Lords Sitting of 4 May 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, Amendment*(91); Local Bankruptcy (Ireland)*(93).
Committee—Copyright (Musical Compositions) (61–92).
Report—Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878, Amendment*(88).
Third Reading—Copyhold Acts Amendment*(89); Westminster Abbey*(57); Customs (Isle of Man)*(60), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Coleraine, &c.)*(63).

COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) BILL.—(No. 61.)
(The Earl of Onslow.)
COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) BILL.—(No. 61.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 (Provision as to damage).
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he moved to omit this clause, which proposed to alter the laws relating to dramatic literary property by limiting the penalty or damages to be awarded upon any action or proceedings in respect of an unauthorized representation of any musical composition to such sum less than 40 s. as should in the discretion of the Court be reasonable. By the law as it stood at present, if a man composed a song, he had the exclusive right of representation as regarded it. That was a right which the composer could sell, and which was frequently sold for hard cash. This Bill proposed to take away that existing right from those who had composed songs, and from those who had purchased the right of representation, and—let there be no mistake about it—the Bill proposed to do that without giving any compensation whatever to the persons so to be deprived of their rights. He challenged the noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell) to deny the truth of that statement. The noble and learned Lord had read the names of a number of distinguished persons—his own among them not being the least distinguished—who recommended the alteration in the law which the Bill proposed to effect, and the noble and learned Lord asked whether anyone would sup-
  1328
  pose that such distinguished persons would recommend such an attack as this clause was described to be upon property being made. For his own part, he should not have supposed that the noble and learned Lord himself would have recommended such an attack as this being made upon property; but the fact was that the noble and learned Lord, and the other distinguished persons, had done so, and therefore there was no supposition about the matter, because it was a fact. He (Lord Bramwell) had not said that this was a serious attack upon property, as his noble and learned Friend imputed to him—it was the precedent which it was now proposed to make, which might by-and-by be relied upon as a justification for more serious attacks upon property. A paltry piece of spoliation like this ought to be equally resisted with a more substantial one. If a man picked his pocket of a pocket handerchief he was a low thief, but he ought to be punished, as well as the man who effected a more substantial robbery. Then there was his noble—he would not say his learned—Friend, because a man appeared to cease to be "learned" when he became a statesman—the Colonial Secretary, whose proposals savoured more of the statesman than of the lawyer—rather of a love of popularity than of law and right. His noble Friend had referred to the case of a Mr. Wall, who, he said, had charged a dear little girl of 13 years of age, £2 for singing a copyright song at a concert for charitable purposes.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD)said, that he had not made the statement, which had been made by another noble and—probably the noble and learned Lord opposite would admit—learned Lord.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (the Earl of ONSLOW)said, that he had made the statement the noble and learned Lord referred to.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that he would finish with the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies before he proceeded to anything else. The noble and learned Lord said that Sir Arthur Sullivan and Messrs. Boosey approved of this clause. No one could speak without respect of Sir Arthur Sullivan; but he would venture to say that Sir

  1329
  Arthur Sullivan approved of this measure because he knew nothing about it. Messrs. Boosey were very respectable people, but they did not oppose this clause because they were musical publishers, and the more songs were sung the more copies of them they sold. Doubtless, Messrs. Boosey, therefore, would sooner pay a person £2 for singing a song than charge him £2 for his singing. The evidence of Messrs. Boosey, therefore, respectable though they no doubt were, was worthless as regarded the present matter. He challenged the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies to deny that this clause proposed to take away a right without giving any compensation for it. With regard to the dear little girl of 13 who sung a song for charity, he wondered whether she had sung for charity, or for the pleasure of hearing her own voice, or to contribute to the pleasure of her parents and friends, which had no doubt much more to do with the matter than charitable motives. Still, if he had been the proprietor of the song, and he had been told that it had been sung for charity, he was not at all sure that he should have asked for the £2. He said that he was not at all sure that he should have done so advisedly, because if a man permitted his songs to be sung for charity without demanding payment, he might part with all the value of his property. On the other hand, however, if he had been the father of this dear little girl, and he had heard that a demand had been made for the payment of this £2, he should have paid what, after all, was only a just debt. The noble and learned Earl near him seemed to approve of the Bill, and as he had challenged others, he challenged the noble and learned Earl to deny that this clause proposed to take away a right without any compensation being given in respect of it. This was not a question of alteration of procedure alone; it was taking away a substantial right. No doubt it was a small matter; but a bad precedent was established by the Bill, and would be applied in other cases. He should not deal with the provisions of the Bill in detail; but he would submit to their Lordships that the Bill took away a right without pretending to give an equivalent for it, and he would challenge the noble and learned Lord the late Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord
  1330
  the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or the noble and learned Earl beside him, to contradict the description he had given of the measure.
  Moved,"To omit Clause 1."—(The Lord Bramwell.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that as the noble and learned Lord had good-humouredly challenged him to reply, he would state shortly the reasons which induced him to disagree with his noble and learned Friend on this matter. In saying that a right of property was taken away without an equivalent being given, what did his noble and learned Friend mean by "a right of property?" What he called "a right of property" was clearly the claim given by the Statute to any person proceeding for the infringement of a song to minimum damages of 40 s. If that were what the noble and learned Lord called "a right of property," it was a very peculiar description to apply to a mere regulation by Parliament interfering with the legitimate function of a jury to assess damages that the minimum damages for the infringement of the Act should be 40 s. The same Statute also gave the plaintiff a right to double costs in all cases, which would be a much more valuable right, in a pecuniary sense, than 40 s. damages. But this the noble and learned Lord justly regarded as a matter not of property, hut of procedure; and he was willing that it should be taken away. He (the Earl of Selborne) thought the same principle applicable both to damages and to costs. He objected to the present practice under the Statute, and should support the clause.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he wished to express his concurrence with the views of the noble and learned Earl. His noble and learned Friend had observed that neither Sir Arthur Sullivan nor Messrs. Boosey knew anything about this question. In this case those who wrote the music, those who wrote the words, and those who dealt in both, agreed in seeing nothing to object to in this Bill. Only one solitary individual objected. In his opinion, this Bill did not take away any right of property. The right of property given by the Statute was the right of exclusive representation of the song—that no person was to be at liberty with impunity to perform it. But not

  1331
  every remedy given by the Statute was part of the right of property. This Bill did not take away the right to sue for infringement of copyright; it only abolished the right to minimum damages, and left the whole question of damages to the decision of the Court. Was the Legislature, because it had once fixed a minimum of damages, to be bound for all time to continue that measure of damages? Was the Legislature bound to hold to that measure of damages when it was shown that it worked injustice, and that the best course was to leave the measure of damages to the tribunal? He believed that this Bill took away no right of property.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he agreed that there was some slight doubt whether they were not confusing things with words. What was called a right of property, no doubt, was incapable of exact definition, and yet everybody well knew what it meant. One incident of a right of property was that its possessor could enforce it, and thus make it of some value to himself. The particular thing with which their Lordships were dealing was the right of exclusive representation, and it was to be observed that that right which was thought to be fenced round by the Legislature was the right of representation on each particular occasion. The general right of copyright or the right to multiply copies was sufficiently protected by law already. But, doubtless, the Legislature, in passing the Act which it was now sought to repeal, foresaw that it would probably be impossible for a person to give evidence applicable to the particular injury done to him on a particular occasion. The right with which they were now dealing was the right of single representation, and a jury would probably say they could not assess the damage done in respect of each representation. The Legislature, in order to get rid of that difficulty, thought it right to fix the minimum amount of damages in order to prevent these representations being made without the sanction of the author. As it was competent for the Legislature to pass that Act, so they might now amend it; but he thought it desirable that those who insisted on the alteration should show their lordships why the owners of this kind of property should be left without protection. He
  1332
  would suggest that the Judge should have a discretion in awarding costs, and that the amount of the penalty should remain as at present. Deep as was his respect for the Commission, he must vote for the noble and learned Lord if he brought this matter to a Division.
  EARL GRANVILLEremarked, that the lawyers did not all give them the same advice, and therefore he should prefer to look at this question from the point of view of a common juryman. If, as the noble and learned Lord said, the Judge would be able to assess the amount of costs, he did not see why the jury should not be able to assess the amount of damages.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWpointed out that in the evidence given before the Commission it was stated by a music publisher, who was well qualified to judge, that he did not believe any living composer had derived sixpence profit from the performance of his songs. That was the kind of property which the noble Lord said would be taken away by this Bill—property which had never been worth sixpence to its owner. The way in which the cumulative penalty worked this great hardship was best illustrated by the evidence of another music publisher. An agent said—"I understand that you have purchased the copyright of a song." It was not a classical production, but the song was popular. It was called "Tommy, make room for your uncle." The agent went on to say—"Do not attempt to recover penalties for one or two performances, but wait till the pantomimes are in full swing, and you will then have an opportunity to recover numerous penalties and to put £200 into your pocket." The object of the Bill was to prevent such an abuse as that.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments: the Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 92.)

LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, he rose to call attention to the subject of the establishment of local Courts of Bank-

  1333
  ruptcy in Ireland, with a view to presenting a Bill. This subject had from time to time within the last 10 or 11 years occupied the attention of Parliament and of successive Governments. The Bill which he had to present to their Lordships proceeded on the lines of, and was largely identical with, those previously introduced. At present the only bankruptcy jurisdiction in Ireland was the Bankruptcy Court of Dublin, which did very good and efficient work and enjoyed the confidence of those who had to avail themselves of its jurisdiction. But Belfast, a great mercantile community, the capital of the North of Ireland, a great centre of commerce and a great seat of manufactures, also had been anxious for a great number of years to have at its door and within its own geographical boundaries an efficient and working Bankruptcy Court. Belfast, which had a growing population and an increasing commerce, had likewise asked from time to time that in addition to having a local Bankruptcy Court the area of the jurisdiction of its Recorder and its County Court Judge should be re-adjusted. Again, Cork, the capital of Munster, also desired, and fairly and reasonably desired, to have a local Court to administer its bankruptcy business. With that wish successive Governments had sympathized, and he thought that as far back as 1879 a Bill was brought in and was reintroduced by the next Government in 1883, and he knew that last year several Bills were brought in to deal with this subject. Now he had to ask their Lordships to allow him to present a Bill dealing with this important subject and to give a first reading to it. The Bill which he sought to introduce proposed at once to introduce local Bankruptcy Courts in Belfast and Cork. It proposed also to take power to establish local Bankruptcy Courts by Order in Council in Londonderry, Galway, Waterford, and Limerick, as expediency and the state of business might require. He might also take power of adding to and varying these districts as the exigencies of business or changes in population might demand. It was also proposed to authorize the Lord Lieutenant in Council to join on part of Antrim to Down on the next vacancy in the County Court Judgeship, and also of adding on a portion of Down to Antrim, and also
  1334
  similarly of adding portions of East I Cork to West Cork. Powers were also taken of transferring cases on the application of any suitor from the Bankruptcy Court in Dublin to the rural bankruptcy jurisdiction and vice versâ. There were other clauses dealing with machinery with which he would not trouble the House, and which could be I discussed at a later stage of the Bill. He hoped the Bill would be printed and distributed in the course of a few days, and he proposed to fix the second reading for this day week.
  Bill to provide for the establishment of local courts of bankruptcy in Ireland—Presented(The Lord ASIIBOURNE).
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he was rather disappointed at the statement of his noble and learned Friend. While he objected to the fantastic clauses proposed last year in the Land Bill, ho was in favour of a small local bankruptcy jurisdiction, under which a small tenant might at once realize and distribute his property among his creditors, and in a short time be a free man again. To these men this Bill would give no relief whatever. To relieve the tenants from their rent or to I give them additional privileges was useless, if it was really done, not for the benefit of the tenant, but for that of the money lenders. Let them enable the tenant to give up his farm and at once become a free man. If a tenant farmer had an interest in his farm that was put up for sale—and it would probably be bought in for him by his friends—he got at once an absolute discharge from all his debts, and his property was realized and distributed. He would reserve any further criticism till he had had an opportunity of examining the Bill; but he would warn the noble and learned Lord that that project of establishing local Bankruptcy Courts in Belfast and Cork was one which he would not find it easy to carry out. It had always met with opposition on this side of the water. If there were a Bankruptcy Court in Belfast it affected not only Belfast but Manchester, Liverpool, and other commercial centres. So far back as 1857 he had a conference with the late Lord Cairns—then Mr. Cairns—on this subject in reference to a Bankruptcy Bill he himself was conducting in the House of Commons. He explained to the noble

  1335
  Lord the ground on which he did not think the creation of local Bankruptcy Courts was expedient. It was that there was not sufficient Bankruptcy business in the country to maintain one Court. Lord Cairns was satisfied with a provision then inserted in the Bill that in case of bankruptcy a local inquiry might be carried out at Belfast or Cork or elsewhere, to save the creditor's expenses, but the general administration should be in one central Court. The proposal in this Bill had always met with opposition in Dublin and in England. If they asked the opinion of the English creditors in such cases, they would be told that it would be most inconvenient to have such local Courts, and that one Court at Dublin would be much more accessible. He was not pledging his final opinion on the Bill, which he wished to form after a candid examination of its details.
  EARL SPENCERdid not wish to enter upon a discussion of the Bill, which would be more conveniently taken when they had the Bill before them; but he would like to say this in regard to the subject, that he was well aware that what the noble and learned Lord who spoke last said was quite true. There would be considerable difficulty in carrying the Bill; but, on the other hand, he wished to add that from the knowledge he gained when they were trying to deal with the subject in 1883, ho would say that there was a strong feeling in different parts of Ireland, particularly in Londonderry and Belfast, in favour of the erection of local Courts beyond those in Dublin. But for that feeling it was probable that they would have taken measures in 1886 to carry out the project.
  Bill read 1a. (No. 93.)

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— OUTRAGES ON NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACIIERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he rose to call attention to two outrages committed on national school teachers and their families, the one on Patrick Robinson and his family at Knockagoshal National School, Co. Kerry, in the month of March last, and the other on John Curtin and his family at Knockatea National Schools, in the month of December last. The system of national education had existed in Ireland for over
  1336
  50 years. It was established by Mr. Stanley, on the statesmanlike view of united secular education and separate religious instruction. The system had overcome great difficulties, and was a success. About£700,000 a-year was granted by Parliament, while the contributions in the country were practically nil. The system was controlled by an unpaid national board, consisting of men of great ability and eminence. There were between 7,000 and 8,000 schools, in each of which there was one or more teachers, who were appointed chiefly by the clergy, who were managers, but paid their salaries by the Board. Outrages had recently been committed upons national teachers and attacks on the system generally; and he thought it his duty to call attention to them, and to ask the Government whether there was any probability of the perpetrators being brought to justice. There were two cases in particular about which he had obtained perfectly trustworthy information, derived not from the newspapers, but from investigations on the spot. The noble and learned Lord then described the nature of the attack on Robinson, whose life had been previously threatened. Patrick Robinson was national school teacher at Loughfoodra, about nine miles from Castleisland, in the county of Kerry. The district was wild and remote, and the population few and scattered. About 11 o'clock the teacher was engaged in the ordinary duties of his office, and his two daughters were busy teaching, when his attention was directed towards the door by a stir of great excitement among the pupils, consisting of somewhere about 50 boys and girls. He there saw three men, armed, and one of them disguised by a mask. Two of them went to the head of the school, and the masked man, who was probably the leading ruffian of the district, ordered the teacher's daughter Margaret to go up to where they were and go on her knees. He then ordered Mary Ann Robinson, her sister, about 17 years of age, to come up and kneel down near him, and he ordered the teacher to go on his knees on another part of the school, saying that he wanted to swear him. Robinson asked him what he wanted to swear him for, when the man replied to prevent him talking about his neighbours. In the meantime Mrs.

  1337
  Robinson came out of her residence to come into the school, when the man at the door pointed a gun at her and ordered her back to her residence. The undisguised man put a pistol to Mary Ann Robinson's cheek, and snapped it three times, but it missed. fire. The masked man then, with a curse, ordered his companion out of the school, and took a gun and shot Mary Ann Robinson. The shot riddled a considerable portion of her dress, but, fortunately, did not injure her. He then shot Mr. Robinson, and wounded him severely in the abdomen, there being over 70 perforations. The three ruffians then decamped, firing shots outside. The scene became one of the wildest confusion, the wounded man lying on the floor covered with blood, and the children screaming in terror. The police station was at a distance, but a messenger was sent, and they came and removed the wounded teacher and his daughter to the hospital. On the night of the 17th of March last some men went to the hospital at a late hour and demanded admittance, which was refused. They said they wanted. to see Robinson, and. they were told they could not. They then wanted to see his daughter, which was also refused. These men, in order to get into the hospital, climbed over a high wall. No doubt their object in coming was to intimidate Robinson and his daughter from giving evidence against the perpetrators of these outrages. Subsequent inquiry disclosed. that this was not the first attempt on Robinson's life. The ruffianly perpetrators of these cowardly outrages escaped for the time; but one of the questions which he proposed to put to the noble Lord opposite was whether any clue had as yet been discovered likely to lead to justice on the perpetrators? In August last, while the teacher and his family were at dinner in their own residence, a party of men passed by, and one of them discharged a loaded gun through the door. The contents of the gun perforated the door in very many places and broke a pane of glass at the opposite side of the room. On a Sunday in January last, Mr. Robinson saw five men masking themselves nearly opposite his residence, when he ran into his house and bolted his door. Two carts shortly afterwards passed by, which he thinks, prevented the men from attacking the door. They went to the
  1338
  rear of the house and remained there for about an hour. They fired a shot through one of the back windows, breaking it, and then went away. Now, as to the case of John Curtin. Curtin is the teacher of Monteagle National School, in a remote district in Kerry. His school declined in the number of children in attendance, and the attention of the local Inspector was directed to the state of the school, and he paid it a visit in consequence. The teacher and his pupils appeared to be in au unsettled state of mind for school business, and on inquiry the Inspector found the cause to be as follows:—On the previous Monday, about 12 o'clock, as the teacher, Mr. Curtin, was speaking to the father of one of the pupils outside the school, he saw a masked armed man approaching the rear of the school, followed by five others. He ran towards his residence, which is situated near the school, when a shot was fired after him. Three of the men went into the school, and amid the screams of the children, some of whom clung round the assistant teacher, one of the men fired a shot into the schoolroom. They then went away, after firing some shots outside the school. Late in December last, a further desperate attempt was made, in broad daylight, to murder this national school teacher, but although the original design was not successfully accomplished, the would-be assassin succeeded in wounding both himself and his wife (Mary Curtin), the latter rather seriously. Curtin lived at Monteagle, a wild and desolate region. It is about three miles and a-half from the village of Brosna, and borders on the confines of Cork and Limerick. In this district Curtin has been engaged for the last 15 years teaching a national school, and, as far as can be ascertained, has always been on friendly terms with the neighbours. Yesterday, about ten minutes past 11 o'clock, accompanied by his wife and son, John Curtin, he started for the village of Brosna for the purpose of attending mass there. They travelled in a common cart, and reached a place not far from Brosna about 20 minutes past 11 o'clock. Curtin dropped his whip and his son got out to recover it for him. The young lad had taken the whip off the road, and was getting into the cart, when they heard the report of a shot, which shattered Curtin's arm and severely wounded Mrs. Curtin. After

  1339
  the shot had been fired, three men, who were in ambush, rose from their places of concealment and ran eastwards in an uphill direction. Curtin, though severely wounded, jumped off the car and across the ditch behind which they were ambushed and pursued them about 100 yards. He called on the cowardly assassins to stand, but the leader only turned round and presented a revolver at him and then passed it to the nearest man, who did likewise, but neither of them fired. Curtin, being alone and wounded, turned back to the assistance of his wounded wife. The men concerned in this cowardly and ruffianly attack were not disguised. When Curtin got back to his wife he found the poor woman bleeding from wounds on the right eye and neck. He then drove to Brosna for the priest and doctor. Curtin did not feel his own wounds very much owing to excitement, but subsequently he found his coat had been riddled with shots. Two policemen who were in the district from early morning heard the shots, and made towards the direction and discovered Mrs. Curtin wounded on the roadside. She was wounded in the eye, breast, right arm, shoulder, and knee with shot to the number of 42 grains, while her husband was wounded in the right hand, arm, and side. Such were the two cases which he brought under their notice. He felt deeply outrages like these, perpretrated on teachers of national schools, of which there were 7,000 or 8,000 in Ireland, and in which there was given a good primary education to the children who were willing to avail themselves of it free of cost. If there was a person who ought to be protected by the people of the locality, it was the national school teacher; if there was a place that should be sacred from outrage, it was the school in which their children were taught. He had not the means of tracing these outrages to their source. There was some organization—what it was he did not venture to say; but strangers were brought or sent from remote districts to carry out these crimes. In one case, in County Limerick, a school was Boycotted because shelter was given to some policemen during a heavy shower of rain. This village school was thus Boycotted at an expense to the Exchequer of £76. In another instance, the father of two pupils refused at the bidding of the
  1340
  local League to cease cutting timber for a gentleman, the result being that the school was Boycotted at a cost to the county of £75. Finally, he referred to the experience of St. Cronan's National Schools (boys and girls), King's County, the monitress of which, Agnes Sullivan, on July 5, 1887, went to the wedding of her cousin, who was marrying the sister of a Boycotted man. The following day the school was Boycotted, three pupils only would come to school, the day after that two, and the next day none. The object of Boycotting the school was to procure the discharge of the monitress. Similarly, in a boys' school Boycotting was decreed; the attendance fell to 0 in throe days. The cause of the Boycotting in this school was that two boys, relatives of the Boycotted man, remained pupils of the school. The manager, who was the parish priest, then proclaimed a vacation. The schools re-opened on the 16th of August, when four children only came to the girls' school in addition to the innocent but obnoxious monitress. Others came as far as the door, but left without entering, seeing her there. Having thus called attention to these very painful facts, he asked the Government if they were able to indicate what likelihood there was of the perpetrators of the two outrages to which he had more particularly referred being brought to justice?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, that it would not be surprising to noble Lords who knew the long and honourable connection of his noble and learned Friend with the Board of National Education in Ireland that he took a keen interest in the painful circumstances to which he had drawn attention. It was impossible to listen without the deepest pain to the simplest statement of the way in which at this time of day, and at this advanced stage in the history of civilization, the course of education in Ireland had in recent years been sought to be arrested and interfered with by the Boycotting of schools and schoolmasters. The statement which he had submitted to the House was only too true. Unfortunately, National schoolmasters and their schools had been subjected in the cases referred to to such a barbarous and inhuman course of Boycotting as was a scandal to every community that

  1341
  permitted it to continue in their midst. The steady amelioration which was to be witnessed in the condition of the country would, however, tend in an increasing measure to put an end to the state of matters as it had been described. Boycotting, as the figures which had been presented to Parliament practically showed, had largely fallen off in number, and the instances were decidedly decreasing in vigour as well. Belief in the power of those who had previously had recourse to that terrible weapon was weakening and passing away. In many districts, faith in the power and authority of the law was returning, and with returning confidence came renewed courage. Owing to these influences, the Boycotting of school-houses had diminished, and would doubtless steadily and largely diminish; and he ventured to think and hope that, if on a future occasion his noble and learned Friend recurred to the subject, there would be a great and decided change for the better. With regard to the two cases referred to, he was not acquainted with the precise details; but, so far as he knew, Curtin's case well merited the grave terms of censure which his noble and learned Friend employed and the anxious way in which he appealed to the Government to direct their attention to it. A Constabulary hut had been erected in the neighbourhood, and the Government were using every effort in order to make amenable to the law those who were answerable for the outrage. The case of Robinson and his two daughters only occurred last March, and was also a painful and serious one; and anyone who was acquainted with Kerry, where it happened, would know that the locality was one requiring the close and attentive examination of the Government. There had been a difficulty in identifying, which he did not like to enlarge upon, and of getting accurate information. That might be accounted for in a variety of ways which he did not like to go into at present. His noble and learned Friend asked if the Government had any clue with reference to these cases? If he had the means of giving a full answer, he would beg leave not to do so, as it might interfere with the course of justice and the duo prosecution of the offenders, He would only say that the two
  1342
  cases in question were engaging the closest and most anxious attention of those answerable for public prosecutions in Ireland, and the Attorney General for Ireland would do everything reasonably within his power to see that those crimes should not remain unpunished.
  THE EARL or SELBORNEsaid, he could not help thinking that the particulars referred to by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Fitzgerald) should be made available to their Lordships in the shape of a Return, and he gave Notice accordingly that he would move on Monday next for a Return of all national schools in Ireland, by provinces and counties, which had been reported to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland as having been Boycotted at any time since October, 1880, with particulars of such cases.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he hoped the Government would not give their assent to the Motion of which Notice had been given. He was bound to say that he thought it was one of a very unsatisfactory character. His noble and learned Friend asked the Government for information with regard to two cases and what measures were being taken? The only answer which the noble and learned Lord gave to the House was that there was a general improvement in Ireland under the Act now being administered; but with regard to the particular cases he merely confirmed them without giving the slightest indication of the Government being able to punish the particular individuals. That did not appear to him to be consistent with the roseate description he had given of the state of Ireland.
  LORD ASHBOURNEexplained that what he had said amounted to this, that the cases were before the Attorney General for Ireland, whose business it was to look into them, and that it was not desirable for him, even if he had the information, to go into specific details.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he entirely agreed that it was very undesirable for the Government to give any details while the matter was under the consideration of the Attorney General; but the noble and learned Lord had misunderstood what his noble Friend said, which was that he was afraid the explanation given as to this particular district was hardly so satisfactory as they hoped. It was

  1343
  said that the condition of the country as to Boycotting had considerably improved. Well, no one would rejoice at that statement more than he did and those who sat behind him. At the same time, the noble and learned Lord did not give a good account of the unfortunate district near Knockagoshal, and they on the Opposition side of the House would have been glad to hear that something had been done by this time towards tracing the ruffians who made the attacks on the schools. Castleisland was one of the worst districts in Ireland. Since he had known Ireland it had been very often under a reign of terror. There had been gangs of people in that district who had maintained a species of intimidation; and he certainly had hoped that the Government would have been able, by the special measures they had taken with regard to Kerry, to restore something like order in the district. He was afraid from the answer which had been given to his noble and learned Friend that the Government had done very little towards discovering the perpetrators of those two outrages. As to the Return which his noble and learned Friend had given Notice to move for, he suggested that the Government should also be asked what they had been able to do with regard to discovering and bringing to justice any of those who had committed outrages in these particular cases? He thought that this would be a very interesting addition to the Return.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he considered that the noble Earl was a little unreasonable in expecting that Her Majesty's Government should have been able within the few months which had elapsed since those outrages had been committed in all cases to trace them to their authors. Where could the noble Earl find a precedent for applying the same rigid law which he sought to apply to the Government, and which he did not apply to himself. The noble Earl had, when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, enormous powers in his hands, and yet how long was it before the Phœnix Park murderers were brought to justice? The whole attention of Ireland was directed to that investigation, and yet those secret societies, with ramifications so wide, which were supported by influences so powerful, were able to set
  1344
  the noble Earl at defiance. It was not unreasonable that in a desolate district in Ireland where the population was sparse, and the means of tracking the criminals were scant, some time should elapse before they were brought to justice.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not believe that it was the intention of any Member of the Opposition to cast blame on the Government for not having succeeded in discovering the perpetrators of the outrages. They were only afraid that the Government had not succeeded better than any previous Government. In the unfortunate circumstances of Ireland, outrages of the description referred to by his noble and learned Friend, and which were disastrous to the peace of the country, had been committed, and yet it had not been possible to trace the perpetrators. All that his noble Friend meant to say was this, that while the noble and learned Lord opposite stated that the general state of the country had improved, the particular instances brought to the notice of the House did not seem to sustain the major proposition. Unfortunately, for long years there had been this one lamentable fact in regard to Ireland, that very often, he might almost say generally, in the case of a certain class of crime where witnesses came forward and stated what they had actually seen in order that the law might be vindicated, they had in many cases been subjected to persecution of the severest character, merely because they had given testimony in order to enable criminals to be brought to justice. That had been one of the most grievous symptoms of the social condition of Ireland for a long time. He and his noble Friends would be glad to hear whether the Government had made progress in breaking down this feeling of hostility in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he hoped the Government would go very carefully into all the details of the cases which were to be embodied in the Return asked for by his noble and learned Friend. He trusted the noble Earl would also move to be included in the Return, as far as the Government could get at them, the causes for which those national schools had been Boycotted; also the person or organization which had caused the Boycotting in

  1345
  cases where it was supposed there had been any conspiracy.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) had stated that the district of Castleisland was not only a scandal to Ireland, but to Christendom; and that that was a state of affairs which had existed during his administration of the country. He thought the noble Earl must have referred to his last administration, because up to the formation of the National League in 1879 the district all around Castleisland, and the whole of that portion of Kerry, was one of the most peaceable in Ireland. It had been proved before the Commission on which he served, that for 40 years previous to the formation of the National League there had not been a single outrage in the whole of that district.

  WESTMINSTER ABBEY BILL.—(No. 5.)
  (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  Clause 4 (Provision of fabric fund).
  LORD NORTONmoved in Sub-section 4 of Clause 4, an Amendment providing that, whenever in due course of time a sufficiency of funds renders it possible, it might be considered within the improvements of the Abbey for which this clause provided to restore the north transept to its proper use for worship by relieving it of a row of most incongruous occupants, for which a more suitable building should be made. He urged the desirableness of removing the colossal statues mounted on colossal pedestals which blocked up and disfigured this portion of the Abbey. His proposal would not involve the immediate appropriation of any sum of money, but only in aid, when possible, to funds now being subscribed. The improvement indicated was desired by the Dean and Chapter themselves, and he thought the public generally who were interested in the Abbey and the purposes for which it should be used were as anxious as the authorities that it should be carried out.
  Moved, in page 4, line 18, at end to insert—"In due course of time, when a sufficiency of funds renders it possible, a more suitable building in connection with the Abbey for the statues of great men, which now occupy, in an unseemly row, the east side of the north transept, shall be made."—(Lord Norton.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that the object of the Bill before the House was to find money for the restoration of Westminster Abbey, and it would be unreasonable to apply any part of that money to the erection of a new building for the reception of the statues now in the Abbey. He sympathized with the view of his noble Friend, but he did not think it necessary to go to the great expense which carrying it out would involve. National pictures had been removed to Bethnal Green, and perhaps it would be as well to send these statues there also. He would earnestly ask his noble Friend not to press his Amendment. The money in the Bill was taken for a particular purpose—namely, the restoration of Westminster Abbey. He would recommend the noble Lord to endeavour privately to obtain the money he required, and not allow Westminster Abbey to tumble down whilst he arranged a plan for the removal of the statues within it.
  LORD MOUNT TEMPLEsaid, he was glad that the subject had been mentioned. Westminster Abbey was now quite full, so that at the present moment, if any general or admiral was going into battle he could not say, as Lord Nelson had said—"Victory or Westminster Abbey," because there was no room in Westminster Abbey; it was all filled up. There was a prevalent and increasing desire amongst the public to perpetuate the memory of distinguished men who had conferred benefit on the nation by their moral or political or intellectual work, and the popular method was to erect their statues in places of public resort. This reason able feeling would be assisted by erecting on the property of the Abbey a sort of campo sancto, where statues could be put instead of their being tossed about in all parts of London.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas not at all sure that our modern statues had been so great a success as to render it desirable that they should be collected together and placed in a separate building. There were, no doubt, some successful statues; but, on the other hand, we had effigies of warriors in London which were rather objects of terror than otherwise. Whether Nelson himself would have liked being placed

  1347
  on the top of a pillar in Trafalgar Square might be doubted. A lot of these statues standing in a row would be a painful spectacle.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn. An Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons; and to be printed as amended. (No. 94.)

  LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND)—INQUIRIES BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEES—PROTECTION FOR WITNESSES.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked the Lord Chancellor to what extent witnesses testifying on oath before Select Committees of the House were protected, as there had been some misapprehension and confusion in the public mind upon the point?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that it was as well that it should be understood that absolute and perfect protection was given to witnesses examined before Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament. Apart from the privileges of the House, that had been held for a great number of years to be the law in our Courts of Justice. Witnesses giving evidence upon oath were only liable to be indicted for perjury in the event of their giving false testimony, and no action or other legal proceedings could be brought against them in respect of the evidence given by them. In that, and in the other House of Parliament, the protection given to witnesses was even more perfect, because the power existed, and it had not been allowed to slumber, but had been exercised over and over again, of summoning persons who were guilty of such a breach of privilege as bringing an action against such a witness and of committing them to the custody of the proper officers of the House.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.