; Sale; Llanfrochen; Galdecote; Ashwell; Biggleswade; Shefford; and, Langford; to lie upon the Table.
    EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
    Petitions for alteration; From Crambe March; Norwich; and Chale; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
    Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway (New Lines, etc.,) Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158A]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
    EAST INDIA (FOREIGN JURISDICTION).
    Copy presented, —of Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order in Council, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Scottish Board of Manufactures.
    SIR JOHN STIRLING-MAXWELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say what steps have been taken to initiate the inquiry which he has promised into the Board of Manufactures in Scotland
    1356
    and the various institutions under its charge; and whether he will state what form that inquiry will take and when it will be held.
    (Answer.) I am in communication with the Secretary for Scotland on this subject. I think a Departmental Committee will probably be appointed to undertake the inquiry as soon as possible after the summer recess.—(Treasury.)

    Naval Engineers.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of engineer officers short in the Fleet both at home and abroad, specifying the number in the following ranks, viz.: chief engineer, engineer, and assistant engineers, also the number of engine-room ratings short in the following ranks, viz.: engine-room artificers (stating trades), boiler-makers, engine-fitters, also the number of stoker ratings short throughout the Fleet; also the number of engineers now doing duty in lieu of chief engineer, and the number of assistant-engineers now doing duty in lieu of engineer; also the regulation number of engine-room ratings required at home ports for care and maintenance parties of battle-ships, first-class cruisers, second-class cruisers, third-class cruisers, gun-vessels, and torpedo-boat destroyers respectively; and also the average number of engine-room ratings employed at home ports, at the present date, for care and maintenance parties of the class of ships named in the preceding paragraph.
    (Answer.) The numbers of engineer officers short, as compared with the numbers voted for the year ending 31st March, 1903, are as follows: Fleet, staff and chief engineers, 10; engineers and assistant engineers, 41. Engineers and the authorised numbers, as promotions assistant-engineers are classed together in depend upon length of service. In the case of engine-room ratings, the shortage as compared with the numbers voted is as follows: engine-room artificers, consisting of 55 fitters, 7 engine smiths, 57 boiler-makers, 12 coppersmiths, total 131; stokers 529. Although an addition of 529 stokers would make up the numbers authorised to be raised during the present

    1357
    year, there will still be a shortage in the stoker class, as to which I have given the noble Lord the particulars in reply to another Question. The increase of stokers asked for this year was limited to the increased numbers of the proper class which it was believed could be raised in one year. One engineer is at present doing duty in lieu of a chief engineer, but there are no assistant-engineers employed in lieu of engineers. In reply to the last paragraph of the Question, the regulation number of engine-room ratings required for care and maintenance parties for vessels in the Fleet Reserve compares with the numbers actually borne, as follows—

    Required.

    Borne.

    Battleships

    246

    271

    First Class Cruisers

    443

    374

    Second Class Cruisers

    479

    457

    Third Class Cruisers

    52

    27

    Gun Vessels

    18

    37

    Destroyers

    322

    299

    The totals for all classes of vessels are 1,647 required, as compared with 1,573 borne, or a shortage of 74. I ought, however, to add that there are still nearly nine months of the financial year to expire during which it is hoped that such deficiencies as exist may be materially reduced, if not altogether removed. —(Admiralty.)

    Light Railway Commission—Vale of Rheidol Order.
    MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can slate why the Vale of Rheidol Light Railway Amendment Order, which was applied for in May, 1901, and, after a local inquiry in October, 1901, by the Light Railway Commissioners duly made, has not yet been confirmed by the Board of Trade, and when the Confirmation Order will be signed; and will he take steps to prevent similar delay in future.
    (Answer.) There has been no unnecessary delay in this case. The Order in question was submitted to the Board by the Light Railway Commissioners on the 21st March last, and, after the usual interval for the lodging of objections, a hearing took place on behalf of the Department. The Board found it necessary to ask for further information with the view of satisfying themselves as
    1358
    to the financial aspects of the undertaking, and the promoters have since been informed that the Order will be held in abeyance until the line already authorised has been reported on by one of the Board's inspecting officers. —(Board of Trade.)

    Life-saving Provision on the Irish Coast.
    MR. ARCHDALE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many life-saving rocket stations are provided on the coast of Ireland between Derry and Sligo, and how many lives have been lost on that coast in the last ten years.
    (Answer.) There is at present one rocket life-saving station on the coast of Ireland between Derry and Sligo, viz., at Green-castle, on Lough Foyle. The Board of Trade have decided to establish a second rocket station, viz., at Mulroy, county Donegal, and are now endeavouring to secure a suitable site. Thirty-six lives have been lost in consequence of casualties to vessels between Derry and Sligo during the last ten years, but only four of the casualties were strandings, and, so tar as the Board of Trade are informed, in none of these cases would a rocket apparatus have enabled life to be saved.—(Board of Trade.)

    Crown Foreshore Rights in County Mayo.
    DR. AMBROSE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that a man. named Joyce, is to be prosecuted on the 16th instant at the Castlebar Quarter Sessions for trespass on the foreshore at Mallaranny, county Mayo; and whether, in view of the fact that the Board of Trade has not parted with its Crown rights over the foreshore in question, he will see that the Board is professionally represented at the trial.
    (Answer.) The whole matter is under the consideration of the Boar of Trade, who will be represented at the hearing of the case on the 16th instant.—(Board of Trade.)

    Bethesda Quarrymen's Strike.
    MR. GEORGE KENYON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any intimation that the quarrymen at

    1359
    the Bethesda Quarries have resolved to discontinue the strike, which has continued for upwards of two years; and whether he can say whether any arrangements have been made as to the resumption of work by them.
    (Answer.) No intimation on the subject has reached me.—(Board of Trade.)

    Civil Service Second Division Clerkships.
    MR O'MALLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the reason for the delay in holding the usual half-yearly examination for second division clerkships by the Civil Service Commissioners; find why vacancies in the various offices are being filled up by the appointment of candidates unsuccessful at the examination held in October, 1901, to the exclusion from competition of those who have been working up for some time and are near the age limit (17–20).
    (Answer) There are no regular half-yearly examinations for second division clerkships, but competitions are held from time to time, according to the needs of the public service. When there is a sudden demand for clerks, or there are difficulties in the way of holding a fresh competition, the Civil Service Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, offer appointments to candidates unsuccessful in the last competition who have done well in the examination—(Treasury.)

    Customs Second Class Examining Officers.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the proposals of the Board of Customs for the removal of the grievance of the second class examining officers, in regard to their pay and prospects, have been yet submitted to the Treasury; and, if so, whether he can state what the proposals are.
    (Answer.) The proposals have not yet been submitted to the Treasury, but are under consideration, and it is hoped that they may be submitted during the present session.—(Treasury.)

    Post Office—Overseer of the South-Eastern District.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster
    1360
    General, whether the overseer's vacancy in the south-eastern district, created by the death of Mr. Feldwick, and recently filled by a suburban officer, will now be restored to the town establishment, seeing that the appointment properly belongs to this establishment.
    (Answer.) The vacancy in question has been filled by the transfer of an overseer from a suburban office in the same district, but the vacancy thus created in the suburbs has been filled by the promotion of an officer in the town district office.—(Post Office.)

    Smallpox—Ambulance, &c., Provision.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has under consideration recommendations of the Ambulance Committee of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, made in reports to the managers dated 24th February and 8th March, urging the establishment of additional stations and shelters and of land transport service for smallpox patients, the latter to be used as an alternative to river transport; whether any estimate of the cost has been submitted by the Ambulance Committee or the Asylums Board; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the Local Government Board will abstain from sanctioning these proposals until the Councils of the Metropolitan Boroughs have been consulted.
    (Answer.) I have seen reports of the Ambulance Committee of the Metropolitan Asylum District bearing on these matters, but no proposals on the subject have been submitted to me by the Managers. As I understand, no definite decision has been arrived at by them. In the event of any application being made to me for sanction to proposals of this kind, I should not fail to give careful consideration to the various interests involved; but until the proposals are before me I could not say what course I should adopt with regard to them.—(Local Government Board.)

    East India Railway Company—Tenders for Locomotives.
    Colonel DENNY: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the relative position of the lowest British tender and

    1361
    the lowest American tender in the coin-petition for thirty-two locomotives recently placed with a German firm.
    (Answer.) I am informed that there was no American tender for the locomotives which the East Indian Railway Company has recently ordered from a German firm.—(India Office.)
    COLONEL DENNY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the firm who has obtained the order for thirty-two locomotives for the East India Railway Company has before been entrusted with an Indian order; and will he state the relation to the lowest British price of prices of any German firms who have previously executed work for the Indian Railway Companies.
    (Answer.) The German firm which obtained the order from the East Indian Railway Company has never been entrusted with any order by mo or my predecessors in office. Whether it had executed work for any of the Indian railway companies, or what may have been the prices at which tenders were received from firms which bad executed such work, is a matter as to which I have no information.—(India office.)

    Indian Railways—Overcrowding.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state whether any steps have yet been taken to dual with the overcrowding of native passengers in the third-class carriages of Indian railways; and, if so, will lie state what has been, or is being, done in the matter.
    (Answer.) This matter is one as to which any complaints should be addressed to the local authorities. The inquiry which was instituted some time back into the working of the railway systems of India will doubtless take cognizance of any inconvenient overcrowding which may be reported to them.—(India Office.)

    British Consulates in Switzerland.
    MR. YKRBURGH: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the post of British Vice-Consul at Montreux has been given to a Swiss; whether an application for this post was received from any duly qualified
    1362
    British subject; and, if so, on what grounds the post was given to a Swiss; and whether he will state the number of British Consulates and Vice-Consulates in Switzerland held by Swiss and British respectively.
    (Answer.) It is the ease that the post of British Vice-Consul at Montreux has been given to a Swiss citizen; applications were considered from more than one British subject, hut none were found to be duly qualified for the post; there are ten British Consulates and Vice-Consulates in Switzerland, of which four are held by British subjects, and six by Swiss citizens. The Secretary of State has every reason to lie satisfied with the manner in which the latter perform their duties. But inquiry is always made in these cases, and preference invariably given to British subjects, when duly qualified.—(Foreign Office.)

    Inquests—Coroner forbidding Removal of Body.
    MR. JOHN BUTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the inquest held on James Allinson, who lost his life in a quarry accident at Holwick, Yorkshire, on 2nd December, 1901. whose body was, by order of the coroner, forbidden to be taken to its home, a short distance away, on account of the county boundary intervening, and was kept in a weigh-house at the quarry; and whether he will inquire into the action of the coroner in preventing such removal.
    (Answer.) I have considered carefully the papers relating to this matter with which the hon. Member has been good enough to furnish me. I am advised that, it being undoubtedly an offence to remove a body for the purpose of preventing an inquest, the coroner has a discretion to prevent any dealing with a body which might have that result. And it is also the duty of constables and all other persons to prevent, so fat-as possible, the commission of any such offence and to assist the coroner. At the same time it is clear that the discretion ought to be exercised with great care, and I feel bound to say that I deprecate the laying down of any hard

    1363
    and fast rule such as must inevitably, in circumstances such sis those of the case in question, cause pain and distress to the relatives, which might perhaps be avoided by some arrangement. I have no jurisdiction to inquire into the action of the coroner in this case.—(Home Office.)

    Irish Local Government Board—Appointments of Inspectors and Auditors.
    MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board has received resolutions from the different Boards of Guardians in Ireland and from the Poor Law Association of Ireland with reference to the appointment of persons to the positions of inspectors and auditors under the Local; Government Board, in which they put forward the claims of poor law officers on the ground of efficiency and experience to a share of such appointments; and whether, in view of a recent appointment of an assistant inspector, he will see his way to recommend the Local Government Board to recognise the claims of poor law officers to such appointments.
    (Answer.) I cannot give an undertaking such as suggested in this Question. In selecting persons to fill vacancies on the staff of inspectors or auditors, the Board proceeds on the principle of choosing the persons whom it considers best qualified for these positions. The claims of all candidates are carefully considered.—(Irish Office.)

    Irish Road Maintenance Return.
    MR. KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Return relating to maintenance of roads in Ireland, ordered on the 24th April last, has not yet been presented; and whether he can state the cause of this delay, and when the Return will be presented.
    (Answer.) There has been no avoidable delay in the preparation of this Return, which is now in a forward condition, and will, it is hoped, be ready for presentation before the end of the month.—(Irish Office.)

    Pensions to Relatives of Officers killed while serving on Probation.
    SIR ELLIOT LEES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have declined to grant a pension to the mother of a lieutenant on probation, killed in action near Wolmaranstad, on 26th February, 1902, on the ground that he was not actually commissioned as an officer at the time he was killed. And whether he will direct that this decision be reconsidered in order that the relatives of those killed in action, whilst bearing officers' rank and performing officers' duties, shall receive the ordinary pensions due to relatives of officers killed in action.
    (Answer.) it is not possible to make the concession referred to, as service on probation does not necessarily carry with it a guarantee that a commission will be granted. If, however, promotion is given after death, with an antedate determined upon before death, a pension is given, subject to the qualifications of the beneficiary being otherwise in order.—(War Office.)

    Return of Lord Kitchener—Accommodation for Militia, etc.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if the members of the Militia, Yeomanry, and the Volunteer forces who have served in South Africa under Lord Kitchener, and have received the medal, and to whose unofficial attendance at the reception on Saturday of that General there is no objection, will have any special place reserved for them on the line of route if in uniform, or any privilege over the other persons.
    (Answer.) The military authorities are considering whether any arrangement can he made, and whatever it may be possible to do will be notified. (War Office.)

  (2.15.) QUESTION IN THE HOUSE.

    South African War—General Inquiry.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the Government expects to be

    1365
    in a position to announce the terms of reference in the case of the small Royal Commission to inquire into the war, and the names of the Royal Commissioners.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): We are not in a position at present' to make a statement on this subject.

    General Buller.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, what explanation, if any, can be given for the fact that on his return from South Africa General Buller was praised in an Army Order, notwithstanding the knowledge of the Government of the heliogram to Ladysmith and of Lord Roberts' opinion of the Spion Kop operations; and can he explain why Sir Redvers Buller was given command of the First Army Corps, having regard to the statement of the Secretary of State for War that the commanders should be ready and able to take the field.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I understand that the right hon. gentleman the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed intends to raise the question of Sir Redvers Buller's position on the Vote for my salary, when I shall be prepared to fully justify the conduct of the Government in regard to him.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman will have a hard job.

    Sir Charles Warren.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the allowance by the Government of the publication of the heliogram sent by Sir Redvers Buller to Sir George White during the siege of Ladysmith, the Government will allow Sir Charles Warren to publish documents relating to Spion Kop, more especially the statement laid by him before the Commander-in-Chief when he was withdrawn from his command in Natal, whose immediate publication Sir Charles Warren solicited in a letter of the 21st April last. And, on what grounds has the permission accorded to Sir Redvers Buller to publish documents relating to the operations in South Africa been withheld from Sir Charles Warren.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. There is no similarity between the two cases. Sir Charles Warren made his report on the Spion Kop operations in the usual manner and it was commented upon according to custom by his superior officers. To allow a rejoinder by Sir Charles Warren would be contrary to all precedent and would be utterly subversive of discipline, as a similar course would have to be allowed in the case of any officer aggrieved. Sir Redvers Buller was permitted to publish telegrams which had passed between himself and Sir George White and the home authorities, and which had not previously appeared, because he considered his character was impugned by incorrect versions of these telegrams which had been put before the public. The war being over it was held that these documents could be published without detriment to the public service.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: As a matter of fact was not Sir Redvers Buller Sir Charles Warren's superior officer, and if so why should not Sir Charles be allowed to publish his version?

    Peace Negotiations — Lord Kitchener's Letter to Schalk Burger.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will now publish Lord Kitchener's letter to President Schalk Burger, forwarding to him the correspondence with the Netherlands Government and making the overtures to the Beers on which they based their proposals for peace; and will he say why has that letter been withheld from publication.
    MR. BRODRICKThe terms in which the letter of Lord Kitchener referred to were couched were purely formal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is not that the letter Lord Kitchener referred to in his letter to the right hon. Gentleman?
    MR. BRODRICK: The communication was merely passed on in a formal manner.
    MR. JOYCE: If there is nothing to conceal, why keep it back!

    Sandhurst College—Incendiary Fires and Disturbances — Indiscriminate Punishment of Cadets.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many of the twenty-nine cadets who have been rusticated from Sandhurst in consequence of the recent incendiary fires had been previously punished for disorder on the occasion of the Camberley Fair.
    MR. BRODRICK: Of the cadets under punishment at the College for the serious breach of discipline on the 11th June which followed the Commander-in-Chief's action on the 10th June seven out of twenty cadets were among the twenty-nine in "C" Company now rusticated. The numbers punished were only a small proportion of those who took part in the disturbance.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: Is there any reason to suppose that the whole twenty-nine were guilty?
    MR. BRODKICK: I cannot say the exact number.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: Has the smallest inquiry been made as to their guilt?
    MR. BRODRICK: A large number of cadets, more than 100, were engaged in the disturbance, so that a very small proportion has been penalised. It is impossible to state the exact numbers or the names of those who were engaged in the disturbance.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that those who were penalised were present at the time of the disturbance?
    MR. BRODRICK: They were not penalised at that time in consequence of the disturbance, but the general state of indiscipline at Sandhurst has been such during the last few weeks that it was necessary for the Commander in-Chief to take serious action.
    *MR. ROBERT SPENCER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state the other day that there was no charge—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has no right to refer to an answer given to a previous Question.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government proposes to give facilities for the discussion of the Motion concerning the recent proceedings at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Henley Division of Oxford.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As my hon. friend is aware, the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for War undoubtedly has precedence over other War Office Votes. I think, if my hon. friend were looking for an opportunity on the Estimates for discussing the question, in which I know he is interested, I could not, as at present advised, with the small remaining time at our disposal before the adjournment for the holidays, give special facilities for discussing it.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the presence of this Motion on the Paper has the effect of preventing a Motion for the adjournment of the House?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is arguing an obvious matter.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: Has not the right hon. Gentleman given a promise that blocking Motions shall not be used, as the Motion on the Paper has been used, with the consent of the Government?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR'Sreply was inaudible.
    LORD HUGH CECILagain rose.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I ask the First Lord of the Treasury, is it not a fact that when the new Rule was passed, making two days notice of starred Questions necessary instead of one, the right hon. Gentleman gave a pledge—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must surely know that that does not arise out of the Question.
    LORD HUGH CECILagain rose.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the noble Lord and the hon. Member that they have not the privilege of disregarding the ruling of the Chair.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Let us have some order.
    MR. PIRIE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give two days for the debate on the Secretary for War's Vote?
    *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.

    Crown Foreshore Rights near Cork Harbour.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the extent of the Crown foreshore adjoining Cork Harbour which in November, 1899, was let to the War Department at a renta of 2s. 6d. per annum; and, seeing the this foreshore was subsequently sold by the Department in June, 1900, will he state the amount paid.
    MR. BRODRICK: Sixteen perches of foreshore were so rented. The hon. Member has been misinformed as to the sale of the foreshore by the War Department.
    MR. WEIR: Have not the Commissioners of Woods and Forests made the sale to the War Office?
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say.

    Fleet Reserves.
    LORD CHARLES BERKSFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of men that has been fixed as requisite for the Reserves of the Fleet, giving in detail seamen, seamen gunners, artificers, and stokers in the engine room department, and marines; and whether the numbers considered necessary are all available; and, if not, what arc tie deficiencies.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLB-FORSTER,): The number of Reserves requisite
    1370
    for manning the war fleet at the present time is 10,420, including 3,000 firemen. There is at present a deficiency of 2,700 stokers on the Active Service List, in consequence of which, after reckoning in the 3,700 stokers and firemen available from the Reserves, there is a deficiency of about 2,000 stokers. With this exception, all the other ratings are available. The question of the deficiency of stokers is engaging the attention of the Admiralty, and the best method of remedying it is being considered by the Committee under the presidency of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick. I should like to add that, with the exception of the stoker ratings, there is a large number of men available in the Reserve to supply the waste of war, but the number, though large, is not considered adequate, and steps are being taken to increase it.

    India Office Reception.
    MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the cost of the evening party at the India Office on Friday last, and will the cost be charged to Indian or Imperial revenues.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The gathering alluded to was not an evening party, but a State ceremony of importance, commemorating the fact that for the first time in the history of this country the Sovereign, at his Coronation, occupied the position of Lord Paramount of India. The cost of this ceremony will be about £7,000, and, as I informed the House on June 20th, this will be charged to the revenues of India.
    MR. CAINE: Has the Government of India consented to have this amount charged to the Indian revenues?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: It is not a question of consulting the Indian Government. The India Council is supreme.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: In view of the fact that these Indian gentlemen were guests of the King for the Coronation, I hope that the expense will not be allowed to fall on India. It is too mean.

    Indian Gold Reserve.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state in what securities the Gold Reserve Fund of India, £3,455,282, is mainly invested.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The whole amount of "the Gold Reserve Fund has been invested in the purchase of 2¾ per cent. Consolidated Stock of the nominal value of £3,711,047.

    Indian Rupee Re-coinage.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what progress has been made with the re-coinage of the two issues of rupees of 1840, which the Government of India decided to re-coin on account of the coins having reached the limit of light weight.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: Arrangements have been made by the Government of India for the re-coinage in 1902–3 of such rupees of the issues of 1840 as have been withdrawn from circulation under orders issued in July, 1901, and January, 1902. But I am not able to state how many of these rupees have been re-coined up to the present time.

    Indian Military Factories.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the estimated annual output of each of the new military factories in India, viz., the Cordite Factory in the Nilgherries, the Gun Carriage Factory at Jubbulpore, and the Small Arms Factory at Ishapore. Can he say how many labourers and artisans it is proposed to employ at these factories, and have any arrangements yet been made to train natives of India in the work of each factory.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I regret that I cannot make any public statement of the figures asked for by the hon. Member. As regards the training of natives for the work of these factories, I have received no report from India, and have no reason to believe that there is any lack of skilled labour for the purposes required.

    Indian Famine Inquiries.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have yet considered the expediency of instituting a local inquiry into the economic condition of typical villages in famine areas, with a view to consider the best remedial measures to be adopted.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The inquiry suggested is not a practical method of investigation, and as such does not find favour with those who are conversant with drought and its consequences.

    The Dewan of Dhar's Estate.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, under the Hindu law of inheritance, the property of Bapu Raghunath, who held office as Dewan of Dhar, became by his death in 1837 the property of his six sons in six equal shares; that the share falling to Ramchandra Rao, one of the sons, was forfeited in 1857 for his alleged complicity in the mutiny, and that this forfeiture did not include the property of the other sons of Bapu Raghunath; will he explain why a grandson of Bapu, viz., Krishna Rao Raghunath, is not entitled to claim a sixth part of his grandfather's estate, seeing that his father, to whom it fell on the death of Bapu, took no part whatever in the mutiny.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I cannot discuss the legal hypothesis raised by the hon. Gentleman in the first part of his Question. As to the latter part of it, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me to him on the 12th of May last.†
    MR. WEIR: I shall take the earliest possible opportunity of calling attention to this matter.

    Plundering of Indian Mails.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Report on the Post Office of India shows that during the
    † See (4) Debates, cvii, 1342.

    1373
    financial year 1900–1 there were fifty-seven cases in which mails were plundered by highway robbers, of which forty-two were in British Territories and fifteen in Native States. Will he state the value of the mails thus plundered; I have any measures been taken for their better protection; and can he say how many similar cases of robbery occurred during the financial year 1901–2.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I am aware of the figures quoted from the I Post Office Report. The paragraph of the Report from which the figures are taken shows that the entire mail was recovered in fourteen cases and a part of the mail in twenty-eight cases, and that the Government suffered loss in nineteen cases, the total amount of the loss being about £171. I am not aware that any special measures have been taken for the better protection of the mails. The Post Office Report for 1901–2 has not; yet reached me.

    Hayti.
    THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, having regard to the condition of Hayti as reported to His Majesty's Government, and looking to the proximity of the Island to British and American possessions, it is proposed to approach the Government of the United States to take joint or any other action which, under the circumstances, may be deemed advisable.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The latest information received from Port-au-Prince shows that although the political situation is unsettled, there is no immediate danger to foreign interests. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any action of the nature suggested. His Majesty's Consul General at Port-au-Prince may be relied upon in case of necessity to act promptly, either in conjunction with I his colleagues or independently, for the protection of-British life and property.

    British Representation at Vladivostock.
    THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the. Under Secretary of State for
    1374
    Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the increasing importance of Vladivostock, and looking to the representation of other Powers by Consuls, he will consider the advisability of appointing a British Consul, or in the meantime of placing the district under the supervision of the British Consul at Yokohama for commercial purposes.
    LORD CRANBORNE: The advisability of appointing an agent for commercial purposes at Vladivostoek is under consideration. An arrangement by which the district was placed under the supervision of His Majesty's Consul at Yokohama would most probably prove unsatisfactory.

    High Wycombe Disturbances.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at Beaconsfield Petty Sessions on the 7th instant, at which two men were sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment in connection with riotous proceedings at High Wycombe on 26th ultimo; whether he is aware that Police Constable Wright was maltreated on this occasion; and whether, in view of the number of cases in England of police constables injured in the discharge of their duty, the Home Office will introduce legislation with a view to obtain some compensation for wounded policemen charged on the locality.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ritchie,): The cost of police is in England a local charge, and pensions and gratuities given to policemen injured in the discharge of duty come from local funds. No change in the law appears to me necessary.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of adopting the Irish system in these matters?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not?

    Atlantic Shipping Combination — Mr. Pierpont Morgan and the Admiralty.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, before the Admiralty

    1375
    makes any agreement with Air. Pierpont Morgan, the House of Commons will have an opportunity of considering the question.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Government have undertaken to make a statement on the various questions raised by the Atlantic Shipping Combination as soon as they are in a position to do so. We do not think it would be expedient at the present stage to tie our hands by giving the pledge suggested in the Question.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the Government in a position to give an undertaking that no arrangement for subsidizing these ships will be made until the Report of the Committee now sitting on subsidies has been issued?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Government are not ready to give any further pledge.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I will put a Question which I assure you is relevant. Will the Government undertake to make 110 arrangements until the Report of the Steamship Subsidies Committee is in the possession of Members?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, I cannot give any such undertaking.

    Metropolitan Police—Summer Uniforms and Headgear.
    MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he will consider the propriety of supplying the Metropolitan police with a special head dress during very hot weather.
    *MR. RITCHIE: The question of supplying the Metropolitan police with a special head dress during very hot weather has been the subject of consideration on many occasions, but it has not been found possible to provide a substitute for the helmet at present in use which would afford better protection from heat and from blows.

    Glanders in the Metropolis.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the continued prevalence of glanders in the Metropolis;
    1376
    and whether he has received any evidence showing the source of the disease to be the public drinking trough; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of closing these troughs.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBUHY,): No, Sir. The evidence we have does not bear out the suggestion contained in the Question. The Metropolitan Drinking Fountain Association have, however, fixed taps to a great number of the troughs, so that fresh water can be drawn by drivers in their own buckets.

    Achanault Deer Forest.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the acreage of the Deer Forest of Achanault, Ross-shire, is not mentioned in the amended Deer Forest Return, 1899; and will he ascertain why this has been omitted.
    *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The Lord Advocate has already informed the hon. Member on more than one occasion that the Return in question was derived from information supplied by the assessors; that it is impossible to have a complete and exact return of acreage without survey; that the Secretary for Scot land does not consider that any public purpose would be served by embarking on such an undertaking, and that he does not propose to make any further inquiry in the matter.
    *MR. WEIR: Is it not a fact that the information obtained by the assessor is supplied by the landlord or his factor?
    *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I am unable to say.

    Glenshiel Tenant's Petition.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a petition from the tenants of Invershiel and Morvich-Kintail, parish of Glenshiel, Ross-shire, pointing out that they arc in need of an extension of their holdings; and

    1377
    whether he will use his influence with the owner of the estate in support of the petitioners' application for land.
    *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Secretary for Scotland has made inquiries, which have elicited the fact that the Trustees who are the owners of the estate have no land which they are empowered to grant to the tenants mentioned. The said tenants are not, and never were, crofters. They were, at the date of the passing of the Crofters Act, cottars, paying no rent, and the land which they now hold was subsequently granted to them by the estate ex gratia.

    Irish Horse Fairs.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the great damage done to farmers and breeders by the forestalling of the great horse fairs of Ireland, such as Banagher Great Fair, the Cahirmee Fair, and many others, he will take steps to enforce the Act which forbids sales on the streets so as to prevent the legal day of the fair being anticipated, and foreign and other buyers forestalled.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): In the case of the Banagher Horse Fair held on the 16th September, 1901, the police were instructed to caution persons causing obstructions in the streets of Birr, Frankford, and Ferbane on the days preceding the fair, and, in the event of their persisting, to take their names, etc., with a view to prosecution. Any powers possessed by the police are derived from 14 and 15 Viet. cap. 92, Section 10, Sub-section 10, and Section 13, Sub-section 3. The provisions of the first mentioned section are rendered inoperative by the fact that the custom of exposing animals for sale on the streets is an ancient one—in most towns without date, but almost invariably existent for from fifty to one hundred years. To enforce Section 13, an actual obstruction must occur before a constable can give a direction to "move on," as, if there be no obstruction, and if his direction be disobeyed, he has no remedy, either by arrest or asking name for
    1378
    summons. I am making further inquiry, through the Home Office, as to the practice in England in similar circumstances.

    Irish Educational Examination Results.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask I the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-tenant of Ireland whether he can say why the results of the examinations in Irish, French, Latin, and instrumental music, which were held by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland in July, I 1901, have not been communicated to I the candidates examined or to the authorities of the training colleges.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the results are now about to be communicated to all the Training Colleges.

    Provision for Deaf, Dumb, and Blind in Ireland.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at a meeting of the Guardians of the North Dublin Union relative to the condition of the deaf and dumb and blind in Ireland; and whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the Report of the Royal Commission of 1888 by legislation whereby the State should be made responsible for their maintenance and education, and thus relieve the guardians of the annual sums now expended for this purpose.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, out of the thousands of blind persons in Ireland, only about five hundred are provided for in institutions largely supported by the rates; and, seeing that the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the condition of the blind, which sat in 1889, declared that their condition called for immediate legislation, will he say what steps the Government propose to take to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am unable to give any more definite undertaking than that made by my right hon. friend the Attorney General for Ireland, on the 5th May.† I will see that the question is not lost sight of.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: How many years are to elapse before the Report of the Commission receives the serious attention of the Irish Government? The Report was made in the year 1889.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: And the Attorney General told me the matter was receiving sympathetic attention.

    Fair Rents in Kerry.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the fair rent fixed on the holding of Mr. William O'Connell by the County Court Judge of Kerry on the 1st instant, at the old rent of £40, while the poor law valuation was £32; and whether he can take any steps to obtain a revision of this decision.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to this Question is obviously in the negative.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence showed that this tenant had spent £500 on improvements and the landlord nothing at all?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. FLAVIN: This is a very serious matter, and I will take the first opportunity to call attention to it.

    Police Shadowing of United Irish League Members at Millstreet.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the secretary of the Millstreet Branch of the United Irish League is subjected to a system of police supervision whenever he appears at the Millstreet fairs or markets for business as a farmer; that he is followed into houses, and his private
    † See (4) Debates, cvii., 627.
    1380
    conversation listened to by policemen; and that Messrs. Daniel Buckley and John Williams, evicted tenants, and Mr. Timothy Corcoran, farmer, are similarly followed by the constabulary; and, having regard to the characters of these persons, will he say wily their movements are thus watched.
    MR. WYNDHAM: An organised attempt to boycott the tenant of an evicted farm was made at Millstreet fair on the 1st instant. The persons named in the Question were kept under police supervision on the occasion, because the police had good reason to believe from their movements at the fair that they were engaged in the illegal practice of boycotting.
    MR. SHEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men are shadowed by the police on every occasion they make their appearance?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, because it is believed they are carrying on a con-spiracy.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman get his information from the police?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes.

    Vagrancy Conviction at Millstreet.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 30th June a tramp named Stephen Kirby, an ex-member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, was arrested for having abused a servant in the employment of Dr. R. R. Leader, J. P., Millstreet, on being refused alms; and that he was immediately taken before Mr. H. W. Leader, J. P., a cousin of Dr. Leader's, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour, and to a further term of four months imprisonment in default of finding bail; will he state how long Mr. H. W. Leader has been a Justice of the Peace, and how often has he adjudicated at petty sessions; and why this man Kirby was not charged before the ordinary Court instead of being dealt with summarily.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are generally as stated in the Question, except that it is not known whether Kirby had served in the constabulary. I am making further inquiry into the matter, and perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question on Tuesday or Wednesday next.

    Barnane (Tipperary) Band Parade—Interference of Police.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday 29th June the drum band went on a practice march through Fishmoyne, Killiskeghan, Goolden's Cross, and Cannell's Cross, and that they were on the following Monday warned by Sergeant Geoghegan, Royal Irish Constabulary, that District Inspector Duff gave orders that such parades should not take place in future; and, seeing that there was no demonstration or disturbance of the peace, will he explain why the constabulary authorities have interfered to prevent the public appearance of this band.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has not been correctly informed on the facts. The police did not warn the band that such demonstrations would be prevented in future, but merely stated that no demonstration of an ostensibly intimidatory character would be permitted in the vicinity of the residence of a gentleman residing at Barnane, who has been the object of considerable intimidation and who, in consequence, has been placed under special police protection.

    Case of Philip Dunn, Shanakil.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 1st July, whilst Philip Dunn, of Shanakill, was cutting hay on a farm from which he had been evicted two years previously, he was arrested by Sergeant Smith and two constables acting on the instructions of the steward of the property; can he state whether these policemen had any warrant for Dunn's arrest; is he aware that Dunn was kept in custody for over seven hours, and subsequently taken before a magistrate who immediately discharged him;
    1382
    and if it is shown that Dunn was wrongfully arrested, will steps be taken to offer him any compensation or apology for his detention by the constabulary.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The steward cautioned Dunn against cutting the hay. He refused and became very violent. The sergeant, fearing a breach of the peace, arrested Dunn, who was armed with a scythe. He was taken before a magistrate as soon as possible and discharged, to enable the landlord to take proceedings. There are no grounds for awarding compensation to Dunn, as suggested, and no grounds for an apology by reason of his detention.

    Crime in County Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the Summer Assizes, held in Ennis for County Clare, the Lord Chief Justice addressing the Grand Jury said there was no Bill to go before them; and whether, in view of this statement as to; the condition of Clare, the proclamation of the county under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act will be revoked.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. There has not been an improvement in the condition of Clare such as would justify the Government in revoking the proclamation.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not a fact that the Lord Chief Justice congratulated the Grand Jury on the marked improvement in the condition of the county, and in view of that statement will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of at once releasing the men who are imprisoned not under the ordinary law?
    MR. WYNDHAM: There has been an improvement, but not such as to justify my taking the course suggested.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is there any crime in this county?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered, and I must ask the hon. Member not to persist in putting further Questions.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Yes, but a paragraph was taken out of my Question. There is more crime in your constituency than in County Clare.

    Trial of the Annaghmore Rioters.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any decision has yet been come to by the Government as to whether the venue of the trial will be changed in the case of the Orangemen prosecuted in connection with the Annaghmore riots, County Armagh; and whether the Crown intends to challenge any jurors at the trial.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): At my right hon. friend's request I will reply to this Question. The accused will be tried at Armagh Assizes. The Crown will there follow the rule observed in all other cases, namely, take such steps as may be considered necessary to secure an impartial trial.

    Kenmare and Sneem Mail Service.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any improvement in the mail service between Kenmare and Sneem, County Kerry, will be effected; whether arrangements have been made so as to ensure the arrival of the mail at Sneem at 9.45 a.m., as was formerly the case, and the delays obviated whereby the mail arrives at 11.30 a.m. or in some cases at twelve o'clock.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY To THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Since November last it has been found necessary to postpone the arrival of the mail at Sneem by twenty minutes owing to the increased bulk of the mails conveyed by the car from Kenmare. The mails are sometimes late owing to the late running of the train to Headfort Junction, but every effort is made to maintain punctuality as far as possible. The Postmaster General regrets that it is not practicable to accelerate the service to Sneem.

    Telephone Service in Cork.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the postal authorities are aware of the dissatisfaction expressed by the commercial communities of Cork city and county with the state of the trunk telephonic communication between Cork and the neighbouring towns, and whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Post Office has refused the demand of merchants of Mallow and neighbourhood to be connected with the trunk telephone which passes through Mallow, on the ground that it would interfere with the through communication between Cork and England; and, seeing that the calls between Cork and England are few in number, will the Department order an inquiry as to the possibility of establishing on a paying basis telephonic communication between Cork city and Bandon, Kanturk, Mallow, Fermoy, and other surrounding towns.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the postal authorities have received any representations from Cork city and county merchants as to the want of telephonic communication between Cork and Youghal; and, seeing that a short time before the trunk telephones were taken over by the Government the National Telephone Company were about to put up a line to Youghal, which only requires extension from Midleton (which is half of the distance), and in view of the importance of Youghal as a seaport and a centre of the brick-making industry, will the Post Office authorities take steps to meet the requirements of the commercial communities concerned.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The question of extending the trunk system to Youghal has been carefully considered on several occasions, but there seems no probability that the revenue would cover the cost of working the line. The Postmaster General would, however, provide the line, if a guarantee were given. The Postmaster General is considering whether a trunk telephone service can be afforded at Tipperary and Mallow, by means of the trunk circuit

    1385
    which passes near those towns. As regards the other places mentioned, the Postmaster General fears that the amount of traffic to be expected would not justify him in incurring the heavy expenditure which would he involved in providing trunk communication unless a guarantee is given on the same terms as for extension of the trunk wire system in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    MR. FLYNN: May I ask, cannot the Postal Authorities communicate with the leading merchants interested, with a view to securing the service at once, without waiting for a guarantee?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not think that can be done. If the local people are in a position to guarantee a sufficient amount of business, of course the line would be proceeded with, but at present the Post Office does not feel justified in starting it.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the wire through Mallow is little used? Could not that be made available?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question cannot be argued.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Telephone Company have practically decided to extend the line to Youghal?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that that affects my answer.

    Kilmurray Postal Arrangements.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that some months ago a letter box was erected in the village of Kilmurray, that the morning delivery of letters takes place about 8.30 a.m., and the box is cleared about three hours afterwards; and, seeing that the residents in the locality complain of the insufficient time for replying to the morning post, and of being compelled to send their letters by special messenger to the Lissavarda Post Office, will he recommend that the time for collection in Kilmurray be extended.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General recently caused inquiry to be made as to the possibility of affording a later collection of letters at Kilmurray, but he regrets that in view of the high cost of the existing service, the additional expense involved would not be warranted.

    Irish Lights.
    SIR CHARLES CAYZER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that no inspection or report on the condition of the Irish lighthouses, buoys, and beacons, excepting Tralee and Fenit, has been made by the Commissioners of Irish Lights and forwarded to the Board of Trade, in accordance with the provisions of Section 652 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, during the years 1898, 1899, 1900, and 1901; and, seeing the Commissioners of Irish Lights state in their Report that it is not incumbent on the general lighthouse authorities to make inspections or reports at any specified period, but as they think fit, whether he will say whose duty it is to inspect and report on the condition of the Irish lights, and issue instructions for this to be regularly carried out in future.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, but I must point out to my hon. friend that the duty of inspecting under the section relates only to the light houses, buoys and beacons belonging to, or under the management of local lighthouse authorities. It is the duty of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to inspect all such lighthouses, buoys, and beacons, and to make general reports of the results of their inspections to the Board of Trade, but as the Commissioners point out, there is no obligation upon them to inspect or report at any specified period. The Board of Trade have no power to issue any instructions, but I have called the attention of the Commissioners to the fact that no systematic inspection has been made during the last four years, and I have been informed by them that they are taking steps to make further inspections during the present year.
    MR. FLYNN: Are we to understand that the Commissioners of Irish Lights are entirely independent of Parliamentary control or responsibility?
    MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where their Reports can be seen? I can never find them.
    [No answer was returned.]

    Crown Foreshore Rights in Connemara.
    MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at the last petty sessions at Carna, Connemara, a man named Hugh King had several parties summoned for loss and damage for cutting and removing sea weed, and that the agent of the estate claimed on behalf of the landlord not only the foreshore adjoining the tenants farms, but the sea weed on the rocks situated in deep water away from the shore; and whether, seeing that Mr. King has had several summonses of a similar nature tried before the Carna Petty Sessions Court within the last four months, and has had the defendants fined and imprisoned, will the Board of Trade take steps to assert the rights of the Crown against this landlord.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Board of Trade are taking steps to assert the rights of the Crown.

    Rostrevor and Warrenpoint Demonstrations.
    MR. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, having regard to the uniformly orderly conduct of the Orangemen of Armagh, he could state on what grounds the Orange Demonstration, for July 12th, had been prohibited from taking place at Rostrevor, and would the Government acquiesce in the proposal to hold it at Warrenpoint, and take steps to prevent Nationalist interference with the meeting.
    MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid he had also given the Chief Secretary private notice of a Question on the same subject. He wanted to know why it was
    1388
    not practicable to prevent Nationalist disturbers of the peace from entering the town in the same way that Orangemen, on another occasion, were prohibited entering Donegal.
    MR. LEAMY: Is it not the case, that last July it was necessary for the Rostrevor Catholics, by ringing the chapel bell, to summon Catholics to their aid to defend the convent from the attacks of Orangemen?
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid the notices of questions only reached him as he entered the House, and. he had not had time to make a study of them. The Government had taken the action they had done because the Lord Lieutenant and himself held that Rostrevor was not a suitable place for an excursion of the kind proposed, and they had arrived at that conclusion after a study of what took place at Rostrevor last year. After all what had been done was only an extension of the power, frequently exercised, of preventing processions going down particular streets. It was only a reasonable extension of that practice to say that an excursion should not go to a particular place where there was likely to be a breach of the peace. That was the principle on which they had acted. He had only just received a copy of the proclamation. It was doubtful whether it would cover a meeting on the further side at Warren point. But it was almost a physical impossibility to stop an excursion train at any other point before Warren point was reached. A meeting could be held at Warren point, but only on the condition that the procession did not advance in the direction of Rostrevor. People going there must proceed individually, and not with bands and banners in procession.
    *MR. ARCHDALEasked whether he was to understand that if, on an Orange meeting being advertised for a certain place, the Nationalists chose to call an opposition meeting, the Orange meeting would be proclaimed.
    MR. WYNDHAMreplied that no such general deduction could be made. The Government action had been dictated by considerations as to the peculiar fitness of the place for a meeting.

    London Water Bill.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the two decisions arrived at by the Joint Committee of both Houses upon the London Water Bill, he will consider the advisability of not taking the Committee stage of the recommitted Bill until the evidence is in the hands of Members.
    CAPTAIN NOETON: I may also ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange that the London Water Bill shall not be considered in Committee until the evidence given before the Joint Committee has been for some time in the hands of Members; and whether he can say when the evidence will be circulated.
    MR SYDNEY BUXTON: May I also ask the President of the Local Government Board when the evidence given before the Joint Committee on the London Water Bill will be circulated; and whether he will arrange not to take the Bill in Committee until the evidence is in the possession of Members, in order to enable them to deal satisfactorily with the Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I explained to the House yesterday that it is wholly unprecedented that evidence given before a Hybrid Committee should be in the hands of hon. Members before further Parliamentary proceedings are taken with reference to the Bill to which it relates. As a matter of fact I think it will be in the hands of Members today I cannot consent to postpone the consideration of the Bill which is put down for tomorrow, because the evidence was not published earlier. In my judgment, the evidence is not material for the consideration of the Bill in the House.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: But was not this Committee quite exceptional?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Surely if the evidence is to be in our hands in a few minutes, it is hardly treating hon. Members fairly to ask them to consider it at such short notice. Why not postpone the Bill till next week?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not admit that the evidence is material to the further consideration of this Bill, and under the circumstances I think it is unreasonable to ask the Government at this period of I he session to defer the Bill another week.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dispute as to the rulings of the Chairman of that Committee?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper is as to when the evidence will be circulated. That has been answered.

    Civil Servants and Political Controversies.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the rule against members of the Civil Service taking part in public controversies applies to the High Corn-1 missioner in South Africa, and other representatives of the Crown serving abroad.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Treasury minute referred to applies only to civil servants in this country under the Treasury.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to cause the Minute to be reprinted. It is impossible to find it in the Library.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will consider it.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: When do the Government propose to introduce the Supplementary Estimate of £3,000,000 for the repatriation of the Boer prisoners?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of that question.
  MR. PIRIE: In view of the fact that no fewer than four urgent questions of recent development require discussion on the War. Office Vote, viz., the Army I Medical Vote, the Spion Kop affair, the report on Military Education, and the

  1391
  Remount Inquiry, will the First Lord of the Treasury give, an extra day for the discussion of the Vote?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUE: I do not agree that all these questions urgently demand discussion. Some are undoubtedly of pressing importance and legitimate subjects of debate, but I cannot promise an additional day.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  They have agreed to,
  Freshwater Fish (Scotland) Bill.

NEW BILLS.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have to present a Bill to make better provision for regulating the employment of children. I have no hope of being able to push the measure forward this session, but I have been pressed to introduce it by those interested in the matter, in order that the proposals of the Government may be ascertained. A Departmental Committee, which sat last year to inquire into the subject, made certain recommendations, and those in the main are embodied in the Bill. The Committee found that special mischief was done where children were employed late at night or early in the morning, and under conditions injurious to health or morals. We propose, in order to remedy this evil, to give power to County Councils and Borough Councils to regulate by bylaws the employment of children. Of course those bylaws will not apply to children already protected in their employment by the Factory Acts and the Mines Act. The making of the bylaws is entirely at the option of the Councils, but when made they will require the sanction of the Home Office before they can come into operation, and the Home Office, before giving its sanction, will ascertain the local opinion with regard to the bylaws. In addition to this it is proposed to prohibit generally, by the Bill, the employment of children in carrying weights which are injurious to health, and also
  1392
  in other occupations likely to be injurious to life, limb, or health, and their employment between nine o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the morning. Those are the main provisions of the Bill, which I have put forward with a view to making the proposals of the Government public before the end of the session, and not with any hope of pressing it forward this year.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he had heard with pleasure the statement made by the Home Secretary on a subject that really was deserving of the very serious consideration of his Department. There had been going on now for some years the employment of children under conditions that were neither conducive to health nor beneficial to morality. The streets of our large towns had been crowded very often by those young traders, who had been trading under conditions which all Members of the House must desire to see improved. He hoped that this Bill would be laid before the House very soon, in order that Members might study it before the adjournment, and have full time to consider it before an opportunity was afforded for the Second Reading. There were in connection with this matter various delicate questions to be considered with reference to the livelihood of those children, and he hoped the Bill would be drawn in such a form as not to excite unnecessary opposition on the part of parents with respect to the employment of children after leaving school. There was also another point which he might refer to. He thought the Home Secretary said the Bill was more or less permissive in its character and that it rested with the local authority, to say whether they would make bye-laws. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that proposal very carefully. He thought that any law of this kind should he made as far as possible universal, so that there should not be varying conditions in different localities. It would conduce to greater benefit, if the operation of the law it was proposed to enact were universal.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I said there are certain provisions that will depend upon

  1393
  the local authorities making bye-laws, but I also said that we propose to deal with the worst evils irrespective of that.
  Bill to make better provision for regulating the employment of children, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Ritchie and Mr. Jesse Collings.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  "To make better provision for regulating the employment of children," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next and to be printed. [Bill 270].

  SUPPLY.
  [SIXTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

  class II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £769,185, be granted to His 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, 1903, for the expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. DILLONmoved the reduction of the Vote by £500,000. He said the total net cost of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the current financial year was set down as £1,369,185, being an increase of £13,564 on the cost in the previous year. The total number of the force was 11,191 men. Before dealing with the charges he had to make against the action of the Constabulary in recent years, he desired to say a few words by way of renewing the protest which had been frequently made from time to time against the constitution of this force as a military force of occupation in Ireland, and against its monstrous cost. As a matter of fact, in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary they had a force which, under the guise of police, was really an armed Constabulary not for the purpose of discovering or preventing
  1394
  crime—for that was a task to which they devoted very little of their attention—but for the purpose of maintaining an evil political system in the country. It was the most expensive force per head of the population among whom it worked, of any force of a similar character in the whole civilised world, and that population was the poorest in Europe. It was nothing short of an outrage that in a poor country which was growing poorer every year, there' was wasted a sum which he estimated at at least,£800,000 in unnecessary pay to the Royal Irish Constabulary for the purpose of maintaining the landlord system in the country—an expenditure which would become instantly unnecessary if only there was a system of compulsory sale in the country in order that they might deal with the landlords. If Ireland were inhabited by a population addicted to crime he could understand a Minister standing up and making a plausible case for the maintenance of this monstrously expensive police force, but what made the case of the Irish Members infinitely stronger was the fact which could not be denied that this force was maintained in the midst of the most crimeless and most peaceable population in Europe. But the Irish police force, in addition to its costliness, was the most ineffective police force in the world. The only duty for which it was effective was the suppressing of meetings and interfering with the carrying out of political operations. This question of the ineffectiveness of the Irish police had been raised again and again in the House of Commons. In August, 1880, when a Motion to reduce the Vote for the Constabulary was before the Committee, Mr. John Bright said the protest the Irish party had made was a reasonable one, and he hoped the time would soon come when the police system of Ireland might be put on a footing as judicious and as conformable to our notions of freedom as the police systems of England and Scotland. Twenty-one years had passed and no step had been taken towards realising that anticipation of Mr. Bright. Today, with a much smaller population, they had a much more expensive police force than in 1880. The whole cost of the Irish Constabulary was thrown upon the public Exchequer in 1847 by Sir Robert Peel. It was really thrown on the Exchequer in relief of the Irish

  1395
  landlords—a most injudicious, and, economically, a most unsound proceeding, because so long as the cost of the police had to be levied from the landlords—who in those days paid all the rates—they had a certain interest in keeping down the cost of the police force. But, I the moment the cost was transferred to the general taxpayer, that motive disappeared altogether, and the cost went up by leaps and bounds. In the year 1859–60 the cost was £700,000 and the population at that time in round numbers was 0,000,000. The cost of the Constabulary was now £1,300,000. The population had decreased 1,500,000, but the cost of the constabulary had precisely doubled. He challenged any man to bring forward a similar state of things in the civilised world.
  If they pursued those figures further in detail, they found this appalling fact, that, in Ireland alone of all civilised countries, the cost of the police had progressed proportionately to the decrease of the population. What was the explanation of that phenomenon? The only explanation was that it had been the business of the Irish police, during the last fifty years to exterminate the Irish people, and the horrible work in which they had been engaged had made the whole system of law so unpopular that the Government felt it necessary to maintain this gigantic force in the country to keep up their political power. In the year 1841 the population of Ireland was 8,170,000; in 1851 it was 6,500,000; in 1861 it was 5,700,000, in 1871 it was 5,400,000; in 1881 it was 5,174,000; in 1891 it was 4,704,000; and last year it was 4,456,000. So that in the period of 1841 to 1901 the population of Ireland had decreased by exactly one half, and the cost of the Irish Constabulary had doubled. But looking at the case from a different point of view, what was the cost per head of the police in Ireland this year and for many years past? It was, including the City of Dublin, 7s. per head. In England, taking in the boroughs—which, of course, was not really a fair basis of comparison with Ireland, because the latter was a purely rural country—the average cost, excluding the metropolis, was 2s. 4d. per head, as against 7s. in Ireland. And yet, when
  1396
  they turned to the criminal statistics, they found the crimes of violence in England were incomparably greater—particularly the more serious forms of crime—than in Ireland. Apart from that, they knew that a population largely urban, manufacturing and mining, required in normal conditions a much larger and more expensive police force than a rural population. But in England where the conditions of life would justify one in expecting the cost to be nearly double the rate in Ireland, it was only 2s. 4d. as against 7s. in Ireland. The case came out much more strongly when the greater towns were left out. In the county of Buckingham the cost of the police per head was Is. 5d.; in Norfolk Is. 3d.; in Lancashire 2s.; in the West Riding of Yorkshire, which was almost one continuous manufacturing and mining town, the cost was 2s. as against 7s. in rural, crimeless Ireland. In Bradford it was 2s., in Manchester 3s. 8d., and in all Scotland, including the great burghs, it was only 2s. 2½d. And what had they got to show for this? Discontent and no conceivable benefit, not even an effective detection of crime so far as that crime was divorced from agrarianism. One other circumstance. What was the number of policemen in proportion to the population? In Great Britain, eliminating the metropolis, there was one policeman to every 1,200 inhabitants, although there was there a much more difficult class to deal with than in the rural districts of Ireland. It was a good deal less in Scotland. In Ireland, eliminating the City of Dublin, there was one policeman to every 250 of the population. In other words, there were five times as many policemen in proportion to the population in Ireland as in Great Britain. Some time ago, those gentlemen who looked after Ireland discovered that they were underpaid. If they went into any village in England they would find only one policeman, with a walking stick; but if they went into a village of the same size and character in Ireland, say of 1,000 inhabitants, they would find ten or twelve armed men with rifles of the latest pattern and bayonets, and with a military officer at their head. There would, be a barrack with the windows barricaded with iron shutters and all the

  1397
  evidences of a blockhouse. There they were, these men, well fed, fine physically, and with all the appearance of having too much to eat and too little to do. They did discharge the function at certain seasons of the year of cracking the heads of peaceful citizens and watching the railway stations.
  Sir Howard Vincent's Committee, which inquired a short time ago into the condition of the Royal Irish Constabulary, reported that the resignations owing to L injuries on duty had been happily only seven in the last ten years. This condition of affairs, continued the Report, contrasted strongly with that prevailing in any county or urban district in England, where serious assaults on the police were but too frequent. Now, he contended, it was rather remarkable that although the assaults on the police in Great Britain were far more numerous and far graver in their consequences than in Ireland, it required twice the number of policemen in proportion to the population in Ireland than in Great Britain. The Report of the Committee went on—
  "We have now to deal with a statement that the duties of the Royal Irish Constabulary are more severe, more important, repairs more intelligence, and entail greater responsibility than those of any other police force in the United Kingdom. In disturbed localities, and at periods of exceptional excitement, the duties of the police are severe, but not necessarily more so than in England, where trade strikes J sometimes produce much disorder. Agrarian crime has steadily decreased, and sectarian excitement is confined to almost one province in Ireland. … In a large number of the Irish counties the duties of the police are not of a severe character. Political agitation keeps, and has kept, the Irish Constabulary on the alert, but it must be borne in mind that in Ireland there is no professional class."
  The Report then went on to say that the Committee were unable to accept the statement that the duties of the police wore more severe, more important, required more intelligence, and entailed more responsibility than those of any other police force in the United Kingdom, The contrary was the fact. Their chief duty was patrolling. In Ireland all the patrols, even in the daytime, consisted of two men. In England policemen patrolled singly both day and night. And yet these were the gentlemen who considered themselves underpaid. His purpose in referring to the Report was not to emphasise the preposterous nature of the claim for an increase of pay, but of reading
  1398
  that remarkable testimony of the Committee to the peaceable and crimeless character of the country, and to the fact that assaults on the police were much more frequent even in the rural districts of England than in Ireland. It would be seen that the men who formed the Royal Irish Constabulary were indeed a favoured race. He never quite understood why Irish policemen should be compensated when injured in the execution of their duty. They were bettor paid than soldiers, who were not compensated. Policemen were pensioned, and well pensioned, if injured in their duty. But in Ireland a policeman, who was well paid—very highly paid in proportion to the general average of wages—was entitled to retire from the force at an early age, very often in the prime of life, with a large pension; and in addition, if he was injured in discharge of his duty, he not only retired before his full time, but he was entitled to levy a fine on the people of the district in which he was injured, who had no more to do with his injury than the House of Commons; not a fine commensurate with his injury, but a fine levied like the blood money levied in the time of the Norman kings. He instanced the case of one policeman, who, in arresting a drunken man, was kicked on the shin, and who retired on full pension in consequence of his injury, and got £200 out of the district as compensation for his broken shin. Why should an Irish policeman who got his shin kicked be entitled to levy this heavy fine on the district, if the same privilege was not extended to English policemen? He awaited with some curiosity the answer of the Chief Secretary, and he expected the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer to that point. This power to compensate policemen for injuries, which were very often bogus injuries, was used to a ludicrous and most extravagant extent. Their chief complaint against the Irish Constabulary was the expense and unnecessary character of the force, the only use of which was to bolster up and maintain the system of landlordism, which had devastated and ruined Ireland. This enormous amount of money, £1,000,000 a year, was used not for the purpose of protecting the people but of exterminating them. This sum would pay the interest on £30,000,000, and

  1399
  they held that it would be wiser to devote £25,000,000 to a free grant for the purpose of purchasing the landlords' interests in Ireland, and in that way restore peace to that distracted country, and enable the people to flourish and prosper in their native land. Their second complaint was as to the spirit which prevailed in the minds of the Royal Irish Constabulary, owing to the methods of their organisation, and the duties they had to perform. They were not in reality policemen, but were analogous to the system of gendarmerie established under the Third Empire; a system which became hateful to every Empire in Europe. The first lesson that an Irish policeman had to learn was, that his first duty was not to protect the citizen, but that the business for which he would be rewarded and promoted, was the discovery and the creation of—when he could not discover it—agrarian crime, when the necessities of the Government required it. He was trained and sent out on his duty with the particular instruction that he was not going as a servant of the people, to protect them and to see that the peace was preserved, but that he was the servant of the masters of the people, and that he would be rewarded in proportion as he insulted and domineered over the people. There never had been a force, in the whole history of governments, maintained on these lines, which had not become corrupt and hateful to the people of the country.
  Having made these few general remarks, he desired to draw attention to one remarkable fact. He had been for nearly twenty-five years taking an active part in Irish agitation, and throughout the whole of that time, in connection with public meetings, though the people and the police, unhappily, frequently came into collision, he could not remember a single instance where a policeman had been punished for assaulting the people, or a public enquiry held. Although thousands of complaints had been lodged of the scandalous conduct on the part of the police, he never remembered a single case in which the police were reprimanded or punished, or where a public and independent enquiry was held. If that were so, did it not confer an absolute indemnity on the police? Was it not practically telling the police they could do as they liked? It was a terrible thing, and the police would be
  1400
  more than human if they did not domineer over and insult and assault the people. If such a spirit were allowed to spread to the policemen of England, or any other country in the world, the result would inevitably be that the policeman would become insulting and overbearing. Every policeman in England discharged his duty under the knowledge that if he did anything cruel, or was unnecessarily rough, he would be called to account by men directly responsible to the people of the country. What happened at Birmingham the other day? In that town a condition of things existed which, if it had prevailed for a quarter of an hour in Ireland, would have been followed by a shower of bullets and a charge of bayonets. Because the police of Birmingham defended the Town Hall after it had been wrecked, after they themselves had been attacked by the mob for two hours, after a battering-ram had been drawn up before the Birmingham Town Hall for the purpose of breaking in the door in order to get inside to the meeting, the police charged the crowd. In the course of the charge one man fell down, or was knocked down, and cut his head, and subsequently died. Although that was the only man who was killed, and although ninety of the police were injured, the whole of the police were called out and submitted to a rigorous inquiry and a reprimand. In a similar case in Ireland the police, after the first ten minutes, would have fired on the people, and if that was found not to be sufficient, they would have charged with the bayonet, and no inquiry would have been granted. The police would have been defended through thick and thin, and every policeman responsible for the proceeding would have been rewarded out of a fine inflicted on the town. Was it any wonder, when this was the state of things that prevailed in Ireland, that there should be such discontent on the part of the people 1 The police in Ireland, in quiet districts, spent their time in fishing and flirting, and occasionally coursing; in what were called the disturbed districts, where the landlords had trouble in collecting their rents, the police acted as bailiffs to the landlords. It was a monstrous thing that the public funds of this country should be devoted to such a purpose, and it was a monstrous

  1401
  thing that such a force as the Royal Irish Constabulary should be used as bailiffs and rent collectors of the laud-lords. What had been going on in Ireland? In Roscommon, because certain landlords had difficulties with their tenants, and had some trouble in collecting their rents, an enormous force of police was drafted into the district. They patrolled the streets by night and by day, not singly but by threes and fours, spying and eliciting information for the landlord as to where his tenant's cattle were, so tha the might seize it, going into the tenants' houses and advising them that it was their duty to pay their rent. That was not the duty of policemen. Again, whenever a landlord desired to make an expedition through his estates for the purpose of seizing cattle and other goods under distress, the police were held at his disposal at any hour of the night or day. In many cases they had sallied out from the neighbouring towns at twelve o'clock at night and marched all night, as if to attack some Boer laager, for the purpose of lying in wait at some wretched farm in order to seize the cattle the first thing in the morning before the people wore up. Such a thing was an outrage and a gross abuse of public money. If strangers, innocent people, came into the district, patrols were sent after them on bicycles, or upon cars, to watch them and to try to overhear their conversation, and to spy upon them as if they were enemies of the country. How monstrous such a thing was. It was-no part of the duty of the police to constitute themselves partisans of the landlords as against the tenants. They ought to be kept strictlyaloof from all these quarrels, except so far as it was their duty to preserve the peace, which was the principle set at naught in all these cases. He urged the right lion. Gentleman to make some independent enquiry and see what was going on, and put a stop to these practices. On the 23rd of May last four of his constituents were hauled up before the Crimes Court at Frenchpark On the 13th of the previous December they had incited persons not to pay their rent, and they wore hauled up after an interval of five months, during which time no notice had been taken of the offence, on a charge of conspiracy and unlawful assembly. Why were those men left absolutely free for live months, and hauled up at this particular time? Because the agent
  1402
  of the landlord, Mr. Murphy, was coining down to collect the rents on a certain estate, and he gave notice that he wanted these four men, who he believed would be troublesome, removed before a certain day. As a consequence this offence was trumped up against these men, and they were hauled up three or four days before Mr. Murphy's agent came. The solicitor who was defending them had such short notice of the trial that he was compelled to ask for an adjournment, which was usually granted in such cases, but, although there had been this delay of five months, during which no process had been obtained, the Crown stepped in and insisted that there should be no adjournment, and having obtained their point, the unfortunate magistrates, being under the thumb of the Castle, had to do what they were told. Evidence was given as to what took place five months previously at the meeting; the police admitted it was a most peaceful meeting, yet the Crown persisted in pressing for a conviction, and these unfortunate men were convicted, at the request of Mr. Murphy's agent, in order to get them out of the town, and they were actually hauled off to gaol the day before he opened his rent office. These men after their conviction asked leave, which was usually accorded in cases of this kind, on their undertaking to surrender on a certain day, to go and settle their affairs, but even this was refused; So great was the injustice of this case, and so brutal in its nakedness, that he would advise the right lion. Gentleman, if he persisted in persevering in this perverse and wicked work that he had entered upon, at all events to wrap a cloak of decency round his actions. He was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to Rosscrae. There some men were brought up before the Crimes Court in the usual way, evidence of a most illegal character was taken, no charge of brutality in the ordinary sense, or of violence, was brought against them, and they were convicted and sentenced to short terms of imprisonment. They were then told they were to be driven on an outside car to the railway station, nine miles away, and as the day was very wet they asked to be allowed to get their overcoats. This permission was refused, and they were driven through a pitiless storm

  1403
  of rain, and reached the station wet through, shivering with the cold, and in a condition most deplorable. A more gratuitous, unnecessary, and barbarous proceeding he could not conceive. As far as he knew there had never been a rescue of a political prisoner in Ireland, and this procedure was adopted simply for the purpose of insulting and outraging these young men. It was a case of pure savagery, which ought to be denounced by every unprejudiced man.
  He came now to the case of Sergeant Sheridan, and after all these months he thought he was entitled to ask for a full and fair statement of that case. The reason he attached such vital importance to the matter was that he believed there were at present working in the Irish police force many Sergeants Sheridan. He did not say that the heads of the Government approved of the system, but he was convinced that some of their underlings had for years encouraged, patronised, and rewarded work such as that of Sergeant Sheridan, and that many policemen were under the impression that in doing such work they were carrying out the wishes of their superior officers. On 1st January, 1901, Sergeant Sheridan and Constable Mahony were dismissed from the Constabulary, and no charge whatever was alleged against them. Sergeant Sheridan asked for a public inquiry, alleging that he was the victim of a conspiracy. Questions were put in the House, but no satisfactory reply was received. An inquiry was refused, and all the Chief Secretary would say was that the men were dismissed because their evidence against a man named Ryan was conflicting and Unsatisfactory, and that the Lord Lieutenant had a right to dismiss any member of the Constabulary without inquiry if he thought it to be in the interest of the force. Eventually, from outside sources, he learnt that a police officer was making inquiries in the matter in County Leitrim, although the business for which these men were dismissed took place in County Clare. On 15th August the question was again discussed, and the Chief Secretary admitted that Sheridan was a scoundrel, and expressed his regret that Dan McGoohan had been convicted on a false charge. That was the first
  1404
  ray of light they had succeeded in getting in the case. On 17th August he (the hon. Member) determined to raise the matter again, and on that occasion the Chief Secretary admitted that four innocent men had been sent to gaol; and he went on to say that after examining the history of Sergeant Sheridan, he was convinced that he first invented crime and then went out to discover it. Upon such evidence, before a packed jury, that unhappy man was sent to gaol for two years, and he died in broken health a few years after his discharge from prison. In this case Sheridan not only invented the crime but practically committed it. In the case of the stabbing of an ass, Sheridan must have committed the crime or else got somebody else to do it. What happened in this case? Sheridan pounced upon a poor man for this crime, and his solicitor advised him to plead guilty to a crime of which he was absolutely innocent, and he did so, and was sentenced to six months hard labour. His solicitor advised him to take this course because he knew the case was hope-loss against this skilful Irish detective and a packed jury. In the case of Dan McGoohan Sheridan and another constable either cut off the tails of a number of cows themselves or paid somebody else to do it and then arrested McGoohan for the crime. This case was tried in 1897 before Judge Andrews and a Sligo jury. At the first trial McGoohan had been advised to plead guilty, and then the judge might let him off, but he refused to do so, declaring that he would rather go to his grave than plead guilty to a crime which he had not committed. In this case no less than sixty Roman Catholic jurors were ordered to stand out of the box and a purely Protestant jury was sworn. The constable who was concerned in this crime with Sheridan went into the box to give evidence, and when he was appealed to by the prisoner to speak the truth he broke down. The judge then told the jury that if they acquitted the prisoner they would blacken the character of Sheridan, and consequently this unhappy man was sentenced to two years penal servitude, which he had served to the last day. They had dragged all these facts out of the Chief Secretary and the Irish Government.

  1405
  He believed that from most Chief Secretaries they would never have got these facts at all, because they could not afford to allow their skilful detectives and packed juries to be exposed. When this poor man came out he went straight to a magistrate and swore an affidavit as to his innocence, and he understood that compensation was to be given in this case. Think of the agony and shame and loss of character which this man had undergone during his two years imprisonment, which one of the judges had described as worse than penal servitude, and all this man had been offered as compensation was,£100. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He would give one or two other striking facts in connection with this case. When Sheridan came to the barracks at Leitrim, at the time Dan McGoohan was convicted, the district was peaceful, but the moment Sheridan arrived there outrages commenced and were frequent while he was stationed at the barracks. Immediately Sheridan left the neighbourhood those outrages ceased. These pictures of Irish life were not frequently laid before the House, but in his opinion these crimes were going on to a large extent in Ireland at the present moment. After the outrage had been committed, and after McGoohan had been committed for trial a young farmer who was a friend of McGoohan ventured to say that he believed Sheridan had done this crime himself, because he believed that McGoohan was incapable of perpetrating such an abominable crime. Here was Sheridan, who got £5 reward and promotion for getting McGoohan convicted, and he afterwards proposed to get this young farmer convicted in order that he might get another reward and another promotion. That was a picture of Irish life which was not frequently laid before the House of Commons, but which in his opinion was only one instance of what was going on at this moment in Ireland to an enormous extent. He thought he had a right to insist upon the Chief Secretary answering the question—Why was Sheridan not prosecuted? He was told when he asked the question formerly that the Crown could not possibly prosecute Sheridan because they had no evidence.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I think that was earlier.
  MR. DILLONsaid he quite agreed that it was at an earlier stage when it was stated that there was no evidence. But this fact should be remembered. The right hon. Gentleman said in the last debate that it was necessary to have a secret inquiry into the charges against Sheridan, and to give indemnity before hand to the witnesses. He admitted that there was some force in that. After the right hon. Gentleman made that statement Sheridan, with unblushing audacity, said he was the most injured man in the United Kingdom, and that he was the victim of a conspiracy. Sheridan was walking the streets of Dublin after the Government had ample evidence against him. He was defying the Government, and stating that they were afraid to prosecute him, because of the disclosures he was able to make. The Chief Secretary had said that Sheridan was such an extremely clever man that he dazzled a number of his subordinates. It was said that Sheridan was a clever detective officer who became a villain in exercising his profession. The hon. Member was afraid there were a good many more. His subordinates were dazzled with the idea that this kind of business was winked at by the Government, and they thought he was pursuing the course that would lead him to a high pinnacle of promotion. Sheridan had pursued a course of crime, and then by perjury he succeeded in getting innocent men committed to gaol. By that course he had mounted step by step in the police force. No man could tell how many members of the force bad been demoralised by his example. Where was the criminal law? When the hon. Member for North Leitrim was recently at Fall River, Massachusetts, he found Sheridan there masquerading as a patriot who had been driven from the police force because he had arrested a Government spy. It looked as if Sheridan's statement was correct, that the Government were afraid to prosecute him because of the damaging disclosures he had it in his power to make against them. He could conceive no other reason why the evidence given at the secret inquiry by the constables was not used to bring to justice one of the most infamous

  1407
  criminals who had disgraced Ireland for many long years. Why was Sheridan allowed He go free with all that load of crime upon his head? What had become of Sheridan's associate Reid, who was mixed up in the conviction of McGoohan? Reid must have known or suspected; what Sheridan was doing. He should have reported his suspicion to his superior officer. The hon. Member did not know whether Reid was still in the constabulary. If not, on what terms did he get away? Did he receive a gratuity to go away, or did he resign? It was rumoured that Reid had gone to America, but the whole of this business was a mystery. Were the young men who were dazzled by Sheridan retained in the police force? He held that no man who was mixed up in these transactions was fit to be a police officer. The Chief Secretary had stated more than once that no such thing as that of which Sheridan had been guilty was going on in the Irish police, and that this was a solitary instance. How did the right; hon. Gentleman know that? How long did Sheridan pursue his course before he was detected? He was at it for four or five years, and he was held up by his superior officers, the Bench, and the Government, as a model policeman. The hon. Member was convinced, though he admitted the great gravity of the charge, that Sheridan's operations were known to many men in the Irish Constabulary. It would be perfectly impossible, in view of the organisation of the police force, for such transactions as those of Sheridan to go on for five years without their coming to the knowledge of other members of the force. He was assured that there was not a barrack in Ireland where there was not a detective who reported the conversations of the men to the Castle. He had had that information over and over again from members of the force. The right hon. Gentleman therefore was on the horns of a dilemma, and he must select one or other on which to be impaled. Either his police system was not sufficient to select what had been disclosed in the case of Sheridan, or if it was sufficient, then the police force was infected by that most abominable of all systems—the employment of agents provocateurs. The Irish people believed that this
  1408
  policy was winked at by the Government, that it had been in force in Ireland for twenty years, and that many of the most startling and disgusting crimes had been directly or indirectly paid for by the police. There might be more than one Sheridan at work endeavouring to organise crime. The Irish people were firmly convinced, rightly or wrongly, that this abominable system was planted securely in the ranks of the Irish Constabulary, and that the Irish Government winked at the policy of manufacturing and encouraging crime, in order to pave the way for the application of coercion.
  Motion made, arid Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £269,185 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Dillon).
  Mr. WYNDHAMsaid he did not propose to reply to the whole of the speech to which they had just listened. He did not wish to interfere with other Members who desired to address the Committee, but he thought it would be felt that he was entitled to reply at once while the indictment was fresh in the minds of hon. Members. He had had something to say on the subject on 17th August last year. He did not know that it would be brought before the Committee that day, but he certainly made no complaint of its having been so brought forward. He could riot thresh this out by way of question and answer, but he was quite prepared to state what the Government did and why the Government did it. I He said again today what he said on 17th August, that this was a case so distressing and to revolting in its character that there was no satisfactory solution of the problem with which he was confronted in January twelvemonth. He wished to follow the hon. Member step by step. Admitting that much which he said was quite accurate, though deprecating and repudiating most warmly the generally; unsubstantiated charges which he had flung against the police as a whole, in January last year Sergeant Sheridan,; acting with another police officer named Mahoney, came with a story and depositions against an aged tramp called Ryan. These depositions were brought

  1409
  before him when it would have been impossible to proceed against Ryan, because the evidence in these depositions was of the most unsatisfactory and conflicting character. He came, not to the conclusion, but to the suspicion, that these depositions of Sheridan and Mahoney showed that at the worst they had concocted the whole thing, and at best that they had improved the evidence. They stated that they had seen things from a point where it was impossible to see them. There was no evidence, in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, to justify the prosecution of Ryan, and he was remanded from the Petty Sessions in order, if possible, to see whether further evidence could be got. But that not being forthcoming he was discharged. That was what was done in this country and in every country in the world. A man was arrested on suspicion, on evidence which was colourable; but if the Crown law officers did not think that they could procure a conviction, they do not proceed with the prosecution. The Irish Government followed the normal course. They might have prosecuted Sheridan, but if they had done so Sheridan would have gone into the dock and there would have been no evidence against him of any sort or kind. The depositions which were unsatisfactory from the point of view of the prosecution of Ryan gave as little hold in bringing a prosecution against Sheridan and the only result—he tried to form the best judgment he could—he could anticipate was that Sheridan would have been acquitted. He would have been whitewashed; and a man whose character he then deeply suspected would have then been put on a pedestal as a martyr to zeal and would have remained a distinguished member of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He was convinced that the chances of that happening were greater than of its not happening. He thought it was a risk to give this man a fresh start by dismissing him from the dock without a stain on his character, which would have been the worst course that could possibly have been pursued. Being dissatisfied with the way in which Sheridan, who had a good record, had put forward this case against the tramp,
  1410
  he advised the Lord Lieutenant to exercise his power to dismiss him from the force, and also Mahoney who had been with him in producing a case of so unsatisfactory a character. They were dismissed by the Lord Lieutenant acting within the privilege of the Crown. The Crown could dismiss a public servant and give no reason for it, if the Crown believed that that was in the interests of the public. That was done on this occasion. If that had been all, he submitted to the Committee that that was the best course.
  He invited particular attention to this case, because this was a matter in which he stood upon his own defence. On 26th June he had referred to the dismissal of Sheridan because of his depositions against Ryan. The hon. Member for East Mayo had stated that after that he had dragged out of him other revelations in regard to Sheridan. That was not so. Sergeant Sheridan and Mahoney had been dismissed on account of their improper depositions. With regard to this tramp, it was brought to his knowledge that other men who had suffered terms of imprisonment in the past, had been convicted upon the evidence of this same sergeant; and that one of these men who had been imprisoned had, on his release, sworn an affidavit that he was innocent. It was not in consequence of a question put in this House, but prior to that question, that his attention was drawn to the case by County Inspector Urwin, who put before him the facts that this Sergeant Sheridan had secured the conviction of other persons for graver offences. He then had to make a new decision—whether they should hold a public or a secret inquiry. As to a public inquiry—assuming what he now believed to be the truth, that Sheridan had committed these revolting crimes; assuming that he had, if not accomplices, at least one or two policemen, subordinate to him, who did not tell the whole truth in this matter and were prepared to give the evidence which Sheridan suggested—at a public inquiry not one of these men could have been forced or even asked to give any evidence. Every one of them would have had to be informed that he need not incriminate himself, and a public inquiry, therefore, would have been a farce. The second decision he had to take was this; it being

  1411
  alleged or suggested that Sheridan had committed these revolting crimes on previous occasions—whether that inquiry should be a secret one. Rightly or wrongly, he came to the conclusion that nothing would do but a secret and searching inquiry prosecuted by two able officers, with directions to probe the whole matter to the bottom, and to give reparation to the men who had been improperly convicted. That inquiry was held. The two officers arrived at their conclusion on 10th July; at least, that is the date on which they signed their report. He had to form a conclusion on this inquiry, and he confessed that the matter which weighed most in his mind was to establish the innocence of these men who had been wrongly punished, and to make reparation to them. He came to the conclusion, and he was sure he was right, that Bray, who unfortunately had since died, Patrick Murphy and Daniel M'Goohan, were all innocent men wrongly convicted. He had been asked why more compensation had not been given. He had searched the records of the Home Office of this country and found that the highest compensation ever given had been given in this case. But he did not attach so much importance to the money. The most important thing was the clearing of the character of the men. The important thing was to make public reparation to an innocent man, and he made it now. Daniel McGoohan was an innocent man. The conclusion that he was wrongly convicted could not, in his opinion, have been arrived at if he had in the first place prosecuted Sergeant Sheridan, and if, in the second instance, he had held a public inquiry. The officers whom he entrusted with the investigation had his authority to tell the men who were suspected, if not of conniving in, at all events of not exposing, the wrong that was being done, that if they told the whole truth they would not suffer. He did not say whether this was right or wrong. He thought it right, but on this he must accept the judgment of the Committee, to authorise the full indemnity that had been given to these men. That placed him later in a position no one would envy. When he came to believe, as he had come to believe, that these men, and one of them in
  1412
  particular, must have known that Sheridan not only fabricated evidence, but had a hand in committing crime, that he had given an indemnity to a man whose character would shock everybody in this House, he had again to take a personal decision. Had he said, "This is so bad that I must withdraw the indemnity," he should have been guilty of breaking his word. The course he took was to tell the men that they could have the promised indemnity, but that it must be clear to them that they could be employed in no position of trust in the Royal Irish Constabulary in the future; that if they cared to languish at the depôt doing nothing and drawing regulation pay they might do so, but that his advice was that they should get out of the constabulary and seek to make good their offence against their fellows by regaining a place amongst honest men. Two men—Reed and Anderson—went. That was the painful story. He wished everybody in the House to know what he did, and that he did it with the view of preventing the recurrence of such events.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he wished to say one or two words upon this matter, because he did not think any one accustomed to the consideration of law and justice could have listened without feelings of pain and astonishment to the facts that had been brought out before the Committee. He would be sorry to make any reflection upon the Chief Secretary's exercise of his discretion in a difficult position, without much fuller knowledge than he possessed; but he desired to draw attention to the extraordinary character of this case, which seemed to him to be a deplorable one, and to the circumstances which must lead any mind, without being unduly suspicious, to the strong conjecture that this was not an isolated case. The story also contained one or two morals in regard to the administration of law in Ireland. A charge was brought against a man named Ryan, for some minor offence, in the course of which it was discovered that a sergeant of police, of high standing in Ireland, had been guilty of perjury in preferring a false and unfounded charge. That was the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's

  1413
  statement, although the right hon. Gentleman had not said so in so many words, and he was quite right at once to desist from any further prosecution of the case. But so grave was the character of the case, that the right hon. Gentleman was only induced to refrain from prosecuting Sergeant Sheridan, because he thought he could not get sufficient evidence to convict. He was then informed by a Mr. Irwin that there were other cases. That gentleman was a County Inspector, a gentleman holding the King's commission, and he communicated to the right hon. Gentleman his belief that there were other cases. He should like to have had more information as to the communication from County Inspector Irwin and the grounds of that official's opinion that the offence of Sheridan was not an isolated case. He believed the right hon. Gentleman to have acted wisely, both in making the inquiry secret and in promising the indemnity, without which he would not have obtained the serious information now given to the Committee. Four persons, it appeared, had been in prison on the evidence of Sheridan, before this attempt to convict an innocent person had been baffled. The atrocity of that case was almost beyond belief. This man had himself committed the most foul and dastardly crime which could be perpetrated, that of torturing dumb brutes; and, having, as a trusted public servant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, burned hay ricks and committed crimes, the perpetration of which had been a favourite reproach against a section of the Irish people, he then, with the purpose apparently of currying favour with his superiors, of getting stripes, promotion, credit, and reward as a detector of these horrid crimes, fixed them upon poor innocent people whom he chanced to meet. He hoped the case was not still worse, and that he did not fix his charges upon persons against whom he had some grudge. He followed up these crimes with perjury—going into the witness-box and telling fearful falsehoods in order to deprive another man of his liberty. He did not think a blacker instance could be produced from the later history of despotic Governments in Europe to show the frightful danger of having a police force free from any public control. He
  1414
  entirely recognised that the Chief Secretary had made no attempt at defence or palliation in reference to the events of the past eighteen months, they were absolutely indefensible, and it was on the authority of the Government of Ireland that these cases took place. What was the result? One man died in prison; but what had struck him most in the painful story was that one of the men whom the Chief Secretary said were unjustly convicted, and who had been compensated for his unjust punishment, pleaded guilty. What frame of mind did that disclose? They were asked why the Irish were not loyal; why they were not attached to the Constitution which they were to be in common with this country. It helped realisation of the reasons why Irishmen were not attached to the Constitution under which they lived when it was found that an innocent man, brought before a packed jury, preferred to plead guilty and take a short sentence, because he utterly despaired of obtaining justice. Such a fact indicated the reason for difficulties in Ireland. Packed juries were a disgrace to the administration of justice in Ireland, and the fruit of them was found in the painful story they had heard. The fact that certain members of the police force acted together awakened suspicion that there might be other cases. Sheridan had been guilty of the foulest, most contemptible offence a man could commit, and no language should palliate the blackness and horror of the offence. It was not clear why Sheridan was not prosecuted in the end. If the Chief Secretary believed, as he did, that the man had committed these offences, he should have indicted Sheridan and put in the evidence of the men to whom an indemnity had been given, and a conviction might have been obtained, though perhaps not with a packed jury. It was a most deplorable story, and reflected the greatest possible discredit on the administration of justice in Ireland. It led every honest man to the greatest distrust of the whole system and the belief that it was rotten to the core, and he believed it could only be cured by self-government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to be considered as actuated by the most lofty principles and most

  1415
  generous sentiments. On these lofty sentiments he was to be congratulated, and still more on the admirable manner in which he controlled them while he was in office in a Government that conducted administration in Ireland under the so-called system of jury-packing with which he professed to be so horrified and astonished.
  SIR ROBERT REID: Are you not?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he could only say now, as he had said before, that during the three years of that administration there was more alleged jury-packing than during the whole time the present Government had been in office. But the hon. and learned Gentleman did not refuse to be a Member of that Administration.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I do not believe it happened.
  MR. ATKINSON: During that period accusations against the Irish Government of the time were repeatedly made, and he himself had challenged the colleague of the hon. and learned Gentleman to deny that on one occasion they set aside forty-one jurors out of a panel of seventy-four. But the hon. and learned Gentleman felt none of the indignation he now displayed: his principles were well restrained. He was silent when his political friends were in power. [Cries of "Oh, oh," and "Withdraw."]
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he did not wish to attach any offensive meaning to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and hoped he would be allowed to proceed without interruption.
  MR. ATKINSONrepeated the hon. and learned Gentleman showed no aversion to the system then. [Cries of "Oh, oh."]
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: He tried to give us Home Rule.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the hon. Gentleman spoke a little too soon. The Irish Nationalist papers of 1894 condemned the Administration as marked by
  1416
  prosecutions, secret inquiries, and jury-packing, making it indistinguishable from Tory Government. An Amendment to the Address raised the very question of jury packing.
  MR. DILLON: Why did you net prosecute Sheridan?
  *MR. ATKINSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman made a charge against me of tolerating jury-packing.
  MR. MACVEAGH: On a point of order, Mr. Jeffreys, is this relevant to the Vote?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I do not think a point of order arises here.
  *MR. ATKINSON: I was merely replying, and showing the past history of the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to these matters.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Why did not you prosecute Sheridan? That is what we want to know.
  *MR. ATKINSON: I presume the hon. Gentleman means why did not I advise his prosecution. I could not prosecute him.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Or make him a Resident Magistrate or something.
  *MR. ATKINSONsaid that the evidence was obtained from these men under terms that made prosecution impossible. ["How?" "Why?" and "That is new."] That evidence would never have been obtained at all if these terms had not been entered into, and under those conditions it was perfectly impossible for him to have advised a prosecution with out a direct violation of the pledge given to those men.
  MR. DILLON: What was the pledge? [Nationalist cries of "What were the terms?" and "State the terms."]
  *MR. ATKINSON, continuing, said the only matter that came before him was the question of the prosecution of Ryan, and he advised it should not be proceeded with, because he thought the evidence was not of such a character as would justify a prosecution.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid ho did not think the personal observations of the right hon and learned Gentleman were worthy of notice. But let there be no misunderstanding on this. He did denounce the packing of juries, and he believed himself that there was no alternative to the continuance of jury-packing except, the giving of self-government to Ireland.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the Committee had had the singular and unprecedented spectacle of an Irish Attorney General ashamed of himself and of jury-packing. But the demeanour of the right hon. Gentleman, while so different from his usual composure and self-complacency, was not more astonishing than the character of his defence. The right hon. Gentleman was accused of jury-packing. Was his defence a denial of the accusation? Not at all. It was an admission of it, with the plea that under the present Administration the practice had not been quite so largely followed as under previous Governments. Was ever a more astounding defence given by a Minister of what was supposed to be constitutional Government? He did not intend to interfere in the quarrel between the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor. The case put forward by the Nationalists was not that jury-packing was the act of one Administration or Party, but that it was the act, the policy, the necessity, of every English Minister who tried to govern Ireland against the wish of the people. The admission of the right hon. Gentleman established their case, and confirmed the underlying contention that the Sheridan matter was but a part of a system. New light had been thrown on the Sheridan case by the present debate. It was not until the Attorney General's speech that the Committee heard of what now appeared to be one of the main defences of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that he could not have got the evidence of the constables without giving an indemnity. That could be perfectly understood, but it was not the point. The point was that Sheridan, who had no indemnity, was not examined. The Government had the evidence of these men against him, and yet he was allowed to leave the country without hindrance. The defence was a mockery. What defence was it of the escape of
  1418
  Sheridan that an indemnity had been given to two others? Neither the Chief Secretary nor the Attorney General had given any answer to that question.
  MR. ATKINSON: The case of Sheridan never came before me.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked why it did not. Did any Member suppose that if it had been the case of a National Leaguer, charged with an infinitely less serious offence, it would not have come before the Attorney General? The right hon. Gentleman ought to have seen that the case did come before him; otherwise he was not properly discharging the duty of his office. When he had before him evidence that this ruffian first committed crime, and then by perjury secured the conviction of an innocent man, thus violating all the sanctities of his office, was it not the duty of the Attorney General to see that the man was severely punished?
  MR. ATKINSON: Excuse me, the case never came before me.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether they were to understand that the administrative life of Ireland was conducted on a system of watertight compartments, and that the Chief Secretary, who was in constant communication with the Attorney General, could know of a case like this, and the Attorney General remain in absolute ignorance of it? Really, the innocence and ignorance of the right hon. Gentleman in this question were equalled only by his innocence and ignorance with regard to the religious persuasion of the members of packed juries. It showed a singular want of chivalry and loyal co-operation between Ministers that the right hon. Gentleman should try to shift the burden of his responsibility on to the shoulders of the Chief Secretary. Again he asked, why was not Sheridan prosecuted and punished? Irish Members were accustomed to strange visitors at the House, but the strangest of all was, he thought, Mr. Sheridan. For days, if not weeks, there was scarcely a member of the Party who did not have the pleasure and honour of receiving a visitor's card from Mr. Sheridan, who desired them

  1419
  to hear his exposure of the conspiracy of the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General, of which he had been the unhappy and innocent victim. All that time this man was walking about, actually in the precincts of Westminster, flouting the Chief Secretary, and telling the Nationalist Members that the Government were afraid to prosecute him. He did not accept the statement of Mr. Sheridan with the same confidence as an Irish judge and a packed jury in Sligo, but when he put facts together, when he heard the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General acknowledging that this man was one of the worst and blackest of criminals, and yet saw him walking the streets of Dublin and haunting the precincts of Westminster, he began to think there must be something in his declaration as to the fear of the Government to prosecute him. The Attorney General had made a statement which threw a new light on the case. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he could not prosecute Ryan and others because he had given them an indemnity, but he never told the Committee why he could not prosecute Sheridan, to whom no indemnity had been given. They had never been told why Sheridan could not be prosecuted. The answer of the Attorney General was that the indemnity which was given to Reed and others was an indemnity of such a character as protected not only them but Sheridan. Here was a man who committed the most horrid and loathsome offences, the agent of the Government, who procured by perjury the conviction of innocent persons, who walked the streets of Dublin and haunted the precincts of Westminster, who was permitted to commit those offences because other men got an indemnity. The action of the Chief Secretary, though most blamable with regard to Sheridan, was in contrast with the action of his predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman had shown an unprecedented candour on this occasion apart from letting Sheridan go scot free. The real question was whether this was an isolated case or whether it was typical and symbolical of the Irish Government proceedings. The Attorney General said there were more such cases in three years of the preceding administration than during all
  1420
  the six years he had been in office. That was a very strange defence. Those cases had been brought before the House from time to time, and he believed they were not isolated but typical.
  There was the case of Bryan Kilmartin, who was tried by a packed jury and convicted, although he protested his innocence up to the last moment. When they lizard of these things they thought they could only occur in Ireland, or on the stage of the Drury Lane Theatre. Kilmartin remained in prison until a man died in Boston confessing that he was the man who committed the crime for which Kilmartin suffered. There was a change of administration, there was what he regarded as an ideal Government in office, that was to say a Tory Government dependent on the Irish vote, the most satisfactory in his experience in the House during twenty-two years, and an experience which he hoped to see renewed before long. He sighed for the halcyon days when the Tory Party consulted the Irish Members as to the course of business. When the Tory administration came into power, Lord Carnarvon went to Ireland as the messenger of peace, as the bearer of a secret treaty for separate Government for Ireland. He was received with open arms, adulation, and affection by the people of Ireland. One of his first acts was to release Bryan Kilmartin, and when he went to Connemara on an outside car the driver of that car was Bryan Kilmartin, who had been unjustly sentenced to penal servitude.
  In order to prove that this was not an isolated case but a system, he would mention the case of Talbot a distinguished police officer, like Sheridan, who, at the time of the Fenian movement, went to Carrick-ma-Suir swearing in members of the Irish organisation. He was a Protestant, but he attended Mass, and went through the sacrilegious scene of receiving the Sacrament of the Church—a most blasphemous and horrible proceeding—for the purpose of swearing - in men as members of the movement, and he appeared afterwards against those men, and sent them to penal servitude. If they were told of these things being done in Russia, or in France, under the Second Empire, there was not one of them who would not raise his hands

  1421
  in horror, and rejoice tint such things were impossible under the Pax Britannica, and yet, within three hours of tin: English shore, there were deeds of darkness done by the police, at which, lie believed, even the Government of Russia, or of the Second Empire would have quailed. Hon. Members might laugh, but was it not true? Was there a worse case than the cases of Sheridan and Talbot, and the conviction of Kilmartin? They replied that Sheridan was exposed. Yes, he was exposed, but he was able to haunt the very precincts of the Imperial Parliament, and to defy the Chief Secretary to his very face, declaring that though he had committed those crimes the Chief Secretary was afraid to prosecute him.
  Now he would come back to the point to which the Attorney General practically confined his observations. First they had the police, who were not responsible to the opinion of the Irish people, and were hostile to them. The police of Ireland were not subject to the Watch Committee of Birmingham or any other large city or town, but they were governed by the Attorney General and Dublin Castle. They had the people brought into almost daily conflict with the police, and there was existing a state of hostility between the officers of the law and the police. A policeman under a despotic Government became by gradual, but by regular and almost inevitable steps, an agent provocateur. The perjurer Sheridan, however, was powerless without the Attorney General; the real criminal—of course, he spoke in a political and not in a personal sense—was the Attorney General, who prepared the packed jury. Yet the Attorney General had not uttered one word of remorse in regard to these proceedings. What did the Irish Nationalist Members care for the mean and wretched instruments of Irish government, when they had high officials whose packing of juries made such crimes possible in Ireland 1 Unionist Members might be right or wrong in thinking that Ireland was better governed from this Assembly than it would be from one of its own, but he would point out to them that during the century the present system had lasted the population of the country had been halved, while the police had been doubled
  1422
  or quadrupled. They must except the consequence of their policy, and unless they were prepared to have corrupt policemen and packed juries British Government in Ireland could not last.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the Sheridan case was brought up on the Third Heading of the Appropriation Bill last session, and he thought that the hon. Member for East Mayo had done some service in recalling it to the memory of the House and the country. He did not suppose that there was the slightest hope of getting the attention of the House upon any other subject than the Sheridan case on this Vote. It appeared to him that the whole issue with regard to this case lay in a single point. Was it an isolated case or were there reasons for supposing that such cases might be general? He was not prepared to take the ground that hon. Members on the other side had taken, for he believed it was an isolated case. It was a very shocking and a very terrible case, but he did not believe that any one who knew the Royal Irish Constabulary could come to any other conclusion than that it was an isolated and not a general case. [An Irish member: What about Talbot?]. He remembered the ease of Talbot, which was on wholly different lines. He had risen chiefly to point out to the Committee that it was very little use for Members of that House to believe that it was an isolated case, as Members on his side, and, he thought, at least some Members on the other side, believed. The real question was what was the effect of a case like this upon the minds of the people of Ireland. That was the real point of the whole question, and that was the point which had not been touched upon either from the Treasury Bench or from other parts of the House. The great mass of the people of Ireland believed that this was not an isolated case, and that belief being in their minds it shook their whole belief in the just administration of the law courts. That was the real injury that was done by a case like, this. He believed the Chief Secretary's discretion up to a certain point had been admirable. He thought the Chief Secretary was right in holding a secret inquiry as against a public

  1423
  inquiry; but did the indemnity given to the young policemen who gave evidence against Sheridan, also protect Sheridan? That was the real point; arid, if Sheridan was not protected, he wished to ask why could not the evidence that served to convince the two officers who presided at the special private inquiry have been used in a public court to convict Sheridan. There could be no question about it that some effort should have been made to bring Sheridan to justice, and for this reason if for no other that the Irish people were suspicious to a degree by nature of everything connected with the Government of Ireland, and unquestionably they would say, and they had said, that if Sheridan was not brought to justice it was because the Government were afraid. That was the real danger and the real mischief of this whole case. He thought this was the most deplorable and the saddest case that had occurred in all his knowledge of Ireland, and he was thankful to believe that it was an isolated case.
  He wished the Chief Secretary would toll him why the police were used for the purposes they were used for in the West of Ireland. Four or five weeks ago he visited the West of Ireland accompanied by the hon. Member for North West Lanark and the hon. Member for Oldham. If he had gone alone he could have understood that some little attention would have been paid to him, seeing that he had strong convictions on the land question; but, accompanied as he was by gentlemen of such spotless reputations as his companions, there could have been no suspicion with regard to the party. He believed that both of his hon. friends were followers of Lord Rosebery, and therefore they could not be accused of anything very vile or revolutionary. He should like the Committee to understand what kind of thing life was in Ireland. Here were three Members of the Imperial Parliament, just as loyal and just as law abiding as the right hon. Gentleman or any Minister on the Treasury Bench. They did not go to hold any meetings, they did not go to stir up any agitation; but simply for the purpose of seeing for themselves, of getting at the facts, and hearing what the people and the land-
  1424
  lord himself had to say. What happened? From the moment that they landed on the Do Freyne estate, and during the three days that they were there, until they left by train at Castlerea, they were constantly shadowed by three or four policemen wherever they went. It they took a car, the police were after them on bicycles. Whenever they stopped, the police stopped behind them. If they went out into the streets to speak to friends, the police were on the spot eavesdropping. He wanted to know why these gentlemen going to that part of the country on perfectly lawful and legitimate business, should be subjected to this surveillance by the Irish police in that manner. The hon. Member for Dews-bury had rather more attention paid to him that even ho had. He asked for no explanation for himself — he should not expect any other treatment—but he thought the Chief Secretary was bound to explain how it came about that these policemen, crowded into that place, having nothing else to do, shadowed men who were Members of the House, going there on perfectly legitimate business. Why should they have had a troop of policemen constantly on their track? If the police had got nothing else to do than that, he would vote for the reduction of the Vote by a very large sum. If that was all they had got, to do in Ireland, and they had not much else—[A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Except put the bit on the horse."] [An HON. MEMBER on the Ministerial Benches below the gangway: "What of the election row?"] The hon. Member below him had reminded him that the police once saved him from an election row. Well, he was not going to say that Ireland should be left without police. But he wanted to know why policemen were sent to every land meeting held in the province of Ulster. Meetings were held there by the score; but why were seven or eight policemen sent to every meeting? There had never been any disturbance or an occasion, on which the services of the police were required. Why should these policemen be drawn from considerable distances to attend these meetings? Of course, it was very interesting for them; they were all farmers' sons and entirely against the landlords He would take the

  1425
  case of a meeting at Portadown. Two hundred policemen were drafted there lust year to attend a land meeting. Why? It was not because there was the slightest fear of disturbance. But those 200 policemen cost the town £40 or £50 in a special rate, and of course, if the towns had to pay the expense thus incurred, very few meetings would be held. [AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] "Hear, hear," said the son of a great Irish landlord. That was a perfectly honest confession. The hon. Member wanted no meetings, but the tenants of the country want them.
  MR. LUNDONsaid that so far the debate had mainly rolled over the body of ex-Sergeant Sheridan, but he intended to go back something farther and thereby furnish proof that this villainous conduct, which had been ascribed to the constabulary force, was not confined to Sergeant Sheridan, as the right hon. the Chief Secretary would have Members of the House believe. On the conclusion of last session the right hon. Gentleman, in studied and glowing language, eloquently described Sergeant Sheridan as an able and ambitious police, officer, who, in his zeal in discharge of his duty, and with the desire of gaining promotion, had committed this grave scandal, thereby insinuating that ho alone was the only delinquent in the force, and that he hoped, so to speak, that in his dismissal "the harm of the year might go with him."
  He hoped to be able to show that the contention of the right hon. Gentleman was not tenable, and that there were in the police force not dozens or scores but hundreds of the Sheridan stamp. Some of the older Members of this House would remember when in the end of the autumn, 1865, the late James Stephens was liberated from Richmond prison, where ho had been detained on probably a charge of high treason. Suspicion at first began to be attached to Messrs. Marquis and Meagher, the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the prison; but soon two of the warders, Messrs. John Byrnes and John Breslin, well-known Nationalists, obtained the honour of being marked out as being the perpetrators of what appeared to the Castle authorities this very grave offence. The house of John Byrnes was searched for incriminating documents, with the result that a very officious but a very clumsy policeman alleged that ho found
  1426
  in the trunk of Mr. Byrnes a document purporting to be a copy of the oath of the Irish Republic. He (Mr. Lundon) after-wards, in the Washington Hall in Jersey City in America, had the honour of a conversation with John Byrnes and James Stephens, in which the former gentleman told him that he had no knowledge whatsoever of the document, but that the policeman had dropped it from his sleeve into the trunk, and in such a clumsy fashion that the Government, fearing the disclosure of the trick, abandoned the prosecution. He was himself, throe months later, in February, 1866, almost made a victim to police trap of a more dangerous character. A policeman named McCarthy, in order to surround him, met a few of his pupils, grown-up young men, coming to school. He then kept a classical academy in the village of Kilteely, and McCarthy said to the young men that he would show them how to march in military fashion and keep the step. They came on towards the village. He heard the tramp, and forthwith on their arrival told them they should not have placed themselves in the hands of such a character and that he hoped it would not be repeated. That was the sum and substance of his connection with this youthful Sheridan, but this man proceeded to Cappamore, which was then headquarters for the district, made an information against him, and one of less consequence against twenty-five others in the parish, which, if successful, might have procured for him on a charge of treason or felony, anything to twenty years penal servitude; and for the others terms of imprisonment under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, this Act having been passed on the night of the 17th February, 1866. On coming home from Cappamore McCarthy took some strong drink, with the result that he communicated the nature of his nefarious mission to a friend of the hon. Member's, named Russell, and, as they say in Irish, "sceelan deoch mi-run," that is "drink lets out the evil secret," he tore open the command of his superior officer, read the copies of the informations for those around him, was put under arrest by his sergeant and another policeman, was summarily dismissed from the police force, enlisted in the cavalry, was sent to India, got sun struck there and died within two months. So much for police villainy No. 2. In March, 1867, the nototious

  1427
  Malachy Murphy, then stationed at New-pallas, put on worn down civilian clothes, furnished himself with a tinker's budget and wont to Templemore to endeavour to entrap Captain Joe Gleeson, whom he suspected of being concerned in the rising in Barnane. Malachy went thence to Thurles, but failed to obtain admission to the Catholic College there, in which he alleged that Captain Gleeson had been concealed, which was not the case; he then went to a Air. Mullarky, Inspector of Constabulary in Borrisoleigh, and brought about thirty policemen from the outlying stations, drilled them in the college grounds, but yet, owing to the firmness of the President and Vice-President of the college, failed to obtain an entrance to that institution. So much for No. 3 policeman. Then again, the episode in connection with the doings of Maurice O'Halloran, police sergeant in the County Clare, at the time of the O'Calhghan evictions around Bodyke and Feakle, and subsequently in the vicinity of Ennis, was yet fresh in the recollections of many of his Irish colleagues. Maurice O'Halloran, in the capacity of what the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool had termed agent provocateur, offered a £10 note to a man to get up outrages and bogus prosecutions. The man took the money, apparently about to become the willing tool of Maurice, but went before the Branch of the League and told the whole story and exploded the would-be plot, offering the money to the League Committee to put it into the funds. The Committee would not touch the polluted note, but cast it away, as in the case of Judas with the price put on the betrayal of our Lord. The money was scattered around, and only the very poor and thoughtless utilised it as a means of procuring intoxicating liquor, or, to speak more plainly, they drank out Maurice's £10 note. To come down to later times, in the year 1889 a certain informer named Cullinan, who represented himself as from Tralee, when brought up afterwards in the trials which ensued, came around to West Clare. Head Constable Whelehan of Lisdoonvarna and Cullinan planned a raid on the house of a man named Sexton, living a mile east of Lisdoonvarna. The Murphys and others from near Kilshanny were seduced into the trap—fine, honest, unsuspecting
  1428
  young men. The police under Whelehan were embushed in the barns round Sexton's house, and, on a given signal, made a rush for the young men, five or six of whom were arrested. A few fought for their very existence, and one powerful man, with the butt end of a musket, struck Whelehan on the head, smashed in his skull, and killed him on the spot. A few of those arrested got penal servitude. To supplement the appalling narrative given by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, some time alter the death of that wretched man, Head Constable Talbot, he heard from Mr. Do Guernon, who was resident magistrate in Tipperary, that when he and his brother-in-law were out at the Crimean War, Talbot, then out there also as a commissariat man, gave them money to bring home to his brother, should ho (Talbot) fall in the war. Well, he did not fall in Russia, he was reserved for a more ignoble fate. After the war he came to Mr. Do Guernon, got his money from him, and seven years later on came to him offering his services as an informer, which the hon. Gentleman contemptuously refused. Talbot found a more pliable Government tool, entered as a detective, became a policeman, rose in a few years to the top rank, and was sent down as water bailiff on the river Suir from Carrick to Clonmel, to corrupt the youths around there as English ideas run, and draw them into the ways of conspiracy. How he (Talbot), although a Protestant, went to Mass in the Catholic-Church, committed the awful sacrilege described, and entrapped the men of 1867, had been ably told by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, but he omitted, perhaps, as a matter of charity, to state that the miserable wretch, four years later on, was shot in the streets of Dublin as the consequence of his villainous doings. Such, were the lamb-like gentlemen in the Irish Constabulary force. It was only a few years since the Mulranny case turned up, in which Sergeant 0'Sullivan endeavoured to entrap the men of West Connaught by bribing them to commit outrages, so as to supply material for coercion and consigning people to imprisonment and perhaps penal servitude. His wicked efforts were nipped in the bud. Was he prosecuted by the

  1429
  Government of the day? No, he was not. On the contrary, the Government threw their mantle of protection over him, and Sergeant Sullivan was allowed to go scot free to pursue his congenial occupation and to entrap others at a more favourable time. He asked the House, did they think that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary contended, ex-Sergt. Sheridan's case was an isolated one? No; there were dozens, scores, nay, hundreds of Sheridans in the Irish Constabulary force.
  Now to come to Sheridan's case, in which he had taken a very decided part. In the spring of last session Sheridan came into the House here and claimed his protection as being the Member for East Limerick, in which he had plied his trade with such dexterity but with such calamitous results. He sent in a card by one of the officials of the House. On receipt of it the hon. Member was surprised that any policeman should want him, as he had never used any (freedom with their class. Sheridan asked him if he knew him. He replied that he had seen him among the police in either Hospital or Herberts-town, two small towns convenient to me. He then told the hon. Member of his activity as a police officer in procuring conviction against a tramp who stole a pair of shoes, and against another person whom he knew to be not a very good character. He further said that the hon. Member might remember how he had procured a conviction against Con Bray for the burning of the hay of Mrs. Quinlan of Lough. The hon. Member replied that he remembered it well, that Mrs. Quinlan, was his friend and as respectable a lady as there was in the County Limerick, but that he had his doubts about the burning of that hay, that he knew Con Bray since he was a child, that he knew his father, Jim Bray, and his mother, all honest people. Sheridan then gave him as reference the names of several respectable people in Hospital. He said in return that they could know nothing about him no more than himself. The hon. Member then asked Sheridan what did he want him to do, and he replied, to apply for an inquiry into his dismissal over the case of tramp Ryan in Mullagh, County Clare, that he
  1430
  was the victim of a foul conspiracy, in which Inspector Irvine, who, he alleged, had been mixed up in the French and Cornwall scandals, was the leading figure, and that not only could he prove his innocence, but that he could make some very damaging revelations. The hon. Member said he would go for the inquiry, and, if possible, saddle the right horse; also that he believed there were about 13,000 men in the Irish Constabulary force, and if every man of them was dismissed within an hour, or carried by an evil blast of wind into the Red Sea, it would not give him the slightest annoyance. Subsequently, on the Appropriation Bill, he spoke on the whole matter in this House, and on different occasions aided his friend the hon. Member for East Mayo in bringing on the inquiry in Hospital.
  He now asked, why did not the right hon. the Chief Secretary place Sheridan on his trial. He had said that he had not materials on hand for his conviction, but his predecessor was not long waiting for materials to convict Con Bray. The innocent young man was watched by Sheridan and Constable Keegan when, on his return from Charleville, where he had been on business, he was escorted from Knocklong by two respectable young men, who could give evidence on his behalf. On arriving at the fair green of Hospital, between tiredness, drink, and sleep, he fell on the roadside. Sheridan went and set fire to Mrs. Quinlan's hay, came back again, roused up Bray, and took him to barracks; returned again to where he found Bray asleep, and before a witness named Butler, drew the attention of the constable and the other man to the fire, asking their opinion as to the locality of the fire. All three agreed that it must be in the direction of Mrs. Quinlan's farmhouse. On his arrival, he roused up the Quinlan family and searched around for clues as to the perpetrator, when lo! he found Con Bray's cap, which the villain had previously taken off the boy's head and bore it away as a trophy to procure conviction. He traced the buying of the cap to the house of a respectable trader in the town. The Crown behaved as scandalously as Sheridan. The alleged offence was committed on the night of the 27th of

  1431
  November. A Court was hurriedly summoned, outside the usual practice. Con Bray was returned for trial. He could have been bailed in the ordinary course, as there was scarcely a respectable man in the town or parish would refuse to bail him, in which eventuality he would have been returned for the Limerick January Quarter Sessions, where he could obtain a fair trial; but no, that would not do for the Crown; he was returned for the Cork Winter Assizes before a packed jury, convicted, sentenced to three years penal servitude, and all this within six days from committal of offence. Poor Con Bray died as the result. The case of Murphy later on for the stabbing and killing of Cregan's ass on the lands of Ballinamona, affords yet another instance of Sheridan's villainy. Murphy, frightened out of his wits, pleaded guilty and got six months. Keegan and Anderson were not put on trial with Sheridan, but afterwards, in order to undermine the chances of an investigation, were promoted, rewarded, and sent away, nobody knows where, from the Irish Constabulary. The Chief Secretary maintained that this case was an isolated one. He (the hon. Member) has proved differently, and he hoped that as the hon Member for South Tyrone thought Sheridan's case perhaps the only one of the kind, he might yet, when the scales fell from his eyes, think quite differently.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDSsaid he rose because of some remarks which fell from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, who had charged some hon. Members on the Government side with having smiled in regard to what they all agreed was a disgraceful admission in regard to the doings of Sheridan. The hon. Member had drawn a comparison with Russia, but if he only knew as much about Russia as some other hon. Gentlemen he would know that what he had said was not at all an appropriate comparison. As far as the facts were concerned, the hon. Member who had just addressed the House in an interesting and eloquent speech had quite answered the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and, as a representative of Irish opinion, he preferred the hon. Member for Limerick who had just spoken in preference to the hon. Member for South
  1432
  Tyrone, who, although he sat on the Ministerial side of the House, generally voted against the Government. The Chief Secretary had been denounced for not prosecuting this man Sheridan, but it was not wise to attempt a prosecution which would be bound to fail on the evidence. No one knew better than the hon. Gentleman opposite who had been Attorney General for England that no Attorney General would authorise the prosecution, nor would any judge permit the conviction, of any person simply upon the evidence of the incriminated parties. If there was other evidence, then he admitted that the case stood on quite a different basis, but the Attorney General for Ireland was quite justified in saying that it would be wrong, having given an indemnity to these constables, to put them into the witness-box, and there was no judge sitting en the English Bench who would allow any persons to be convicted on the evidence alone of confederates. He hoped that the judicial rulings in Ireland were the same. [Nationalist cries of "Oh, oh!"] He assured hon. Members opposite that hon. Members on his side of the House had every sympathy with their desire to probe this affair, but it could not have been done by starting a prosecution which was bound to fail. He asked hon. Members opposite to believe that hon. Members on the Ministerial side were as anxious as hon. Members opposite to see that the fountains of justice were kept pure. He admired the eloquence of his hon. and learned friend, although he did not agree with his conclusion that nothing but self-government would secure what they all desired to see, namely, justice in the smallest police court in the country. They were all anxious to assist hon. Members opposite to obtain justice, but was their case likely to be assisted by attacking the Attorney General in such a manner as this? There was no difficulty in getting at Sheridan, who was constantly in the precincts of the House, and any of his hon. and learned friends opposite were competent if, as they said, there was untainted evidence against this man, to lay an information and get him arrested, and once the case had gone to committal the Attorney General would be bound to take it up. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division made an

  1433
  appeal to the English love of fair play. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had the sympathy of many Members on this side of the House, but what prevented greater co operation with Irish Members was the way in which they presented their case.
  MR. POWERcould not conceive a more appalling story than that which had been laid before the Committee by his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo. The Committee heard always a good deal about law and order, but if they analysed the facts laid before them by the hon. Member for East Mayo they would find that law and order was administered in Ireland in a way in which it was not administered in any other country. The case of Sheridan was not an isolated case, and what must be the state of things when such a case as that could happen? It proved the little faith which the poor peasant had in the administration of justice when he pleaded guilty to such an offence when he was innocent, in order to get a lighter punishment. No doubt he was weak in pleading guilty as he did, but he did so in order to avoid the horrible punishment he would suffer at the hands of the packed jury who found him guilty. There was no promotion in the Irish constabulary unless the constables identified themselves with the punishment and persecution of the people. The Sheridan case showed up in a lurid light the spirit in which the law was administered. Those who knew little or nothing of Ireland thought these matters were greatly exaggerated, but the speech of the Chief Secretary proved that they were not so, and the speech of the Attorney General had also a certain value, inasmuch as it admitted that jury-packing did exist in Ireland. Of one thing the Committee might be certain, and that was that this case of Sheridan was only typical of many cases which occurred in Ireland. There was the case of Constable Talbot, who came down to his (Mr. Power's) own neighbourhood, under the name of John Kelly. This man was employed there as a water bailiff, and he even went the length, although not a Catholic, of attending Mass. Ultimately, this men Kelly was shot in the streets of Dublin,
  1434
  but were not the authorities who employed such men far worse than these poor creatures? The constabulary and the Government knew what line of action this man was pursuing. They had just heard the defence of the Chief Secretary, who had a bad case to defend, and he had made a bad defence. What he wanted to know was—Why was the evidence not produced in Sheridan's case? He believed, as a matter of fact, that the authorities were ashamed of what would come out, and the blatant way in which Sheridan paraded in this House, and told the Government that they were afraid of the evidence that would connect them with some of these cases, was one reason why Sheridan had been allowed to escape.
  The police were called upon to do the most hideous duty in Ireland, and it was idle to deny that bad feeling did exist between the people and the police. At the present time "shadowing" prevailed wherever they went. Not long ago he was at a fair with another person, and a constable followed them about the whole of the time. Even when they went into shops the constable followed them, and his friend told him that he was being "shadowed" because he was suspected of pointing out boycotted cattle at the fairs. If that was the way in which men were treated in public life in comparatively large towns in Ireland, what must be the tyranny in the rural districts? He could give other instances, but he would not now detain the Committee. They could not blind themselves to the fact that the Irish constabulary, which cost such an enormous sum of money every ear, was not a police force in any sense of the word. It was really an armed military force which ruled Ireland, and he should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman contended that the constabulary should also be the judges as to whether public meetings should be allowed. It was notorious that the constabulary, while they allowed certain Members of Parliament to address meetings, often prevented others from doing so. Upon one occasion the Member for East Clare was allowed to address a meeting, while the Member of Parliament for the district was not allowed to speak. They were bound to protest against this sum of money spent upon the constabulary

  1435
  which produced ill will and bad feeling between the police and the people. English rule in Ireland was not based upon the goodwill of the people, but it was a bludgeon rule enforced by people in whom the Irish nation had no confidence.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid he was surprised to hear the Attorney General deliver in such a heated manner an attack upon his hon. colleague. The right hon. Gentleman had once again been obliged to resort to the old tu quoque argument which for the last seven years the Government had always adopted when a question of the administration of the law in Ireland was discussed in the House of Commons. With regard to jury-packing, he repudiated in the strongest manner the suggestion that the late Government resorted to jury-packing in Ireland to the extent to which the present Government had followed the practice. One of the earliest acts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose was to issue a circular to crown solicitors, directing that no man should be challenged as a juryman on account of his religious belief. He was not going to occupy the time of the Committee discussing the question of jury packing, because the opportunity for that would probably arise at the later stage of the Estimates, but whenever it did arise he should never hesitate to say that as far as he was individually concerned he deprecated to the utmost degree the resorting to jury-packing which was peculiar to Ireland, and which had never been resorted to in England except under such limits as the administration of justice necessarily imposed. The law in England was the same in regard to juries, and there was no reason why any Government professing to administer the same law in both countries should resort to a practice so repugnant to every Englishman that occasionally some sixty or seventy jurors might be challenged on one panel.
  He wished to repudiate, on behalf of the Irish administration of which he was a Member, that they over resorted to such practices as those which had been imputed to them by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There was a case which arose very soon after the Liberal Government came into office, that led to the issuing of the circular to which he had referred,
  1436
  but beyond that he did not think any case of the abuse of the jury system could be brought home to the late administration. English Members must feel some qualms of conscience after hearing the debate this afternoon. The speeches made by the Chief Secretary and others, and the eloquent and earnest language of the hon. Member for Limerick, who gave so many facts showing that there was something rotten in the constabulary system, must make English members feel certain qualms of conscience in being parties to governing a country under such a system. The Chief Secretary admitted that this man Sheridan was a party to the conviction of at least four innocent men, who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment and some to penal servitude, and when their innocence was ascertained the right hon. Gentleman felt that some reparation was due to them for the misery and suffering inflicted upon them by the conduct of Sheridan. The hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury had shown that he was not at all acquainted with criminal procedure in Ireland, for he had asked why did the hon. Member for Waterford not take up a prosecution against Sheridan himself. The hon. Member should have known that all these cases were taken up by the Crown in Ireland, and he apparently forgot the distinction that exists between the criminal procedure of the two countries. Consequently, the whole of the arguments he used were quite irrelevant and beside the question.
  He differed from the hon. Member opposite who suggested that there could be no possible ground for prosecuting Sheridan, and he denied that contention altogether. According to the Chief Secretary there was an indemnity given to the men who had come forward and given evidence against Sheridan. The effect of that was to prevent them from being prosecuted for any complicity in Sheridan's offence, but that was no reason why they should not have been put into the witness box against Sheridan. A witness was bound to state the facts, and though he might sometimes incriminate himself, he would not be brought to justice, because he had been given an indemnity. A complete case might have been proved against Sheridan, because there were three or four witnesses. Even if the prosecution

  1437
  had miscarried, he asked why, in the name of morality and of common justice, Sergeant Sheridan was not brought into the light of a court of justice. A terrible imputation now lay upon the Government, and the administration itself was under a black and heavy cloud, because they had been obliged to admit that some live or six dreadful and false charges, culminating in convictions, had been initiated and supported by one member of the Irish constabulary, and connived at by another member of that force, and these men were now walking at large, without any attempt being made to bring them to justice. There was a certain law of right which must govern all administrations in carrying out justice, arid there was a limit on neither side of which justice ought to stray. No matter what the result might have been, the Government should have instituted a public prosecution against Sheridan upon the evidence of those policemen whom they had indemnified. English, Scotch, and Welsh Members of Parliament would now know how far they were justified in voting £1,500,000 to the maintenance of a force in Ireland which included such characters as those whose conduct had been discussed, and such occurrences must make them consider the advisability of adopting some other system. By there facts some light had been thrown upon the entire failure of the administration of law and justice in Ireland, and if the system of police was rotten and corrupt, then the course of justice must necessarily be unsound and unreliable.
  MR. ROBSONsaid it seemed to him, not only as an English lawyer, but as a Member of Parliament, that they were not exaggerating the matter before them. The defence of the Government seemed to be that the crime of Sheridan was to be treated as an isolated offence, and notes an instance of what prevailed throughout the Irish Constabulary. That might be the case or it might not, but there was one matter which could not be isolated, and it was the fact that an innocent man who had been brought before an Irish tribunal, had pleaded guilty in absolute despair of receiving anything like justice at the hands of that tribunal.
  1438
  This tribunal was not a mere local one, but it was a court which owed its existence and character to the action of the executive Government. They had heard a great deal about packed juries, but he-had always understood that every English Government repudiated the charge of packing juries. He had always believed that the Attorney-General for Ireland repudiated that charge, but in his defence he had made what was almost an explicit admission in regard to packing juries. When the Attorney General was called upon to explain this state of things, what did he do? He at once made an attack upon his hon. and learned friend which, in his opinion, was most unjustifiable and undeserved. Beyond this attack the Attorney General had absolutely nothing more to say, and in a charge of this kind, not merely against the Government but against the whole system of administering justice under the British flag in Ireland, all they got was a speech from the head of the Irish Bar, responsible for the administration of justice in Ireland, in which he made an attack upon his predecessors in office. That was not only an improper mode of dealing with the subject, but it was not a proper way to treat the House of Commons. There had been no defence of this action on the part of the Government, and on the contrary, one of the chosen champions of the Government, the hon. Member for Finsbury, had got up and made a most remarkable suggestion. He asked why, if the Government did not prosecute, Members of the Party opposite did not undertake the prosecution themselves. And then having put that question, and believing that he had inveigled his opponents on to the horns of a dilemma, he explained at some length why they should not prosecute at all. He pointed out that they could not get a conviction unless they had signed statements from these men. Hut only the Government possessed those documents, and with those statements in their pocket the Chief Secretary declined to prosecute, while their champion called upon the Irish Members without those statements to undertake the prosecution of Sheridan. This subject had been treated in an altogether unworthy spirit by the Government. He

  1439
  did not blame the Chief Secretary so much, for he thought they had good reason to be proud of the courage and candour with which the Chief Secretary had dealt with this question up to a certain point, but at that point he had fallen short. Why did he not prosecute Sheridan? There had been no answer to that question, and no explanation had been given. There was plenty of other corroborative evidence without the indemnified witnesses, for they had the evidence of the
  victims. There was the evidence of the confederates and the victims employed, and it was nothing less than a scandal and an outrage on justice that this man Sheridan should remain un-prosecuted.
  (7.28.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 282.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud)

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Boland, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brigg, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reddy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burt, Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Caldwell, James

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Carew, James Laurence

  Leamy, Edmund

  Runciman, Walter

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lundon, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dillon, John

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Tennant, Harold John

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Govein, T.

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Kean, John

  Thompson, Dr E. C (Monagh'n, N

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mooney, John J.

  Tully, Jasper

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Moss, Samuel

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Field, William

  Murphy, John

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Young, Samuel

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Norman, Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Captain Donelan.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Coddington, Sir William

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Butcher, John George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cavendish, V. C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Denny, Colonel

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

  Chapman, Edward

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Charrington, Spencer

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bontinck, Lord Henry C.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bigwood, James

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Knowles, Lees

  Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Laurie, Lt.-General

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lawson, John Grant

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Russell, T. W.

  Finch, George H.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Seely, Maj J. E. B.(Isle of Wight)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, H C(North'mb. Tyneside

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Spear, John Ward

  Garfit, William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E(Elgin & Nairn)

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E (Wigt'n

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

  Gore, Hn G. R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gretton, John

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C.E(Taunton)

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Penn, John

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Younger, William

  Howard, J no.(Kent, Faversham

  Randles, John S.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Keswick, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Sir William Walrond and

  Kimber, Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Mr. Anstruther.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Original Question again proposed.
  It being after half-past Seven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.
  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL [LORDS]. (BY ORDER),

    BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY (NEW LINES, ETC.) BILL [LORDS]. (BY ORDER),
    CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (No. 1 AND No. 3) BILL [LORDS.] (By ORDER),
    CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER.)
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at the Evening Sitting.

    GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY BILL [LORDS]. (BY ORDER)
    Read a second time, and committed.
  GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL [LORDS]. (BY ORDER),
    NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [LORDS]. (BY ORDER.)
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at the evening sitting.

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

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

    CLASS III.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £33,517, be granted to His 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, 1903, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
    MR. FLYNNsaid they might call this the second chapter of Irish misgovernment, the first chapter of which they had discussed up to 7.30. The feature was the extravagance of the Department, but misgovernment was bound to be accompanied by extravagance and corruption. This Vote had not been discussed at length in recent years. At Question time they had frequently called attention to matters connected with the Attorney General and criminal law and charges in Ireland, but it was five or six years since they had discussed and gone into the matter. It was, in his opinion, impossible for anyone who conscientiously went through the Estimates and Irish Supply not to be struck with the bloated and extravagant sum there set forth. Under the four heads which comprised that Vote and which formed one great Department, they found that in England the cost was £553,000, while the similar Department in Ireland cost £283,375, more than one half the cost of the same Department in England. So that in a country like England and Wales with its population, great prosperity, and its enormous business, similar items in Ireland cost more than 50 per cent. These legal expenses in connection with the administration of the law cost in England 4d. per head, while in Ireland the cost was 1s. 3d. per head. These were figures which could only give rise to grave reflection by all thoughtful men. There was no doubt that these
    1444
    extravagant figures in connection with the so-called administration of justice could be accounted for on only one ground, namely, misgovernment. The Attorney General's salary was £5,000, but there was something additional for contentious business which was put at £1,000, for which the Attorney and Solicitor General's names stood together. It was an extraordinary thing that notwithstanding the fluctuations which occurred, this contentious business stood at the uniform figure of £1,000. That sum might really be looked upon as a very comfortable honorarium to quite a nominal salary. But was the right hon. Gentleman cheap or dear to Ireland at £5,000?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, very cheap!
    MR. FLYNN: Some people might say he would be cheap at any price, but let them recollect that a poor country like Ireland, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might sit on the Treasury Bench and draft a few amendments to Irish bills and coach the Chief Secretary in bad law, had to pay him half the salary received by the President of the United States. No one doubted the estimable private qualities of the right hon. Gentleman, but was it fair or just that a poor country like Ireland, with a declining population and dwindling resources and admittedly almost crimeless, should have to pay such a price. But the Attorney-General had other duties, and a fearful and lurid light had been thrown on the methods adopted by the debate which had taken place that evening. That debate had disclosed to some extent the system of jury packing which was practised throughout Ireland, and had thrown a fierce light on the doubtful and devious ways of Dublin Castle. The Attorney-General himself candidly confessed to jury packing, but pointing the finger of scorn at the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries, said there was more jury packing during the three years of the last Administration than during the six years he had been in office. That was no answer, even if the figures of the right hon. Gentleman could be accepted. He had made a particular study of this question, and had made an analysis of the figures, and during the

    1445
    past four years had given case after case of this terrible system. Only the other day he threw out of his locker sheaves and sheaves of cases, and he could give particulars of the various winter and summer assizes at which juries had been packed, and on the facts and figures he said the Attorney-General had reduced or elevated, in an infamous sense, jury packing to such a naked and unblushing system that all decency had left it. At the last summer assizes in Cork what did they find? In the case of a wretched man charged with stealing 10s., forty-five jurors were ordered to stand by, forty-three being Catholics. In a case of petty larceny, forty-six were ordered to stand by, while in the case of two brothers charged with manslaughter fifty-two were ordered to stand by, fifty of whom were Roman Catholics. In the Tallow case tried at Cork he forgot how many were ordered to stand by at the preceding trial at Waterford, but at Cork thirty-three jurors were ordered to stand by, thirty being Roman Catholics. It became tiresome to repeat these figures time after time and to get the stereotyped reply. They had heard something of the Sheridan cases, and how this man went into the box and perjured himself over and over again against innocent men. But what would his perjury prevail if they had independent juries? Why, in one case, the prosecution carefully excluded sixty men and packed the jury with men whom they knew nothing short of a light from Heaven would induce to find a verdict of not guilty. In another case there was something even more pathetic. The unfortunate man who was upon his trial, though innocent, upon the advice of his solicitor pleaded guilty, because the solicitor told him ho had no chance before the packed jury. He had drawn attention to case after case at Cork, only to be laughed to scorn by the Attorney General. Such things were horrible in the 20th century. That was the system in which the right hon. Gentleman was connected, that was the system in which to some extent he seemed to take a professional pride in beholding. He hoped that if it had not received its deathblow by that debate, it would at least be found to be badly wounded. How could the Irish people be expected to respect the law, when its whole
    1446
    administration was reduced to such a sham and farce? What respect could any one have for the so-called trial by jury? It reminded him of the lines of an old poet, who, writing of the peasant of the day, depicting him as truly destitute of any chance of fair play and justice, wrote—

    "Just after the war in the year 98,

    As soon as the boys were all scattered and bate

    'T was the custom whenever a peasant was got

    To hang him by threat barrin' such as was shot.

    'T was them was bad times for the honest gassoon,

    If he missed a policeman he met a dragoon,

    And whether soldiers or judges gave sentence,

    Devil much time was allowed for repentance."

    They did not now use the dragoon, but the system remained, and if the Irish people submitted to this injustice without protest and resentment they would be unworthy the freedom to which they hoped to aspire in a short time.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the Government had never, since the exposure of the Pigott forgeries, had a worse case to answer than that of Sheridan. His belief was that any one who studied the administration of justice in Ireland, and especially the administration of the criminal law, must be driven to the conclusion that it was as corrupt as it was in England in the time of the Stuarts, when precisely the same methods were employed and exactly the same abuses obtained, thanks to the jury system which the Government were using. That was the jury system in Ireland at the present day. It might be the palladium openly, but in reality it was nothing but the merest form. It was very much the drapery by which in Ireland they hid the bayonets of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Chief Secretary had done in Ireland now what was done in the time of the Stuarts. Obsolete and rusty statutes and principles of common law had been revived to aid in the persecution of the people. Not only was there jury packing and Sheridans in the witness box, but counsel who held briefs for the defence in political trials had been known to betray their clients by giving secrets to the prosecuting counsel. Jury-packing seemed a mild method of abusing the forms of procedure when compared with that. This jury-packing

    1447
    was not the fault of the Attorney General for Ireland; it was the fault of the system which went on. The trial of every criminal case in Ireland showed one salient point of difference from the trial of criminal cases in England. The first thing that was done was to select the jury. The evidence was of very little consequence provided the right jury was there. But there was another thing which must strike everyone who was acquainted with legal practice. As a rule when no witnesses were called for the defence counsel for the defence had the last word. In Ireland when no witnesses were called for the defence, counsel for the Crown had the last word; and every lawyer knew the enormous value of that. When Crown Counsel had the last word comments cunningly made might give a new or altered construction to the case, and the prisoner's counsel had no means of rebutting what had been said. Not only were the juniors challenged by the Crown in all cases, whether felonies or misdemeanours, but certain crimes were now treated as misdemeanours, which formerly came under the other category. This was done in order to prevent the panel from having the right of challenge at all. That was the way the palladium of liberty was preserved in Ireland. In Crown prosecutions in England only the truth was aimed at, but in Ireland the whole aim was to get a conviction. In Ireland the prosecuting counsel regarded a conviction very much as a Red Indian regarded a scalp to put into his belt. In Ireland, Crown prosecutors, of whom there were about fifty, were a caste. In England a man took a brief for the Crown in the ordinary way, but in Ireland the idea was by securing convictions to gain promotion. Before corning to the English bar, the late Lord Russell of Killowen practised for years as a solicitor in Ireland, and he had an utter distrust of the administration of the criminal law. On 22nd March, 1888, speaking in this House, Lord Russell, who was then Sir Charles Russell, said—
    "In Ireland, whether rightly or wrongly, under the existing system, a widespread distrust of the administration of the law was unquestionably felt."
    And Lord Russell then quoted a remark made by a friend of his from the North of Ireland, who, contrasting what he had
    1448
    witnessed at the Old Bailey with what he knew of criminal trials in Ireland, said—
    "In Ireland it is a scramble on the part of those who represent the Crown to secure a conviction."
    These were the words of the gentleman who afterwards became Lord Chief Justice of England. Lord James of Hereford said something stronger. His words were—
    "He did not think it was possible to assert that the conduct of criminal cases in Ireland was exactly the same as it was in England. Anyone who had watched the conduct of criminal case in England would know that no prosecuting counsel ever thought of exercising any ingenuity to secure a conviction. The Judge was always careful that no prosecuting counsel should for a moment exceed the line of his duty."
    The Solicitor General for Ireland, who received a large official salary, also undertook private practice, and only a few weeks ago a Crown case came before a court in Dublin. The judge inquired why the law-officers of the Crown were not present, and he was informed that the Solicitor General was earning guineas upstairs as counsel in a Private Bill Procedure case. In the large sum which was charged for law expenses to solicitors there would be included, he supposed, the fees of the gentleman who acted for the Solicitor General in the Irish Court. Mr. Campbell, the Solicitor General, abused paid members, but it appeared to be consistent with his own sense of duty to dip his hand as deep as he could into the public purse to pay a deputy for the performance of work he was himself paid by the Government to perform. The Daily Express, writing in regard to Jury-packing in Ireland, said that trial by jury for political offences had ever been more or less of a make-believe or pretence in Ireland, and, down to the present time, the Crown had only succeeded in asserting the law by such an arrangement of the jury system as they could rely upon. Another matter which required most serious attention was the expenses for actions taken against resident magistrates and other judges, a Vote for which was down on the Estimates. The meaning of that was that if these men perpetrated an illegality and were sued for it, t he people who had been actually wronged by them were required to pay the indemnity. That was the degradation and blasphemy of justice. In February 1888,

    1449
    the right hon. the member for Montrose burghs in the course of a speech said that a despotic Government might be strong, but there was no Government so weak as the Government which, under the forms of freedom, practised despotism. That was not a very unfair description of the Government of Ireland at the present day.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he desired to draw attention to certain prosecutions which had taken place in his constituency, County Clare. On the 23rd of June he had put a Question to the Chief Secretary in regard to a Mr. Linnane and some other gentlemen in Ennis who had been imprisoned for conspiracy. When he was proceeding to ask for further information, the Speaker told him he could not do so by means of Questions across the floor of the House, and that he must elicit the information in Committee of Supply.† That was, therefore, why he wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General to what appeared to him to be a most unwarrantable state of affairs in the county he represented. That county was to day not only one of the most crimeless in Ireland or the United Kingdom, but one of the most crimeless districts in the whole civilised world. At the last two Quarter Sessions the Judge was presented with white gloves, and at the last Summer Assizes the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, who was a native of the county found there was no business, and congratulated the Grand Jury on the condition of the county. There was, he said, much improvement and no Bill to go before them. He was sure it would be a surprise to those Englishmen and Scotchmen who took any interest at all in Irish affairs to hear that in County Clare, which was in such a peaceable condition, several of its most prominent inhabitants were in prison under the operation not of the ordinary law, but of what was called the Crimes Act, and which they in Ireland called the Coercion Act. That was a state of affairs that could not possibly exist in England or Scotland, or indeed in any other portion I of the British Empire. Who were these gentlemen who were in prison? Mr.
    † See preceding volume, page 1388.
    1450
    Linnane was the Chairman of the Ennis Town Commissioners, the chief town of the county, a gentleman who, on account of his position, was a magistrate and administered the ordinary law at Petty Sessions. He bore the highest possible character in every way in the town in which he lived. The second gentleman was the Chairman of the Corofin District Council, who also was a magistrate and administered the law at Petty Sessions. The third was Mr. Griffy, a gentleman 72 years of ago, who was Chairman of the Corofin Board of Guardians. There were several other gentlemen imprisoned under the Coercion Act, but he would not refer more particularly to them than to say that, in their own localities, they were held in the highest respect, and had never been guilty of any crime in the ordinary sense of the term. He knew that it was very difficult in the House to get English and Scottish Members to understand Irish affairs, as was shown by the state of the Benches. There was no great disposition on the part of English and Scottish members to come there and receive enlightenment on Irish affairs from the representatives of Ireland. He maintained that the condition of the Benches outside the Irish Benches, was in itself a proof that some system of government in Ireland was necessary, other than the existing system, which enabled Gentlemen to come into the Chamber and vote at the end of a debate which they had not heard, and of which they knew absolutely nothing. He might be allowed to put to the few English Members present the position he was placed in at the present time. They heard of crimes and outrages and disorder in Ireland, but he stated on the floor of the House, as the elected representative of the County Clare, that there was not the slightest vestige of crime in that district; and yet some of their leading and best men were imprisoned as common criminals. English Members might say what they liked about Ireland, and might hold what view they liked about the action of Irish Members in this House; but he ventured to say that there was no English or Scotch Member who, if he found himself in the position in which he was placed, would not do the utmost in his power to expose the monstrous condition in which they were situated.

    1451
    The three gentlemen he had referred to were in prison on the charge of criminal conspiracy, but they had not had the opportunity, as they would have had had they lived in this country, of having their case tried in the ordinary way by a jury. They had been sent to prison by a movable magistrate. According to the Chief Secretary they had been sent to prison because they sought "to compel certain persons not to occupy land of which they were in lawful occupation;" He was in a position to absolutely deny that there was in this instance any criminal conspiracy whatever. If there was, then he took a greater part in that conspiracy than any of the gentlemen now in prison. What took place? There was a dispute in reference to a certain farm in the town of Corofin. There was a difference as to which particular family was entitled to occupy that farm, and a public meeting was called to consider the matter. As Member for the county he was present at the meeting, and so also was the hon. Member for Limerick. There was absolutely nothing to conceal. It was an ordinary open air meeting in the light of day with speeches delivered before the whole world. Not a single word was uttered at that meeting calculated to cause crime, outrage, or violence of any kind. On the contrary, in all the speeches the people were strongly advised, while they exercised the right of combination, such as was enjoyed by the tradespeople and working classes of this country, not to do anything which would give their enemies the slightest handle against them. He was stating those facts in order to show that the prosecutions ordered by the Government were absolutely without any right or foundation whatever. Before the public meeting took place, a Convention was held in the Board room of the Workhouse, and delegates came to it from all parts of the county. There was nothing secret about it, any more than at any meeting of the Primrose League. They had hardly taken their places in the Board room, when a force of policemen marched into the room and took up a position as if they were on guard. If the Chief Secretary wanted to have a recurrence of crime and violence in County Clare, he could not do better than he had done on that occasion. The people were provoked, because they felt
    1452
    it an insult that their private meeting should be interfered with in that way; and it was only because the hon. Member for Limerick and himself exercised all their powers of persuasion in calming the people that the peace was not broken and the policemen assaulted. They told the policemen they had no right to be present, and the Chairman of the Ennis Town Commissioners, as a magistrate, called upon them to withdraw as there was no warrant for their presence. That gentleman was now in prison, and one of the charges against him was that he asked the policemen to withdraw on that occasion. Arising out of the proceedings at that meeting there was a libel action against a newspaper which was tried in Dublin, and the presiding judge, Mr. Justice Gibson, declared that, having gone into all the circumstances of the case, he was of opinion that the dispute which had unfortunately arisen was in the course of being settled by negotiation in the most friendly spirit between the tenants who had been displaced, and the other side, and the landlord. A verdict for the defendant was returned, largely on the opinion of the judge. It was in connection with that dispute that the three prominent gentlemen he had referred to were in prison at the present time, sent there by two magistrates under the Coercion Act. An appeal was taken from the decision of the two magistrates to the County Court judge who said he had to administer the Act as he found it, and he regretted having to confirm the sentence, but in doing so he paid a high tribute to the gentlemen referred to.
    He protested as strongly as he could against the Coercion Act being put into operation with the result of imprisoning the most prominent men in the district where there was absolutely no crime. He desired to ask the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General to justify in some way, if they could, the exercise of coercion in a county where there was absolutely no crime. There was competition for certain land in the county, and the tenants had come together to consider the matter on the model of the Trade Unions in this country. The landlords of Ireland had combined in a particularly strong way, and were working together in their own interests.

    1453
    Why, then, should not the tenants be allowed to combine in their own interests? in the past there was a great deal of violence in Clare, but he said deliberately, as one of the Members for the county, that it was altogether due to the fact that the people were deprived of the right of combination. They did not understand how to look after their own interests by methods of organization, and they were driven to take up the weapons of violence and outrage. What was it to be in Clare and other counties in Ireland in the future? If men like Mr. Lehane and Mr. Flanagan, who were looked up to and respected by the people, who were magistrates, and who had counselled the people to avoid violence and crime and to put their trust in organization, were cast into prison, and treated as common malefactors, under the operation of an extraordinary law, the combination of the people might decline, but nothing was more absolutely certain than that moonlighting would come into existence again. The people would say, what was the use of combining peaceably, when men in responsible positions were cast into prison as ordinary malefactors. They would say that the only way of attracting attention to their grievances, and of getting them remedied, was to take weapons in their hands and wreak vengeance on their oppressors. That certainly was not what the Irish Members wanted, or what any man connected with the Irish organization wanted. In the past, before methods of organization were adopted, the people had to rely almost altogether on outrage and crime in order to have attention drawn to their grievances. The Irish Members had endeavoured to teach the people to combine peaceably, as people combined in England, and to turn them from methods of violence into channels of peaceable organization. Their efforts were met by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General casting leading members of the organization into prison. He said, with great regret and foreboding, that if that course was continued by the Government, there would be an end to the absence of violence and crime which now happily existed in Ireland.
    There was no justification whatever for enforcing coercion in Clare. There was no crime, there was no outrage,
    1454
    there was no serious disturbance of the peace. The people were attending to their business, and were applying themselves to carrying out the powers invested in them by the Local Government Board Act, as best they could. There was only one explanation for the exercise of coercion, and that was that the Government were making themselves the tools and servants of the Irish landlords. The fact that men were imprisoned in Clare, would not make the county any the more peaceful. It might help, perhaps, to break down the organisation of the people and destroy their confidence in peaceful methods, which was evidently what was wanted at the present time. It was a thousand pities that the Chief Secretary, the Attorney General, and those responsible for law and order in Ireland, could not rest satisfied and content when they saw the once turbulent county of Clare in a peaceable condition, and that they could not refrain from provoking and irritating the people by having recourse to the extraordinary methods of coercion. He would ask the Attorney General to justify, by anything that existed in Clare, the exercise of coercion in that county. He would also ask him to explain how it was that some of the men now in prison were sentenced to hard labour while others were not, although they were all convicted for the same so-called offence. He failed to understand, and the people of the district failed to understand, the distinction. Of course, he would not be in order in referring to the previous debate, but he might be permitted to say that at the time when there was outrage in Clare, some of it took the abominable form—a form which filled every man in Ireland with the utmost disgust—of mutilating dumb animals. These outrages had been condemned over and over again. Public Boards had passed resolutions denouncing them, and it would be impossible to meet a single person in Ireland who would endeavour to palliate or excuse them in any way whatever. The Government had recently admitted that some of these abominable outrages were planned and carried out by the agents of the Government. One of those agents was in the very district in Clare where those outrages most mysteriously occurred, and the people had never been able to discover how they occurred. That was a most significant thing, which he

    1455
    thought ought to receive the attention of the Government. He could assure Hon. Members that the Irish Members had no higher desire than that in districts like Clare the energy, the resolution, and the determination of the people should be directed into proper and legitimate channels. That was the object of the organization which the Attorney General had struck at. They desired to combine lawfully, and by "lawfully" he meant according to the law which obtained in. England and Scotland, as well as in the Empire at large. They had largely succeeded. During the ten years he had represented one of the Divisions of Clare, the whole conditions of agitation in that county had changed. The people, instead of giving way to fits of violence, addressed themselves, as their leaders advised them, to the work of organization, with the result that the county was tranquil. There was now no work at assizes or quarter sessions, and white gloves were given to the judges; and yet the Government were not content with that state of peace, but attempted to provoke and irritate the people, almost beyond endurance, by imprisoning the very man for whom they had the most respect. What he had said of Clare could, he believed, be said of every other county in Ireland where coercion was enforced. Could the Attorney General point to any district in England where there was no work at assizes, where the judges received white gloves, and where yet the Chairmen of most of the leading Boards, as well as many of their Members, were in prison. Such a state of things could not exist in Great Britain or in any other part of the Empire, except in Ireland. He knew Clare pretty well, and he could tell the Attorney General with regret, that he believed if coercion were continued in that country, and if men who had a restraining influence on the people were cast into prison, there would be plenty of work at assizes in future, and there would be no more gloves for the judges. He did not gay that by way of threat or from a desire that there should be a change from the present peaceable condition of the county, but the people were so circumstanced that they should do something. They were discontented and dissatisfied with the present system of land tenure. In the name of law and order—[An HON.
    1456
    MEMBER: "Oh!"] The hon. Member opposite was a first class representative of the arrogant, self sufficient Tory minority in Ireland. The Irish Members on that side represented four-fifths of the people of Ireland, and they were endeavouring to state moderately and reasonably what they believed to be the opinion of their people. The hon. Gentleman opposite was impregnated with the ideas of hon. Gentlemen around him.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the subject of criminal prosecutions.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he hoped he would be allowed to state moderately, reasonably, and quietly, what he had been sent to the House of Commons to state. He had been doing that until he was deliberately interrupted by the hon. Gentleman, who, however, was perhaps not worth taking any notice of. He would appeal in the name of law and order—names so often misused by hon. Gentlemen representing the minority in Ireland—that the people should be allowed to agitate for their rights on lines of combination similar to those adopted by trades unionists in England and throughout the Empire, and that their leaders should not be cast into prison. If that course were not adopted by the Government, he could assure the Chief Secretary and Attorney General that the people would not be terrorised, and that the result would be that once more there would be outrage and violence and dark crime in Clare, and many other counties in Ireland.
    MR. ARCHDALE, said he was very glad to hear the hon. Member repudiate outrages on cattle, and he was perfectly sure that every hon. Member on the Nationalist benches was as much opposed to those dastardly out rages as the hon. Member who had spoken. But he should have liked to have heard the hon. member repudiate them ten or fifteen years ago.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was sure the hon. Gentleman who now represented his old constituency had no desire to misrepresent him by insinuating that he had not at all times repudiated and denounced such outrages. The hon. Member was altogether mistaken.
    MR. ARCHDALEsaid he quite accepted the hon. Member's explanation. The hon. gentleman did once represent his constituency on a bogus electorate, but he had not the least antipathy to him on that account.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the subject of criminal prosecution.
    MR. ARCHUALEsaid it was rather extraordinary to hear the hon. Member opposite state that if organization was put down in Clare crime arid outrage would follow. One of the greatest Members of the House of Commons, the late Mr. Gladstone, said that crime always dogged the footsteps of the Land League. It was perfectly well known to all students of Irish history that where there was organization in a county there was crime in that county. His own county of Fermanagh was very free from organization, and consequently free from crime. He knew the country for twenty years as well as Any man. He had taken a strong political part in his own county, he knew the feelings of the farmers, and he knew that if they were not terrorised by the organization which the Chief Secretary was rightly trying to put down, they would live in peace and happiness. He was glad to say that white gloves to judges were getting frequent, and even at the last assizes in Sligo the learned judge commented on the great improvement which had taken place since the spring Assizes. He, however, firmly believed that if Ireland were only firmly governed there was nothing more that she wanted.
    MR. THOMASSHAWsaid he would not have taken part in the debate were it not for the appeal which had been addressed from the Irish Benches to the Front Opposition Bench. He, at any rate, was not shaken in his faith that there was only one radical cure for all these ailments in Ireland. He desired to place on record his surprise at the action of the Crown authorities in the Sheridan case. There was no man who could sympathise more than he could with the action of the Crown authorities in circumstances of great public difficulty, but what happened in the Sheridan case? A member of the Constabulary, bound as a police officer to prevent and detect crime, became a perpetrator
    1458
    of crime of the most atroeious description—the crime of maiming cattle against which they all protested—and ho became the perpetrator of those crimes with the infamous design of fathering them on others. It seemed incredible that, having formed that design he was able to carry it out, through the assistance of the Crown, and that the victims he had selected were put in the dock and tried. What would have been done in Scotland? A man prosecuted by the Crown would be tried by a jury, but the privilege of setting aside jurors would be limited to five persons, except in special cases. In Ireland the Crown prosecutor was in a, position to set back as many jurors as he liked. The whole thing from beginning to end read like a frightful romance. It would be impossible for it to occur in any properly governed country, and yet it went on in Ireland, They were asked to believe that that was an isolated case, and with regard to that, he heard, with a certain measure of approval, the remarks of the hon. Member of South Tyrone. He could not himself credit that Sheridan was a type of the Irish policemen, but, on the other hand, he wished to say after some intimate experience of the working of the criminal law that it would be impossible for such a gross and terrible case to have occurred, without other cases having previously occurred which had not seen the light. The system of jury packing stood condemned in the lurid light of the, Sheridan case. For himself, ho shrank with a feeling of frightful antipathy from the prospects of Ireland under a system of jury packing or unpacking by which thirty, forty, and even sixty jurors could be set aside. That showed how difficult was the task of the Attorney General in Ireland, to whom he thought too little sympthy had been extended, for he was an officer for the administration of a system which was totally impossible under democratic rule. It would be far better to abolish trial by jury in Ireland, than poison justice at its fountain head. If a judge did wrong through prejudice he could be impeached, but they could not impeach a jury. The system was wholly bad, and a radical cure was required. How was it to be obtained? The people were the true guardians of the law, and until they were given self-government they would decline so accept laws with which they had no sympathy, and in the ordinary administration of which they

    1459
    had no share. He might be asked if he was still a Home Ruler. He was; and the revelations they had heard that day made him more of a Home Ruler than ever. He was convinced that it was only by a system under which the people of. Ireland would be responsible through their representatives for framing and administering their own law, that there ever would be law and order in Ireland. The hon. Member for North Fermanagh said that the present condition in Ireland was altogether due to agitation. But they should not condemn agitation. Nothing could be done without agitation, and as a friend of his remarked, they could not even make butter without agitation. He would cite a passage from Burke with reference to the laws proseribing Catholies in every walk in life, which was applicable to the present system—
    "It is a thoroughly barbarous system. It is an outrage of all the laws of humanity and the rights of nature. It is a system as well fitted for the oppression, imprisonment, and degradation of the people and for the debasement of human nature, as has ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man."
    That was applicable to the system revealed during the debate that day. Sydney Smith, who quoted that passage from Burke, added the following comment—
    "Some people hold that that there will not be peace in Ireland until skates and codfish are swimming over the top of it."
    That was Sydney Smith's scathing comment. His own comment (the hon. Member's) was more hopeful. He was for the radical cure of self-government to which he stedfastly adhered; all the more because of the revelations he had heard today. He would put it to the Attorney General for Ireland whether, when they had a case such as the Sheridan case, the better method of procedure would not be to attack it more firmly; and, in the second place, could not the Executive in Ireland manage to administer the law, not under a system of antipathy to the people but of sympathy with them. He did not know why Sheridan was not prosecuted. He declined absolutely to accept the two excuses which had been put forward. He declined to accept the statement that Sheridan had been given an indemnity. He did not think that any responsible officer would have given an
    1460
    indemnity to a blackguard of that description. They should take Sheridan as having committed the offences. He should have been tried, and all possible evidence, including the evidence of the men who were now proved to be innocent, should have been submitted in order to secure his conviction. There was a lamentable lack of firmness throughout in connection with the case. He hoped that the revelations they had heard might incline the hearts of the Irish administration towards a little more sympathy for the great masses of the people in Ireland. It he was not mistaken the quasi-political criminal cases known as agrarian were going to spread all over Ireland. He lamented the time when there would extend to Ulster a feeling of hostility to the laws of the land; and, therefore, it was important, in the interests of law and order, that the Irish Executive should show more sympathy with the people on the one hand, and that when they had such a blackguardly case as the Sheridan case that they should deal with it with more firmness.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid he did not propose to attempt to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into the intricacies of Scotch law and practice; nor did he venture, for a moment, to question the sincerity of his appeal and the strength of his hope as to what might be brought about in Ireland by different methods. Men had gone to Ireland as sincere and as hopeful as the hon. and learned Gentleman, but they only had to get into touch with the actualities of the situation to very soon find out that it was not all the plain sailing they imagined. Mr. Forster went to Ireland confident in the belief that he could bring about peace and order, as no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman thought he could. He was followed by others, who came back, in many cases, disheartened, but at all events convinced that it was not the easy matter they had thought. He did not intend to enter into any length into Sheridan's case. That had been dealt with by his right hon. friend. He only wished to mention one or two things for the purpose of removing misconception. He understood it had been admitted that no fault could be found with

    1461
    the Government for not prosecuting Sheridan in Ryan's case. He said, with some experience of criminal law, that that would have been an absolute impossibility. It was said that Sheridan got an indemnity. He got no indemnity. [An HON. MEMBER: You said he did.] He never said anything of the kind. His right lion, friend, having suspicions, determined at all hazards to ascertain the truth, and was obliged to obtain information from certain constables who were colleagues of Sheridan, under the promise that they would not in any way suffer for it. Under that promise they confessed that in some instances they were practically accomplices, and that in other instances they had not disclosed that Sheridan was an offender. Hon. Members attributed to every Irish official, not only stupidity, but also a base and wicked desire to do everything that was wrong, everything that was unjust, and to resort to corruption, crime, and fraud. But he put it to hon. Members that if one of them had given a pledge to any particular man that if he told a certain thing he would not suffer for it, would he think he was fulfilling his promise if he put that man into the witness box to confess before the world that he was a wicked and abandoned criminal, and had been associated with another criminal as bad as himself. His right hon. friend could only obtain information from those policemen under the promise that they would not suffer for it, and that meant a great deal more than that they should not be dismissed from the police force. It must, in common-sense have meant that they would not be exposed to the world. But even if they were put into the witness-box, it was perfectly competent for them to absolutely decline to answer all questions touching the matter. They were not asked to go into the witness-box, because that would be a distinct violation of the pledge given to them.
    MR. DILLONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would kindly let the Committee know the terms of that pledge.
    *MR. ATKINSONsaid he could only quote the words of his right hon friend.
    MR. DILLONasked if the pledge was that the information would not be used, or that the constables would not suffer.
    *MR. ATKINSONsaid he had given the pledge exactly as his right hon. friend gave it. Surely a pledge that men would not suffer by telling what they knew would not be fulfilled by putting them into the witness-box to confess their crime before the world. But for obtaining information under that pledge there would have been no evidence whatever against Sheridan. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that his right hon. friend had other evidence in his possession to convict Sheridan. He had nothing of the kind; and it was only when those policemen told what they knew under the pledge he had mentioned that it was known what had happened. At no time was there any other evidence against Sheridan. He would pass from that question. The hon. Member for North Cork made a number of small points about the Estimates. The amount for Irish law charges, it was alleged, had been increasing year by year, but it should be remembered that since 1889 other charges had been thrown on this Vote. There was £2,000 for the Legal Department of the Board of Works, and also sums for the Agricultural and other Departments. He did not intend to enter into a defence of himself nor into the question as to whether or not he was worth the £,5000 a year he received.
    Passing away from these small matters, he came to the question of jury-packing. It had been said that he had confessed to jury-packing. Jury-packing was a charge which was very often made; it had been made against not only the present Administration, but the preceding Administration, and, he believed, every Administration through the century. In one sense the charge was true, and that sense was that in Ireland every Administration had found it to be absolutely necessary to exercise the powers which the laws of this country, in common with those of Ireland, gave to the Crown to remove from the jury-box men who through fear or prejudice were not likely to find an impartial verdict. In that sense he had done it, as his predecessor had done it, and every man must do it.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is worth £5,000!
    *MR. ATKINSON (continuing)declared that no Government could be so cowardly as to allow the law to be paralysed in order to escape the censures of hon.

    1463
    Members opposite. But if the charge meant that men who were partisans had been put on juries in order to obtain unjust and unrighteous verdicts, then it was a false charge. Hon. Members were constantly saying that these things were not done in England. The law was the same but, as he had said before, the greatest difference between England and Ireland was in hon. Members and their opinions. If things were said in England which were said in Ireland, if jurors were murdered for doing their duty ["Oh, oh!"]—if jurors were made as Mr. Field was, if attempts were made to assassinate jurors as he had seen done in one instance in Ireland, if men were intimidated, canvassed, and abused, in order to prevent them acting right in the jury-box, then it might be necessary to put the same powers into force in England. The conditions were absolutely and entirely different. Not only was terrorism, intimidation, and abuse used in Ireland, but this wide-spread Association, League, or whatever it was called, sought to make a law for itself, and to set itself above the law of the land. The people were told by gentlemen high in position in the Nationalist party that they were not bound to obey the law of the land if it came into contact with the law of the League. [The right hon. Gentleman quoted extracts from speeches of the hon. Members for East Waterford, Cork City, and North Leitrim in support of his Statement.] Was it not absurd to suppose that they should put into the jury-box to administer the law, and to punish men who had broken the law, persons who were taught that they were not to obey the law; who were told to spit upon and to despise it, and that it had no binding force upon their conscience? What were the methods of the League? Boycotting and intimidation. These practices had been advocated from hundreds of platforms. Boycotting and intimidation were right according to the law of the League, and it was ludicrous to suggest that for the purpose of punishing persons who indulged in those practices men should be put into the jury-box who were taught that boycotting and intimidation were not offences against the law of God and were perfectly legitimate weapons of agitation. He heard a great deal of talk about the advisability of having independent judges. Some hon. Gentlemen were
    1464
    shocked at the notion of trial by removable magistrates, although those magistrates were in exactly the same position as any other civil servant of the Crown with regard to dismissal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He is not.
    *MR. ATKINSONsaid the hon. Member was mistaken, as it had recently been held that every civil servant could be dismissed at pleasure. The cry was always made that they wanted a jury. Why? Because it was certain that a jury, either from prejudice or terror, would not discharge their duty. He disliked as much as anybody could do setting aside a juror, but it was an unpleasant necessity in Ireland. Everybody who attempted to administer the law in Ireland was forced, into this position, that he must either exercise the right of getting into the jury-box, men of sufficient independence to act justly, or allow crime to go unpunished. Such had been the experience and invariable practice of every Administration that had come into power in Ireland. That was his defence of jury-packing. There was nothing new in that.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: No, but the confession of it is new.
    *MR. ATKINSONsaid he had defined what jury packing meant, and he totally denied that the present Administration had ever been guilty of jury-packing in the offensive sense suggested, and he did not think that the argument was advanced by preverting the word. The same charge of jury-packing had been brought against Lord Spencer in 1889, Mr. Bryce in 1893, and Mr. Morley in 1894, and they each and all made the same reply which he made, namely, that the Crown solicitors were, instructed to set aside no man on account, of his religion. "Oh, oh."] The instructions were the same, the men who carried them out were very much the same. How did it come about, that, when all these things were done by the Party opposite, the actions were then replete with all the virtues, while now the same things were denounced a? black and wicked to the last degree?
    MR. LEAMY: Did we not always denounce jury-packing?
    *MR. ATKINSONreferred the hon. Member to a division which took place in 1894, when an Amendment to the Address was moved dealing with the subject; the Parnellite Party supported the Amendment, but were left in the lurch by the other branch of the Party, among those voting against the Amendment being the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. Therefore he was really not very much affected by the stage thunder of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was sorry that the hon. Member for South Donegal should have accused the members of the profession to which he belonged of everything that was black and abominable in the conduct of prosecutions committed to their charge. He had declared the prosecutions to be "scramblings for a verdict," and that nothing was too unjust or unfair to resort to.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that he quoted the speech of Sir Charles Russell in 1888, in which he spoke of "the scrambling for a verdict."
    *MR. ATKINSONsaid that the hon. Member did not stop there. He said it was "a hunt for scalps."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Lord James said that.
    *MR. ATKINSONthought the hon. and learned Gentle man was mistaken, but, who-ever said it, it was a most unwarranted, cruel, and shameful accusation. He was obliged to the hon. Member for West Clare for bringing up the case which he had mentioned. He had frequently said that crimes of violence and fraud were very few in Ireland, but the white gloves to which the hon. Member referred might be duo to either of two things—either that crimes were not committed, or that evidence could not be obtained to prosecute the criminals; It by no means followed that because there were no criminals to prosecute there were no criminals in existence. The particular case referred to by the hon. Member was a case of mean and cowardly boycotting, if ever there were one. Some years ago a farmer got into arrear and had to sell his farm—part of it for, £150 and the remainder for £450. Years afterwards the man went to the Laud League and denounced
    1466
    the purchasers as land grabbers, and a letter was written to them demanding the surrender of the farm which they had bought. The judge before whom the case came described that letter as "dreads ful" and as containing "a scarcely veiled, threat."
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that he could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's Statement. It was at variance with the information in his possession, and he could pledge his word that there was no intimidation or conspiracy of any kind.
    *MR. ATKINSONsaid he was reading from a report of the trial, in which the letter to the man telling him to give up his farm was described by the judge as "a dreadful letter." He would read the letter to the Committee.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: And is that the letter which the right hon. Gentleman describes as "a dreadful letter"?
    *MR ATKINSONsaid he was quoting; the language of the judge. This farmer got that letter from the Secretary of the League, and it meant that if he did not do a certain thing he would be denounced as a land grabber. At all events that was his case. The difficulty in administering the law in this district of Clare was that respectable men resorted to these practices, which he did not hesitate to describe as mean, cowardly, and cruel.
    MR. DILLON: All respectable men are against you in Ireland.
    *MR. ATKINSONdenied that assertion, but the difficulty was that respectable I men would descend to such mean and I cruel crimes, for he did not think there was any crime more mean and cruel; than such a one as this. The hon. Member asked if the Government were going to prevent the Crimes I Act from operating in the County of Clare, on account of the absence of; ordinary crime in that county.
    MR WILLIAM REDMOND: Am I to understand that the Government wish to have, instead of combination among the people, a return to the methods of violence which previously prevailed in Clare? If that is what is wanted, they might perhaps be able to get it.
    *MR. ATKINSONsaid he hoped that would not be generally understood or generally acted upon. "He claimed that it was the duty of the Government, irrespective of consequences, to put down crime, whatever form it took, or from whatever source it proceeded. Whatever the nature of the crime, the Government must not condone it.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why did you not put down Sheridan?
    *MR. ATKINSONsaid the Government were obliged to put down crimes of this kind, no matter what the station in life the people who perpetrated them.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked why the Solicitor-General was allowed to appear as counsel before the Committee upstairs?
    *MR. ATKINSONreplied that the Chief Secretary had already answered that question. His colleague was permitted to practice, and he took up a brief for the Crown in this particular case. The case, however, was adjourned, and it came into conflict with an engagement that the Solicitor-General had at Westminster, but his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary had given the assurance that nothing of the kind would occur again.
    MR. LEAMYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had practically admitted that the only way in which they could govern Ireland was to deprive Irishmen of the right of trial by jury. The Attorney-General had said that he did not desire to have jury-packing. Of course, he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman ordered jurors to stand aside because the real jury, packer was always on the spot in the shape of the Crown Solicitor. He had seen the Crown Solicitor with the jury list in his hand, and, as the names of the jury men were called over, he cried out "stand aside" when those men were called which had been ticked off upon his list. The Crown Solicitor sent persons about the country in order to ascertain the religion of those who were upon the jury list, and also whether they were members of the United Irish League or not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite thought it was an excellent reason
    1468
    for refusing to allow a man to sit on the jury if he happened to be a member of the United Irish League, although if it were a case between the landlord and tenant the Crown did not object to members of the landlord party sitting on the jury. He believed that at the Bar the right hon. Gentleman had the reputation of being a fair-minded man, and he had much sympathy with the Attorney-General who was only the victim of an odious system. The right hon. Gentleman had now admitted that he could not administer the law without resorting to jury-packing. The real reason for this was that the law came to Ireland in a foreign garb. In somecases as many as sixty or seventy jurymenhad to be thrust aside before they could get a jury, and that was a state of things which could not be found in any other country in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that ordinary crime hardly existed in Ireland, and that the only crime to be found there was of a political agrarian character.
    He wished to know why Sheridan had not been prosecuted. He was astonished that such an explanation as that which had been given to the Committee could have been given in the presence of any lawyer in this House. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that a pledge was given to those men in Sheridan's case that if they gave evidence against Sheridan no harm would come to them. Already the names of those two men had been given, and they had been published in every newspaper in Ireland. Therefore, he was at a loss to know what harm could come to them if they came forward as witnesses against Sheridan in a court of law. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that this course would be a breach of the pledge given to these two men, but it was not an uncommon thing in Ireland to see men brought forward who gave evidence as informers, and who received a promise from the Crown that if they gave evidence they would not only be indemnified but would also get a sum of money for their information. If the Attorney-General wanted to convict an unfortunate peasant of "moonlighting," he did not hesitate at all to put forward his informers, but when an official was concerned he refused to take this course, and Sheridan was allowed to go perfectly free. A greater outrage

    1469
    upon justice had never been committed, and this case showed what they had got to face under the present system of Government in Ireland. He agreed that the Chief Secretary had acted with a good deal of courage in this matter, for lie had acted against the advice of Dublin Castle up to a certain point, but the officials had now proved too strong for him. The Government not only packed juries in older to convict Irish tenants, but they did not hesitate to enter into something like a confederacy with members of the constabulary in order to get up charges. He was very sorry for the Chief Secretary who found himself in such evil company.
    *MR. NORMANsaid it was desirable that a protest should be made upon one point of the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland by someone who was not an Irish member. The right hon. Gentleman had been challenged to give the exact words of the pledge, and he understood that he refused to do so. The pledge given was, he believed, that these men, if they spoke the truth, should be
    none the worse for it. His contention was that that pledge did not mean that these constables should not be put in the witness-box, but that they should not be put in the dock. What was more common than for the Government to give a pledge of this kind if a person would turn King's evidence. The pledge surely meant precisely that these men should go into the witness-box. The case of Sheridan was so bad that every effort ought to be made to bring him to justice, and these two men ought to have gone into the witness-box in order that justice might prevail in this dreadful case, and then, if necessary for their safety, they should have been provided for in some other country. There was a most deplorable failure of justice, and the right hon. Gentleman's defence of it was one of the feeblest he had ever heard in this House, and it was against this action that he felt bound as an English member to record his protest.
    (11.50.) Question put.
    The Committee divided.—Ayes, 142; Noes, 80. (Division List No. 283.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Denny, Colonel

    Keswick, William

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Disraeli, Coningaby Ralph

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Archdale, Edward Morvyn

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Knowles, Lees

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (M'nc'r.

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Long, Rt Hn. Walter,(Bristol, S.

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Ger'ld W (Leeds

    Finch, George H.

    Lonsdile, John Brownlee

    Ban bury, Frederick George

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Bill, Charles

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Brassey, Albert

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Maclver, David (Liverpool

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Galloway William Johnson

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn

    M'Calinont, Col. H. L.B (Cambs.

    Bull, William James

    Gore, Hn. GRC. Ormsby-(Salop

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Butcher, John George

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

    Milvain, Thomas

    Cavendish. V. C.W. (D'rbyshire

    Gretton, John

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

    Cliamberlain D, J. Austen (W'rc'r

    Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G.(Midd'x

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W m.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Clive, Capt. Percy A.

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute)

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset E.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    O'Neill, Han. Robert Torrens

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Russell, T. W.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Valentia, Viscount

    Percy, Earl

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Purvis, Robert

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertfor'd, East)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Randies, John S.

    Smith, H C (N'rth'mb. Tyneside

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

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Spear, John Ward

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

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Renwick, George

    Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

    Ridley. Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Younger, William

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ.

    Sir William Walrond and

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N)

    Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

    Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Horniman, Frederick John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Kelly, James(Roscomm'n, N.

    Boland, John

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Partington, Oswald

    Caldwell, James

    Leamy, Edmund

    Power. Patrick Joseph

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Reddy, M.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Leng, Sir John

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lundon, W.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Cremer, William Randal

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Dillon, John

    M'Cann, James

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Govern, T.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Edwards, Frank

    M'Kean, John

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants

    Field, William

    Mooney, John J.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Moss, Samuel

    Tennant, Harold, John

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Murphy, John

    Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Thompson, Dr. E C(Mon'gh'n, N

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Nolan, Col. John P,(Galway, N.

    Tomkinson, James

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Tully, Jasper

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Norman, Henry

    Young, Samuel

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'r'ryMid.

    Sir Thomas Esmonde and

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Captain Donelan.

    It being after Twelve of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

    PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

    FACTORY ACTS—FRUIT PRESERVING ORDER.
    *MR. TALBOT, who was indistinctly heard, moved that the Special Order of the Secretary of State, dated June 17, 1902, prescribing
    1472
    conditions to special exception (fruit preserving), be annulled. He approved of the greater part of the Order, and was very grateful for the redemption of the Home Secretary's promise, made to him last year in the Standing Committee, but explained that, in order to raise an objection to a particular section of it, he was obliged by the Rules of the House to move that the whole be annulled. The section he objected to was the sixth, which regulated the hours for girls under sixteen; and the age limit, he contended, ought to be raised to eighteen. He based this contention upon the Section of the Act 1, Edw. 7, c. 22, sec.156, which says—

    1473
    "The expression 'young person' moans a person who has ceased to be a child, and is under the aye of 18 years."
    And he asked why this protection should be limited in a trade specially exhausting to girls under 16 years, thus depriving of protection against overtime those of peculiarly delicate age, between 16 and 18 years.
    He quoted from the Report of the Chief Lady Inspector cases of excess in labour, such as—

    "(1) The employment of women and girls seven days a week.

    (2) The employment of young per ons for 86 hours a week, exclusive of meal times.

    (3) The employment of young persons for 34 hours consecutively.

    (4) Irregular and scanty meal times.

    (5) Lack of Saturday half-holiday."

    And to show further the need of protection for an unprotected class of the community, he quoted from the same Report—

    "(a) We have found girls employed in pouring hot jam who were employed on the previous afternoon in candying peel, and the previous night in bottle washing.

    (b) We have found little girls carrying and stacking jars of jam at night, who during the day had been employed in making potted meat.

    (c) We have found young girls making con fectionery, who went daily at the close of their normal hours to work in the jam boiling room.

    (d) We have found girls employed in the warehouse in covering and labelling jam, who for two hours in the early morning, and two hours late at night, and on Saturday after noons, were busy bottling fruit.

    (e) We have found a woman washing bottles, who the day before our visit had been engaged in unpacking and stacking clean jars, frequently attending to the gooseberry machine, and when not so employed peeling onions in the pickle making room."

    And he asked why should any diminution of protection be afforded to such a class of the community?
    He was not one of those who wished to interfere with male adult labour, and he would not interfere with adult labour at all if he could help it; but this was a class of the community who had no friends except that House. He felt it his duty to call attention to a real grievance of a peculiarly unprotected class of the community.
    Motion made and Question proposed—"That the Special Order of the Secretary of State, dated the 17th day of June, 1902, prescribing conditions to Special Exception (Fruit Preserving) be annulled:—(Mr. Talbot.)
    *MR. TENNANTsaid that he had done his best to get this Order altered during the discussion of the Estimates, and also by communications he had seat to the Home Secretary, but up to the present he had received very scant encouragement. He endorsed the case laid before the House by his right lion, friend. The sixth paragraph was so bad that he would rather see the whole of the Order sacrificed than sanction such a piece of legislation. Under the paragraph in question, women and young girls over 16 years of age might be permitted to be worked twenty-two hours out of twenty-four. He wished to know what protection was being given to girls under sixteen when permission was given by this order to employ them for fifteen hours out of twenty-four. The right hon. Gentleman would probably say that what he had done was the first step, and that half-a-loaf was better than no bread, but he was not at all sure that this was so in this particular case. He did not admit that what had been done was any set off against the sixth section of the Order. He would remind the House that last year they were very 10th to pass section 41 of the Act, and it would never have been passed at all if the right hon. Gentleman had not stated that these terribly long hours would not be allowed. The last report issued upon this subject showed that irreparable injuries were being done to young workers who were employed for very long hours in the jam trade. There was no necessity whatever for these long hours in the jam trade, and the best manufacturers admitted that if all were made to comply with the ordinary law the trade could be carried on without inconvenience.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,)said that this order was applicable to the jam trade only in the fruit season of June, July, August, and September; and if the Motion of his right hon. friend were adopted, the industry would be carried on during the present season under no regulation whatever, and the young women and girls employed would, as a consequence, have to work under still more unfavourable

    1475
    conditions. His right hon. friend objected only to Rule 6—to one Rule out of eight—but, if that Rule were deleted, all the results of carrying on the trade during the present season would be lost. He thought his right hon. friend's action was less justifiable, because he had admitted frankly that many of the regulations prescribed under this Rule were a great advantage in the direction in which he desired legislation to move. His right hon. friend said that if he would consent to delete from these Rules the particular Rule to which he objected, he would be satisfied. The effect of doing that would be exactly the fame as refusing to make the Rule at all, because it would necessitate a new series of rules and regulations which would have to lie in draft upon the table for forty days before they came operative, and the House would at once see that to alter the Order in this way would be to make it ineffective during the present fruit preserving season.
    His right hon. friend must remember that this was an entirely new departure, and that before the Act of 1901 there was no limitation at all of the hours of labour in those factories. He had now made regulations both as to hours of labour and as to sanitation, which he hoped would result in considerable improvement; but he had felt bound to proceed tentatively in this matter. This trade was one which they did not feel at liberty to deal with in a very drastic manner at first. His right hon. friend would observe that amongst the various Rules they have made the last one was of very great importance, and one which would prove a guide in their future dealings in this particular trade. It provided that a register must be kept in these factories in which the name of every woman or young person must be entered, and also the hour at which the fruit arrived, the processes in which women and young persons were employed, together with the period of their employment and the hours allowed for meals. This Rule had been adopted with the view of giving them some guidance in the future in regard to what could be done in the matter, and to guide the department in considering whether they would be justified at a later date in making the Rule more drastic.
    1476
    The hon. Member had drawn a picture of the number of hours which it was possible for these young persons to be employed, but he wished to point out that this limitation had been imposed in consequence of the discussion which took place in Committee. They had drawn up the regulations with regard to this particular trade, so that the order was only applicable in cases where the fruit would be spoiled if these extra hours of labour were not allowed. This exception was limited to certain months in the year, and to the occasions when the fruit on arrival, and must be dealt with as a matter of emergency. He could not see that anything approaching the scandal which his right hon. friend feared in regard to the hours of labour could by any possibility arise. Although the Horn e Office had not felt it possible to go further than they had done in this Order, his right hon. friend might feel certain that he would watch the operation of the Order with the greatest cure, and would do his best at a future time to deal with any such scandals as those which he anticipated might possibly arise under the present Rule. What he wished to point out was that the rejection of this Rule would mean that all restrictions during the present season in this particular industry would be at once removed. He was sure that his right hon. friend would not like that state of things to arise, and therefore he hoped that this Motion would not be pressed to a division.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid that it was quite true that the House approached the discussion of this subject under very peculiar difficulties because they had not had the opportunity of dealing previously with the special provisions made in the Order, and the only means they had of questioning the expediency of any one of those regulations was to take the course which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had done, and to move to annul the Order as a whole. This Order introduced a distinct amelioration of the conditions under which this trade was carried on, and if it were possible to limit this Motion to the particular Clause to which they objected, he was sure his right hon. friend would most gladly have taken that course.

    1477
    He had listened with some disappointment to the statement made by the Home Secretary, because he had not given any reason in regard to the special conditions of this trade why a general limitation should not be applied. Admitting that there were exceptional conditions in this industry, the Home Secretary had given no reasons why the ordinary Rule which applied to young persons under sixteen should, in this case, be departed from. As one who had had some little experience in these matters, and as one who knew something about the special conditions of this trade, he thought it was so important that the general rules should be uniformly and universally applied unless a special case was made out, and which had not been made out in this case. Therefore, he did not think they ought to assent to the Order in the form in which it had been made. He would very much regret it if

    AYES.

    Abraham, Williain(Cork, N. E.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Norman, Henry

    Allen, Charles P.(Glonc., Stroud

    Gretton, John

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Alison, Sir William Reynell

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Gurdon, Sir W. Branipton

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.

    Burdett-Contts, W.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

    Caldwell, James

    Hayne, Kt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Partington, Oswald

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hormman, Frederick John

    Reddy, M.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

    Redmond, John E (Waterford)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Charrington. Spencer

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Law-, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Cremer, William Randal

    Leigh. Sir Joseph

    Smith, H. C(North'm b. Tyn'side

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lundon, W.

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants

    Delany, William

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Doogan, R C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thompson Dr. E. C(Monag'h, N

    Edwards, Frank

    M'Govern, T.

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

    Esmond e, Sir Thomas

    M'Kean, John

    Finch, George H.

    Moss, Samuel

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murphy, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Mr. Talbot and Mr. Tennant.

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W (Leeds

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Denny, Colonel

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Bill, Charles

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Brookrield, Colonel Montagu

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Bull, William James

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbyshire

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

    Fisher, William Hayes

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

    Collings, Rt, Hon. Jesse

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    the ameliorations, which this Order introduced into the general condition of the trade, were not brought into force during the present season, but as there was no other way of insisting that the general rules should be applied to this particular trade, and as there were no special circumstances alleged by the Home Secretary in regard to the exemption of persons between sixteen and eighteen years of age, he felt compelled to support the Motion.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYpointed out that the date fixed — namely, the 23rd of June — had already passed, and therefore there was nothing to prevent the Home Secretary making another Order.
    (12.43.) Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 284.)

    Green, Walford D. (Wedn'sbury

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

    Morgan, David J (Walthamst' w

    Spear, John Ward

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Valentia, Viscount

    Keswick, William

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield

    Knowles, Lees

    Purvis, Robert

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Randles, John S.

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Renwick, George

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

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)

    Ridley, Hon. MW.(Stalybridge

    Wylie, Alexander

    Lowther, C. (Cnmb., Eskdale)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Sir William Walrond and

    Milvain, Thomas

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Adjourned at ten minutes before One o'clock.